Line 328: | Line 328: | ||
There's a dispute between two editors so far. My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Talmud&action=historysubmit&diff=421046644&oldid=420841675 edit] was reverted. Later on he added, that the article discussed anti-semitism, hence the category "antisemitic canards" for the criticism of the Talmud is appropriate. But this however makes an undue inclination towards the implication that criticism of that religion is anti-semitic, which doesn't help neutrality of the article. Help to clear this out. [[User:Userpd|Userpd]] ([[User talk:Userpd|talk]]) 07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
There's a dispute between two editors so far. My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Talmud&action=historysubmit&diff=421046644&oldid=420841675 edit] was reverted. Later on he added, that the article discussed anti-semitism, hence the category "antisemitic canards" for the criticism of the Talmud is appropriate. But this however makes an undue inclination towards the implication that criticism of that religion is anti-semitic, which doesn't help neutrality of the article. Help to clear this out. [[User:Userpd|Userpd]] ([[User talk:Userpd|talk]]) 07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Request assistance with unfair deletion/revisions from my biography page == |
|||
My name is Steven Herman. I am the Northeast Asia bureau chief for the Voice of America. |
|||
It was recently brought to my attention that a Wikipedia user with the handle of Anarchangel (and possibly others) have deleted elements of my biography and are making subjective and apparently biased comments about the reasons. I am currently reporting on the nuclear crisis in Japan virtually around the clock and don't have the time or Wikipedia background to properly do the editing. I would appreciate any guidance and assistance from volunteers for objective editing of my biography. |
|||
For example, an award was deleted with biased comments by an editor, disputing that this award was presented. Here is a news release documenting that: |
|||
http://www.rushprnews.com/2009/11/06/voa-correspondent-wins-international-broadcasting-award-for-sri-lanka-coverage |
|||
I am happy to work with any objective volunteer to edit my page and happy to put them in touch with various sources, including VOA's public relations staff, that can validate any information. |
|||
I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong place or format. Any guidance appreciated. |
|||
[[User:HL9OA|HL9OA]] ([[User talk:HL9OA|talk]]) 11:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Steven L Herman |
Revision as of 11:37, 9 April 2011
Nonentities (self-)inserted into article text
Too many authors of highly dubious notability are prominently named in the body text, e.g. "..but journalist Sally Student writes that....". This looks like mere self-advertisement, but it is impracticable for an ordinary educated editor to judge the non-notability of such authors and their writings. Is there or should there be a Policy, please, to justify removal of proper names of secondary sources from the text of articles, to the references or footnotes? Jezza (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- If they aren't relevant enough to include in the text, then I would think they probably aren't relevant enough to cite as a footnote either. If it's just a question of style you are proposing, then I'd say it would have to depend on the specific example. Note that WP:Notability, in the wikipedia sense, does not govern article content. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Flow chart for Wikipedia
I first became wikiaware about 4 wikiyears ago on my wikibirthday but have only really started to get into it recently. Is anyone else awed/intimidated/often lost by the massive swirl of the site. I really have little idea whether this is even the right page to be discussing this on. I think two things would help me and others -a really good flow chart with yes/no switches and a wiki within wiki that took keywords in a lozenge and popped up the relevant policy or instruction page. Maybe both already exist here somewhere hello ? HELLO? ⦿⨦⦿--Tumadoireacht (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I am. Well, how about making it yourself? You would certainly become a Wikiexpert in the process. Herostratus (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Mel Gibson
Gibson's character in the feature film 'Tim' is described as a 'mentally slow youth'. I'm not a fan of Mr Gibson but I don't believe people or fictional characters should be described in this manner.
- OK. Go ahead and change it to something better. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
H20 Just Add Water Season 4
Can a administrator change the status from show ended to 3/14/08 to Present because there has been a couple confirmations from H20 actors the company that films h20 and on TV weeks Australia's facebook page
Brassiere measurement, Cupless bra, Brassiere design
I have complaints with the following articles:
(A) "Brassiere measurement" 1. In this article, we are shown a pornography actress with the caption, "Porn actress Brandy Talore wearing a bra with a too small cup size, shown by breast tissue spilling over the top of the cup."
First, she is not wearing a too-small cup size; the underwire of the bra fits flat against her chest, just like it should. The "breast tissue spilling over the top of the cup" is due to breast implants, not an improper bra fitting. Also, showing a porn star to demonstrate a bra fitting unnecessarily sexualizes the content, leaving it not-neutral.
2. Toward the end of the page is a photograph with the following caption: "Japanese girl wearing a Japanese size E70 bra, comparable to a U.S. 32D." First, this photograph is not helpful informationally. It does not show us the comparison it is trying to make between the two countries' sizing methods. Instead of a photograph of a woman wearing a bra, it would be helpful to have a chart (such as the one at the bottom of the page) with drawings. In addition, this is not a "girl" who is wearing this bra; it is a woman.
(B) "Cupless bra": 1. In this article, a photo is shown of a woman with the following caption: "Carolina Gynning modeling a shelf bra which leaves the nipples uncovered." This photograph is not neutral; it is sexualized. If a photo of this type of bra is needed, it should be shown in as neutral way as possible.
(C) "Brassiere design": 1. Again, in this article, we have the photo and caption, "Carolina Gynning modeling a shelf bra which leaves the nipples uncovered." This is a sexualized, and not a neutral, photograph.
2. In this article, there is a photograph with the caption, "Woman wearing a designer demi-cup bra." If the intent is to demonstrate this type of bra, a woman wearing bra and panties does not need to be shown. This should be a comparison of bra designs, not of bodies. The photos do not help this article very much. When a woman is shopping for bras, there are many online stores which compare bra designs much better than this (comparing each style with descriptions of the differences) and do not sexualize women in the process.
- You are right, these articles have apparently been the target of editors interested more in bodies than in brassieres. I'll make your indicated corrections on the first two articles. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
John Etnier - is edit process moving correctly?
Hi, I'm looking for some comment regarding removal of this article from WIKI - I believe that it qualifies for speedy deletion and presented clear reasoning showing it met the letter of the criteria, but more importantly the spirit and intent of WIKI.
My Speedy tag was taken down twice with little explanation other than "just doesn't qualify".
I'm told it should rather be "proposed for deletion". I backed down and trying to participate in that, I endorsed the Prop form which was used by one of the dissenting editors. Now, my endorsement to the Prop form has been taken down once, and it appears it could be again... I'm not even sure if a correct Prop form was used, as it seems there is no discussion page generation and the form is not the WIKI recommended. All along, I've been asking for some non-biased genuine input, as this is a matter related to my locality. Help and/or comments on this [TALK PAGE] would be greatly appreciated. Thanks--74.75.249.135 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Justin_Beiber
On Justin Beiber's page (At the end of the 2008-2009:Discovery & My World sections) it states that in 2009 he performed for the Obamas for Christmas in Washington at the White House. Christmas in Washington has NEVER be held at the White House, it is ALWAYS held at the National Building Museum. There's no edit button on his page it needs to be fixed.Justin_Beiber 71.72.20.16 (talk)
I was just wondering can we create own bigrophical page?
Brassiere
The caption on this picture should read: "A Japanese woman..." not "A Japanese girl...".
the tone of the article suggest is borderline propaganda and bias the WP:TONE and the lede is full of [original research?]. compared to articles on a similar theme such as arab slave trade it is clearly not at the same quality standard. attempt at editing or bringing these issues to bear are automatically reverted.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- An article lede is just a summary of article contents, and you haven't articulated any specific policy or guideline based issues. The only concerns you've raised so far have been with what the reliable sources say. Also, the only person doing "automatic reverting" is you; your reverting has also removed simple copyedits. Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- tags are placed there for a reason, bullying and threatening editor who make valid contributions is another. You say the tone is okay I say the tone is not. Lets bring other people in who with their opinion. Let me add you stated no references are required in the lede. Since reference are not required how do I know it is not original research. Every other article has proper references but you are telling me you were asked to remove reference. See talk page for this assertion. Wikipedia does not require reference to allow the flow of original research and POV pushing. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In this case no specifics have been given for the tags; rather, you have asserted that the "tone" is not appropriate, but have provided no examples of improper tone. Also, as explained, proper ledes just reproduce material found in articles, and do not need to be cited. Here are the seven most recent Featured Articles: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee), The Temple at Thatch, Temple of Eshmun, Hurricane Kyle (2002), Little Thetford, Lions (album). Featured Articles are the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, and have been carefully edited to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Note that none of them have citations in their ledes. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- tags are placed there for a reason, bullying and threatening editor who make valid contributions is another. You say the tone is okay I say the tone is not. Lets bring other people in who with their opinion. Let me add you stated no references are required in the lede. Since reference are not required how do I know it is not original research. Every other article has proper references but you are telling me you were asked to remove reference. See talk page for this assertion. Wikipedia does not require reference to allow the flow of original research and POV pushing. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I would love to help Halaqah with his complaint but I can't figure out what his specific issue is from reading the article myself, and he hasn't explained what "tone" means, so I would side with Jayjg on this. Shii (tock) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The lead is a little long and not easily readable, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it in terms of tone, bias, or original research. --GHcool (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Charlotte Riley
I'm new to this so I hope I'm doing this right. The wiki entry for Charlotte Riley is being edited by someone who has nothing to substantiate the claim. I have re-edited back to the original entry twice but they keep changing it back. What do I need to do when there are no credible sources to substantiate the claim being made? Link to page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Riley Link to actual incorrect info is here (it's the second paragrpah) 75.194.20.252 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Contacted the user on his talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am going to be brutal here.
The topic on Masanobu Fukuoka has been under the control of what I can only described as an obsessive fanatic Macropneuma (talk · contribs · logs) with an eccentric sense of grammar, layout and tortuous wiki-formatting style of his own, see last edit; here.
I have had a good hack at it but the coding was so complex, and there are so many duplications and broken links, that I cannot finish it all in the time I can allow.
See differences, here.
I suspect Macropneuma is going to come back, freak out and then get stuck in a crazy editing war.
- The article needs a lot more cleaning up by someone more skilled in Wikipedia ways
- He needs to go off to Wikia and start his own extensive Fukuoka Wiki there, instead of turning that page into the be all and end all of everything Fukuoka.
It really was well and truly Fuked which is a shame because Fukuoka was an interesting guy and deserves something good.
If someone else cares, or enjoys a good challenge, can they please take over. --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
When I write "fanatic", I mean he is obviously some kind of follower of Fukuoka's and has good knowledge but the article and especially referencing has lost all degree of perspective. --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Absurd! ...?!
That's your ... mode of thinking not mine; Your, –quotations: "brutal", "obsessive fanatic", "...tortuous...", "hack", "freak out", "crazy", "go off to...", "Fuked", "shame"–, mode of really bad thinking not mine.
It's very much still a work in progress and I've never claimed otherwise! One can see on the Masanobu Fukuoka talk page that i did strongly and politely ask you:
- for dialogue,
- for you to establish my confidence in your editing intentions,
- for consensus,
- for specific detailed evidence of your criticisms of formatting,
- for specific detailed (supposed) evidence for your personal attacks towards me and supposedly my language writing abilities, and so on.
I'm sorry to have to bother to come here to put some evidence-based, genuine perspective onto this unilateral, big–brother–type attempt to harrass me without any specific evidence backing it up, gratuitous RfC or admin requests.
Obviously and blatantly personally attacking me, above and on the talk page without any editing adding to the page in quantity or in quality.
(In the context of this, your combination of absolute newcomer registration in any Wikimedia service, anonymous absent user page(s) and meanwhile manifest experience with admin procedures to the point of threatening me with them; Is all together not enough for concluding that, but enough for possibly meaning and suspecting that is a sock puppet(???); Especially with circumstantial evidence of your more specific actions to the Masanobu Fukuoka subject matter (really hard to convey to those not versed in the Masanobu Fukuoka subject matter.).)
All unilaterally and wrongly, summarily judgemental, without your having attempted to establish dialogue with me beforehand;
After I'm in-progress of editing the page (amongst other editors) for the last six months (also 4+ years of brief on & off edits) and tired of doing it alone without assistance of editors; Editors who at once both know enough about what they are doing in Wikipedia and enough Masanobu Fukuoka subject matter expertise.
Multiplicitous ignorance is no excuse! (–for gratuitous personal attacks, of course.)
Again, i'm sorry to have to say and clear–up here, that your melodramatic, personal attacks towards me and unilateral judgemental reactions to the work in-progress, as if it were some finished page 'prepared for judging', make it seem that your own (personal) real issues... and some evidence of your lack of your awareness of up to date formatting conventions, are coming out to the fore here;
–All while i've maintained the {{Under construction template}}, for several months there now, making it obvious to anyone reading it that it is a work in progress!
Your abusive gratuitous personal attacks towards me and ignorant judgements of my writing abilities having nothing to do with me nor with my evident skills, abilities or in-abilities, and my personally–evident professionalism in my private personal and professional life...
(I can only assert this again here, because i do maintain some level of privacy from people who would harass me; Not having to 'prove myself' to attackers. Furthermore I don't have forever in time available to me to waste; Nor for making point by point rebuttals of each of the gratuitous personal attacks of me, and explaining every detail of the most up to date Wikipedia formatting conventions i've used. – I've provided enough links on the talk page for proper fellow editors to read, to see and to learn the up to date Wikipedia manual and instruction pages i have used.)
I won't say any furthermore perspective about persistently–anonymous–you here, than mine above; Than this obvious evidence from your above blatant words; Nor attack you; Nor allow you to put words into my mouth; Nor allow you to 'put actions into my actions'; As you obviously don't know me at all; Cannot possibly know me at all; Don't personally know me at all, and are not in any position to judgementally personally attack me, my person or my writing abilities.
As I firstly did, strongly and politely ask you to detail with specifics your criticisms of the page's writing itself, however you instead reacted in the knee–jerk way by gratuitously attacking towards me; Also attacking towards me as supposedly beneath you and supposedly beneath your need for dialogue, for consensus; – Again, gratuitously attacking me also by gratuitously telling me to go somewhere else, outside of Wikipedia. Again here, further gratuitous abuse above. Wrong! Rotten!
Your edits now (00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)), which have unnecessarily seriously broken the page structure and formatting, have for what's left of it meanwhile built on my extensive good English text body writing which i've done over the last six months; Albeit still of course a work in-progress; –No justification for any of your attacks nor for any of your personal attacks towards me, as if anything would anyway WP:NPA.
In summary;
Gratuitous personal attacks' abuse, factually wrong, gross misjudgements of me, in turn from gross judgementalism towards me;
Evident in their edits up to now, multiplicitous ignorance of Wikipedia -conventions—respect—etiquette—kindness—consensus, etc., gross incivility, lack of co-operative team playing and its prerequisite dialogue, harrassment, perhaps a "good hand" and "bad hand" account sock puppet(???) which awaits conclusive evidence while some of the signs are there others aren't yet, etcetera, etcetera - WP:NPA, ... etcetera ... .
I'm tired of having been writing responses to unilateral non-team players. Wikipedia evidently needs improved, strengthened policies, especially for the following major needs, referenced next: -References: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2). Additionally, I'm tired of writing responses to this *evident* ignorance and *evident* abuse, and of their perversly trying to play a blame game in trying to blame me, etc. .--Jase 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think that gives the rest of you all a far better idea of the problem. --Iyo-farm 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly evident smoke and mirrors! --Jase 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Urk. Sorry I can't help, good luck. Herostratus (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Haha! –my smile! At least i get a smile from that! I will copyedit the above more if and when i have the heart. Smile!
- Have you got a suggestion for an even better response than my evidence–based, voluminous, irkish (meaning i'm pissed off), reliably sourced talk information—evidence? –Having written it out in long-hand, plain and simple English, here and in the article talk;
- For staring down the attacking slander, one intimidation–threat and the smear campaign of personal attacks;
- A smokescreen for a bleedingly (obvious) gross POV against the commonly, globally accepted reputation of late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, his biography and his family farm continuing today.
- It deterred me from the effort of bettering my own writing and bettering the writing of many others who have edited the Masanobu Fukuoka article; Which seems now from the evidence of their edits to the article's subject matter, to have been one of ?Iyo-farm's? ulterior intentions. Meanwhile my internet allowance temporarily ran out for a few weeks there over the last month, to my relief for once. Responding to what was some of my pissed–off–emotion writing might be irkish and it might be difficult to help out, from this 'urk'; I welcome you to please properly try! The intentional, ..., evident pov-er—spa-er is, evidently 'very complicated' and evidently 'very difficult' in their views of the subject matter of Masanobu Fukuoka, from the recorded evidence of their edits including their attempts at original research and some of their ideas of what does & doesn't constitute reliable sources on the article's subject matter ... .
Sending and Rfc to help settle a neutrality dispute for the biography of this living photographer
On the Cambridge Dictionary website it says the word 'supervisor' (as in 'team leader') is an American English term. Isn't this Commonwealth English/British English as well, or is there a different term for this? Sεrvιεи | T@lk page 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto
Rabbi Pinto please assist on edits... He is a controversial leader and comments are welcome. Babasalichai (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto we are making great progress but I personally believe rather than the sole admin who is clearly biased would like other admin and assistance. Talk has started but need more dialogue. Help for balance is requested. Babasalichai (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto there is quite a bit of disputes and commentary with very few editors commenting on very controversial issues. In my opinion a few editors refuse to allow any balance to this page which has quite a bit of puffery already on the page and no balance. Please assist in editing. Many comments on the talk page. Babasalichai (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto many discussions and debates and comments are welcome. Idolatry ? Underworld ? Family history. Please review the many discussions on talk page need assistance to settle. Babasalichai (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If all websites under a domain is of the type "EL: Links normally to be avoided", is that ground enough to do a blanket ban on the domain? More eyes on this would be good. Belorn (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The original article was (in my opinion) verbose and overloaded with peacock phrases; I have edited it to its current version, but the original author has suggested that my editing is vandalism. I would appreciate a neutral review/opinion of the changes I have made in case I have been too aggressive. Coopuk (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. The article did need to be toned down quite a bit, especially since the superlatives aren't referenced. I would say that your edits are an improvement. Herostratus (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Roland Doe needs a new title and redirect - help!
Roland Doe is the renamed title of the article about "Robbie Mannheim", the boy who was the real-life inspiration for "The Exorcist". The trouble is most people do not know either pseudonym. The use of "Roland Doe" as a title is ridiculous, as it is standard practice, when dealing with unknown couple "John and Jane Doe", and they have an unidentifiable son, the son is called "Roland Doe". We'd like the full title to be "Exorcism of Roland Doe a.k.a. Robbie Mannheim". Neither of us editing the article have the knowledge to successfully do this change, and the earlier change I described above was done WITHOUT discussion on the talk page.75.21.119.216 (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is now at the title Exorcism of Roland Doe with Robbie Mannheim as a redirect to that article (and Roland Doe redirect to John Doe. So is this now resolved to everyone's satisfaction? Herostratus (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Slavery issues
Slavery for blacks in the south, ended in Janury 1863,the end of Slavery for whites, blacks, Indians etc. in the north was several months later,same year. Emancipation for non blacks was suggested by Linclon,s cabinet due to his running for reelection.All slaves under certain circumstanses could buy them selves out of bondadage.No black slaves were imported by Americans, The American ships (though privetly owned)were under the control of the army.The Spainish,Dutch ete. brought the black slaves to America.The black slaves were bought on the coast of Nigeria.The Niger river empties into the ocean forming the Niger river delta, an excellent natural port.The ships manifest read the number of Nigers, approxamate age and male or female.It was a standard business practice to sell them at a false age as the buyers only wanted workers in their 20,s. -(unsigned) by 96.41.173.247, 22:50, 26 February 2011
- Perhaps those issues could be put into a Wikipedia essay, to focus awareness, of those issues, then that essay would be wikilinked into the talk-pages of various articles directly related to the subject, such as article "Juneteenth". However, I also recommend adding sources for each of the issues, even though many are obviously WP:Verifiable, simply to reduce disputes when the issues are raised for a particular article. Also, it might be beneficial to note where slave-trading still exists in some parts of Africa and the world, such as with blacks trading captured black opponents. -Wikid77 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Style in MMA fighting records
To be in accordance with the style used in Wikipedia, per the related manual of styles (WP:MOS, MOS:CAPS, MOS:ICON), the record section of the WikiProject Mixed martial arts was reworded, emphasizing correct capitalization and discouraging the usage of redundant flag icons and unnecessary text. Some editors disagree with this, saying that the correct capitalization style looks ugly and should be ignored. They keep using flag icons for locations and changing/reverting articles directly, suggesting that it is normal convention. Comments about the interpretation of the manual of style in MMA record tables are requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#MMA record table problems. Jfgslo (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can pretty much see the above's talk page (the bottom of it) for my rebuttal. That namely being, no-one likes these changes, MOS not a rule. Fin. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Need content mediation for Amanda Knox bio
On multiple occasions, the former article "Amanda Knox" was redirected, after extensive debates, into the crime article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (MoMK) due to claiming how Knox seems non-notable, or claiming a bio-page cannot be allowed because someone might try to slant it into a "POV-fork" of the murder and trials article. Naturally, once bio data had been moved into article MoMK, then it was soon trimmed and re-trimmed (while noting WP:UNDUE); plus, any attempts to say, "Knox was an honors student at a Jesuit prep school, who worked 3 jobs to move to Italy" (or attempts to state, "Knox had no criminal record") are met with objections requiring unanimous consensus to add "such trivia" to the article. Full disclosure: By "POV-fork" they mean adding any text about evidence which indicates Knox is unlikely to have committed the crime, and I was given a 3-month topic ban after re-creating the Knox bio-page and telling 3 editors it was available. Meanwhile, discussions about contesting the redirection, at WP:DRV, have seemed to galvanize opponents including some admins, in the active majority, to flood the page with protests warning of all the impending horrors if Wikipedia allowed such a bio page to exist and steer world events. Upon seeing the endless, non-focused debates, then a closing admin suppresses the bio-page, as redirecting to the murder article. Naturally, the admins are tired of having no structure to guide the subject.
QUESTION: Is there, currently, any Wikipedia mediation, or arbitration, process which would allow a bio-page article to exist, with some rules about content, which could be noted on the talk-page to steer the content into a mediated focus? If there isn't really an effective way to overcome article-contents bullying, then that is fine for now. Just curious. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The Plural From of the Word Cheese
I am going to appeal to the Miriam-Webster dictionary to change the plural of cheese. My alternate plural is as follows: cheesen. WHY?? Well, the word cheeses works well if your talking about multiple types of cheese, for example: "I have four cheeses: romano, pepperjack, swiss, and colby." However, if we're just talking about multiple quantities of one type or a non-specific type cheese, the phrase "I have four cheeses." is inaccurate and misleading. To clarify any confusion, the word cheesen is proposed. "I have four cheesen." eliminates any confusion, and clarifies that it is the quantity of the cheese that is being discussed, rather than the type. To make it clear, incorrect usage would be, for example: "I have four blocks of cheesen." Why, you ask? Well, it's a double plural. Cheesen on its own is enough, the word "blocks" is redundant.
So, will you support my e-petition to have this word made official?
ECONOMIC EVALUATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE, PAKISTAN
Economic Evaluation and Research Centre, is an efficient organization in the field of economic research. Such like dedicated organizations are the need of developing countries to set priorities and identify goals for the governing bodies.
There is a dispute over whether Mark Steyn is a human rights activist or whether he just calls himself one. Editors here may wish to comment on the dispute here: Talk:Mark Steyn. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Petrit Zogaj
Petrit (Jahir) Zogaj,bashkëthemelues i Lëvizjes FOL dhe aktualisht Menaxher i Programeve në lëvizjen FOL. Ka përfunduar studimet për Shkenca Politike në Universitetin e Prishtinës. Ka ndjekur leksione në Shkollën Politike të Prishtinës gjatë vitit 2008.
- I humbly disagree. jmcw (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Он не отличался, на мой взгляд. Рассматривали ли вы албанской Википедии? (Ai nuk është i dukshëm në mendimin tim. A keni parasysh Wikipedia Shqiptar?) Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the content of the municipal water emergency article
Hello,
Wikipedia user Lateg deleted multiple times a large portion of the article: 2010 Boston water emergency which was written by collective efforts of Wikipedia users. At the same time, Lateg did not offer any contribution to the said article. Taking in consideration that the article's content (before the action of user Lateg) was reviewed by the Wikipedia's legal counselor and no issues were found, a Wikipedia's staff member responsible for Wikipedia content polices suggested that we collectively review the article to assure that its [original] content (before the action of user Lateg and with certain refinements, if deemed necessary) is supported by Wikipedia’s community. Due to the reasons mentioned above, it was suggested that any discussions with Lateg might be counterproductive and the suggestion was made to bring this request to the Request board directly rather than establishing a discussion through a talk page. Therefore, [this version of the article] is proposed for the review in stead of working with the latest version of the article.
For references, the original ideas of the article were: 1. To describe the emergency water event 2. To analyze the causes of this emergency 3. To discuss the contamination of an emergency water supply 4. To discuss available modern means to supply citizens with safe good quality drinking water during emergencies.
Thanks everybody for offering your observations and editings.
Eghjw678 (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What makes organisations notable?
Dear all. This RfC does not involve a specific page or debate. I seek comment/advice/guidance on the characteristics that define notability and/or non-notability of commercial or non-profit organisations. If an article describes only the history, products and services of an organisation, is it really anything but a free advertisement?
Under such circumstances, what would make mention of, say, Alcoholics Anonymous or Microsoft notable and different to mention of, say, the Algonquin Colorectal Cancer Support Group, or Dino's International Italian Smallgoods (both are invented examples with no intended reference to any real organisation)?
Is notability related to market dominance? Controversy? Longevity? Cashflow? Employee numbers?
Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's related, basically (and to simplify), to press notice. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the details. Microsoft has a ton of articles about them in very notable (and reliable) publications such as the New York Times, The Economist, Forbes, and yadda yadda yadda. The Algonquin Colorectal Cancer Support Group doesn't.
- If an organization has a lot of employees, market dominance, cashflow, etc. etc. then it will almost certainly have plenty of reliable sources giving significant info (not just a bare listing etc.) about the company. If it doesn't, it won't. However, even a small organization may attract press notice (perhaps due to a controversy or some other reason), and then be notable and worthy of an article. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response; it is so simple and obvious I'm almost kicking myself for having asked the question. Nevertheless, to clarify: if I understand you correctly, the number of credible sources mentioning an organisation is the principal yardstick? I'm not questioning this advice in asking the following: is it already embodied in a guide or policy I overlooked somewhere, or did I not concatenate the necessary sequence of guides and policies to arrive at this definition (or essence of) definition?
- Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which covers this in extensive detail. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- And for goodness' sake don't kick yourself. We don't mind answering these questions, and lurking viewers will also learn from them. To further expound on the link to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): if anyone is looking for a clear-cut slam-dunk rule that says X is in, Y is out, we don't have that. I would say this, and what follows is just my personal opinion. If an organization has two or more lengthy articles that are mainly about the organization in major national publications, it is in, no question. If it has no articles about it anywhere, only brief passing mentions and bare listings in directories and so forth, it is out, no question. Everything in between is open to debate. What if it has a couple of feature articles about it, but they are in small local newspapers? What if it doesn't have any articles about it, but there are paragraphs here and there in stories in large national publications? What about if all the notice about it is only in on-line entities? Situations like this are open to debate. Herostratus (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which covers this in extensive detail. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ke$ha Tour Dates
Ke$ha Get $leazy Tour Dates should contain the date: April 3rd, 2011, Geneseo, United States, Kuhl Gym RJ9500 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am looking for feedback on encounter with an extreme form of malignant personality disorder.
- Can someone please explain to me how this page and list is not just one extended advertisement for the artist? Isn't Wikipedia expressly not a blog, fan site or yellow pages?
- I did not place the box above re personality disorder, but whoever it was, it's clever enough not to have left an auto-signature.
- Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- We don't give medical advice re personality disorders or other conditions if that's your question. I'm not sure what April 3 has to do with this -- are you in an editing dispute regarding this date, and could you be more specific, if that is your question?
- (I also am not sure why this article should exist -- are people ten years from now going to consider this anything but trivia? -- but a check at the highly populated Category:2011 concert tours indicates that this is common type of article). Herostratus (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Request for add Bengali Language in Wikipedia
There are many languages used in the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it has not included Bengali language in this rich website. The International Mother Language Day (IMLD) was proclaimed by the General Conference of UNESCO in November 1999 which has been commemorated in Bangladesh (UNESCO 2011 and Wikipedia 2011).therefore, I would request to add this language to the Wikipedia. International_Mother_Language_Day
Hussain nazmul (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have been sadly mis-informed, my friend; the Bengali Wikipedia has existed for many years, and has thousands of articles. I wish you joy and delight in nourishing the Wikipedia of your mother language! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Superman (film project) fails WP:NFF but some editors argue that it passes WP:GNG, so therefore WP:NFF should be ignored. Does anyone have anything to add to the Afd on this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources for alternative medicine/energy work/spirituality
Alternative medicine, energy healing arts and spirituality are concepts that are becoming much more well-known over the last 10 years. However, these are not thought in governmental schools and newspapers are written by people who don't know about it. This brings a duality on Wikipedia. People who know about the topic edit an article. People who don't know about the topic revert the changes. The people who knows about the topic then often gives up Wikipedia.
One of the major issue with those articles is over what is considered a 'reliable source'. In an article about politics, a newspaper is considered a reliable source. In an article about Alchemy, for example, newspapers should often not be considered a reliable source because the author doesn't know the topic. A book written by a Master Alchemist or a school teaching it, however, should be considered a reliable source. 'Reliable sources' should be defined as being sources who know the topic. For example, valid sources for the Alchemy article should be written by Alchemists or scientists, not by skeptics looking at it and pretending Alchemy is an ancient art irrelevant to modern age. This is an issue that applies to many topics related to spirituality, energies and metaphysics.
Some articles concerned by this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_magnetism
Some articles with more balanced content, most likely because the topic is more mainstream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi_Gong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_healing
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavid9 (talk • contribs)
- We require quality, verifiable sources for Wikipedia. This isn't restricted to newspapers, but would include reputable websites, scientific journals, and many books (though self published is almost always not acceptable). When it comes to articles on medicine or other science, institutions and sources that use established scientific procedures to verify their theories (such as double blind studies) will be valued more highly than those that rely on anecdotal evidence. While I think you are correct that Wikipedians have an institutional bias towards mainstream thought, this is not an unpredictable mindset for people producing an encyclopedia that hopes to be credible. SeaphotoTalk 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Wikipedia does not exist to promote ideas, only report what has mainstream attention. Wikipedia:TEND#Righting_Great_Wrongs"So, if you want to... Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community, ''''On Wikipedia'''', you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research." (See also WP:NOTPROMOTION and Wikipedia:Advocacy). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a dispute between two editors so far. My edit was reverted. Later on he added, that the article discussed anti-semitism, hence the category "antisemitic canards" for the criticism of the Talmud is appropriate. But this however makes an undue inclination towards the implication that criticism of that religion is anti-semitic, which doesn't help neutrality of the article. Help to clear this out. Userpd (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Request assistance with unfair deletion/revisions from my biography page
My name is Steven Herman. I am the Northeast Asia bureau chief for the Voice of America. It was recently brought to my attention that a Wikipedia user with the handle of Anarchangel (and possibly others) have deleted elements of my biography and are making subjective and apparently biased comments about the reasons. I am currently reporting on the nuclear crisis in Japan virtually around the clock and don't have the time or Wikipedia background to properly do the editing. I would appreciate any guidance and assistance from volunteers for objective editing of my biography.
For example, an award was deleted with biased comments by an editor, disputing that this award was presented. Here is a news release documenting that:
I am happy to work with any objective volunteer to edit my page and happy to put them in touch with various sources, including VOA's public relations staff, that can validate any information.
I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong place or format. Any guidance appreciated.