Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 17

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


Advice requested in Psychohistory

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I and another wikipedian are having trouble to communicate with an editor, User:Ishmaelblues, who doesn't seem to engage in meaningful communication in the psychohistory article. Please see the ongoing discussion in Talk:Psychohistory#Burden_of_evidence. What Ishmaelblues keeps posting in the article (and reverting our reverts) reads like a personal attack on the founder of psychohistory, a living person. (I have tried to communicate also in his user talk pake without success.)

Thank you very much.

Cesar Tort 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response to your request. From looking at the talk page, it appears that the editing warring has stopped for about the last five days or so. If this is not the case, and you need further assistance, please open an new thread here. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug-eluting stent - edit war

Stale: Orangemarlin has, by his own statement, moved on to other projects and the edit war seems resolved. Pastordavid (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

editor orangemarlin repeatedly undoes my productive efforts at logical organization, NPOV, and appropriate citation. please take a look at my final Mar 12 2008 version, and note his repeated insistence on resetting to a particularly disorganized and dogmatic version. I am academically expert in the topic, but not a seasoned wiki editor so would appreciate guidance. Donsmokem (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The place to start always is to ask the other editor. You could ask him directly either on the talk page or on his user talk page. I note that on the article talk page, you seem to have some support for your edits.
Having said that, major reorganizations are always a bit tricky. It's a good idea to explain on the talk page what you want to do before doing it. E.g. the "Drug elution" section is in the wrong place; I propose to rename it to "Bioresorbable stents" and move it under the "Controversies" section. Then after other editors have commented and accepted you can go ahead and make the change.
When doing a reorg, it is helpful not to change any of the wording at the same time. Keep small improvements and the big reorg separate so they can be judged separately. If you take it a small step at a time, with prior discussion of apparently big changes, you should have less controversy. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: It is not possible for us to replace the current, sourced, information with new original reseaarch. Pastordavid (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sirs The definition mentioned herein for the Origin of Hindu(ism) being the tribe that settled around River Indus etc. has no other evidence other than what is written herein. I did try to dispute this. Please Allow Me To Explain: I have taken just over 12 months looking for all the evidence I can find and have come to a conclusion in brief that the Word Hindu was given to Indoos residing within the Present day area comprising parts of Punjab/Hariyana to the West, Bihar and Parts of West Bengal to the East, Uttranchal to the North and northern Madhya Pradesh to the South. The Indoos; because when speaking fast sounded like Hindus, the Colonial Missionaries misrepresented Indoos as Hindus along with broadcasting it to be a religion. Thus, to cut the long story short, Hindu(ism) was created as a slave word by the Colonials for the Colonials to demean the Indians of the area just about 110 years ago. It's time the real religion known as Sanatan is reinstated as the real Hindu Religion. Previously, I tried to amend what has been written in your articles but was told that the change amounted to Vandalism. I'll be happy to submit a formal document for publication along with any evidence that you feel ought to be published. I am happy to communicate with someone and to provide the supporting evidence to back my claim. Can someone please communicate with me on this? You can find me via any of the following:

Email : person information redacted I look forward to hearing from you Sanatan (HIndu) Priest

Thank you for taking the time to look for help with this. Let point you toward our policy on original research. I appreciate all of the hard work you have put into a project that you are passionate about, however, until such a time as the information you reference above is published by a reliable academic, we cannot change the information on wikipedia. We rely on others to subject information to peer review, and only then does wikipedia report the consensus opinion on a given topic. The information currently in the article Hinduism regarding the etymology of the term is based on a reference to a reliable, third party source. Pastordavid (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)`

External Links on Solitaire Pages

Resolved: At least for the time being, the links section appears stable. Pastordavid (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Several of the pages concerning different Solitaire games contain external links that point to implementations of the games in question. These External Links all meet WP:EL guidelines. Any links that that have WP:EL violations (such as redirects, numerous ads or commercial sites, requiring plugins, etc) are not saved.

Lengthy, multi-editor discussion on the Talk:Spider (solitaire) has led to these links being considered by popular opinion as valid. Thus the Spider (solitaire) external links have remained for the most part in place. The problem is there are several other Solitaire pages that also have external links specific to the article in question that are being removed by the editors who did not agree with the Talk:Spider (solitaire) conclusion.

One of these is the Talk:Pyramid (solitaire) page. I would greatly appreciate it if additional editors would view the discussions we've had on the Talk:Spider (solitaire) about the external implementation links and weigh in on whether these should be valid or not. If the conclusion is that these are indeed valid, I would request that the same conclusions should apply to other Solitaire game articles that have similar links.

Thank you.Sembiance (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You do seem to have a good and lively discussion going here. I would continue to try to work it out on the respective talk pages, try a request for comment. I would avoid the argument about the links that are or are not on other article pages, as appeals to what is done with other articles usually carry little weight (see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, please note that edit warring will lead to blocking, as has happened to the IP who was reverting at Spider (solitaire). Pastordavid (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

william hammesfhar

Stale: Without a reliable, 3rd-party source, there's not much we can do. Pastordavid (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


I am a colleague of William Hammesfhar. I have visited his office many times. I have personally seen the letter he received from the Noble Prize committee informing him of his nomination. It is laminated and mounted on a plaque on the wall of his reception area. I edited his page to include this and it was removed.

I strongy feel that this data should be included on his wikipedia page as to present an fair and balance reporting of this controversy.


Is there any way for another editor to verify that information? If not, then it is original research which is not allowed. If you could find a reference to a reliable source to verify that fact, then you could include it with the reference and other editors would not remove it. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bogus claim in Led Zeppelin article

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on allegations of plagiarism makes a claim on the original album review by John Mendelsohn for Led Zeppelin I. The wikipedia article avoids referencing the Rolling Stone article in question. After searching on the internet I've managed to find the original Rolling Stone review:

The wikipedia article then states:

"When Led Zeppelin's debut album was released, it received generally positive reviews. However, John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine criticised the band for plagiarising music, notably "Black Mountain Side" from Bert Jansch's "Blackwaterside" (though Jansch himself acknowledges the song as being traditional) and the riff from "Your Time Is Gonna Come" from Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy". He also accused the band of mimicking black artists, and showing off. This marked the beginning of a long rift between the band and the magazine, with Led Zeppelin rejecting later requests for interviews and cover stories as their level of success escalated."

If you read the Rolling Stone article and compare it with the above quote, it's quite obvious the claims made in the Wikipedia article appears to be bogus. Nowhere in his review does he even mention Jansch or Traffic by name or the word plagiarism. Someone appears to have made some false attributions on the current Wikipedia article to Mendelsohn. Despite numerous attempts to remove it User:Egghead and others have reverted it. Discussions on the Talk page has gone nowhere which is why I'm asking for an editor/admin to step in. MegX (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the material you refer to in the article in question, so I assume it has been worked out through other channels. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deh Siva Var Mohe

Resolved: Blocked for now. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hi, i am currently involved in an edit war in the article stated above. The other person involved is an anonymous ip address.[1] he is refusing to disscuss on talk page and refuses to accept references which were originally cited by him/her, and/or is using non-english ref. which incidently does not support his/her claims. Please assist in resolving the issue.thanksAjjay (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP has received a couple of blocks since your post, most recently today. I would suggest that if you continue to have problems, you should file a report at WP:AIV or at WP:AN/I. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: taken care of. Pastordavid (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why there is another message on the page but the bio and information, as was mentioned in the emails between editors here, the actress and myself, came from her official website and official fan website. Could someone please take care of the error messages that keep popping up? I was told that the messages had been taken care of and that the previous editor wasn't aware that the problems had already been resolved... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spfoley (talkcontribs) 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Mea culpa. It was a legal copy and paste due to license on talk page. I think I will go back and put a hidden message so that future editors won't make the same mistake. That said, the article really needs a complete rewrite. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with another editor repeatedly removing "Unreferenced tags" despite articles still being unreferenced

Resolved: Problem editor indef blocked after a series of implied threats of off-wiki harassment. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently added "Unreferenced" tags to a whole string of tramway and trolleybus system list articles, as they did not include any reference sources. Unfortunately, the primary author of these articles has now twice deleted these tags without adding any reference sources. I am still awaiting an explanation from the editor via his/her talk page and I do not wish to escalate this into a revert war, but I feel that detailed articles like these really need references for them to be valid Wikipedia articles. What should the next step be? Advice anyone? --DAJF (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just checking Ldemery (talk contribs count) contrib log it seems that you have an editor undoing tags you've added quite systematically. While its not "against the rules" it could be classed as Disruptive Editing.
My own solution would be to ignore the lack of tags for the moment, if there are concerns other editors will tag the articles independently of you. Playing "whack-a-mole" all day gets boring, frustrating and can lead to WP:3RR violations. I would suggest that you add a section to the talk pages on the respective articles requesting the specific information that concerns you. No editor is going to deface a talk page.
I understand your frustration, we have all come across editors with ownership issues. Unfortunately when they have been editing with little or no interaction with other editors for a time its difficult for them to get into the wiki spirit. Good luck -- BpEps - t@lk 05:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be a little different than an ownership issue. The author is making sublists from a very large list, then for References in each subsection is providing a link back to the main list. That avoids copying all of the references from the main page to all of the sublists. It's a reasonable approach but the wording did not make clear what was happening. I left a note on the main list's talk page, suggesting alternate wording. Sbowers3 (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The editor who has removed the tags has since issued a "notice" revoking his GNU so I suspect the issue was one about Ownership. In any case, as has been pointed out all articles are free-standing and references can't be linked from one article to another in the manner in which it was done. I can't see this ending amicably now. Any thoughts? My own thoughts are that it comes under No Legal threats and needs to be reported to Admin Noticeboard/Incidents -- BpEps - t@lk 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this not belong on Wikipedia?


Photosensitive epileptic people around the world are physically injured with bruises and broken teeth in "possibly the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on the victims" ( Admins are banning anyone who mentions it on Photosensitive epilepsy, and locked the article. Can I get an opinion on this, it makes no sense to me. (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The info appears to be relevant and well sourced. I cannot see a reason for reverting. I see six attempts to insert it and six reverts yet nobody discussed it on the article talk page or a user talk page. I have raised the question on the article's talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears set now per the talk page on the article, and I've requested unprotection at RFPP. Lawrence § t/e 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

daryl hickey


i am not responsable for any edits made on mr. hickeys' page. the comments that i am not aware of did not come from my computer. please remove the warning when i open your site.

I have added a note on your user page noting that it may be a shared IP from your ISP. Why not sign up for your own username? You can avoid situations like this the link is Here. -- BpEps - t@lk 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A band page

Resolved: last edit was to EAR. Text moved over to another wiki under GFDL. - BpEps - t@lk 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to set up a band page for Manchester based Bobbie Peru, I am not advertising anything, but it keeps being deleted as it is 'blatant advertising'. CAn anyone help me? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbieperu (talkcontribs) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict rules about notability. It basically means that if nobody has heard of you yet or you've only been reviewed by local or niche press then you won't get an article.
The other concern with editors is conflict of interest - nobody should ever create an article about something they are involved with.
There are other Wikis - I have tentatively posted your article to WikiMusicGuide, if you are happy with it to stay there you should clean up the article a little bit. They have there own formatting/style for artists. I hope this helps. Good luck and email me if you want further assistance with Wikis. BpEps - t@lk 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article naming by real name or pseudonym ?


Hi. Re the Signor Lawanda article - he was actually born Hugh David Evans. Currently, his real name is a redirect page to his performing name. Is this ok, or should the article be under his real name, with a redirect from his performing name ? Does Wikipedia have any guidelines on this, or are both acceptable ? CultureDrone (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops - and also, when adding the 'defaultsort' before categorising, should the name used be a persons real name, performing name, or the name used for the article title ? I'd assume that, for modern biographies, it'd be whichever they are best known as, but for historical biographies, which should be used ? CultureDrone (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The manual of style allows for both conventions. Presumably, as most sources will point to the name one performs under then this is the name most readers will know him as. As for defsort that should always be filed under the name of the article. In the WP:MOSBIO one of the examples given is that of Boris Karloff, which gives his real name after his stage name and he has been dead for many years. Hope it answers your question. -- BpEps - t@lk 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Combustion Engine - Revetec

Resolved: no further comeback no new edits. BpEps - t@lk 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had a last warning from KnowledgeOfSelf about vandalizing this topic. Our engine is in R&D and the information and proof of this information changes, sometimes on a monthly basis. My view is that I was just editing the page to the current information we have, and proof of that information. I am now reluctant to make any changes as I want to keep a good relationship with Wikipedia.

We just announced we have had a fully independent test of our engine by Orbital Australia proving that we achieved a BSFC figure of 207g/kW-h which we believe makes it the most efficient engine in the world. But I am scared to add it to the topic as I may be banned. The last thing I want to do is upset anyone at Wikipedia so I'll not post it. It's a shame because having an engine with an efficiency of 39.5% is a great feat and it's a shame that your readers cannot see this information when there is doubts to our efficiency in the article.

    • Revetec has just completed their first Independently Certified Test Report carried out by Orbital Australia, achieving a repeatable BSFC figure of 212g/kW-h (38.6% efficiency) with a best tested figure of 207g/kW-h (39.5% efficiency) Visit the announcement on the Revetec website Latest News revetec (talk) 07:48, 04 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, take care.

Brad Howell-Smith revetec (talk) 07:48, 04 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see it as "bigging up the company's profile" because the information is actually factual. What I must point out is that Wikipedia is actually an encyclopaedia with editors who edit according to a style guide. Research and Development is not an excuse to ignore Wikipedia's rules on format and prose. We are not a bulletin board. Please carry on contributing because (a) it helps debunk any doubts readers and editors have about it being an overly projected article (b) You have up-to-date information about an ongoing design and (c) you are a major editor of the article.
I would say that although it is not a major article it does have interest and has numerous linked in articles, but standard formatting does help make Wikipedia look and feel reliable. -- BpEps - t@lk 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa


The following line (put in by myself) has twice been removed from the Satoshi Kanazawa article by an anonymous user(s), without making any comments on the talk page:

However, flaws were later identified in the statistical analysis, with the number actually estimated to be 8%, which due to the multiple comparisons problem, could not be regarded as statistically significant.[1]

Can someone provide advice/comments on the matter. Thanks. -3mta3 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well usually I would suggest that you find a reference (you already did that). I would then suggest that you discuss the issue on the talk page (you already did that too). I would then suggest that you discuss the issue with the editor in question (you already did that too). You even gave appropriate time to reply between each action. You seem to be doing all of the right things. Is this journal article available to read online? I'd like to read the journal and try to tie your statement to the reference. If I cannot read it online, is the journal something I could find in a library? Thanks. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both articles (the original one by Kanazawa, and the response by Gelman) are available on the websites of the respective authors: [2] and [3]. Thanks -3mta3 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of discussion


I was entering a comment about a new section on Communism. The topic was how human universals might apply (if they did) to communism. I had found one reference from the Cato Institute which didn't satisfy my concept of what a good paragraph should have to substantiate it. I was looking for suggestions and help from other interested editors.

My section got deleted. Also the second time I tried the same thing happened. I felt I had made myself understood in both the discussion section and the edit summary.

Rather than try to start an edit war (on the discussion page!) I asked for a quick third party.

The third party wound up supporting me, but only after shining bright lights in my eyes and asking why I was loitering.

My questions which I tried at the Village Pump, they referred me here - Is who owns a discussion page? The Pump says nobody. But the Pump says that you need a reference even to start a discussion.

I am quite content to have vandals deleted from discussions, also child's comments, and drunks. But apparently admins must be looking at different pages than I if references are required. Most pages are occupied by a) newbies asking questions in order to understand what is going on; b) people arguing at length, often off-topic. If one is looking for beauty, one will not find it in the discussion pages that come to my attention!

I am suprised that (some. Few actually) discussion pages are so readily censored by the discussion page owner. If I follow the Village Pump, I would have to ask the owner if I may speak when first entering an article.

IMO this is profoundly stupid. Furthermore, no one is following it except on this one page/article!Student7 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See my response here; if I'd known you were posting here, I'd have put it here instead. Ah well. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan and the ending of the Cold War

Resolved: Article discusses Reagan's impact on the Cold War at length and allows the reader to make their own mind up. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On President Reagan's page, the Cold War is incorrectly said to have ended during his term.

The Berlin Wall did not fall until November of 1989, when President Bush Sr. was in office. President Bush Sr. did not actualy officially declare the Cold War over until 1990 (shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait).

Travis Fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the opening passage does give that impression. However in the Legacy section on the Cold War it does discuss possible dates questions whether Reagan really made that much of an impact on the ending of the cold war. Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying "Ronald Reagan had a higher claim than any other leader to have won the Cold War for liberty and he did it without a shot being fired."
The article is a featured article and has undergone much Peer Review and has certainly had more edits in its history than many other articles. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Update to article Oksana Chusovitina

Resolved: Done -- BpEps - t@lk 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This gymnast has just won gold on the vault apparatus at the 2008 European Gymnastics Championships (see Talk Page for the details). I'm unable to add this info to the article as the Enter button on my computer is not working (yes, very awkward...). Anyway, I'd be grateful if someone would update it accordingly. (I'm not a great fan of the sport but Ms Chusovitina is a remarkable figure both in gymnastics and as a sportswoman in general and I'd like to see her achievements noted). Thanks Plutonium27 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Habour Square and User:Gb deletion


I am trying to start an entry for Harbour Square, and User:Gb keeps marking it for speedy deletion before I have the chance to add my content. Please ask this user to refrain from doing so. It has been twice now. I am getting to the entry as soon as possible, but also have a job and family responsibilities. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talkcontribs) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page. [4] Feel free to contact me for any further assistance. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Link error in Peter Asher article


In the References section, the two links to have a slash after the URL. I went into remove them and don't see the links. How can these be removed? Abbeyrdwebmaster (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the trailing slashes in the references. Take a look at this diff to see what I changed. Lawrence § t/e 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance with difficult user

Stuck: The editor has sought 3rd party advice and in progress. Suggest that editors monitor the situation until the editors say not to. BpEps - t@lk 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm requesting assistance with a user who consistently deleting my edits. The first happened on the Sons of Noah article and now again it is happening on the Javan article. This happens to be an area of particular research (for my M.A.) and enjoy the open forum of wikipedia, but in the least, expect that what I post that is sourced will not be deleted. I don't know all the rules of "warfare" on wikipedia as I'm just trying to improve content, but this is getting very frustrating. Appreciate your help. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pages on Wikipedia are there so that editors can talk out difficulties without warring. On the Javan article it is the other editor's belief that the whole section should be moved to another article. I suggest you start talking to one another before you tag each other to death. Biblical Scholarship is a contentious subject at the best of times but discussing ideas is the only way you will be able to move forward with the article. BpEps - t@lk 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: comment copied to image uploaders talk page. Dynamic IP so any message to editor unlikely to reach him on user talk page. BpEps - t@lk 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's something that everyone is complaining about called orphanbot. It's function seems to be to select random images for deletion wether they comply with the copyright rules or not. I decided to look at an article i added a while back on James Bassham and I found that the picture I had added which had been provided by the subject of my article was missing. I'm not good enough at using Wikipedia to restore it and I was wondering if someone who knows how would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No Orphanbot goes around sticking tags on articles and images that aren't wikilinked in the project.
The problem you encountered on your article James Bassham with Image:JB1.jpeg was that you hadn't completed all the required details regarding copyright. Wikipedia image licensing is quite complex and essentially you need the copyright holder to forward a letter to the foundation licensing the picture as GFDL compatible. Unless you do that the image is likely to be deleted unless you are self licensing yourself because you own the copyright. -- BpEps - t@lk 05:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii Warriors / FIFA World Cup


Hi. These two articles : 2010 Hawaii Warriors football team, 2011 Hawaii Warriors football team seem just a little premature. I could tag them as future events - but is this actually a violation of WP:CRYSTAL ? CultureDrone (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And this one : 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifying Goalscorers CultureDrone (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes to the first two, yes yes yes to the third. There is no justification whatever for having these articles already. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the first two are stretching it quite a bit - there's nothing to say about those seasons, other than the (proposed) schedules, for years yet. But qualification for the 2010 World Cup is already underway and 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifying Goalscorers documents actual, recorded, historical events that have taken place in the course of those qualifying contests. It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL any more than does United_States_presidential_election,_2008, which as of this writing is still 7 months in the future. JohnInDC (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've flagged the first two for PROD (as well as the 2009 season article) - but I've left the FIFA article untouched for the reason described above. Thanks for your help. CultureDrone (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Chicago Cubs page


Hello. A new user, User:Tool2Die4 is reverting my edits and entering into what would be considered an edit war. I have no desire to be in this war, and I would like someone to contact him.... He claims to fight under the flag of NPOV, but Wikipedia's description of that is advising that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one. He plays by rule #2, the opposite of NPOV. I have been working on these pages for a while and I have tried to play nicely with him, but he has stooped to name calling, and I regret to say I responded with my own. Please advise. Wjmummert (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really a new user, but thanks. You need to read up on WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK, and how to properly cite things. Linking to search results on Google doesn't really count for anything. You have been called out on your own talk page before for these types of tricks. Just do a little reading on how to properly contribute to Wikipedia, and things will go more smoothly. The NPOV issue was discussed at large on the Cubs talk page - a discussion you chose not to take part in. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Love Systems, Nick Savoy, and moderator abuse

Resolved: Removed copy from his user page. forum shopping is the editors preferred choice -- BpEps - t@lk 06:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw two articles (on Savoy, Nick and Love Systems) and since I am familiar with the industry as a previous customer I decided to register for an account (I've previously only used my IP address to edit) and fleshed them both out. One editor immediately and without evidence accused me of being a sock puppet and left sarcastic and abusive messages all over both pages and my user page. This is an edito whose own talk page is full of people complaining about his methods. I would like to work with someone to:

A) keep this guy of my back B) help me with these two pages so that they meet wikipedia standards

I'd be really grateful for the help! We were all new once!

Camera123456 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that we can help you. Please check out "Asking the other parent". While all of us would be happy to get your articles into mainspace, I am sure no editor would be prepared to intervene on consensus decisions. If you check out the list of available editors at Editor Assistance you are bound to find one who will help with new articles. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at that article and thank you. Although I'm not sure if the relevance to forum shopping in this case and I am not asking to overrule a consensus decision of course! I was asking for help A) because he has as much as admitted on his talk page that he has no evidence I'm a sock puppet and withdrew the allegations there but refuses to withdraw them on the public pages where he made them and B) for someone to help work with me on pages...though I've taken your suggestion and gone to editor assistance with that. Camera123456 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 2008 (UK)

Resolved: Sort it out on the talk page. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted some sourced information on the Big Brother 2008 (UK) page, but it keeps on being reverted by User:In23065

The user is constantly reverting peoples edits because they say "They are right and we are wrong", even when the information i have posted has TWO sources. Please help! (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address so I have left a comment on the Talk:Big Brother 2008 (UK) page. The phrasing was a little too weasel for Wikipedia (Rumoured). In terms of verifiability the article from the Daily Star fulfills the terms and should match the statement without "rumoured" because Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. -- BpEps - t@lk 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Can someone please assist me? I am having difficulty dealing with the content of the article at

I have engaged in discussion with another who I presume is an editor but I am not finding the answers to my objections to the content in any way reasonable or designed to make the article more agreeable.

I respectfully request that another editor please look in on the discussion and give me a second opinion.

Thank you.

--GDD1000 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a very involved discussion between you and One Night In Hackney. If you want someone to comment who has experience in giving a third opinion, you can list the issue here. Also, as ONIH already pointed out from your own comments, you may have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Please read Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of Interest before continuing to edit the article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been very considered and involved. I have striven throughout to keep my points as neutral as is humanly possible and consider both sides of the argument for the sake of truth. I fail to see how my points can be considered a conflict of interest but as a reasonable person I am very willing to listen to an objective third party.

--GDD1000 (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of part of the Monks Walk School article

Resolved: Invoke BOLD if information is clearly wrong or unlikely to be ever sourced. - BpEps - t@lk 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd very much appreciate it if a second pair of eyes could glance over the [facts] section of the Monks Walk School article as it is some cause of concern to me - it doesn't cite sources and I feel some information included is either biased or unencyclopaedic. I've posted some of these concerns on the article's talk page. Many thanks. Howie 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section on the grounds that (a) it wasn't interesting (b) none of them were facts. School Uniforms aren't interesting facts but important - see Eton College Uniform or Carpenter London Uniform. If "facts" are particularly obnoxious or beyond belief invoke WP:BOLD which carries a useful notice Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's most precious assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good, at least that they do not edit recklessly. However, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly. So be Bold, if you act rashly they can be undone and editors should understand your concerns. But please don't use it on every single article you see, WP:BOLD can quite easily be seen as WP:POINT if you go on an editing spree of "Interesting facts". You discussed, you asked for a second opinion, second editor invoked WP:BOLD sharing your concerns. -- BpEps - t@lk 17:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help novice with Guernica painting dispute...

Resolved: Dispute has been taken to the talk page and evidently concluded there. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

hi, I have been trying to add some information to the Guernica page regarding the origins of the painting. I have been going back and forth with user:Modernist. He himself has stated that the Horrors of War by Rubens is a precedent for Guernica by Picasso. However he personally feels that the fact that the Picasso paintings roots can all be linked to the Rubens is not that important. I have directed him to references and actual Picasso drawings. At this point I just want the information out there before he blocks me for no reason.Thank You Rubensrevenge (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into the changes and The Guardian seems like a good source on this issue. They say that Picasso's painting was modeled after Rubens's, but in your addition you clearly say that that Guernica was not an original painting. Try using softer language to suggest that there is a connection between the works but not that Picasso's painting isn't an original work of art and be sure to place sources for all of the statements, especially the controversial ones. I'll inform the other editor of this thread and ask him to try to work with you on the talk page.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I would appreciate any help... Rubensrevenge (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I meant that perhaps the Rubens is a precedent, maybe, because artists are influenced by other artists, I HAVE NO IDEA whether or not Picasso was influenced by the Rubens. The Rubens has no place whatsoever in the article about Guernica unless someone can reference some direct connection. Even then it might be a footnote. I deleted this absurd claim:[5]twice

Modernist (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)No sorry please read about Original research, like any project be it college, school, varsity, Wikipedia demands that all sources are verifiable. Looking at Guernica (painting) this has surely been a delight for every art historian in the last 60 years. Dismiss ideas you see in the picture but find sources which are more akin to your ideas. Here is an idea of how visualisation interrupts conceptualisation JJs Rubeun motif on Picasso. Picasso is an enigma. Peer review is the only way that art criticism will ever be accepted. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is my puzzle. If you get bored consider joining up at An English art wiki with 10 articles which needs new blood. -- BpEps - t@lk 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've placed some sources on Talk:Guernica (painting) to support a few of this editor's ideas.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please OK, lets all stop feeding the trolls.Modernist (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rubensrevenge, there is now a talk page section with the references I found. Not all of the information supports your points of view, but if you would like to discuss the matter with other editors who are involved in the article please continue the section I made at Talk:Guernica (painting) and don't try to add this information back into the article without the input of other editors.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

writing articles for Wikipedia

Resolved: Dispute is with content at Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia editors have offered suggestions but neither here nor on another Wikipedia site can editors intervene about blocking decisions -BpEps - t@lk 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Today I decided to begin an article on the harp on the Scottish Gaelic language version of Wikipedia. Having only written the opening part of the article, I have later found

1: the article erroneously retitled by someone who clearly does not have the best knowledge of Gaelic grammar

2: that the same is adding what I know to be unsubstantiatable statements about the harp to the article

As a result, I attempted to remove the material I composed from Wikipedia. But I found

3: that the same has blocked me from continuing to write the article that originated with me

4: that the same has cited vandalism as the excuse for blocking me from removing what I have written

Emotionally it's difficult to see why anyone would want to submit an article to the Scottish Gaelic language version of Wikipedia when they are so easily disenfranchised and when Wikipedia appears to find it so easy deny me the right to withdraw them, especially when hitting a problem right in the middle of the compositional process.

I find I can't even establish contact with the person who has done all this. Should I simply expect this to happen if I embark on writing an article for the Scottish version of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, we can't really help out with issues on other language versions of Wikipedia; this section is for help with the English Wikipedia. I'd suggest posting a similar statement to an administrators' noticeboard over there and asking there. (I'd help, but, well, my Gaelic is just a tiny bit rusty. Where "rusty" = "huh?!" Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. However, I have found Doras na Coimhearsnachd on Wikipedia, which appears similar in function to this page, but it appears that I have been blocked from using it. Any further suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth posting this to Wikipedia-l? If the IP editor could sign up for an account, I could probably find a Scottish Gaelic to help in a day or two. BpEps - t@lk 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be a good approach; if their version of AN is semi-protected or their account is blocked, that might be the only way to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If I could find Wikipedia-I on Google or in Wikipedia that might be a good approach, but I can't. Anyone got an address for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can explain. The user was blocked for 3 days - the reply to my question is here User Talk here -BpEps - t@lk 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, at, the person who has blocked me is justifying himself while I am blocked from responding to what he says. This is shocking behaviour. I run a webgroup myself and find this indefensible treatment of article writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically the user forgot to close a tag when debating whether a Clàrsach is really the same as Harp and messed up the article and blanked the page. Scottish Gaelic sysops are obviously very tough. I suggest you apologise on your User Talk page BpEps - t@lk 22:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a clear idea of what most of what the above writer meant and whether 'the user' here is the same as the 'you' mentioned, but I am certainly not going to apologise when I find myself completely blocked from being able to respond and defend myself against being blocked. This kind of peremptory censorship is deplorable when someone is in the middle of writing an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is much more we can do here. You have had notice and it is impossible for editors on WP:EAR to intervene on blockings either here or on other language projects. At best we can offer suggestions. BpEps - t@lk 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If the above is correct, then I would suggest that you do leave a note on your user talk page asking for unblock (I'm not sure, again, what the procedure for that is there), and explaining that it was a simple error that resulted in the blocking. That does seem like a rather abrupt block (I certainly wouldn't block for it) but I can't speak for their admins. If you request an unblock and things work the same as here, another admin will review the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't request an unblock because I've been blocked from doing so. Whoever blocked me is also not interested in communicating with me about this blocking except to state their own desires. I am surprised that this kind of treatment is regarded as acceptable on Wikipedia. If there is not much more that I can do here, what should be next step be to get myself heard about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved? Someone at Wikipedia blocks a new article writer without prior notice or warning, then will not communicate with them, that's called resolution? That's what I call a reaction, there hasn't even been the opportunity for a dispute, never mind a resolution. And if I've been blocked at Scottish Wikipedia, where am I supposed to go next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, someone on the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia blocked you, not on English Wikipedia, which is where you are right now. You should be able to edit your talk page on the other one, where you should be able to request an unblock - they must have something similar to Wikipedia:Blocking policy over there with an explanation on how to request an unblock. Failing that, I would guess you'd have to find an e-mail contact there and go through that route. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does product placement count as notability ?


Re - this seems phrased as self-advertisement. Notability seems to be claimed due to being "featured on two episodes of ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition", and their website appearing on TV somewhere or other. I'm no expert on notability criteria - but this all seems a bit weak in terms of notability. Are there any guidelines - or opinions - on whether this is a valid article, or if it should be prod'ed (or would it count for a speedy delete as an advert ?) CultureDrone (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In general the notability guidelines don't cover commercials and in some instances commercial mascots themselves have been debated for deletion. You should read WP:N to see what the guidelines generally cover. That said, there are always exceptions and each subject has to be considered on a case by case basis using the best judgment of an editor.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This does seem like an advertisement, but "...the company now sells over 55,000 products from over 240 brand names to the United States and Canada" seems like it established notability to me; I don't think you can delete it because of that. Also be aware that the article has been very heavily edited by a user with no other Wiki-experience. Consider giving him notice of WP:SPAM or other related guidelines. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of SI-units in technical articles

Appears to be


I have as reader of Wikipedia very often been annoyed when reading technical articles (usually written in USA!) where SI-units NOT have been used. I appreciate that the SI-system not have managed to penetrate in the States and I truly regret that this is not the case.

As, however, Wikipedia is an international Encyclopaedia I will hereby encourage all editors - when relevant - to use true and correct SI-units. If wanted the corresponding Imperial unit could be mentioned e.g. in a bracket after the SI-unit or at least write the SI-unit in a bracket after the imperial unit.

Finally - to all Americans - when will you switch over to the SI-system?


fape —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fape (talkcontribs) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Warnings" of banning from non-administrators


I have received to warnings on my usertalk page from another user who does not appear on the administrators list. Is this person an administrator and am I at risk for blocking? How do I resolve this matter?

The user in question is JNelson09 (, and my usertalk page can be found here:

Sottolacqua (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins can issue warnings of banning for vandalism and related activities. From your talk page, this appears to be the case. They will not carry out the banning - they will request an admin to do so based on your activities.
To resolve this you need to discuss the issue with User:Jnelson09 and ask why they consider your edits to be vandalism, or you need to review your edits carefully before saving the page. If discussing with Jnelson09 does not resolve the issue, then you can request for a third party to provide some mediation Howie 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I have looked through your edits and the corresponding time of the vandalism statements on your talk page as posted by Jnelson09, and I have failed to see any vandalism taking place. I have left a message for Jnelson09 on his talk page asking for clarification. Howie 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would add that you should remain calm, even if the other editor does not. An administrator will review the correspondence before deciding whether to act on any request for a block. If you have been civil and reasonable, I very much doubt you would be blocked. Jehochman Talk 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've looked through the edit in question, and actually I'm inclined to agree that it's not encyclopaedic (and therefore not vandalism.. although you should add an edit summary when removing a large chunk of an article like that). Howie 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.Sottolacqua (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)




Can a living person's self-pub be used to verify degrees, etc.? Can a living person's degrees listed in a book or article written by the person but published by a third-party publisher be used to verify? Does it make a difference if the publisher is known not to fact check? Thank you! Makana Chai (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I think so. I'm not sure on specifics. Generally speaking, though, these things would be available in another source...if not, just be cautious.
2) Yes. (Obviously assumes the publisher is reliable.)
3) Yes. If the publisher is known not to fact check, and the person has never said it outside of this source/no other reliable source has said it, I wouldn't go with it.
Generally speaking, these things can (in many cases) be found in more than one reliable source. It's when they aren't that you have to use your best judgement, and be ready to remove the information if proven wrong. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm concerned about people who let's say puff up or misrepresent their qualifications. It happens! Makana Chai (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's when we have to use our best judgement. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: At least here; ongoing discussion here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute on the Gokturk page. Dsmurat and second IP address continue to revert my edits removing an unsourced flag. The only source the provide is a Turkish one (which I can't read) which does not appear to have anything about the flag on it. My requests for sources are continually ignored. I have posted on the Gokturk talk page, on Dsmurat's talk page, and the unknown IP's talk page. Only the last one received an (unsigned) response, saying: "believe me thats real." Also, as the flag is unsourced I put a deletion tag on it, but Dsmurat blanked the page in response. He does not explain why, just undoes my edits and reverts. I would like this resolved. Rcduggan (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that both the user account and IP that you have been involved with have no Wikipedia experience whatever outside of a few "eerily similar" edits to Turkish articles. You can ask here to see if the source would be considered reliable. I would suggest warning each editor of WP:3RR ({{subst:uw-3rr|Göktürks}}), then reporting them here if they violate it. Also, you could consider asking to have the page protected by an Admin. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted the source on the first page. Dsmurat has only reverted twice, so if he does so a third time I will post the 3rr warning. And how would I request that the page be protected?Rcduggan (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to ask for page protection, do not click this link!! It will end the world!
Just kidding, that's the link you're looking for. (Any other questions? let me know!) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clara Whipple


I would like to contact the individual who wrote the bio on Clara Whipple (actress). Clara Whipple is my great aunt. Some of the information in the article is incorrect. I would like to make those specific issues known and can also provide some photos.

Greg Johnson personal contact details removed for privacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47 (UTC) 15 April 2008.

Well, you have a few options. If you click on the "history" tab at the Clara Whipple page, you can find the name of the editor who made most of the edits, and then leave a note on his talk page. You can comment on the Clara Whipple Talk page too - that way anyone interested in your great aunt will see your comments and edit accordingly. Or, you can go ahead and make the edits yourself. Anyone can edit Wikipedia! The only trick to any of this really is that Wikipedia entries must be based on verifiable information (see WP:Verifiable), from reliable sources WP:Reliable, and one's own original research is not considered a valid source (see WP:OR). So if the correct information about your great aunt is no more than something you just happen to know - oral family history, etc. - it is subject to being removed. On the other hand, your personal knowledge may provide a handy roadmap for figuring out the true facts, and tracking down third party sources that support them. As for the photos, you are free to post them to Wikipedia too, so long as they can be reproduced freely, or you are willing to grant that right. (This is not to suggest that the Clara Whipple article be turned into a scrapbook of her career but a suitable photo of her would probably be welcome.) I'm sure I've left out something, but this information will help you get started. JohnInDC (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I accedently deleted


I was trying to post info and I am not that familliar with html and wiki

I deleted my changes and now a whole footnotes section is missing... HELP!

Ok, I restored the page to before your revisions. I'm trying to find the text you added and put it back in. Let me know if it doesn't reflect accurately what you would like it to say. References and citing is tough. It took my forever to figure it out. Read WP:CITE if you want to know--basically the list of footnotes is generated from the <ref> .... footnote text....</ref> tags. If you edit those tags then the footnotes don't work...I hope that made sense :) Let me know if you need anythign else. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Parsons page


Hello. There are two advert flags on the Bob Parsons page. One has been there for some time, and one has been added within the last 24 hours. The second one was added after I went in and made some edits to the page (edits were made mid-March.) I was transparent in my edits -- I am affiliated with Go Daddy, and therefore Bob Parsons. The edits were designed to adhere to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Some non-sourced content was removed, and additional citations were added. My ultimate goal here is to make this article better -- encyclopedic -- and to bring it into compliance with Wiki's policies. But the newest flag was added simply because "ParsonsRep is affiliated with Go Daddy." I have just sent a message to the user who added the flag, and posted a comment on the talk page. But I am wondering if there is something more I should/should not be doing? Appealing on the Conflict of Interest board perhaps? My goal is to simply make the article better and get the flags removed -- if there are passages that are causing concern because they read like an advertisement or are uncited, then I want to rectify that. If I am not the best person to do that, because I am affiliated with Go Daddy, then I understand. What's the best way to proceed on this matter?

ParsonsRep (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to add this to the Conflict of Interest notice board which is the most appropriate place for this discussion. You will then receive better input from other editors and admins as to how to make sure your edits are not contested. Howie 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's Syndrome

Stale: Conversation has moved to the COI noticeboard. Pastordavid (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance; I am relatively new to Wikipedia and would appreciate the assistance of some editors, who value the importance of history, who could overview the abbreviation or deletion of my previous and future contributions to the Da Costa's syndrome page, to ensure that the relevant wikipedia policies are being used appropriately. Yours Faithfully Posturewriter (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

This appears to be in the process of being sorted out at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Without duplicating conversations that are taking place elsewhere, let me say that yes, you do appear to have run afoul of the guidelines about conflicts of interest, and let me further suggest that you work toward a solution at the noticeboard. Pastordavid (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

TTTech article being IP edited from TTTech, controversial info being removed.

Resolved: per original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I could use a little help over at TTTech. It appears that edits are being made by an IP address that corresponds with TTTech. Information about the Joseph Mangan controversy keeps being removed. The changes are not cited and appear to be a corporate advertisement. Since I've already reverted's changes once already, I could use some advice on how best to proceed. Cxbrx (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would note that, based on the comment on the talk page, User:Gnalk and appear to be one and the same person. My suggestion would be to take this to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to get more help and oversight. Pastordavid (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like User:Gnalk has removed the controversy section from the TTTech page. I'll follow your suggestion and look at WP:AN/COI Cxbrx (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ogilvy Public Relations - Deletion

Resolved: ASked and answered. No further contributions from original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently an article for Ogilvy Public Relations was posted on Wikipedia. The initial article was removed within 24 hours was tagged blatant advertising. the article was revised, using tips from Wikipedia, (Blatant Advertising Restrictions and Corporation Guidelines) with a list of external links added at the bottom of the article and all "promotional" references removed. The article was posted again on Tuesday, March 18th and removed within 24 hours again. Please advise as to how the Ogilvy Public Relations article can be posted and remain on Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelFoltz (talkcontribs)

A look at the article as reposted indicated that it was still very ad-flavoured, with a long list of historical achievements, list of accounts and clients, and awards point-by-point. Please take a look at some other company articles and see how they're formatted; if you take a look at this category, you'll find quite a few to compare to. (Some of them aren't very good, though - I may have to plow through there later. The majority seem to meet our guidelines, though, at a quick glance.) Your article must confirm that the company meets our notability guidelines for businesses, and must include good independent reliable sources to back up that notability. Finally, I'm not sure if you're involved with Ogilvy at all, but if you are I'd recommend reading our conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You may also want to check our our suggestions for writing your first wikipedia article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral tone?

Resolved: Tag removed for now. Pastordavid (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Could some other editor(s) check for neutral tone and satisfactory references at Michelle Ferguson-Cohen? It is tagged for COI because its creator a year ago had a COI and because a recent editor was suspected on the basis of flimsy evidence for having a COI. What some people don't realize is that COI is not a prohibition, it is a strong warning: "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

I do think the article is written in a neutral tone and does have reasonable references. Before I remove the COI tag I'd like an independent evaluation because I was somewhat involved in the article. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want more eyes on your article, put {{RFCmedia}} on the talk page of the article with your request. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty neutral to me. I would remove the maintence tag, and place {{Notable Wikipedian}} on the article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with editor reverting my edits based upon WP:OR and inaccuracy

I'd like to get some input from other people about recent edits made to articles which I have corrected.

I have begun trying to correct many of the articles related to Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp that have a misleading boilerplate photo caption, many of which have been marked with a NPOV tag for the past several months. The caption before my edit reads:

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in a trailer the size of a large RV. The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor.[2][3] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.[4]


This caption, as it reads above, contains two errors. The first, and the rather insignificant one, is as follows: "...were held in a trailer the size of a large RV." The reference given explicitly states in the first sentence that these reviews were held in "a double-wide trailer". I fixed this in the captions, but another editor has posted a long explanation of his/her original research to demonstrate that's not the case and then reverted my edits as vandalism.

The second is much more important, in my opinion. In an effort to clean the caption up to remove the NPOV tag, I removed the sentence "The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor". The reason I changed this is that the source listed in the caption was about one specific detainee and not the specific subject of any of the articles. In fact, the person described in that source is not named, so we cannot definitively state who was in fact "shackled to the floor". I think that this (and the word "only" in the last sentence) are the grounds for the tag as stating these detainees were treated in a certain way that is not supported by citations is a case of a non-neutral point of view.

The examples of my edits and the other editor's reverts are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Curiously, in this revert, the other editor also replaced a photo of a watch in the article that I had deleted that has absolutely no reason to be in that article.

I would guess that the reverts of the other editor are the result of this contentious AfD on which we are arguing the opposite sides of the case. I believe that the other editor may be trying to start an edit war, so I would very much appreciate the views of other editors. Thank you! BWH76 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User Bd8494 replacing images orphaning originals

Stale: nothing to do without more info. Pastordavid (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User Bd8494 seems to be replacing many screencapture images in the database & articles with his own similar versions, the only difference is he's uploading Vista versions of everything. The originals are then orphaned and autodeleted by bots. This seems inappropriate. The images he uploads have a link to the Vista article in the image title which is irrelevant to the content. He seems to justify this by claiming it's a cleaner GUI, which it generally isn't. This undermines the contributions of others, even if it's just the thorough copyright justification, in the case of the Google Sky image he lowered the resolution and the justification for using a decent resolution image which is now lost with the original image. I'm not going to redo my work to undo the damage of this guy + a overly zealous bot. This is damned annoying, so please discourage it. Let me know if you make any headway with this. Dorbie (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Without seeing the images in question, I am not sure what assistance to provide. Have attempted to (politely) ask the user in question about his/her actions? I find that usually helps to clear things up. Pastordavid (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to external sources

Resolved: policy on external links explained here and on user page. No further contributions from original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Several links already exist for our company's products on Wikipedia. However, while there is mention of some of our products, the listed information only occasionally contains links to information about the product. When it does, it's something that doesn't describe what our product does. I tried linking these product references directly to the corresponding product page on our web site, but after a few minutes Wikipedia removes the link.

It makes the most send for people who come to WIkipedia to get factual information about our products by linking to our web site. Our main site is listed at the bottom of the page, but each of the products entries on Wikipedia has incomplete or non-existent information on the products themselves.

I'd like to help Wikipedia users to get information on our products. I could past information for each product right into WIkipedia but it would seem that the best way to obtain up to date information on our products would be to link to our product pages, but it appears I'm not able to do that in Wikipedia. Can I have my status changed or something to allow these links to our product pages to stick?

Thanks much,

Kurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheiden (talkcontribs) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem with specific links from product articles is that the article then starts to work as an advertising medium, which Wikipedia is not. Please take a look at our policy on external links; in a case where the link is to a commercial site, it's probably best for only one link, directly to the entry page of that site, as a way to allow readers to investigate from there. Also, you should probably keep in mind that we have a conflict of interest guideline to keep in mind; editing articles on your own products and company is something that should generally be avoided. You are more than welcome to comment on the article's talk page and suggest necessary changes there. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Bill O'Reilly---Political Affiliiation/Registration

There is possible edit warring/violations of the three revert rule going on here. I began the edit, which was reverted by user Arzel, who admitted he did so without reading the citation. He has continued to undo my edits, in which I have tried to be factual, but have been accused of injecting opinion. Help, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talkcontribs) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is untrue. I did not remove the section in question before reading the source. I made a general comment regarding the source (Media Matters for America) within the talk page prior to reading that source. Specifically, that a source which is already biased against Bill O'Reilly should not be used as a source to define the political party of Bill O'Reilly. After reading the source it became apparent that it would not matter what the source was. User Jimintheatl was inserting a synthesis of material to try and prove that Bill O'Reilly is a republican. My reverts since that time have been of removing Original Research in a BLP which is being used to advance a political position. Arzel (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not insert any OR. Arzel has offered a shifting litany of objections: SYN, OR, biased source. If he did not revert the section before reading the citation (that may have been another user), he at least voiced objections to the edit before even reading the source. His initial response (immediate objection before even considering the citation, and misrepresenting what that source said without reading it) evidenced his bias and unwillingness to discuss the edit. Jimintheatl (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

These allegations by Jimintheatl are quite disheartning. No revert was made prior to my removal for violations of original research which was after I reveiwed the source and determined it was synthesis of material. Furthermore I did discuss the edit prior to my removal of the original research. Additionally, synthesis of material is a form of original research, they are not a shifting litany of objections. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, citing the WP article, it not SYNTHESIS. Others have agreed. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Assistance is still needed here. Without asserting bad faith, I would say we have serious questions of bias and pre-judgment. Jimintheatl (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge artical is in an edit war, need help!

Resolved: Original poster has invoked the right to vanish. Pastordavid (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to place some nutrality back into the artical, but it keeps getting reverted...WORse I am being accused of being non notral. please if possable- re edit the folling info back in and lock the page--- Realtruthspeaker (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is an edit war. I don't know who accused you of introducing POV, but you can't just obstruct the layout. --Mopskatze (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. One is a question of neutrality. I don't offer an opinion about that. The second is proper formatting. You (Realtruthspeaker) have been messing up the formatting. You have deleted <ref></ref> and made other changes which destroy the proper formatting of the article. Every knowledgable editor will revert your edits simply on that basis without trying to decide the neutrality issue. I recommend that you be very careful in your editing. Do not delete anything that you don't understand because it might be important for formatting. Instead, just add or modify the plain text until you learn proper formatting. And please learn to spell (e.g. neutral article). Sbowers3 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
nutral artical below

<proposed article text changes removed>

Your edits to the article are in its edit history. There's no need for you to post your proposed article changes in full here. Please read Sbowers3's note above which contains good advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Commercialism in "Helmet Camera" article

Resolved: Spammy content/links removed. Pastordavid (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Several times a last paragraph has been added at <> referencing a commercial product. I deleted one of these attempts, but just noticed that it was restored two days later.Jimtpat (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what's wrong with links to commercial products. Should we remove the IBM article, too? JNW2 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If the IBM article were little more than an advertisement with some "information" wrapped around it, yes. Wikipedia:Spam lays out the groundrules pretty nicely. JohnInDC (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Ellsworth

I've obviously upgraded the article about Oliver Ellworth to a considerable extent over the past week or so, and am now fully satisfied with everything in it except for the very first paragraph, which I cannot enter through the use of the edit function (it doesn't exist for this particular pagagraph). The first sentence needs only a minor change or two (for example substituting the word "jurist" for "lawyer), but the second sentence devotes too much space to an earlier contribution by John Randolph, leaving no room to mention the highlights of Ellsworth's career. It actually seems as if the article primarily deals with Ellsworth's response to Randolph rather than his entire career, which is certainly not the case.

Here's how I would modify the paragraph inclusive of the first sentence:

Oliver Ellsworth (April 29, 1745 - November 26, 1807), an American jurist and politician, was a revolutionary against British rule, a delegate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and third Chief Justice of the United States. He is credited with having codified the use of the name United States in the Constitution, and he served on the Committee of Detail that produced the first draft of the Constitution to be edited by the Convention as a whole. He later authored the Judiciary Act, dominated the U.S. Senate in obtaining full support for Washington and Hamilton's policies, and at the end of his career negotiated a peace treaty with Napoleon.

Could you either substitute the paragraph I suggest here or explain how I can enter the text to make the editorial changes myself.

Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

Edward Jayne

personal info removed. ≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jayne (talkcontribs) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very top of the article, above the title is an "edit this page" button (unless you are using a very unusual skin). Click that to edit the first paragraph. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)