Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ron Jon Surf Shop


As the article creator admits in the history, this article has already been deleted four times. Does the current version of the article differ enough to remain ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And on an associated note, can someone please double check the notability etc of Ron Jon Surfpark, which is associated to the above article ? Thanks CultureDrone (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the first thing, it looks fine to me. The claims to multiple shops and locations seem to make it notable, along with the accompanying article. If it genuinely will host nationally televised surfing events, that makes it seem pretty notable in my eyes. ǝuɪuǝsɐ (ʞɿɐʇ) sʇdpǝ 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Emeka Chike Nwogu


In the list of Nigerian poets, I discovered that my name is joined to another name of someone else. Please re4soolve it and make the name accessible, as the one the presently there does not respond to click. The name am talking about is Emeka Chike Nwogu - Richard Ugbede Ali. The right name is EMEKA CHIKE NWOGU

Thank you

Emeka Chike Nwgu —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FixedFixed the entire list. List of Nigerian poets--pete 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing my User Page


I need big time assistance on editing my User Page. There is a few things I need help on:

1. Are you allowed to write about yourself in your user page?

2. If so then, for the next few numbers please help me out. First, how do I create a table of contents box and get the links in the box? How do you get the links to go to each headline in the box when the link is clicked?

3. How do I create a biography box to post in the side of the page (right side)? For example: The wrestling superstars bios, except with my information, such as: height, weight, hometown, birthplace, date of birth, full name, sexual orientation, religion, relationship status, significant other, school I attend, college I will attend, my major in college, my grade point average, and etc. These are just examples, but I will post them into my box. If you don't know what I am talking about, then you can go to the WWE Roster's page and you'll see a list of WWE superstars and then click on a name and to the side underneath their picture is their biography. That's what I want to have.

4. How do I get an image of myself above my biography page? Also, how do I get a caption underneath the picture? Also, how would I be able to get pictures of me on the page with the appropriate heading in it with the captions?

5. How do I make headings for each section I will talk about?

6. And finally, how do I create links in my user profile page to, for example, have the Boy Scouts listed and it redirects you to the Wikipedia page of the Boy Scouts? That was just an example and I will post something like that, but I just need to know how to do it.

7. How do I create subpages, for example: a page on Awards, Email, Contributor, User/Home, and etc.? Or is that only for administrators?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please message me back and let me know how to be able to edit these. Because it is so confusing for me to figure out all this stuff on my own and would greatly appreciate any help an experienced editor can give to me. Thanks for the help in advanced and keep up the good work.

Awesomemccoy18 (Scotty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomemccoy18 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed to write about yourself. 2 and 7 are tied together, because when you create a section ( by putting two equal signs "==" before and after the section text with a line break, and adding one equal sign for each level of subsection), it automatically produces a table of contents. To create links, put double brackets around the text ("[[]]"). Subpages are made by creating a link, but putting a slash ("/") before the title in the link. The basics can be found here. I also suggest adoption. Justin(c)(u) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New Wiki editor, how to adress changes without other person discussing it

Stale: This request is MasonPlum's latest edit so far. User:Dorftrottel 19:15, February 11, 2008

I edited an article. I am a new WIki editor. I have a very extensive level of knowledge of the article topic. I made a change to the first paragraph of the article: Nhat Hanh (a famous buddhist author). Someone changed the article back, but nothing on the talk page why. He put a few comments that don't really make sense in the history page (comment shows next to the version). WHat should I do? How do I ask him to discuss this first. SHould I change it back to my version. ANy simple advice is appreciated?

How do edit disputes get resolved? I am not supposed to/can't send a message to this user, right? How do I put a comment in the History section - so it says a comment right in the history (as this user - Mind --- did). thank you. Maybe I should revert and put a comment asking him to read and respond in the talk page?

- MasonPlum (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can (and should) put a comment in the History section by typing into the WP:edit summary box which is below the main editing box. Editors often communicate via such summaries. If there is not enough room in the edit summary or if you are having a dispute, then the next step is to start a section on the article's Talk page.
Remember to always include a reference to the source of your information. You may have extensive knowledge of the topic but per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
You added a ref to part of your edit, but the other editor may have deleted the other parts of your edit because there were not references. If you ask him on the article's Talk page, he will explain his reasons. You can also post a message on the other editor's User talk page but first I would try the article's Talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me on a particular topic where I appear to have drawn insults?

Stale: Issue has been pursued at ANI. User:Dorftrottel 19:22, February 11, 2008
ANI permanent link

Hi there - I've been a member for quite a while but only recently started editing. I was reading Reddit which linked to a wiki article titled Spurius Carvilius Ruga which is a hoax article. I marked it up for deletion (which was removed by someone thereafter)and then received a message from a user who's details are Shii (tock) 07:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)He basically stated 'You're an idiot get off wiki' on my talk page - a) can someone tell me what to do about the article which is nonsense b) How to report or respond to Shii??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by OzScot (talkcontribs) 02:42, 3 February 2008

The first step is to ask Shii to explain the comment. I have placed a request on his talk page, asking him to leave a note here explaining the comment. Pastordavid (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:Wikiquette alerts would be a good place to start. Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"I was reading Reddit which linked to a wiki article titled Spurius Carvilius Ruga which is a hoax article." ← Look at this willful and proud ignorance on OzScot's part. This is not an honest mistake, it is simply a stupid thing to say. He didn't even read the article. I will not respond to comments like this, or {{db-nonsense}} tags (which he put on the article), with a polite correction. I'm not his mom and he needs to learn how to read. Wikipedia suffers deeply because editors are afraid to call out idiocy when they see it. Shii (tock) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

it isn't necessary to "call out idiocy". idiots by definition aren't going to understand that. what they - and all editors - understand is to just revert and use a simple edit summary such as 'please read the references, this is not a hoax article'. there is the foundation of civility which you should at least make a cursory attempt to abide by. i won't pretend i've not been uncivil with other editors, but the fact is, it fails at the desired result. for example, see this very thread. Anastrophe (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Shii, you are in clear violation of Wikipedia:BITE. Please stop. ǝuɪuǝsɐ (ʞɿɐʇ) sʇdpǝ 12:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Brain tumor deaths


Having been adding categories to various articles, I came across someone who died of a brain tumo(u)r. I was going to add them to the relevant category, but the Brain tumor deaths category is a soft redirect to the Brain tumour category, which doesn't actually exist. Is this an error, or has the category been deleted / never been created ? I wouldn't normally think to categorise someone by the means of death, but other categories - such as Prostate cancer deaths exist, so I'd have thought this one would as well..... CultureDrone (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good category, I see nothing wrong with it. Just remove the redirect, IMO. ǝuɪuǝsɐ (ʞɿɐʇ) sʇdpǝ 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - but I rechecked and 'tumour' category had been moved to 'Brain cancer deaths', so the 'tumor' category was falling foul of a double redirect. Fixed the category redirect and it seems ok now :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Educating Rita


The current version of the article is tagged as uncategorised - which is what drew my attention to it in the first place. Looking at the revision history, the version dated 22:19, 22 January 2008 by VMS Mosaic seems complete, though with a lengthy description of the plot. The page was then vandalised, with various attempts then made at cleaning up the mess. This left the article with no categories and a more truncated version of the plot. Not being entirely sure of WP policies on detailing plotlines within an article, should the article be :

1. Restored to the 'long plot' version, or
2. Recategorised in its current 'short plot' form ?

CultureDrone (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would look at other plays and be influenced by the general form found in those articles. I note for example, that Pygmalion has a quite a detailed plot summary. It is really up to your preference. Some other editor will come along and trim or (more likely) expand the work anyway. Wm (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok - thanks for the advice. Since several well known plays I checked seemed to have short plot summaries, I've resummarised the plot in short form CultureDrone (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor has changed my talk comment heading


An editor has changed a sub-heading that I used to precede a comment on an article talk page.


What is an appropriate way to deal with this? Should I ignore it, change it back, raise a Wikiquette alert or take other action?

I have already asked the user to revert to my original wording but he has ignored me diff. Thanks. Wm (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I don't get it. In the diff you provided, he didn't change your talk page comment. He changed the heading. Is that what you're referring to? ~a (usertalkcontribs) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes it is. Wm (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Topic headings are frequently changed, especially if they are inaccurate or inflammatory. In this case it was the heading that was changed, rather than any actual content, and the editor made his reason clear in the discussion content. I wouldn't get over-excited about it if I were you. Not unless you were interested in making trouble rather than editing an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I agree. I understand the issue with the new heading, but it's pretty trivial. I'd just change it back since it's such a minor change (use an edit summary like "I prefer my old heading"). If it were a change to your words, or if he insisted on his heading: only then would I raise an issue or ask him his reasoning. Even then, however, I'd probably just drop it. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note: User:Skyring (Pete) has offered advice above without declaring his interest. He is the editor that made the change to which I refer. Wm (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But good advice nonetheless. And no, I'm not stalking you. I have this page on my watchlist and spotted your contribution to the topic above this one, which sparked my interest enough to click on it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion would have been the same regardless of what Pete said. I actually drafted my response (except the "Yeah. I agree." part) before I saw Pete's reply. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 13:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: User:Dorftrottel 11:43, February 7, 2008

I don't want to go into a 3RR, so I am bring this here to get some help. A student at the college station added the following section WNYO (FM)#The Golden Pitcher. I first removed it because it did not cite sources and warned the user (I even welcomed them) see User talk:FancyMustard. I asked them to cite sources see User talk:FancyMustard#WNYO (FM). The source that was given just pointed to the radio station and the editor stated in their edit summary that "I had to listen to the podcasts". When I could not find any sufficient references at that website, I commented out the section and left a notice on the articles talk page. This morning the following was left on my talk page (as well as the section being edit back in to the article):

Why are you picking on a little station in Oswego, NY? Don't you guys have better things to do? Plus I would know more about the subject being a student there and a competitor in these events. I wouldn't edit things I don't know about. So please leave mine alone. Have you ever been to Oswego? I thought wikipedia was a collective effort by anyone who has things to add. I find it to be a bunch of bullies who feel they can run it and do as they please. Wikipedia is far from a good source to use for anything! It's a site with broad information on anything. I don't know anyone who uses it for acedemic papers or anything. And if they do, they would be stupid to site it. Professors hate it. Plus most of the citations people use on wikipedia are non-credited internet sites. I can go create a webpage explaining all about the pitcher and then cite myself? But the Golden Pitcher is a big thing between the two sports depts. Call the WNYO station at 315-312-2101 for information on the golden pitcher contests. -FancyMustard (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So now what? Help. --pete 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious problems with that section are related to WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:DUE. I therefore removed it and tried to explain the involved issues to FancyMustard, asking not to restore the section in its current form. User:Dorftrottel 13:46, February 5, 2008



i need to change the name and make my test a real entry--Henslee57 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for coming here for help. I don't think you want to make that a real article. The content you added to the Sandbox seems to be some game that you made up. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
She or he didn't make up the game - it has existed for quite some time. 1 2 3. Which doesn't imply that it is notable enough for a WP article, mind you :-) --Bonadea (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Game (game) is permasalted in any case, and is very, very likely to stay that way, there has been so much trolling and nonsense over that thing. Henslee57, if you want to make an article on that, you are going to need to create it in a userspace sandbox, and find a very good number of highly-reliable sources. Might I suggest you find some slightly less hot-button topics to write on before making that attempt, to learn your way around first? If at that time you really think you can write a real article about it, you could always try then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, This looks like an informal request for userfication, but it's also the user's latest edit so far. User:Dorftrottel 14:43, February 12, 2008
    • Strike that, didn't read the post properly. But may be userfication would be ok nevertheless. Should the user return, someone may propose it to him/her. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, February 12, 2008

Martin Garbus


Martin Garbus has a lot of "issues". Anyone want to help out? Sbowers3 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to bring this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. For WP:BLP issues requiring immediate attention, go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. User:Dorftrottel 12:59, February 7, 2008

copy versus content editing



I have been a copy editor for many years. By that I mean that I correct grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc. I can do more than these things, but I am interested mainly in this kind of editing here on Wikipedia.

If, while I am editing an article, I find factual errors within it, am I responsible for correcting the errors, or can I simply edit the text without correcting the facts? For example, I just edited the copy of the entry for Colombian coffee

and found several factual errors. I corrected the grammar and other textual concerns, but left the factual errors untouched. While I knew that the facts were wrong, I was not sure exactly what information might have been correct, nor did I know off-hand where to find the appropriate citations.

My question, again, is whether I am responsible for factual errors when I edit text.

Thanks for your help!

Grey Autumn Rain —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good question! "Responsible" first and foremost depends on your personal feeling responsible, as an editor. Obviously, typo and grammar correction (called wikignoming in Wikipedia lingo) is highly appreciated. However, if and where you feel up to the task of improving factual inaccuracies, you're most welcome to address these, too, along our core content policies. Additionally addressing any such issues at the respective article talk page is generally considered the gold standard of editorial contribution. User:Dorftrottel 12:53, February 7, 2008
Please do correct grammar, etc. even if you don't fix factual errors. You might highlight factual errors for others to fix by adding a {{fact}} citation right after the error, by mentioning the error in your edit summary, and by adding a note on the article's talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The overusing of {{fact}} has been discouraged by Jimbo. The preferred course of action is to remove unreferenced dubious claims rather than slapping a tag on it, just as boldly fixing issues oneself is generally preferred and encouraged over using tags. User:Dorftrottel 13:43, February 7, 2008
I think it's best to finish the copyedits, save the article, then come back and make the edits to the facts. That way if there is a dispute or if you get reverted, the copyedits 'stick', do not cloud the issue, and don't have to be repeated. --CliffC (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinz Politzer

Resolved: User:Avraham has fixed the incorrect information in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

hello, someone just brought to my attention that there is a Wikepedia entry for my father, Heinz Politzer. I checked it out, and there are some glaring errors.

first of all, my father never taught at Ohio University. Rather, he taught at Bryn Mawr College, Oberlin College (which is in Ohio), and the University of California, Berkeley (not Berkeley University).

also, while he did live in Israel during WWII, he never identified as an "Israeli writer." he was first and foremost an Austrian writer, who happened to live and work in both Israel and the United States.

he was an expert on Kafka, Freud, Hoffmanstahl and Grillpazer. He was greatly responsible for the original interest in Kafka in the United States, and he was a close associate to Kafka's protege, Max Brod.

he was awarded the Key to the CIty of Vienna and the Austrian Cross, among many other prizes and honors. the highlight of his career was giving the Eroeffnungrede to the 1976 Salzburg Music Festival.

at the time of his death, he was survived by his wife Jane Hinman Horner Politzer, and four sons, Mike, Dave, Steve and Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Avraham, who responded to an OTRS ticket, this issue has already been taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling books

Resolved: User:Dorftrottel 19:48, February 16, 2008

I have provided extensive documentation and discussion for my edits. An anonymous editor continues to revert my edits and remove key parts of my documentation, all while providing no documentation or comments of his/her own. I am getting tired of continuing to revert the offending edits; because of the nature of the article, such reversions are often time-consuming. I am not sure how to proceed at this point. Fragesteller (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish it were the case that this problem had gone away. However, the same user has continued to vandalize the site in the same manner, and I have continued to revert the edits. Each alteration requires multiple reversions (because we are editing a table), and this threatens to get out of hand. Again, I ask for assistance in intervening with this user. The user never gives any response to my comments, nor provides justification for the edits.Fragesteller (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted User:JK Cromwell at user talk, asking to participate in discussion at Talk:List of best-selling books before doing further edits to the article. Should the situation continue like this, escalating warnings may become appropriate. User:Dorftrottel 11:26, February 13, 2008

At 14:00 and thereafter (apparently after you made contact), the same user repeated the same actions. Yet another reversion was required. Fragesteller (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits around 1400 were reverted by Mike Christie, whose judgment as our most prolific FA contributor in 2007 I fully trust. I reverted the other edit, and renewed my request for the user to engage in discussion at the article talk page. It's also noteworthy that so far, he hasn't made any talk page edits at all. User:Dorftrottel 21:54, February 13, 2008

About my site Agranews

Stale: User:Dorftrottel 14:08, February 12, 2008

My site Agranews is in the Indian newspapers list(English). But when any time I write 2 lines about site with link, someone always remove it. All the news sites in your list have few lines about their sites. I dont know what to do. I really need help.If you can write just two lines and put link. ( website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


My site Agranews is in the List_of_newspapers_in_India#English_Language in wikipedia list.

Just name only have no meaning. I would be greatful if any EDITOR can put the link of the website( with name and write two lines atleast that Agranews is a online news site from Agra. I really need help from a editor who can do this favour.

Thanks Rajeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It remains unclear which article is being referred to. List of newspapers in India is a pure list, without anything written about the listed newspapers. Agranews has been speedily deleted and is salted. FWIW, Here's a linksearch for User:Dorftrottel 14:08, February 12, 2008

Could anyone tell me the name of the 'image tag is incorrect' template

Stale: User:Dorftrottel 14:14, February 12, 2008

I've found an image needing this tag on, because it clearly isn't under the right license - anyone know of the template? I can't seem to find it. ǝuɪuǝsɐ (ʞɿɐʇ) sʇdpǝ 12:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Try Category:Image copyright tags. Possibly Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale? Linking the image would help a lot with determining the specific issue and correct tag. User:Dorftrottel 14:14, February 12, 2008

Vidura College - Colombo

Resolved: Appears resolved, article is multiply tagged and undergoing a rewrite. User:Dorftrottel 14:16, February 12, 2008

Could someone please take a look at Vidura College - Colombo. I've been watching it for some time and I can't put my finger on what's wrong. It's not encyclopedic but I can't be more specific than that. Is it too POV? I just don't know what tags to put on it to make it better. There are some specific things I would delete but I don't know what to say to justify the deletions:

  • under Calendar: "School sportsmeet will be held on 2nd of March 2008."
  • the whole Contact Vidura section.

Maybe it's just me. If you think the article is okay, then let me know either way. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not just you. The article was originally written here: Marketing material (click on the links at the top for more of the copied text). Then User:InduUS copied the information to Wikipedia and subsequently released the information on the website under the GFDL (complete with a serious conflict regarding copyright status). The main point, however, is that this is a blatant conflict of interest and the text copied was originally written as marketing material. If it were me, I'd start by tagging the top of the article with {{COI}} and {{Unreferenced}}. If the article doesn't pass notability, I'd suggest proposing it for deletion. If it does pass notability, then I'd suggest removing everything from the article that looks like marketing. Since nothing is sourced, remove or tag dubious statements. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Apparently resolved, article has been revised according to the concern stated here. User:Dorftrottel 14:17, February 12, 2008

Could someone take a look at Hublot. Two weeks ago I nominated it for speedy which was denied. That's okay but now a second editor has nom'd it for speedy, and it was again denied. When two separate editors nominate an article for speedy I think there probably is something wrong with it. I no longer think it should be deleted; I think it probably is notable. The problem I think is that it reads too much like an advertisement. But I don't know just what to rewrite to make it more encyclopedic. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It reads a lot like an ad, cmoplete with glowing prose about the products the company sells. Jayron32, who denied the speedy, suggests an AFD, but the company would appear to be quite notable, so a rewrite would certainly be in order. I haven't got the time right now, but I'll maybe give it a shot tonight - it'll be beaten to a pulp by the time I get all the promo-speak out of it, though... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Too late, beat you to the punch! So yeah, it was really bad. I don't think it should be speedied, but I'll wait for a second pair of eyes to remove the advert tag. Justin(c)(u) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot better; I went through and took out some of the marketspeak that was left. It still needs sources desperately, but has enough content to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unable to edit for more than 24 hours!!

Stale: Below request has been the user's last edit so far. User:Dorftrottel 10:30, February 12, 2008

I recently updated an article regarding Fightstar, with album cover images, I followed exactly the same protocols that a previous editor had used regarding the uploading and presenting of the images, but within 24 hours my updates had been removed. The images had been obtained from the same source as the previous editor, and uploaded/represented in the same manor as the previous editor.

I find it hard to believe that the "peoples encyclopedia" is preventing it's users from editing articles.

Takuhii (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The user who removed the images pointed to the article talk page in the edit summary. Please see also our non-free content policy. Fair use images may only be used if they add crucially to the understanding of the discussed subject matter. They may not be used for mere decorative purposes. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, February 5, 2008

King of Babylon

Resolved: Article has been prodded. User:Dorftrottel 10:28, February 12, 2008

This article was originally just a redirect page, but an editor has changed it to an article which would appear to fall foul of WP:NOR. Any views on whether I'm correct in this assumption ? If so, should I change it back to a redirect, or propose it at AfD for a wider consensus ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic, but the article clearly falls short of following our content guidelines and policies. User:Dorftrottel 18:03, February 5, 2008

A fellow editor not focusing on content and is constantly judgemental

Stale: Vivid, spirited discussion continues at article talk. User:Dorftrottel 14:33, February 12, 2008

A fellow editor (Abd) not focusing on content and is constantly judgmental on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. This impedes my ability to naturally respond in talk because I feel that I am constantly being flamed and it takes my energy away. I have posted numerous warnings and have clearly stated my case in talk. He behaviour encourages other editors to act in a similar fashion. Other editors are also not happy with his approach. --scuro (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific as to what you object to? In most of the comments I read on that article's talk page (admittedly, it is quite long and I read only the latest ones, not the whole thing), Abd appears to be discussing the article's subject and content. Might you be able to provide diffs of the behavior/comments you consider problematic? Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on posting to the following page!!!

Stale: Information technology consulting has been sprotected. User:Dorftrottel 14:37, February 12, 2008

I am trying to post a very useful resource on following IT consulting page:

below is my posting, why it's get deleted??? The current content on that page is VERY biased as it only list the top or big consulting firms. In US, there are thousands of small/mid sized IT consulting firms, why they are NOT listed? Please explain!!!

Finding the right IT consulting firms is very different than finding the right product vendors. Product vendor is a much more concentrated space than consulting firm. For example, Oracle as a product vendor has thousands of VARs of which most are consulting firms. So does Microsoft, Siebel Systems. With IT outsourcing to offshore as a trend, organizations are looking for more cost effective consulting labor, yet with good quality. This puts pressure on local high pricing “Big Four” type of consulting firms. Accenture has grown to billion dollar revenue company in only 5 years is a good example of utilizing off resource to provide cost effective consulting. Other trends in the IT consulting are small or mid sized companies can compete with big ones more efficiently as they are quick to respond to customer’s requirement , deliver good quality work and charge lower price.

Overall, IT consulting is a much more fragmented sector than the product vendor industry. To any organizations, how to find the most qualified IT consulting firm to fit their project and business needs becomes an increasing important consideration to management people. Here are the leading online portals to help you search qualified IT consulting or management firms in your decision making process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are really asking about two things here: 1) Why can't all IT consultants be mentioned in the article, and 2) Why can't the text you wrote be included in the article.
1) It is true that there are thousands of smaller IT consultants in the USA, as well as in India, the UK, the Philippines etc etc. Adding them all would make the list meaningless and unencylopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The whole point of an encyclopedia article is to mention the notable firms, which means the large and important ones. As you can easily see by looking at the article's talk page it was decided in 2006 to only include companies with more than 10,000 employees in the list, thus removing a lot of companies that had been listed before..
2) The text you have included, using a number of different IPs (and stating your intention to keep using different IPs to circumvent blocks, which is completely unacceptable), consists of first a block of original research and unverified claims, not to mention that it is promotional in tone; and then three URLs which cannot be included in an article because of the policy on external links. Several different people removed the text because it was not encyclopedic.
Hope this has explained matters. --Bonadea (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer Disputes

Stale: Klim13 has not made another edit so far. User:Dorftrottel 14:38, February 12, 2008


So sorry to bother you. I really did search the FAQs for my answer.

My name is Christopher Klim. I am an author, journalist, and professor. Over the years and while working as the lead editor in restoring Eric Hoffer's books to print as well as bring unpublished manuscripts to print, I have become a leading authorities on the life and work of Eric Hoffer. I am also in regular contact with the Hoffer estate. I have the ability to resolve many of the Eric Hoffer disputes on his page, but I just don't understand how to lend by commentary and knowledge to the debate.

For example, I'll take on the first three citation requests.

1) Eric Hoffer did not consider his first book, The True Believer, to be his best. His close associates (and he did not have many), which included journalist Eric Sevareid, documentary Filmmaker John McGreevy, and his long time companion Lili Fabilli Osborne, state that Hoffer preferred his second book, The Ordeal of Change. They and I, concur.

2) The True Believer established his reputation as a writer, appearing on the bestseller list about one year after its launch, however, it was the National Television interview series with Sevareid that brought him into the national consciousness. Sevareid claimed until his death that it was one of the most widely seen and well-responsed public television interviews.

3) The True Believer--the title from where this very expression was derived--was indeed his most successful book, having never gone out of print in over fifty years and selling about 5 to 1 over his second most popular title, The Passionate State of Mind. The True Believer has been translated into countless languages around the world and continues, like his other books, to be read today.

Regards, CK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim13 (talkcontribs) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have a great system of FAQs as such. Maybe I'll write one someday. That aside, hopefully some advice will help! While it certainly sounds like you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, personal research or knowledge may not be used for an article. On the other hand, if you have published works regarding this person, you certainly may use those as sources, provided that they pass our reliable source guidelines. (You may cite works which you wrote yourself, provided that the work is one which we would normally consider reliable.) We require that all information in articles be verifiable, which means it must be drawn from a source which has been published in some manner. The source should also be reliable, in that it has been fact-checked, edited, or peer-reviewed by other professionals. If you have any other questions, please ask away, and don't be sorry to do so, we're here to help! Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis City-County Council

Stale: Article had been fprotected from February 7 through 11, edit warring has not continued since then. User:Dorftrottel 14:53, February 12, 2008

Hey there. I come looking for assistance on the Indianapolis_City-County_Council article. A user has disputed the order of the list of councilors on the page, and continues to change the article to match his thoughts, however the list is in accordance with WikiStandards.

You can find discussion on the subject on the talk pages of Ecoleman56 (the user in question), TheHoosierState89, Gonzo_fan2007, and myself, Jasont82

EColeman56 has been given a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR, but I'd like to have the whole thing settled before the ban is lifted so we don't have to go through this again tomorrow.


-- JTHolla! 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, EColeman56 has deleted the Counsel part of of his Talk page, but you can find the page in question in his history by going to: Thanks! -- JTHolla! 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Stale" icon

Resolved: User:Dorftrottel 11:17, February 13, 2008

Can I (or should I) remove a "Stale" icon if it is no longer accurate? Fragesteller (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends. There are no strict rules here. If you have a similar question, you may want to consider opening a new thread and linking to the old one. If you think a thread can be revived with helpful new comments, go ahead and remove the tag. If the old thread is already archived, open a new thread in any case. Which thread are you talking about? User:Dorftrottel 10:57, February 13, 2008
Nevermind, I've re-opened the thread above. User:Dorftrottel 11:17, February 13, 2008

Accidentally created article on person already covered


I've accidentally created the article Colonel John Jones instead of editing John Jones Maesygarnedd. Both articles are about the same man. I've looked at the help on Merging Articles and it's too complicated for me. Please could someone else put them together into one. I'm happy to fix up the details - I think there's a significant error in John Jones Maesygarnedd (see discussion). Actually, John Jones Maesygarnedd is a bad title as it was only a nickname derived from his constituency - Colonel John Jones is better, but who knows which articles refer to the former? I'm sure there must be a smart way to find out.

Thanks Laetoli (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are the only author of Colonel John Jones a complicated Merge is not necessary. You can simply insert your information into the other article. You can delete your article by inserting {{db-author}} at the top. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a redirect would be better here, and I have done so. Justin(c)(u) 03:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with Zachman Framework-related articles

Stale: pursued at COI/N and article talk. Dorftrottel (harass) 09:31, March 5, 2008

A number of new editors, some with declared WP:COI, would like assistance with a number of concerns. There are spam issues here (spam report), which I think are taking a back seat now that the editors have joined in the discussions. The articles are (mostly) Enterprise architect, Enterprise architecture, John Zachman, and Zachman framework. The other editors are User:Lockezachman, User:Metaframe, and User:Phogg2. I've been trying, not very successfully, to get them to discuss the issues on article talk pages rather than my personal talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone look at this situation again, starting with Lockezachman's Feb 17 edits? --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lockezachman is now edit-warring, and a new user has joined in: User:Len Morrow --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these original research? Do they quote reliable sources?

Stale: Dorftrottel (warn) 09:32, March 5, 2008

I wonder if someone could look at the material added today to the "Sources and research" section of Payday loan with this edit. The article draws a lot of spam and self-serving edits from the Payday Loan industry; to me this looks like more of the same, and not just because the IP submitter parked his material right at the top of the section. For starters, the edit summary says "added new independent research". The first PDF linked, "PAYDAY LENDERS: HEROES OR VILLAINS?" is headed "Draft January, 2007 Preliminary and Incomplete". To me it looks like WP:OR, just one professor's opinion.

The second document, "Payday Holiday: How Households Fare after Payday Credit Bans: is a "Staff Report" from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, bearing the caveat

This paper presents preliminary findings and is being distributed to economists and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit comments. The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily reflective of views at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

The third, "An Experimental Analysis of the Demand for Payday Loans" comes from the Social Science Research Network. The link has been retitled (deceptively, IMO) by the IP as "Restrictions on Payday Loans Do More Harm Than Good". This seems an exaggeration of the study's Summary and Conclusions section, which says in part "While some subjects’ financial survival was adversely affected by their use of payday loans, we found that the majority of subjects in our experiment benefited from the existence of and their subsequent use of payday loans."

As you can tell, I don't think references to these documents belong in the article. I'd like a fresh set of eyes to take a look. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowly checking out these sources. Let me add a quick note here on something I've found so far. I used Google Scholar to find all the published papers that cited the Morse (2006) paper. There were three papers that cited the Morse paper (each of which were also cited by a number of papers). In the academic world, I've been told that being cited by lots of papers (who are also cited by lots of papers) is a big deal. In other words, I think the first link is valid. I'll fix the wiki markup since in my opinion it's a valid link. I'll also relocate them to the end of the list. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I do about an editor who keeps accusing me of plagiarism?

Stale: Dorftrottel (taunt) 09:33, March 5, 2008

There is a Wikipedia editor that persists with an accusation that I am a plagiarist. This is an extremely harsh allegation, not to mention reputation ruining. I have reviewed the editor's complaint and found it absurd right on the face. I have explained to this editor why his allegation is false. I have asked this editor to cease. Finally I warned him on talk pages that if he persisted my hand would be forced to have something done about his actions. He persists. I do not tend to make use of complaint departments (here or elsewhere). Hence I am completely unfamiliar with how to report this vicious behavior and ask for something to be done about it. I would appreciate some guidance on how to proceed? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess in part it depends on whether this is an editor that you need to continue to interact with for other purposes. If so, then an WP:RFC on the situation might be a good way to get it all out in the air, and get input on the situation from other editors. If this is an editor that you do not need to continue to interact with, then ceasing to interact with them at all might be the best course of action. I had a similar situation last year. An editor who I can only guess was upset at my deletion of one of their articles, started laying out nasty accusations against me of racism, accusing me of specifically hunting down and deleting pages created by minority editors. Ignoring any responses about how it is generally impossible to know the race of most editors, this accuser continued to make the accusations. No supporting evidence was ever provided, despite the accuser being asked by a number of editors and admins to back up their accusations. After several weeks of trying to reason with the guy, I finally said enough is enough, and stopped feeding the troll. After that point, any time he smeared my talk page with his crap, I simply hit the revert button and moved on. The troll still smears my talk page once a month or so, but he mostly leaves me alone these days, as he no longer gets any direct reaction/response from me.
So the ultimate point is that, if you do not need to work with your own accuser any more, ceasing all interaction with them to deny them the pleasure of your reactions is one way to handle things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
TexasAndroid: I appreciate you taking time to offer your recommendation, and I agree with you. Unfortunately the likelihood is high that this other editor and I will frequently find ourselves editing the same pages. Thanks again.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito responds

Regarding this matter, I have documented this matter.on the two talk pages. Editor Shilmer refused to comment on an editorial issue I opened for discussion, and after a week of silence from all editors on the matter I acted as I had recommended. Within minutes, literally, Shilmer reversed the edits and quickly labeled my work as vandalism (he is prone to so accuse with other editors too). This went on three times inside of a few hours, and the third time he essentially reverted the edit in a way just skirting the WP:3RR rules. Later when the matter was pushed to mediation at my request, Shilmer claimed that the original edit was his work. I detailed the edit history and relevant quotes on he appropriate talk pages. No one, except Shilmer, has ever complained. I also asked arbitrators to look into this matter and invited him to do the same. As a broader matter, I had been recommending certain changes to the article in question on its main talk page forum. Shilmer created a sandbox version of the article (which had been locked over the core dispute) and invited other editors to move the discussion there, despite the mediator doing the same. Shilmer then began publishing on the talk page that I was not worth conversing with and that his sandbox article was progressing despite the actual article being "held hostage." In that sandbox article he used many of my suggestions and presented these as his own innovations. It is understandable why he feels that he should be the Chief Editor -- he claims an academic background (though never really gives his credentials), often loses his temper and demands that people respond to whatever it is he is off about (and berates them if they don't follow him on the asides), and has even proclaimed that his 'methods are infallible.' I am neither the first editor he has berated, nor will I be the last. I have received private thanks for finally stepping up and challenging his perceived hegemony. Interestingly, no one that has ever been a part of an editorial discussion with me has ever accused me of being a troll, but others have identified Shilmer as a troll in a direct exchange that was also leading nowhere. Equally funny that the longest argument with Shilmer on his arrogance and obstinance on his talk page was with another editor entirely, and that editor engaged Shilmer more than once on different incidences and not always about himself. I have merely posted defenses to Shilmer's accusations he made of me on his Talk page. -- cfrito (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I appreciate you taking time to speak on behalf of yourself. I had left your name out of the situation in this request too minimize the risk of escalating tension.
I believe the thing making you charge me as a plagiarist is a misunderstanding. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this thing (accusation of plagiarism) began when you read a comment I made to Seddon69 where I said, “The reason I moved the information you cite from the criticism section and placed it in the history section is precisely for the reasons you cite.”
My response to Seddon69—that you assert as plagiarism—was in response to Seddon69’s recommendation that the information about the NWT’s Editor and translators deserved its own section, and that he recommended the same information be removed from the Criticism Section. I responded that I agreed, and then cited an edit I had made demonstrating my agreement. That is, on my own volition, and prior to Seddon69’s comments, I had already concluded as had he. This was not any taking of credit away from you, or from Seddon69 for recommending as he did or as you did. I was only expressing agreement and showing a manifestation of that agreement. Furthermore, my remark to Seddon69 had to do with the NWT’s Editor and the translators. When you removed “the information” from the Criticism Section and placed it into the History Section, you deleted “the information” about the translators and only inserted into the History Section the information about the NWT’s Editor. However, when I moved information into the History Section I included “the information” of the NWT’s Editor and the translators. Hence, my remark to Seddon69 was not to take credit for your editing move. Rather, my remark stood to 1) demonstrate an agreement with Seddon69 and 2) to reflect a move to the History Section of information of the NWT’s Editor and translators.
To this day I have no idea why or how you think I tried to take credit for anything you have done, or said. But you do think this, and you have repeated it several times. Because I see no plagiarism on my part, and because I see no place where you have depicted plagiarism, then I am left to conclude you misunderstand what I wrote and why I wrote it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Shilmer: Must you always have the last word? -- cfrito (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Marvin Shilmer, I'll reiterate TexasAndroid's two suggestions. I suggest you either start an RFC or cease interaction. "Just ignore it. ... Go about your business and do not worry about it; you are not required to respond." That being said, repeated abuses need to be resolved but that line of discussion is usually reserved for one of the dispute resolution venues (like RFC). ~a (usertalkcontribs) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Stale: See #Is this a copyright violation? below. Dorftrottel (warn) 09:34, March 5, 2008

Denplan has a section [1] that is a copy-paste from here [2]. I tagged the section as a copy violation but the author removed my tag. What is the next step for a copy violation of a section? And the rest of the article seems to me not encyclopedic, maybe a little POV. Comments? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The author's lack of response is deafening. I think putting the tag back would be correct, or simply removing the section altogether. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Web site as a Wikipedia Subject

Stale: requesting user has not made any further edits. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:35, March 5, 2008

Dear Editors,

I understand that personal websites are not meant to be the subject of topics on this site. The company I want to add an entry for, however, is also a web name: I think the Online credit cards offer websites are a trend offering card searches great information all in one place. A switch from all of the credit card snail mail that we all recieve and generally throw away. I've tried to submit an entry, and it hasn't gone well. Can you give me some advice on how to get my entry approved?

Thank you. Jodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannjodik (talkcontribs) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:WEB for the notability requirements for web sites, and WP:CORP for the same for company requirements. If your site meets the requirements for either of those, you can likely get a page made that will not be deleted. If not, then you you may be fighting a losing battle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Very bizarre first two edits

Stale: Dorftrottel (canvass) 09:37, March 5, 2008

This may be nothing, but this and this seem like a very unusual first two edits. I've warned user normally, but does this bear any further investigation? BusterD (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith because it could be a newcomer's mistake - perhaps he/she has edited anonymously before? Unusual yes but nothing the template warnings can't solve. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth Offending Team Glossary

Stale: Dorftrottel (harass) 09:38, March 5, 2008

Deb deleted my article on 30th without explanation to a newbie. Other Admins tried to help. I tried to make the necessary clarifications. Deb's final word was she was too busy with her own articles, and I was too thick to understand her explanations. I'm afraid I don't think this is appropriaite behaviour.--SJB (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I also asked Deb if she could clarify why my Feb 8th additions were not displayed. She claimed "I have no idea what "additions" you are referring to. Deb (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)" Deb's revision history appears to show that she deleted them without explantion. --SJB (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, glossaries are not encyclopedic. It may be possible to present them as a list but not a glossary in itself, unless the glossary itself is notable, which means it is covered by multiple veriable reliable sources. She did not say you were too thick, she said she could not help if you did not understand. Perhaps the concept is useful and perhaps it can be included somewhere. What I think is being objected to is the information being presented in its own article. Because if it does, it needs to be notable as stated above. I would think that User:Deb has acted as she should. The result of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary was delete and I think you should read the comments of the other users so as to understand why it was deleted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

edward r murrow

Resolved: Technical issue resolved, requesting user has not made any other edits. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:39, March 5, 2008

Hey, your entry on Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, N.Y., says CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow is buried there. But your entry on Murrow says he was cremated and his ashes spread at his upstate New York home. Is one story wrong? Were his ashes divided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasdave (talkcontribs) 05:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a NY Times article mentioning his grave in Green-Wood Cemetery, so I added it as a reference to the cemetery's article. I removed the unsourced claim about his cremation and scattering from the Edward R. Murrow article. See also a mention on Green-Wood's own website. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Officers in an organization

Resolved: Dorftrottel (bait) 09:40, March 5, 2008
User has followed Ed's suggestion.

Please look to United Isshin-ryū Karate Association. What is the best way to list the officers in the organization. I do wish to add some basic information about each of the people listed, so a layout that includes the ability to add a line or two would be best. Thanks. Noxia (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The section on officers should probably be deleted from the article. These officers don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles, and people outside your group are not likely to have heard of them. So, knowing their names does not help our readers. The article currently includes the name of the director, Harold Mitchum, and that ought to be sufficient. If your group has been written about in newspapers or magazines it would be helpful to add pointers to that coverage. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Belize area

Resolved: —apparently. Link has not been reposted so far. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:44, March 5, 2008

I spend a lot of time in Belize. is the best tool i have when there. best website on belize out there. and you won't link to it. STOOPID. I've tried adding several excellent links here over the years and you always erase them IMMEDIATELY. thats why i rarely even come to wiki. if you are so dadgum provincial in this area, you probably are in other areas, unless this carl bunderson guy is just a jerk.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 10: Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. In general, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and external links should always direct to specific content, relevant to better understanding of the article. User:Dorftrottel 10:26, February 12, 2008

Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning editing difference

Stale: pursued at article talk via RfC. Dorftrottel (troll) 09:47, March 5, 2008

Please provide mediation assistance with the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning article.

Two editors have opposing views on this article and can not reach consensus. Mutually exclusive edits are merely erasing each others edits and making no progress towards a resolution. Possibly one of these editors has an agenda to portray a viewpoint and is deleting anything contradictory to this view. There is also a fundamental difference in cultural background on the topic resulting in a fundamental difference in opinion. The view differ that 3D work is low-status "untouchable" work or is traditional blue-collar living wage work. This difference is unlikely to be resolved with out help.

Both views are valid and should be represented.

The Portal:Organized Labour should be involved in this dispute since most of the deleted material relates to the labor movements representation of 3D occupations e.g. electricians, steel workers, and miners. The workers in these occupations were the first to organize and should be represented in the article. These occupations still are the foundation of the labor movement since these workers need representation the most. A joke is that you do not see a union for "rich old men" who sit in board rooms sipping tea.

Please provide a return to the last page version before the deletion of half the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented over at Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Key point is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Sbowers3 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lenny Bruce apparent error

Stale: Dorftrottel (warn) 10:04, March 5, 2008

Spouse Honey Harlow (June 15, 1951 - January 21, 1957); 1 child


No, what it says is that they were married in 1951 and divorced in 1957. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, the source appears to be a website, for the 1951 marriage and the 1957 divorce, or one of the sources used in the compilation of that site. However, I agree that the exact dates are a bit confusing at first glance. But as long as there's a reliable source for that, why not be precise? The guy who set that website up seems to be very much into Lenny Bruce and I can't imagine he would include wrong dates... User:Dorftrottel 15:19, February 12, 2008
Dorftrottel, I would question whether the website in question is a reliable source for information. It appears to be a personal website. Pastordavid (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(It is a personal website, but it's still reasonable that the guy who set it up is a die-hard Bruce fan and is striving to avoid any inaccuracies at all costs by citing his sources there. Dorftrottel (warn) 10:04, March 5, 2008)

Editors having difficulties

Stale: Dorftrottel (warn) 10:05, March 5, 2008

These editors appear to be having difficulties, and were accused of sock puppetry. On the assumption that they are two newbies with similar interests who are just having difficulties, is there a volunteer who could offer to help them a bit? Let me know if you see any evidence of sock puppetry or disruption. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

having trouble with an article

Stale: Eric Barbour has not edited since Feb 12. Dorftrottel (talk) 10:06, March 5, 2008

I cannot see any reason, other than unfair bias against the author of the cartoon why this is not allowed. The article in the sandbox perfectly follows the accepted style at Wikipedia. It is unbiased, informative, and includes references (including IMDB). This is a recognized, professional film production. What is wrong at Wikipedia that this is not allowed? It seems crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am editing this article as a favor for a friend. No money is involved. User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

Despite repeated attempts, the only comments, from a few editors, have been negative--sometimes verging on hostile. Admittedly this page was banned long ago. It has been shortened, cleaned up, made neutral, and I have added whatever references are available. Yet people continue to naysay. Please note the deletion endorsements--the article has been heavily edited throughout this. I feel the references are valid, yet all I ever get back is negativism.

Please, I am attempting to do this in good faith, I am not interested in (and do not have time for) edit war. Nor is this an attempt to advertise Mr. Lovelace or his cartoons. What do you recommend to improve it? You can leave comments on my personal talk page. Many thanks. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been posting this message all over Wikipedia. It has even been under deletion review. Please stop forum shopping. IrishGuy talk 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. I'm only asking for help. Why so hostile? Eric Barbour (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You should understand that the community generally doesn't take kindly to attempts at Canvassing via Forum shopping and Excessive cross-posting. If Consensus goes against your idea/wishes, you nevertheless have to accept it at one point, better sooner than later. Rejecting community input and continuing to aggressively solicit further discussion when consensus has been achieved by and large is often viewed as a form of Disruption, or even an attempt at Gaming the system. User:Dorftrottel 11:13, February 13, 2008

Could I get a couple more voices?

Stale: Dorftrottel (complain) 10:06, March 5, 2008

At User talk:Pkapsales#Atlantic Baseball Confederation: My response to comments - User claims a deleted article does have multiple sources and/or is notable, and someone who knows deletion better would be appreciated. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

San Miguel de Allende (SMA)

Stale: Dorftrottel (warn) 10:07, March 5, 2008

An external link to the web forum and blog ( has been frequently removed. The external link in English and there is a dearth of English language on line information on SMA as most of it is in Spanish. The book On Mexican Time has also been removed and it is a national best seller. The bilingual newspaper -- a commercial enterprise as well as the film Lost and Found in Mexico. All of this external give those interested in San Miguel -- whether residents or those interested in retirement. Falling in Love with San Miguel is also a book. SMA while a tourist destination is also a retirement haven and represents a significant life style change for folks in the Americas. Falling in Love with San Miguel gives day to day hints and information for expats as does Atencion. The film also examines the reasons why people retire to Mexico. All give more to understanding San Miguel. Because the authors are gay they have been subjected to cyber stalking and have had their site hacked and comments on Amazon (where the book is for sale) that were unsavory. I hold no connection with the site or book other than I have a home in San Miguel and base my comments as a retired newspaper editor with more than 40 years experience in publishing and public and government relations. Overzealous editing is as bad as no editing. External links should allow the reader to find out more information about the Wiki article. One page of how to order a book should not deprive readers -- its readers and information that is important and not how one uses the editor's axe -- of useful information. If one goes beyond a cursory look of the forum you find many useful hints of how to live in a foreign culture.--Bill Wilson (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What precisely is your request? User:Dorftrottel 22:08, February 13, 2008

Improper reverts + cantankerous behavior by TJ Spyke

Stale: Dorftrottel (ask) 10:07, March 5, 2008

TJ Spyke, who appears to have a history of improper and obnoxious editing, keeps undoing my edits to Survivor Series (1991). He/she recently posted the following personal attack on my talk page:


What is your malfunction? You continue to change it to the grammatically incorrect version, provide no explanation for your changes, and act like I am wrong? Not only is leaving out "the" wrong, but it sounds wonky too. Stop removing "the" from it. TJ Spyke 03:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the story here? I do not wish to engage in a flame war nor an edit war. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Stusutcliffe (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for coming here for help. Although his reply seems rather harsh, I wouldn't jump directly to labeling TJ Spyke's reply a "personal attack". I would just label it unnecessarily harsh. You're right that engaging in an edit war is not the proper course of action. You should bring your dispute to the talk page (as TJ Spyke already has). I request that you ignore the "bullheaded editor" remark and move forward from there. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we allowed to post product marketing information?

Stale: Dorftrottel (criticise) 10:07, March 5, 2008

I noticed that there is a whole page dedicated to the IBM WebSphere product, including software release numbers and dates. See Is this acceptable? If so, then I will add a page for each one of my companies' products. I thought this forum was to be essentially an on-line enclyclopedia, not a catalog listing of vendor products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nec100 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. It depends on the product and how much press there is in reliable third party independent publications. What is the product in question? Chances are, unless it's an extremely popular and well documented software suite, it's going to fail verifiability policies and notability guidelines. Marketing materials are also biased by definition. Let me know what you think. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Gric ownership issues.

Stale: Dorftrottel (taunt) 10:08, March 5, 2008

A few days ago I added a review of the artist Peter Gric, and removed what seemed to be primarily a commercial link in Mr. Gric's external links section. Leo_Plaw quickly reverted my edit, citing the review's "unauthorized" status. I tried the add and removal separately, and they were reverted by either Leo or an anonymous user Each time I applied my edits, I added more explicit reasons in my edit and on the talk page. The anonymous user appears to be someone related to the subject (Peter Gric), or perhaps the subject himself. Regardless, they won't engage, and seem to be working together to maintain "ownership" of the entry. I feel like I should move on, but I hate being bullied. Advice anyone? - JeffJonez (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jeff. I placed a note on the talk page in question. Please try to avoid an edit war by discussing the situation there instead of reverting. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 02:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The same user has just undid the wp:cite tag I placed on the article without comment, and has yet to provide any rationale for his/her constant revisions of my seemingly obvious reasons for each. I'll it back until the issues or fixed, short of wp:3rr - JeffJonez (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a copyright violation?

Stale: Dorftrottel (taunt) 10:08, March 5, 2008

Does Denplan#About_Denplan

... charge their patients a fixed monthly fee, based on the condition of their teeth and gums, which provides them with regular examinations and treatment. The stable income that this system provides means that dentists can focus on quality of care rather than the quantity of patients they see. Dentists can practise at the highest standards, whilst retaining independence and control of their business.


Denplan emphasises the importance of preventive dentistry, with the objective of maintaining healthy teeth and gums for life. Patients know exactly what their care will cost and the treatment it will cover, thus avoiding unexpected large bills and enabling them to plan and budget ahead for their care.

violate copyright of this[3]?

... charging patients a fixed monthly fee based on the condition of their teeth and gums, which covered the costs of regular examinations and routine treatment. The stable income that this system would provide meant that dentists could focus on quality of care rather than the quantity of patients they saw. Dentists would be able to practice at the standard that they wanted to, while retaining independence and control of their business.

Denplan emphasises the importance of preventive dentistry rather than repair, with the objective of maintaining healthy teeth and gums for life. Patients know exactly what their care will cost and the treatment their payments will cover, thus avoiding unexpected large bills and enabling them to plan ahead and budget for their care.

It was a word-for-word copy. I tagged the section as copyright violation, then an editor changed a few words. Has it been changed enough to not infringe? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I share your scepticism. I looked at it and the rewriting efforts seem to be specifically aimed at preventing tagging or removal of the section. Not too good at any rate. User:Dorftrottel 21:49, February 14, 2008
Note other section #Denplan also. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing a Tag

Stale: Dorftrottel (bait) 10:08, March 5, 2008

(moved from Talk page.)

Hello, I was advised by an editor to check here to see if it is OK to remove a tag from an article I wrote (good to have another party make the decision!). The editor seemed to think it was ok to remove, but wanted another opinion, thus I am checking here. Backgroud is on my talk page. If additional work is needed, I would really appreciate an example of a good, solid company article that I can look at (I've looked at a lot of company articles that really aren't very good - no citations, not well written, etc. I've tried to work on this article to make it objective but let me know if it still needs improvement). Thanks! Llcavall (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is generally not acceptable to remove a tag you wrote just because you don't think it needs it. In this case, there was adequate discussion, plus a second opinion. If others agree that the problem brought up by the tag have been addressed, you can remove a tag. Side point: for future notice, please use the project page, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This page is for discussing improvements we can make with regards to that page, not for addressing the actual assistance requests. But we're glad to help wherever :) Justin(c)(u) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the user is asking (at my suggestion) for an opinion as to whether in SVM (company) the {{advert}} tag still applies. He (and I) are hoping someone else will look at the article and give suggestions for improving it - or whether it is okay as is and the tag can be improved. Sbowers3 (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were the boss of that company and someone wrote an advertisement like that, I would fire them on the spot. Seriously, I would exchange {{advert}} with {{prose}}. Also, per the included sources, I'm not convinced the requirements of WP:COMPANY are met. User:Dorftrottel 21:06, February 15, 2008

New to Wikipedia

Resolved: I took care of the disambiguation. Dorftrottel (warn) 10:16, March 5, 2008

I'm new to Wikipedia. A Wikipedia editor named DIEZ provided negative feedback on my amendments to an article called "Foreign Objects (band)" and has since deleted my amendments. I am trying to contact DIEZ to respond to his comments and to get his guidance on what I need to do in order to achieve an entry in Wikipedia. Please advise. Thanks, John Brobst —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.brobst (talkcontribs) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question on the technical matter, you should pick a title that does not conflict with Foreign Objects (band)‎ article. Maybe the title Foreign Objects (Massachusetts band)? I'm not sure. However, you must find some better reliable/reputable independent/third-party sources before trying to add your article or it will be deleted again. I've looked at the content you tried to add and your references don't appear to be independent. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Wikipedia articles are written about a specific topic. Rewriting, as you did, an article to cover two distinct things is not what we usually do. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and MOS:DAB.
I recommend creating an article about the Massachusetts band at Foreign Objects (Massachusetts band). However, before creating the article, please make sure the band meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music).
The article Foreign Objects should then be moved to Foreign Objects (TV series) and redirected to a disambiguation page at Foreign Objects (disambiguation) which lists the different articles. The current Foreign Objects (band) should be moved to Foreign Objects (Pennsylvania band). If you're having difficulties with these steps, feel free to post here again or contact me at my talk page. User:Dorftrottel 20:57, February 18, 2008