Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Help:Contents

Archives

• v
• d
• e

Previous requests & responses
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112

Other links
Frequent requests | Talk Third Opinion | Incident Noticeboard

[edit] Parrs Wood High School

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 load://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)

[edit] question

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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 [1] thanks. Bouket (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] I am a fairly experienced editor

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Repeated deletion of legitimate article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

[edit] Need help with WP page for Vassula Ryden

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

load://en.wikipedia.org/read/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 load://en.wikipedia.org/read/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)

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:

1. Extensive usage of self published websites to back up untrue and defamatory material
2. Use of conjuncture wording and Experimenter's bias (as is being discussed here)
3. 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Status of Euclid university

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

load://en.wikipedia.org/read/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:

load://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. load://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)

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)

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

This will be EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University) - eg [2] linked from [3]. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, but what about Euclid's WIPO article 6ter protection listing on The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation website: load://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)

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)

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)

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: load://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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] creation books page problem

Dear Editor, Can you please advise on a problem with load://en.wikipedia.org/read/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 load://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 load://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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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. load://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)

You want WP:RSN] but your quote is not in the pdf, which says Finally, the judgment is not, as the district court found, evidence that plaintiff can point to “in support of the trustworthiness

of her education and her credentials.” Rather, the judgment is merely evidence that the former version of O.R.S. § 348.609 was applied to plaintiff in a biased manner. The evidence that plaintiff can point to regarding the legitimacy of her credentials is the finding by defendant Contreras and the Office of Degree Authorization made pursuant to the revised version of the statute that Bob Jones University meets the standards of academic quality comparable to an accredited institution. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gasparilla

I produce the Gasparilla pageant annually. I had a link up here.

I would love to know how I can best put my information where it belongs.

Gasparilla.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.166.209 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia and content needs to be sourced to verifiable independent and reliable sources in order to establish their notability. If you are talking about the Gasparilla Pirate Festival, then there is already an article of that name. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of information on a website

I have a quick question.

If information from a website is used as a reference, but that website says that they cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information on their website, can it be used as a reference on wikipedia?

ThanksSatinmaster (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information is legal boilerplate put up to protect oneself, and does not disqualify a generally recognized reliable source such as Accredibase from use here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've just undone this edit by Satinmaster [4]. This is just one more effort by this editor to remove any mention of this website. Saturday I told him if he was unhappy with this website to go to WP:RSN. He also raised objections to this website at [5](and also to another one if you scroll down to the bottom). Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Here is the problem I have with accredibase. They make a statement, yet admit they could be wrong. But that statement is used to defame a school on wikipedia. If Accredibase are not prepared to stand by their information in a legal sense, then why should we? They also say they rely upon 3rd party sources and claim to have a group of experts writing the reports. Where are the experts, they are not listed are they?)Satinmaster (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why we attribute the opinion to its provider. We don't state it as an absolute fact. Legal disclaimers are indeed commonplace and do not usually affect the state of a source as reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Barooshian

Dear sirs/Madames; I am Eleanor Barooshian and wish to add to my bio more bands that I have played with. Regards, E Barooshian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebury1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor Barooshian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you for asking. Please post the information at Talk:Eleanor Barooshian a