Decision Maker

Wikipedia (Josve05a)

Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free Internet encyclopedia that is supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.


Does Wikipedia (Josve05a) have the power to decide or influence something you want to change? Start a petition to this decision maker.Start a petition
Petitioning Les Corts Valencianes, GENERALITAT VALENCIANA, Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso, Ciudadanos, Grupo Parlamentario Ciudadanos, PSOE, Socialistas españoles en el Parlamento Europeo, Grupo Pa...

Firma, #LlenguaValenciana no es dialecto del catalán. Paremos la suplantación #som5millons

ES-CASTELLANO / VALENCIÀ / ENGLISH / FRANÇAIS / DEUTSCH / ITALIANO / NAPOLITANO / PORTUGUES              #som5millons de valencians. Parémoslo. Firma en esta campaña por la Llengua Valenciana para pedir a los representantes políticos valencianos firmeza y compromiso en defensa de la Lengua Valenciana, y por el mantenimiento de versiones propias valencianas en webs, documentos oficiales, doblajes de películas, publicidad, traducciones de libros... Por la diversidad, por el respeto, por la supervivencia de nuestro idioma en proceso de substitución progresiva. Por el derecho que nos reconoce el Estatuto para vivir plenamente en valenciano, por la lengua viva de la calle y de casa. Por la dignidad de nuestra cultura espoliada y de nuestro pueblo, hoy sometido. En Valencia sufrimos especialmente la estrategia política  en favor de los ficticios "Paises Catalanes", y que empieza por la CULTURA. (Video CAMINO A LOS PAISES CATALANES) Por tanto, queremos hacer llegar la exigencia, de una vez por todas, tanto a la Generalidad Valenciana como al Gobierno de España, de que; En Valencia y resto de su «Comunitat», quisiéramos la DIFERENCIACIÓN TOTAL de Valenciano y Catalán en todos los ámbitos, empezando por estas medidas:  - Extinción de la Academia Valenciana de la Lengua "AVL". Quitar las "Normas de Castelló del '32", de base catalanista. Traspasar competencias a la Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana "RACV". Devolviendo a la situación inicial a nuestro Estatuto de Autonomia. El cual fue cambiado engañandonos a todos los valencianos, haciendo realidad el "Pacto del Majestic" o "Pacto de Reus". - Comienzo de trámites para la creación de una Cátedra de Lengua Valenciana(restablecer la FUNDADA EN 1918 con la base de la Normativa del Catedrático y Filólogo de prestigio y valenciano, Don Lluis Fullana), en el sistema Universitario Valenciano, regida por las Normas de El Puig." Y creación de Facultades de Filología Valenciana en todas las Universidades del territorio Valenciano.  - Registro de un Código ISO. Inclusión del Valenciano como opción de idioma en buscadores de internet, navegadores, sistemas operativos de los dispositivos electrónicos como son Android, IOS o Windows. También en las APPs más populares y de las principales compañías de banca, eléctricas y servicios, comercio online, portales de las administraciones públicas, redes sociales, etc.  - Vigilancia y depuración de la catalanización que sufren los autores y exponentes de la cultura valenciana, como Ausias March, Isabel de Villena, etc. en páginas de consulta tipo Wikipedia, Cervantes Virtual, etc. Pues en ellas, los muestran como exponentes de la “Cultura Catalana”. -Y ensalzando y poniendo en valor el Siglo de Oro de la Lengua Valenciana" de manera diferenciada a la literatura catalana.  Pues todos sus autores, afirmaban escribir en Lengua Valenciana, y no en catalán. Les reclamamos también que detengan la manipulación de la conciencia lingüística valenciana, y paren el proceso de asimilación y mutación que está afectando a nuestro idioma secular, para convertirlo en lo que nunca ha sido. Plantémonos ante acciones contra nuestro derecho a mantener vivo el valenciano, a pesar de los intentos de anexión por el catalán. Pretender que el idioma valenciano puede sobrevivir como parte de la "riqueza" de la "lengua catalana" es un engaño: la realidad demuestra que no se respetan las características del valenciano, y se avanza en la convergencia hacia el catalán estándar. Criminalizar la "fragmentación" es un atentado contra el derecho de los valencianos a codificar, estandarizar, preservar, desarrollar y promover nuestra lengua, sin interferencias inducidas o forzadas. O se le da al valenciano un tratamiento de lengua a todos los efectos (com sucede con el gallego respecto del portugués, al noruego respecto del danés, y tantas otras lenguas) o ya no será el valenciano. El valenciano no es un dialecto. El valenciano ha sido, es y continuará siendo una lengua. Valenciano, valenciana, amante de la libertad y la diversidad frente al totalitarismo, ¡firma! F I R M A  ABAJO   C O N   E L   BOTÓN   ROJO __________________________________________________ #LlenguaValenciana #NdP #RACV #som5millons WEB RACV: www.llenguavalenciana.com  DICCIONARI: diccionari.llenguavalenciana.com  TRADUCTOR: traductor.llenguavalenciana.com __________________________________________________ @llibertadors #llibertadors El VALOR de ser VALENCIANS ¡PAREM EL PANCATALANISME!

Llibertadors
15,867 supporters
Closed
Petitioning Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales

Clean up the Wikipedia Acupuncture page to reflect medical and scientific consensus

The acupuncture page on Wikipedia, in a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, currently states that "acupuncture is pseudoscience." Wiki's Neutral Point of View policy says, in a nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Pseudoscience, according to Wikipedia, is determined by medical and scientific consensus. Throughout the years, volunteer editors have clearly demonstrated that considerable swathes of the mainstream medical and scientific community firmly support the use of acupuncture - position statements, medical consensus guidelines, Cochrane Reviews, and reviews of acupuncture's biological mechanism research clearly demonstrate that the statement 'acupuncture is pseudoscience' is controversial at best, which means that this categorisation of acupuncture violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Editors who attempt to update the article in line with high-quality medical references are consistently banned from editing. Medical consensus guidelines that recommend acupuncture include: The Joint Commission, which accredits more than 21,000 hospitals, health care organizations and programs in the United States and globally, recommends acupuncture as a first-line treatment in the management of pain The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guideline on Non-invasive treatments for Low Back Pain found acupuncture to be amongst the most effective treatments (1) The Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain recommends acupuncture (2) The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends acupuncture for a variety of pain conditions (3) The American college of occupational and environmental medicine’s practice guidelines recommend acupuncture (4) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – National Institutes of Health Guidance on Low Back Pain recommend acupuncture (5) The State of Colorado Division of Workers’ Compensation Medical Treatment Guidelines for Low Back Pain recommends acupuncture (6) The Institute for Health Economics Evidence-Informed Primary Care Management of Low Back Pain Alberta, Canada recommend a course of acupuncture for chronic low back pain (7) Scotland’s National Clinical Guideline for the Management of chronic pain recommends acupuncture for low back pain and osteoarthritis, characterising the strength of the evidence as Grade A (the highest support available) (8) The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends a course of acupuncture for the prevention of migraines and tension-type headaches. In fact, acupuncture is the only treatment recommended for the prevention of tension-type headaches The 4th Edition of “Acute Pain Management: Scientific Evidence,” Produced by the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists and Faculty of Pain Medicine, found Level I evidence for acupuncture for five different clinical indications (9) The World Health Organisation has developed a list of 27 conditions for which it recommends acupuncture after its evidence review (10) These are all highly respected, mainstream medical institutions and they all recommend acupuncture in their consensus statements based on unbiased evidence reviews. Yet, the administrators of the page essential practice denialism and have consistently stated that merely providing evidence that acupuncture has this support is grounds for being banned, for example: "if you continue to claim that acupuncture has mainstream scientific validation, you have no future as an (sic) Wikipedia editor." In order to maintain the position that the statement 'acupuncture is pseudoscience' is not controversial, even though it clearly is, the administrators who are controlling the acupuncture page are censoring this vast and growing body of evidence that presents a very different reality. They frequently make factually incorrect, unreferenced statements while ignoring and deleting high-quality peer-reviewed systematic reviews that contradict their opinion. In 2014, you said: "Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." It is this evidence, from Cochrane, Harvard, the Journal Neuroscience, Plos and many others, that is being systematically censored by Wikipedia's administrators. Wikipedia is not remotely covering acupuncture appropriately, by your or any reasonable definition. We fully recognise that there are those who believe acupuncture to be pseudoscience - these are typically members of vocal pseudoskeptical organisations, such as Guerilla Spepticism on Wikipedia (most of the editors and admins of the acupuncture Wikipedia article are members of such organisations) and a number of highly vocal Skeptical individuals. However, these groups constitute one opinion and do not reflect the overall medical consensus. Their opinion papers and websites constitute much weaker evidence than peer-reviewed evidence syntheses and institutional medical guidelines. Those Wikipedia editors who point out the copious high-quality medically reliable sources that contradict the biased tone of the article are bullied and banned from editing, in a clear act of censorship and abuse of administrative powers. Last week alone, two editors were banned from editing the acupuncture article without having violated a single Wikipedia policy. Both editors had merely pointed out the violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, with the support of high-quality, peer-reviewed medical references published in mainstream publications. This state of affairs is completely unacceptable and puts the public at risk by denying access to a balanced and accurate perspective on evidence-based health care options. In the United States, the number one cause of accidental death (more than car accidents) is overdose from prescribed opioids for pain - the Wikipedia article misinforms patients, doctors and healthcare policy makers about an effective and safe treatment option for pain, unnecessarily increasing the risk to the public. Wikipedia, which is a highly accessed source of medical information by medical professionals and patients alike, has a responsibility to ensure that articles accurately reflect the balance of information available and the appropriate participation of the editorial community through enforcing its guidelines. In the case of the acupuncture article, this process has clearly broken down. Valid, appropriate, evidence-based and referenced perspectives are being systematically silenced so that administrators can present their narrow opinions as scientific consensus. Wikipedia: for the sake of accuracy, scientific integrity, and public health, please clean up the administration of the acupuncture article to be in line with your editorial and administrative policies so that the article can reflect best-evidence, not individual bias, and allow editors to remove acupuncture from the Pseudoscience category. References Chou, R., Deyo, R., Friedly, J., Skelly, A., Hashimoto, R., Weimer, M., et al. (2016). Noninvasive Treatments for Low Back Pain. Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J. T., Shekelle, P., & Owens, D. K. (2007). Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(7), 478–491. http://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006 Kelly, R. B. (2009). Acupuncture for pain. American Family Physician Hegmann, K. T., Hughes, M. A., & Biggs, J. J. (2011). American college of occupational and environmental medicine’s occupational medicine practice guidelines. Elk Grove Village. NINDSs. (2014). Low Back Pain (pp. 1–32). State of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. (2014). Low Back Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines, 1–117. Toward Optimized Practice (TOP) Low Back Pain Working Group. (2016). Evidence-informed primary care management of low back pain, 1–49. Network, S. I. (2013). SIGN 136; Management of Chronic Pain. Health Improvement Scotland; December. Schug, S. A., Palmer, G. M., Scott, D. A., Halliwell, R., & Trinca, J. (2016). Acute pain management: scientific evidence, fourth edition, 2015. The Medical Journal of Australia, 204(8), 315–317. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acpain.2006.05.002 World Health Organization. (2002). Acupuncture: Review and analysis of reports on controlled clinical trials.  

The Acupuncture Now Foundation
5,221 supporters
Petitioning Wikipedia (Josve05a), wikipedia​.​org, Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia Foundation, info-en@wikimedia​.​org

False Wikipedia information/articles removal

Since 2001, Wikipedia has become the largest source of historical and scientific information around the world. Including more than 6,129,499 articles, it gives the readers worldwide an image of a reliable source, which leads to many confusions and conflicts between nationalities.  Wikipedia is a self-governing project run by its community, which means that any person can easily edit and create articles independently. However, unfortunately, some provocators falsify the history of the region in Wikipedia’s articles using unscientific and baseless sources, which lead to false territorial claims and national hostility between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. These falsifications mislead people, which are not involved in this conflict and undermine the value of Wikipedia for others. Moreover, there are national and territorial disputes about “the ancient and heroic” past, not based on any historical documents or evidences that is taking place from the Armenian side. By this petition, we urge you to engage experienced historians to investigate the true history of the region (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh which is being illegally occupied for almost 30 years by Armenia). Some of the historical evidences of the false information on Wikipedia on the Great Armenian history that should be analyzed by independent historians are: -       Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828). -       The Memorial “Maraga 150” mounted in 1978 on the occasion of 150 anniversary of  arrival of Armenians from the Persian region Maraga to Karabakh. In 1988 as the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh began “realization of right of the nation for self-determination” inscription on the memorial “Maraga - 150” immediately disappeared. But there are still photos of the Memorial. -       Decree of Petr 1 (November, 10th, 1724) on moving Armenians to the Caucasus. -       The map of 1799 compiled by the Headquarters of the Caucasian Military District of the Russian Empire. -       Different writers wrote about these events: A. Griboyedov ("Notes on the resettlement of Armenians from Persia to our regions") in 1828, S. Glinka ("Description of the resettlement of the Adderbidzhan Armenians to Russia") in 1831, I. Chopin ("Historical monument of the state of the Armenian region in the era of its accession to the Russian Empire") in 1852, V. Potto (in the 3rd volume of the "Caucasian War in separate essays, episodes, legends and biographies") in 1899, V. Velichko ("Caucasus. Russian business and tribal issues") in 1904, N. Shavrov ("New threat to the Russian business in the Transcaucasus: the upcoming sale of Mugan to foreigners") in 1911. -       Franz Roubaud's painting of the Yerevan Fortress siege in 1827 by the Russian forces under leadership of Ivan Paskevich. -       The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary on Armenia etc. Having the fact that any regular user can spread (write/edit or delete articles) fake historical information through Wikipedia, Armenian Nationalists start laying claim to regional dominance, and that in turn leads to instability in the region, hostility and aggression, as regular readers do not check the links provided, or deeply analyze the topic. By this petition, we urge you to intervene and analyse the history of the region in order to remove falsifications and misleading articles, which lead to territorial disputes. Having the true history proved, we would make a step to ensure stability and peace for the region.                                  

Leyli Magerram
2,580 supporters
Petitioning Donald J. Trump, United Nations, councel of, Council of the European Union, Human Rights Campaign, Justin Trudeau, Wall Street Journal, Justin Bieber, Wikipedia (Josve05a), United Nations Security ...

The Chinese Government Must Account for the Disappearance of the 10+ Million Uyghurs

By  Torchlight Uyghur Group  (Mesheluyghur@gmail.com)  This Petition Is Also Available In The Following Languages:  Japanese (日本語), Chinese (中文),  Uyghur (ئۇيغۇرچە), Slawyan (Kiril), Uyghur (Latinche), Turkish(Turkçe), Russian(Pусский) September 22, 2018 The Chinese government has kept the actual number of the Uyghurs in East Turkestan as a state secret, and reduced the Uyghur population numbers in their official reports for a long time.  This has been an important part of the Chinese policy to make the Uyghurs disappear, and as a result, the Uyghur people have been deprived of the right of knowing their own true population figures. As part of this policy, the Chinese government is treating the number of the Uyghurs kept in state prisons, detained in Nazi-style concentration camps and placed in prison-style orphanages as one of the top-level state secrets at the moment. After the recent extensive coverage from the international media about the detainment of several million innocent Uyghurs in China’s concentration camps, the Chinese government started to deny not only the fact that they have committed ethnic genocide on Uyghurs, but also the number of the Uyghur population they have reported in previous years.  We believe this is not a usual deception tactic employed by the Chinese government, but it is an indication that they have started a process of mass killing of the Uyghur people, or they have an intension to do so.  On September 14, 2018, the host of the “Upfront” program at Al Jazeera English, Mr. Mehdi Hasan, conducted an interview with an Uyghur political activist, Mr. Nury Turkel, and a Chinese government official, Mr. Victor Gao, the vice president for Center for China and Globalization, a think tank headquartered in Beijing, China.  During the interview, Mr. Gao denied the recent UN reports that China had detained more than a million ethnic Uyghurs in its so-called “re-education camps”. He also put out a shocking lie about the current number of Uyghurs in East Turkestan: He claimed that Uyghurs currently have a population of about 6 – 7 million inside East Turkestan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srhM6G-rRB0 2:50).  It is a well-known fact that the Chinese government has been lowering the number of the Uyghurs in their reports since the communist Chinese occupation of East Turkestan, but this is the first time that a high-ranking Chinese government official put the number of the Uyghur population at 6 – 7 million. This number corresponds to the Uyghur population in the 1980s reported by the Chinese national census, and that number has increased to 11,303,000 in the official Chinese census statistics in 2015 (http://www.xjtj.gov.cn/sjcx/tjnj_3415/2016xjtjnj/rkjy/201707/t20170714_539451.html   Currently, the Chinese government is carrying out a repressive policy on the Uyghurs in a scale that has never been seen in the Uyghur history.  According to a recent UN report, at least one million Uyghurs are being detained in concentration camps (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-it-has-credible-reports-that-china-holds-million-uighurs-in-secret-camps-idUSKBN1KV1SU ).  This number does not include the numbers of the Uyghurs who are currently serving prison terms and of the Uyghurs who have been sentenced to jails without trial since the beginning of 2017.  There are increasingly serious concerns among the overseas Uyghurs supported by some strong evidence that the Uyghurs in those massive concentration camps are becoming the victims of the organ harvesting business in China and elimination targets for the Chinese government.  The reduction of the Uyghur population statistics to such a low level in a crucial time like this is very worrisome and suspicious indeed.  We can’t help but ask: what has happened to the missing Uyghurs?   Victor Gao is a high-ranking expert in the Chinese government who knows very well what is happening to the Uyghur people now.  So his word, “in Xinjiang all together there are about 6 or 7 million Uyghur people”, is a solid proof that the Chinese government has already secretly locked up several million Uyghurs in their concentration camps.  It also forces us to speculate with some certainty that the Chinese government will carry out massive secret killings on the detained Uyghurs in the coming months.  According to the Chinese census statistics, the Uyghur population was 7,249,500 in 1990; 8,523,300 in 2000; 10,198,000 in 2009, and 11,303,300 in 2015.  But many Uyghur intellectuals living abroad strongly believe that the real number of the Uyghurs in East Turkestan is at least 20 million.  Joshua Project also reported that the worldwide Uyghur population was more than 12 million as early as in 2011 (https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/15755 The Uyghur people inside China have been allowed to have up to 3 children since the Chinese government’s implementation of the birth control policy, and the natural growth rate of the Uyghur population has been at the top level compared to all other ethnic groups within China.  The marriage and the childbirth rates of the Uyghurs have also been very high, the latter being 69% in 2010 (http://www.360doc.cn/article/15549792_574196290.html  However, the Chinese government has been reporting that the natural growth rate of the Uyghur population is only 1.2%, a number that is completely baseless in any account.   Although allowing for up to 3 children, Chinese government implemented a strict birth control policy on Uyghurs to prevent the increase of Uyghur population. Hundreds thousands of infants were forcefully aborted before they were born even when at their final trimester periods. Hundreds of thousands of young Uyghur girls and boys were taken to the other Chinese provinces under the disguise of “work training” and never to be returned since 2000. No one ever heard from them after they were snatched away from their families. Extremely strict residency policy restricted the Uyghurs from travelling to and freely residing in other cities without getting official permission from the government agencies. The one additional method employed by the Chinese government to hide the true number of Uyghurs is to degrade the ranks of ancient Uyghur cities such as Yarkent and Kuchar to the sub-city level.       According to the ‘2015 Xinjiang Year Book’- an official Chinese publication, the Uyghur population increased by 7.7% and 8.5% in Kashgar and Qarghiliq, respectively  (http://www.xjtj.gov.cn/sjcx/tjnj_3415/2016xjtjnj/rkjy/201707/t20170714_539450.html This statistics caused some worries among the Chinese intellectuals in a way that their government’s population policy towards the Uyghurs did not yield “ideal” results. Instead of decreasing in numbers, the Uyghurs were still surviving and thriving. Alarmed by this, the Chinese government started a more sinister approach of mass detaining the Uyghurs without trial, in order to completely wipe out the Uyghur people from their own land.   It is estimated that, at the moment, around three million Uyghurs are locked up illegally in the so called “re-education” camps – Nazi- style concentration camps aimed at disappearing Uyghurs into “blackhole” (https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/millions-08032018142025.html  Although the Chinese government has been carrying out this type of forced disappearances on the Uyghurs before, they were smaller in scale and mostly limited on the Uyghur intellectuals and scholars. However, this time the Chinese government has detained millions of innocent Uyghurs in the concentration camps and is still building more camps in East Turkistan; in addition, the Chinese government is also building huge numbers of crematoria to process the dead bodies. This scene should remind one of the WWII and the Jewish people’s fate during that dark period of history. If the Uyghur population in East Turkestan is in fact only 6-7 million as Victor Gao stated, then where are the rest of the Uyghur people? Chinese government must give the world an answer for the disappearance of millions of Uyghurs.  As the victims of the ongoing Chinese genocide, Uyghurs are prohibited from knowing their own true population numbers. If we analyze the statistics published by the Chinese government and the statistics we’ve acquired, we can obtain very different results than what the Chinese government reported and what Mr. Gao claimed.  If we employ the reported total Uyghur population of 7,249,500 for the year of 1990 and the increase rate of 8.5%, we can come up with a total Uyghur population of 13,411,575 for the year of 2000; furthermore, the Uyghur population should have reached a number of 24,811,413 in 2010, and 35,356,242 in 2015. Even assuming that more than 300,000 Uyghurs have died from the natural causes and/or killed by the government each year since the 1990s, the current minimum total population of Uyghurs should have been more than 25 million.   At this moment, we, the Uyghurs living abroad, are extremely traumatized by the forced disconnection from our family and friends imposed by the Chinese government. This is the highest level of abuse in every form - psychological, emotional, and financial - that any human being can ever possibly suffer. We know we are not alone in this battle of good and evil, right and wrong; we know that the majority of the humanity and the majority of the countries around the world are with us against the extreme evil committed by the Chinese government. The world will not and cannot stay silent over another genocide; the people around the world will not and should not witness another nation and population to disappear from the face of the Earth; we believe that the world will stand up, the people will stand up for humanity, justice and for their fellow brothers and sisters.  Your voice is precious to us. By signing this petition, you are saving countless innocent lives. Please sign this petition and pray for the Uyghur people and against the evil Chinese government. Thank you!  Every voice and signature counts! Be the voice of freedom!  You can find more information from the following sites: https://www.facebook.com/torchuyghur/ https://twitter.com/torch_uyghur http://blog.freedomsherald.org http://freedomsherald.org/ET/unb/   Torchlight Uyghur  Group’s previous petitions: https://www.change.org/search?q=Torchlight%20Uyghur%20Group  

Torchlight Uyghur Group
2,002 supporters
Trevor Moore's Wiki Page Should Say Local Sexpot

My deepest condolences go out to his family, loved ones, and his fans. It is never fun to see someone you know and cherish pass away. We can always remember him for the life he lived, and the legacy he passed on. Wikipedia will try and summarize his life the best way we can using reliable sources, in order for future generations to understand a bygone era in the context that it requires. Because of this, we can't include this when describing him, since that would be faulty and be a detriment in order to let future generations know who this notable person was when looking back on this time. By time, the article about him might grow with more content and a passage that he requested those words be used to describe him could be mentioned somehow, but not in the sense this petition is requesting.

9 months ago
Change primary picture of the article "Killing of George Floyd" on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a freely accessible encyclopedia (both as in free of charge, but also free to re-use and distribute in regards to copyrights) that tries to describe the history and the world around us using reliable third-party sources from a neutral point of view. It is written and maintained entirely by volunteer editors like you and me. There is no editorial board that makes decisions, everything is decided by consensus amongst editors. Therefore petitions to Wikipedia do not lead anywhere. This article in question is about the "Killing of George Floyd" and not the person "George Floyd" (we have a separate article about him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd). In order to illustrate the actual killing, the picture in question is used. This is similar to other articles, such as e.g. "Killing of Eric Garner". While I, the one responding to this petition, is only a volunteer and cannot (shall not) speak for the rest of the editing community, but I still want to express my deepest sympathies to the family of George Floyd, and everyone else who has lost a loved one to police brutality, lack of police accountability, race inequality, and racism. #BlackLivesMatter

2 years ago
Make wikipedia include Crime in Sports(podcast)

Dear Amanda, Everyone is free to resubmit their submission for another reviewer to review if they felt the first reviewer added personal opinions to their review. Think of it like this: Anybody, even a person with zero knowledge or someone who hates this podcast, should be able to read (and cite) third-party reliable sources and be able to piece together the cane article. If not, then the submission is either biased with opinions, own knowledge and feeling or it lacks third-party sources to back up all their claim (or omit some to just show one site of a subject). In this case I can see a lot of biased ( and ‘wheasel’) words and phrasings such as ‘hit’, and a lot of fluffy promotional text such as ‘ears and hearts of the listeners’. This is not unbiased encyclopedic content with NPOC (no point of view). And the only third-party source used is to urban dictionary, which isn’t reliable. Please read the second paragraph above in my comment. From that source I (who know zero of this subject) am not able to create an article by myself about this subject. We have over hundreds of policies and guidelines, and over hundreds of artyicle submissions a day (from new and unregistered users). So, we apply a hard standard to them. If you have found a similarly written article, that just means it haven’t been deleted yet, not that it should be replicated. If no reliable third-party sources that discuss this subject in-depth, then it fails our general notability criteria. Try and find news articles, journals etc. If non are found, then it is too early for an article. It is not a review of the subject it self, it is on the article as written, and if it is neutral, properly cited etc.

4 years ago
Make wikipedia include Crime in Sports(podcast)

The subjects for our articles are usually chosen by the editing community rather than by petition or request. If however the entry qualifies under our encyclopedic notability guidelines (enwp.org/WP:N), and you can cite reliable, published, 3rd party sources (enwp.org/WP:RS), you can suggest the creation of it to our volunteers at enwp.org/WP:RA. If you are willing to write the article yourself, and submit it for other editors to review, you can use our Article Wizard to write it and then submit it to our Articles for Creation process where it can be considered for publication— the backlog there is sometimes over 5 weeks long or greater, but is more likely to result in the actual publication of the article than placing your name on our Requested Articles list. The "Article Wizard" at enwp.org/WP:WIZARD) will help you decide whether the topic you want to write about is suitable for a Wikipedia article. At the end of the wizard, if your subject is suitable for Wikipedia, you will be given the option to create a draft and submit it for review by other editors as a part of the "Articles for Creation" project (enwp.org/WP:AFC). The members of this project are experienced editors, though there is much greater demand for their services than there is supply, so you may need to wait a while before your draft is reviewed. Once you submit your draft, it will be placed into a category where it will be open for review by anyone who reviews submissions. If your submission is approved (which may take more than a month because of the current backlog) then an editor will accept it and you will be notified of the article's creation. If your submission is not accepted, a note will be left on the page describing what can be improved, and you will be notified of this via a message on your "Talk" page. Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, and welcome to the community! Good luck! (Response: cc-by-sa 3.0 / Wikimedia OTRS)

4 years ago
Get Reddcoin On Wikipedia

In the event some people signed this petition in order to get Wikipedia to write an article about Redcoin, this response is for you: The subjects for our articles are usually chosen by the editing community rather than by petition or request. If however the entry qualifies under our encyclopedic notability guidelines , and you can cite reliable, published, 3rd party sources , you can suggest the creation of it to our volunteers at . If you are willing to write the article yourself, and submit it for other editors to review, you can use our Article Wizard to write it and then submit it to our Articles for Creation process where it can be considered for publication— the backlog there is sometimes over 5 weeks long or greater, but is more likely to result in the actual publication of the article than placing your name on our Requested Articles list. The "Article Wizard" at will help you decide whether the topic you want to write about is suitable for a Wikipedia article. At the end of the wizard, if your subject is suitable for Wikipedia, you will be given the option to create a draft and submit it for review by other editors as a part of the "Articles for Creation" project (). The members of this project are experienced editors, though there is much greater demand for their services than there is supply, so you may need to wait a while before your draft is reviewed. Once you submit your draft, it will be placed into a category where it will be open for review by anyone who reviews submissions. If your submission is approved (which may take more than a month because of the current backlog) then an editor will accept it and you will be notified of the article's creation. If your submission is not accepted, a note will be left on the page describing what can be improved, and you will be notified of this via a message on your "Talk" page. Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, and welcome to the community! Good luck! (Response: cc-by-sa 3.0 / Wikimedia OTRS)

4 years ago
Clean up the Wikipedia Acupuncture page to reflect medical and scientific consensus

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

5 years ago
Reinstate Mike Pollock's Wikipedia Page

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. - If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. - Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

5 years ago
Get Scott Disick A Wikipedia Page

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding this issue. However, deletion decisions are not taken centrally, but after a discussion amongst the Wikipedia community, and with reference to our deletion policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy If you feel you have information which would be important to contribute to this discussion, please see the discussion page; we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion This subject has been the subject of multiple deletion discussions, where the volonteer editors and community on WIkipedia have decided that this subject is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Note, however, that this is a discussion, not a vote, and that a decision to delete is not a reflection on the merits of the topic, but rather a discussion on whether the subject is appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.

5 years ago
Clean up the Wikipedia Acupuncture page to reflect medical and scientific consensus

Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized, using reliable sources to support claims. Two of the project's three core content policies are "no original research" and "verifiability" . The no original research policy states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. [...] This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." The verifiability policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by its readers, and consensus determines content on the project. Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others. To aid in reaching agreements on content issues, each article has an associated "discussion page" or "talk page"; you can access this by clicking the "discussion" link at the top of the article. You can then ask a question by selecting the "new section" link in the tabs at the top of the page. You will see two text boxes for you to write in: one for a title for your question and one for the question itself. Since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve editing disputes via email or by petition. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at . These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community. A list of ways you can seek dispute resolution can be found at . Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia.

5 years ago