Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

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 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Affiliated sources

Resolved

- Per requester. Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This tag has been added to Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Battle of Magdhaba articles without any explanation by the editor. Despite repeated requests for explanation and cutting the tag, this only invites its reappearance, still without explanation. As War Diaries have been the only sources which have been contentious, although no longer so, I wonder if these may be the cause of this dispute. Are official published War Diaries of World War I (used by the British and Australian armies since 1907), and written by adjutants or intelligence officers, considered to be affiliated sources in Wikipedia? --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC) PS I have asked the question about affiliated sources at Wikipedia:Affiliated sources (which led me to a page, the address of which escapes me) but then thought that its a specific problem and better put here.--Rskp (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just identified the page where I first raised this problem. It appears to be moribund as there has been no activity and the link generated by my post History) does not lead anywhere.

Today I posted on the talk page of the Battle of Magdhaba article here [1] and on the Sinai and Palestine Campaign talk page here [2]

As you will see the editor responsible for the Affiliated sources tag had repeatedly reinstated the tag, despite the light use made of war diaries and it is a gross misrepresentation of the content of these two articles. This has already been going on since 15 January. What can be done to cut this wrong tag and advise the editor concerned? --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the editor who added these tags has finally stopped, so the problem seems to be, at this stage not in need of any resolution. Time heals all, as they say. :) --Rskp (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found art

Answered

- Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have another question about what makes an artist notable. I though I had asked a similar question previously but don't see it now. I also posted my question on the talk page of Found art and got no response. These artists Gustavo Aguerre,Tolleck Winner have only one reference and very short bios, and these artists Guillaume Bijl, Tom Friedman, Rodney McMillian, Joe Rush, Tomoko Takahashi have no references and also short bios, so how are these artists notable? What criteria are used to judge these artists notable? I'm not saying these artists are not notable, but I'm asking for clarity on what makes an artist notable. Why these and not Marina DeBris, who has more to her bio and more citations. What makes the difference? Is it because I asked about DeBris and no one asked about the other artists, so no one questioned their notability? By the way, I added more references to DeBris's entry after the notice of notability was posted, but no one seems to have re-reviewed the entry. Thanks for any clarity on this issue. Socialresearch (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 112#Found art, which artists can be listed?. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, but the response on that page was not helpful, as it simply referred to a response to my previous question, without answering my current question. If someone could explain why some artists, with minimal information and few or no citations, are considered notable, that would be very helpful. Socialresearch (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Whether articles are kept or not depends very much on how they escape our attention when they are created, particularly at WP:NPP which is an underperforming process - if new articles are accepted untagged for maintenance or as needing sources they may go unnoticed for a very long time. All Wikipedia articles, and most especially biographies of living persons must be referenced with WP:RS (reliable sources). Also, why some articles exist and some don't is explained at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Feel free to be bold and make any changes or tag as you feel appropriate. You can learn more about what asserts notability by reviewing these policies and/or guidelines: WP:GNG (general notability guidelines), WP:BIO (biographies), WP:BLP (biographies of living persons), and WP:CREATIVE (for artists). For possible deletions, see WP:DELETION, in particular WP:CSD, WP:PROD , WP:BLPPROD, and WP:AfD. (Sorry to drop you in the deep end with all the acronyms, but if you click the links you'll be fine - we need all the help we can get. Welcome on board and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Thanks for the info. I will look it all up. I don't want to delete any of them because I'm sure all these artists are notable for something. Two questions. 1. I'd want to add tags or questions about reliable sources to those other artists. Do your links let me know how to do that? Adding the notice on top of the article that is. 2. Could someone re-review the entry on Marina DeBris? I added a bunch of new sources from 'reliable' sources since the warning and I don't think anyone re-reviewed. Thanks. Socialresearch (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best and easiest way to tag articles is to install WP:Twinkle, but at WP:TMC you can find a full list of most of the maintenance the tags you have seen and that you can apply manually to the article pages. For deletion tags see also WP:DEL-PROCESSES and there is also more about tagging on that page. Again, I'm sorry about all the links, but those advice pages provide you with the best overview; if there is something specific that is not clear, don't hesitate to ask me directly on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parrs Wood High School

14th January 2012, I posted (Jacksonian)the following to the 'Parrs Wood High School' Wikipedia entry that I found on www.bailii.org the British and Irish Legal Information institute (a widely reported institution) regarding the result of a court case at the high court on the 5th January 2012. No names were mentioned and the piece was placed under a long standing header in this Wikileaks page 'Controversy'.

Copy was as follows:

<redacted> Today on the 19th January 2012 the entry has been deleted by what appears to be Councillor Mr Jeffrey Smith of Manchester City Council. He appears not only to have removed my sentence but also factual and true information from a number of contributors.

This seems very wrong to me when what I have posted is something that is simply fully in the public domain.

Can I please ask that my posting is put back on the page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstonian (talk • contribs) — Jackstonian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your assertion that the school described is Parrs Wood High School is not supported by the stated source, and cannot be restored, since it is sheer speculation on your part. Other content has been restored. There is no evidence presented that the editor in question is that Councillor Smith. Do you have a basis for this assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poster cllrjeffsmith appears from a google search to be a Councillor at Manchester Council and a school governor at Parrs Wood High School or if not is someone attempting impersonation. The posting made refers to a recent legal case against the school reported on the UK national site http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/3489.html&query=kilroy+and+v+and+parrs&method=boolean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditpedian (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Maciwoda

Answered

- Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that the article about Pawel Maciwoda be completed with the fact that he now has a son. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.140.198 (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to do this yourself if you feel the information is of importance to the article. Please enure that it referenced per our requirements for Reliable sources. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

film Chatroom 2010

Answered

- Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you have named the actor who played "Tony Layton" character but not the actress who played "Tony Layton as a girl" the actress is Jodie Miller & I feel this should be added as the parts were equally credited in the film credits thanks Janloum (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to do this yourself if you feel the information is of importance to the article. Please enure that it referenced per our requirements for Reliable sources. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Online Article - Captialisation of Eve/EVE

Answered

- Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been recently doing a fair amount of work on the Eve Online article and I have come to ask you about the debate that has happened several times in its discussion board about the proper name of the page weather it is "Eve Online" or "EVE Online".

I have read the pages about full capitals and capitalisation in Wikipedia and I feel that the full capitalisation of the word is the correct context. I wish to outline my points below and ask of your opinion.

CCP hf the makers of EVE Online have stated that the trademark name is EVE Online and not Eve Online, CCP Guard also stated that CCP does not use "Eve Online" or "Eve" at any given time and instead uses "EVE Online" or "EVE". The capitalisation also impacts on context and understandability of the sentence, if "Eve" is used as singular looks incorrect and can be misleading to someone that does not know what EVE Online is, where as "EVE" as a full capitalisation establishes the context and makes it more understandable for the reader.

Quotes from CCP hf representatives:

"Hello Rhys Kommins, Thank you for contacting the EVE Community team. The trademark name is EVE Online and EVE is not an acronym but rather named after the EVE gate which brought colonists to this universe. Yes, of course we care, especially if you do :) Kind regards Pete 'Navigator' McKay Community Manager"

"We can't create a link to this petition that's visible to others I'm afraid, but if you look at any news item, Facebook status, or article/dev blog that we put out, we always use "EVE Online", so it's the official way as far as we are concerned. And you can quote me on that anywhere you want :). We don't mind you borrowing the Crucible picture at all. In fact, thank you for taking the trouble of caring for EVE's legacy on this venue. Is there anything else that I can assist with in this regard or do you have any further questions? Best regards, CCP Guard EVE Community Developer"

The "EVE" part of EVE Online is actually a direct quote from the game and the game's literature and lore, the history of the object is largely unknown but it is understood that it is a jump gate (in the game's context). The only pieces of text associated with the gate are an ancient language that is yet to be fully decrypted and the Latin letters EVE that feature predominantly on the front of the gate. Members of the EVE universe and members of the Yulai Archives & Record Repository Team [YARR] of the Interstellar Services Department (a team of experienced players that maintain the EVElopedia and lore of the game appointed by CCP Games) name the gate EVE due to there being no other text in the entire universe that states that it is written in any other way.

In a final note "EVE Online" is the name of the windows client application, EVElopedia is officially named "EVElopedia" not stylised and if you investigate the EVE Online website you can see that the term EVE is used instead of Eve and that Eve is not present anywhere.

EVE Online Website

EVElopedia page on the ISD (see bottom of page for YARR)

EVElopedia page for ISD YARR

EVElopedia entry for the EVE Gate

Eve Online - Please note that the "stylised EVE Online" present at the top of the page was added my me as a place holder.

Astrel (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. The guideline says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longtime user and editor. My history and personal page disappeared!

Answered

- Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. StewartNetAddict (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you found yourself logged out? I see that you have edited your talk page since posting here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question

is the point of putting in clean up tags to invite people into a discussion? thats what i thought. so if there is a discussion going on, the tags are more useful? or am i wrong? anyway just trying to understand this [3] thanks. Bouket (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags have two main purposes: 1. To indicate to a reader that what they are reading may not be complete, or reliable and 2. as an invitation to anyone, readers and regular editors alike, to address the issues; hence maintenance tags should generally remain until the issues are resolved. Discussion is essential to good collaboration - perhaps it would be a good idea to ask the the user why s/he removed the tags and you are welcome to ask them on their talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i asked on the talk page of the article should that be enough? i dont want to be annoying so im trying to be cautious Bouket (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh and thanks for your explanation Bouket (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No editor should consider another annoying when they are trying to work on improving an article, so carry on. The article talk page is an ideal place to discuss changes to the article, but some individual actions are sometimes better discussed at users talk pages. Each situation should be considered in its own light. fredgandt 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. so since the user hasnt responded on the articles talk page i should ask on their user page? Bouket (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline so if the user hasn't responded yet maybe give them a little more time. A message on their talk page certainly isn't rude though, so sure, go ahead. Some editors like to use {{talkback}} to advise other editors that their attention might be needed elsewhere. However, it is quite simple to say all the same things that the template does, without using it. The choice is yours. fredgandt 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bouket, although I am not saying this is hounding, as you've been warned against hounding this editor, it might be better to keep it all on the article talk page, where I see that you, the editor who reverted you, and a third editor were in discussion last night. I think you are being a bit hasty in bringing this here as your post to the article talk page was after Beyond My Ken had posted there and just as he was finishing posting for the night. And as you weren't involved with the article until recently, and you were advised by an Administrator to avoid "talk pages where they commented," (something I only noticed just now as I was writing this), I'd suggest you withdraw entirely from that article. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fairly experienced editor

with a copyright question. I've looked around, I am quite sure the answer is already here, somewhere, but I have not found it. In the USA there no freedom of panorama, meaning that to use my pictures of sculpture by Marshall Fredericks I need to get permission from the copy right holder. Fredericks' daughter (he is deceased) and the museum that houses his work are unclear about who has the rights, but after discussing it amongst themselves have given me the okay, in an email, to post the pictures on wikipedia. How do I make that clear when posting the photographs? I had posted them years ago, and they were eventually removed. I want to avoid that happening again. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have them email the folks at WP:OTRS with permission. Whoever deals with the email will put a template on the image(s) indicating that permission has been given via email and allowing that permission to be verified by someone with access. When you upload the photos, put {{OTRS pending}} on the file page. However, the permission that is given has to be compatible with Wikipedia's license; the images must be able to be reused, even commercially, with attribution. If they restrict the use of the images to Wikipedia only, then they aren't free enough. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an IP's vandalism

Answered

- Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently stumbled upon a bunch of IP's starting with 201.19 that have been vandalizing music and film articles, often making references to a song existing on a soundtrack where it is not. A bunch of these changes have gone under everyone's radar for a little while, and I worry that there are some even more subversive ones. Is there anyway I can look up contributions by IP's that beging with this string to see if I can find more vandalism?

The contributions of the vandals I found are Special:Contributions/201.19.137.162 Special:Contributions/201.19.100.224 and Special:Contributions/201.19.126.235.

Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at Admin intervention against vandalism for someone to assist (I figured they would know best how to deal with this). fredgandt 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is going to be really technical, but since you asked, yes there is a way to do it:

Click on "My preferences" and select the "Gadgets" tab. Down at the bottom, under "Advanced", click on the "Allow /16 and /24..." tick-box. You may have to logout and back in and refresh your cache, but when you go to Special:Contributions from now on, you should see in small text at the top "You may enter a CIDR range...". Now you can check contribs for entire ranges of IPs instead of just one address at a time.

Now pick one of those IPs and bring up their contribs page. Down at the bottom is a "WHOIS" link - click on that and you will get a report showing the CIDR range for that IP's subnet. In this case it is 201.19/16, so you need to search the entire /16 range. IP addresses have 4 components, so in the User: field of the contribs screen, put in 201.16.0.0/16 and hit enter. The system will first say "No changes were found..." but then it will grind away and check every IP address in that range that ever contributed here. That's all we got, in this case it's still grinding away for me and throwing up lots of addresses. If you want to learn more about CIDR sub-netting, it's possible that you could narrow down the range to a tighter netmask. Ready to give up yet? :)

Sorry. Yes it's possible and yes it's really clunky. Hope that helps (though I have a feeling it really doesn't :). You can ask more questions here or at my talk page. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Well it certainly does answer the question, so thank you! But I think I may need to get some sleep before I try to work my way through all that. In the meantime, anyone smarter than me is certainly welcome to give it a shot. And thanks again, much appreciated!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, actually, I do have a question. When you said to put in 201.16.0.0/16 , did you mean 201.19.0.0/16 ? Something else? Or am I just looking at this all the wrong way?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did mean 201.19.0.0/16. Congratulations on spotting my deliberate test for you. ;) Or noticing my mistake, if you insist. ;) I did look at the contribs for the accounts you mentioned but there was nothing recent enough to be actionable. The contrib results for that netblock were way too numerous for me to go through, unless there was a specific serious problem (evidenced with specific diffs) that I wanted to track down. There are other strategies, like checking article histories those IPs have touched and looking for other changes from the same IP range (maybe you can narror it down to a smaller netmask, or just catch other vandalisms that way) or searching for favourite bits of text they like to add using the internal search engine, that's worked for me before; and of course if you can track it to an already blocked user, you can go to WP:SPI, but that's a more advanced step. Let me know if I can help more. Franamax (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks again. I think searching through the histories will probably work out the best, but I'll give 'em all a shot.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of legitimate article

The Climate of Northern Ireland page contains specific climate information for the country. However, some very determined user(s) who is clearly an Irish Republican, repeatedly keeps maliciously deleting the page contents and redirecting to the Climate of Ireland page, which was originally for the Republic of Ireland, which is a separate sovereign state separated from Northern Ireland by an international land border. Information is being lost by this action, which I am certain is an act of pure vandalism with the intention of offending Northern Irish readers. The editor(s) who enforce the redirect use offensive arguments such as by saying there is no consensus for keeping the page, which is clearly untrue. The page needs protection against redirects being put in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus48 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been at it for 20 days now with no success and 2 blocks. You need to get a different hobby. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You are currently the only editor supporting keeping a separate page, as far as I can tell. Unless you are using a profoundly different definition of "consensus" than that which I'm familiar with, consensus is clearly for keeping it a redirect.

Your accusations of bad faith and vandalism are not acceptable. I see that you've already been warned for them, but the point bears repeating.

In the future, legitimate requests for page protection should be brought to WP:RPP. Danger ^{High voltage!} 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with WP page for Vassula Ryden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vassula_Ryden#Scientific_and_Theological_analysis

My edit concerns quoting criticism by Joe Nickell about the subject Vassula Ryden. The other editor states that I am using conjecture words that affect a living person. I state that I am quoting a expert who is giving his opinion. Another editor (sorry I'm confused which editor is saying what as the posts are unsigned) feels that because Joe Nickell has not met Vassula Ryden he is unable to provide criticism. I don't believe that makes much sense, he is a expert in hand-writing analysis who is looking at her hand-writing samples.

Also there are two flags on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden for neutrality and one for weasel words. I'm not comfortable stating where the problems are. Could you please run your eye over the page as someone neutral with the subject and state where the problem areas are so they can be fixed?

Would welcome any help you can prove, if you think that this can't be resolved with your help could you please advise who we need to go to? Sgerbic (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to resolve this issue with Sgerbic in the article's talk page under the discussion topic called Scientific and Theological analysis. As you will see in that discussion, wikipedia guidelines, which I quoted, are being violated by the insertion of Sgerbic's text. I invite you to take this opportunity to review this topic as well as other topics in that talk page. The violations in wikipedia policy in the Vassula Ryden entry have been rampant. These include and are not limited to:

Extensive usage of self published websites to back up untrue and defamatory material
Use of conjuncture wording and Experimenter's bias (as is being discussed here)
Extensive usage of weasel wording, with no specifications as to who said what.

Furthermore, there have been numerous edits from people in the article who hide behind IP addresses in order to insert poorly or even totally unsourced false and defamatory material about Ryden being excommunicated, despite topics explaining why this is not the case in the Talk page that were created to address this issue.

Due to the numerous edits by anonymous individuals who consistently violate wikipedia policy on BLP's, some of which who have clearly indicated they are not bothered to create an account in order to edit the article, I would like to request that this page be locked, so only registered users can make edits. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 00:56, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

There have been very few IP edits on that page in recent months (none since November) so it won't be semi-protected. I can see no reason why we can't use Joe Nickell appropriately. The fact that he hadn't met her before writing the article seems irrelevant. There are clear POV problems on the page and your removal simply made the article even more POV. I also note that virtually all of your edits have been about Ryden except for a handful to the article of one of her supporters. You seem to have had contact with Ryden in the past, so I'm wondering if there are any WP:COI issues here. Hm, going back to your statement about registered users, I see a number of registered users whose only edits are to this article or who have edited only one other article, perhaps long before their account became active again to edit this article. These include Sirius Plutobase (talk · contribs), MLPIO (talk · contribs), Perrum (talk · contribs), Webwidget (talk · contribs) and Rn2hearts (talk · contribs). Most of these are supporters of Ryden. Editing by a large number of single purpose accounts is rarely beneficial to an article. I also note that this article falls under WP:FRINGE. Although Experimenter’s bias may be relevant here it probably applies to supporters and critics alike and unless sources discuss is specifically I don't see it as a relevant way to choose what sources to use and what to exclude. No time now for more comments, but this is clearly an article with some problems and an extreme lack of balance, and one way of starting to fix them is making sure that critics such as Nickell are included in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with notion of balance, please take note that the Joe Nickel paragraph involves the usage of conjuncture words which was why it was removed by Rn2hearts. Wording such as: “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion” – violate Wikipedia policy on verifiablity / citing reliable sources / NPOV especially when the subject is a living person. Such wording was used extensively here as Joe Nickel's theories are based on speculation. They are based on speculation since he has never met Ryden to conduct a proper investigation.

I don't see the point of having wikipedia guidelines if its acceptable to ignore them just in order to "balance" an article. Don't get me wrong, I for one, am all for balancing this article as long as the guidelines are followed. Perhaps I am overstating the importance of usage of conjuncture words? I leave that to you to decide.

Regarding your mention of lack of balance due to shortage of critics in the article, I can assure you that critical and negative information is not lacking. I would like to invite you to check out the Church's Stance section in the article, notably this section. Its anything but balanced - there have been numerous positive events in the Orthodox Church regarding Ryden and there is also support for Ryden in the latter, however no such information is mentioned here. There is only one topic on Ryden regarding the Orthodox Church and its negative.

With regard to me knowing Ryden, I did contact her at one point to ask her for permission to use her picture. And she chose it for me. I will get back to you on some of the other topics you mentioned but can't do so right now as I am short on time. Thanks for the input sofar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I should have commented on the language issue. WE shouldn't use such words normally, but it isn't a problem if our sources do. I'd probably have more problems with Nickell if he hadn't been cautious in his language. The guidlines there are for editors, not sources.

As for criticism, I was thinking of non-Church critics. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for clarifying this - it will be useful for future reference. It would be interesting to hear your feedback on the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Euclid university

I would like to raise an issue with the entry on Euclid University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUCLID_(P%C3%B4le_Universitaire_Euclide,_Euclid_University)

This entity is not a recognised degree granting institution despite their claims. They are blacklisted by many governments around the world.^{[citation needed]}

A recent report by an independent research organisation concluded why they are bogus and it can be found here:

http://www.accredibase.com/index.php?section=871&page=6001

This publication came after constant threats from Euclid; ^{[citation needed]} Government agencies around the world got the same sort of contact (eg. Oregon, Texts and others). ^{[citation needed]}

In the following page you will find citations for the above claims including the original documents euclid provided. http://www.accredibase.com/index.php?section=871&page=6001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.254.53 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that the entry on Euclid on Wikipedia has been written solely by Euclid and any attempt to fix it by adding facts and removing nonsense is rolled back by their shills.

This is what the IAU / UNESCO had to say on the Accredibase report in a LinkedIn forum:

Thanks for sharing the report, very useful in dealing with Member States as we do for validity reasons at IAU. Our next action will be to ask for a list of recognised institutions in CAR to the Permanent Delegation of CAR to UNESCO as somewhat recommended in the report. I doubt we will get an answer. For information, Euclid University is not included in the International Handbook of University 2012, nor in the WHED. It only appears on the page of our website on regional/international higher education institutions, stating that it has been added upon request of the Permanent Delegation of CAR to UNESCO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.254.7 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Euclid Consortium oder EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University) ???? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This will be EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University) - eg [4] linked from [5]. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added this entity to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, with two reference citations to support its inclusion there. I don't have time to deal with the article right now. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Accredibase" is not suitable as a reference and should be removed. "Accredibase" is just a private limited company in the UK. Not government mandated. However, Euclid is listed as an IGO in the UN Treaties database (UNTS) and is listed with WIPO. Please refer to the talk page on the article. Satinmaster (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptability of a source is not determined by its "official" governmental status, but rather by its reliability per WP:Reliable sources. The detailed reporting on the Accredibase website qualifies as "reliable" by Wikipedia standards. Additionally, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, which has long been established as reliable for this purpose, lists Euclid as unaccredited. Primary sources are problematic as sources, largely because they can require excessive interpretation (and are open to misinterpretation). The primary sources mentioned here and cited in the articles do not necessarily contradict, much less disprove, the statements published by the secondary sources cited in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. The UN does not accredit or authorize universities. The existence of a treaty is not an indicator of accreditation or authorization status. All that this UN link and this other UN link demonstrate is the existence of some sort of international agreement (treaty) related to an entity called "EUCLID". The same could be said for this page, except that its credibility is low because it is published by Euclid -- not by a third party. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about Euclid's "WIPO article 6ter protection" listing on The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation website: http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2010/2913.pdf. Hence, further proof that EUCLID is intergovernmental. It actually says on that document in french "Execution of the Federal Law of 15th December 1961 concerning the protection of names and emblems of the United Nations Organization and other Intergovernmental Organizations". Or doesn't that count because you don't like euclid?Satinmaster (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        Trademark protection is not a proof for having degree granting powers. No one disputes Euclid's status as an entity, international or not. Being an entity does not give it degree granting rights.

I said that proves its status as a universitySatinmaster (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with accredibase is, they are applying national methods to international agreements. They also have a seriously flawed understanding of Public International Law and what treaties are. The "report" is also full of doubts about what is or isn't credible or legal. So wikipedia no longer respects treaties signed by Heads of State? As for the Oregon ODA getting a mention, this is laughable. The ODA does not even respect the constitution of the United States, much less Public International Law. Also, why is the ODA even mentioned? Would you put into an article on COLT 45, that these handguns are illegal to possess in London?Satinmaster (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  International treaties do not provide degree granting powers. Issuing degrees is a state monopoly. ^{[citation needed]} Euclid is not a recognised degree granting institution even by the states that signed the said treaty. Accredibase has requested Euclid to provide it with specific documents to back their claims. Perhaps they can provide the answer here? Here is the specific request: http://www.accredibase.com/upload/documents/accredibase_image20111026172856.pdf

Intergovernmental organization "Intergovernmental organizations are an important aspect of public international law. IGOs are established by treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful representatives (governments) of several states go through a ratification process, providing the IGO with an international legal personality" Satinmaster (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still this has nothing to do with degree granting powers.

How can something be a University and not have degree granting powers? You are saying that several governments cannot come together and form a university? Are you for real?Satinmaster (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have moved the article to EUCLID (university) - disambiguated titles should be as simple as possible and this one wasn't. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OIC (the 2nd largest IGO after the UN) confirms in their Journal about Euclid University Charter here: http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english/50 Satinmaster (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The name 'Euclid University' is internationally protected by the WIPO Law. (http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5972). As proven here: http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2010/2913.pdf Satinmaster (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

creation books page problem

Dear Editor, Can you please advise on a problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Books? I cannot approach this editor for a resolution because he is a criminal hiding out in Thailand who has stolen my intellectual property and that of many others. Basically, here's the deal: a fraudulent publisher named James Williamson started a page on Wikipedia to promote his company Creation Books. The details to this are at http://www.CreationBooksFraud.com. I added this link to the Wikipedia page yesterday along with some information to protect other authors, and the webpage was immediately returned to its pre-edited condition the next day. This is a highly sensitive legal issue involving copyright law. It might be best just to take the Wikipedia page down, because in the form that it's in Wikipedia is actually promoting a business that is taking advantage of authors and owes authors hundreds of thousands of dollars. Please take a look at http://www.CreationBooksFraud.com for more details and let me know what you think the best method of approach is. Thanks,The octopus44 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the latest attempts to link to a website which exists only to attack the subject. If there are actual problems with them, then links should be provided to impartial third-party reports made by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Books which I agree is likely to be closed soon as a procedural keep. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. :) Notice the nom's earlier positive contribution reverting obvious attack material. It looks to me like a good faith nomination for deletion by a new user having trouble completing all the steps. Been there! I remember having a lot of trouble doing my first couple AfD nominations and I already had a lot more experience than this editor. It's not that easy if you don't already know how. Msnicki (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Creation Books Fraud site does not exist "only to attack" the subject as OrangeMike wrote. It exists to protect other authors from being ripped off to the tune of thousands of dollars and years of work. If this is Wikipedia's stance, then Wikipedia is protecting a criminal and punishing the victims. Read the info on creationbooksfraud.com and feel free to contact the_Octopus44 for contact info for the victims. I will supply it.The octopus44 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Emmons

I wondered if the picture of Buddy Emmons on the Minors Aloud site could be moved to his site also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbiecapps (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to File:Minors Aloud.jpg, probably not, because that file is used on the album article under the non-free content criteria. Those criteria usually do not apply to images of living people, the rationale being that someone could take a picture of the subject and release it under an appropriate free license. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization

I would like to request some input from some impartial wiki editors on the following article. Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization It seems that the ODA lost a court case against someone with an unaccredited degree and was forced to list thier University as "legal for use in Oregon" as a result. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/08/24/0335975.pdf It is surprising that this has managed to escape the article, especially when the ODA is bandied about so often on matters of legitimacy of schools. I notice that someone tried to mention this in the past, but it appears to have been whitewashed. Surely it is in the best interests of the public at large to know about this controversy and loss of a court case, given the credibility that the ODA is often afforded on wikipedia? Satinmaster (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]