Rue Adolphe Mille, Paris

Archives

Notability question

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can articles in one Wikipedia (i.e. in another language) be notable but not in another Wikipedia? Surely there exist articles in other language Wikipedias but not in the English Wikipedia and vice-versa. MuZemike (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. I don't think there's any way to enforce consistency across different-language versions. There might well be articles that exist in other language Wikipedias that haven't even been created here, so the notability of such pages would be undetermined, too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think not, so long as we are using the general notability standard defined on this Wikipedia. That standard is "being the subject of significant treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That is an objective standard that does not vary regardless of which Wikipedia has an article on the subject, or indeed whether any Wikipedia has an article on the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the consistency of notability guidelines across languages. For example, English Wikipedia might have a more exclusive WP:BAND guideline than another language, or the other language might not have WP:PORNBIO. However, I believe the general notability guidelines are going to be fairly consistent across projects, at least in the spirit of the guidelines (as opposed to the specific wording). Was there a particular subject you had in mind? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that on ja:Wikipedia, they don't usually allow articles on current events (they wait until it's clear the subject has lasting historical notability). Here on en:Wikipedia, we have uncontested articles on everything from Tropical Storm Edouard (2008) to University of Florida Taser incident to Diet (Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode). So there are differences in the specifics of notability across Wikipedias, but probably not the generalities. -kotra (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse by Wiki administrator "Prince of Canada"

In examining the Wikipedia postings regarding evolution vs creation, I noticed an extreme and apparent discrepency in apparent favor of evotion, and an obvious omission (ie, intentional editing out) of points regarding creation or intelligent design. It became readily apparent to me that someone (or a number of people) was very dedicated to biasing the Wikipedia toward the evolutionary concept rather than presenting an unbiased and fair presentation of both sides.

Well, that's the wikipedia. I set about making some factual changes in contest of questionable claims being made (for example, that "the scientific community" discards the concept of intelligent design... an overtly blanket and fraudulent statement).

What I did not expect were the activities of "Prince of Canada" in immediately reversing every single entry I made... even a very factual entry regarding the controversy regarding the writings of Sir Fred Hoyle.

I then began receiving threatening messages from "Prince", telling me that I was leaving "incorrect" information and to stop doing so. The information I left was very factual and was not at all incorrect-- except in his personal opinion. This person appears to believe that "Wiki Nazi" is a proper style for editing the Wikipedia and he has very obviously applied the position he has on Wikipedia to prejudicially and in a biased manner promote evolutionary theory. His activities quite apparently extend to editing out ANY and ALL comments contrary to his personal beliefs... and threatening to ban people who disagree with his personal philosophies.

I do not believe this is the way the Wikipedia should be operated. No one has the right to supress factual presentations of others. That there are unbalanced individuals who will insist via power of edit on enforcing their personal beliefs on others and the Wikipedia in general... that should not be the case with people who moderate this system.

It is obvious from the listings given that "Prince of Canada" has developed a habitual policy of viewing all pro-creation or pro-intelligent-design arguments as "incorrect" and "unfactual" and has taken it upon himself to remove all such entries. The very fact that two primary Wikipedia headings are listed as "Evolution" and "Creation Myth" give strong evidence of such.

I question: is the Wikipedia a balanced source of information, or is it the personal belief-blog of Prince of Canada?

I'm an admin now? Cool beans. To clarify, and save y'all some diff-diving:

The user was continually adding the following to Objections to evolution:

Note: readers should be aware of the dominance of pro-evolutionary thought in these articles. Statements such as "the scientific community" should be taken with a grain of salt (there is a significant portion of "the scientific community" that supports the concept of intelligent design). The presentation of pro-evolutionary arguments and the conspicuous absense of arguments for intelligent design might also be considered while examining these arguments. It is not the purpose of the Wikipedia to present prejudicial or biased opinions regarding a subject, but rather to present a rounded "both sides" view of these issues.

Non-encyclopedic, non-referenced, unfactual vandalism. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And how do you explain editing out other entries sir? I also quesiton how you consider the above factual statement as "vandalism". It very accurately portrays obvious and intentional biasing of the Wikipedia and notifies users that such things obviously take place. That is not "vandalism"... that is a statement of obvious fact... fact that I witnessed as you methodically removed every single one of my posts this eveing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.19.97 (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read some of our policies and guidelines: neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, other things Wikipedia is not, verifiability, vandalism, and reliable sources, for starters. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia guidelines and the concept of Wikipedia. That does not validate you imposing your personal beliefs on the Wikipedia community. It is very obvious from reading the post on evolution controversy that it had been gone through with a fine tooth comb and all arguments from anti-evolutionists removed. It was equally obvious that this was done by one person or a group of people dedicated to such agenda (such things do leave tell-tale marks). Upon observing your activities this evening, it became apparent to me how such things come about. Anything contrary to your beliefs are immediately edited out and when someone points out that is happening... you send messages threatening to ban them from posting should such continue. In other areas this is called "blog Nazi" attitude, and it's very apparent that such policies are being applied to the Wikipedia. The result is a biased, prejudiced, unfair presentation of one-sided arguments rather than an informative, balanced document. And no quoting of "guidelines" or bogus claims of "vandalism" is going to alter that very visible fact.

Sorry you disagree with what I have to say. I'm even more sorry that you use your position on Wikipedia to enforce your concepts upon others. It results in a system that is far less than it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.19.97 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, right.. well, here's the thing. There's a neat program that can be used for combating vandalism on Wikipedia. I use it. Take a look right here to see all the edits I've made this evening using it. I think you'll note that the only point of view I'm pushing is that Wikipedia policies should be followed. I think you'll also note that there were no threats; the messages on your talk page (which are automatic) explain pretty clearly why what you were doing was unacceptable to WP policy, and merely outlined for you what the next steps would be if you continued to violate policy. That's how it works around here. And I believe I'm done with this conversation now. God bless. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, dear 72.135.19.97. You must assume good faith here, and you do seem to be failing to meet that requirement to the extent that you're making personal attacks on an editor. That can get you blocked, don't do it. Sadly, you don't seem to have got the hang of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, to name a few. I've popped some hints which explain these acronyms onto your talk page, hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prince of Canada and dave souza here, except 72.135.19.97 is correct in questioning the characterization of that particular edit as "vandalism". According to WP:VAND: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." That particular edit was unacceptable for Wikipedia, but it wasn't vandalism. It bothers me how some editors leap to calling all poor edits vandalism, and to me shows a lack of assuming good faith. But at least that one edit (I haven't looked at his/her others) was correctly reverted by Prince of Canada, no bias needed. -kotra (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Investment bank promoting itself and/or its management book

User:HoulihanLokey and User:64.94.105.98 (an IP registered to "Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin", their article here is Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin) have recently edited several financial articles to add material that almost invariably cites their $200 management book, with Houlihan Lokey cited as one of the authors. Sometimes the statements added do seem to improve the article, while others such as this seem trivial and contrived only to promote the company name and/or sell the book. I'd appreciate some administrator comments on these edits, and especially on whether the book cited qualifies as a WP:RS that should be cited here at all. --CliffC (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there aren't many admins on this board, but I still think there's a solution. The book, in my view, certainly meets the standards of WP:RS. However, the user is failing to reference page numbers in their citations, which is necessary under WP:CITE, especially for textbooks. If either the registered or IP user inserts edits that appear to be trivial or unnecessary, I would remove them and open a talk discussion. Really, it's all going to come down to article consensus as to whether or not the book and the information it provides should be inserted into the article. Let's see if we get a response to either of our COI warnings. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I am trying to improve articles and address the requests for "citation" and "verification" on some key topics that many people are currently interested in. It is not my intention to sell a "$200" book. I actually began to use that book because of Wikipedia "citation" and "verification" and "copyright" guidelines. The extensive Wikipedia rules are not a quick read, and I am trying to keep up with all the various nuances as my time permits, please see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I do believe that any Wiki posted by someone is written by them and they have some form of involvement with the topic, so I am trying to understand why a publication such as this book would ignite such hostility from an editor. HoulihanLokey (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is hostile to your book, if we seem "hostile" at all, not the case, it is due to your insistent plugging of the book and of your employer Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, in spite of an admitted conflict of interest on your part and that of 64.94.105.98. There are no "nuances" in the Wikipedia rules when it comes to conflict of interest – self-promotion is not allowed, as has been explained on the talk pages of both you and 64.94.105.98, in particular here, where the consensus approach to editing is again explained. I can understand why a business (even an international investment bank such as Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin) might feel the need to promote itself in the pages of Wikipedia, but you have been ill-advised to do so. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --CliffC (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on Epicadam's suggestion, I entered in page numbers.

The reference to the Insolvency Act 1986 is not unnecessary to a section on bankruptcy in the United Kingdom, especially in a larger article regarding bankruptcy that mentions "law" over 20 times.

Under every edit screen this appears: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." Which likely means that those rules are intended to apply to all edits -- not just those already in the article.

If an uninvolved editor will make an edit based on information provided, there should be a proper citation to a reliable source and Epicadam pointed out that this book is certainly a reliable source.

If you would like to expand the bankruptcy article as Tempshill does here, the book I've referenced contains in-depth chapters on legal analysis of bankruptcy in England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. But please give proper attribution to the expert information in order to comply with Wikipedia copyright terms. HoulihanLokey (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your editor stole my edit

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A while back I made an edit on a simpsons episode and then deleted it and then took credit for it I notice this happening a lot with not just me but other people than myself. The edit had to do with the episode where stephen colbert appeared on the simpsons and I mention how dan castlentta and colbert both preformed on the 2nd city troupe which was featured on the episode. The editor said I vandalized it then put the same edit. I went to his page and noticed dozens of similar occurences with this particular person. It's frustrating and makes me A.) not trust the site B.) think the editors are plagirizers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.200.117 (talk • contribs)

Greetings 76.116.200.117 and welcome to Wikipedia. I think perhaps you are confused about a few things. First of all, an "editor" on a wiki is just a person who makes edits to a page. When you edited this page to add your complaint, you were an editor of Wikipedia. When you say "your editor", it sounds like you think that editors on Wikipedia are senior contributors or something and I just wanted to let you know that this is not the case, that all contributors on Wikipedia are called "editors" and all are equal. Secondly, when you click the "edit this page" button, if you look below the edit box, near the "save page" button, you will see it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL... If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Basically, what this means is that when you posted that material, you licensed it under the GFDL which means that other people can modify it, change it, build on it and so forth. Your contributions can even be used commercially by other people. I'm not sure exactly what happened in this situation you describe, but if you want to provide a link to where this happened, I, or someone else here, will have a look into it for you. But it's possible that the contributor reverted your because he thought that it violated one of our polices but then had second thoughts and reverted himself to restore your edit, or perhaps that someone else disagreed with him and reverted him in turn, thus restoring your edit. It's not really possible in the general context of editing articles here on Wikipedia to "steal" someone's edit to an article and "take credit" for it because it remains in the history of the page so that anyone can see that you were the person who contributed that material. Also, there's not really any benefit in stealing someone's edit because of the history page for the article shows exactly who contributed what and when. Also, please do not call other users names. It's a violation of the no personal attacks and civility policies and you'll end up being blocked if you're not able to express yourself without name calling and personal attacks. If you want me or someone else to look at what happened with you and this other editor, just post a link to the discussion and we will try to give you more assistance and information. Regards, Sarah 13:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Severe link deletion problems in reference section of 'W201 Mercedes-Benz'

Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W201 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having severe problems with someone who keeps deleting the link in the reference section to a very useful website. They delete the link I place and replace it with another one, which is starting to get a bit childish. The website I add is a very useful one and is used by many people to find information which cannot be found elsewhere.

What would be nice is if their link and the link I place could be there together and then the page to be partially protected against editing the references. I see no reason why both sites cannot be listed, however the other person 'Extrastrongmerc' does... I am not sure why? Both sites are for owners clubs of the Mercedes 190, however the site I list is free to join and has hundreds of pages of information on the 190(W201) and is not just a forum. It also has a technical help section for anyone who has any problems...I know the other site has not got this and is in now way as helpful. Although I do think both should be listed to ensure no hard feelings.

If anyone can give me any assistance on what to do, please let me know... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.166.103 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. I suggest you read Wikipedia's guideline on External Links. The issue with the links you have added is that they are both links to forums, which are prohibited (rule #10). For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, 79.75.166.103, please familiarise yourself with the 3RR policy which states that you may not revert more than three times in a 24 hour period and if you do you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I note that you and the other fellow seem to have reverted each other a dozen or more times. I don't think the links you're fighting over are suitable for Wikipedia but please be aware that you may be blocked without further warning if you continue edit warring. Sarah 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, I was not aware forum links were not allowed on wikipedia... That is no problem at all, I will not be adding any more forum links although I will add a link to a related site but not a forum, Thank you for looking into this for me. [79.75.166.103] 16:12, 7 October 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.166.103 (talk)

Edition of article removed shortly after.

Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

H.van Asten, The Netherlands. Desertfax.

I tried to edit the article on Amelia Earhart with a recent new theory published in a professional magazine. Shortly after uploading in the English Wikipedia the review disappears without notice.Up to now the incident took place for two times. What reason could it be ? The same addition to the Amelia Earhart article in the Netherlands Wikipedia incurring no obstruction.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfax (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. The editor who removed the material from the article objected to its use in the article and requests that you start a topic on the article's talk page to discuss the new material. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Newman page

Resolved. Clarification added to article. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Paul Newman page, his widow, Joanne Woodward, is listed in the right sidebar with the following lifespan: "Joanne Woodward (1958–2008)." That implies that she died this year, which I think is untrue. R. Bickford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.114.162.136 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe those are the years they were married, not her lifespan. Either that, or Mr. Newman was quite literally a cradle robber. ;-p -- Vary Talk 14:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I attempted some clarification by adding (divorced) and (his death). --Jh12 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image upload assistance

Common threads merged. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I urgently need help, i need to upload our new logo to your page and i cant do it!I wasted 4 hours in trying! how can i upload your need logo to your page? Please come back to me.

Thanks, Caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besa321 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What was the logo and which article is it going to be placed in? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me so quickly. The logo is in Jpeg format and i would like to upload it to the Bond Exchange Page on Wikipedia, but it doesnt give me any option to import the logo. It looked like it can only be done by a wikipedia administrator. Can you help me with this, can i maybe email you the logo or how does this work? Thanks, Caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besa321 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As a registered user, you should be able to click on "Upload image" on the left-hand navigation bar. You will then be able to go through the upload process. I have placed a welcome notice on your talk page which discusses how to add images to articles once you have uploaded the logo. Should you need assistance adding an image to a particular page, you may also want to ask for help on the article's talk page. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

need help with uploading a logo

Merged common threads. epicAdam^(talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Help me, i need to upload our logo to our wikipedia page- can you please help me with this? this is very urgent and i am struggling alot!!!

Regards Caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besa321 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE HELP ME, i uploaded images to our webpage and it is a big mess up. Can someone please assist me, i need help, i cant do it alone, i am struggling and i am messing up the page, please assist me

Regards Besa321 (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP -NEED URGENT HELP

Merged yet another common thread —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE HELP ME, i uploaded images to our webpage and it is a big mess up. Can someone please assist me, i need help, i cant do it alone, i am struggling and i am messing up the page, please assist me

Regards

Besa321 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, it's not a big mess really. You just need to make sure that the fair use rationale contains all the requested answers. Whilst you are at it though, you should be aware that when you say 'our company', I presume that means that you have created an/or you are editing an article about a subject that you have an involvement/connection with. Be aware that this will create conflict of interest questions. I have been following this article, indeed I was the one that added all the improvement tags, I can see that the company is probably notable, but references are needed to confirm that notability and you should really declare your interest in the company on the talk page and let other uninvolved editors help create the article to avoid it getting deleted for COI/spam reasons. Mfield (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added some requested info into the fair use template which will stop the bot sending out the dire warnings that seemed so worrying. Mfield (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

help to improve an article

hi i am trying to improve the apache beat article as it seems to have all sorts of notes on the top of it requesting improvement. how would one go about this?

Anabananaana (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted a welcome and a link to the musicians project at User talk:Anabananaana. cygnis insignis 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Velletta and Company

I was looking forward to seeing the Velletta and Company wikipedia article. They are a pre-eminient firm in Victoria BC and have worked on some very significant cases that have been well documented.

I understand that it has been deleted. I think the deletion should be reconsidered. I note that other law firms have their entries on wikipedia-- Velletta and Company ought to as well.

Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.hepburn (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Velletta & Company (deleted reversions viewable by admins), created by Velletta (talk · contribs) was speedily deleted as blatant advertising, and after looking at the article, I'd say that was a proper deletion. Wikipedia does have other articles on law firms, but those law firms generally meet the notability guidelines for businesses - and those that don't should be deleted as well. There is also the problem of conflict of interest to be considered, considering the username of the editor who created the article. If you feel the speedy deletion was in error, you can request a deletion review, but the article as deleted was far from an encyclopedic article in tone. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way that I could view the article in question? I would like to be able to actually read it and come to my own conclusion about its merrits before going to the deletion review stage. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.hepburn (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential Editor Bias/ Notability Question

Zukhits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am having a problem with an editor. It seems as if they are biased in their opinion. I have made the suggested changes and now they have marked the page for speedy deletion. Could another editor please take a look at the page Zukhits and let me know how I may resolve the problem. He is a credible producer with press and the other editor is saying that it is not enough.

JPercy (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JPercyJPercy (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that any editor has marked the page for speedy deletion. There are a number of cleanup tags, but those banners are far from actually submitting the article for deletion. The main problems I can find with the article are that there are numerous paragraphs that are uncited and that that the article is not written in a very encyclopedic manner; it seems to be simply a list of his accomplishments as opposed to an actual biography. If you are simply looking for a way to improve the article, I would recommend that you submit a peer review request. If you believe that another editor is mistaken in his assessment of the article, a post at Requests for Comment or requests for a Third opinion might be better options than this forum. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedure

I'm not sure whether this is the correct forum to post this question. If not, consider it a request for advice as to where to post it instead.

As far as I can understand from the policy pages, Wikipedia's "ultimate weapon" for resolving content disputes, & in particular enforcing NPOV, is RfC. My experience of these, both posting them & responding to them, is that very few people respond, so they don't actually fulfil their purpose. So would I be correct in concluding that in fact Wikipedia simply hasn't got an effective procedure for dealing with these matters, & is simply anarchy, the law of the jungle? Or am I missing something? Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've noticed the same thing - the RfC system for articles is weak and not really well traveled. However, beyond that point there are also guided processes that can help out - mediation can be useful, and usually sorts out the problem if it's a case of multiple editors fighting it out over an article. Informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee for formal mediation are both options to be considered in cases where an RfC hasn't paid off. If that flops, there's always arbitration, but that's kind of the nuclear option - not to be taken lightly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that arbitration applies only to behaviour disputes, not to content 1s.

The basic point is this. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has no effective procedure for dealing with propagandists, as long as they're even moderately subtle so as to avoid sanctions for misbehaviour. Mediation would seem to be pretty irrelevant to such cases. Peter jackson (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a photo

Hi. A photo was put up recently on the List of Sex Positions which has created quite a debate with regards to both it's legality and worth. After reading the talk page I felt that the consensus was to remove it because a) it likely breaks 18USC2257, b) the image's copyright status is debatable, c) most agree it is redundant given an illustration of the same scene is given and d) it's poor style to have one photo on a page of illustrations. However User:Banjeboi continues to revert changes citing WP:IDON'TLIKEIT without debating the discussed issues. I don't think we need arbitration as the issues are clear, so what can be done? Kansaikiwi (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The image in question is Image:Michael Lucas as top with Kurt Wild as bottom.jpg. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue would be resolved, I think, if we found an illustration (instead of a photograph) that adequately illustrates the same position, so we could remove the photograph without any loss of information. I've commented on Talk:List of sex positions accordingly. -kotra (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Help resolving an edit war

I've gotten into a bit of an edit war on the Nikki and Paulo page (a page referencing two characters on the TV show Lost.)

I added a 'Trivia' section to the page that states:

"In 2008, the band Miniature Tigers released a song titled Cannibal Queen that contains the lyrics: "If she ever left me, I would break down and die, Like Nikki and Paulo could bury me alive."

My edit was originally removed because someone deemed the band NN. I realized that the band lacked a Wiki page, so I created a page for Miniature Tigers (which, IMHO, verifies the band is relatively notable, considering they were mentioned in Rolling Stone magazine, Spin magazine wrote an article on them, etc.) I then re-submitted my entry, which was subsequently removed.

I believe my addition is entirely relevant. I have also seen a barrage of other wiki pages with similar trivia sections. However, I am certainly open to listening to arguments against the addition. (Please note that I posted my concern on the Nikki & Paulo 'Talk' page, but no one has responded.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joel. The edit does not belong in the article for multiple reasons. You are right that there are many other pages on Wikipedia with trivia sections. This does not tell you much because there are lots of things on Wikipedia that need to be fixed, removed, edited, deleted and are against guideline or policy or just not in keeping with an encyclopedia. In other words, just because other examples of things on Wikipedia can be found is often not a good reason to generalize from that existence, that it is proper. See, by way of analogy, WP:WAX. As for notability, that is really a discussion for the article on the band. The reason your edit does not belong in the article on Nikki and Paulo, is otherwise. First, your edit is not verified through a reliable source. Every statement in an article should be, ideally. In practice there are a huge number of articles that are unsourced or poorly sourced (you will see at the top of many articles templates flagging the article as not properly sourced and so on). Our goal for all articles is that they are fully verified, written from a neutral point of view, cover a topic comprehensively, contain no original research, are written brilliantly and so on. Articles which come close to meeting these standards are promoted to featured article status, which are considered our best work (you will not find a single featured article containing a trivia section). This article is a featured article and so it is highly watched and such placement will be removed by multiple users. Not only is your citation not a reliable source but the source is apparently violating the copyright of the owner of the lyrics (most song listing lyric sites do). We do not allow links to sites that are copyright infringements. The edit also places undue weight on a side subject. Is the fact that this song by a minor band mentions the characters important to the primary topic of the article? Remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. For some of these reasons, we have a guideline at Wikipedia:Trivia sections which explains why trivia sections should be avoided. I hope this helps clarify matters.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

crea tea dispute

I have been contacted recently, asking me to remove a link I placed to the site www.noveltea.co.uk from your page on Cream Tea.

I would like to protest on the grounds that Noveltea is a non profit-making organization which provides information relatng to afternoon tea. There are recipes, letters, news and reviews which would all be of great interest to someone looking up cream tea. In he past visitors who have come from Wikipedia spent up to 10 minutes on the site which is anecdotal evidence that what they find they find useful.

I hope you shall consider reinstating the link so others may benefit from it.

Yours,

Amos J. Harris

Noveltea (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Noveltea (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note on your talk page as to why the links were deleted - in short they contravened WP's guidelines on external links set out at WP:EL, in particular section 4.1. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Notability tag by anonymous users.

I have placed the notability tag in a couple of articles ( Eleftherios Arelis, and Dimitris Papadatos) created and edited by the same IP addresses, because they seem like somebody is trying to post his CV and the CV of his friend. Unfortunately the anonymous editor removes the tag. I have been trying to find some other source of information, other than the personal web page but the only thing I could find is quotations in blogs. The external links that are provided do not have any relation with the articles, except of the personal web pages. I think that the pages should be restricted to registered users, and possibly marked for deletion. Please advise. Maniadis (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)