Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive4

I need some guidance

Some time ago I decided to try and write an article on one of my favourite novels, and I've been intermittently labouring over it ever since. I don't have a literary background though, so I'm struggling to understand how articles on novels are put together. I see some have character lists and others don't, and I see different sections in articles which are on the face of it very similar.

So far as I understand it, my own pathetic effort still needs a Themes section and expansion of Critical reception, but is that it? Can anyone help a poor clueless scientist? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate is probably the best guidance for this sort of thing. There will always be individual variations between articles, but this template seems to be the preferred option of the Novels project, who probably have the greatest degree of experience dealing with this sort of material. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a useful checklist, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello sir. I can't say I know much about literary works (and even less about them on Wikipedia,) but I went hlooking through the featured article books for representative samples. THe most "bare bones" articles I found in a random-clicky search were Halo: Contact Harvest and Raptor Red, which have nothing on analysis. Using these as a benchmark it would appear all that is needed is background of some sort, the plot summary and reception. Seeing as those are pop culture-related articles however I'm assuming there wasn't much in teh way of scholarly work. Likewise the older the work, the more it seems to focus on interpretation only--extreme example Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. More of a middle ground seems to be works like The Time Traveler's Wife, but the available information might be recentism at work? I went looking for style guidelines and found Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate which offers a rough sketch. It appears that like film articles it's recommended to start off with plot then go into development, but then again other articles I've encountered seem to do it the other way (like video games, i believe?) Sorry for the rambling, but from my glance it seems like your draft seems fine (if in need of expansion). I'm afraid I can't tell you if you'll be able to find much in the way of critical analysis for that author. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. There does seem to be quite a wide variation in how novels are handled, which is what was beginning to confuse me. I think I'll take the template that you and John pointed out as a checklist and take it from there. I'm not worried about a lack of critical analysis for Read, as he was a major 20th-century author. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidance regarding content removal

Resolved

This query doesn't quite seem to fit the other noticeboards, so I thought I'd take a crack at leaving a message here. The Sheldon, Derbyshire article has a section regarding controversy surrounding a proposed retreat in the area. The section is reasonably sourced, however new user User:Pippie Langkous ‎has begun to delete the entire section (along with the entire reference section and all categories) without any discussion on the talk page. I've pointed them to WP:CONS and other helpful sources both on their talk page and the article talk page, however the response is essentially IDONTLIKEIT and the wholesale deletion continues. I really really don't care which way this goes and if someone wanted to edit the controversy section substantially it really wouldn't bother me one bit. I'm just not sure how to convince the user to stop the deletion until concensus to do so is obtained. Any advice? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

With no response I suppose this has gone stale. Not sure whether this board isn't heavily monitored or whether my dilemma wasn't sexy enough to attract a response...regardless, if the user or their corresponding IP come back and blank everything again, is there a more appropriate board to request assistance at? Or should I just let the blanking remain and walk away in order to avoid an edit war? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it was just the two of you and that looks like a fairly low editor traffic page, Wikipedia:Third opinion could help, though that board does not have a consistently quick response time. Since it was a controversy section, you might also try WP:NPOV/N. You tried discussion on articletalk and usertalk, and appealed for outside eyes - all the standard ways of building consensus. If they come back and continue reverting without discussion, pull out {{uw-3rr}} (an edit war can exist without technical violation of WP:3RR, recall) or request page protection. You might also appeal to the relevant wikiprojects.

Thank you kindly. I've been lucky enough that most of the interactions I've had with individuals regarding any contentious material has been resolved amicably (outright vandalism notwithstanding). I wasn't quite sure whether it qualified as a content dispute as I wasn't too concerned with the content itself as there were no obvious BLP issues. It was the behaviour of the editor in deleting the material outright without concensus that concerned me. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry for my late reaction as i havent had time. I hear your comments and dont have a problem to discuss the reasons i have to want certain parts of the page "sheldon, Derbyshire "deleted. Me as a reader and local from Sheldon finds it completly not doing justice to the village. As more than half of the text seems to go about the "home Farm" this text should have his own page and leaves the general "Sheldon "page open to general information about history, sights and culture from Sheldon villige. I appreciate your input and as i am new here i appologize to have erased in a seeminly inappropriate way. Please note which part i would really like that have removed from this site and if you would be so kind remove the by me indicated txt.thanks.(pippie 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Aerodynamicists

The Category "Aerodynamicists" contains a ludicrous list of individuals. Aside from some of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century (Prandtl, von Karman), there is a number of individuals listed as "aerodynamicists" only because they wrote their own short auto-biography for self-promotion (see letters B, C and T, for example). These living individuals do not even have their own web site to demonstrate their achievement, and have used wikipedia as a flea market.

Some of these individuals should be disqualified from belonging to this category, because: 1.) they are project managers; 2.) they did not write a scientific paper worthy of notice. Formula 1 engineers (past and present) are the worst offenders.

Some notable names in aerodynamics are missing, but what is most worrying is that I can write my autobiography, call myself a physicist and rank my name alongside Newton, Einstein, Fermi, Eisenberg, etc. Writing auto-biographies must be discouraged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aerodynamicists

Abuse reported by a senior aerodynamicist, Mcjssaf (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from here.

I'd say that Bob Bell (motorsport), the technical director of the Renault F-1 team, shouldn't be in the same category as Wolfgang Haack, a theorist that designed an aerodynamic shape that is used in nowadays bullets and missiles. Any ideas? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem to be fixed. Try contacting WP:FLUIDs and WP:F1 for some help. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Affair

A dispute has arisen on the Somalia Affair article regarding what I and another user believe to be the gratuitous use of racist language (namely, the word nigger) where it is not warranted and when WP:PROFANITY specifically instructs that it should be relegated to footnotes, as "the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement". The other party in the dispute believes that the strong language is indeed relevant and central to the statement, and therefore ought to be preserved at all costs. We have discussed this particular issue and another related one involving the contents and the formatting of a specific wiki table in some detail on the article's talk page. It would be appreciated if all interested parties post their views on both issues at that location after having first read the relevant links above. Middayexpress (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

School Page

Hi, the wikipedia page on Perth Modern Perth Modern SchoolSchool is in an edit war, someone (obviously a student) is continuously adding a section called Student Response. Several people have tried to take it down, but whoever it is keeps adding it back again. The section is not needed in the article, and it does not reflect student opinion, but merely one kid and his friends. Please, i'm not experienced with wikipedia, is there some way the page can be locked? It's bad for the school, and it's not factual or nice.

Thanks for dropping a note here - I'm keeping an eye on the article now, and I warned the editor that the section was not acceptable. The page doesn't need to be protected yet, but like I said, I'll keep a watch to see if any problems continue. Best, JamieS93 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog?

Resolved

Not sure if this is the place to put this, but there seems to be a backlog of CSD nomination reviews. Gorilla brigade and Church of the Truly Warped are still unreviewed. GreenNezzadarGreen☎Green 06:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And obviously someone has reduced the backlog to nothing. :) Btw, in the future WP:AN is the best place to post general "FYI"s for admins, since many of them have that watchlisted. Best, JamieS93 14:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Black January

I'm not sure this is the right place to post this. I went to Black January hoping to find out about the protests in Baku and found an impenetrable rat's nest devoid of any real information. It needs a lot of help, more than I can give it. Rees11 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in David Letterman Google Search

I am new here, but noticed today the Google search term and description for "David Letterman" has been vandalized. I don't know how to find out who posted it to the page, or how it was entered as this page is semi-secure/semi-locked. Here is what the Google Search of that term brings up:

David Letterman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia David Michael Letterman (born April 12, 1947) is an American television host and comedian who frequently taps young booty because he has an ugly wife. ... Early life and career - NBC - Late Show with David Letterman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Letterman - Cached - Similar

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=dnP&q=david+letterman&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

How do I report this to the Administrator of this page? Newpost1 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would report that to Google. The article has already been fixed. -- œ^™ 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What has been Googled, can yet be WP:UNGOOGLED.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

wrong spelling of Portuguese

Please correct the spelling of "Portuguese" in the biography of Joe Perry of Aerosmith.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.243.201 (talk • contribs)

Xeno (talk · contribs) appears to have addressed this.[1] In the future, remember that you can change the spelling yourself! Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I'm still a bit new here, so I'm not sure if this is the right board. It's come to my attention that all of the articles relating to the game series "Wild ARMs" mistakenly refer to the game as "Wild Arms". From what I understand, acronyms in titles should not be made lowercase. According to one of the companies that published the series, "Wild ARMs" is both an acronym and the official title, with the "Wild Arms" version only being used in legal lines for the sake of simplicity. All of the games feature "ARMs", and a few of them also directly have instances of "Wild ARMs". On the official site for the fifth game, located here: http://www.wildarms5.com/ , the title is confirmed and even explained as an acronym with a different meaning in each game. Given all this, it is okay to change the articles to say "Wild ARMs", right? I want to get some kind of outside say on this issue, since it looks like and edit war might arise otherwise.

The article should be called "Wild Arms" because the use of upper case letters is irregular and hard to remember. The acronym is no excuse either, because the meaning of "arms" differs from game to game. Sometimes "s" means plural and is in lowercase, and sometimes it's a part of the acronym for the game's theme/choice weapon/whatever and is in upper case. What, are you going to change the spelling from game to game? That's ridiculous. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of unbuilt buildings and structures

I'd like guidance on the notability of buildings and architectural projects that were never actually built. I note that the notability guidelines for buildings, structures and landmarks failed to attain consensus, and that Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures contains few articles. While I can see the notability of major schemes such as Welthauptstadt Germania or the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid, are schemes of purely local interest (say, a never-built apartment complex) also notable? Thanks. Pondle (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends entirely on the level and intensity of local interest in the unbuilt design. Was a notable character involved in the proposal or involved in the defeat of the proposal? Did the local design gain wider notice and generate subsequent imitation works in the same manner as Elial Saarinen's second-place entry in the Chicago Tribune Tower competition? Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayne Pierson

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

looks to have been resolved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear Sir/madam,

My user name is saber.etc and I recently created a wikipedia profile for Jayne Pierson (fashion designer). In doing so I have stuck to the guidelines of "biographies of living people". I have established, internal links , citations, references and external links. The citations are from reputed news websites such as BBC. Also the writing is in a neutral point of view with a component for criticism.

Therefore, I request that the box appearing on top of the article to be removed. The quality standards and citations concerns are dated September 2009 and if you look at the versions recently, you will be able to observe that since September I have met all the requirements for this article in terms of internal links, external links, references and in line citations.

Also If I have left anything out, please let me know as soon as possible so I will be able to fix what ever is wrong and get back to you.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Regards,

Navam Niles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.232.41 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Law Practice Management

I hope I'm in the right place, apologies if I'm not.

User:Jurycom has "created" the article Law Practice Management by overwriting a redirect, the subject matter of the new article is different to the article previously redirected to and seems to be aimed specifically at the legal community rather than being an encyclopedia article. The edit summary was "Creation of "Law Practice Management" article that will ultimately bring together as many resources as possible to help attorneys better to control their practices and, give cost-effective services."

I've already undone it once today when the page was just a collection of external links, since then it's been recreated with text as well. I would have taken it to AFD if it had been a new page, but I think the redirect should be reinstated in this case. I would appreciate opinions on this. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a disambiguation page. Then each separate article can be judged separately, both the legal community and the general public articles. This is not an issue for the Mayor's office (just kidding). Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Order of content - sections and subsections on bryozoa

Testing this board out to open up a question for wider discussion. I have been reviewing bryozoa for Philcha at Talk:Bryozoa/GA1, and changed the sections around, which he is unhappy with. I do concede I was a bit bold but have explained my rationale on the GA review talk page.

Essentially, here is the version before I started messing with it. My view is that naming, taxonomy/classification, and evolution are so intertwined they are best treated in one large section divided into current sections (see the current version - they had been split into three segments previously and required some repetition), and as set up now, the subject matter divides nicely into four sections with subsections each. To facilitate understanding, I have placed the Description section above the taxonomy and evolution section. Philcha feels that placing naming down the page is problematic. Anyway, anyone interested please read and place opinions. I figured this was a good place as any as it is a content arrangement discussion (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As someone with no specialist knowledge in this field, I read through the earlier version before looking at the discussion, to avoid preconceptions. What struck me most was the emphasis given to naming of the phylum: in the lead; in "Name of the phylum"; in "Classification and diversity"; and in "Evolutionary family tree". To be honest, as a non-zoologist, I'm not really bothered about what specialists call an animal ("a rose by any other name"); it's the description and behaviour that I found interesting. Had I been reviewing, the first thing I would have suggested to Philcha would have been to reconsider the structure of the article so that the naming of the phylum wasn't so prominent or repeated - one full description in one place (if possible) and a mention in the lead. I would have recommended that the "Name of the phylum" did not need its own section, and certainly not the first one.

Having read though the present version of the article and the discussion at GA review, I can understand Philcha's concerns that readers with some background knowledge should not become confused by the different possible nomenclature for the phylum. However, the issue is pointed up in the lead and the current placing of the discussion, principally within the section "Taxonomy and Evolution" seems a real improvement to me. I'm not really qualified to judge whether the current arrangement of sections is ideal, but from my point of view, the article reads much better now.

The above represents no more than my humble opinion, for what it's worth. Hope it helps. --RexxS (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"county" - "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity"

All is here, please see: Talk:Washington,_D.C.#District_of_Columbia_as_county-equivalent I was told I should give a brief explanation of the subject, but that's just not really possible, only thing i can say is that e.g. for the page County (United States) it is disputed, that, altough the link-sources are clearly showing that, according to the u.s. census bureau, not only the u.s. states have subdivions called "county", but also D.C. ([2]) and the u.s. territories Puerto Rico ([3]) and other Island Areas ([4]) have subdivisions called "County-Statistically Equivalent Entity" - for a complete list of all both of this subdivision types please see [5] : [6] : [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.246.98 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are pretty convincing that the U.S. Census Bureau treats the entire District of Columbia as the equivalent of a county for statistical purposes. I haven't read the entire discussion linked to but it does seem surprising why it is hard for the other people in that discussion to accept the fact that DC is a county-equivalent for statistical purposes. Now being an entity only for statistical purposes, it probably does not merit mentioning in the article on Washington, D.C. Its mention in county-equivalent is probably sufficient. Here's a more explicit source on this: [8] (page 2, end of 2nd paragraph; also page 1, 3rd paragrap, 1st sentence). --Polaron | Talk 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

oh yes, thank you, your link clears it out to the end - interesting that it says that the d.c. area is handled as a statistical equivalent of both a county and a u.s. state, too - as i guessed, the political status has nothing to do and has no influence or relevance in this statistical category field of the u.s. census bureau. well, for me it does not matter whether the d.c. page editors decide to mention that fact or not, even though i personally would favour a such hint. also, user abductive has suggested in mentioning the historically d.c. counties on the page, maybe that information there could be combined with only half a sentence or so about "the d.c. area is not only handled as a statistical equivalent of county both of a u.s. state, too, by the u.s. census bureau", or such something, but as i said, that is not my business. as you said it, when the discussion here will be closed at some time, the County-equivalent page have to be edited to make it contain this information, as does so the County statistics of the United States page and the County (United States) page as well as maybe the title of the page of the map there pictured [9] because it misleads to the impression that there are no county(-a-like) units outside the u.s. states, elsewhere in the u.s.a., in its territories, or visually adding there the "missing" "county-statistically eqivalent entities", maybe in another colour or so, i think. i do not know whether or not the County equivalent page title have to be changed or changed as a re-direct to a new-titled page of the same content, because maybe the brief title could lead to minsunderstandings, as it did in the discussion on the d.c. talk page this far. personally, i would favour a more exactly title, as suggestions have been made in bold script at the bottom of the discussion of the d.c. talk page, but clearly the essential thing for me is that the data given in the links, sources is reflected clearly in the content of the named wiki pages, what i am going to try do so, when this discussion here is decided and closed. 84.60.246.98 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:I-726.svg

I tried to upload an "Interstate 726" shield to this, but it said the name was too general. Could an admin upload a general, no state name included, Interstate 726 shield, to this file, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstarl0425 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is pointless unless there's an actual I-726, not just something you made up one day. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 726. --NE2 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving article over redirect

Could an administrator please help to move the article "Martin Pearson (rugby league)" over the redirect "Martin Pearson"? "Martin Pearson" is only a variant spelling of "Martin Peerson", so I think it is all right for a substantive article to occupy that name rather than for it to be a mere redirect. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

The main page's "did you know" section has fallen prey to a vandal. The article on "painted suillus" states: "Did you know...

that the painted suillus (pictured) is not, in fact, the feeding appendages of an underground monster that wants to eat your face?"

--Twi1609372 (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Having an issue with an editor who insists on having templates work thier way, despite the fact that they are not editting the articles in question

I'm having issues with NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After asking a question on templates[10], and getting them to work the way I need them too for the content I am writing. Rather than help, the user has come in and changed everything to standards they use to write American road articles.[11] I am not American, and I am not writing American road articles. I am also using what I feel is a better system, avoiding abbreviations that are never explained to the reader in favour of spelling out the words.[12] This is fully conformant with the manual of style, and NE2's insistance on changing it is disruptive to the process I am using to create several dozen articles, which they do not contribute to (Much less any of the roadways in Canada, or Ontario).

After making new templates to satisfy my specific needs (without causing any ill effect to other templates), the user then followed up with changing them to redirects[13][14][15], once again screwing up the alignments and setup of the articles which I am the sole contributor of. Please inform this user that this is disruptive and counterproductive to insist that things be done their way.

I am aware the NE2 is the creator of many of these templates. However, he does not edit the articles that they are used on. I feel he has ownership issues if he is not allowing me to make the minor changes necessary for my way of presenting information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is at Template talk:Jct#How do I? --NE2 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Magna Pacific/Magna Home Entertainment

Can I request that the page for Magna Pacific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Pacific) be redirected to the new page for Magna Home Entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Home_Entertainment) by an Admin. Magna Home Entertainment is the new name/identity for the company, however I cannot make this redirect as it has been disabled. There have only been minor edits to the Magna Home Entertainment page from the original content of the Magna Pacific page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnap (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre classification of Epic

An old dispute as started back up. Per use by scholars in the Philological field of genre classification, the term "Romance Epic" was used to classify works that were partially Romances and partially Epic. However, a few people want to use the term "Romantic Epic" for such works. "Romantic Epic" ([16], [17], [18], etc) is used for epics by the Romantic Poets.

The "Romance" genre is not the "Romantic" genre. One focuses on adventure and loosely structured plots. The other emphasises the individual experience. They are also divided by a strong 200 year gap. There is no alternative term than "Romantic Epic" for epics by the Romantic Poets. There is a clear scholarly "Romance Epic" for those of the earlier period. I have tried to explain this over and over, with constant attacks and abuse on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this "epic" argument over a minor point has been revived. This has already been thoroughly discussed by several users on a Wikipedia noticeboard [19]. --Folantin (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing how you and your friends stated that fringe didn't apply, and now you are trying to claim that the matter was settled there. The matter was resolved by experts in the field showing that you had no basis. Even Geogre made statements to that effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"you and your friends". I forgot, it was a cabal. I'll stick with The Cambridge History of Italian Literature and all the other scholarly works which call Orlando a "romantic epic", thanks. It's a term that should be familiar to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject. It's perfectly good enough for Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Italian Literature is not a work within Epic classification, which has been stated multiple times. Your claims are as absurd as saying a work on physics is accurate enough to contradict works on biology when the matter deals with biology. And yes, Dbachmann, Moreschi, Akhilleus and others have been proven to be your friends and come to your defend on multiple pages of different topics. The Meat puppetry guidelines make it apparent that your voice only counts as one. "all the other scholarly works" Classification requires direct and appropriate sources by those trained in the field. You have failed to provide evidence from those who specialize in the epic genre, nor do you accept the sources that are provided from such sources. This is the definition of disruption via tendentious editing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Epic scholars that use the term "Romance Epic" (links are so people can see what is said about them because not everything is on google books in its own right, but some are).

• [20] Dennis Looney Compromising the classics: Romance epic narrative in the Italian Renaissance
• [21] David Quint "The Boat of Romance and Renaissance Epic"
• [22] Jane Everson Italian Romance Epic in the Age of Humanism
• [23] Hans-Erich Keller et alRomance epic: essays on a Medieval literary genre‎
• [24] Tobias Gregory From many gods to one: divine action in Renaissance epic

There are many more, but these are just a few of the -epic- scholars who specialize in genre classification and components of of the epic genre. Only -they- can classify what is an epic or a type of epic. Folantin relies on people who aren't specialists in epic, who are merely translators, or some other non-notable scholar when it comes to epic studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This will provide a nice primer on the matter: "Ariosto did not invent the syncretic romance epic; rather, he raised an already successful hybrid genre to new levels of popularity and literary ambition." p. 103. As I have stated before, there are thousands of hits for the works of the British Romantic poets (the German and French Romantic poets were not shown yet) that show that "Romantic Epic" is used in describing their epics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Orlando furioso is a work of Italian Renaissance poetry. I prefer to trust Professor Peter Marinelli who is a specialist in this area who wrote the relevant section of The Cambridge History of Italian Literature. He uses "romantic epic". --Folantin (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the people I have quoted above are specialists that focus on the Italian -epics- not Italian -poetry-. Poetry does not equal epic, nor ability to specialise in epic. The fact that you keep pushing him when there are the -top- Italian epic scholars listed above and linked is troublesome. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Marinelli is a specialist in Ariosto, Boiardo, Tasso and so on. They are Italian epic poets. --Folantin (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read before responding, you would have seen that I have quoted half a dozen world famous specialists in the area. Marinelli is not one especially with one book and one article. You haven't come close to provide someone to counter David Quint let alone Jane Everson. Then there is Zatti that you haven't bothered to contradict. You have yet to explain how you propose to differentiate between the epics of the Romantic poets which have far more hits as "Romantic Epic". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Romantic epic" is a perfectly acceptable term to apply to Orlando furioso. Hundreds of books use it as I have already demonstrated on the page. Complete strangers to the debate such as User:Ettormo have no problem understanding it. It's a familiar term in English. CUP invited Marinelli to write about Renaissance poetry because he was a specialist in the area. No era or genre has a monopoly on the term "romantic", just as no era or genre has a monopoly on the term "Gothic". I have no idea why you are so persistent on this issue. --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it's just an issue of personal preference: one scholar uses "romantic epic", another "romance epic". Nowhere have you shown there to be any major academic debate over the use of the terms in which "romantic epic" was "deprecated" once and for all in favour of "romance epic". --Folantin (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question - how do you differentiate between Orlando Furioso and The Prelude if you want to claim that Orlando is a romantic epic and the Romantic Poets have no other descriptive? I have already provided multiple links which show hundreds of uses for each of the Romantic poets describing their Romantic Epics. The two uses are not the same and cannot be used as the same term. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, books on British Romanticism have no problem referring to "Ariosto's romantic epic" (e.g. this in a chapter entitled "Wordsworth's Ariosto", of all things [25]). --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I already pointed out the way of distinguishing the two 11 months ago. "Italian romantic epic" (lower case), "Romantic epic" of the Romantic era (capitals). Here is the relevant link to a work explaining the background and using the terms in this way [26]. Some relevant sentences from that section: "The term Romantic epic seems to be a contradiction in itself since it evokes at least two periods in our literary and cultural history […] I will refer to the Romantic epic in this essay mainly as a genre developed during the Romantic period in Britain and Russia […] The Romantic writers responded to the conventions of the classical epic, which were already transformed during the Renaissance when the works belonging to that era drew not only on classical authorities, but also on medieval folk epics. The term romantic epic is often applied to a number of these Renaissance epics, such as Ariosto's Orlando Furioso and Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata..."--Folantin (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That work you cited is not a work on epic. It is a work on Italian literature. Why do you insist on claiming works on Italian literature and not on epic and epic classification are used to determine what an "epic" is? Furthermore, it has already been established that we have the term "Romance epic" which is used by leading scholars. Why are you opposed to the term? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, from your second link - "I will refer to the Romantic epic in this essay mainly as a genre developed during the Romantic period in Britain and Russia". I find it interesting that you left it out. The individual said it is "often applied" but does not say it was -correctly- applied. Instead, they make it clear that the term should be used for the Romantic period's epic and that you could say that earlier works were connected to the Romantic period ala "The inward turn". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More logic-chopping. "It is a work on Italian literature." Yes, and Orlando furioso is a work of Italian literature. "The individual said it is 'often applied' but does not say it was -correctly- applied." It doesn't say it was incorrectly applied either. Please stop engaging in original research. --Folantin (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A work on -Italian- literature is not a work on -epic-. There is a completely different emphasis. There are people who write books on Milton's religion in Paradise Lost but are not qualified to talk about Milton's politics or his use of epic. It isn't a stretch to say that people who understand Italian poetry, which is not just -epic- and epic is not just -Italian-, would not have the same qualifications as people who have trained, studied, and published many works in the field have. "It doesn't say it was incorrectly applied either", yes, but you were assuming it was using the term in that instance in a manner that verified you. It did not. It merely stated an existence then stated -their- use of the term. Clear differentiation of the two uses and evidence that there is a conflict. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just your say-so. It's complete original research on your part. Specialists in Italian Renaissance poetry are perfectly qualified to talk about Italian Renaissance poems. --Folantin (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, you just claimed that epic = Italian. That is not true. Italian literature represents many, many different genres and types. Epic is one type. A person who studies the epic genre knows Classical to Modern epic and is part of the Structuralist branch of Philology. Italian is a language and is based on the language. Epic is a genre and based on the uniformity within a genre. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

<--I am not sure how classifying scholars of literature into scholars of Italian literature and scholars of other literature, and then classifying scholars of Italian literature into scholars of Italian -epic- and scholars of Italian -poetry- serves any purpose whatsoever. As if epic and poetry are different genres. As if someone who has published on Italian poetry is not capable of correctly speaking of Italian epic, or indeed romance/romantic epic. Am I to cast aside Barbara Reynolds for not having published enough in some field or other, and likewise cast aside her rather elegant statement, "There is the authority of tradition, therefore, behind the combination of gravity and fabulous romance which is the feature of the three most important literary examples of the Italian romantic epic [note the lowercase] Luigi Pulci's Morgante, Matteo Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato and Ludovico Ariosto's Orlando Furioso"?

Sorry, Ottava, but you're clutching at straws here. This is not, as some watchers might think, a distinction without a difference--it's a case where the fluidity and polyvalence of a key term disrupts an easy and clean categorization. This talk of who is more authoritative than someone else, it's impossible to maintain that discourse. What if one of Folantin's references publishes the definitive work on Orlando Furioso, in Italian, and it's then translated and published by Princeton UP? Will you then change your mind? No, such hair-splitting is not productive, and Folantin's lower- and uppercase suggestion makes sense to me, and appears to have the weight of authority--if you'll allow that someone from the University of Ottawa can speak authoritatively, of course. And by the way, Ottava, the only cabal I'm a member of is the bacon cabel--I've never even had the pleasure of meeting Folantin. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"As if epic and poetry are different genres" They are different genres. A sonnet is very different from an epic. Barbara Reynolds is merely a translator and this has been pointed out before. Claims about her being a "lecturer" are meaningless, as this was an honorary position based on her translation and not a proof of academic credentials. I have already quoted from the -top- epic scholars. These are people who have published dozens of works on the matter and have training in structuralism and philological genre classification when it comes to the epic. "references publishes the definitive work on" I have already quoted Zatti, who wrote the definitive work on Orlando Furioso, along with his students who are prominent members of the field. And an upper case lower case statement is not an appropriate determiner when it is clear that we have a completely separate word that has been used by hundreds of critics in the field and in preference to any other because of these very reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to start? The epics you are talking about are in verse--O.F. in ottava rima, as you well know. If you want to know epic you better know poetry, and vice versa: you realize, of course, that these are not categories on the same level. Or did I miss something and are only sonnets considered epic, in the sixteenth century already? The top epic scholars, yeah--that's your little list. That "we have a completely separate word that has been used etc. etc." is specious. You are claiming some sort of consensus exists, but it is pretty obvious that your consensus is fabricated only by excluding those whom you claim have a definition different from yours. But I'm going to leave this be: this thread is going nowhere, and it is unlikely that any action will be taken by some higher power--and if such action is taken, I hope it will be to point out how futile this discussion is, this attempt to create a taxonomy that does not exist, not among eminent scholars and not among those dabbling lecturers you so easily dismiss. Yeah, Reynolds is merely a translator--well, how did you do, translating La Vita Nuova? Discrediting her and the others brought forth by Folantin may work in the debate club but I hope it won't work here--and, as a word of advice (I'm kind of a lecturing, freewheeling sort of person myself), it won't help you much in the profession. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. The Cambridge History of Italian Literature is a collaborative effort and Professor Marinelli was commissioned to write the chapter on the narrative poetry of the 16th century. The idea that User:Ottava Rima is more capable of judging who is competent to write about Orlando than the editors of The Cambridge History is frankly ludicrous. --Folantin (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"is frankly ludicrous" Why do you insist that the dozens of cited genre experts who have written volumes on Orlando Furioso are not as great as your generic volume editor? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A specialist in epic has far different abilities than someone who merely understands poetry as a whole. Epic is a very specialized form and very complex. "but it is pretty obvious that your consensus is fabricated only by excluding those whom you claim have a definition different from yours" No, that is completely incorrect. I have posted many links by people who are specialized in epics. That is obvious from looking at their books. Folantin has produced only editors of generic volumes and translators. Your hostility above is highly inappropriate. Your claim that a translator is some how knowledgeable of complex genre classification issues is indicative in a greater problem within your post. Your incivility is inappropriate as well as your statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ::::Argumentum ad nauseam. As Drmies says, this is just your "attempt to create a taxonomy that does not exist" and so this debate is futile. Now, predictably, you are trying to pick a fight with accusations of incivility. Basta! Enough already. --Folantin (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an epic struggle, except that none of you are coming off as particularly heroic. What we need is a reasonable compromise that satisfies all concerned, not to mention a glorious and devoted figure who, despite many trials and tribulations, comes to the rescue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been put forth multiple times and verified through sources that "Romantic epic" should distinguish epics by the Romantics and "Romance epic" should distinguish romances with epic elements. Folantin has made it clear that they find it unacceptable even though dozens of epic specialists use "Romance epic", which makes it an easy to understand alternative. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, a deus ex machina might well be called for here; if Aeneas could be saved by a goddess, then perhaps this can too. There is, in fact, a proposal on the table: look up. It's endorsed by two of the three participants in this minor conflict. Let's hope that none of us have to place our academic credentials on the table here, since no one is waiting for a pissing contest. Ottava, your proposal, if that is what it is, discredits the use of "romantic epic" used also by dozens of scholars, writers, and publishers. And as for accusing me of inappropriate hostility, well... Drmies (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "Romantic epic" and "romantic epic" does not solve any of the problem. It -is- the problem. You cannot say there is no other solution when "Romance epic" has been provided as a clear alternative and used by many notable scholars in the field. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only person who has found it a problem is you. Pay more attention to capitals please (it's also worth noting that "Romance epic" - with a capital "R" - implies an epic written in a Romance language, which could be anything from La Chanson de Roland to Mirèio or even Canto General). --Folantin (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"The only person who has found it a problem is you" Obviously so, since many of the academics were willing to use "Romance epic" and not bother with any dispute. And "Romance language" does not equal "Romance". They use "Italian", "Spanish", "French", and there is no lumping together under "Romance", since it has been shown that many English and German epics are equally related to Latin epics. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't shown any academic who has a problem with "romantic epic". I've asked you to link to an academic debate on this matter which has resolved this issue for good and you haven't. You've merely shown some of them use "romance epic" (not "Romance epic") instead. --Folantin (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't shown any academic who has a problem with "romance epic". I've asked you to link to an academic debate on this matter which has resolved this issue for good and you haven't. You've merely shown some of them use "romantic epic" instead. Now, seeing as how your argument fits you and how I have already shown that there is a -clear- alternative that -clearly- differentiates, there is only obstinacy on your part. Your long record of antagonism against me doesn't help. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What a brilliant argument. Like playing mirror chess. The current version of the page is at "romantic epic" and has been for months. This term is perfectly acceptable and appears in many reliable sources. You are the only person desperate to change it for some unknown reason and have not achieved any consensus to do so. Quite why you are so het up about this is beyond me. "Your long record of antagonism against me doesn't help." On the contrary, I've generally tried to avoid you. I had Ludovico Ariosto on my watchlist long before you materialised and it was you who stalked me to the Persian Empire page (a subject about which you were stunningly ignorant) to demand my banning and accuse me of being part of a conspiracy involving "WikiProject:Georgia (country)". Quite bizarre. All this just goes to show how futile interaction with you is. --Folantin (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The "current version" is 1. something you put because you couldn't stand "Christian epic" as the descriptive even though most genre scholars classify it as part of the "Christian epic" tradition, 2. something you edit warred in, and 3. current version does not reflect any proof or evidence of propriety. You only bothered with Ariosto after I started working on the page to improve it, and you effectively disrupted it from being fixed. You have done such on multiple pages for a very long time. Your stubborn lack of acceptance of a clear differentiation between two types verifies that you have no willingness to compromise or deal with this. This is just a game to you in which there are winners and losers. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I've made edits to articles on Ariosto in the past (often in collaboration with Kyoko when she was around). I created the pages on Brunello and Rodomonte for example. In March/May 2007.--Folantin (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was in absolutely horrible shape when I started improving it. You obviously did not bother to fix it. Your "care" for the article is not demonstrative of trying to turn it into a well written article. You already made it clear that you are prohibiting me from editing it when I have demonstrated my ability to create many great articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not under any obligation to fix everything wrong with every article on Wikipedia. I have quite enough on my plate. There is no evidence I stopped you editing the article. I had it on my watchlist when you made this longish edit [27], for instance. I disagreed with one of your edits and you have pursued the matter for 11 months. --Folantin (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"'m not under any obligation to fix everything wrong with every article" Then why are you spending so much effort trying to keep me from fixing various articles? Why is it that you've been doing such since early 2008? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What? What on earth are you talking about? --Folantin (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've provided you an alternative term that has been used by various critics in the field without a problem and you refuse to accept it. If you cared about collaborative editing, working together, and not stopping my working on pages, why do you refuse to accept a valid alternative that lacks the problems? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are talking about late 2008? When I reverted one edit you made claiming Orlando furioso was a "Christian epic" (undue weight - it has Christian elements but it also has pagan Classical, and Arthurian elements) and replaced it with "romantic epic", a term commonly used by scholars as I have demonstrated. But you couldn't accept that and started making bizarre claims about "Christ being a major character in Orlando furioso" (when he doesn't appear in it except for a few brief mentions by name). You have no evidence for grandiose accusations that I have "kept you from fixing various articles". I am not responsible for such weird paranoia and your proclivity to strange conspiracy theories such as the one allegedly involving the Georgian Wikiproject. Please desist. --Folantin (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you make claims about paranoia and other things when it was asked why you refuse to allow for a clear differentiation between two things? Do you not accept that "Romance Epic" is a viable alternative? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a solution along the lines of what Akhilleus (I believe) suggested calling it an epic. Then something could be written along the lines of: it is an epic described as romance by XYZ&Q and romantic by PB&J. Is there a way to include both descriptors with their respective sourcing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shown I have accepted Ottava Rima's major edit to the page. I don't see why he can't accept my small edit. The term "romantic epic" is perfectly valid. --Folantin (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Update: and according to Ottava, Akhilleus is part of the "conspiracy" against him - see ANI). --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not "epics" as they lack many of the characteristics of true epics but have many of the characteristics of romance. They are a fusion, which appears in many of the sources above. Calling it "romantic" on its own would imply Romanticism. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We've already gone through all this. See the links above (especially Nikolova). It's obvious you are unwilling to compromise. --Folantin (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already shown why "Romantic Epic" and "Romantic Epic" are confusing. I offered you an alternative - "Romance Epic". -My- preferred choice was "Christian Epic". You refused. I compromised. You still refused. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment about "Christ being a major character in Orlando furioso" shows your lack of competence to dictate on this matter and/or bias. I'm done with this and your weird paranoia. You have no consensus to make the change and I'm not going to be bullied into doing so. Bye. --Folantin (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. Sorry, yes, I see that my suggestion was not helpful at all and just rehashed what was already covered and reinstigated the dispute. I suppose it is intractable at the moment, so I guess it's best to just drop it. Not all romances end well and epics are known to drag at times. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to deny that many Catholic saints and religious figures appear in the work. I have even cited important studies on the matter, such as Gregory's From Many Gods to One or Fichters's. Why is it that you do not like the term "Romance Epic"? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Romance epic

Besides Folantin's claims that I am paranoid or lack competence, is there any reason why "Romance Epic" cannot be used as an appropriate alternative? There are many books that deal with the epic genre that rely on the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Misanthropy

Could someone take a look at Misanthropy? I tried fixing up the article a few times but my modifications were removed. Especially irksome is the "Use in media" section. Pollinosisss (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted the article to an earlier, cleaner version. I will leave a note or two for the various IPs; if this mucking up continues, perhaps some page protection might be in order. Please keep your eye on the page, and I will do my best to assist. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise and devotion to misanthropy are impressive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IPs vandal

Can you take look on International club competition records and Football records in Spain‎.--KSA^connect 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You can report active IP vandals at WP:AIV. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal KSA13

I give you the same suggestion, and I ask measures for vandal KSA: this user continues to save his unreferenced version and, more important, he refuses to speak in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football talkpage.--79.54.157.81 (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, guys, you need to talk the issue out on the talk pages of "WikiProject Football", "International club competition records" or "Football records in Spain". If you still cannot reach an understanding on the matter, you may wish to seek help from "Wikipedia:Editor assistance", "Wikipedia:Third opinion" and/or "Wikipedia:Requests for comment". See "Wikipedia:Arbitration" for more information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I posted the merge tag at List of wars 1945-1989. I want this article to merge with List of wars 1900-1944 along with the addition of 1990-1999 conflicts so it can be List of wars 1900-1999 just like List of wars 1800-1899. Please spread the word. B-Machine (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

George W Bush is a Dill Pickle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Indianabrick

Kind of funny but I thought somebody might want to fix this one.

67.106.3.130 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD, anyone? User seems to be inactive. Also, not sure this belongs here... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User's inactive, and I agree it's probably not appropriate. I'm not sure 100% on policy, seems to me that the page could just be blanked.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is me looking at it way too seriously, but I say it can't be removed and our hands are tied in terms of doing anything but just leave it there. It's not an article in LBP format and can't be blanked for that. It just happenes to be an odd, odd user page put into an article format. A very obvious practical joke and its only real humor from the in-article image, BUT... short of correcting the unformatted open html text at the top and maybe removing the image caption... I don't think we can touch it. It begs the question of what actual level of premeditation caused this, or if it's accidentally the most random thing ever. Really, I will dispute any blankings or deletions without debate! This is just too silly. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can blank anything, I just did, and it didn't take any special privs to do it. If the user wants it back, he can revert it, and if someone else feels strongly about that, they can MfD it. Good enough? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are editors allowed to make edits to others' user pages if the contents of those pages are not in breach of any policy? I feel such edits can only be made if it can be shown that the user pages violate some policy (in this case, possibly WP:BLP). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are actually extremely specific guidelines about blanking. See WP:BLANK. Just because you can't doesn't mean you should. No one asked the article be trimmed, they said "fix" which can mean any number of things. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of boredom, I cleaned up the didn't-quite-format text so and did enough that it meets basic article standards. Combine that with it being in userspace with no BLP or promotional material and there and it shouldn't need to be touched again. I'll keep it on watch in case anything odd happens or the author returns. Just because someone's inactive it's cause to blank their things (even if in some way it does make sense). Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pacifica Forum and User: Xeugene

User: Xeugene has been repeatedly adding original (unverifiable) research, POV statements, and irrelevant attacks on the SPLC to the article Pacifica Forum, while also removing sourced content. I have warned this user twice on his talk page to stop doing this (see User talk: Xeugene), however, he has ignored the warnings (not even responding to them) and continues to make the same type of edits. Xeugene also appears to be a single-purpose account (WP: SPA), as he/she has not edited any other articles besides Pacifica Forum. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please initiate a discussion of the matter on the talk pages of SPLC and Pacifica Forum and invite Xeugene (and other editors) to respond to your concerns. If he or she does not respond or an understanding cannot be reached on the matter, you may wish to seek help from "Wikipedia:Editor assistance", "Wikipedia:Third opinion" and/or "Wikipedia:Requests for comment". See "Wikipedia:Arbitration" for more information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NCircle Page Review

I'd really appreciate it if some people could take a look at my page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rpelton/NCircle The page has been deleted before for 'notability' issues and I've tried to remedy that to the best of my ability. Please read the entire talk page before commenting as I'm getting really conflicting and frustrating comments!!

I seriously appreciate it more than you know!!

Thanks Rpelton (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Language

Should articles include coverage of linguistic and lexicographical significance? User:Wolfkeeper is removing content (some of it that clearly needed trimming) that addresses how subjects are used in language (see slam dunk and doughnut) based on the idea that policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think this information and content establishing cultural relevance should be included when properly sourced and significant.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Provided that the article is not merely a dictionary definition but contains other information pertinent to the subject of the article (see "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary"), I see nothing wrong with there being text in the article that deals with the linguistic and/or lexicographical significance of a term. For instance, information about the etymology of a term can sometimes be quite enlightening and shed light on its meaning. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

From how I read WP:DICT and sub-category here[28], I don't know why you would cut out content. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic... but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. That seems to be rather precise wording to keep such things. ... Oh dear. I see articles up for deletion on this? This is no good. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The information is completely off-topic. There's an entire f****** articles on those two other uses of the word 'doughnut' elsewhere Donut (driving), torus. This topic is about bread products, not everything that uses the word donut. We don't have an article called 'back' that contains information on the 19 different meanings of the word 'back', we have up to 19 different articles; and each article is independent and covers one topic. That's how encyclopedias work! Right? One article = one topic. If it's not on-topic- it doesn't go in. If we don't do this, eventually you get the information copied all over the wikipedia, and will have varying degrees of sources, correctness etc. etc. It doesn't work. Don't go there. The policy says you don't get to do that.- Wolfkeeper 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Earth is about the planet, not soil. etc. etc. etc.- Wolfkeeper 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wolfkeeper here. We have a hatnut at the top of doughnut; we don't need to repeat its content in separate sections of the article and for good measure in a see-also section at the end. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that this information should be included under the conditions you mention: properly sourced and significant. A good test for significance could be whether any source on the topic (not the word) contains such information.

By the way, I feel generally that etymological information is stressed too much in Wikipedia. I don't mind even an entire section on etymology, but an article shouldn't start like this:

Etymology (pronounced /etɪˈmɒlədʒi/, from Greek ἐτυμολογία (etumologia) < ἔτυμον (etumon), “‘true sense’” + -λογία (-logia), “‘study of’”, from λόγος (logos), "speech, oration, discourse, word") is the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time.

Such awkward constructions make Wikipedia look like a paper dictionary and very hard to read. I was pleasantly surprised when I just saw that etymology does not suffer from this disease. At homeopathy the etymology kept being re-added into the first sentence until someone put an etymology box in the top right corner. Hans Adler 08:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's even a fairly strong argument that we shouldn't do per article etymology at all. The articles are about the topic, not about words used to describe the topic. And in many cases the article name is arbitrarily chosen; should we then have multiple etymologies? It's really clumsy. Meanwhile, the Wiktionary actually has the etymologies, and doesn't have this problem at all, since the Wiktionary is about the words, not the topic.- Wolfkeeper 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also found that a lot of the etymologies in the wikipedia appear to be wrong; Wiktionaries make more sense and are referenced.- Wolfkeeper 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that having the etymologies set out as shown in Hans Adler's example is not a good idea as it makes the lead section difficult to read. But I feel that a properly referenced etymology in a section of the article can be informative in some cases, for instance, when a particular term may be unfamiliar to many readers or where the etymology sheds light on the history of the term and its current meaning. It may be that some etymologies that are currently in Wikipedia are wrong. That is, however, not an argument for doing away with them altogether. They should simply be corrected and sourced. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, in cases where the etymology is typically discussed in sources that discuss the topic, it's clear that we should discuss it as well. That's certainly true for homeopathy. For doughnut that's certainly not true, so the case is a bit more complicated. Hans Adler 09:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think they should be removed and references should be made to the wiktionary. Doing anything else is just a waste of effort, we're duplicating a source that simply does this stuff better, and it sets up completely false expectations about what an encyclopedia is. People are looking up phrases in the wikipedia to find out what they mean, when they should be looking them up in the wiktionary. It's bad for wikipedia, and it's bad for wiktionary.- Wolfkeeper 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle that's an excellent point. E.g. at Homeopathy we could use Template:Wiktionary instead of the etymology box. But then we would again be fighting against anonymous users who insist on adding the etymology. Hans Adler 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What if the comprehensive etymology etc. in the lead doesn't appear in Wiktionary (compare current Phlox ←→ wikt:Phlox) or if there's no Wiktionary entry at all (Mount Carmel ←→ wikt:Mount Carmel) – expanding Wiktionary is a worthy cause, but that is an independent project. Linking to it is good, but a policy for articles here should be forged independently of it. As RL0919 commented here, articles should generally be about the subject and not about the word designating it; still, personally I enjoy learning about etymologies and appreciate being informed about an irregular plural and I'd prefer being able to do so without having to click my way into Wiktionary. Thus I'd prefer, while reading Hippopotamus, to have all this information right there in the article, only not rendering the first sentence practically illegible but rather separately, either neatly in a box or just elsewhere in the article. This way, the quality of an article in Wikipedia and the monitoring of its contents remain independent of contents and edits in Wiktionary (which I believe take place with little monitoring by Wikipedia editors). As long as linguistic information doesn't become the inappropriate focus of an article, its inclusion won't turn the article into a dictionary entry, but it will improve it by making it more comprehensive. Dan ☺ 21:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Source spam at Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge

A Philippines user has been jumping across IPs to constantly insert a book, Kites in History by a Jose Fadu;, among the References of Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge. The book has no relevant content to the article at hand that is not already sourced by more reliable sources.

• Spams by 119.111.86.74 (talk · contribs): [29][30]
• Spam by 119.111.86.72 (talk · contribs): [31]
• Spam by 122.3.208.237 (talk · contribs): [32]
• Spam by 122.3.211.251 (talk · contribs): [33]

I have reverted and explained to his various IPs why such an edit is contrary to policy and guidelines.[34][35][36][37] The user, however, exhibits WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT,[38] with the repetition of adding the irrelevant source.[39]

Note: This user was involved in the creation of an article on Jose Fadu, and very likely sockpuppetry in its deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Fadul). As such, I suspect the motive of the constant insertion of Fadu's book into a Featured Article is primarily to raise the profile of the non-notable author.

I request administrator assistance to kindly inform this user about the use of sources and the standards of reliability. Jappalang (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the editor is active again, make sure you leave warnings (e.g., {{uw-spam1}} to {{uw-spam4}}) on the IP talk pages, then report him or her at WP:AIV. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed one of those edits (still have the article watchlisted, since my copyedit), and at first thought the book could be relevant as it might cover the use of a kite to run the first line across the gorge. It didn't take long to figure out that the book was self-published via lulu.com, which precludes its use as a source (and the article is already more than adequately sourced on that account).

(adding after accidental early save) I don't think there's anything more to be done at this point, given the IP-hopping, but the article remains on my watchlist, and I'll help head off any further spam of this type. Maralia (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Territories and crimes of the Russian Mafia - admin eyes requested

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

This article's infobox contains both an uncited 'Territory' list and an uncited and absurdly long 'Criminal activities' list. The Territory list is subject to random expansion by IP editors who take some sort of pride in adding their own nationality to the list. The 'Criminal activities' list is a menu-like offering that includes just about every crime that exists; this is also subject to random expansion as someone thinks up new crimes to add.

Some of the 'Notable Russian mafiosi' named in the article would seem to be still alive and thus subject to our BLP policies were they not gangsters and if crimes charged in the infobox are assumed to apply across the entire article. I'm not bothered by the BLP aspects, but since it is unlikely that either of these ever-changing lists can find support in reliable sources (and in part because the criminal activities list makes WP look rather silly), I've tried listing Territories as simply "Worldwide" and Criminal activities as simply "Various and sundry violent crimes, property crimes, public order crimes, political crimes". I keep getting reverted by IPs in Russia whose pride I assume I have wounded. Offending possibly dangerous people is above my pay grade here, so I'm requesting administrator involvement. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychogeography

This article needs a good rewrite - although a few comments on the article have been left at Talk:Psychogeography#A rewrite is serously needed there has been no response. The problems involve passages that are probably in breach of WP:NPOV, MOS:OPED, WP:JARGON, WP:NOT#ESSAY and bordering on WP:NONSENSE. They include:

1. The erotic charge of psychogeography was undeniable, the rousing sexual conquest of having fully explored and overcome the exoticism of the city.
2. But before succumbing to the truth of the impossibility of true psychogeography, Debord made another film, On the Passage of a Few Persons Through a Rather Brief Unity of Time (1959), the title of which suggests its own subject matter.
3. The Situationists' response was to create designs of new urbanized space, promising better opportunities for experimenting through mundane expression. Their intentions remained completely as abstractions.
4. Though the path required to achieve this utopia is difficult and hindered by society and its own constructions, now as living agents that actively enforce restrictions where we may have once considered them arbiters of independence.
5. Pyschogeography has become one of the dominant approaches to the poetry of modern London, an idea big enough to unite poets who find themselves in warring camps.

Psychogeography#Psychogeographic maps is particularly badly affected and Psychogeography#Contemporary psychogeography is slightly better - at least the latter provides a couple of inline citations, though most of the claims it makes aren't backed up.

The article needs cleaning up and I'd appreciate some advice - I'm tempted to move the Psychogeographic maps section to the article talk page - at least that would move some of the clutter. Autarch (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

She Wolf / Shakira / Digital vs Top 200 albums Chart

Ok so here's the problem. A user keeps adding the french digital chart to the article She Wolf (album) despite the song having aready charted on the main French Albums Chart. When i pointed out that the rules as WP:GOODCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS and WP:record charts but the response from the user was "Im french, i know what im talking about when i say the digital chart is not a component of the main chart". When i asked him to prove with a source he told me to prove that the digital chart is a component of the main chart... ??? The discussion was previously listed her [40] but i am moving the conversation to the content board as it is more appropriate here. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

if you check the history i accidently put that the argument is over the single. I meant the album. and so i've corrected this. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

My opinion --> [[41]] [[42]](talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfulfilled religious predictions

Evidently, my AfD for this article will fail, and so I will ask for someone to take a look at the article and see how it can be fixed. (I honestly don't think that the article can be fixed and thus won't try to do so.) My primary issues are that this list is ill-defined, leading to utterly arbitrary entries. (I'm also concerned about why unfulfilled religious predictions should have a page, while neither "fulfilled religious predictions" nor "unfulfilled psychic predictions" qualify for an article.) Here are some issues I see:

• The move from a purely Christian article to a broader world religions article has succeeded in a name change only. Not one single non-Christian prediction has been listed.
• There was evidently only one unfulfilled religious prediction in the first 1500 years of the church, but about a dozen in the past century. Obviously, the list is skewed towards recent predictions.
• This list gives the appearance of equal importance to such events as the Great Disappointment and Oral Roberts's prediction that Jim Bakker would be acquitted. Because there is no clear criteria for inclusion, each of these predictions is listed.
• The list will never approach anything like completeness. Notable unfulfilled religious predictions are a dime a dozen, near as I can figure. Unless the list is restricted to some clear class of predictions (doomsday, say), the project is as hopeless as "List of false political statements".

Evidently, these concerns do not warrant deletion (according to the current AFD), but hopefully someone will at least try to improve the current state of the article.

Note: I couldn't find a Religions noticeboard to post this request. The page really could use the attention of someone who knows a bit about the history of various religions.

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject noticeboards are typically simply the talk pages for WikiProjects. You could try WT:WikiProject Religion. Hans Adler 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice re. an issue raised about Sabi the war dog

Can we have some eyes on Talk:Sabi_(dog)#Accuracy_of_some_of_the_content. Even with two years wiki experience, I am still not totally familiar with what to do with these sorts of situations, so if anyone has some relevant experience, pls advise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merlin_(TV_series) episode articles

Each of the episodes of the British TV show Merlin (linked from the page List_of_Merlin_episodes) includes an extensive plot summary. A few of these articles are tagged with maintenance templates, but since the same issues apply to all of them (and because I'm not sure how to resolve the problem), I'm bringing the issue up here. There are a couple of (nested) issues I see:

• The summaries are overly long and unencyclopedic (see WP:PLOT). This would argue for the removal of the summaries (and their reduction to stubs, as there is little contnet remaining in them)
• None of the articles appear (caveat: I havent read them all) to have any sources discussing the episode per se, the critical reaction, etc. Since they appear to fail WP:N, perhaps they should be deleted entirely?

I'd appreciate the input of other editors about how to proceed. — æk^Talk 03:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tags at Alford articles

An editor added {{contradict}} tags to the tops of articles North Carolina v. Alford and Alford plea, back when both articles were in a poor state as far as sourcing. I have since gone and made sure that every single sentence in both articles is backed up to sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V.

Billyboy01 said the tag should be removed at North Carolina v. Alford in a comment at the talk page, Oppose contradiction tag for this article. And Brumski acknowledged that I have significantly improved the article Alford plea, in a comment to the talk page - with edit summary, The sources directly support the text.

Question: Can the tags now be removed from these 2 improved articles? Cirt (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're confident you've brought them in line, be bold and remove the tags. bd2412 T 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried that. The tags were reverted back, by Redheylin (talk · contribs). Perhaps you could step in and assess the situation? Cirt (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Removed the tag, per Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Territories and crimes of the Russian Mafia - admin involvement requested

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

This article's infobox contains both an uncited 'Territory' list and an uncited and absurdly long 'Criminal activities' list. The Territory list is subject to random expansion by IP editors who take some sort of pride in adding their own nationality to the list. The 'Criminal activities' list is a menu-like offering that includes just about every crime that exists; this is also subject to random expansion as someone thinks up new crimes to add.

Some of the 'Notable Russian mafiosi' named in the article would seem to be still alive and thus subject to our BLP policies were they not gangsters and if crimes charged in the infobox are assumed to apply across the entire article. I'm not bothered by the BLP aspects, but since it is unlikely that either of these ever-changing lists can find support in reliable sources (and in part because the criminal activities list makes WP look rather silly), I've tried listing Territories as simply "Worldwide" and Criminal activities as simply "Various and sundry violent crimes, property crimes, public order crimes, political crimes". I keep getting reverted by IPs in Russia whose pride I assume I have wounded. Offending possibly dangerous people is above my pay grade here, so I'm requesting administrator involvement. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

leon russell

i remember years ago reading that leon was born in 1929 not 1942 and ive seen vidio of him from the 1950`s i remember this clearly because my father was born in 1929 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.255.238 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. If you have evidence from a reliable published third-party source (e.g., a book or a magazine or newspaper article), then feel free to update the article with the correct information and indicate the source. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alford plea and evidence

Related to the above inquiry, I actually came to post a request for input on the underlying content dispute over the Alford plea article and the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article. As I understand it, the issue is whether it's fair to say that this type of guilty plea, made while maintaining innocence, is always employed when there is likely to be sufficient evidence to convict or whether it can be used for other reasons. In particular, in Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) case, he claims that he was left no choice because he would have been held for years if he did not plead guilty, so even if he eventually won at trial, there was not a reasonable choice but to plead guilty.

In the Alford plea article, some sources have been added referring to "sufficient evidence", but many articles don't note that element as part of the definition, and I'm wondering if some legal minded or interested parties independent of the current dispute would have a look into the issue and see if some clarification or qualification is needed to note that there may be reasons for an Alford plea other than sufficient evidence, or if the present wording is correct and accurate. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Alford plea always means the defendant acknowledges there is sufficient evidence to convict, and is pleading guilty to avoid a harsher sentence were they to plead not guilty and go to trial. This is all covered by many WP:RS sources in the article itself. A third-party editor already did weigh in, on this very issue, at the article's talk page. There was no need to bring it here. See this comment by Brumski: the sources provided do directly support the text "the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and so there is no hint of original research and not even of any interpretation of the sources (instead the text is just a direct reflection of what they explicitly say - the defendant "allows", "concedes", "admits" and "admits"), there is no falsification or bogus sources and there is no problem, except that someone who's put a lot of good work into very significantly improving this article has had to waste their time defending their improvements. I'm sorry Redheylin, the fact that this article defines the Alford plea in a way that is inconvenient for your dispute elsewhere isn't relevant to this article; what is is relevant is whether it reflects the reliable sources, which it does.. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there a many sources noting an Alford plea as a protestation of innocence where there is likely to be sufficient evidence to convict. There are also quite a lot of sources that seem to indicate it is sometimes used to avoid a trial or employed for other reasons. Here's a contemporaneous story from when the supreme court ruled on this type of plea and, although only the headline and a snippet are visible, it seems to indicate that the original reason the Alford plea was used was to avoid a trial and the possibility of a death sentence. "The Supreme Court Monday approved guilty pleas offered by defendants who protest their innocence but who enter the plea to avoid a trial and the possibility of a death sentence." Whether this is a significant distinction seems worth considering. I'm just trying to get some input apart from you and Redheylin who have been in dispute over this issue. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a distinction. See also Talk:Alford_plea#What_the_sources_actually_say. The ruling that created this itself necessitated that the defendant be made aware they are making this form of guilty plea due to evidence that could be used to convict them. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: See this comment by Brumski. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for deletion of File:Pollock31.jpg

This the first time I have encountered this. I uploaded the referenced file (after photoshopping to lighten and straighten) and have the original with its Metadata. Somebody is accusing it of being stolen http://brooksdierdorff.blogspot.com/2009/12/most-viewed-dierdorff-photo-everrrr.html This is baseless and they have offered no proof and they have not demonstrated how I would have accessed it. The metadata on the original confirms my timeline. Still it has thrown me into a rage and poisoned my willingness to upload photos (I have uploaded a lot). My knee jerk reaction is to request the photo be deleted. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that. If you really wish to have the image deleted, remove it from the article "Jackson Pollock" and tag the image description page with {{db-unfree}} (all fair-use images must be used in at least one article). It will be then deleted by an administrator. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I long ago quit doing fair use. It's too much hassle. The license was changed by someone else after I uploaded it so it's probably just as well. It is eye opening though. Thanks again for your prompt help. I have followed your instructions. Americasroof (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, it's much easier dealing with freely licensed images at the Commons. I try to avoid non-free images wherever I can. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete Idiot's Guides

There's a massive list of these Complete Idiot's Guides in a drop-down box at the bottom of the article. It seems odd but maybe it's ok. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 03:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, it seems to be the vast majority of the article. I found it while searching on Google for something else. -- Banjeboi 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing the math it seems it's 44.5 k of content. -- Banjeboi 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Banjeboi 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem article Sri Kripalvananda

A half-dozen or so newly registered and non-registered editors have been removing sourced material from Sri Kripalvananda

and replacing it with un-sourced and inappropriate material.

I'd guess they are religious "true believers," and not actually interested in Wikipedia. But I might thereby violate the "good faith" policy....

Frankly, I'm not that keen on the topic per se (though I created the article) and I sense this could be a hopeless situation.

Off hand, I'd suggest deleting the article, though on what basis I'm not sure.

Each of these editors have contributed soley to article in question. Two have reverted brief neutral comments I've placed on its talk page. None have responded to brief, polite requests for discussion.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request for the page to be semi-protected, which should cut down on the spamminess. You might want to take a look at the concerns about the article I placed on the talk page, as it seems the SPAs and IPs have a legitimate issue with the way the article is framed, though they have chosen an inappropriate way to express it. — æk^Talk 07:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary protocol

The issues of this article are extensively documented in edit summaries and on the talk page. In my view (though I am not uninvolved) WP:OWN and WP:NPOV are the major concerns. I provided a third opinion in February, and after my suggestions were reverted I walked away. The article has not improved since, in fact, another author just entered the same cycle of researching, adding info, edit war, walking away.

I'm a bit clueless now as to what to do with it. I promised to come back after a year but the article is still in the same sorry state. Ideas? --Pgallert (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Idiots Guide to Adding a Wikipedia Article.

I would like to know how I would be able to create a page for a product which has been used in South Africa for the last 15 years. Are there people that I would be able to pay a fee to add an article. The reason is I don't want to be out of line by adding information on a product. The product is called Faith Drops and the info can be found at http://www.cancercure.co.za/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.56.104 (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are companies out there that offer Wikipedia article-writing services, but we don't recommend that you use them because the editor writing the article will be in a conflict of interest position and may not be able to maintain a neutral point of view when preparing the article. I note that you want to create an article about something that appears to be a medicinal product. Do note that Wikipedia is not a medium to advertise products. An article can only be created if there are sufficient published third-party sources providing reliable information on the subject. You can ask for more help at "Wikipedia:Articles for creation" or "Wikipedia:Drawing board". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If an article is warranted you could post it as a request for new articles (which I don't have a link to but you can search for it as wp:request for articles in the search box) or post something on the appropriate project discussion page. The key would be substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Since you're already here, I think you could also use this venue post citations and see if experienved editors think it's notable and might be willing to help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)