Misplaced Pages

sorry for no sign in but I deleted section that seems inaccurate and only wonder who entered this information as it is not contained in the referenced article

sorry for no sign in but I deleted section that seems inaccurate and only wonder who entered this information as it is not contained in the referenced article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.52.233 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If the reference does not support the contention in the statement, then when you make the edit, provide an edit summary that say so: "Ref doesn't support statement" or the equivalent. Just don't delete something without explaining why you're doing it. Better yet, if the information seems likely to be correct -- and that information does -- mark it with a "citation needed" template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr

you are in violation of wp:3rr...once again, and you will be reported. --emerson7 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect and have counted wrong. We'll see what happens. In the meantime, I've posted on the Park Row Building's talk page, where a discussion on the relaive merits of the two layouts can take place. I note that you've reverted again without commenting on the talk page. I've asked you twice, via edit summary, to discuss your changes on the talk page, I would appreciate your doing so now, on this third request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have left Emerson7 pointers to this page and to the article talk page, using "tb" templates on his user talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

hi. i just wanted to know if you realize that you behaved in the way you claim emerson7 is behaving, on Gem Spa. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

hi mrssun. out of curiousity, have you edited wp under different user names? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

pic

Hi ... I just saw the good work you did with images on the Park Row article, and was wondering whether you might have some advice for me, as you're clearly more able in this area than I am. I've been working today on an article entitled The Power of Half, which is now up at DYK, and would like to add an image of its cover. Could you help me understand how I do that? I don't see a free image in our image database. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There probably won't be a free image, as book covers are generally copyrighted. The thing to do is to upload it here (not on Commons) under our fair use rules, which will be fine as long as it goes into the infobox. Keep the image under 300px in size, and add this text to the image's information, instead of the usual information summary:

{{Non-free use rationale
 |Article           = The Power of Half
 |Description       = book cover
 |Source            = <!--fill this in: "scanned from book cover" or the URL of the website you downloaded it from -->
 |Portion           = all
 |Low_resolution    = yes, the width is <!--put the width of the image here, make sure it's 300px or under-->
 |Purpose           = for use in the infobox
 |Replaceability    = no free images are available
 |other_information = 
}}
{{Non-free book cover}}

If you don't already have an image, search Google Images, find one that's 300px or under, download it to your computer, and then upload it to Misplaced Pages. That's about it -- if you have any questions, or if I've forgotten something, please feel free. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That was perfect! Much better than what appears on the book wikiproject page. Many thanks ... I've done it. A bit fuzzy, but much better than no image at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- quick question. I have an editor who has just left me a note on my talk page complaining that I have done what you suggested I do above. The editor is not what I would call "in good standing" on my talk page -- he has recently been blocked for disruption on my talk page and hounding, and even that followed my request (and his apparent refusal) to no longer post on my talk page. That aside, any other comments for me before I delete his message? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor is techically correct, but in my opinion is being overly pedantic. (What a surprise to find that kind of person on Misplaced Pages!) As far as I am aware, most people understand that "for use in the infobox" means "to visually identify the subject of the article" or whatever wordage the editor used. Per WP:BURO I don't think it's absolutely necessary to change what you did (on my advice), but it certainly can't hurt to do so, especially if you think the editor is likely to make a fuss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- images issue; AN/I

As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not familiar with the entire background of your dispute with Wjemather, but I do hope that my advice to you didn't help to exacerbate an ongoing situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, this is simply the latest in a series of similar instances. As detailed in part at the AN/I and at his prior block, there is a year's worth of it. WJE shows up at some obscure part of the project, moments after I have edited there, at a page he has never edited. And reverts me or attack my edits.

This, despite his protestations (as reflected at the AN/I) that he is not fixated on me, and that he "certainly" has no desire to get into any conflict with me, and that he "cannot be any clearer on that".

I had a creepy feeling come over me today. In looking at his edit log, I saw not only that the pages I edited which he was attacking me on were way outside his areas of interest. But also that, by a 2-1 margin, he left more talkpage messages for me than for any other editor. Even though I had told him I didn't want him to leave me any tp messages.

Anyway, on the image-add details, I do very much appreciate your advice. Another senior editor who deals with images (but does not like drama) left me a note saying that your analysis was spot-on. In that what you had suggested was clearly a sufficient rationale. And, of course, just the quickest of looks at existing images on wp confirmed that many thousands of images use precisely the rationale you suggested I use.

I see that one lone editor keeps on challenging that view (as to proper image rationale) at the AN/I. Perhaps some experienced editor active with images who watches your page or watches AN/I will have a view of their own, and will chime in.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonnie Poe?

Why hello Beyond my Ken. I Hope all is well im just wondering where on earth did you find out that rare information about Bonnie Poe? i would really love to know.Bayoneta (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Bayoneta, good to hear from you. When I saw that you stopped editing in January, I thought something might be wrong, so I'm glad to know that's not the case.

In regards to Bonnie Poe, I think you've misread the diffs, since I didn't add anything to the article. The IP editor User:99.59.87.102 added some stuff, all I did was to make copyediting corrections to the English. Since the information is unsourced, if you think it's inaccurate you should remove it, but check first with the IP to see if they're willing to say where they got it from. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Report on User ID Robertp6165

Hello. My name is Robert Perkins, and Robertp6165 is my user ID. I don't log into Misplaced Pages very often and just today noticed you've filed a sockpuppet report on my User ID. Well, I'm not a sockpuppet of AZ8196 or anyone else, so if you could please remove that report, I'd be most grateful. Robertp6165 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see your talk page, that investigation is over and done, with no action taken against you. The report has been archived, and should not be edited, but the appearance of your name there is no indication of any wrong-doing on your part - many names come up in the course of SPIs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Train

I found the info on the film's imdb trivia page, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059825/trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbalchen (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for letting me know. I think that's a good model to use. I would also say that initially I wasn't very happy about that interaction ban, but in retrospect I have to say it worked well. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Material Issue

Hi Ken, I hear that you're an expert on images, so I'm here seeking your advice. I would like to see a photo of the band on the wiki page for Material Issue. The band is no longer active, since their singer committed suicide in 1996, so "fair use" normally allows for use of promo shots. I have found this news article that includes a picture of the band, with no photo credit (normally an indication that the pic is a promo pic) and the name of the image file is material_issue_promo.jpg (further indication that it is a promo pic). Is that anywhere near conclusive enough to justify claiming that the pic is indeed a promo pic when adding it to Wiki? Do you know if any of the other pics of the band that might be usable in the article? Thanks, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob: Let me say first that I wouldn't consider myself an "expert an images" on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's policies on images are complex and, to my mind, somewhat strange. To complicate matters, the policies are interpreted with varying degrees of rigidity by different admins, so there's always a chance that any "fair use" of a photo might wind up being a hassle.

That being said, it looks to me as if you'll be OK with this image, as long as you use it in the infobox to visually identify the band. It's very cleary a promo image, and the person who posted in on Popdose agreed by giving it that name. Such images, while copyrighted, were intended for wide distribution without additional permission being received for use (that's the whole point of promotion!). This doesn't abrogate the necessity for treating it as a "fair use" copyrighted image, but it does make the argument for it somewhat easier to make.

I would first reduce the size of the image down to a width of 300px from the 350px it's at now, then upload it using information such as this:

{{Non-free use rationale
 |Article           = Material Issue
 |Description       = Promotional photograph of the band
 |Source            = http://popdose.com/popdose-flashback-91-material-issue-international-pop-overthrow/
 |Portion           = all
 |Low_resolution    = yes, the width is 300px
 |Purpose           = to visually identify the band in the infobox of the article
 |Replaceability    = no free images are available, and no new ones are possible (the band is no longer together, and the lead singer is deceased)
 |other_information = 
}}
{{Non-free promotional}}

Hopefully, that will fulfill the requirements of our non-free contet criteria. Good luck, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ken, I'll try that, much appreciated. Robman94 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Church article renaming

Hi Ken, Thanks for the tidying up of the Church of the Ascension (Manhattan), however, I think I'm going to change the title back to the original stated (or Ascension Church (Manhattan) instead of Church of the Ascension, Roman Catholic (Manhattan), which is an exceedingly awkward title.---James R (talk)

Please don't. There are two churches of the same name, one Roman Catholic and one Episcopal, and no reason to treat them differently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Section titles

I see you reverted me at Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. But see MOS:HEAD. It says all of the guidance for article titles applies to section headings as well, and one of those guidelines is "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases (nominal groups): Early life, not In early life." Doesn't that mean it should be "Popular culture" instead of "In popular culture"? –CWenger (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether we are reaching the point where there are so many rules, and they change w/such rapidity, and they are often so random, that it is now impossible to know them all ... and if you did, that would be for a nanosecond. (I have no view on the underlying issue here).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but this one has been pretty stable. A brief check shows it was there about a year ago at the very least. And it makes sense to me, certainly for article titles and to a lesser extent for section headings. –CWenger (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've edited umpteen thousand pages over the past almost 6 years, and I'd honestly be hard-pressed to recall a "Popular culture" header in an article which had such a section -- I'm sure they were there, I'm not denying their existence, but there are at least an order of magnitude fewer of them then those labelled "In popular culture". Whatever the general rule (which I agree makes sense in most instances), "In popular culture" is clearly the de facto standard, and we know that our usage policies are meant to be descriptive and not presecriptive.

And there's logic behind it as well. In the article Bob Sixpack, we say "Early years" because we're dealing with Bob Sixpack's early years, and we say "Family" because we're dealing with Bob Sixpack's family -- but a section about how Bob Sixpack has been protrayed in the popular medium isn't about "Bob Sixpack's popular culture", it's about "Bob Sixpack in popular culture". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to admit you have a good point there. I suppose something like "Portrayal in popular culture" would satisfy both concerns, but it's pretty wordy. I know it has a reputation for being a bit of a gauntlet but have you ever considered bringing this up at WT:MOS? –CWenger (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, it's never occured to me that it was a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK -- I've glanced again at this, and have a thought. It looks as though we now have over 13,000 references to "in popular culture". Many are section headings that have something preceding them. As in "x in popular culture". But in a situation like this, I wonder if the most logical reading isn't to assume the major heading before the minor heading, effectively reading it in (that is the way I read it), which brings one to the same place.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a fair explanation. I still think it would be a good idea to put this in the WP:MOS as an exception. –CWenger (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, when I come across "X in popular culture" I remove the "X" as obvious and extraneous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken -- I think that makes sense, but perhaps only if the X is the name of the article, or the immediately preceding title. No? CW -- Not on my personal to-do list (have other fish to fry that seem of greater import, and I think this may be "understood" by many by application of the common sense rule), but if you or someone else does open discussion, feel free to ping me. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, I do this only when "X" is the title of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Image of Triangle Fire Centennial

Good work! A fine addition to the article. I wish I could've attended personally. Next time I'm in NYC, I'm definitely going to see the top 3 floors of the "Asch" building for myself, and take lots of pictures.Shirtwaist (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Messy

I replied to you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#Messy MOS proposal subpage, though I suppose that was not a very productive place to do so. I'd still appreciate it if you could please have a look at the issue, though. TIA, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

I've in the middle of a medical situation. unlikely I'll be doing much Wiki-related stuff before Monday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a chance now to read your e-mail, and I think this is a conversation I'd be more interested in having publicly rather than privately. I don't see anything of a private nature in your e-mail, so if you will give me permission, I will repost it here, and respond to it here. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Margie Hines

And I am reverting your edits. You clearly never read the note I left to my edit. I did not use that blog as a source. Instead I used the SSDI which lists all the births and deaths in the U.S. in history. If you go to the website, choose the advanced search option, put "Hines" as the surname and enter her DOB in the birth field, a result returns to a "Maggie Hines" (her birth name) which verifies the claims made in that blog entry. SSDI is one of the most reliable sources on the net. Please do not revert this page again. --Jkaharper (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You put in a date of birth, but as far as I know there is no reliable source for the date of birth of Margie Hines, actress,' so we're talking about pure GIGO here. I've reverted, ad I'm bringing it to WP:RSN Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi i need some help with fixing a article

Hi Beyond My Ken well hope all is well seems i couldnt get any information from the person with that Bonnie poe information but thanks for the advise of trying to ask them but it seems they got banned or something before i could. Now where should i start well i havn't been keeping track of things and it seems that Betty Boops Origins have been changed yet again. I could change the information but the thing is i have no idea how to add references or cite things. Oh and yes i will redit some things sometime soon when i have the time its just i always edit things that i love so when i edit im very different to everyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Betty_Boop Someone has edited the origins and claimed that clara bow was the model although i know that is not true becuse if Grim Natwick had used a photo of Helen Kane it would be impossible to make clara bow the original model so that information in the origins is false. i know that in court in they claimed that Betty was based on Clara Bow becuse they wanted to win against Helen Kane and they even made Bettys hair red in the only colour feature in 1934 to continue lying but after that Bettys hair turned back to its original colour which was black.

I have the correct information but i would need to put it into my own words. Here is the information as follows, One day, Dave Fleischer handed Grim a photograph of singer, Helen Kane and asked him to design a caricature. Fleischer had found a sound-alike, and planned to use her in the upcoming Talkartoon, "Dizzy Dishes". Grim exaggerated Kane’s wide eyes and rosebud mouth, creating a slightly coarse, but strikingly original design. A few weeks later, Dave asked Grim to design a girlfriend for Bimbo to star as the "fair young maiden" in a cartoon adaptation of the popular song, "Barnacle Bill the Sailor". Grim streamlined and refined his caricature of Kane for the part. But Dave Fleischer objected, insisting that since Bimbo was a dog, his girlfriend should also be a dog. Grim quickly sketched Betty Boop’s head on a four legged canine body. He held up the drawing next to the pretty girl design, and asked, "Which would you rather have as your girlfriend? A girl? Or a dog?" Dave laughed and agreed that the pretty girl was the right choice.

Here is the source where the correct information is displayed at the animation archive. Ive known of many times where Grim Natwick has credited of using Kane's photograph. If only Grim Natwick was on Kane's side she might have won although then we wouldnt have Betty Boop. http://www.animationarchive.org/?m=200711&paged=3 Bayoneta (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bayoneta: Sorry, not ignoring you - it's going to take a bit for me to unravel the information you've provided here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry it took so long, but I see where your information came from and I believe it to be a reliable source. In addition, the reference that was given for Clara Bow was a passing mention in a blurb for a Betty Boop TV show in 1985, not any kind of in-depth article, so your references is definitely a better one. I've put it into our article, and have also done some cleanup of the layout and the text. I've added the article to my watchlist -- let's see what happens. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright determination

Hi Ken, I wonder if I can pick your brain with another question about images. The copyright rules state that an item is in the public domain if it was published between 1978 and 1 March 1989 and was "published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years", so my question is, who would one go about determining if a photo was "published without notice..." ? It occurs to me that many photos of bands taken prior to 1989 might be public domain. Thanks, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah... you're asking me to take a step into a quagmire: copyright law is bad enough, but copyright law in relation to Misplaced Pages policy is worse.

I believe that the answer is that during that period of time, anything which was intended to be copyrighted had to be published with notification and/or registered with the Copyright Office. I know that the songwriter I was working with at that time regularly filled out Form SR ("Sound Recording", I think it was) to register demo versions of his songs with the C.O. The idea was that if the item wasn't published through normal means, which would carry a copyright notice (remember, this is before the Internet changed almost everything) having it registered at the C.O. would provide ironclad proof of the date of copyright and establish primacy of publication. I believe that publishers (of all sorts) routinely filed their products with the Copyright Office to protect themselves. Therefore I think it would take a search of the Copyright Office files to insure that something was not copyrighted, although the absence of evidence is not necessarily iron-clad proof that the item isn't copyrighted -- it might have been published with notice, but not registered. Also, the last time I looked into it (some decades ago) copyright searches were expensive and time-consuming.

Given all the uncertainties, it would appear to me that the best thing to do might be to upload photos here (instead of on the Commons) under our "fair use" rules (i.e. WP:NFCC), which avoids the entire question of whether the image is public domain or not, since it assumes it is not. This would be best for articles without pictures currently, for use as identification in the Infoxbox. I, personally, see no harm in having more than one "fair use" picture in an article, but many editors, especially admins who work in this area, are apt to enforce the very strictest possible reading of the policy, so if you do something like that, you should be prepared for having images removed. Since this could also effect your other uploads, as admins looks through your contributions, this is not something I would advise doing at this time, pending a more reasonable atmosphere regarding NFCC.

One other thing, please do not take what I say here as necessarily true -- I really do not want to advise you to wander into a contentious area on the basis of my say-so. You might like to check with people who work in this area, such as the admin User:Moonriddengirl, to see if their opinions differ with mine or support them. (And if you find out that I've totally off the beam, I wouldn't mind finding that out.) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

All good advice as usual, thanks Ken. The thing that prompted the question was that I noticed a band picture the other day that was listed as Public Domain without any evidence as to why, so I looked up the PD rules and found the clause that I assume the poster had in mind. Surprisingly nobody had challenged the posting. Now I just need to try and remember which picture it was! :) I have been using "fair use" for bands that have broken up, but you can't do that if the band is still active, and definitely not for a solo artist who's still living. OK, I found the pic, it's this one of the Replacements. What are your thoughts about its PD status? Robman94 (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it's clearly a staged professionally-produced photograph, I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that it was PD based on the image alone, absent specific information about its provenance. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, it's not my image. So what should we do about it? Robman94 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

I'm sorry, but you have made a mistake. I did not make any edits to any wikipedia pages. Certainly not to the page you referred to. I have never heard of this person and have never looked the person up, much less made edits to his page. I have never made any edits nor made any contributions to or on Misplaced Pages. I don't even know how to go about doing it.

Please, next time, accuse someone who is actually guilty of your accusations.

I would be interested in knowing what makes you think I made the edits you accuse me of ? I guess it is possible that someone else is using my name. If so, I certainly would like to know about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.91.206 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No mistake was made. Vandalistic edits were made by this IP -- you can see one of them here. It may not have been you (the person who left the message above) who made the edit, but the IP you just used most assuredly did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits involving voice-cast credits

Thanks for alerting me to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic edits. I have done a little towards dealing with the problem, which you can read about there. However, much more remains to be done. By the way, I love your user name, because it reminds me of happy hours spent when I was a boy listening to Kenneth Horne's "Beyond Our Ken" on the radio. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of the program, but I'm quite happy to hear about it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This may or not be related to the IPs that were making extensive fake credits to another animated film, but it looks very similar. A lot of the actors were hit by the same vandals. The list of fake credits was positively grotesque, I should add. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The Little Engine That Could (2011 film) and Firebreather (film) should also be added to the list of articles affected which should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added your information to the AN/I report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool - it's got to be the same editor/group of editors. The other IP in that case not listed was 75.194.206.202 (talk · contribs). Michael Dorn, Pat Buttram, etc., fake credits in animated films... what are the odds? As I said before, some people have really overactive imaginations. ;> Doc talk 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to comment on this. I think that the photo is appropriate; it had Halsey, Cagney & Montgomery. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's most certainly appopriate. Seems like an overzealous nomination to me. I've commented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and the heads-up about the protocol for this strange process. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Multidimensional family therapy

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Multidimensional family therapy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Hpvpp (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)