Help desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 19[edit]

Somaliland University of Technology Wikipedia webepage[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Support,

This page belongs to the Somaliland University of Technology. I am the President Founder of this University. The University has exclusive rights to past right information on this page.

The username:(Slibaan) is a fake one who torpedoes our page and edits it regularly. It pastes fake information here.

I ask the Wikipedia support to restore our Username: somtech and stop this vandal action by Slibaan.

I look forward to hearing from you soon

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Dr. Saeed Sheikh Mohamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slibaan (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr Mohamed. I am a little confused by the above, because you appear to have posted that request from the account Slibaan. However, I can tell you that in one respect your are mistaken: you do not have exclusive rights to the article Somaliland University of Technology. Nobody owns any page in Wikipedia or has exclusive access to it. Furthermore, if you are the President of the university, you have a conflict of interest and you are strongly discouraged from posting on the page yourself. You are welcome to make suggestions for the improvement of the article on its talk page Talk:Somaliland University of Technology.

As for the edits to the article, it looks to me as if Slibaan and Middayexpress are carrying on an edit war. You (collectively) have what we call a content dispute (which if I understand correctly, is about the national status of Somaliland, though I may be misreading). All of you should stop simply reverting each other and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach consensus, you should make use of the dispute resolution process. Note that disagreeing with you is not the same as vandalism.

I'm not sure what you mean about the username somtech: Are you referring to User:Somtech26, which made three edits to Somaliland in 2012? --ColinFine (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were by User:Somtec26 (no 'h'). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Slibaan account has been adding secessionist pov to the university page and has in the process been reverted by several different editors including myself. A user who identifies himself as Dr. Saeed Sheikh Mohamed, the President and Founder of the university, then today posts the unsigned message above, which indicates that Slibaan is a vandal who regularly "torpedoes our page" and "pastes fake information here". The user also asks that his username somtech is restored and request that Slibaan's vandalism be stopped. Sinebot later signs that unsigned post, only to reveal that Dr. Saeed is in fact posting from the same Slibaan account that he just suggested was vandalizing the page. Odd. Middayexpress (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that the Somaliland University of Technology has limited resources, forcing Slibaan and Dr. Mohamed to use the same IP address? In any case, I would encourage Dr. Mohamed to register an account with Wikipedia, to avoid such confusion in future. Maproom (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The message wasn't just from the same IP address as Slibaan, it was logged in as Slibaan. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred Screens on Laptop and Tablet Computers in Wikipedia Articles[edit]

Why are some laptop, phones and tablet computers have their screens blurred in Wikipedia Articles? I have never seen this before on Wikipedia and don't understand the reasoning. Thanks Here's an example File:ThinkPadX230.jpg Polloloco51 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots of software are usually copyrighted. See commons:Commons:Screenshots and Wikipedia:Software screenshots. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The photos of the laptops and tablets are not true screenshots, but depict the Windows OS running within the photo itself. It is really silly in my view and ruins the visuals for the readers when reading the articles. Hopefully whatever Copyright rule or policy that's causing this can change.Polloloco51 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What is shown on the screen is copyright, and Wikipedia takes issues of copyright very seriously. This has a number of consequences which might strike you as silly - for example, a lot of articles on living people do not have photos of them because nobody has (yet) been able to obtain a suitably licensed photo of them. But since the policy is dependent on the law of copyright, it is unlikely to change. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rohingya description[edit]

Please review the content of your article on the Rohingya of Myanmar. While later in the information provided there are credible and objective citations and documentation, the earliest part appears to have been contributed by a source that is inflammatory and prejudiced about thee poor folks. While the UNHRC has declared them to be the most persecuted in the world, the beginning of the article paints them in a manner that suggests they are better described as villainous dangerous interlopers. This situation in old Burma is guaranteed to gain more notoriety in the very near future, and having a balanced description in Wikipedia would be very valuable.

As an aside, I am not from Mynamar, I am not Rohingya, and I am not Muslim. I am a practicing Buddhist from the United States currently in Thailand. My own personal reaction is dismay for these people, and dismay that those claiming Buddhism as their spirituality are, bizarrely, promoting violence rather than compassion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.210.125 (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss this is the article's talk page. The problem is caused by single-purpose account User:JohnDoe2014 adding unreferenced defamatory statements and falsifying population numbers. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now sufficiently convinced that User:JohnDoe2014's edits were not intended as constructive, that I have reverted them without discussion. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: How does this happen?[edit]

I browse Wikipedia on a weekly basis and find numerous blatant errors (incorrect names, incorrect birth dates/years, blatant grammatical errors, blatant text errors, etc) almost every time. Usually I don't bother to correct them, but what I'll often do is make note of the article and come back every so often to see if the blatant error has been corrected. 90% of the time (even if it's months later) the error remains on the WP article. So my question is this: how does this happen, and how can WP be considered reliable and legitimate when these flagrant errors abound and remain uncorrected for long periods of time?

Two recent examples:

The Dennis Kozlowski article had an incorrect first name (a totally blatant error for an encyclopedia) going back to January 2011. That's over THREE YEARS where an article had somebody's name wrong.

In February 2013 a user added a second surname to the David Parker Ray article. I did a google search and could find ZERO reliable sources for that surname. So a completely made-up name remained on a WP article for over a year, again how does nobody catch this stuff?

24.193.119.220 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to avoid your question but you fully admit that you are catching these errors and not doing anything about them. You even take the time to research them but then not use just a little more time to fix them. Dismas|^(talk) 06:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that Wikipedia cannot be considered reliable. It is mostly reliable, but, as you say, the level of reliability is dependent on its many volunteer editors such as you and me. There is nobody whose job is to find, much less fix, errors. The standard advice is not to rely on Wikipedia for anything important, but to follow the references in its articles and check the facts from them. (Unfortunately, not all articles are as well referenced as they should be). If you find an error, even if you do not have time to research the issue, you can either remove it (if it is unreferenced) or tag it with a template such as {{fact}} which will draw others' notice to the doubt. If you do this, make sure you leave a meaningful edit summary, so that others will not think that you are vandalising the article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing these errors recently. Please make other improvements to Wikipedia. As said by Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia: You do!. We have more than four million articles and not enough good volunteer editors to check everything. Wikipedia is not completely reliable but still useful for many purposes. I guess that's why you do browse it on a weekly basis. If we had strict policies to reduce errors like disallowing unregistered users and demanding qualification tests for registered users then we would have far less content. The co-founder of Wikipedia created Citizendium with stricter policies to be more reliable but few people outside Wikipedia editors have heard of it. It has few articles, editors and readers, and very predictably has no information at all about Dennis Kozlowski and David Parker Ray. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I can't quite understand is how so many people can come across a blatant error and not fix it. If 1,000 people visit a particular WP article over say a 40 day period you'd think that maybe ONE person would take a minute or 30 seconds and correct the error. However that seems to not be the case since I have been browsing WP for about a year now and numerous times an error can remain (again not a minor error but a MAJOR/BLATANT ERROR) on an article for months or even years. IMO this decreases the credibility and legitimacy of WP, and frankly is just embarrassing. 24.193.119.220 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe others are like you and are checking to see how long an error will stay in an article rather than fixing it themselves. Another reason could be that the readers didn't recognize the errors. 69.255.176.248 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should completely understand why someone won't take a minute or 30 seconds and correct an error they find. At this point the only person we know came across the errors, recognized them as errors and left them in the article is you. 69.255.176.248 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify - what I would do is make note of an article by jotting it down on a piece of paper I keep near my computer, then check back usually after several months (sometimes sooner) and approx. 90% of the time the error was still not corrected. I would then correct it myself if it was still unchanged. 24.193.119.220 (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, you find errors jot them down without fixing them, wait to see if anyone else fixes them. Then when no one else fixes them you fix them and then complain that errors persist in articles because editors that see errors don't take the minute to fix them. One of the problems is you. We have no idea how many editors saw the errors you found, realized they were errors and didn't fix them. We do know of one person who has stated they found errors and left them in the articles for others to find, you. So since you do this, can you explain to us "How does this happen?" GB fan 12:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Wikipedia: How does this happen?. GB fan 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than noting it down and waiting a few months, why not simply fix the error when you see them? Astronaut (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan and Jason Quinn you are confused. The reason I'm posting here is to point out how inaccurate, unreliable, and riddled with double-standards Wikipedia is. I've noticed on numerous occasions how "WP Admins" or other editors who have been on WP for a while and have somehow "gained credibility" will squabble with "lesser" WP editors over a minute issue, or revert an accurate piece of information (usually because the source of info was deemed "unreliable" due to arbitrary rules that WP employs). 24.193.119.220 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this or the Village pump discussion have you ever stated this reason for raising this topic. In your original post you ask: "how does this happen, and how can WP be considered reliable and legitimate when these flagrant errors abound and remain uncorrected for long periods of time?" It isn't reliable and as far as I know, no one says it is reliable, there is even an essay about this, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You still haven't answered why you don't fix the errors you find at the time you initially find them rather than jotting them down and coming back later and fixing them. Anyone who doesn't fix errors they find is part of the problem. GB fan 18:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give an example of what I'm referring to. The past year or so that I have browsed and read articles on WP I've noticed the California Birth Index (CABI) is used as a reliable source for dates of birth (after all that website is about as reliable as you can get). I also have noticed on numerous articles (I'm fascinated by birth dates and number sequences, don't ask why) those very same references and DOB entries get removed because they are not "reliable". 24.193.119.220 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you fix the errors you find when you find them rather than jotting them down and coming back later? GB fan 18:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To see if other people correct them first, it's sort of like an experiment I guess you could say to see how bad WP actually is. 24.193.119.220 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you find an error, you should fix it. You should not rely on someone else to fix it in your place because no one else may have discovered the error. That is how Wikipedia works. Your line is more like complaining that no one is picking up litter while refusing to pick it up yourself. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of my edits are to correct bad grammar and punctuation rather than facts. To put it bluntly, I am appalled at the illiteracy of some Wiki contributors. --P123cat1 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All experienced Wikipedia editors know there are many errors in our millions of articles. You are not revealing something we don't already know. I have fixed lots of errors when I saw them and probably added a few myself. Most readers are not editors. We have no way of telling how many people have noticed the errors you mention without fixing them, but I wouldn't call those errors blatant. Lots of people have a rarely used part of their name. If Dennis Kozlowski usually goes by that name or L. Dennis Kozlowski then how many people know whether his first name is Leo or Leonard, and how many of those who have heard Leo don't know whether it's short for Leonard? Regarding your 90% statement, most errors are actually fixed quickly, often within minutes. You should see that if you look for errors in Special:RecentChanges and then check the article a minute, hour or day later. When you see an error while browsing around, it will often be an error which has been there for a long time, because you are unlikely to view the article in the brief period where a quickly fixed error was present. If the error has already been there a long time then it's statistically likely to also remain for a long time (unless you fix it), and maybe it isn't as blatant to others as to you. Can you give examples where the stated reason for removing California Birth Index references was reliability? There are other reasons for removing a birth date with such a reference, especially privacy of living people. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a radio station in the U.S. state of Washington is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This Sterrhinae moth related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article related to a Mexican film of the 1970s is a stub. Who can help Wikipedia by expanding it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

picture[edit]

Is this pic licence allowed here?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosfetfaser: No, this does not count as a "free" license for Wikipedia because it does not allow commercial re-use. Any pictures with this license will have to be treated as non-free, usable only under strict conditions. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super links User:John of Reading ta. The pic seems to comply with all those guidelines just this one seems vague, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" - no free pic is available, or it would already be in the article and as there is no free pic available one can't be created, so is a non free one acceptable, the pic is of a person in jail for ten years? Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to do it according to the non free guidelines - File:Jeremy Hammond.jpg - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as a living person, there is no valid justification for using a non free image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universities in Malawi[edit]

EXPLOITS UNIVERSITY

http://www.exploitsuniversity.com

You will fine information of this University here. It provides courses in the faculty of commerce. It is fast growing University in Malawi and has great reputation. Accredited in 2010 by the government

Other news on the same university;

http://mwnation.com/malawi-accredits-exploits-university/

http://mwnation.com/exploits-university-galilee-management-institute-sign-mou/

You can contact the Officers through the website and they will be able to help and also you can contact the Ministry of Education Malawi

Thank you.

Charlie Masiku

http://mwnation.com/exploits-university-galilee-management-institute-sign-mou/

http://mwnation.com/malawi-accredits-exploits-university/

http://www.exploitsuniversity.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Masiku (talk • contribs)

The proper place to suggest articles is at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Or if you'd like to create the article yourself, you might try Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Dismas|^(talk) 07:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lost[edit]

I was trying to know if ore Ida ever make a wrist watch by Seiko Ive looked I cant find it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.177.83 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk of Wikipedia. We answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. If you'd like your question answered at the Reference Desk, please post it there. Though in its current form, I don't think you'll get an answer since Ore Ida is a company that makes potato products, not watches. Dismas|^(talk) 07:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Draft:Dareysteel[edit]

Reference help requested. i do not know how to fix the missing errors... please can someone help me.... thanks

sorry i was little trying to fix something.... but i got the same problem again..... can someone help me ... thanks Thanks, Pepesalt (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{reflist}}: Diff/600279819. --Glaisher [talk] 08:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Sunbeam (car company)[edit]

The Sunbeam Car Company Limited has registered and is unable to correct the main heading to remove bracket on car company) and change to Car Company with no brackets.

We are also unable to upload the proper Sunbeam logo.

http://tinypic.com/r/14e6g4p/8

The Sunbeam Car Company Limited Please help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbeam Car Company (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DISAMBIGUATION for the reason for the bracketed part of the article title.--ukexpat (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request is apparently not to change the title to Sunbeam (a disambiguation page) but to Sunbeam Car Company (currently a redirect to Sunbeam (car company). According to an edit today [1]: "In March 2014 the new Sunbeam Car Company Limited acquired the Sunbeam trademarks after lengthy discussions with PSA. The company plans to introduce a range of new vehicles from 1.0 to 2.0 litres. The sporting marque will continue to be involved in motorsport." However, there are no Google hits on "Sunbeam Car Company Limited" and "Sunbeam Car Company Ltd", and the article is currently about the historic Sunbeam cars which did not have the "Sunbeam Car Company" name. It seems premature to change the title. If a new owner of the "Sunbeam" name actually produces notable cars as "Sunbeam Car Company" then it may be reconsidered. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the new "Sunbeam Car Company" ever does become notable, I hope someone will create a new article about it, rather than allowing an agent of the new company to subvert the existing article, which is about the company founded in 1888. Maproom (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It happens far too often that history is deleted in the course of "updating" articles. A new article about the new company is definitely preferable to "hijacking" an existing article that contains a lot of historical information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I translated an article about Юрій Гаврилюк from Ukrainian to English how can I submit it[edit]

This is not the place for a draft article

Hawrylyuk, Yuri Ivanovych

Yuri Hawrylyuk (September 2, 1964, Bilsk Pilias’ki, Poland) is a Ukrainian writer, photographer, historian, and journalist. He is a member of NSPU the National Writer’s Union of Ukraine.

Education;

He studied at the Jagiellonian University (Krakow, Poland 1990) and majored in history / archives. He was one of the organizers for the revival of the Ukrainian identity in the Pidliashshia movement, and founder of the Pidliashshia Ukrainian publishing house “Dumka” (the thought) in 1983. He was editor and chief of the “New Beginnings (Basics) “Osnovy” from 1987-89 and other non-periodical publications. From 1989-1990 he was the co-founder of the “Krag” (?) bulletin in Polish. He worked in the Ukrainian Scientific and Cultural Center in Krakow from 1991-93 and was the secretary of the executive board of the Pidliashshia Union of Ukrainians from 1993-96. He has been an editor of the “By the Buh and Narva” journal (magazine) since 1991 and editor and chief since 2001. He was president of the Pidliasha Publishers “Osbiva” from 1993-98, and 2000-01. In the 1990’s he was published in various Ukrainian periodicals and journals titled “Ukrainian Memorials” “Historical Antiquities”, “Weekly Mirror”, “Ukrainian Week”, “The Daily”, Lviv Newspaper, “The Saturday Post” (Lviv) e.g.

Hawrylyuk is the author of an Anthology of Poems, “V nenpromumaj ….. Pokhodi” 1986, “Geneologies without a coat of arms, 1988,) both of Bilsk Pidlias’kiy, “ Voices of Piliashshia” (Paris; L. Zwikau 1999) literary anthologies “Long Live Pidliasha; its experiences and thoughts” 2001, a book of writings, poems and essays “ The Web of Life” 2004 - both in Bielsk Pidlas’kyj.

He published a series of academic research papers about the history of Pidliasha and its ties to Ukraine. “Proposals for a Record of Pidliasha Dialects” known as “Hawryliukowytsia” (Bilsk Pidliaski 1988) “History of Pidliashian (Brest- Territories) in the 10th to 14th Centuries AD, (Hayniwka 1990) of Dziego > wooden< orthodox churches in Pidliasha from the 10th to the 17th Centuries AD. Bielsk Pidlias’ky 1993 “Kholm Region and Pidliasha” History and ethnic history of the region research paper (k. 1997)

He was co-author of “Rus’ Territory Bielsk, Mielnyk, Drohiczyn” Rusyn-Ukrainians in Pidliasha, facts and controversial opinions “ Krakow 1999- Bielsk Pidlias’ky, 2001 “Pidliasha in the shadows of Rus’ (preszlosci ?) bielsk Pilias’ky 2000). Edited an anthology “Rus’ Pidliasha. Pidliasha in the writings of the Romantics” (Bielsk, 1995) and a collection called “Let’s sing Christmas Carols “ Bot;ky 1999 “Zakoliaduyemo Vsi Razom”

During his studies, Juri was also interested in Photography. He had exhibits in Lviv (2008 Wasyl Pylypiuk Gallery) 2011 Lviv Museum of History and Religion, Toronto Ontario 2009, Green Mountains Poland 2009 and Bilostok, Poland 2009.

Awards ( Honors) Medal of Honor for Merit of the 3rd degree from Ukraine. Sept. 2009

[] Birth 9/2/1964 Place of birth Bilsk Pidlias’ky, Pidliasha, Poland Nationality (Heritage)(ethnicity) Ukrainian Citizenship Poland Languages Ukrainian, Pidliasha dialects, Polish Profession Author, Photographer, Historian, Journalist since 1981

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naples1972 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for a draft article, so I have collapsed the display. Wikipedia:Translation tells you what you need to know about attribution of the original material from which you have made the translation. What you also do need to do is add references to published reliable sources to support the text. When you have done that, you can submit the draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yuri Hawrylyuk by hitting the button that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". I have added some useful links to your user talk page, including Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

date correction in an article[edit]

I just wanted to bring to your attention an error in the article about the Grand Cetral Palace in New York City. The building opened in 1911 not 1913 as stated in your article. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/when-trade-shows-were-both-grand-and-central/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.182.220 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the sources I believe you're correct. I've modified the article accordingly, see this diff [2]. CaptRik (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article[edit]

This is a letter of complaint. I am not using the talk page for this article as it is monitored by a person whom I believe to be biased. The page is that of Anita Sarkeesian. Despite the on line "harassment" suffered by her I would like to point our that there is a lot of justified, erudite, and not at all abusive, criticisms about her methods, methodology, "research" and conclusions. Given that wiki usually attempts to present material impartially I find the complete lack of any kind of opposing view in this article to smell a little too ripe. Normally the "critical reception" part of one of your articles gives positive and negative reviews. Given that I know there has been a lot of negative reviews of her work I have to ask the question - "where are they?". In fact - where is the critical reception part at all? The page stops at Awards and Recognition... As if no dissenting point of view exists. As if it couldn't possibly exist unless it was abusive... The whole thing is just one big propaganda page and it damages your integrity to allow it to exist with no redress. Agree with her or not, such a one sided article is beneath your dignity... Isn't it?

From a female game developer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8RgbS9ESE

Erudite criticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&index=41&list=PLyup6hMz1qxWX4qmc85h8IqyEMppPedLU

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deivos (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article is the correct place for any discussion. It is monitored by a large enough number of editors that there is no danger that any one editor's bias (if it exists) could overturn any consensus. Discussion elsewhere might be regarded as forum shopping, but of course having discussed at the talk page there are avenues for dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deivos This has also been dealt with to death. The editors who don't like Sarkeesian keep presenting criticism from non-notable bloggers, non-notable podcasters, non-notable YouTubers, etc. The rejection of these sources have nothing to do with how "erudite" the voices are, rather that they are non-notable. The individuals who keep insisting that negative coverage of Sarkeesian be presented typically have an anti-Sarkeesian agenda, don't generally understand Wikipedia's rules surrounding biographical articles of living people and don't understand that Wikipedia requires coverage from reliable sources, not just erudite nobodies from the internet. To give a voice to fringe opinions is to provide undue weight to their opinions of detractors. And even when they finally find some sources that are reliable and mention some negative aspect of Sarkeesian, the subject matter is typically frivolous (example: the accusation that Sarkeesian/Feminist Frequency misappropriated fan art) to be worthy of inclusion. So, to be clear about this: Fringe opinions aren't typically noteworthy, the opinions of non-notable individuals aren't typically noteworthy, biographies of living people are to be held to a high standard, and Wikipedia isn't a scandal sheet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One edit left behind[edit]

Dear editors. I accepted an Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dale F. Rudd and it was moved to Dale F. Rudd and a redirect created as usual. However, for some reason, the last edit, the one in which I accepted the submission, was left behind in the history of the redirect. Is there any way to fix this up, or does it matter anyway? What would cause this? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an oldid link to the edit in question. As far as I can see, the only edit in the former page's history is this one, in which you created the redirect by moving the page. Such a redirect is created whenever anyone moves any page, except for when an admin moves a page without redirect, and that's basically a deletion situation. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are seeing here is Anne having a little episode of fuzzy thinking. For some reason I didn't see in the mainspace article the edit in which I moved the page (it was there, though, just further back than I remembered), and when I saw the edit summary of the edit in the redirect I thought that that was it. I have managed to waste your time, and I apologize. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I was guessing the fuzzy thinking :-) I requested the oldid just in case I'd overlooked something myself. Had the history really been split, the fix would have been totally impossible for you, but trivial for an admin familiar with history merges. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves if you care about the details; in short, we delete one page, move the other page on top of it, and restore the deleted edits. This way, all the edits become part of the same page history, and they cannot be separated except by a reverse of the histmerge process. Sometimes this kind of reversal is necessary, and it too can be performed by deleting the page, restoring the revisions to be moved, moving them, and then restoring the remaining revisions. See the history of Medical abortion for the end result of this kind of activity; although you can't see them, there are five deleted revisions for the page, all of which involve changing a redirect target. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, doesn't that sound like fun? I have glanced over that page, but as you say I can't really make use of the information. Thanks again. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the "Strains and Origins" section in "Kava"[edit]

We have been trying to add a link to provide a citation within the Strains and Origin section within the subject- "Kava". Our link is to a free on line book published in Hawaii in 2006 - Hawaiian 'Awa Views of an Ethnobotanical Treasure. This is within the library section of the webpage- 'Awa Development Council. Each time we provide the link , within a few hours it is deleted. It is not copyrighted material. By inserting the link, are we doing something incorrect?75.233.49.215 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see why it was being reverted, look at the "History" tab on the article and read the edit summaries. The editor who reverted your edits referred you to WP:ELNO, so you need to read that. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I went to WP:ELNO and see numerous potential reasons for reverting my edits. How can we find out specifically which one(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.233.157.82 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had placed this reply in the section above, but I assume that you intended it to be here so I have moved it for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know what the reverting editor had in mind, you could ask him, but you would be better off just reading WP:ELNO and any necessary further links. It looks to me as if you were adding an external link when what you should have been adding was a reference, so try reading WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re article[edit]

We are kents only independent cadet unit, was wondering if it's possible to write about us on here ? Www.kmcf.co.uk

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.31.37 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have a stand alone article, the subject must meet certain requirements, essentially that reliably published third party sources have covered the subject in a detailed manner. If you have evidence of such coverage, you can request that such an article be created. However as people with conflict of interest, you should not attempt to create or directly edit such an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikiproject that discusses weightlifting?[edit]

Dear editors: I wanted to report this draft article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Bernor to someone who can tell me if the powerlifting claims are accurate. I didn't find "weightlifting" or "powerlifting". Is this covered under another title? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness is a possibility. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Bodybuilding ? Smarkflea (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will see if I can find an interested editor at one of these places. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]