Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive9

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Hello. I'm posting here because I've come across a wide-scale problem with our articles about and relating to the

Special:Linksearch has us linking to IMC over a thousand times, but half of those are to project pages. Who would be willing to help out with this task? Sceptre ^(talk) 06:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The user reverts the previous article without discussing the issue on the discussion page of the article. The user was warned on its talk page, explaining the reason why s/he should contribute to the discussion page and why the previous version of the article was unacceptable. The previous article consisted an unreliable source which was simply a blog page. Furthermore, the previous article included personal opinions such as referring the hitting of temples by men as "possibly as an attempt to masculinize the action" without a source. Another issue was about the categorization of the country Turkey, which I included the reasons why such categorization change has been made. The country has been categorized throughout Wikipedia under the Europe continent and I kindly asked the user to follow the same guideline for the integrity. The source which is included in the new edit also refers the country in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheek_kissing&diff=423503416&oldid=423498572

Menikure has been notified on his talk page several times about recent changes and he has been asked to check the discussion page and encouraged to join the discussion, which he basically ignored and kept reverting the changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Menikure#Cheek_Kissing:_Escalated

The discussion page can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheek_kissing#Turkey with the explanation of the changes made. It can be seen the user didn't contribute the discussion page but kept reverting the recent changes. It can also be seen that necessary warnings have been given on user's talk page. I tried my best to keep the dispute under control but it looks like the user is persistent on reverting the changes because of his/her personal opinions about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.183.205 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a little piece of Turkey that's within Europe, but the rest of the country is in Asia, and Turkey has long been considered to be part of the Middle East. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been a long debate on Wikipedia about this subject. It's not the size of area a country has in a continent defines whether it is in Europe or Middle East. Considering the size, the part which is in Europe is still larger than the sum size of Cyprus and Luxemburg. The country is a member of European Council and also participating countless number off European events. Furthermore, politically it is officially considered Europe at it can be seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Political_geography. The new added source also refers the country as a European state. So again, it is not what we THINK about a matter, it is what the objective facts say. Please refer to the discussion page for Europe on Wikipedia to see the result of the dispute.76.89.183.205 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing unlikely to be debated is that you're at about 5 reverts now, and are close to getting blocked for it. Turkey is a Eurasian country, so how about a separate section called "Eurasia"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen on Wikipedia that such name is used for this kind of categorizations? Sorry but I don't understand what's wrong with the fact the country is European and it is also verified by the article on Wikipedia. 76.89.183.205 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Middle East indicates that Turkey is traditionally considered part of it. The fact is, Turkey is part European and significantly Asian and Middle Eastern. Thanks to your antics, you've gotten the article you were edit-warring on protected, and you're just lucky you haven't been suspended for breaking the 3-revert rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How about removing the continent references altogether and just listing the countries alphabetically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the newly created article Racist music is substandard and needs a lot of improvements. It is mostly original research, non-neutral, strays off topic, and drastically needs to be copy edited. The author doesn't seem to want to let anyone else make any corrections.Spylab (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't certain where to post this, so if this post is in the wrong page, please refer me to the correct place to post it. There has been a recent dispute over notable alumni on the WCCO-TV article. In particular, I deleted several names that did not have wiki-links (in reference to what is being done on other TV station articles, see WBBM-TV for example). I did this because of a possible BLP issue, not to mention that section was previously un-sourced, and remains so in its current state. I also feel there is a personal attack against me by User:1814K (see [1]). He has been notified that this is not the right thing to do. Any assistance on this matter would be appreciated. I have also contacted the user and informed him of the policies Wikipedia has in regards to original resourced/un-sourced material etc. Also, I am not affiliated with WCCO-TV or any other television station, I am simply attempting to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on this subject. Thanks for any help! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 20:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 20:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion about the following paragraph in Tablet computer#History:

In 2000 Microsoft coined the term "Microsoft tablet PC" for tablet PCs built to Microsoft's specification, and running a licensed specific tablet enhanced version of its Microsoft Windows OS. Microsoft Tablet PCs were targeted to address business needs mainly as note-taking devices, and as rugged devices for field work. Tablet PCs failed to gain popularity in the consumer space because of unresolved problems.

The following addition was reverted:

Some of the problems adduced are that the existing devices were too heavy to be held with one hand on extended periods; they had legacy applications created for desktop interfaces made them not well adapted to the slate format; and the specific software features designed to support usage as a tablet, such as virtual keyboards, digital ink and pie menus were not present in all contexts.

We have these links as sources for the reasons of this failure to market of tablets before the iPad:

• Ballmer (and Microsoft) still doesn't get the iPad, Ars Technica, 2010
• Making Things Easier with Tablet computing?, Frank Spillers
• Tablets, Slates Have Been Tried and Failed Before--Why Is Now Different?, eWeek.com
• 5 Reasons Tablets Suck And You Won't Buy One, Tom's Hardware

I'm asking you to focus on the content available since the reliability of the available sources was largely discussed already without avail, and the content on those articles was never discussed in detail. To discuss the reliability of the sources please refer to the article's talk page. What can we do to improve the description of the topic? Is there value in explaining the reasons why "Tablet PCs failed to gain popularity in the consumer space because of unresolved problems", or is that clarification unneeded to have an encyclopedic article? Can you find another source giving a description of the main problems in early tablets, and in particular a detailed account of the existing usability problems? Diego Moya (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know exactly where to post this, but I'll try here. There has been a conflict for a tiring long time in the article

Phil Urich/Hobgoblin Spider-Man and Black Cat arrives the tower to secure the experimental metal that Phil has stoles. Than Spider-Man also inventions his suit is protected from sonic laugh. Unfortunately the battle causes the tower to falls, Phil fly out and save Kingpin from falling. Afterward, it is reveals that Phil is paying with the Tinkerer of his gadgets.

Later, Phil jealousy at is dating Norah, when Alistair Smythe's cyborg minions attacks the Front Line, employees evacuate the staff, Norah run the exits, Phil thrusting fist to collapse at Randy for dead; however, he survived from collapse, but Randy cannot move his legs.

Notes, There someting missing to and I need help to remove from grammar.-Nteinkvnc (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a content dispute at the Irreligion article regarding the removal of referenced information from the article. A discussion has been started in this section of the talk page. Any comments there would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This article covers a statue of a nude figure on the campus of the University of the Philippines. The statue has replicas on the branch campuses of the University. In addition, the alumni association, inspired by the statue has sponsored an art exhibit entitled "100 Nudes/100 Years", which is covered by the article. However, some editors claim that the statue has inspired an annual run of naked students called the "Oblation Run." The "run" has been deleted several times from the article, but other editors insist on reincluding it. I personally see little relevance between the "run" and the statue. While I assume good faith, some have considered the "run" material as a means of a particular undergraduate fraternity attracting attention to itself. Could experienced editors please weigh in? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate references in articles are routinely merged by automated and semi-automated procedures (such as AWB). As an editor focused primarily on in-depth articles, i feel that i have on occasion been adversely impacted, when the citation method has been changed before an article reaches some stage of completion.

I have started a sub-discussion about the practice of routinely merging duplicate references here (Village Pump Proposals).

This is a part of a larger discussion on the same page, about a bot proposal, which is here (Village Pump Proposals).

There is also a side discussion,

Hi. I see that the old South African flag is extensively used on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Curren. I am currently unable to edit due to being blocked (erroneously, I hope), and I fear some people might be offended by the old flag due to its association with South Africa's problematic past. If someone else could fix it, that would be great. 137.158.152.207 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article uses the old flag of South Africa (until 1994) for things that happened before 1994. I feel a bit uneasy about this myself, but it seems the most appropriate choice of flag. If you want to change anything about this, you should get yourself unblocked and discuss on the article's talk page. (My personal opinion is that flags should not be used at all in such contexts.) Hans Adler 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to add a new section on human rights to the Wiki article on Italy. Many other countries' entries have sections on human rights. My section was fully sourced and contained references to press freedom, human rights cases referred to the ECHR, violations of human rights in Italy upheld by the ECHR (torture), and the treatment of minorites (the Roma).

My new section was completely reverted 3 times with little or no explanation. Does this seem in any way reasonable given that Italy does have genuine issues with human rights? What next, since it seems some individuals are determined that Italy's Wiki entry should ignore human rights issues in the country. Is it permissible for people to censor information they may regard as unfavourable on Wikipedia? How can Wikipedia ever be trusted if this sort of behaviour is allowed? Please advise as I'm new to Wikipedia, thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanations were given on the talk page and in edit summaries. For some context on the above editor's contributions, see this ANI thread. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject is already under discussion at

WP:COATRACK. SuperMarioMan

20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asking for advice from uninvolved editors, but thanks for your input. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone express a third opinion at Rodney R. Crowley to decide whether the article should have an infobox? Another editor removes them. Good editors can disagree over style so a third opinion is welcome. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page. Hans Adler 05:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I inadvertently violate 3RR (and get myself blocked) or otherwise do something untoward, let me ask for some assistance. I am involved in a matter with Carachi in regards to the titles of the following articles:

• Protests against the Iraq War
• Protests against the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
• Tea Party protests

I've listed the original titles here. Carachi has renamed these articles multiple times to include dates in them where our naming conventions would indicate otherwise. This is what's been done:

• 2002-2011 Protests against the Iraq War
• 2001-2011 Protests against the War in Afghanistan
• 2009-2011 Tea Party protests

I have informed this user about Wikipedia's naming conventions [2] and asked them to stop [3][4], and all I got were user talk page blankings (their prerogative, but at least we know that they saw them). The page moves stopped when I warned them [5] that they were also about to go up against 3RR.

Considering that this editor has less than 100 edits, I don't think anything like blocking is necessary. That's part of the reason I listed here and not at ANI. I believe that this user is (A) acting in good faith, but (B) has no clue. However, someone else other than me needs to (A) clean up these page moves to put them back in line with naming conventions (the original names were compliant), and (B) help educate this user about proper naming conventions, because it's quite apparent that they're not listening to me.

Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Combination of POV, partly unsourced, not RS and somewhat WP:BLP (accusations about manager) edits from IP editor(s) at

You might be better served following one or more of the guidelines at

dispute resolution. Best, Skomorokh

16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful, as I came here from there

talk

) 03:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines on the notability of surnames? I came across Lerø tagged with {{notability}} and am at something of a loss as to how the community assesses such things. Thoughts? Skomorokh

Just the

general notability guidelines I suppose. The article as it stands is not acceptable as there are no references at all. If any kind of reasonable reference could be found that Lerø is indeed an actual surname borne by a non-trivial number of people, that would probably be sufficient for notability, I would say. Herostratus (talk

) 16:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A user is adding the following text to the Floydada, Texas article:

>>Don Hardy Fuel Efficient Engine Service: This business was started by Don Hardy himself and initially focused on race car engines. Over time, however, he grew his business interest to include irrigation motor development. Using new GM motors, Don Hardy manufactures a natural gas powered irrigation system. The motors are mounted on a custom-built metal assembly and suitable for outdoor use.

Texas Crusher Systems: Holding several U.S. Patents (#5,863,006 & 6,032,889), TCS has proven an unmatched ability to build one of the world's most efficient rock crushing systems that is typically mounted on a truck trailer. The system features a high-life rotor that reduces costs of operation significanlty compared to traditional crusher systems.

D.L. Industries: Founded in 1990 by Drew Lloyd, D.L. Industries offers one-stop for all of your cotton ground equipment (not to mention corn and milo ground). The company is known for one particluar product called, "The Row Stalker." This particular tool is unique in its ability to deliver one pass incorporation of cover crop and fall fertilizer to get producers out of the field until spring, saving both time and money.<<

This doesn't seem in keeping with

Well, you're right. However, the names of the businesses seem to have been removed now, so this is moot, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep them off.

talk

) 11:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Long story short, I saw this appallingly long unreferenced trivia/quote list (to say nothing of the one below it) and boldly deleted it. Another user,

• Having followed your discussion with
  WP:TRIVIA. However one of these phrases has entered the language and would be worthy of inclusion as an example of their influence, I'm thinking of "What do you think of it so far?" Reply - Rubbish! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.}
  08:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the list is excessive. You should also consider the fact that such unstructured lists are generally bad style and must usually be rewritten in prose if an article is ever to pass as a
  good article, for example. A paragraph or two putting these gags into context would be much more useful. I am not familiar with the duo myself, and the list did not help me form an impression of their style, even after I fought the initial impulse of just ignoring it as probably just fancruft. Hans Adler
  09:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have a feeling I'm losing this argument. I'll have a go at putting the list into prose. Myrvin (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the list but concede maybe overly long. Getting secondary sources discussing them would be very prudent - I am sure there are a bunch of books about the duo...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The infobox at Redfield Proctor has gone a bit screwy, and I can't find what's causing it...can anyone help? Connormah (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)]

It looks like this edit by User:Octa 14 did it; the editor tried to add some wikilinks to terms in the infobox that the template didn't like, apparently. I've removed them to restore the original formatting. Northumbrian (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of a kerfluffle regarding the lead image at Cystic fibrosis, we're discussing suitable and unsuitable images for the lead infobox. Trouble being, there's only three of "us" and more opinions and ideas would be very welcome. The conversation is ongoing at Talk:Cystic_fibrosis#Image_in_lead. Badger Drink (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel the current image of the afflicted young girl is a perfectly acceptable image under policy. The French diagram is perhaps too technical for a first impression, but that is only one perspective in a subjective discussion. --Torchwoodtwo (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed a few redirects I don't believe are needed - most are quite old - as they simply take the title of a subject and assume that the word 'the' is spelled 'teh' and then redirect to the correct title.

Wikipedia software will suggest the correct title if you spell it wrong that way. List:

List of patrol vessels of teh United States Navy

Explosions in teh Sky

Year of teh spider

Lord of teh Flies

Gone with teh wind

Kid Creole and teh Coconuts

There might be a few more out there...

Perhaps these should be deleted? →StaniStani  16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFD#KEEP before proceeding GB fan (talk

) 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I ordinarily do not try to delete content without some sort of consensus. I just thought these served no actual purpose. →StaniStani  18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap but they're not free. For instance, these particular redirects are taking up my time right now to address them, and that of other editors. Since they have been brought up for discussion, we should finish the job and nominate them for deletion now to save future generations the trouble of going through this again later. Herostratus (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional opinions are requested here. I tried having a discussion with the only other involved editor, but it is not going at all well. Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there is an issue on RSN which I believe touches on matters which falls under this noticeboard. Thanks, un☯mi 11:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like some cases of recent vandalism and many edits without edit summary, can not judge all of it myself. Richiez (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am opening this discussion up to the wider community for input.

Crux of the matter: If a RS news source reports about a noteworthy event of a public company, and also reports about the resultant stock price movement (up or down), should the stock price movement be included in Wikipedia?

Arguments for excluding the stock price movement fall into: 1) non-encyclopedic, 2)

Arguments for including the stock price movement is: Enduring notability of the news that resulted in the stock price movement.

There doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern in inclusion or exclusion of stock price movement as per

• Example of stock price movement included in a current WP article: Nokia#Stock
• Example of stock price movement not included in a current WP article: HP#The 2010s - Hurd's resignation as reported: HP Shares Tumble Following Hurd Resignation

I think we need some consistency here, and whatever the outcome is, the project guidelines can be updated to reflect the consensus. I will be posting a note to that WP project to direct discussion on this topic here.

My opinion is stock price movements are non-encyclopedic and

I look forward to the discussion.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think (and I don't think many would) that a laundry list of stock quotes is appropriate. But I disagree with your position that they shouldn't be included, period. It can be used as a counterpoint or barometer of investor confidence in regards to the company. The only time I've ever used a stock price is Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, where it's pointed out that despite the gambles the game publisher was taking with the game, it was expected to succeed. Similarly, Apple Inc.'s stock price is another barometer of how successful it is compared to its 1990s years, and is definitely notable as it has outclassed pretty much all of its peers. On your examples above: I'd say the HP mention is useful, but the Nokia one isn't, because there's no context for the drop, even if it's a substantial one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting question. The simple test of "do you have a reliable source" is not really useful here; there is no end of reliable sources reporting on the most trivial of stock movements. If the addition is simply a factoid on share price, I'd really want to understand the underlying issue and determine if that is significant and encyclopedic - that is, the stock price is more flavor than the actual content. For your example at Nokia, I'm not sure why that second paragraph is particularly useful.

The Mark Hurd example is more interesting, but I'm not seeing how that brief dip impacted the company's long term ability to acquire capital as it recovered within a few weeks. I might have supported that as market reaction at the time, but there is no long term story. A better example of notable movements would be at my favorite, Bre-X, where the surges and catastrophic collapse were an integral part of the story.

This is going to wind up being an editorial decision. My opinion would be that day-to-day fluctuations are useless in an encyclopedic article, even though there are reliable sources. I would certainly be open to using stock price as a metric for market reactions to significant events if there was a lasting impact; I don’t see that it hurts. Kuru (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a second example from Nintendo in the

WP:DUE weight. Diego Moya (talk

) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that Leef would open up this dicusssion without citing the original Talk page thread from which the question arose, and without linking to this noticeboard post on the article's talk page.[6] In that discussion, it was pointed out repeatedly that a specific event in the company's history (the highly unusual simultaneous resgination of 4 top executives) led to a drop in the company's share price (on the same day) that was quantified in finite terms (i.e., "The resignations sent the company’s share price downward by the largest daily percentage (12%) among decliners on the New York Stock Exchange that day"). Leef, who could be farily decribed as being somewhat of an advocate of this company (based on his past conributions and comments) is arguing that, even though the resignations are mentioned in the WP article in question (

USANA), the stock price drop should be removed on the basis that the detail is "non-encyclopedic". I pointed out the following examples of WP articles that refer specifically to "stock drops"[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and "share drops"”.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] In fact, there were so many valid examples that I gave up counting after finding these. And yet, for some reason (that completely eludes me), this discussion is still continuing. My feeling is that this is an unjustifiable attempt to supress potentially unflattering information from being included in the article, even though it's accurately sourced, was featured promininetly by the sources that reported the event,^[1][2] and obviously can't be discounted on the basis that it's not encyclopedic. Rhode Island Red (talk

) 16:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some civility would be appreciated. I gave proper notice here that I was bringing the discussion to this noticeboard and notifying the appropriate Wikiproject as well. This discussion is to engage outside opinions on stock price movements reported in the news. I could also spend a great deal of time to come up with all sorts of examples of articles that aren't including stock price movements, but that is clearly

WP:Other stuff exists. I think you may be confusing advocating for a good Wikipedia article, as advocating for the company the article is about. This is to open the discussion even further, as you dismissed the comments from a 3O in support that this was non-encyclopedic as well as a response from another editor from a content RfC with the same non-encyclopedic conclusion. This noticeboard review is not about Usana, this is about whether or not reported stock movements should be included in WP articles. I have appreciated the discussion already from the initial comments and it helps to get different opinions and angles that perhaps we didn't consider in the debate.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS}

16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Working on setting general assumptions is just fine if it defuses the acrimony from a specific content dispute. I don’t see anything wrong with Leef5’s posting above, nor do I really see anything overly uncivil in Mr. Red’s response. Diego's position above is fairly to the point; as much as I cringe at using

WP:NOPRICES (stock valuations are a different beast than simple catalog pricing for products), the general approach is solid. Indiscriminate factoids should be avoided, and improper synthesis is very, very easy with stock fluctuations (see these guys. The correlations must be attributed and covered by multiple third parties. It still comes down to an editorial decision (Diego's mention of DUE). I’ll dig through the talk page of the specific dispute when I get a little free time; the meat of the discussion appears to be hidden in some banter. Kuru (talk)

17:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I could also spend a great deal of time to come up with all sorts of examples of articles that aren't including stock price movements"[32]

(a) I don't believe that you could, but you're welcome to try; (b) even if you could, it wouldn't prove anything (i.e., absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) -- it would not be reflective of a conscious decision to exclude such information; it could just as easily be attributable to mere oversight. Conversely, I provided two dozen concrete examples of stock drops (along with the events that caused them) being mentioned in WP articles; this establishes unequivocally that, in practice, such information is routinely considered encyclopedic. A simple acknowledgement of that fact would help to put an end to the ongoing quibbling on

USANA. Merely reporting prices without context (i.e., the causal events) would be non-encyclopedic, but the detail in the USANA article is not such an example. It was a clear cause and effect relationship -- 4 execs resigned and on the same day, the stock led the NYSE among daily losers. Both sources emphasized the stock drop in the body text and in the titles ("Stock of Utah’s Usana dips as 4 execs depart"; "Usana Health Services COO, CFO resign, shares skid").[33][34]

Re: "This noticeboard review is not about Usana"

That seems like quite a stretch. The posting came as a direct result of the discussion on

USANA. And shouldn't the first and foremost goal be to resolve the tangible dispute regarding USANA, rather than discussing editorial philosophy out of context. Rhode Island Red (talk

) 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than me preparing a lengthy rebuttal to that, let's let outside parties weigh in on the matter without bringing the banter here to the noticeboard.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You made comments; I questioned the validity of those comments (and for good reason) -- that's part of the process. Telling me that I shouldn't respond is not part of the process. What you call "banter", I call "facts". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to withdrawal/modify your comments, then could you please redact them (or at least explain that you modified your comment after the fact)? What you did[35] changes the context and makes my reply seem illogical. What you said was "Rather than preparing a lengthy rebuttal", implying that you were referring to my rebuttal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the way you read it - I merely modified it so the context was clear I was speaking about my response. Feel free to modify your response as needed.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Leef5 on the Wikinews aspect. Generally, not of long term interest. Having said that, some articles cry out for long term treatment of stock price, like Enron. But that is pretty much an exception and it is not short term, it is looking back at history.

Disclosure: I am in a "hobby" stock investment club. We have been quite successful when ranked nationally with other clubs. We ignore short term "popular television" news and buy on downturns. The fundamentals (including good management) have to be there. But those do not include stock price, per se. Low stock prices are an incentive, not a disincentive. I'm for omitting it usually. Not only is it not encyclopedic, it usually isn't even useful information over the long term. It is a mere distraction. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Article has information on a few of its branches and is listed in subsections. Are they in line with other like articles or are they

It's not

talk

) 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look at it in the way of promotion, does everyone need to know where each branch is? Phearson (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the location info is overkill even if the article wasn't a stub. Unless there is something noteworthy about the particular locations chosen, it is sufficient to just state how many locations and since this is a regional chain, and the amount of locations fairly small, one could argue that the location neighborhoods could be given. As it stands right now, the excessive verbiage of the locations could be considered advertorial and is not encyclopedic information.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're only going to listen to those who agree with you, there's no point in asking. -

talk

) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See my secondary question, I asked in the way of promotional content. Although not undue, I think it was promotional, another agreed and made changes based on that. Disagree? Edit the page then. Phearson (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt the article needs more content (as evidenced by the stub tag) - I think the answer here is to summarize the location info, and begin work as time allows on other areas to get the article out of stub status.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that describe the locations. Therefore, they can be included in the article. In no way does this mean that describing a businesses locations have to be promotional. I view the deletions of this material to be disruptive. -

talk

) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter that there are sources, the material is too much detail and it is overly promotional. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive? I have only removed that material once. Has this been done frequently by others? If so, someone needs to mention this on the talk page if its controversial. Have a little more good faith. Phearson (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

From Woods Coffee point of view, yes the edits have been disruptive (and not only the one instance from you, Phearson). There has been an ongoing disagreement between me and an anonymous editor. The page was taken out of circulation for a while because of the spiteful editing. I believe that there is now a good faith effort by a Woods employee to restore appropriate Wikipedia material. I urge a little good faith and patience to allow that person to create an appropriate entry for Woods Coffee. Dubyus (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I noticed this article is up for AfD discussion: WP:Articles for deletion/Woods Coffee  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubyus, please see

WP:COI. To a good approximation, the company's opinion of the content is not a viable criterion for inclusion or exclusion. Wikipedia is most certainly not the company's website. DMacks (talk

) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See this essay as well, in case it happens to apply

WP:IRL consequences are particularly interesting. Phearson (talk

) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We need you comment at the Talk:Rathika Sitsabaiesan on "Political Career".Hillcountries (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I really would like to hear admins' and editors' views on that

Not exactly English as I know it. An IP has been adding a more or less copyvio of this, and I reverted first because it didn't appear to have been published yet, and then again I changed it to "Liritzis responded in a journal article published in 2011, stating that Lefkowitz failed to understand and misinterpreted the methodology." The IP has complained on my talk page and it now reads, in two articles: "In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202) as she has discussed latter dates on hypothetical grounds. Liritzis refers to her inadequacy in physical methodology, often encountered with academic historians, and that she missed details on the methodology and she misinterprets the novel effort, today widely accepted as Surface Luminescence Dating. Lefkowitz unjustifiably undermines unsuccessfully the new ages though at the end she remains skeptical about these older than thought ages."

It still isn't English, it still appears to be copyvio, and the IP's comment on my talk page says "I will re-add the text and i hope to be a more detailed refer to my article!!". Which suggests that perhaps there is a COI. I don't want to keep reverting but the text needs to be comprehensible and relevant to what Lefkowitz actually wrote. I've got copies of the journal article and the book with Lefkowitz's article.

The actual article text is:

In a recent volume on archaeology and politics, classicist Lefkowitz (2006: 195-202) has discussed latter dates on hypothetical pretentiousness. The loquacity on the pseudo-archaeology issues in general, is a self obvious and scientifically sound attainable consideration. However, her inadequacy in physical methodology, often encountered with academic historians, and/or missing detailed critical reports and finds on the published dates, as well as, misinterpretation of the novel effort, today widely accepted as surface luminescence dating, unjustifiably undermines unsuccess-fully the new ages. Though at the end she remains skeptical about these older than thought ages."

talk

) 10:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a stubborn and uncommunicative editor who turns a pretty bad article into something worse. I'd appreciate it if someone else would have a look--their removal of sources and insertion of unverified material is beginning to be disruptive. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wyandanch, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found out about this article through Pharyngula; the first obvious impression is that it is way too long; at around 240KB, it's the longest settlement article in Wikipedia, about a village that has a very small population. It's admirable for someone to do this much research, but there are problems with this article which would require more than one person to sort. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Its lack of sourcing, or "sourcing" such as Sources: Suffolk County Voter Registration Lists; Leroy Douglas' recollections. is problematic.

talk

) 22:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be willing to do a little, but I'm on the other side of the pond... :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy moly. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know towncruft existed. I've started trimming, as respectfully as I could, but man, this is so over the top I don't even know where to start--or where to stop. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And I discover I've been to this town before, saying the same thing. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone should discuss this with

talk

) 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A long article about a small town in Mexico, with no sources (and the original creator of the article keeps removing my unsourced template), bad English and, in some places, swaths of Spanish text.

So I was out with a couple of my archeology friends drinking certain beverages, We began arguing about the earliest sextoys.... So naturally to settle the dispute in a hurry and agreed Wikipedia was better than nothing for settling it. Naturally our article failed to provide us with a good answer. In the mean time Dildo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is mess with pictures galore. Could some one go through and figure out which are representative of the topic? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 06:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• RA, I am disgusted at the debauchery that seems to be running rampant in your profession. Drinking, talking, none of those things are very academic. I'm glad I'm in English. As for dildos, I'll be glad to have a look, but my daughters are looking over my shoulder as I'm typing this. As a quid pro quo, look up, to the section above. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Also note that
    WP:GUYINBAR is available as a citation template. Herostratus (talk
    ) 17:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Herostratus, thank you so much for pointing me that way! Drmies (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Smartphone OS Comparison" table on Mobile operating system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is getting out hand filled with doubtfully relevant topics such as "Keeps browser state on shutdown or crash" or "Videoconference front video camera". I've tried to delete them with an in-depth explanation but numerous non-member IP-addresses keep reverting my edits(see discussion page and cleaning the table) . My two prime reasons for removing these categories are: 1. They are not that relevant to the actual OS and 2. it is impossible to keep up with that many feature since people tend to find a difference between Android and iOS and add a category for it leaving the rest of the OSs empty; thus lowering the over all quality of the article. What are the administrators opinions of this query?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced since 2008.

See

• Hey Bartleby, this is interesting. The first section strikes me as essentially legitimate, but excessively detailed--that is, too much information, which in my opinion is disallowed (in this case) by
  WP:NOTDIR. The rest strikes me as not legitimate at all. Drmies (talk
  ) 14:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The
    2000-2009 Nonfiction Bestsellers articles, but I don't have time to make the changes. What to do? BartlebytheScrivener (talk
    ) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the entry for "Normans", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans I came across an edit that I did not catch on previous readings. There were several errors in a single sentence. I checked, and someone edited it at 10 PM last night. I can't help but wonder if someone crawled a bit too deep into the cup, and miscalculated their editing capabilities. I have all my capacities, but dare not undertake to undertake my own edits at this time. I am just concerned that this person could have changed the content in factual ways, to the detriment of the article. I see at least 4 errors in these 2 sentences from para. 2. Your thoughts...

"Norman adventurers established a kingdom in Sicily and southern Italy by conquest, and a o the Norman Conquest of England. Norman influence spread from these new centres to the Normans were born in the 21 centery Crusader States in the Near East, to Scotland and Wales in Great Britain, and to Ireland." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.4.169 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately

Nev1 (talk

) 17:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Middle Ages is one period of three period in history. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Middle Ages#Global Timeline regarding whether the article is about history or only includes the history of Europe. Further opinions would be welcome. --J. D. Redding 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first edit of this article was "Period in European History (see also History of Europe) which lasted from the end of the Western Roman Empire (late 4th century) to the beginning of the Renaissance." It has been about European history until May 1st, when Reddi made some wholesale changes which were then related. There's been a similar issue at

talk

) 17:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the term "Middle Ages" is a specifically Western construct. The article isn't about world history; if it were, it shouldn't be called "Middle Ages".--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing recent change patrolling and found a large number of possibly controversial edits by IP 217.169.210.138 (talk, contribs) involving adding categories about collaborators with the Nazi regime. Could someone take a look at these and revert if appropriate? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Using a different username each time, somebody has been adding references to a book on recovered memories during the last day.

• Diff from Human rights (two successive edits)
• Diff from Sex and the law
• Diff from
  Prostitution of children
• Diff from Human subject research

The book in question, Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder, has been id-ed as link spam several times in the past as well as the subject of some Wikipedia controversies.

I am not sure under which Administrators' Noticeboard category this belongs. The spam section seemed largely devoted to commercial link spam. The Sock puppetry section seemed to be oriented toward cases where an editor is suspected of creating a new account for bad purposes and you have a "master" account to start. M.boli (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least 4 more instances. See this search (but there's at least one there that doesn't fall into this group, so be careful with those results). I've filed a

investigation page and under the "comments by other users" section say where that book has been previously ID'ed as linkspam. Good catch. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Update: The SPI investigation has resulted in the IP address from which those edits were made being blocked. I'm going to delete the linkspam. — TransporterMan (TALK

) 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have already posted this on other Discussion Pages, but due to the fact that Erikeltic has repeatedly reverted my editions and completely erased my arguments and sources from some talk pages, I want to spread the word about this major error/issue on multiple boards.

Sondra Locke was born in 1944. Erikeltic continues to deny all reliable sources by reverting my edits and inserting an incorrect 1947 birthdate for Sondra Locke. See below for proof that Locke was born in 1944.

On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to Yahoo! News [36], ABC News [37], the Associated Press [38][39], Leigh Valley News [40], and The Boston Globe [41]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies [42], the Internet Movie Database [43], and the Notable Names Database [44]. Many printed publications erroneously list her birth year as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [45] appearing in a production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Locke's age is stated as 45 in this 1989 People magazine article [46], correlating to a 1944 birth year. As of August 2011, Locke is 67 years old according to public records [47][48], correlating to her being born in 1944.

MSN movies, Yahoo News, ABC News, and the Associated Press are, to my knowledge, considered reliable on Wikipedia. I also understand that imdb, her yearbook, and public records are not considered reliable for whatever reason(s); however, I am merely using them to enforce the truth behind the "reliable" sources and also increase the benefit of the doubt that those who have power here on Wikipedia may have. It is fairly obvious that Ms. Locke lied about her age in order to get younger roles, decades ago.

Please prevent Erikeltic from further abusing Locke's wikipedia page (or from removing/reverting this very section of this particular talk page). Her correct birth year should be on that page, and the correct year is 1944. Whenever I post sources for the correct birth year, Erikeltic has reverted my edits and even removed the sources from the talk page. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User is canvassing. See

WP:NORN Phearson (talk

) 05:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is open in two or three other places. Pacebo (aka Excuseme99's latest sock) seems to think public records sarches count as reliable sources, the same AP article in six places counts six times, etc. My replies are elsewhere and that's where I'll keep them. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 10:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some very important content and information missing in these articles. Mostly because I made some of them, and I need help adding some more information in there. Here are the article names and what they are missing:

• Alana Mansour - I need help on some more biography information, like what origin is she from, what school she went to and how her career started.

• List of Three's a Crowd episodes
  - I need some more article information text on the beginning of the article, it would really help the article expand.

• Stanley Roper/Norman Fell - It needs a picture just like any of the other Three's Company
  articles, that are characters. They used to have a character picture but know it does and I think it would be perfect if it did.

• The last thing I have to say about this topic it that a lot of articles need a filmography and television section in their articles. We could get more information from them it we did that. CPGirlAJ (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)