Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:52, 17 July 2012

Archives

• v
• t
• e

Previous requests & responses
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132 This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Other links
Teahouse (for new users) Help desk Frequent requests Talk Third Opinion Incident Noticeboard

Posts have been deleted several times, even after being approved by an editor!

The information about State Youth Orchestra of Armenia has been posted on Misplaced Pages several and has been deleted every single time! Once even approved by an editor, it has been removed after some time! The article is written with appropriate amount of links and references!

Why do our posts get deleted all the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYOArmenia1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (Moved from talk page to this page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

The only requests which I could find are those listed here which were declined because they were made in the wrong forum and in the wrong method. Please see the instructions at WP:AFC on how to submit an article, but I would note that Youth State Orchestra of Armenia already exists and, if it is the same organization, could use improvement. I note that your account has been blocked. Your username must be for you, individually, only. A name which implies which you are editing on behalf of a group or organization is unacceptable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Youth State Orchestra of Armenia, it appears that you are trying to make the article into a promotional piece, which is not appropriate. You should not extensively quote every review of a performance. LadyofShalott 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Data

Greetings!

The wiki page for Marycrest College indicates that it is / was located in Toledo, Ohio.

This is incorrect. Marycrest College has always been located in Davenport, Iowa.

I noticed this error when facebook linked the educational information on my info page to your article, and it now shows this incorrect location on my facebook entry. I have never been to Toledo, Ohio, nor was Marycrest ever located there.

It would be wonderful if someone could correct this on your Marycrest College page. I do not know how to do this.

Thank you.

Tom Nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.7.30 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You also asked this at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Incorrect Location Listed for Marycrest College and someone has answered there. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been more than one Marycrest College. The Iowa one, founded in 1939, was originally named Marycrest College, became Teikyo Marycrest University and finally Marycrest International University. That school closed in 2002 because of financial shortcomings. We can't help you with Facebook mixing up the Marycrests. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with a hoax

This page for an upcoming cartoon series is a hoax. No sources on the page are listed and a quick Google search for "new Parappa cartoon" turns up nothing. I marked it as a hoax and proposed it for deletion, but then my edits were reverted by the creator of the page. I need some advice on how to deal with this.--Dr.Starky (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for speedy deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dr.Starky: Let me just supplement that by saying that, unlike a proposal for deletion, which you tried, the page creator does not have the right to remove a speedy deletion nomination from the article himself. If he does so, it will likely be replaced (though I will not be surprised if the article is deleted before he has a chance to remove it). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response guys!--Dr.Starky (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous acronym in title

Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment (SPIRE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I just made this page and moved it from user test to article. I would like people to be able to search Wiki for SPIRE and get to it, or at least to the page of potential SPIRE hits since it is ambiguous. how could I go about making sure it comes up in a search?

Thank you Beth

Hi Beth, The page has been moved to Systematic Protein Investigative Research Environment. It needs essentially a complete rewrite to remove promotional language, properly source it, and make it comprehensible. Right now it sorely lacks context, is filled with unexplained jargon and still reads like a commercial despite that I have removed some overt peacockery. Regarding your question, you listed it at Spire (disambiguation). That is how people will reach it who type in "SPIRE", if it's not deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Very important

Dear Sir/Madam, kindly, I want to divert kind attention towards an issue which is very important for us, all Muslims so kindly address this big mistake. Mistake is that you wrote the spelling of Muhammad as Mohammad which is a very abuse for us, all Muslims so plz correct this mistake in the whole Misplaced Pages.We ere kindfull to you as you are repespecting our feelings. Thankx alot. Javed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.128.15 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I am puzzled, surely the spellings in English are transliterations from Arabic to the Latin alphabet. Are there two spellings in Arabic, one of which is considered offensive? SpinningSpark 09:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There are more than a dozen English spelling variations. This issue has been addressed before on Talk:Muhammad/Archive_2#Mohammed.2C_Muhammed.2C_Mohammad. The intro to the Muhammad article lists several variations: "Muhammad (c. 570 – c. 8 June 632); also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; Template:Lang-ar, full name: Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Template:Lang-ar)". Other variations are "Mahommed, Mehmed, Mehmet, Mahomet, and (Latin) Mahometus". Of course, Misplaced Pages follows the sources, and spelling is not required to be uniform across all of the encyclopedia, but should be consistent within each particular article. I would suggest to our friend and fellow editor Javed, that Talk:Muhammad might be a better place to raise further questions on this issue, and there are volumes of archives there that touch on this and related issues.
Peace be unto us all. —Telpardec  TALK  12:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Georg Andreas Böckler

Was trying to find a place to point out an article problem I don't have time to deal with, but couldn't actually find anywhere for that sort of thing. This was the closest I could find. Anyway, the birth and death years are inconsistent on Georg Andreas Böckler and de:Georg Andreas Böckler. I think I can see why (the en-version is an earlier, 'years active' range and later research has uncovered the more precise dates in the de-version). But I'm not 100% sure, so leaving it here so others can see what they think. I suppose I could have posted this at the article talk page, but that might not have got a response. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article talk page is the right place. Here, we generally give advice to editors about what they can do. You could also try contacting other editors who have contributed to the article(s. You can find out who the contributors are form the article history here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article creator edited twice in 2011 (may be more active on the Dutch Misplaced Pages). See my notes left here and here. Is there really no general noticeboard to request help from other Wikipedians with article questions? I'm actually willing to work on the article, but was trying to find someone to help with that. I often spot problems or mistakes, and if I don't have time would love to drop a note off somewhere to ask others to have a look. Is there nowhere for that to be done? Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Content editing and improvement is very much up to the people who have created, edited, or seen the article - Misplaced Pages is the encylopedia any one can edit. The article is not tagged for any glaring issues, so if you unfortunately don't have time to address the birth/address problems yourself, you may wish to leave a message drawing attention to them on the relevant section of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. Hopefully someone, somewhere, will eventually pick up on this. I think you are still missing my point. There should be a general central location to point out things like this. Talk pages (decentralised) and wikiproject pages (centralised by topic) are all very well, but there are people who use (i.e. use, not edit) Misplaced Pages daily as part of their working day (e.g. looking things up), and spot problems, but don't have time to fix them. There should be an easy way to point out such things to a group of people who are willing to follow up and try and help out. I could easily supply about 2-3 such instances a day. Sometimes when I get home I have time to fix them, sometimes I don't (and sometimes I'm not quite sure where to start - identifying a problem is not the same as identifying a solution). Sometimes I leave a note about it, sometimes I don't have time even for that. If I spent my entire time following up such things, I'd have little time for anything else. The logical thing is to hope that others are willing to help out if someone takes the time to make an initial report (and no, I'm not going to use article tags to 'report' such things). The main problem is that such a service would soon be overwhelmed. Possibly a mailing list or off-wiki forum would be a better option. I have in the past sometimes pointed out such things in passing while asking questions at one of the reference desks, which sometimes does see the article fixed by someone who know something about the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but as a sysop and a former arb,and with over 60,000 edits to your credit, you probably have far more experience than most of us - at least on this help desk ;)

I'm not exactly inexperienced myself, and one of the concerns I have expressed in the past is that we have too many different hep desks and noticeboards - a new user can't see the wood for the trees. My suggestion at one time was to introduce a standard ticketing system (we use something similar at OTRS) where someone forwards the inquiries and suggestions to the right people, or the right people pick of the right enquiries. But change and improvements, as I'm sure you've also noticed, are very slow. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, though it is also easy to lose track of where things are and where to go, even with the experience of years of past edits to draw upon. One thing is for sure, the wiki doesn't stand still and things change over time. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I'll also raise this on a mailing list for meta discussion.

Before one can have a central location to report article issues, one must first have a corp of editors who are willing to service it. Without that, it is about as pointless to complain about it as it would be to complain to Oxfam that they are not doing enough to feed the hungry. Do you know of such a corp or how to recruit one? Editors generally tend not to want to edit any old article that is thrown their way, but only those that are within their field of interest. The best places to find such editors remain article talk and the wikiprojects. I know that is not the answer you want, but it is a fact of life of volunteer projects. Unless of course you are willing to offer money, or other rewards, in which case attitudes might rapidly change. SpinningSpark 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're complaining about anything - just making suggestions, and it's good to see so many admins posting regularly here at EAR which is not strictly an admin territory per se. Each noticeboard already has its core of 'resident' operators - for example, here at EAR is where I reside (and occasionally at OTRS), and I very rarely stray into others, not even as an admin to AN/I for example. The problem is the plethora of noticeboards/help desks with which the less experienced user is confronted. Perhaps a central ticketing point would get its own core of regulars - OTRS works quite well, where the agents pick and choose what they want to answer, and can subscribe to lists of particular kinds of enquiries. Agents also farm the enquiries out to the right departments. There is also a stock of template replies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

By setting up a ticketing system, you are declaring to the world that all tickets are going to be actioned in a reasonable time. Are you sure there are the editor resources available to service it? In my opinion you need to get a large group of experienced editors to commit to it before going public, otherwise it will merely disappoint and discourage those who try to use it. SpinningSpark 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I was neither declaring anything, nor being sure of anything at all. It was a mere suggestion. If I felt strongly enough about it I would propose it at RfC to test the climate. I haven't. That said however, we have plenty of users who have committed themselves to working quietly away in the background at OTRS - an endeavour, furthermore, that gains neither laurels nor recognition for anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this conversation still going? :-) Probably best carried on somewhere else. I've sorted out the original request, by the way, with a bit of help from others. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review new and improved section

I took the section "Main Themes" in the Six Million Crucifixions article page and edited it to address the issues raised, namely neutral point of view and more and solid resources. Can an editor kindly take a look at the page now? If OK then please remove the warnings on top of the page. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look and checked the sources. I still do not see how the sources support, in depth and number, the criteria for books at WP:BKCRIT. Please also take another look at WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung. I commend you for your eagerness to hold Misplaced Pages articles to a high standard. What troubles me, however, is that for some reason the Six Million Crucifixions article seems to be held to a much higher standard than many other articles about books. For instance, the article originally made reference to many comments made by well-known scholars, but were removed because the critiques or comments were sent to the author and published on the book's back cover instead of being published in reputable journals. Yet many Misplaced Pages articles about books reference the books themselves, their web sites, or flaps or back covers. The article was also criticized for not having enough or good enough references. However, this appears to be a double standard as doing a cursory perusal of some other books in the same categories as Six Million Crucifixions shows many books whose notability can also be questioned (based on the criteria you quoted) and which have few or no references. Some even reference their own web sites, blogs or even their Amazon page as reference (which are apparently all unacceptable and were all reasons used to excise previously used references in the Six Million Crucifixions article).

See the following examples:

Denying the Holocaust --> no references

The Paradox of Anti-Semitism --> 1 good reference; 1 broken reference

The Politics of Anti-Semitism --> 2 references pointing to the same book

Eichmann in Jerusalem --> 1 good reference

Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy --> no references

The Zookeeper's Wife --> 1 reference

Pave the Way Foundation --> 28 references, of which 7 point to a page not found and 12 point to their own web site

Most of these articles, and I'm sure I could give many more examples if I searched a little more, are short and provide little useful information and as noted have less valuable references than Six Million Crucifixions. Therefore I respectfully suggest we either do a major cleanup of all articles about books in Misplaced Pages, or we use the same standard for the article in question here. In any case, I searched some more and added some more information in the Critical Reception section that gives it a more balanced perspective, including two new references. Hopefully in light of all this we can finish the article by removing the label on top. Thank you. Esautomatix (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read other stuff exists. There may well be far more terrible articles, but they have no bearing on the one being discussed here. You are welcome to start a cleanup campaign on book articles if you have the time to spare. SpinningSpark 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Spinningspark. We urgently need help with many book articles that may have escaped the critical eye of our more experienced editors. Books are notorious for wanting to promote themselves through Misplaced Pages. (I have taken the liberty of linking the pages that have been referred to). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Varonis Systems

I'm contacting you with the regards to the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/Varonis . This page contains information about the company Varonis Systems, a competitor of Whitebox Security which I'm representing. I was recently contacted by a potential customer who wanted to let me know that he tried to edit the above value (Varonis) and add information about possible other/competitive solutions to Varonis as he thought this will be a better service to public knowledge (which of course makes sense). After he tried to add this information, the information was removed by some other user. He tried again, the information was removed ­ again. Knowing this should not happen, I actually try to add the same information to the Varonis page and it seems that it is automatically removed.. (take a look at the history page to see immediate removal of information after making changes ­ repeatedly..) 1) I'm not sure that automatic delegation of information is Ok with your policy. 2) I think that keeping this specific information out (competitors for a company) is actually not for the benefit of the public and creates pure advertisement within Misplaced Pages..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneisnottheone (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor was correct in removing the links to Whitebox security. Please read our policies on what external links are acceptable, which you can find here and in this case only the Varonis page should be linked, as the official page of the company which is the subject of the article. Links to other companies would be unacceptable per WP:ELNO specifically section 4: "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." Valenciano (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the external links should not be in the article, but that is really a side issue to the question being asked. The main question is, is it acceptable for an article about a company to mention its main competitors? In other words, if the contribution had been unlinked, would it then be acceptable? For instance the Pepsi and Coca-Cola articles both mention each other, as well as other products. Another question is are the competitors notable enough to deserve a mention. Some of them do not even have a Misplaced Pages article. A much more serious issue in this article is the edit warring going on in the article which needs to stop. In any case, I have now nominated it for deletion as non-notable. SpinningSpark 22:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer, as usual, is in the references; if they don't mention the competition, why should the article? If only a mention, I'd leave it out, but if the references make comparisons, evaluate for includeable sourced material. The competition being available in one additional color is trivial; being available in any color requested might not be. Misplaced Pages:WHAAOE = Competition between soda brands. Dru of Id (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

About to attempt a merger proposal. Need to clarify if it is necessary?

I previously nominated Ell & Nikki deletion because from my opinion I felt that it wasn't necessary to have an article about them because they are not really a group but just 2 separate artists who collaborated together for a song, "Running Scared". Also they now have two separate articles, Eldar Gasimov(Ell) and Nigar Jamal(Nikki). My main purpose for creating an AfD was to create a discussion between many users about my opinion. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion didn't turn out as a planned. All I received instead were responses from users telling me that it was a waste of time and I should be reviewing WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E instead before it was closed. I admit that it was big mistake and I should've just taken this to the talk page of the articl instead.

Since no one replied to my input in the discussion I asked the non-admin to re-open it and hopefully get users from other Wikiprojects involved but this also failed and I was told that I was going against consensus. But I still had doubts so I decided to create a new section at the Notability (music)'s talk page. Thankfully other users manage to give me the response I wanted and suggested that I should propose a merger for Ell & Nikki to the "Running Scared" article.

So do you guys think that a merger proposal would be necessary? Bleubeatle (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, this isn't really the venue for complaints. That said, there was a clear consensus to keep, and informed editors were among the voters, so I would be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. If every kid who was a runner up in (Your country) Has Talent or X Factor now gets away with having their own page, I'm pretty sure that the winners of Eurovision should have one, and I think you should be guided by CT Cooper's comments. Don't let that dissuade you from continuing to edit and create great new articles. If I were to get perturbed by something like this, I would have retired 20 times by now ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Um I didn't really intend my post to be a complaint but I'll take it that you don't think that its necessary then? Also I kind of understand what you are saying but the main reason why I had this doubt was because while I was looking through the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners I realized that the winning song of 1994 was sang by two artists. So this sort of gave me some doubt about Ell & Nikki if they were even a group or just a collaboration(like Kanye West & Jay-Z, Brandy & Monica) and if "Running Scared" was sang as a duet or by a group. I know that each winner deserves their own article but I also believe that these two people (Eldar Gasimov and Nikki Jamal) deserve to be recognized as solo artists who collaborated together to win and not just as members of the group. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They are recognized as solo artists via their separate articles covering their solo careers so I dont really see your point. Anyway I think that the discussions so far has provided a clear consensus of keeping all three articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't we gone through all this several times in the past now? How many times and how many people has it to take for the message to sink in? A consensus was built to keep the article. The user cast several assumptive allegations at many users, stating people where "out to get him" and "not being able to read their comments", and was told by admins not to do so, and despite that the user still continued to accuse people of all sorts of ridiculous tittle-tattle. Furthermore, the user always stated that they have "no intentions" to have an article deleted, and yet in their own words posted above has contradicted themselves by saying "unfortunately, the deletion discussion didn't turn out as a planned". If anyone has no intentions to have something deleted, then why would they nominate for deletion in the first place? Doesn't a nomination clearly demonstrate every intention to have something deleted? This discussion about Ell & Nikki was dead and buried a long time ago, and I fail to see why the user just can't take the advice that has been repeated numerous times from a plethora of editors about letting it drop and move on. Wesley☀Mouse 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that a similar discussion was held at Wikipedia_talk:ESC#Ell_.26_Nikki_-_nomination_for_deletion_discussion where Bleubeatle received several informal warnings about his behaviour towards editors. Wesley☀Mouse 20:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for withdrawing this remark. Though for future reference, if you wish to withdraw comments after other users have responded, please strike them instead per WP:REDACT.

I am actually somewhat open minded about the proposal for a merge; it was the way it was done that bothered me. I would be happy to have another discussion on the issue, although to be honest, the way things went with the previous discussion means that opposition has hardened and won't be dislodged easily. The only place that a consensus will be reached for a merge is at Talk:Ell & Nikki, with the involvement of all interested parties - neither this page or any other can be a substitute. So if you wish to start the discussion on a merge again, you should open a new thread. Personally though, I would wait a bit longer (maybe a month or two more) to allow the dust to settle fully first. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CT Cooper for understanding my true intents. That's why I was asking this here. I'm not sure if its ok or not, to go ahead with this yet. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the issue involving this discussion above has been moved to Wikiquette assistance's page. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A request for an article

Please reply or recommend

@ParikhRutul

Resp Sir/Ma'am,

I am new to Misplaced Pages and want to know if I can get information on medical topics such as Celiac Disease and so.

I found about Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism but want to have dedicated article about 'Comparison of Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism' as the symptoms are almost same in both the diseases and it is hard to decide what one is suffering from.

I know the best answer is to consult a doctor but I just want to have an article so that I can have more trustworthy knowledge so I can go for consultancy without fear. Some times, diagnose varies from doctor to doctor so it'd be more useful if the article makes it on Misplaced Pages.

Thanks for your kind support and time for reading this query.

Hope I get the reply soon. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.86.251 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Celiac Disease and Hyperthyroidism:- Symptoms of these 2 disease may overlap but, in general, are different. Some families have both celiac disease and hyperthyroidism but usually it is only 1 of the 2. I suggest that separate articles on each topic are needed if not already present but not the 2 diseases in 1 article. Signed: an MD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfaichney (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The articles on Wikipeida are Coeliac disease and Hyperthyroidism. SpinningSpark 19:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

fiachna

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

I recently made contributions to this topic and all were deleted except 1 adjective. That is o.k. but I believe all my contributions had validity and would like to discuss a way in which they can be presented. Thanks very much. Jfaichney (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Which topic? Fiachna — is that what you meant? — is a disambiguation page that points to several closely related topics. In any event, the place to raise any questions about an article is on that article's "Talk" page. As you should have read at the top of this page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) You can see the comment left by the deleting editor in the article history. The best place for discussing such things is on the article talk page (Talk:Fiachna) or directly with the editor (User talk:WikHead). I suggest you do that before making any more edits to the page. The reason your contributions were removed was that the page in question is a disambiguation (dab) page. Such pages are intended to help users find the correct page amongst similarly named pages. We keep the information on such pages to a bear minimum to make it easy for users to find the right page.

However, in my opinion, the page is not really a dab page since none of the articles linked are about simply "Fiachna". The dab template should be removed so it no longer shows as a dab. This title should clearly be an article discussing the name. We sometimes move out the list of people to a separate page with a name like "List of people named foo", especially if it is long. See, for instance David (name) and Jones (surname) for examples of how to construct name articles. SpinningSpark 19:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help me understand what is going on here!

Please help me understand what is going on HERE.

Sixa369 (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sixa369. As this is a Commons talk page, I suggest you ask for help at the Commons Help Desk. They have different talk page guidelines over there. --NeilN 04:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Roundhay farm

I don't see any of my family's history here. I am trying to track my family for life threatining medical reasons. They owned Roundhay farm. The Goodalls, although my great aunt was Dorothy Goodall (nee Hill). Can you provide me with any info?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.214.180 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to try the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk for an answer to your problem. They will want to know such basic things as where this farm is/was! (Remember, this is a global project; there are farms from Australia to the Yukon to Florida to Dumfrieshire to Cyprus to South Africa to Sri Lanka, just to name some places where English has been an official language!) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please edit this page

Hello please can you edit the page "shrewsbury town" the badge of the football club is wrong, vandals behind the campaign to reinstate an old badge have placed the incorrect one shown in the article. The correct one is on the article at the bottom ... the round one with a lion in the middle.. minus the 125 year scroll Can this one be placed there and set so it can't be removed

Thank you. Salopian123 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I put the 125 year anniversary logo in. That matches the official website. If it gets reverted then edit war over it. Get all involved blocked, then seek consensus after the blocks expire. That is the normal procedure here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of confusion I think I finally got the correct logo at the top of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

American films

--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for all your works!

I'm thinking this web page SEVERELY needs a new column: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_American_films_of_2012 )

Please add "DATE OF Release" column for this page so people can sort the list BY DATE, because every time I visit this page I really need that feature and I'm sure every other person Needs/misses that column/feature.

THANKS IN ADVANCE... Your work is greatly appreciated

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.203.180.44 (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been answered at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Please Edit This WebPage !!!. It's usually best to ask a question in only one place. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the column and put the first two dates in. You need to click the link to each movie to find the rest. I think the rule is to include the first release date, no matter which country. You add them at the end of each section with a space, two pipes (||), another space, and then the date as I have done. I agree that you should have only posted in one place. Many don't like 'cross-posting' at all. You are new so all should be forgiven.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving a page

Im trying to move this page Imam Husayn Shrine to Imam Hussein Shrine, but it has a redirect. How do you make this move? Please dont forget to describe how. Pass a Method talk 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark the redirect for speedy deletion using Template:Db-move. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

Users Andreasegde and ip 99.251.125.65 are attempting to disrupt a discussion here. Some admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. ~ GabeMc 01:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No admin action necessary, and if it were, this would be the wrong forum to ask for it. Perhaps someone ought to write to a former (the) Beatles or to a former Beatle or to their agent and get the whole issue clarified once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Emotional_reasoning

IMHO, a better (more relevant more obvious more commonly experienced)example of Emotional_reasoning is overeating/eating unhealthy

it feels good to eat but it is obviously unhealthy

obesity is a more relevant more obvious more commonly observed form of Emotional_reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.121.57.10 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

George Dantzig's Students

Can you help me understand why so many of George Dantzig's students are commented out in the HTML? Including me?

Thank you for your assistance,

Robert Entriken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.69.12 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

According to the documentation at Template:Infobox scientist/doc, the usual rule for these lists of doctoral students is that only those with Misplaced Pages articles should be visible to the reader: "If a student does not have a wiki article, then comment the name out". This rule was followed when the list was first added in 2009. Other editors since then have not been so careful. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading information

The following subject is presented on this page after failure of having any resolution on the matters involved - and which I first posted on a Dispute Resolution Board (about a disputed wording of a certain sentence). My post on Dispute Resolution was later transferred by a Misplaced Pages Editor John Carter to Reliable Resources/ Notice board, giving it a new title of his choice, appearing on the index of RS/N as 4."Riverdale Press blogspot". A lengthy and circular discussion about the subject took place and it was was futile to have any result in sight. In addition, there was apparent avoidance from all Misplaced Pages Editors (and who barely participated in the discussion) - to give an opinion about a raised by me matter regarding a ceratin source dealing with a court case in the subject, and which was misleadingly presented in Misplaced Pages article Soka Gakkai. For these reasons I believe it is justified to present the matter here asking for assiatance.

The location of the subject in concern is the following: On Soka Gakkai page, section: Perception and Criticism, the following sentence appears: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance and proselytizingpracticed by some of Sōka Gakkai's members.” This is the sentence of dispute. As I mentioned, the dispute was as if put under carpet, and with no conclusive opinion and was ignored both at the Dispute Resolution and later at the Relibale Sources Notice Board.

/1/ The first part of the sentence makes doubts about ‘religious tolerance’ through employing as a supportive source: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source gives an information published in March 2011 about a court case of a staff in Soka University who allegedly claimed discrimination because of her age, and also because of her religion. The Court, however, dismissed the case in April 2011. The involved editor Catflap08 who posted the misleading sentence knew that his information is half true but he criticized the court’s decision (on the RS/N) and refused to delete his accusative and unsubstantiated allegation about 'religious tolerance'. In my consistent enquiry I was asking whether it is within Misplaced Pages Policy or Guidelines to give a misleading information about a court case, by treating the accusation as a valid argument to support a sentence in Misplaced Pages article, and knowingly ignoring the decision of the legal system in the matter. No one could answer this question. Editor John Carter completely avoided this importnat matter first through giving my enquiry a different title and then by not answering any of my question about catflap08 disregard to the Legal System on Misplaced Pages pages. This is unresolved matter. I request a decisive resolution to delete the false claim about 'religious intolerance' supported by a disregard to the court's decision!

/2/ The second part of the sentence speaks about ‘proselytizing’ giving 3 sources. I have no objection to the book or PDF based sources (which meet Misplaced Pages guidelines), but I objected to other sources which are tabloid type of rumor spreading news. The two sources which I believed that they do not meet credibility requirements are:

(a): http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html

(b) http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600

The first source (a) has now disappeared from the disputed sentence (but the editor involved, Catflap08 mentioned that it will return, regardless). The title of my Enquiry at the Reliable Sources/Notice board (being: 4 Riverdale Press blogspot) was borrowed from that particular source and which is now only temporarily withdrawn. .

The article of source(a): http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html is an article which admits that it is treating a rumor – and that’s why I objected to its usage.

The other source(b) mentioned above is a copy-and-paste TV news taken from the source (a) about the rumor. This source(b) still exists in the second part of the disputed sentence. Its origin or replica (being source a) was temporarily withdrawn, but the same information about the rumor still exits now in source(b), which clearly acknowledges that the investigation has not finished yet. Why would Misplaced Pages Editors accept a rumor based story which was under unfinished investigation, as a reliable or credible information?

My enquiry was whether it is proper to use a source - considered by editor John Carter as reliable – but which acknowledges that its information was specifically dealing with a rumor. The word “rumor” was repeated twice by the writer of the blog. Other sentences in his article acknowledged that the rumored story "had no credence". This quality of references (a) and (b) were/are effectively put on a Misplaced Pages article in a sentence treating the rumor as a fact, and supporting rumor based accusation regarding ‘proselytizing’, and which is apparently unsubstantiated. My question here on whether it is within Misplaced Pages policy to agree on using a source - even if it was a reliable published journal – but which speaks about a rumor, as a reference to validate (or support) a claim as if the rumor was about a valid fact, in a sentence in Misplaced Pages article.

Finally: my disagreement with the Editors Catflap08 and John Carter who could not come to a conclusion about the two mentioned matters (explained in /1/ and /2/) is now presented to your evaluation and taking decision on what to do. Regards. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note for other editors: Please note also User talk:John Carter, User talk:Catflap08, User talk:SafwanZabalawi and the mentioning of the issue in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and in the archive of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard as well as Talk:Sōka Gakkai and on a related matter in Talk:Nichiren Shōshū. Thank you.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note for other editors: I request that the focus will be solely on the subject under the title "Misleading Information". Welcome to view the background which I initiated at the RS/N (and which failed to produce any result). However, the focus here is not on individual matters but on Misplaced Pages guidelines concerning /1/ disregard to a court case decision as mentioned above, and /2/ on spreading rumors through Misplaced Pages as mentioned above with background, evidence and direct links.

I understand that the focus on this matter here is what comes under the title of "MIsleading Information". One of the reasons why the subject came here and failed at RS/N - going into circular comments - was the diviation fron facing the centre of the matter, through mixing issues, confusing subjects, and criticising the messanger. Catflaps above invitation to add and mix with other pages, completely unrelated, such as a suggestion to confuse the current focus with - a completely unrelated - Nichiren ShoShu or whatever personal matters he may have - this is only to diviate far from the focus. Let's face the reality of the mentioned 2 matters with clarity in light of Misplaced Pages guidelines. RegardsSafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated history section

The article East Sahuarita, Arizona appears to have the entire history duplicated from Sahuarita, Arizona. Is there a copyright concern about possible missing attribution (cut and paste)? Should the history be removed from the East Sahuarita article with a link to the other article? Raymie (t • c) 09:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no cut and paste content between the articles at all; no history duplication. Maybe you're taking this from the fact that the articles were created at the same minute of the same day by one user? If you look at those two creations (1, 2), it perfectly confirms much easier than you can for most articles that there was no cut and paste move as the content of each is tailored; the user prepared these offline each with different content and clicked save page in succession.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. That was my first impression though. Raymie (t • c) 18:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ERROR ON YOUR POST

Hello my name is greydougz their is an error on one of your info regarding the lists of asian countries RUSSIA is included on the list of asian countris.. I have copied the ling http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Asian_countries_by_GDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greydougz (talk • contribs) 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of Russia is on the Asian part of the Eurasian supercontinent.

See? It's the northern-most country. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the Caucasus Mountains range is the demarcation. Correct me if I am wrong.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Waratthaya Wongchayaporn

Could someone please help me to remove the "|-" at the bottom of the page? There must be somewhere redundant markup, but I was not able to locate it. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks ‎Spinningspark--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Edit Policy Question

Hello,

I am new to Misplaced Pages and may not be up to speed on the editing policy thus asking for assistance. I got a message from Ground Zero indicating that my article are not in compliance. First, it would be helpful to give you a background. I was looking at a wikipedia page that relates to Puntland and Somaliland dispute. I want to give a historical background on the region and highlight the context. My suggestions are getting reverted back. Also, the editor is asking for user authenticity. I live in the United States and believe like any other user I can provide feedback. My understanding is that pages can be enhanced. Can you please check my latest changes and let me know where I fail in proving my point. I appreciate your time and assistance. My username is Somalilander21 and the article in question is Puntland and Somaliland dispute.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somalilander21 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a policy, but the page that will be most helpful to you here is WP:BRD. In essence, you should now discuss the issues with the other editor on the article talk page. By the way, it makes it much easier for us to answer questions like this if you provide a link to the article in question and a diff to any particular edits to be discussed. SpinningSpark 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rowan Robertson: Subjective Editing / Editing Based on Personal Preferences / Editing Based on Erroneous Semantic and Language

I'm writing with respect to the Rowan Robertson article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Rowan_Robertson). I used to be fairly active on Misplaced Pages and every now and then check articles of interest. When I notice substantial changes to some articles it raises red flags. One user in particular, and his edits on this particular page raise concerns. The user is http://en.wikipedia.org/User:L1A1_FAL. I'm glad to see some of his edits have been undone and corrected but fear this editor has been credited with too much authority and agency for his or her judgment. Here are the edits that I feel are of concern:

(cur | prev) 21:35, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,631 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (→‎Reunion with Ronnie James Dio unrealized) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:34, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,627 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Lock Up the Wolves) (undo)

Given everything below - I'm perplexed as to what editing took place here with these two items above.

(cur | prev) 21:33, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,624 bytes) (-607)‎ . . (→‎Career: think we can divide this as dio years and post dio - no need for a heading for every obscure band) (undo)

Thinking one can do something should result in a suggestion - not a decision based on a subjective view. If each section for each band could be elaborated on and fleshed out - why is this person taking the initiative of whacking it out of the article?

(cur | prev) 21:27, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,231 bytes) (-2,098)‎ . . (manually paste large edit due to edit conflict with bot edit (date, spelling format, italicize titles, overlinking and more)) (undo)

This person is overriding bot edits - few editors take the liberty of doing this or do so without substantive scrutiny from other editors... this is troubling.

(cur | prev) 20:54, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,302 bytes) (-636)‎ . . (→‎AM Radio (2001-2004, 2006): remove entire paragraph that didn't say anything of value - just speculation and original synthesis) (undo)

"didn't say anything of value" and " speculation"??? Where does this person get off editing facts as speculation? Has anyone else had issues with this editor?

(cur | prev) 20:48, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,938 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (→‎With DC4: delink - no page exists for either album) (undo)

If the page doesn't exist, an editor should take the time to research the subject and create the page - not hack content away: this is one issue with Wiki editors - it's quite easy to edit articles from the point of view of hacking things out rather than from the point of view of writing them. This is one reason I stopped wasting time here... we're supposed to continue building this as a resource for information, not sit and comfortably lacerate the work done by others. DC4, as far as I can tell, is an established band that tours and has produced two or three albums. All the band members are well established and recognized within their ***genre*** (a word this person struggles to understand).

(cur | prev) 20:47, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (17,946 bytes) (-38)‎ . . (→‎DC4 (2006-Present): redlinks and cut crap) (undo)

This person has made a subjective decision - they think something is 'crap' and they proceed to remove it?

(cur | prev) 20:45, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,984 bytes) (-462)‎ . . (→‎DC4 (2006-Present): again, genres are not proper nouns, remove peacock phrases, cut irrelevant crap. Article is about Robertson, not DC4) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:38, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,446 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎AM Radio (2001-2004, 2006): genres are not proper nouns) (undo)

This person does not understand the meaning of "genre" and this is a huge concern. A genre is a category or type of thing. This person has deleted important content based on this disturbing misunderstanding (it is this type of mistake that results in some people taking Misplaced Pages as lightly as they do).

(cur | prev) 20:38, 8 May 2012‎ L1A1 FAL (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (18,446 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Reunion with Ronnie James Dio Unrealized: CN tag, and UK spelling for materialise, since Robertson is an Englishman) (undo)

The subject's nationality bears no relevance in the type of English used in the article. The only detail of importance is consistency.

Could someone please address this? Could someone please restore the items this person has hacked off this page and allow a pool of editors to discuss the merit of the items? For the love of God! Misplaced Pages has turned into an ego trip for people with too much time on their hands rather than an endeavor to add information and research things thoroughly. This person's taste for this *** genre *** of music is not enough for them to do this. I will be checking all the pages they've worked on in a few weeks and will continue to question similar actions. It's my hope the Misplaced Pages community will take the time to do something about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreBigBrotherThanYou (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot to sign, it's been quite a while folks...--MoreBigBrotherThanYou (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

An easier way to view the edits you're discussing would be giving a WP:DIFF. I believe these are the edits you're talking about.

The largest amount of material was removed in this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit.

The spelling variation was fixed by another user, and it is a human error, not some grand crime, for L1A1 FAL to have used a barely different variety of English.

Regardless of your opinion about the edit summaries, he was removing material that did not meet this site's guidelines, such as WP:Verifiability and WP:PEACOCK, and material that was just bad for the site, like (red) links to articles that do not exist. You really had no basis to speak against his calling certain material crap, because you don't know what he removed, and you don't know why he removed it. Also, he said that genres are not proper nouns, which is correct. Genres do not name an individual and unique object or being, such as Jupiter or King George. Genres are adjectives describing a type of noun, either music, movies, books, etc...

Here at this site, we assume good faith with other editors, which means trying to work things out with them (in a civil manner), instead of talking about them behind their backs. What L1A1 FAL's taste in music are does not matter, so there's no point in you bringing it up. Don't be so paranoid over edit summaries, try taking a look at what he did before criticizing him.

And before you criticize Misplaced Pages, maybe you should try being a part of it, instead of pretending to be some savior against imagined corruption.

If you wish to contest his division of the article into Dio and post-Dio years, Talk:Rowan Robertson would be the appropriate place do to it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Ippocratus

Hi, I'm Ippocratus. was very difficult and tiring for me to create that page, since English is not my language. I assure you that I treated the character, is well known in France and Italy. He is without doubt a personaghgio public, as it is for example your Dan Peterson I know because many years ago he participated in several television shows in my country. But I assure you that today, apart from the entry relating to him on Misplaced Pages, or news articles about him in Italy if they are not, perhaps because no one considered it appropriate to include them on the internet. But this does not make him a character that does not exist, but he is just a public figure known to the other culture. I thought that the purpose of Misplaced Pages was just that: remove cultural barriers. I'm sorry, but apart from the books I mentioned, I have not found in English more. My character has participated he, like Peterson in numerous television programs, and programs of cultural studies, by us, I repeat, is well known, but I do not know how to show these programs or make you see the newspapers and weekly magazines that talk about it. Accept the photo? This page was created by me, not promotional, it mentions only one method. Surely now is incomplete, but I was hoping to perfect it over time (certainly not in 8 days) and with the help of other people seeing it, have contributed to it, also adding to their personal knowledge, in a spirit Wikipedian, where everyone gives a little of themselves to the universal knowledge. Basically this is the difference between the old encyclopedias, and our dear multimedia encyclopedia. My work commitments and the upcoming summer holidays, do not allow me to dedicate myself to improving the page, for weeks and perhaps months, only yesterday I found time to devote to it. Again, it does not advertise anything and not bother anyone, I hope you do not erase it, because it is a matter of general public utility, not a product with references on where to buy it. I hope that reading my message, do you know the right choice, and in any case, I salute you and thank you warmly. Long life to Misplaced Pages!

sincerely, Ippocratus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippocratus (talk • contribs) 09:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what character you're talking about. What page did you try to create? Did the page have reliable sources (as defined here) so the page would meet the notability guidelines (as defined here)? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If your concern is for Positive Self Talk Against Panic, the instructions on how to proceed to save the article are on your talk page. SpinningSpark 18:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Misha B requires her own page

Misha B was a contestant on X factor UK in 2011, her career and coverage has moved on positively to warrant her own page, but it keeps getting removed.

How many areas of notability are required for an internationally known music artist (inc. an artist from a national televised music competition need for their own page?)

Does Misha B have enough notability to warrant her own page.

• 1 Has been placed in rotation nationally by a *major radio* or music television network .
• 2 Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. *
• 3 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. (Lots of internet music press stuff)
• 4 Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
• 5 Has received lots of reliable internet music press coverage*
• 6 Has won or *placed* in a major music competition.
• 7 Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. etc etc

Zoeblackmore (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

An artist in a group would need more, but she needs to have only met one of those criteria, provided there is sufficient independent in-depth biographic coverage in multiple un-related reliable sources. Not the same thing covered by BBC1 and BBC2 (related). Not press releases (promotional). Not copies of her official bio in multiple places (Self-published). Not her publicist, social media, blogs, fansites (not reliable sources), name drops in other coverage, or directory/track listings (not in-depth).

To address *6, from above:Win (1st), Place (2nd), Show (3rd), Napoleon's 'everything else'. Dru of Id (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

issue resolved Zoeblackmore (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Propriety of "autobiography" tag

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

Thes article is autobiographical. (The only other major editor is the subject's spouse.) The subject seems notable. The article is well sourced, and, while it may be a bit thick with detail, appears to be largely free of the sort of puffery and self-promotion that often finds its way into self-authored articles. That’s all to the good and I think that the author has done a creditable job of maintaining a neutral tone. Nevertheless I tagged it as an autobiography because – well, it’s exactly that. “Neutrality” and “autobiography” seem to me present an inherent conflict. Plus I figure that even if there’s no obvious neutrality issue, there may be non-obvious ones (see WP:Autobiography). To my thinking, readers who come across this article are entitled to be alerted to the fact that it is self-authored and may – emphasis may – not be neutrally presented. It also alerts editors who may know something about the subject area (I sure don’t) to review and assess the article to if it needs revision.

The principal author and subject has asked, quite politely, if I would remove the tag. (Begins here.) I agree that as autobiographies go, the article is pretty clean, and I want to be fair to the author, who is acting in good faith and appears to be striving for neutrality. So I’m putting the question to a larger group to see if a consensus emerges. I’ve alerted the author to this discussion and hope he participates. JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Friends,

I am the autobiographer in question. JohnInDC graciously admits that I have done "a creditable job of maintaining neutrality." I'd go further (naturally) -- if I hadn't more or less openly signed my edits, no reader would have suspected that the piece is autobiographical. I'm hoping that a consensus emerges that agrees to remove the tag that marks my entry as autobiography. Such a tag, I think, will almost always be seen as a kind of lethal scarlet letter by the average reader.

Sincerely, Bill AdlerIllbadler (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

John, before I read the article, do you have any specific concerns related to neutrality? But with regards your basic proposition that editors have a right to be informed the article is an autobiography, I actually disagree, since that practice is not followed anywhere else. Few would entertain putting a disclaimer on George W. Bush that the article was written by Democrats, nor would we put a disclaimer on List of UFO sightings that it was written by a skeptic (just examples; I don't know if either case is true). Now obviously, we would put disclaimers on those articles if they were non-neutral. To me, this follows the general principle that articles are meant to stand on their own merits and those of their sources, rather than those of their authors. Readers who wish to know more about the authors have always been free to read the history. And now I go to read the article...Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no specific concerns, no. I do take issue with your analogies, however. I would expect a disclaimer if the sole or major contributor to the George W. Bush article were an employee of the RNC (no matter what the article might say) or on the UFO article if it had been written entirely by someone who prominently claimed to have been abducted by aliens (again no matter what it said). If as you contend, all tags reduce to neutrality or the manifest absence of it, then why do we have autobiography or COI tags at all? They'd be completely redundant. Part of the problem, as I see it (consistent with WP:Autobiography too) is that neutrality can be compromised by what is not said, as well as by what is said. And where the subject of an autobiography is not that well known, the only person in a position to know what is in or is out, without researching the issue, is the (inherently interested) autobiographer. There is really no good way to tell by just looking at an article whether it's in keeping with NPOV; and even assuming that the article is fine today, it may not so fine tomorrow - and remain untagged because in one iteration it bore no obvious flaws. I think that when the only person who cared enough or knew enough to contribute to the article is the article's own subject, readers and editors should be made aware of the fact so they can appropriately adjust the credit they'll give the article. JohnInDC (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now spent a bit more time with the article and would like to revise what I said earlier. I do have some specific concerns. I'd alluded to a bit of "heavy detail" in my original posting, and now as I am giving the article a closer look, I think some of the material need to be pared down. Just by way of example, the "Mouth Almighty Records" section contains a good deal of (meticulously sourced) material about the CDs released by that label and the artists, but little or nothing about the subject of the article. I'd reduce that section to a sentence (and take out the CD links to Amazon). Other material, such as the "Christmas releases", at the end, border on the trivial. Several of the references are, upon examination, simple assertions of fact or elaborations on the text, with only passing and perhaps tangential references to actual 3d party sources. (See notes 18-28, 52.) There are also a lot of refs to off-line articles, and while that is proper, it does make it hard to check the article against them. Again I am not suggesting that the subject is not notable, that the article is hopelessly infected with self-promotional language, or that the author has acted in anything but good faith. Rather I am concerned that one's understandable enthusiasm for one's own work and accomplishments can color or slant an article in ways that it would not be, were the article written in the first instance by a disinterested person. And I think that has happened here. But all that being said this remains a matter of judgment and I am not altogether comfortable diving in and removing material that is not manifest puffery, given too the obvious effort that the author has put into it. I think the article needs some work. I do not feel qualified to undertake the task, except on a fairly superficial level, and thus think the tag is appropriate in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

John, You're welcome to edit down the Mouth Almighty section yourself, although I'd argue that if all the detail about individual CDs isn't ABOUT me (the subject of the article), it all REFLECTS on me as the founder of the label. Also, nearly all of the CDs on Mouth Almighty were by artists far more notable than I. Writing about them in my entry allowed me to link to the (more substantial) articles devoted solely to them, which is, I'd say, a service to the reader.

On the subject of a "disinterested" writer or editor, I'm not sure such a person exists. Writing and editing are hard work and there's not much money in it. (And, of course, in the case of Misplaced Pages, there's neither money nor a byline in it.) Accordingly, I believe that most people don't bother to write about subjects about which they don't feel passionate -- pro or con. Given that passion, the first job of a writer for a encyclopedia must be to mask his passion in the guise of "neutrality." I agree that that's a good idea, but I have no illusions that Misplaced Pages's writers are not only anonymous and unpaid, but disinterested as well. Were you right to flag my entry as autobiography on general principles? Yes. Would you have flagged if you hadn't seen how similar my username is to my actual name? I don't think so. Why? Because, like virtually all of Misplaced Pages's contributors, I was able to mask my passion for my subject.

Best, BillIllbadler (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up request

Hi, can a more experienced editor assist me in cleaning up an article I recently created? I can't seem to get the logo I uploaded to appear in the infobox. The logo itself needs attention too, as I'm not sure I've applied the correct license tags. Thanks in advance : Surinaamse Brouwerij Parbo Bier Logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAdler (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad Ladjevardi

I would like to write about a person by the name of Ahmad Ladjevardi, the founder of the Behshahr Industrial Group, who was a successful pioneering investor, producer, and distributor of a variety of consumer goods in Iran, at a time when centralized conglomerates of this nature were rare. However, immediately after the Islamic revolution, the Behshahr Industrial Group, among others, was nationalized by the government. Because of the failure of the now government-run companies, including Mr. Ahmad Ladjevardi’s Behshahr Industrial Group, the Iranian Parliament sponsored research into the strategies and the methods adopted by the Ladjevardi family in their business enterprises. Subsequently, a book was written by the University of Tehran Publication Center (College of Social Sciences) on the successful management of the family’s business-related endeavors. I request your permission to write about the efforts of this family in Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Lmohajer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmohajer (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

History of BBC television idents

History of BBC television idents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I started the article back in 2005, but since then it has become something of a controversial collection of fair use images. It has been through the deletion process twice (the second nomination was my own) and been kept, but I'd like some opinions from uninvolved editors on how the article should progress and what the best course is for dealing with the images. Cloudbound (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AIDAN Southall obituary gaps

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

I have just read the wiki obituary on Aidan Southall and I am surprised at the comment that he had no impact on anthropology because he was an Africanist! Where do anthropologist who count work? Why is his extensive work on the State not acknowledged when it has been widely discussed by Indianists and Meso American archeologists? His interests in Madagascar are totally ignored. Lastly he was not born in an impoverished family but the family became impoverished by the death of his father from cancer.

Please contact me if you have further questions.

Christine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaworie (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article (not an obituary as such) doesn't say that: what it says is 'Despite being relatively unknown in the world of anthropology, Southall's work is more “diffuse than that of some more prominent British figures”, as he spent most of his lifetime in Africa', quoting Anthropology Today. I think that the wording is a little unclear though - it might be worth checking the context of the quote, and clarifying it. The article appears to be well sourced, but if you have further sources, feel free to edit it yourself (citing your sources), or if you prefer, raise it on the article talk page: Talk:Aidan Southall. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can get access to the Anthropology Today article myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Kemper

http://en.wikipedia.org/Edmund_Kemper. Under Reference Books, the link to the author Don West in his book, Sacrifice Unto Me, is the incorrect Don West. The author is my uncle, now deceased -- born 17 April 1928, died 13 August 2004. I don't know how to delete the present link of the incorrect Don West. See, also, http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Don-West-former-Examiner-bureau-chief-2732257.php for source material. 184.61.224.166 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman on Misplaced Pages

FYI morgan Freeman starred in the movie Guilt By Association released in 2003. The movie is not listed in his filmography. i just watched it on Hulu. It is a good movie which i believe needs 2 be cited. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustJai58 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not IMDb; we make no effort to have complete filmographies for performers here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder page needs editor help

Can some unbiased editors please help on the DID page. Thank you ~ty (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am pleading now! I need some unbiased help. Editor WLU (t) is calling for his extreme POV friends to attack me soon. Please read what he wrote this morning. I don't want a battle. I just want an unbiased page on DID. I am totally open to help from unbiased editors! See his last note under Howdy. This man has so many friends on WP and so much power it's been impossible to work without being completely micromanaged by him in the past - so much so that I don't think I have actually ever even had one edit stay on the page until now. In this paragraph titled "Howdy" he plays victim, which is so far from the truth it's insane. Those that oppose him usually get banned from the DID page or give up and go away. This might be the wrong place to take this, but the admin board is where many of his friends hangout. Please give me advice! ~ty (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums