Bleubeatle (talk | contribs) →About to attempt a merger proposal. Need to clarify if it is necessary?: Then I'm not going to hide the comments then. Edit Expand to 'yes'. Easy |
|||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
:First off, this isn't really the venue for complaints. That said, there was a clear consensus to keep, and informed editors were among the voters, so I would be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. If every kid who was a runner up in ''(Your country) Has Talent'' or ''X Factor'' now gets away with having their own page, I'm pretty sure that the winners of Eurovision should have one, and I think you should be guided by CT Cooper's comments. Don't let that dissuade you from continuing to edit and create great new articles. If I were to get perturbed by something like this, I would have retired 20 times by now ;) --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
:First off, this isn't really the venue for complaints. That said, there was a clear consensus to keep, and informed editors were among the voters, so I would be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. If every kid who was a runner up in ''(Your country) Has Talent'' or ''X Factor'' now gets away with having their own page, I'm pretty sure that the winners of Eurovision should have one, and I think you should be guided by CT Cooper's comments. Don't let that dissuade you from continuing to edit and create great new articles. If I were to get perturbed by something like this, I would have retired 20 times by now ;) --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Um I didn't really intend my post to be a complaint but I'll take it that you don't think that its necessary then? Also I kind of understand what you are saying but the main reason why I had this doubt was because while I was looking through [[List_of_Eurovision_Song_Contest_winners|the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners]] I realized that [[Rock 'n' Roll Kids|the winning song of 1994 was sang by two artists]]. So this sort of gave me some doubt about [[Ell & Nikki]] if they were even a group or just a collaboration(like [[Watch the Throne|Kanye West & Jay-Z]], [[Brandy & Monica]]) and if "[[Running Scared (Eldar & Nigar song)|Running Scared]]" was sang as a duet or by a group. I know that each winner deserves their own article but I also believe that these two people ([[Eldar Gasimov]] and [[Nigar Jamal|Nikki Jamal]]) deserve to be recognized as solo artists who collaborated together to win and not just as members of the group. [[User:Bleubeatle|Bleubeatle]] ([[User talk:Bleubeatle|talk]]) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
::Um I didn't really intend my post to be a complaint but I'll take it that you don't think that its necessary then? Also I kind of understand what you are saying but the main reason why I had this doubt was because while I was looking through [[List_of_Eurovision_Song_Contest_winners|the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners]] I realized that [[Rock 'n' Roll Kids|the winning song of 1994 was sang by two artists]]. So this sort of gave me some doubt about [[Ell & Nikki]] if they were even a group or just a collaboration(like [[Watch the Throne|Kanye West & Jay-Z]], [[Brandy & Monica]]) and if "[[Running Scared (Eldar & Nigar song)|Running Scared]]" was sang as a duet or by a group. I know that each winner deserves their own article but I also believe that these two people ([[Eldar Gasimov]] and [[Nigar Jamal|Nikki Jamal]]) deserve to be recognized as solo artists who collaborated together to win and not just as members of the group. [[User:Bleubeatle|Bleubeatle]] ([[User talk:Bleubeatle|talk]]) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse top|expand=yes|Please note that the issue involving this discussion has been moved to [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance|Wikiquette assistance's ]] page. [[User:Bleubeatle|Bleubeatle]] ([[User talk:Bleubeatle|talk]]) 08:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC))}} |
|||
:::They are recognized as solo artists via their separate articles covering their solo careers so I dont really see your point. Anyway I think that the discussions so far has provided a clear consensus of keeping all three articles.--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::They are recognized as solo artists via their separate articles covering their solo careers so I dont really see your point. Anyway I think that the discussions so far has provided a clear consensus of keeping all three articles.--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 150: | Line 151: | ||
:::: Firstly, thank you for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=500899713 withdrawing this remark]. Though for future reference, if you wish to withdraw comments after other users have responded, please <s>strike them</s> instead per [[WP:REDACT]]. |
:::: Firstly, thank you for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=500899713 withdrawing this remark]. Though for future reference, if you wish to withdraw comments after other users have responded, please <s>strike them</s> instead per [[WP:REDACT]]. |
||
{{collapse end}} |
|||
:::: I am actually somewhat open minded about the proposal for a merge; it was the way it was done that bothered me. I would be happy to have another discussion on the issue, although to be honest, the way things went with the previous discussion means that opposition has hardened and won't be dislodged easily. The only place that a consensus will be reached for a merge is at [[Talk:Ell & Nikki]], with the involvement of all interested parties - neither this page or any other can be a substitute. So if you wish to start the discussion on a merge again, you should open a new thread. Personally though, I would wait a bit longer (maybe a month or two more) to allow the dust to settle fully first. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::: I am actually somewhat open minded about the proposal for a merge; it was the way it was done that bothered me. I would be happy to have another discussion on the issue, although to be honest, the way things went with the previous discussion means that opposition has hardened and won't be dislodged easily. The only place that a consensus will be reached for a merge is at [[Talk:Ell & Nikki]], with the involvement of all interested parties - neither this page or any other can be a substitute. So if you wish to start the discussion on a merge again, you should open a new thread. Personally though, I would wait a bit longer (maybe a month or two more) to allow the dust to settle fully first. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::: Thank you CT Cooper for understanding my true intents. That's why I was asking this here. I'm not sure if its ok or not, to go ahead with this yet. [[User:Bleubeatle|Bleubeatle]] ([[User talk:Bleubeatle|talk]]) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
::::: Thank you CT Cooper for understanding my true intents. That's why I was asking this here. I'm not sure if its ok or not, to go ahead with this yet. [[User:Bleubeatle|Bleubeatle]] ([[User talk:Bleubeatle|talk]]) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:37, 10 July 2012
Archives
Posts have been deleted several times, even after being approved by an editor!
The information about State Youth Orchestra of Armenia has been posted on Wikipedia several and has been deleted every single time! Once even approved by an editor, it has been removed after some time! The article is written with appropriate amount of links and references!
Why do our posts get deleted all the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYOArmenia1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (Moved from talk page to this page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC))
- The only requests which I could find are those listed here which were declined because they were made in the wrong forum and in the wrong method. Please see the instructions at WP:AFC on how to submit an article, but I would note that Youth State Orchestra of Armenia already exists and, if it is the same organization, could use improvement. I note that your account has been blocked. Your username must be for you, individually, only. A name which implies which you are editing on behalf of a group or organization is unacceptable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of Youth State Orchestra of Armenia, it appears that you are trying to make the article into a promotional piece, which is not appropriate. You should not extensively quote every review of a performance. LadyofShalott 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect Data
Greetings!
The wiki page for Marycrest College indicates that it is / was located in Toledo, Ohio.
This is incorrect. Marycrest College has always been located in Davenport, Iowa.
I noticed this error when facebook linked the educational information on my info page to your article, and it now shows this incorrect location on my facebook entry. I have never been to Toledo, Ohio, nor was Marycrest ever located there.
It would be wonderful if someone could correct this on your Marycrest College page. I do not know how to do this.
Thank you.
Tom Nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.7.30 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You also asked this at Wikipedia:Help desk#Incorrect Location Listed for Marycrest College and someone has answered there. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
There's been more than one Marycrest College. The Iowa one, founded in 1939, was originally named Marycrest College, became Teikyo Marycrest University and finally Marycrest International University. That school closed in 2002 because of financial shortcomings. We can't help you with Facebook mixing up the Marycrests. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Help with a hoax
This page for an upcoming cartoon series is a hoax. No sources on the page are listed and a quick Google search for "new Parappa cartoon" turns up nothing. I marked it as a hoax and proposed it for deletion, but then my edits were reverted by the creator of the page. I need some advice on how to deal with this.--Dr.Starky (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've nominated the page for speedy deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Dr.Starky: Let me just supplement that by saying that, unlike a proposal for deletion, which you tried, the page creator does not have the right to remove a speedy deletion nomination from the article himself. If he does so, it will likely be replaced (though I will not be surprised if the article is deleted before he has a chance to remove it). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy response guys!--Dr.Starky (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
ambiguous acronym in title
Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment (SPIRE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I just made this page and moved it from user test to article. I would like people to be able to search Wiki for SPIRE and get to it, or at least to the page of potential SPIRE hits since it is ambiguous. how could I go about making sure it comes up in a search?
Thank you Beth
- Hi Beth, The page has been moved to Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment. It needs essentially a complete rewrite to remove promotional language, properly source it, and make it comprehensible. Right now it sorely lacks context, is filled with unexplained jargon and still reads like a commercial despite that I have removed some overt peacockery. Regarding your question, you listed it at Spire (disambiguation). That is how people will reach it who type in "SPIRE", if it's not deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Very important
Dear Sir/Madam, kindly, I want to divert kind attention towards an issue which is very important for us, all Muslims so kindly address this big mistake. Mistake is that you wrote the spelling of Muhammad as Mohammad which is a very abuse for us, all Muslims so plz correct this mistake in the whole Wikipedia.We ere kindfull to you as you are repespecting our feelings. Thankx alot. Javed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.128.15 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am puzzled, surely the spellings in English are transliterations from Arabic to the Latin alphabet. Are there two spellings in Arabic, one of which is considered offensive? SpinningSpark 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are more than a dozen English spelling variations. This issue has been addressed before on Talk:Muhammad/Archive_2#Mohammed.2C_Muhammed.2C_Mohammad. The intro to the Muhammad article lists several variations: "Muhammad (c. 570 – c. 8 June 632); also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; Arabic: محمد, full name: Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب)". Other variations are "Mahommed, Mehmed, Mehmet, Mahomet, and (Latin) Mahometus". Of course, Wikipedia follows the sources, and spelling is not required to be uniform across all of the encyclopedia, but should be consistent within each particular article. I would suggest to our friend and fellow editor Javed, that Talk:Muhammad might be a better place to raise further questions on this issue, and there are volumes of archives there that touch on this and related issues.
Peace be unto us all. —Telpardec TALK 12:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are more than a dozen English spelling variations. This issue has been addressed before on Talk:Muhammad/Archive_2#Mohammed.2C_Muhammed.2C_Mohammad. The intro to the Muhammad article lists several variations: "Muhammad (c. 570 – c. 8 June 632); also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; Arabic: محمد, full name: Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب)". Other variations are "Mahommed, Mehmed, Mehmet, Mahomet, and (Latin) Mahometus". Of course, Wikipedia follows the sources, and spelling is not required to be uniform across all of the encyclopedia, but should be consistent within each particular article. I would suggest to our friend and fellow editor Javed, that Talk:Muhammad might be a better place to raise further questions on this issue, and there are volumes of archives there that touch on this and related issues.
Georg Andreas Böckler
Was trying to find a place to point out an article problem I don't have time to deal with, but couldn't actually find anywhere for that sort of thing. This was the closest I could find. Anyway, the birth and death years are inconsistent on Georg Andreas Böckler and de:Georg Andreas Böckler. I think I can see why (the en-version is an earlier, 'years active' range and later research has uncovered the more precise dates in the de-version). But I'm not 100% sure, so leaving it here so others can see what they think. I suppose I could have posted this at the article talk page, but that might not have got a response. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the article talk page is the right place. Here, we generally give advice to editors about what they can do. You could also try contacting other editors who have contributed to the article(s. You can find out who the contributors are form the article history here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. The article creator edited twice in 2011 (may be more active on the Dutch Wikipedia). See my notes left here and here. Is there really no general noticeboard to request help from other Wikipedians with article questions? I'm actually willing to work on the article, but was trying to find someone to help with that. I often spot problems or mistakes, and if I don't have time would love to drop a note off somewhere to ask others to have a look. Is there nowhere for that to be done? Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Content editing and improvement is very much up to the people who have created, edited, or seen the article - Wikipedia is the encylopedia any one can edit. The article is not tagged for any glaring issues, so if you unfortunately don't have time to address the birth/address problems yourself, you may wish to leave a message drawing attention to them on the relevant section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've done that. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will eventually pick up on this. I think you are still missing my point. There should be a general central location to point out things like this. Talk pages (decentralised) and wikiproject pages (centralised by topic) are all very well, but there are people who use (i.e. use, not edit) Wikipedia daily as part of their working day (e.g. looking things up), and spot problems, but don't have time to fix them. There should be an easy way to point out such things to a group of people who are willing to follow up and try and help out. I could easily supply about 2-3 such instances a day. Sometimes when I get home I have time to fix them, sometimes I don't (and sometimes I'm not quite sure where to start - identifying a problem is not the same as identifying a solution). Sometimes I leave a note about it, sometimes I don't have time even for that. If I spent my entire time following up such things, I'd have little time for anything else. The logical thing is to hope that others are willing to help out if someone takes the time to make an initial report (and no, I'm not going to use article tags to 'report' such things). The main problem is that such a service would soon be overwhelmed. Possibly a mailing list or off-wiki forum would be a better option. I have in the past sometimes pointed out such things in passing while asking questions at one of the reference desks, which sometimes does see the article fixed by someone who know something about the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, but as a sysop and a former arb,and with over 60,000 edits to your credit, you probably have far more experience than most of us - at least on this help desk ;)
- I'm not exactly inexperienced myself, and one of the concerns I have expressed in the past is that we have too many different hep desks and noticeboards - a new user can't see the wood for the trees. My suggestion at one time was to introduce a standard ticketing system (we use something similar at OTRS) where someone forwards the inquiries and suggestions to the right people, or the right people pick of the right enquiries. But change and improvements, as I'm sure you've also noticed, are very slow. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, though it is also easy to lose track of where things are and where to go, even with the experience of years of past edits to draw upon. One thing is for sure, the wiki doesn't stand still and things change over time. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I'll also raise this on a mailing list for meta discussion.
- Before one can have a central location to report article issues, one must first have a corp of editors who are willing to service it. Without that, it is about as pointless to complain about it as it would be to complain to Oxfam that they are not doing enough to feed the hungry. Do you know of such a corp or how to recruit one? Editors generally tend not to want to edit any old article that is thrown their way, but only those that are within their field of interest. The best places to find such editors remain article talk and the wikiprojects. I know that is not the answer you want, but it is a fact of life of volunteer projects. Unless of course you are willing to offer money, or other rewards, in which case attitudes might rapidly change. SpinningSpark 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we're complaining about anything - just making suggestions, and it's good to see so many admins posting regularly here at EAR which is not strictly an admin territory per se. Each noticeboard already has its core of 'resident' operators - for example, here at EAR is where I reside (and occasionally at OTRS), and I very rarely stray into others, not even as an admin to AN/I for example. The problem is the plethora of noticeboards/help desks with which the less experienced user is confronted. Perhaps a central ticketing point would get its own core of regulars - OTRS works quite well, where the agents pick and choose what they want to answer, and can subscribe to lists of particular kinds of enquiries. Agents also farm the enquiries out to the right departments. There is also a stock of template replies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- By setting up a ticketing system, you are declaring to the world that all tickets are going to be actioned in a reasonable time. Are you sure there are the editor resources available to service it? In my opinion you need to get a large group of experienced editors to commit to it before going public, otherwise it will merely disappoint and discourage those who try to use it. SpinningSpark 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? I was neither declaring anything, nor being sure of anything at all. It was a mere suggestion. If I felt strongly enough about it I would propose it at RfC to test the climate. I haven't. That said however, we have plenty of users who have committed themselves to working quietly away in the background at OTRS - an endeavour, furthermore, that gains neither laurels nor recognition for anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is this conversation still going? :-) Probably best carried on somewhere else. I've sorted out the original request, by the way, with a bit of help from others. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? I was neither declaring anything, nor being sure of anything at all. It was a mere suggestion. If I felt strongly enough about it I would propose it at RfC to test the climate. I haven't. That said however, we have plenty of users who have committed themselves to working quietly away in the background at OTRS - an endeavour, furthermore, that gains neither laurels nor recognition for anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- By setting up a ticketing system, you are declaring to the world that all tickets are going to be actioned in a reasonable time. Are you sure there are the editor resources available to service it? In my opinion you need to get a large group of experienced editors to commit to it before going public, otherwise it will merely disappoint and discourage those who try to use it. SpinningSpark 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we're complaining about anything - just making suggestions, and it's good to see so many admins posting regularly here at EAR which is not strictly an admin territory per se. Each noticeboard already has its core of 'resident' operators - for example, here at EAR is where I reside (and occasionally at OTRS), and I very rarely stray into others, not even as an admin to AN/I for example. The problem is the plethora of noticeboards/help desks with which the less experienced user is confronted. Perhaps a central ticketing point would get its own core of regulars - OTRS works quite well, where the agents pick and choose what they want to answer, and can subscribe to lists of particular kinds of enquiries. Agents also farm the enquiries out to the right departments. There is also a stock of template replies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Before one can have a central location to report article issues, one must first have a corp of editors who are willing to service it. Without that, it is about as pointless to complain about it as it would be to complain to Oxfam that they are not doing enough to feed the hungry. Do you know of such a corp or how to recruit one? Editors generally tend not to want to edit any old article that is thrown their way, but only those that are within their field of interest. The best places to find such editors remain article talk and the wikiprojects. I know that is not the answer you want, but it is a fact of life of volunteer projects. Unless of course you are willing to offer money, or other rewards, in which case attitudes might rapidly change. SpinningSpark 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, though it is also easy to lose track of where things are and where to go, even with the experience of years of past edits to draw upon. One thing is for sure, the wiki doesn't stand still and things change over time. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I'll also raise this on a mailing list for meta discussion.
- Thank you. I've done that. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will eventually pick up on this. I think you are still missing my point. There should be a general central location to point out things like this. Talk pages (decentralised) and wikiproject pages (centralised by topic) are all very well, but there are people who use (i.e. use, not edit) Wikipedia daily as part of their working day (e.g. looking things up), and spot problems, but don't have time to fix them. There should be an easy way to point out such things to a group of people who are willing to follow up and try and help out. I could easily supply about 2-3 such instances a day. Sometimes when I get home I have time to fix them, sometimes I don't (and sometimes I'm not quite sure where to start - identifying a problem is not the same as identifying a solution). Sometimes I leave a note about it, sometimes I don't have time even for that. If I spent my entire time following up such things, I'd have little time for anything else. The logical thing is to hope that others are willing to help out if someone takes the time to make an initial report (and no, I'm not going to use article tags to 'report' such things). The main problem is that such a service would soon be overwhelmed. Possibly a mailing list or off-wiki forum would be a better option. I have in the past sometimes pointed out such things in passing while asking questions at one of the reference desks, which sometimes does see the article fixed by someone who know something about the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Content editing and improvement is very much up to the people who have created, edited, or seen the article - Wikipedia is the encylopedia any one can edit. The article is not tagged for any glaring issues, so if you unfortunately don't have time to address the birth/address problems yourself, you may wish to leave a message drawing attention to them on the relevant section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. The article creator edited twice in 2011 (may be more active on the Dutch Wikipedia). See my notes left here and here. Is there really no general noticeboard to request help from other Wikipedians with article questions? I'm actually willing to work on the article, but was trying to find someone to help with that. I often spot problems or mistakes, and if I don't have time would love to drop a note off somewhere to ask others to have a look. Is there nowhere for that to be done? Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please review new and improved section
I took the section "Main Themes" in the Six Million Crucifixions article page and edited it to address the issues raised, namely neutral point of view and more and solid resources. Can an editor kindly take a look at the page now? If OK then please remove the warnings on top of the page. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have taken a look and checked the sources. I still do not see how the sources support, in depth and number, the criteria for books at WP:BKCRIT. Please also take another look at WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kudpung. I commend you for your eagerness to hold Wikipedia articles to a high standard. What troubles me, however, is that for some reason the Six Million Crucifixions article seems to be held to a much higher standard than many other articles about books. For instance, the article originally made reference to many comments made by well-known scholars, but were removed because the critiques or comments were sent to the author and published on the book's back cover instead of being published in reputable journals. Yet many Wikipedia articles about books reference the books themselves, their web sites, or flaps or back covers. The article was also criticized for not having enough or good enough references. However, this appears to be a double standard as doing a cursory perusal of some other books in the same categories as Six Million Crucifixions shows many books whose notability can also be questioned (based on the criteria you quoted) and which have few or no references. Some even reference their own web sites, blogs or even their Amazon page as reference (which are apparently all unacceptable and were all reasons used to excise previously used references in the Six Million Crucifixions article).
- See the following examples:
- Denying the Holocaust --> no references
- The Paradox of Anti-Semitism --> 1 good reference; 1 broken reference
- The Politics of Anti-Semitism --> 2 references pointing to the same book
- Eichmann in Jerusalem --> 1 good reference
- Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy --> no references
- The Zookeeper's Wife --> 1 reference
- Pave the Way Foundation --> 28 references, of which 7 point to a page not found and 12 point to their own web site
- Most of these articles, and I'm sure I could give many more examples if I searched a little more, are short and provide little useful information and as noted have less valuable references than Six Million Crucifixions. Therefore I respectfully suggest we either do a major cleanup of all articles about books in Wikipedia, or we use the same standard for the article in question here. In any case, I searched some more and added some more information in the Critical Reception section that gives it a more balanced perspective, including two new references. Hopefully in light of all this we can finish the article by removing the label on top. Thank you. Esautomatix (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read other stuff exists. There may well be far more terrible articles, but they have no bearing on the one being discussed here. You are welcome to start a cleanup campaign on book articles if you have the time to spare. SpinningSpark 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely concur with Spinningspark. We urgently need help with many book articles that may have escaped the critical eye of our more experienced editors. Books are notorious for wanting to promote themselves through Wikipedia. (I have taken the liberty of linking the pages that have been referred to). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read other stuff exists. There may well be far more terrible articles, but they have no bearing on the one being discussed here. You are welcome to start a cleanup campaign on book articles if you have the time to spare. SpinningSpark 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Varonis Systems
I'm contacting you with the regards to the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varonis . This page contains information about the company Varonis Systems, a competitor of Whitebox Security which I'm representing. I was recently contacted by a potential customer who wanted to let me know that he tried to edit the above value (Varonis) and add information about possible other/competitive solutions to Varonis as he thought this will be a better service to public knowledge (which of course makes sense). After he tried to add this information, the information was removed by some other user. He tried again, the information was removed again. Knowing this should not happen, I actually try to add the same information to the Varonis page and it seems that it is automatically removed.. (take a look at the history page to see immediate removal of information after making changes repeatedly..) 1) I'm not sure that automatic delegation of information is Ok with your policy. 2) I think that keeping this specific information out (competitors for a company) is actually not for the benefit of the public and creates pure advertisement within Wikipedia..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneisnottheone (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The editor was correct in removing the links to Whitebox security. Please read our policies on what external links are acceptable, which you can find here and in this case only the Varonis page should be linked, as the official page of the company which is the subject of the article. Links to other companies would be unacceptable per WP:ELNO specifically section 4: "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." Valenciano (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the external links should not be in the article, but that is really a side issue to the question being asked. The main question is, is it acceptable for an article about a company to mention its main competitors? In other words, if the contribution had been unlinked, would it then be acceptable? For instance the Pepsi and Coca-Cola articles both mention each other, as well as other products. Another question is are the competitors notable enough to deserve a mention. Some of them do not even have a Wikipedia article. A much more serious issue in this article is the edit warring going on in the article which needs to stop. In any case, I have now nominated it for deletion as non-notable. SpinningSpark 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The answer, as usual, is in the references; if they don't mention the competition, why should the article? If only a mention, I'd leave it out, but if the references make comparisons, evaluate for includeable sourced material. The competition being available in one additional color is trivial; being available in any color requested might not be. Wikipedia:WHAAOE = Competition between soda brands. Dru of Id (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
About to attempt a merger proposal. Need to clarify if it is necessary?
I previously nominated Ell & Nikki deletion because from my opinion I felt that it wasn't necessary to have an article about them because they are not really a group but just 2 separate artists who collaborated together for a song, "Running Scared". Also they now have two separate articles, Eldar Gasimov(Ell) and Nigar Jamal(Nikki). My main purpose for creating an AfD was to create a discussion between many users about my opinion. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion didn't turn out as a planned. All I received instead were responses from users telling me that it was a waste of time and I should be reviewing WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E instead before it was closed. I admit that it was big mistake and I should've just taken this to the talk page of the articl instead.
Since no one replied to my input in the discussion I asked the non-admin to re-open it and hopefully get users from other Wikiprojects involved but this also failed and I was told that I was going against consensus. But I still had doubts so I decided to create a new section at the Notability (music)'s talk page. Thankfully other users manage to give me the response I wanted and suggested that I should propose a merger for Ell & Nikki to the "Running Scared" article.
So do you guys think that a merger proposal would be necessary? Bleubeatle (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- First off, this isn't really the venue for complaints. That said, there was a clear consensus to keep, and informed editors were among the voters, so I would be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. If every kid who was a runner up in (Your country) Has Talent or X Factor now gets away with having their own page, I'm pretty sure that the winners of Eurovision should have one, and I think you should be guided by CT Cooper's comments. Don't let that dissuade you from continuing to edit and create great new articles. If I were to get perturbed by something like this, I would have retired 20 times by now ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Um I didn't really intend my post to be a complaint but I'll take it that you don't think that its necessary then? Also I kind of understand what you are saying but the main reason why I had this doubt was because while I was looking through the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners I realized that the winning song of 1994 was sang by two artists. So this sort of gave me some doubt about Ell & Nikki if they were even a group or just a collaboration(like Kanye West & Jay-Z, Brandy & Monica) and if "Running Scared" was sang as a duet or by a group. I know that each winner deserves their own article but I also believe that these two people (Eldar Gasimov and Nikki Jamal) deserve to be recognized as solo artists who collaborated together to win and not just as members of the group. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the issue involving this discussion has been moved to Wikiquette assistance's page. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC))
|
---|
|
- I am actually somewhat open minded about the proposal for a merge; it was the way it was done that bothered me. I would be happy to have another discussion on the issue, although to be honest, the way things went with the previous discussion means that opposition has hardened and won't be dislodged easily. The only place that a consensus will be reached for a merge is at Talk:Ell & Nikki, with the involvement of all interested parties - neither this page or any other can be a substitute. So if you wish to start the discussion on a merge again, you should open a new thread. Personally though, I would wait a bit longer (maybe a month or two more) to allow the dust to settle fully first. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you CT Cooper for understanding my true intents. That's why I was asking this here. I'm not sure if its ok or not, to go ahead with this yet. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am actually somewhat open minded about the proposal for a merge; it was the way it was done that bothered me. I would be happy to have another discussion on the issue, although to be honest, the way things went with the previous discussion means that opposition has hardened and won't be dislodged easily. The only place that a consensus will be reached for a merge is at Talk:Ell & Nikki, with the involvement of all interested parties - neither this page or any other can be a substitute. So if you wish to start the discussion on a merge again, you should open a new thread. Personally though, I would wait a bit longer (maybe a month or two more) to allow the dust to settle fully first. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A request for an article
Please reply or recommend
@ParikhRutul
Resp Sir/Ma'am,
I am new to Wikipedia and want to know if I can get information on medical topics such as Celiac Disease and so.
I found about Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism but want to have dedicated article about 'Comparison of Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism' as the symptoms are almost same in both the diseases and it is hard to decide what one is suffering from.
I know the best answer is to consult a doctor but I just want to have an article so that I can have more trustworthy knowledge so I can go for consultancy without fear. Some times, diagnose varies from doctor to doctor so it'd be more useful if the article makes it on Wikipedia.
Thanks for your kind support and time for reading this query.
Hope I get the reply soon. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.86.251 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism:- Symptoms of these 2 disease may overlap but, in general, are different. Some families have both celiac disease and hyperthyroidism but usually it is only 1 of the 2. I suggest that separate articles on each topic are needed if not already present but not the 2 diseases in 1 article. Signed: an MD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfaichney (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The articles on Wikipeida are Coeliac disease and Hyperthyroidism. SpinningSpark 19:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
fiachna
Fiachna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently made contributions to this topic and all were deleted except 1 adjective. That is o.k. but I believe all my contributions had validity and would like to discuss a way in which they can be presented. Thanks very much. Jfaichney (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Which topic? Fiachna — is that what you meant? — is a disambiguation page that points to several closely related topics. In any event, the place to raise any questions about an article is on that article's "Talk" page. As you should have read at the top of this page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) You can see the comment left by the deleting editor in the article history. The best place for discussing such things is on the article talk page (Talk:Fiachna) or directly with the editor (User talk:WikHead). I suggest you do that before making any more edits to the page. The reason your contributions were removed was that the page in question is a disambiguation (dab) page. Such pages are intended to help users find the correct page amongst similarly named pages. We keep the information on such pages to a bear minimum to make it easy for users to find the right page.
- However, in my opinion, the page is not really a dab page since none of the articles linked are about simply "Fiachna". The dab template should be removed so it no longer shows as a dab. This title should clearly be an article discussing the name. We sometimes move out the list of people to a separate page with a name like "List of people named foo", especially if it is long. See, for instance David (name) and Jones (surname) for examples of how to construct name articles. SpinningSpark 19:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Please help me understand what is going on here!
Please help me understand what is going on HERE.
Sixa369 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Sixa369. As this is a Commons talk page, I suggest you ask for help at the Commons Help Desk. They have different talk page guidelines over there. --NeilN talk to me 04:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Roundhay farm
I don't see any of my family's history here. I am trying to track my family for life threatining medical reasons. They owned Roundhay farm. The Goodalls, although my great aunt was Dorothy Goodall (nee Hill). Can you provide me with any info?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.214.180 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- You may wish to try the Wikipedia:Reference desk for an answer to your problem. They will want to know such basic things as where this farm is/was! (Remember, this is a global project; there are farms from Australia to the Yukon to Florida to Dumfrieshire to Cyprus to South Africa to Sri Lanka, just to name some places where English has been an official language!) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Please edit this page
Hello please can you edit the page "shrewsbury town" the badge of the football club is wrong, vandals behind the campaign to reinstate an old badge have placed the incorrect one shown in the article. The correct one is on the article at the bottom ... the round one with a lion in the middle.. minus the 125 year scroll Can this one be placed there and set so it can't be removed
Thank you. Salopian123 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I put the 125 year anniversary logo in. That matches the official website. If it gets reverted then edit war over it. Get all involved blocked, then seek consensus after the blocks expire. That is the normal procedure here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
After a bit of confusion I think I finally got the correct logo at the top of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
American films
--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Thanks for all your works!
I'm thinking this web page SEVERELY needs a new column: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2012 )
Please add "DATE OF Release" column for this page so people can sort the list BY DATE, because every time I visit this page I really need that feature and I'm sure every other person Needs/misses that column/feature.
THANKS IN ADVANCE... Your work is greatly appreciated
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.203.180.44 (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- This has been answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Please Edit This WebPage !!!. It's usually best to ask a question in only one place. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I added the column and put the first two dates in. You need to click the link to each movie to find the rest. I think the rule is to include the first release date, no matter which country. You add them at the end of each section with a space, two pipes (||), another space, and then the date as I have done. I agree that you should have only posted in one place. Many don't like 'cross-posting' at all. You are new so all should be forgiven.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Moving a page
Im trying to move this page Imam Husayn Shrine to Imam Hussein Shrine, but it has a redirect. How do you make this move? Please dont forget to describe how. Pass a Method talk 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mark the redirect for speedy deletion using Template:Db-move. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper straw poll
Users Andreasegde and ip 99.251.125.65 are attempting to disrupt a discussion here. Some admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- No admin action necessary, and if it were, this would be the wrong forum to ask for it. Perhaps someone ought to write to a former (the) Beatles or to a former Beatle or to their agent and get the whole issue clarified once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, a better (more relevant more obvious more commonly experienced)example of Emotional_reasoning is overeating/eating unhealthy
it feels good to eat but it is obviously unhealthy
obesity is a more relevant more obvious more commonly observed form of Emotional_reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.121.57.10 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
George Dantzig's Students
Can you help me understand why so many of George Dantzig's students are commented out in the HTML? Including me?
Thank you for your assistance,
Robert Entriken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.69.12 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- George Dantzig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- According to the documentation at Template:Infobox scientist/doc, the usual rule for these lists of doctoral students is that only those with Wikipedia articles should be visible to the reader: "If a student does not have a wiki article, then comment the name out". This rule was followed when the list was first added in 2009. Other editors since then have not been so careful. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Misleading information
The following subject is presented on this page after failure of having any resolution on the matters involved - and which I first posted on a Dispute Resolution Board (about a disputed wording of a certain sentence). My post on Dispute Resolution was later transferred by a Wikipedia Editor John Carter to Reliable Resources/ Notice board, giving it a new title of his choice, appearing on the index of RS/N as 4."Riverdale Press blogspot". A lengthy and circular discussion about the subject took place and it was was futile to have any result in sight. In addition, there was apparent avoidance from all Wikipedia Editors (and who barely participated in the discussion) - to give an opinion about a raised by me matter regarding a ceratin source dealing with a court case in the subject, and which was misleadingly presented in Wikipedia article Soka Gakkai. For these reasons I believe it is justified to present the matter here asking for assiatance.
The location of the subject in concern is the following: On Soka Gakkai page, section: Perception and Criticism, the following sentence appears: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[87] and proselytizing[88][89][90]practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[91].” This is the sentence of dispute. As I mentioned, the dispute was as if put under carpet, and with no conclusive opinion and was ignored both at the Dispute Resolution and later at the Relibale Sources Notice Board.
/1/ The first part of the sentence makes doubts about ‘religious tolerance’ through employing as a supportive source: [87] http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source gives an information published in March 2011 about a court case of a staff in Soka University who allegedly claimed discrimination because of her age, and also because of her religion. The Court, however, dismissed the case in April 2011. The involved editor Catflap08 who posted the misleading sentence knew that his information is half true but he criticized the court’s decision (on the RS/N) and refused to delete his accusative and unsubstantiated allegation about 'religious tolerance'. In my consistent enquiry I was asking whether it is within Wikipedia Policy or Guidelines to give a misleading information about a court case, by treating the accusation as a valid argument to support a sentence in Wikipedia article, and knowingly ignoring the decision of the legal system in the matter. No one could answer this question. Editor John Carter completely avoided this importnat matter first through giving my enquiry a different title and then by not answering any of my question about catflap08 disregard to the Legal System on Wikipedia pages. This is unresolved matter. I request a decisive resolution to delete the false claim about 'religious intolerance' supported by a disregard to the court's decision!
/2/ The second part of the sentence speaks about ‘proselytizing’ giving 3 sources. I have no objection to the book or PDF based sources (which meet Wikipedia guidelines), but I objected to other sources which are tabloid type of rumor spreading news. The two sources which I believed that they do not meet credibility requirements are:
(a): http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html
(b) [89] http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600
The first source (a) has now disappeared from the disputed sentence (but the editor involved, Catflap08 mentioned that it will return, regardless). The title of my Enquiry at the Reliable Sources/Notice board (being: 4 Riverdale Press blogspot) was borrowed from that particular source and which is now only temporarily withdrawn. [A side note here: Please note that the first matter concerning the court case was also put under this title: (4. Riversdale Press Blogspot) and kept there simply burried with no attention to its contents].
The article of source(a): http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html is an article which admits that it is treating a rumor – and that’s why I objected to its usage.
The other source(b) mentioned above is a copy-and-paste TV news taken from the source (a) about the rumor. This source(b) still exists in the second part of the disputed sentence. Its origin or replica (being source a) was temporarily withdrawn, but the same information about the rumor still exits now in source(b), which clearly acknowledges that the investigation has not finished yet. Why would Wikipedia Editors accept a rumor based story which was under unfinished investigation, as a reliable or credible information?
My enquiry was whether it is proper to use a source - considered by editor John Carter as reliable – but which acknowledges that its information was specifically dealing with a rumor. The word “rumor” was repeated twice by the writer of the blog. Other sentences in his article acknowledged that the rumored story "had no credence". This quality of references (a) and (b) were/are effectively put on a Wikipedia article in a sentence treating the rumor as a fact, and supporting rumor based accusation regarding ‘proselytizing’, and which is apparently unsubstantiated. My question here on whether it is within Wikipedia policy to agree on using a source - even if it was a reliable published journal – but which speaks about a rumor, as a reference to validate (or support) a claim as if the rumor was about a valid fact, in a sentence in Wikipedia article.
Finally: my disagreement with the Editors Catflap08 and John Carter who could not come to a conclusion about the two mentioned matters (explained in /1/ and /2/) is now presented to your evaluation and taking decision on what to do. Regards. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note for other editors: Please note also User talk:John Carter, User talk:Catflap08, User talk:SafwanZabalawi and the mentioning of the issue in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and in the archive of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as well as Talk:Sōka Gakkai and on a related matter in Talk:Nichiren Shōshū. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicated history section
The article East Sahuarita, Arizona appears to have the entire history duplicated from Sahuarita, Arizona. Is there a copyright concern about possible missing attribution (cut and paste)? Should the history be removed from the East Sahuarita article with a link to the other article? Raymie (t • c) 09:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see no cut and paste content between the articles at all; no history duplication. Maybe you're taking this from the fact that the articles were created at the same minute of the same day by one user? If you look at those two creations (1, 2), it perfectly confirms much easier than you can for most articles that there was no cut and paste move as the content of each is tailored; the user prepared these offline each with different content and clicked save page in succession.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
ERROR ON YOUR POST
Hello my name is greydougz their is an error on one of your info regarding the lists of asian countries RUSSIA is included on the list of asian countris.. I have copied the ling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greydougz (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Most of Russia is on the Asian part of the Eurasian supercontinent.
- See? It's the northern-most country. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the Caucasus Mountains range is the demarcation. Correct me if I am wrong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please help me to remove the "|-" at the bottom of the page? There must be somewhere redundant markup, but I was not able to locate it. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Spinningspark--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Edit Policy Question
Hello,
I am new to Wikipedia and may not be up to speed on the editing policy thus asking for assistance. I got a message from Ground Zero indicating that my article are not in compliance. First, it would be helpful to give you a background. I was looking at a wikipedia page that relates to Puntland and Somaliland dispute. I want to give a historical background on the region and highlight the context. My suggestions are getting reverted back. Also, the editor is asking for user authenticity. I live in the United States and believe like any other user I can provide feedback. My understanding is that pages can be enhanced. Can you please check my latest changes and let me know where I fail in proving my point. I appreciate your time and assistance. My username is Somalilander21 and the article in question is Puntland and Somaliland dispute.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somalilander21 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)