Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 87

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

The Beverly Hills Hotel

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Offline usage

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Etiquette

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Kinabalu National Park

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, you could start by opening a discussion on the article talk page. That is why it is provided. Google Maps is not necessarily a reliable source for locations as recent press reports have revealed. These documents on the UNESCO World Heritage are likely reliable. They say it is on the north western coast. The parks site[1] confirms this. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Problem with the Derek Sherinian Article

Unresolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Derek Sherinian

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

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

Thank You

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

I can't see that you've ever contributed to the article at all.--Kudpung (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How to move one section into another section

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When I move section A and make it a subsection of section B I do the following: 1 edit section A & copy it, 2 edit section B & paste A into it, 3 add another "=" to surround the new subsection A heading, 4 edit original section A again and blank it out.

Does this make sense? Is there a better way? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me, except that I'd "cut" at step 1, not "copy"; thus eliminating step 4. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrative Powers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:ANI

– Not suitable for this board. If there's a legitimate concern, take it to WP:ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I edited 4 articles which has been changed from its original date style to a new date style. I simply reverted those changes to the original format per WP:ERA User:Tbhotch and User:DMacks changed those edits back. I explained I was only following the guideline at WP:ERA but both started to threaten to block me. Then, I was blocked. According to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy my blocking is a Conflicts of interest since the person blocking me was participating in the dispute.

This is a reoccurring problem on Wikipedia. A lot of Administrators use their power to force their opinions on others, without regard for the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Furthermore, they selectively enforce many rules. Something needs to be done about these Wikipedia bullies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.226.223 (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This IP is lying. Every one of the articles he's edited has had a long standing consensus for BCE/CE as its era style and all but one of them used BCE/CE as its original era style. Also he posted a phony block notice on my talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles in question are Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem, Maccabees, First Jewish–Roman War, and Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The edits were done from IP address 98.82.139.238, currently blocked. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they came from a couple of different IPs, obviously controlled by the same person who posted here, and they're all blocked. He posts a phony block notice on my page with someone else's name signed to it and complains about Wikipedia bullies. Cute, huh? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I want my voice heard. I am documenting all of this. I am being blocked solely to prevent my side from being heard. I am not editing articles, I am voice my concerns and until I can have my side heard I will continue. (98.82.186.96 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

I do not appreciate someone publicly stating I am lying, when I am not. That is libel in case you didn't know. Let's not let this distract from the facts. WP:ERA states that date styles should not be changed unless there is a "substantial reason" AND a consensus is reach on the Talk page. Neither took place. There was no "substantial reason" given when the original changes were made, and unless I overlooked something,a consensus was not reached on the Talk Page. Silence on a subject does not necessarily constitute a consensus. Furthermore, when I expressed my desire to have this resolved here, I was blocked. I then asked my neighbor to file a complaint on my behalf, since it was clear these administrators were attempting to silence me here. Luckily, he was able to post something before he was blocked (for evading a block, which he was not--I was blocked, not him.) I fully understand that I am currently violating the rules by posting this; however, I am not editing any articles, I am just seeking to have my side of this heard. There has been a severe abuse of power that needs to be addresses. (98.82.186.96 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

This has escalated beyond the scope of this page. Please take it to WP:ANI. – ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case the IP comes back, all your arguments are refuted and you've been given a full explanation at User_talk:98.71.226.223. You can keep pretending that one or more of your accounts belong to your neighbor, but no one's going to believe you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems Steven Anderson has a religious bias on this subject. I've read the rules and I believe there has been an abuse of power by the administrators. (69.164.204.168 (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Generation X content dispute

Discussion moved

– To Talk:Generation X#RfC: What should the wording of the introduction be?. Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

:

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

Have you considered starting a request for comment? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia is being used relentless for advertising and losing much objectivity - ITIL case in point

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I offered "criticisms" but they were arbitrarily deleted, initially with only a "sniping" comment and no feed back or discussion provided. But as I made suggestions to prove these notions wrong, or that other comments were far less critical, with no proof and only sounded like criticisms, this individual just kept deleting and deleting.

This is what I originally added: " Additionally: 1) Anyone can institute ITIL and create service levels so low that the claim for successful implementation can be made. 2) The flexibilities required to intelligently deploy are beyond the hosts of average left hand brain constrained business executives. 3) The language used in all the manuals meanders from overly obvious generalities to ambiguous inflations without clear validations. 4) Senior executives can arbitrarily decide to subjugate ITIL to their personal preferences without analysis or proofs."

The last edit I added was: " ==Criticisms are Criticisms==

Criticisms are meant to stimulate areas of thought and research!! Prove that they are wrong 1st before deleting - Raynor This should not be considered an advertisment like most delusional "defenders of the faith" like to imagine. "Sniping" would be a calculated and considered attack but does not diminish the fact of truths, but may seem threatening to those over zealous fans with either; little actual knowledge or experience in the subject matter or perhaps, only knowledge in that subject matter.

The availability of the official OGC books (of which I have stacks) and the cost (which is less than university fare), is held up as a criticism of the ITIL. This is neither true nor a valued, intelligent criticism entry for this subject. It does not offer critical insights to the pros and cons of ITIL.

"Accusations that...." that entry might be considered "sniping" since it sounds like a hotly contested issue about to be deliberated upon - where as it is merely inflammatory semantics and lexicology.

And as originally pointed out...Additionally:

1) Anyone can institute ITIL and create service levels so low that the claim for successful implementation can be made. - absolutely True and the way it is currently being implemented in many sectors.

2) The flexibilities required to intelligently deploy are beyond the hosts of average left hand brain constrained business executives. - Most execs are very inflexible and hold up names of things as a method of not providing CSI (ITIL) and doubtful if they might even identify the interdependencies and linkages.

3) The language used in all the manuals meanders from overly obvious generalities to ambiguous inflations without clear validations. - True look yourself

4) Senior executives can arbitrarily decide to subjugate ITIL to their personal preferences without analysis or proofs. - True and the general way it is most often implemented."

From what I can see this is an all PRO ITIL article holding up what are obviously questionable sources as - very old - criticisms so that they might be easily dismissed. I think since this seems to be happeneing in many places in wikipedia - when it comes to anything that might be associated with a dollar value or politics - the Wikipedia credibility rating has now been downgraded.

This unsigned comment was added by User:198.103.223.52 (talk), 09:49, 30 September 2010

Did you provide reliable sources for your additions? Articles can't just include what we think, and the burden of providing sources is on the editor who wishes to include challenged material, in this case, you. If there are good sources that back up what you have to say, ensure that you cite them with your edit. If there are not, then the claims are unverifiable, and we could not include them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have encountered is disagreement about the interpretation of a reliable source: some thought it was criticism, others did not because the source did not use the wording "criticism".Ottawahitech (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to the 'Lee' page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Under: Lee > given names and surnames, I've added to the English,Korean and Chinese meanings, the Hebrew meaning. My edit has been deleted by user Bkonrad I've asked Bkonrad on his talk page for the reason, and was told that he feels there is no grounds for my edit on a disambiguation page (which this is not) I've tried to discuss the matter further with him, but he keeps deleting my entry. Thank you for your assistance. --Nim205 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression that it is not a disambiguation page? (see the Disambiguation logo at the bottom of the page)Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nim - Your meanings of these names should be on the individual articles. The English meaning goes at Lee (English name), Korean at Lee (Korean name), etc. For the Hebrew, find or create an article about that name and link to it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Birthplace

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There's been a recent mini tug-of-war as to the infobox-listed birthplace of Daniel Radcliffe. At the moment, it says Hammersmith (a part of London), London, England, United Kingdom. I removed United Kingdom because I think it's unnecessary and made a flip comment in the edit summary that if I removed England, I'd be shot. Naturally, someone put the UK back in (with a flip retort to me that I would be shot). Putting the joking aside, if I were the final decision maker, I would put London, England in the Infobox and no more {see Joely Richardson), but I think I'm in a minimalist minority. I don't see why we need the neighborhood of London (that is and should be in the article body), and I don't see why we need a higher level than England. Of course, the articles on English people are inconsistent. See Jude Law, Ralph Richardson, and Vanessa Redgrave, which list the London nieghborhood but not the UK. See Kate Winslet and Lawrence Olivier, neither of which lists the UK. See Rupert Grint, another Potter actor, which lists the UK. Then, of course, there's the MAJOR issue of whether you should say "UK" or "United Kingdom". Also inconsistent in the articles.

What's "right"? I don't know, but what generally happens is the editor who screams loudest and last wins.

Certainly, any comments on this relatively unimportant but emotion-stirring issue are welcome, but, also, is there a better place to discuss the issue, rather than here or on individual Talk pages? Some project on English/British biographies? The project lists are daunting.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The correct procedure is to build consensus for one version or the other (or neither) on the talk page; if consensus hasn't been formed and there is ongoing disagreement which is proving difficult to resolve, you can try a dispute resolution option. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what makes that the "correct procedure", other than generally consensus on Wikipedia is like apple pie in the US. That said, I don't want to address this kind of issue on a piecemeal basis, Talk page by Talk page. I was hoping to find some way to address it on a more, uh, global basis. Why should one article do it one way and another do it another way? If I do it on individual Talk pages, it's going to depend on the editors who happen to watch that particular article. Then, after a long, protracted discussion, assuming there's a consensus, or even a consensus that there's a consensus, a decision (probably not final because it will no doubt be raised again months later) might be reached for that particular article. It tires me out just thinking about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing to point out about whether to include UK - Remember, that England is not a country, but a major region of a country. So, if I saw an infobox about a person born in San Antonio, I would expect to see "San Antonio, Texas, United States". As far as neighborhoods, must aren't notable enough for inclusion, but there are exceptions. For New York, I would include which borough (Manhattan, Bronx, etc), but I don't know if Hammersmith is as well known as some NYC neighborhoods. For the record, I've never heard of Hammersmith, but I'm just a dumb American. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno who gets to make the final decision in these things, but the Wikipedia articles state that England is a country. They also say that the UK is a country made up of other countries. In any event, I believe that most people in the world believe England is a country, and even if there's some dispute about the proper label, I don't think you'll find too many people who think that there is some other England other than the England that is part of the UK. Don't forget this is an infobox, which is supposed to contain summary information, not a legal treatise. As for Texas, I, personally, think Texas is enough without saying the US, but I know there are many who disagree with that. I also don't think it should depend on whether the reader is American, English, Scottish, Australian, or whatever. Overall, the infobox needs enough information for clarity, not endless detail. See Help:Infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Hammersmith, London, England is sufficient. Hammersmith is a local authority in its own right with more powers than the governmental entity called London (the City of London is a separate, small local authority within greater London). For a while there wasn't even any government entity called London, just some coordinating committees between local authorities such as the City of London, Hammersmith, and the rest of the London boroughs. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. And from what I've seen, particularly for London, a lot of articles include the part of London the person comes from. If the use of "neighborhoods" in this context adds clarity, even in summary info in the box, I have no problem with that. However, the UK or United Kingdom is certainly not necessary. The problem is, in the absence of some global policy, guidance, or consensus discussion to point to, it's a major battle to remove the UK on an individual page. That's why I asked whether there was somewhere on Wikipedia we could have such a discussion and reach a decision, or at least develop some guidance. Then, if I - or another editor - remove such information, that discussion can be cited as authority for the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Tense

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I have been trying to keep my eye on the article for Grammatical Tense for some time. It currently has a request for an expert. I AM an expert in tense. In fact I am one of very few linguists in the world who specialize in the relationship of time and language. The problem I have is that people who have no understanding of what tense actually is, keep rewriting this article! One user has recently completely gutted an article that was 100% correct and replaced it with a version that is almost entirely incorrect. He and many others keep editing this article on tense to create some sort of mishmash that conflates tense with aspect and mood and several other linguistic concepts which are related to tense but are NOT tense.

It's one thing to write a paper or something for yourself if you don't know what you're talking about, but to edit an encyclopedic article without being an expert in that field is both irresponsible and a bit offensive. Could someone PLEASE help me revert this article back to a correct form and then is there any way we can protect it. I understand the value of anyone being able to edit, but it's quite clear that far too many linguistic articles are being edited by people who don't truly understand the subject matter.

Others have also recognized this and someone has asked for an expert. Well, here I am! I am an expert in tense, please help me share that expertise and protect the readers from this haphazard editing by amateurs! Drew.ward (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this. Can you provide, from the article history, a link to the most recent good version? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The expert tag was added by an editor at the end of August and then modified so it looks like it's as of September. It refers to the Talk page, although there is no discussion about using an expert on the Talk page, just the usual disputes about material. I suggest you - and anyone else interested in this article - look at WP:Expert editors, an essay on the advantages and disadvantages of expert editing. Calling other editors "irresponsible" and "amateurs" is not constructive. You may think you're "one of the very few linguists," etc., but (a) there's no way of verifying that and (b) other experts might disagree.

You'd do better to edit the article yourself, bearing in mind all the usual editing requirements such as sourcing to reliable sources, etc.

Jezhotwells: As for reverting back to a "good version", depending on how much material is altered by such a reversion, it might be better to edit incrementally, or at least raise it on the Talk page first.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. I hadn't suggested reverting back in that manner. I just wanted clarification of when that might have been, in the OP's opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jezhotwells: The last version I can be sure of is a revision I made back in August. However I believe there have been quite a few helpful additions to the article since then before user:Kwamikagami "gutted it" as he puts it.

@Bbb23 I understand that things can be disputed of course. And I would not call someone amateurish simply for purporting an alternative view. However, to edit an article of which you are not an expert is in fact amateurish. The version that user:Kwamikagami has created shows a very clear lack of understanding of the concepts of which he has written. He is obviously intelligent and well versed in linguistic terminology, however he does not understand the various differences between tense, aspect, aktionsart, mood, and perfection. These are the five temporal elements of language and as this article deals with tense, it should be about tense, not about some conflated view that mixes all of these up. The version of this article prior to his changes was cited with references. The references are still there, but the body of the article to which those references should refer has now been changed from an article inline with those references to one purely inline with Kwamikagami's views.

I suppose there is really no way to decide who's an expert and who isn't. But I can say that I have had several papers on this topic cited quite often, have online resources on it that get about 5000 hits a month, and have taught the subject in several countries for going on 7 years now. I am not interested in rewriting all of this yet again just to have someone else come change it to something based on their own views over and over again. I would recommend just reverting back to before the changes by User:Kwamikagami. Drew.ward (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Drew, based on your view, any change by a Wikipedia editor in an area in which the editor is not an expert would be "amateurish". Even if on some level that's technically accurate - and I believe "amateurish" has overtones beyond just "not amateur" - it's not helpful. Wikipedia editing is not restricted to experts on any subject. The idea is for people with good judgment to write things that are supported by verifiable sources. Thus, if you want to challenge material that has been added (or deleted), you challenge it on that basis, not because it wasn't written by a so-called expert. Where an expert can help is (1) in finding better sources because the expert is familiar with where those sources are and (2) certain nuances that for some assertions may be helpful. Even then, the self-declared expert may alter the language only in conformance with the source(s) - the editor cannot add original research, even if it's true. In my view, the biggest problem with the article is not its alleged inaccuracy, but its lack of sources. If you can fix that, the rest should follow.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Anand Bhatt is a platinum selling celebrity recognized everywhere but Wikipedia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a personal vendetta against indian stars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.88.242 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to write about that person. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But you will need to create an account and do some editing first before creating a new article. It would be best then to start an article in your WP:user space. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Or you can place your request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. However, my search at google books and google news I found zero material that would show that Anand Bhatt meets our criteria for a stand alone article. do you have other sources that would indicate otherwise? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bible Reference linking system

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about the Bible Reference linking system. (bibref2). Currently it is being link to BibleGateway. While this was wonderful several years ago, BibleGateway is now owned, and has been for the last two years, by a for-profit company Zondervan (a wholly owned subsidiary of Harper Collins).

I would like to suggest sending the links to one of a number of sites that are still non-profit or not-for-profit instead of one completely for profit.

My suggestion is to link to StudyLight.org. This site has as many Bibles and much more resources for studying the Bible. It is also for the purpose of supporting missionary work in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffLGarrison (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks as this has been discussed several times on the talk page of the related template {{Bibleverse}}. If you'd like to post your suggestion there, I'm sure it will be seen by relevant editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Or you may mean {{bibleref2}}. There has been discussion of this at Template talk:Bibleref2. I see that you also posted at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. It is good practice to not post on more than one forum at a time, so that discussions are in the same place. You may like to invite input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible at the external links noticeboard. User:Afaprof01 created the template. You may wish to talk to them. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How to you appeal article deletion for lack of notability once you find some?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, an article was deleted for lacking any primary sources. Now I find newspaper articles talking about the subject. What do you do? Mathewignash (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Best to recreate the article in your user space and work on the referencing. Make sure that it meets the notability guidelines. You could ask the deleting administrator to userify the deleted article to your user space. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it was deleted for lacking ANY third party sources, then I found 2 or 3 newspaper/magazine articles talking about it, wouldn't that seem to be enough to say it now HAS third party sources? Mathewignash (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but it has been deleted, and the deletion was correct at the time. I have outlined your best course of action above. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The article can simply be recreated if you have solved the problems for which it was deleted, but it's best to check with the deleting admin first. Note also that if it was deleted via a PROD, you can protest the PROD and ask the deleting admin to restore it even after it was deleted, since PRODs are only for uncontroversial deletion. As Jez says, the best solution by far is to recreate it in your userspace (or ask the closing admin to restore and userfy it, bring it up to standard, possibly asking other users to help ensure that it no longer has any problems, and then move it back into mainspace once that's complete. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging the articles Shakshouka and Chakhchoukha on Wikipedia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I really want to merge two articles that have the same thing. It's Shakshouka and Chakhchoukha. The original one is Shakshouka since it deals with the 3 origins of that Maghrebin dish (Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco). The copied one is Chakhchoukha, it's even incorrect as a spelling form, Maghreb People never write this term on that term. But I have to admit that informations provided on these two articles are really interesting. Precious ones! Then, I do believe the article Chakhchoukha should be moved to Shakshouka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midozeus (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to start a merge discussion and list the proposed merger at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Further details there. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Toy line characters article info

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an article about a toy line (Star Wars Transformers) that I had included a section telling the fictional characters in the toy line, and what they did. I was careful not to just make it a list of the toys, but a section about the CHARACTERS and what they do. Another editor came in and deleted the list, citing WP:IINFO WP:DIR as his reason. Is this valid? Mathewignash (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The other editor has suggested that you seek a third opinion which seems like a good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to how to use that feature. (why must every form on Wikipedia be so complicated?) Mathewignash (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: just go to WP:3O and add your request to the list (here's a direct link), with a quick neutral description of the dispute. Sign the entry with just the date rather than your signature, by using five tildes instead of four. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone could comment on the validity of his arguement? Is it somehow wrong to list the characters in fiction in an article about that fiction? It really does seem to be simply two editors who disagree on relivant info, and if this information shoundn't be included because of a legitimate policy, I'll agree, but all I get from him is links to long pages that don't seem to directly address the question, but he assures me I'm wrong and he's right. Mathewignash (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about the exclusion of material that supposedly infringed on IP

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk has recently come up on the Transformers wikiproject as to whether material made by a third party could be mentioned in an article (Specifially a company has opened up that makes add-on accessories for existing Transformers toys). I thought it could be mentioned if it had proof of notability from a third party source. Others have stated that the item in question would suppposedly infringe on Hasbro's legal IP, and therefore should be excluded from Wikipedia based on that alone. While the item certainly isn't particularly noteworthy, so I don't argue to keep it, strictly from a theoritical standpoint, does something that SUPPOSEDLY infringed on IP (and there is no actual proof it does, as no claim has been made the the IP owner, this is just fans saying "Hey, that thing looks like something another company makes!"), automatically get removed from Wikipedia? I had thought that anything with verifiable third party notability could me mentioned on wikipedia as existing, no matter the whether some fans call it a "knockoff". I don't see it as being any different in legality than some non-Chevy company making an add-on part for a Chevy car. Mathewignash (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I have not looked at the particular example. If a reliable source covers the items in question, then I would assume it is fair game to mention it. I would not want to add links to the company that makes the products, tho, since we want to avoid spam. I'm pretty sure that talking about a product that is on the market does not infringe on IP. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My advice to the editor who wanted to add the information was to get some verifable third party sources for it. I think that's enough. Mathewignash (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this the discussion you're referring to? Without looking at specifics, I agree with Nuujinn. Even assuming the company's product infringes on Hasbro's IP (which part of their IP?), a discussion of the infringing product is generally unlikely to violate any law.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's part of why I question the claim that it infringed on IP. Hasbro has never made any public statement about this company specifically, nor have they files any legal proceedings. We can't just assume it's illegal. Moreover if some legal case was made in the future, and it got news coverage, that would probably make it notable and then it COULD be added to Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We have articles about The Pirate Bay and all sorts of things like that. Just neutrally discussing a third party who is engaged in violations isn't a violation in and of itself. It's not even conceivable that encyclopedic text about a third party, even if they are indeed in violation of the law, would be itself a violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconceivable? I don't think I would go quite that far. Nuujinn's comment that a link to the allegedly infringing company would not be a good idea is an excellent suggestion, not just to avoid spam, but to avoid the appearance of any kind of "assistance" to the infringer. For example, I could conceive of a scenario in which Company A infringe's Company B's copyright on Company A's website. Wikipedia then provides a link to Company A's website. Although a stretch, Wikipedia might then be sued for contributory copyright infringement. In any event, it's better to avoid hard and fast legal conclusions, particularly in the abstract.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thing is no one has made any legitimate accusation that the "infringer" is actually "infringing" - besides one editor who says he thinks their products are an IP violation. Hasbro ITSELF has not said they are being infringed, so calling it infringement is really an opinion of an editor, not fact. It would be like having some editor remove mention of Itchy & Scratchy from Wikipedia based on him saying they were infringing on the IP of the makers of Tom & Jerry. Mathewignash (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Manipulation of non-free content

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it permissible to manipulate non-free content that is being uploaded to Wikipedia? This question was prompted by a dispute over the infobox image used at Hannah Montana: The Movie. File:Hannah Montana The Movie poster.png and File:Hannah-montana-movie-poster.jpg are both sourced from http://impawards.com/2009/hannah_montana_the_movie.html. Both have been reduced in size, but File:Hannah Montana The Movie poster.png has had the colour manipulated before uploading. Another example of the poster showing the original colours is here and a slightly different version, sans text, is here. I've been unable to find any clarification as to whether manipulation is permitted. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Manipulation creates a derivative work, which is not permitted under doctrines of fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought would be the case. Thanks for the link. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Calculations Of Population Density

Resolved

– John of Reading (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to find that the figures given for the area, population, and population density of the Isle of Man do not correlate correctly with each other. How can this be? What can be done about it? What other countries and islands are subject to this error? 193.60.63.224 (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this one. This 2009 edit changed the population figure but not the population densities. I've fixed this by calculating new densities; the previous figure did not have a cited source so must itself have been calculated. I've no idea how many other articles have similar errors. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If I had known the answer was so trivial I would not have posted this issue here, I would have fixed it myself! I just assumed that the three parameters were tied together by a concealed equation, which was misbehaving. Apologies, 193.60.63.224 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

block needed

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Schoolblock needed for this (my) IP address.--204.38.122.2 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was blocked for a year and the vandalism started immediately after the block ended. This is the wrong place to report it, but I think you'll find that steps are being taken anyway, and thanks for pointing it out.--Kudpung (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(Why didn't I get an edit conflict?) It looks to me that this could be a request from a school official, which we should honour; see the notice near the top of the IP talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Chennithala

Resolved

– article reduced to a reasonable stub. Kudpung (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Chennithala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seems utterly incoherent to me, to the point where I don't even know how to go about reverting it to something better or what banners to add. It obviously needs cleanup, but it seems to me that something more immediate also needs to be done. Could someone more informed deal with this please? Eewild (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be cut back to a comprehensible stub, but for now I have tagged it with {{Cleanup}} and {{Expert-subject}}. – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. but It still needs considerable cleaning up, possibly by an expert on the region.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

William R. Moses page gone???

Resolved

– Page restored by WSC. Reason for CSD clarified. Kudpung (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

:

Why was this page deleted? He's been in a number of movies including Mystic Pizza, and had a leading role in the TV show Falcon Crest as well as co-starring in a number of Perry Mason TV movies, which is hardly insignificant. Can someone bring it back please? Deviny (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the non-existent link, you'll see that the article was deleted on August 18, 2010, by User:Tnxman307 because there was no indication of notability. If you wish to know more, you may contact Tnxman307 by clicking on the Talk link. See WP:WMD.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just posted there, but his page says he's gone for a week. In the meantime, doesn't anyone have to review someone's decision to delete a page, or even reverse what might be a bad deletion? I don't know what that particular page looked like, but if it didn't contain any "indication of notability" for someone as well-known as this actor, then I would think that the page should just be marked as a "stub" like I've seen for so many other people, not just completely deleted. Deviny (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was an "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Someone must have placed a request for speedy deletion under the above criteria. Feel free to recreate the page, with properly cited assertions of notability. You can always ask the deleting admin to userify the page so that you can work on it. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that someone did something incorrectly (in this case, deleting an article on someone of significance), so now it's up to me to fix that person's problem (i.e., re-creating the page)??? That makes no sense. From what you're telling me, the article was deleted because it was inadequate. I have no idea whether it was or not, since I've never seen it, I only know that a page that should exist for someone of importance, no longer exists. If the page was in fact inadequate, then why does the person who deleted not have a responsibility to verify whether or not the subject of the page was actually worthy of a page to begin with, before deleting it? And why are the administrators of this "encyclopedia" not taking any responsibility in fixing a mistake by one of their own, and instead penalizing the person who reported the mistake by making them fix it? Deviny (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as 'one of our own' - everyone and anyone can edit the encyclopedia, and those are also the people who decide - by consensus - on the rules, and who then delete articles that don't comply. There is no mistake; and articles, especially a biographies, that do not cite a reliable source, will be deleted, and quite swiftly too, however well known and important the subject might be. Do read the policies at WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN, then you can ask any administrator to recreate the page and userfy it in your user pages for you if your requst is convincing. Try talking to admin User talk:WereSpielChequers for example - he knows a lot about BLP issues and he's usually pretty quick to reply.--Kudpung (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who can type and click can edit an entry, but can those people delete a page? No. Page deletion abilities are conferred to selected users, who then apparently are trusted to do the right thing and whose decisions, whether right or wrong, are equally apparently never to be questioned and will always be championed by those who provided those privileges to said selected users. And how can you even imply that everyone who edits an entry here all have equal status? That may have been true in the (very?) early days, but now one has to apply to become something called an admin who can "protect, delete and restore pages" (among other abilities). I don't know if any such similar process is required for a "regular" user to be given just deletion privileges, but surely once such a priv is granted to a user, isn't there SOME sort of accountability at all on how that priv is used?

I will post a note to WereSpielChequers as you recommended, but in the meantime I found an archived version of the page which showed that it was far from being a stub. If it was the lack of references, then why wasn't it just given a "needs citation" tag like the thousands of other such pages that exist here? If the fear was that the existing content was plagiarized, then why wasn't just a "stub" reference made? Why even have the stub marker/tag if it's not to be used at all? The reason given was lack of "indication of notability", which makes no sense given the amount of information and acting roles that were listed there. Were the contents on this archived version NOT present at the time of deletion? And if it wasn't, then shouldn't the deleter have made some sort of effort to do some research before blindly obeying some random user's request to delete a page?

Just to be clear, I do know that Tnxman307 is the only one that can really explain why he chose to delete that page. What I am more surprised about now is that you all seem to have such blind faith in him that you don't seem willing to even question whether his reasons behind this one action were correct or not, or even consider the possibility that he'd made a mistake in this one instance. Deviny (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It clearly was not deleted because it was a stub. It was deleted because there were no indications of the notability of the subject which were supported by references. Why not recreate the article in your user space, find some references and then come back here or go to requests for feedback. Maybe the deletion was a mistake~~, but I think you are beginning to flog a dead horse here~~. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence it was ever deleted. An ip twice added speedy tags, the 2nd time removing most of the content, which was restored today. The 1st time was Aug 18th, but the tag was removed. WeerSpeilChequers simply restored the deleted content today by undoing the IP's edit. What am I not seeing? Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug, it was deleted by Tnxman307 in August and restored by WereSpielChequers today. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

when i look it looks like someone deleted all the text of the article and tagged it for speedy[2] and then it got deleted because it was a page with no assertion of importance or relevance. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened, but why can't I see what happened? I've just started to use the new interfact, I'm clearly missing something. Or have I lost my SPECIAL POWERS? Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

i guess deletion doesnt show on history? you have to go to that other link for deletion logs? [[3] Aisha9152 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment about dead horses. I am glad that the article has been restored and an explanation has been provided. The deleting admin was not neccessarily wrong, but perhaps should have checked the article history. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@Aisha9152 - Yes, for deletion and restoration you have to look in the separate log. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, 'view logs at this page'. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Misdirection of topic

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Show is better than tell; from the main page, search for "nonplus."

The observation may be concise, but it is not unclear. Follow instructions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Picarules (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Resolved

– Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

:

Hi. User Mbhskid520 reversed an edit of mine that I went to extra trouble to substantiate, claiming that there were grammar errors (he could have simply fixed any, if there were), while in effect what he wants to do is push a personal theory of his that the Nicaraguan diaspora has influenced the Spanish spoken not only in adjoining countries, but even as far as Argentina. You can read about this on his talkpage. The postulation is that the speech form of a address voseo is spreading out from Nicaragua. He further refers to voseo as a "dialect", which is not. I did four years of Linguistics at university. It is quite apparent that the user does not understand the voseo/ tuteo concept, as can be inferred from this statement that he makes on his talk page: "Salvadorians use the word equipaje and malleta, wheras Nicaraguans use the word valija. Valija is also used in the Rio de Plata region in South America; while equipaje and malleta are both common words used in tuteo speech" - i.e., he is using the usage of different words for suitcase and linking each to either the voseo or tuteo forms of address. He is also citing the Spanish Royal Academy, but the links he provides say absolutely nothing to sustain his claims. Please see the notes I left on the voseo talkpage. For further reading, please go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_Spanish#Voseo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nicaragua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voseo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Spanish

Two related issues, possibly (NPOV issues): 1. The article Nicaraguan Diaspora makes claims about Nicaraguan immigrants in the US that are not supported by articles of reference, eg, Florida (Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans) and California. 2. Some IP on October 6 at 22:23 went and changed the racial make-up of the country, dropping mestizo from 69% to 50% and pushing up white from 17% to 41%, without leaving any edit comments. Oddly enough this IP has edited other articles to add mentions of Nicaragua (one unsubstantiated, the other falsely attributed a claim to a source that merely mentions a possibility) and he also happens to be from the New York area as is Mbhskid520, according to the WP IP tracking tool. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, I forgot to mention that I have reverted the undo by the user. And apologies for the long posting. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the article talk page. No attempt has been made yet as no discussion has taken place there since April last year, and the Nicaraguan page does not seem to have been discussed since 2005! Seek advice or arbitration when a talk page discussion fails irretrievably.--Kudpung (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks. I'll move the post there. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

article deleted for copyright infringement

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Romania at the 1964 Summer Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello! More than a year ago, I contributed massively to the article “Romania at the 1964 Summer Olympic Games” Going back to it now, I discovered that it was removed due to copyright infringement issues. To my relief, I was not the offender;it was user “Dennis Dhlomo”. I’d like to restart the article;is that possible and how? I’d like to add that I am unaware of the additions made by user Dennis Dhlomo, as I have not checked out the article since. Thanks! Cristixav (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please, if you can work out out to restore a non-infringing version of this article that would be excellent. The article has been blanked, not deleted, and all the previous versions of the article are available via the page history. The copyright message has a link "this is the procedure to follow". If you still need help after reading there, feel free to post again here. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, this blanking is part of a project to remove mass additions of copyrighted material by a user who has now been blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello! It seems I do need some assistance. I noticed several articles in the category "Nations at the 1964 Summer Olympic Games" which are blanked. However, other similar articles are not. I can only speak for myself:I have not copied material from copyrighted sources, just my own listings (as one who has been passioned by sport statistics since childhood) and confronted them with sports-reference.com and the Olympic reports for accuracy. This is seemingly what other non-infringing contributors have done, in the case of the 1964 Olympics and others. I have found the article (in 2009) with only volleyball and cycling listed (sections done by user Darius Dhlomo). Did the copyright procedure against said user regard infringements in this article or was it a mass blanking of everything that he contributed to? Should I copy my edits and add my own listings for cycling &volleyball? Or how else to proceed? Cristixav (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that DD created no fewer than 10,000 articles, and investigation has shown that perhaps 10% of them contain copyright infringements. No one knows which ones, though. The safe legal course, sadly, is to blank them all and gradually identify the infringements and restore good versions of the articles. Full details of all this can be found by following the links displayed by the blanking template.

But it sounds as if you have cracked this one. If you have identified the sections written by DD and can write replacements for them, then it should be safe to restore the article. So only 9,999 to go (or whatever the figure is now). -- John of Reading (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. Almost fixed now. One more question though:how do I find the CCI page? Cristixav (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Category:Articles_tagged_for_CCI_copyright_problems? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of event

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been debating with another user Hilo48 on the talk page Talk: Xavier College about the inclusion of events on the Xavier College page. Hilo48 has added information about a shoplifting incident, and they have re-added it when removed. I have raised concerns about whether the incident is in fact notable and referenced the Wikipedia: Notability (events) page, which to me shows that the events in questions are not notable. However Hilo48 seems determined to keep this information on the page. I am asking for your opinion on whether the events are notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or not.Jim09 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem to be that notable. Many schools have these sort of incidents happen now and again. It does appear that that edit warring has gone on, also possibly a breach of the WP:3RR rule. Perhaps a WP:RfC could help? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing an article in English that is already done in German

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am interest in doing a page on illustrator Don Brautigam. He already has a page in german under the name Don Brautigam, and there is no English counterpart. I'm unsure as to how to start creating a page. Usually you can seach for it, and if there is no existing page you can click the, create page link, but that doesnt come up.

Thanks,

Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadillacFlambe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Don Brautigam has been create-protected, it seems due to repeated recreation in 2007. Your best bet is to draft it in userspace, for example at User:CadillacFlambe/Don Brautigam, and when it's at a decent standard, request that an admin move it to Don Brautigam for you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you may wish to read WP:YFA for advice on creating your first article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing a translation of an article from a foreign lanuage Wiki project is perfectly admissible. You can even improve and add stuff as you work on it. There are however a few thing to be observerd and Wikipedia:Translation has all the details. If you need further advice, particularly when working from German pages, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Alvin Rosenbaum bio

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an update:

Please add the following:

Alvin Rosenbaum joined CDC Development Solutions, a Washington non-profit consultancy, in 2007 as Senior Resident Fellow and was team leader for the World Bank's tourism pilot in Nigeria 2008-2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.60.77 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you need to post this at the talk (discussion) page of the relevant article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to write or SEE an article based on the flight, Flying with the GRAIN

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Only very good winged fliers are able to fly With The Grain, but one can use the wind current to fly faster, but fly slightly sideways and there is something else about getting up in the air with wings up, but I don't have the testing background to complet e that one.

I have seen, ONCE, a perigrine flying with the wind and he flew a mile in less than three seconds flying with the grain. High flexiblity and rigidity is needed. Apply differences between biology and physics.

Please respond.

Darren Baker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Litingg863 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you try creating an article about this yourself if you think the subject is notable? General advice follows:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One mile in three seconds is 1/3 miles per second; or 20 miles per minute; or 1200 miles per hour. Are you sure? 193.60.63.224 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

cannot contact editor

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want you to know that I have been using wikipedia for a long time. NO MORE. I know now that you allow misinformation and cancelling info for political reasons. The word is getting out. Goodbye unethical and dishonest idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.143.215 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Criticism of Wikipedia is the article you are looking for? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Positive bias

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I found on WP a biographical sketch of a financier which contained a very positive bias, based on my knowledge of the facts. I concluded that the biography was drafted and edited by associates of the financier for the purpose of achieving certain business goals that are not compatible with the goals of WP. WP should not be used as some form of personal advertising, especially for people with an otherwise dubious reputation who are trying to undergo an ethical makeover. Please advise on the standard procedure in this case. Editing the existing entry to make the profile less biased will be challenging, a much better solution would be to remove the entry altogether until it can be restored to an acceptable level of objectivity. Thanks. Ciammaruca (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What entry? How can we help if we don't know what you are talking about and when you have never contributed anything to the encyclopedia apart fro the above comment? This page is for editor help, not for general complaints. As John says, Perhaps Criticism of Wikipedia is the article you are looking for.Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obsene inaccuracies in this article.

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_mythology Somebody has tampered with this article on Masai Mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.250.144 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted the vandalism and left the user a warning; if you see blatant vandalism like that again, please feel free to remove it or undo the edit(s). GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 14:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

entry (yours) Talmy Givon

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have approached you several times about this. After someone started an entry for me, one of your editors asked me to contribute professional & personal detail. The first thing I told him was that my name was not "Talmy" Givon but "Thomas" Givon. You may inspect my passport & Colorado driver's license if you like, or my SS card, or my faculty records at the University of Oregon. But you could also have the decency of granting me my own name.

And second, I was not born in Israel, but in Palestine. I was born in 1936. The State of Israel did not come into existence till 1948. How could I have been born there?

You have steadfastly resisted doing these two corrections. It seems to me that professional honesty and plain human courtesy demand that you follow either one of two paths:

(1) You may remove all the professional personal details from the "Talmy Givon" entry, since, quite plainly, they are stolen from myself, Thomas Givon, and the thievery has caused me considerable personal and professional dameage qalready. Or,

(2) You may correct the name & country-of-birth of the entry to "Thomas (Tom) Givon", born in Afula, Palestine.

Leaving matters as they are, I feel, is abusive and dishonest. I hope you do the right thing. If you get me aroused, I am not beyond suing you for the considerable inconvenience, personal anguish and loss of reputation you have already caused me.

Sincerely,

Thomas Givon Distinguished Perofessor (Emeritus) Of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, University of Oregon (<phone # redacted>) (<e-mail redacted>)Talmy Givon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.177.165 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked under no legal threat rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism or legitimate? (Disambiguation page)

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion, so please take a moment to visit OXT. I was searching for the file extension. Please take whatever action is appropriate yourself. Adavis444 (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Done I wouldn't call it vandalism since it was likely added in good faith, but it doesn't seem notable, the link is to an article which doesn't exist, and it's certainly not notable enough to warrant a paragraph at the top. I've removed the paragraph and the link. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeffries

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello there , I have been directed to wiki by some guy who has posted criminally defamatory and slanderous information about me Ronald Jefferies.

It apears the article was removed by wiki but the cache still holds the content. Ill post this below

I request for this information to be removed and the poster be banned from wikipedia for posting such a comment on your site. He has stated that he will repost hundreds ofsimmilar articvles so i think he should be banned before this can occur.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter. Kind Regards, Ron Jefferies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonJefferies (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the link and the quote you provided to avoid bringing any additional attention to it; I'll see if I can get it revdelled for you, so that it will only be visible to admins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury wiki page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a very simple, and non-controversial suggestion...

On the Freddie Mercury wiki page, in the paragraph called Tributes, after the sentences...

"A statue in Montreux, Switzerland (by sculptor Irena Sedlecka) has been erected as a tribute to Mercury. It stands 3 metres high overlooking Lake Geneva and was unveiled on 25 November 1996 by Freddie's father and Montserrat Caballé."

I suggest the following addition...

An inscription on the statue, written by Brian May, reads "Lover of Life, Singer of Songs", later used as the title for a compilation of Mercury's solo music.

The above information comes from the CD booklet of "Lover of Life, Singer of Songs". It is my feeling that this would add to the article.

Thank for for your attention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.249.81 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it :) You don't need to be a registered user, but be sure to follow the standard instructions for editing, and to complete an edit summary so others will know what you have done. --Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on the Ace of Base page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a edit war that I would like to get a editor to look at.

The two male members from Ace of Base, Ulf and Jonas has started a new band with two females as vocalists, Julia and Clara. They promised a different name than Ace of Base for this constellation to calm the fans. But this name turned out to be "Ace.of.Base" (yes, with dots as the only change) This change is of course so subtle that most media (and even themselves) doesn't spell the dots out.

The two female members in Ace of Base, Jenny and Malin who also own equal shares in the trademark Ace of Base, has not given their approval to being replaced by new girls. On the contrary; Jenny has made several statements in interviews and on her Twitter that Ace of Base is still her, Malin, Jonas and Ulf and that the other formation is another band, that should use another name.

There is clearly a name dispute, and Ulf and Jonas are trying to impose as Ace of Base although this is not possible legally since at least one shareholder has officially disapproved. Therefore this alternative setup of "Ace.of.Base" should go on its own Wikipedia bandpage as a different band. It is in my opinion very misleading to delete the current Wikipedia Ace of Base page of Malin, Jenny, Jonas and Ulf since that line-up still exists.

On the talk page there is a discussion going on, where I have valid references for all my arguments, but a certain someone is reverting my article information repeatedly without any verifiable facts or references to motivate it.

One of your administrators Hersfold has approved the information on the Ace.of.Base page, and acknowledged the fact that the new constellation in fact is a different band.

I'd be thankful for a third opinion! Allyearlong (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. First off, where the difficulty at Wikipedia is usually finding suitable sources to use as references, this article is totally over referenced, with as many as six inline refs for some statements, and two or three for many others. What you need to do is go through those refs, and throw out any that do not comply with our guidelines. Refs such as all social networking sites, (Twotter, YourFace, directory listings, IMDB, MyTube, LinkedOut, LinedUp, LaidDown, PhotoBucket, forums, dubious e-zines whose content is likely to fluctuate, private and sell-published web sites, blogs, and freely collaborative record reviews, venue concert calendars, gigs in bars. When you are down to the sites that genuinely meet our criteria for reliability at WP:RS, look to see if the subject or the claim is really mentioned in depth, and is relevant to the Wikipedia article. A one-line listing, or a simple fleeting mention of the subject's name on a website about something else, is not really RS at all. When you have decided what refs to keep, format them properly so that they display correctly (no naked URLs, etc). Then take another critical look at the article and cut out any information that still cannot be traced to a reliable source. It may seem as if I haven't answered your question, but as everything you describe relies on third party sources that say them, you'll have a much clerer picture after you have done all the pruning.--Kudpung (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another editor refactoring my comments

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] I removed some of my comments from a talkpage thread which got sidetracked -- intentionally by one of the editors, I believe, since he has done so in the past. Another editor restored them [5], which I soon reverted. Then the disruptive editor reverted my revert [6]. I believe this is a violation of TPG since my first revert included my objection to doing this. Can someone neutral please advise? Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to remove anything from a talk page unless it is grossly obscene, contains violations of our WP:BLP policy, or is otherwise grossly violative of our policies, etc. Such removals are to be reverted. Per WP:TPG, "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement....Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to retract a statement, you can use the <s> tag to mark it as struck--that way people can follow the discussion but you have made it clear you thought better of your comment. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The place to begin resolving issues like these is on the contributor's talk page. Escalating to here or to another notice board is when polite discussion fails. Editors can generally do what they like on their own talk pages, within TPG of course, but deleting relevant discussion comments would still considered bad form.--Kudpung (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic Aperture Radar

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have recently added considerable content to the early half this article, since I am one of the few surviving persons to have been involved in its early development in the 1950's. I would like to add a couple of images showing two of the levels of quality achieved during that period. Somewhere in the hundred or more pages about Wikipedia's "easy" editing that I have downloaded I found one comment about restricting images to 800 by 600 pixels. So I now have those on hand as files. What I have not found is anything about how to insert such images and their captions. The couple dozen "help" links I have tried to follow have only led me to dead ends, mostly about copying other people's copyrighted images. Surely there must be some others who provide their own images. How is it done? Oldteched (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's all here: (click the link) Wikipedia:Upload, with straightforward, easy to follow instructions. You can also access the page by clicking the 'upload file' link in the toolbox section on the left sidebar of every Wikipedia page. If you get stuck, ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also be sure to take a moment to understand the copyright and licencing requirements Wikipedia:IMAGE#Obtaining_images Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, and for promptness (I expect tipping is against Wiki ethics). However, I'm still stuck, as we were so often in the MSDOS days, when we learned everything about it like a baby -- put it in you mouth and see what it is like. If you live, rate that experience and put the next thing in.

I got as far as finding that I should type (I don't dare use the symbology here) a double square bracket, the word "File", a colon and a vertical line, some kind of image name, a vertical line, something called a thumb, another VL, a caption, and two more square brackets. Unfortunately, none of image name, thumb, or caption is in Wikipedia's Glossary. Caption, however, was easy, and did show up in the preview, but that was all. Trying what seemed equally easy, the complete file name of my image, accomplished nothing, and I left thumb blank for lack of any idea at all of what to put there. So, more help, please?

I'd like, with the friendliest intent, to remark here that Wikipedia seems to have become, not just an encyclopedia, but a culture, with its own language and mores (especially the language). Without immersion in it for some time, one can't cope alone. It also necessarily suffers in many ways from the same keyhole vision that afflicts all computer operations. We old-timers (I'll shortly be 88) miss a real 3 by 5 foot (1 by 1.7 meter) desktop to sprawl papers over. Apparently today's kids can memorize what's on all those hidden sheets. I worked for years red-penciling such sheets, which was a fairly clear process. When I can see at one time only one of four active media items: an article, its edit version, its preview version (none labelled as such on the screen) and the material I have created off-line and want to enter, I sometimes get lost and even lose part of an edit, so it has to be re-done. There, that's been said.

By the way, I find gold on white to be illegible.

Oldteched (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also grew up in the days (although more recent) when computer was a word we had to look up in the dictionary! I am in the process of answering your enquiry in more detail on your talk page. I hope it will help. And yes, I agree that yellow text is not compatible with readability conventions for text on white backgrounds. Perhaps a slightly more orange tint would lend more contrast and do the trick.--Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Misspelled Article Title

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has misspelled the title of an article. is there anyway to change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeespanks (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A registered user can generally move pages via the "move" tab on the top of the article. Or you can request a move at WP:RPM. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you quite certain it's misspelt? I have deliberately chosen a different form of even that word - misspelt - to highlight that different English speakers around the world spell words quite differently, but quite correctly in their own version of English. The most frequent ones are words ending in -or in US English being -our in UK English, and -ize endings instead of -ise endings. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Original poster is discussing Kung Fu Live and a request to move to the vanity typography Kung Fu LIVE. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could Coffespanks please be precise and mention what article he is talking about - there are no -or or -our differences in Kung Fu.. If the poorly referenced Kung Fu Live article is indeed the subject of this enquiry, it might be better to await the outcome of the prposed deletion. With proper references the real name of the product will become evident, and redirects could be created to cover any similar search terms.--Kudpung (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal Name Changes

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am referenced in a couple of articles: Video Game Journalism and Acrophobia. In each of these I am referred to under my old legal name "Anthony." Can these be changed, as my legal name was changed in 2004? Even if it needs to say "Andrea Jennifer Shubert (formerly Anthony Shubert)" or something similar.

I looked for examples on Wikipedia but couldn't find anything concrete, so I turn to this page for help. --Andrea Shubert (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My intuition is that it would be perfectly valid to say "Andrea Jennifer Shubert (as Anthony Shubert)" analogously to when an actor is credited under a stage name. --Danger (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's an actual reference (as in, referencing work by you), it's most useful to show who a given piece was by as they were known and received author credit at the time. It would be quite confusing for a reader to see the name of one author, go to the source, and find it appears to have been written by someone else! So for references, the link must at minimum mention the previous name, pen name, etc., if that's what the author credit was under. It may not be a terrible idea to have the new name in the way you mention, either—that does make clear that the "two" are in fact one and the same. But it most certainly does need to include the author's name as credited somewhere, whether that be in the "formerly" parentheses or what have you. It could not just be changed outright. There would also need to be some independent confirmation that you have changed your name, in a reliable source or similar—unfortunately, we generally can't just take someone's word for that, since anyone could claim to be you. (That's not to say that I in fact do doubt you are who you say you are, just to let you know why we do require this.) Especially given our biographies of living persons policy, we absolutely must have independent confirmation that information about a living person is true and factual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the articles, via the convenience links above, you will see that these are not citations as such, but mentions in the article texts: viz. "This evolved further under Horwitz and Usenet-based publisher Anthony Shubert[" (referenced to usenet group rec.games.video.misc) and "Created by Anthony Shubert in the mid to late 1990s" (referenced to a 2007 book by Karl M. Kapp). There should be a reference to the name change if it is going to be in the articles, but I am not sure if one can be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm speaking in a more general sense (I can't even seem to locate where the "Acrophobia" reference to Shubert even is). In video game journalism, however, while the name is in the article text, it effectively seems to be a form of author/publisher attribution—it's basically used only to introduce a reference. Given that, it seems in a large sense to be part of the reference, as it's effectively introducing it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

what is original research

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

hi i am in the middle of a discussion at the page for Paraprosdokian, where i think that all of the examples listed count as original research since there are no citations showing that they are actually examples of what the article was about. isnt that what original research is? the writer has to decide if they are truly examples for themselves and this causes a lot of problems where people remove and add only because of what they think not because of anything verifiable. please tell me if im wrong in how i see original research thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A better place to raise this question might be Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. The editors there deal with this question regularly. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks Aisha9152 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Look up WP:OR for a description. It's basically when someone writes something from their own research, or their own local knowledge, that can't be confirmed by anyone else until it has been published somewhere else, peer reviewed in a journal, or sources can be found linking it to something that has in fact been published already.--Kudpung (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

AIDS denialism article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Article AIDS denialism is woefully POV, but "scientific consensus" has been asserted. This consensus does NOT exist, there is powerful controversy that has been increasing for decades. Article cannot assume that "HIV causes AIDS" is the correct theory, despite several users and editors who loudly object to any changes in that direction. I feel like this is way too much for one person to handle; I suggest locking the page at the last revision I've made until the disagreements can be settled. Article may be a candidate for deletion in accordance with WP:NPOV, as well, although this may be preemptive.

02:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.79.225 (talk)

This is a textbook example of a fringe theory which is in contradiction to the actual scientific consensus. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "No, it's not, I can't hear you when you tell me that" is not going to change this fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard Gittis page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Huge Wikipedia fan - but have a dilemma with page for "Howard Gittis."

Mr. Gittis was Ron Perelman's lawyer for years; he passed away in 2007.

Unfortunately, his ex-wife is flaming him constantly (and libelously) on his Wikipedia bio page. Her handle is "Alicebackwards" and here is a sample of the over the top verbiage she's using:

"...With the result of a paramour's refusal to abort a pregancy, threat of paternity suit, Howard financially supported his fourth illegitimate daughter, albeit with restrictions, under the law. Howard never recognized thus issue with his surname during his lifetime. To protect his family upon his death, he did, provide in his will to the extent he believed a court would award."

This is both legally inaccurate and astonishingly hurtful to the child, who is currently a minor!

For the record - Howard Gittis never was threatened with a paternity suit; he loved and never hid his daughter; he even paid close to $500,000 for her Bat Mitzvah. The ex-wife who is now defaming his and his daughter's names has had no legal connection to Mr. Gittis since their divorce on October 21, 1995.

I'm a friend of the family; hoping this matter can be peacefully resolved. Is there any way to bar Mr. Gittis' ex-wife from defaming his name and offspring? FWW, I have attempted to edit the page - but Howard's ex-wife keeps changing it back to the hurtful language I've posted above.

What can be done to stop the ex-wife here?

Please advise. Thank you.

--johndesihits John DeMarchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndesihits (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) — Johndesihits (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Several editors, including me, have made a stab at cleaning up the article, including removing the contentious, unsourced material. More work needs to be done, but with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in mind as to style and verifiability.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please block Boggwiki!

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please block the troll Boggwiki (talk · contribs) - that is NOT me!--Buggwiki (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a good reason for this request, then please consider reporting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with Anderton, Lancashire article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am seeking help in follow up to a comment left on the discussion page of the Anderton, Lancashire article. There is a flag on the article suggesting it tone is not on keeping with wikipedia however the person who has added that via an IP address has not stated psecific converns or made suggestion as to how they feel the article can be improved. Need help with this.--PL.-Snr (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any specific justification for either the tag or the edit summary comment. I have reverted the edit. However, I am not an expert on the locality, please check the article carefully for hidden vandalism and integrity of linked references.--Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find out what the speed of light is on Wikipedia, but...

Answered

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Speed of Light" article states that the light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second. The definition of a metre is 1 / 299,792,458 of the distance light travels per second. So what's the distance light travels per second?

I'm reading 2 unknowns and am supposed to make a known somehow, but I can't make the connection. An example of how I'm looking at this is "Q:How long is a foot? A:2 half-feet long. Q:How long is a 'half-feet'? A:Half a foot. Q:How long is a foot......."

There are other measurements on the page but all are clearly stated as approximations of the speed of light.

64.247.141.154 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Phill

Your question is kind of open-ended. Can you be more specific about what you want to know? In what unit do you want to know the speed of light? Also, your question is probably more suited for the science reference desk. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 186,000 miles per second? I learned that in kindergarten 58 years ago, but maybe it slowed down since together with my brain ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair question. If you get an answer that doesn't beg the question, report back here. I'd like to know. Anthony (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'll have to accept the Imperial units of measurement for the speed of light because the "metre" is defined as the distance light travels in metres in 1 second with 9 decimal places (zeros) before inaccuracy is encountered, and the Imperial units have actual objects that are used as a reference for inches/feet/miles. I was hoping for an extremely accurate length in any unit of measurment (other that something based on itself), like a method/result to measure precicely 35 to 40 decimal places (effectively Plank's lengths (which is measured in metres also)) of accuracy (just for argument sake, not a concept of me actually measuring something to that extent), but if the world has accepted 9 decimal places of accuracy for metric lengths then so be it, I'll learn Imperial measurements. Thank you for your responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.141.154 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole issue exists in your imagination. There is no way to describe a speed (or most other physical quantities) without units. You can't just attach a number to it. Using units means describing the ratio of the quantity you're interested in (in this case, speed of light) to some well-known quantity (in this case, the meter). A measurement of the speed of light is given in meters per second, because meters and seconds are widely used, well known units. A definition of meters per second is given in terms of the speed of light, because the speed of light is a well known (and constant) physical quantity.

You seem to think these two definitions are, together, meaningless, but they aren't: They mean that any quantity you've measured in terms of meters per second (the speed you walk, the speed of continental drift) can be compared to the speed of light. To whatever precision you've got them measured.

Existence of reference objects for these units doesn't help here: There are reference objects for the metric units as well as the customary units; and the current definitions of the customary units are in terms of metric units (since 1959, a foot is defined as 0.9144 meters).

Your concern about precision is also misplaced. The reason these values are given to 9 decimal places isn't that the world has decided to "accept" shoddy accuracy for metric lengths. It's because the measurements have only been accomplished with so much accuracy. I don't see how one could hope to measure the speed of light, or pretty much any other physical quantity, to 35 or 40 digits of precision.

The article Speed of light discusses the definition of the meter in terms of the speed of light, and the impact it has on measuring the speed of light. -- Why Not A Duck 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The 9 significant digits are exactly correct per definition of the meter. The speed of light is constant, and a second is currently defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom", i.e. it's defined via another natural constant. The metre is the only derived unit here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 299792.458 km/s ? And then closing this debate at the speed of light?--Kudpung (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)