Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 9 July 2011

Archives

• v
• t
• e

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

Query re source formatting

Paul_W._Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Editor,

Just need your assistance to verify the correct method of displaying sources and if so, have the notification box removed from the top section of the mentioned article. I have inserted in-line citations as requested and hopefully have met with all the necessary guidelines to have the notification removed.

Kindly provide guidance if there are any other adjustments to be made. Thank you.

PS: First time using this assistance request so forgive me if I did not follow any of the steps to post this request correctly.

Kreisler --PA KualaLumpur (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you need a few more citations, I have placed tags where they are needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITE provides all the instructions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, I have placed the referencing as requested. Will this be sufficient? Kindly advise if more is required. Thanks.

Kreisler --PA KualaLumpur (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the banner and all of the citation needed tags, bar one, re his family. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential vandalism of an IP's talk page by the IP

Hi, this page: User talk:27.3.18.100 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) is not an actual user's page but the IP is treating it as though it is.

Secondly, I changed the page so it removed the "You have new messages" section and also the part about "articles I find interesting".

However, the IP posted a message on my talk page claiming it is not trolling.

Regardless of if it is trolling or not, shouldn't the talk page before communication only and not used as a User Page? Gorlack36 (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for the WP:SMI guideline? DMacks (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be it! Thanks! Gorlack36 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the user at the IP still believes themselves to be in the right so I am now asking for an admin's opinion on it.

This IP is determined to both have a User page but not register an account, and is very persistent in keeping this material! I reported him at ] and we'll see what happens, but he sure isn't off to a good start -- JohnInDC (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprised they've not been blocked yet, they've thrown and good faith out the window and don't see anything other than disruptive editing. Rehevkor ✉ 16:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked now, says they'll create an account (which will solve the Talk page content but probably not the attitude issue - ) JohnInDC (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Same silliness on the registered user and user talk page, here and here. On the plus side the disagreement seems to have been narrowed to the propriety of a simulated "you have new messages" alerts at the top of the user and Talk page, which - when completely faithful as the user prefers them - appear plainly to violate WP:SMI. (Contrast the slightly altered example here.) I worry that we have a nascent disruptive editor here who needs to appreciate that editors need to remain within the bounds of WP policy, particularly a policy that gained him a block before; I also worry on the other hand that we may also have a somewhat more experienced editor (ahem) who's allowing himself to get caught up in something that, in the greater scheme, doesn't much matter. Another couple of eyeballs and / or opinions would help. JohnInDC (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has a blatant disregard to what people are telling him about WP:SMI - to the point of disruption - the only thing left now if admin intervention in my eyes. If he really "doesn't give a fuck" he shouldn't give a fuck if he loses the ability to edit Misplaced Pages at all. Rehevkor ✉ 11:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Translated text still under copyright?

I was looking at the new pages and found the page Archobarzane. However upon a quick google I also found this website of which the page is a direct copy save for the fact it has been translated into English. Surely there is some copyright issue here but I'm not certain? Nonetheless it might appear that it has been incorrectly referenced. Reichsfürst (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC

Looking into it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Under US copyright law, translations are considered derivative works, so unless the original text is under a free license, translations should not be used on Misplaced Pages. (Disclaimer: IANAL, and this may be an incorrect understanding of the intricacies of Misplaced Pages copyright policy.) Danger (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

From User talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyright of translations:

If the author is interested in translating any more of these from this or similar compendia, perhaps they can be introduced to WikiSource as a way of doing this more clearly and verifiably? --Fæ (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Vermina by the same editor is just a paraphrase of a presumably out of copyright book here . Ironically it says Vermina is the last king but Archobarzane's article has him as king after Vermina. In any case the name is not the way it's spelled in English (probably because he's relying on a translation0, the English versionof the name is Ariobarzanes which gives us some sources in English so copyvio aside the article needs to be moved and disambiguated as there are other kings by that name. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I can do the move or speedy it but I think that the content is probably notable so I shall proceed by informing the author of this discussion in the hope they can do a paraphrase onto the moved page - sound alright? Reichsfürst (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The only content is a copyvio. I think these need to be started from scratch. --Danger (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

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

The user http://en.wikipedia.org/User:SudoGhost keeps on deleting my edits in the above mentioned article.
How should I proceed to request a mediation on who edits are right?

UPDATE:
I would like also to challange SudoGhost's unfair blockage on my account that has led all of my user credits on wikipedia to be withdrawn.

Francisco luz (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost was removing copyrighted information that you'd persistently been adding to the Boleto page, and I just removed a bunch of material you added that came from another web site, apparently without permission. That is a copyright violation, which is unacceptable at Misplaced Pages, and which was the basis for your earlier block. JohnInDC (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also not an administrator, and I do not have the ability to block users. You were blocked by Killiondude for copyright violations and edit warring, and your block was extended the next day by Elockid for "Abusing multiple accounts: Continued edit warring". If you continue to introduce the copyrighted information into the article, you may find yourself blocked again, if not indefinitely blocked. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and this is why your edits were reverted and revdel'd (I'm assuming that's what your "user credits" being withdrawn means) - SudoGhost™ 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I used the so called copyrighted website as a reference, and my lastest revision is completely different, although still represents the same information, from the original website.

Second, your words sounds like a treat to me and does not resembles what Wekipedia should be about.

Third, this guy, SudoGhost is abusing his power as I have tried to contact him on his talk page and he simply deleted my request. Francisco luz (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to introduce copyrighted material into the article, you may be blocked from editing. This is not a threat, it is a fact, unlike your comment on my talk page telling me to "watch out" (which was not deleted, by the way, it was archived by a bot after 14 days of inactivity). As to the "power" I'm abusing, I'm not sure what you're referring to. As I said, I am not an administrator, I'm an editor, I do not have the ability to "delete" talk page comments. - SudoGhost™ 17:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I found at least two near word-for-word duplications in the most recent addition. I suggest going through and *completely rewriting* the subject text, no copy-paste at all. I am confident that if you reintroduce any verbatim material again, you'll be blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the issued pointed out by JohnInDC on the discussion page. Nevertheless, sudoGhost persists on reverting my edits without supplying a reason for that. I believe that after fixing the issues that JohnInDC has found, now there is no copyright violation whatsover. Please, I kindly request a mediator. Thank you all, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco luz (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: As a result of User:Francisco luz's continued insertion of copyrighted material and violating WP:3RR (as documented at Talk:Boleto), user was blocked by User:EdJohnston for one month. - SudoGhost™ 19:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing headline

I have recently created a page for my company named CGS Inc. yet when I choose to submit it, it has submitted the article with the following headline "User:CGS Inc./CGS Inc." Hoe do I get rid of it in order to leave just the following headline "CGS Inc" ? I have tried multiple ways yet none of them worked.

User:CGS Inc./CGS Inc.

Thank you, Liyah — Preceding unsigned comment added by CGS Inc. (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for coming here to ask your question. The immediate answer is that the page needs to be Moved to a page named simply, CGS Inc. But there are a few things that need to be sorted before that can happen. First off, Misplaced Pages is not a directory of businesses and companies cannot be added simply because they exist. Instead, they must meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirements, which usually means significant coverage by reliable and independent third party sources. I am not sure that CGS meets those criteria. Second, it's generally not a good idea to write about matters in which you have a direct interest - see the conflict of interest guidelines. Finally, usernames belong to individuals, not companies, and you're going to have to change yours. See WP:Username policy for tips there. Your current account will probably be blocked as in violation of that naming policy, but feel free to create a new one that is yours alone. And please don't take it too hard, or too personally, if CGS Inc doesn't (yet) satisfy the notability requirements. JohnInDC (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Article was moved to main space and is now the subject of an AfD discussion; user was blocked for username issue. This one is 'resolved' here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannot get rid of template messages at the top pf my article. HELP PLEASE!

I created the article, Aaron Bay-Schuck. It is an unbiased writing of Mr. Bay-Schuck's accomplishments as an A&R Executive in the music industry. I have repeatedly requested feedback on this article and have received none. I also created a talk page and have not had any one engage me in a discussion about my page. I want to get rid of the template messages at the top of my article that read, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and "This page is a new unreviewed article" as soon as possible. Please tell me how I can do that. Thank you!Absatlantic (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The first tag is easy, at this point it shouldn't come off. You appear to have a conflict of interest. Your username makes it appear that you are Aaron Bay-Schuck because the initials at the front of your username are his initials and he works for Atlantic records, the end of your username.

The second tag I will take off in a little while. I will do a review of the article and update the tags on the article. I will leave a message on the talk page after I review it. GB fan (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a common misreading of wp:coi. Such a connection/interest would not not itself a wp:coi. If it is allowed to take precedence over the aims of Misplaced Pages, then it would be wp:coi. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article has a notability issue as well. A couple of media mentions, brief interviews on industry web sites and a blog are the only refs. JohnInDC (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to your first response. I am not Aaron Bay-Schuck, but sense there is no way to prove that, at what point could the template that reads, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" come off? Also what other articles could be included to help the notability issue? Please give examples. Thank you for the help! Absatlantic (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to him or atlantic records? We need to have reliable sources that provide significant coverage of him but they also need to be independent of him. Interviews, websites produced by him or Atlantic Records, press releases don't qualify. These can be used to verify info but not to establish notability. GB fan (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to what type of reference would suffice. My first reference is from Variety Magazine which is a huge nationwide weekly magazine. I would think that would suffice. Please give me a detailed example.Absatlantic (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A reference such as the first one would be good if it was about Aaron Bay-Schuck. The reference is not about him but about the label. We need to find an article about him from a source similar to that. I can't point to any specific reference because I haven't been able to find anything that works. Can you explain your username and what connection you have to Aaron Bay-Schuck or Atlantic Records? GB fan (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Vanity Fair is a reliable source, but Bay-Schuck is only quoted, twice, and there's no detailed coverage of him in the article. What would work would be a piece on him, not one using him as a source, one that covers aspects of his life or work. Also, I cannot help but note that you did not answer GB fan's question. Do you have any connection to him or atlantic records? We act on good faith here, so we expect honesty and openness about these kinds of issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GB Fan and Nuujin. I believe a piece in Billboard should be running shortly on Aaron specifically, and I will add that as soon as it's available. Will also add other sources that fit what you're describing. To answer your question, I am an intern, but wanted the username to be something that relates to Aaron's name so that future interns can help maintain the page and add sources as they come. Right now, however, it's just been me editing this article. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I want to be open and get this page in proper shape. Absatlantic (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a smart idea about the user name but unfortunately it runs afoul of Misplaced Pages's user name policy (see WP:User name policy) in that every user name must associate to an individual, not to a company or to a position. My suggestion would be to come up with a user name for your own self, and permanently retire the Absatlantic one, which in addition to violating policy rather screams "conflict of interest" and is going to be source of constant confusion! Make this username change soon, because I think the existing name is at risk of being blocked - JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the article a little more, I don't think that the subject of the article is quite there yet in terms of notability. When reliable sources writing about him (vs merely quoting him) begin to appear, and more than sporadically, then the issue should be revisited. But for now I think the article is pretty much just puff and promotion. JohnInDC (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been PROD'ed and the user account blocked as promotional. For immediate purposes I think this item can be marked as resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting of References in Michael Deibert article

I had posted references in http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Deibert (as well as on the discussion page) which subsequently were deleted. I have used Misplaced Pages in different ways for a long time and never encountered such behavior personally and without any discussion. Maybe I was lucky and this is common, but it seems to go against policies to delete sourced material. I do understand that this is a biography of a living person and therefore only posted material that is sourced with references. Any advice? Context23 (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of those "references" were to blogs, trunk.ly links, and the like. Such "references" don't meet our standards and are unlikely to last. Have you discussed this with MultiWorlds on his/her talk page? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have discussed this with MultiWorlds on his/her talk page. Links to blogs were posted by me in the Deibert article, but subsequently removed by me upon reflection that these are not appropriate, see edit history. I did however link to three newspaper and magazine articles these references (and the accompanying text) were constantly removed by Multiworlds with the claim of libel, without discussion as to why these articles could not serve as references or why they could be considered defamatory. In addition Multiworlds has taken to deleting content from my user talk page. Context23 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

herb details

优顿草/Clinathanus/Sabah Snake Grass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhgh59 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.9 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Misplaced Pages, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Misplaced Pages itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits in wikipedia/general

What is wikipedia best practice regarding mentioning filed lawsuits in an individual's entry? They're unproven(as yet) in court, only an allegation - do they have to be mentioned, or is it unfair to individual. Or does it depend on context? - wjcohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjcohen (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If they haven't been mentioned in reliable third-party press reports, then they have no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

it has been mentioned in a third party report - still, without any burden of proof, is it still acceptable? Seems potentially defaming until a verdict, no? - thanks! wjcohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjcohen (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what kind of "third party report" we are talking about here. Allegations reported in the actual press are different from mere gossip on blogs and in the shabbier tabloids. We are always cautious about biographies of living people; but we are not subject to nonsense like the English superinjunctions. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent example: the Dominique Strauss-Kahn article deals with the recent charges against him, even though they have not been heard by a court. The allegations have been discussed in reliable sources so that's OK. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do about personal attack that's in a talk page?

I haven't encountered this before, but there is a personal attack on someone named McPherson in the talk page of the Sons of Confederate Veterans article. I know it's not appropriate but don't know what I should do when I see something like that.Waltezell (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing by removing it. Our talk page guidelines generally do not allow editing another user's posts, but in the case of clear personal attacks you may remove them. --Danger (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that editor made similarly inappropriate talk-page comment on Talk:Pakistan Army. I removed that one and left a warning for the poster (69.1.38.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). DMacks (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I revisited the page, I realized this was not a tough call.Waltezell (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter/Orbit

quote:

Jupiter's rotation is the fastest of all the Solar System's planets, completing a rotation on its axis in slightly less than ten hours; this creates an equatorial bulge easily seen through an Earth-based amateur telescope. This rotation requires a centripetal acceleration at the equator of about 1.67 m/s2, compared to the equatorial surface gravity of 24.79 m/s2; thus the net acceleration felt at the equatorial surface is only about 23.12 m/s2.

SHOULD IT NOT BE "CENTRIFUGAL" ACCELERATION ?? and NOT centripetal, as it clearly is a result of circular motion and thus reduces the net gravity by (quoted) ...

from my humble hogh-school knowledge of phycics

(Redacted)

Zeljko Novacic M.A. (linguistics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.122.51 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You should probably discuss this on the article's talk page where it is likely to receive a quicker and more knowledgeable answer. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (M.A. (Oxon.))

Conflict of Interest, What to do

As per the guidelines stated regarding Conflict of Interest,, I wanted to pose a question to the editors, and see what the response is.

I've been working with a startup company on a product, and we wanted to create a wiki page detailing the history of the product, current revision, past revision, future revision, etc. etc.

I've told them, and they agree, that we should do what we can to keep the information static and non-leaning, e.g. linking only to press releases, newspaper articles, etc. etc.

That said, looking through the COI page, I'm not sure what the best course of action is.

Furthermore, the issue of Company Notability, the fact that we are a start-up plays against us.

I can guess what the answer will be, but I wanted to ask the community anyways, at the risk of looking like a fool.

What would be the best course of action for a company that wants to put out onto Misplaced Pages a definition of what they are trying to do (more or less)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.243.91 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Editting Restrictions

I appear to be able to edit all topics that I enter except for the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic. I was just recently unbanned by Black Kite at the direction of Jimbo Wales. Have I been topic banned? If so, why? Gregmm (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)gregmm

• Misplaced Pages help forums