Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 21

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


Kosovo is / is not / is / is not sovereign - Gallery of sovereign-state flags and elsewhere

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought to post at WP:ANI, but came here for a "first look". Can you please point me to the best place to find or ask for the current consensus on the sovereignty of Kosovo. Slow-motion edit war at Gallery of sovereign-state flags and a number of other places. Including commons.

As directed by top of gallery talk page, I've been consulting List of sovereign states. (Kosovo is under second page description "10 sovereign states lacking general international recognition:") Last talk page discussion there mid-February.

But gallery talk page also says "inclusion of individual sovereign states is discussed at talk:sovereign state", which now redirects to Talk:State, which has no discussion on Kosovo.

Talk:Sovereignty says WikiProject Philosophy, the flags pages say WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, neither inspiring me to bother them with this contention. WikiProject Countries seems (rightly) concerned with the Kosovo article, and I don't think appealing for help there is necessarily wise.

Since I've seen otherwise good edits to Balkan/Russian articles by some IPs repeatedly making these deletions I don't want to start throwing warnings around. And I've contacted the latest repeat editor more than once, though less than politely, perhaps because new editor continues the IP's edits.

But where to get a yes/no on whether the list is still definitive and 'current'? And ensuring this is the determination of more than just the loudest latest? Shenme (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the International situation International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence, which is largely about politics not what Wikipedia does. The constitution of Kosovo has yet to be ratified by its own government and until it does it is still part of FRY. I think the schedule for ratification is 14/15 June 2008, but check WP:Kosovo for policy confirmation. Recognition or the lack of it doesn't play on Wikipedia (and boy is there fun on disputed territories), verifiability demands a ratified sovereign constitution. Until then the Autonomous Republic of Kosovo would be the likeliest candidate for the flag - I think it is still flying on WP:Kosovo. -- EhsanQ (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in Graphology

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is between me (the IP that stars with 190.51) and Pseudo daoist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). It has already over or at least that was what i thought ´till i saw his edition on 17:57, 8 April 2008. I think that this section: "But this is called "science" by the graphologists despite of being considered a pseudoscience[1][2] [3][4][5] by the scientific community." could be changed if is not neutral but what he is doing is eliminate all of it including the references without talk. He even called it a "minor edit" when did so.

Finally, another problem that i have is that he considers my actions as vandalism, so i can´t really have a productive talk with him...456hjk (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Try using dispute resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainlina (talkcontribs) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at this and am wondering why the edit needs to be added at all. The third sentence of the article states, "Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of thousands of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters." This language seems uncontested; surely that covers the concept, and any pertinent citation can be wrapped up into it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with Neutrality, POV, and COI

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My article ('_Association) was tagged with neutrality, POV, and COI issues a while back. I've read the tutorials on how to improve those respective issues and have edited the page based on those articles. However, I'm still unsure if i'm on the right track--this was my first article and i'm still trying to familiarize myself with wiki's policies. I understand the importance of having unbiased and neutral articles and would like some guidance in resolving these issues as quickly as possible. I would also like to know what steps I need to take to remove those tags. Any help would be great! Thanks.

Camrose23 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked those questions of the editor who posed them? That might be a good way to approach it. To find out hwo added the tags, look at the "History" tab and the edit summaries for each edit of the page. If that doesn't help then you might need to look at each successive version to find out when they were applied. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Resolved: A commentary, no actual request made.Pastordavid (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I question Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. I edited an article that included a reference from "Media Matters" by including the phrase "a liberal watchdog group" as an exepegetical addendum. I was blocked from editing from that point. However, the article on MSNBC refers to the Media Research Center as "a conservative watchdog group". This is a clear example of the double standard Wikipedia has in its editorial policy. Why label the Media Research center as "a conservative watchdog group" and ban me from editing when I used the phrase "a liberal watchdog group" to refer to Media Matters. The only answer is that Wikipedia DOES have a liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nworb4591 (talkcontribs) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to comment on this charge without specifics - your registered name has only the above contribution associated with it. I do see a several attempted edits by an anonymous IP to Media Matters for America‎ inserting the word "liberal" into its description (per one edit summary, 'to reflect Media Matters' bias"); those were reverted. Are those the edits to which you're referring? You mention being blocked, but no block resulted from those edits, so I am not sure. In any case, if I've properly identified the circumstance then your edits were reverted, properly, on the grounds that on when an organization is the subject of a page, it's standard practice to hew to the organization's description of itself. Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" organization, rather than "liberal". See here. By contrast, Media Research Center expressly proclaims its "conservative" heritage and point of view. E.g., here. Rather than "liberal bias", I see the consistent application of policy. JohnInDC (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(I should have asked before - do you have an actual request for assistance, or was this just commentary?) JohnInDC (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has millions of occasional editors and tens of thousands of active or very active editors. We are all volunteers. We decide which articles to edit and we bring our own biases. Some (most?) of us try to write with a neutral tone; some try to spin an article to fit their own POV. There is no central Wikipedia editorial staff that establishes a liberal bias. FWIW, I suspect that most people don't even realize that they are showing their biases; they believe that theirs is the only POV, perhaps because they have not heard any other POV.
You can help make Wikipedia more neutral by contributing yourself and pointing out (on an article's talk page) wherever the tone is non-neutral.
As to JohnInDC's point that "it's standard practice to hew to the organization's description of itself" I tend to agree with that idea but I suspect it is honored more in theory than in reality. If some articles follow the practice and some violate it, it is most likely that different editors wrote different articles rather than an indication of systemic bias. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists reminds us that just because other bad stuff exists is not a precedent for allowing more bad stuff. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Organization

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I work for a well-known organization that is considered controversial in some circles. We recently noticed that our entry in wikipedia has a handful of factual inaccuracies, and also is framed in a way that favors our opposition. (With the latter issue, while some of the statements may be factually correct, they are not supported by add'l facts that would place them in context and make them more neutral.)

I've heard that it's considered bad practice for organizations to edit their own entries. So I'm wondering, is that true, and if so, what is the best way for us to deal with these issues?

Also, I have heard about certain entries getting a "controversial" designation which places certain editing restrictions on the page. I am wondering exactly how this designation works, what it implies, and how we could investigate getting such a designation for our entry.

Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

Jplats (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)jplats

One approach would be to make some suggestions on the article's talk page. Assuming that there are some other active editors who keep an eye on the page, that would gain their attention and lead to some discussion of your concerns. Thanks for bringing this up, and thanks for doing it in a way that's open about your affiliation too. Please feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page if that doesn't work out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

haddonfield, new jersey

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to go through the Haddonfield, New Jersey, entry, mostly because I am a longtime resident--and a journalist who has had to do stories on some of the things in the site. I registered, but don't really want to edit it until I communicated with someone in authority. There seems to be a dispute among some about whether Steven Spielberg lived there. I think I can resolve that. He lived in a nearby community, Haddon Township (on Crystal Lake Terrace--his teenage home, as you can imagine, is a makeshift tourist site), which uses a Haddonfield zip code since it does not have its own post office. One of the disputants has an entry from a book that apparently misquotes Spielberg, since in many of his interviews following "Schindler's List," he mentions growing up near Haddonfield, since Haddonfield was notoriously non-Jewish at the time. Also, there is a notation that the first dinosaur--found in Haddonfield, as correctly noted--is on display at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. It is not. The dinosaur on display is fuller. The bones of the Hadrosaurus are in storage. I suppose they would let anyone see them, but they are not, as the entry reads, on display. Since these are only minor things, I didn't want to edit them particularly, just to bring them up to someone.

Robert Strauss personal info removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsstrauss (talkcontribs) 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. As far as the Spielberg info, I would leave it as is right now. The primary location is listed, with the possible other location given as well. Each statement is referenced by reliable sources, and so we leave it at that. We only report what other sources say -- we don't draw conclusions about which source is right or wrong. Same with the dinosaur info: if you can find sources who state that information, then change it -- otherwise, I woud leave it be. Pastordavid (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The National Brain Aneurysm Center

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


An aneurysm (or aneurism) is a localized, blood-filled dilation (balloon-like bulge) of a blood vessel caused by disease or weakening of the vessel wall. Aneurysms most commonly occur in arteries at the base of the brain (the circle of Willis) and in the aorta (the main artery coming out of the heart), a so-called aortic aneurysm. The bulge in a blood vessel can burst and lead to death at any time. The larger an aneurysm becomes, the more likely it is to burst.

Stand Alone Centers of Excellence in the Unites States

At the National Brain Aneurysm Center (, the focus is complex neurovascular conditions. To be competitive, they treat hundreds of brain aneurysms each year, substantially more than the average neurosurgeon. They perform more surgeries on unruptured brain aneurysms than nearly any other hospital in the nation, and our patient outcomes continue to surpass national benchmarks.

In addition to brain aneurysms, they offer advanced surgical and minimally invasive treatments for other brain-related diseases and injuries, including strokes, vascular malformations (AVMs), skull base surgery and blocked blood vessels in the brain. Located at St. Joseph's Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, we take on the toughest cases and have mastered the most advanced surgical treatments available.

Specializing in neurovascular care means better outcomes for our patients - saving lives and preserving quality of life. Patients and referring physicians from around the country recognize the National Brain Aneurysm Center for leadership in neurovascular surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stparente (talkcontribs) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You apparently are suggesting that an article be written on this subject. That is something you can do yourself. Before you start, please read WP:Notability (organizations) or WP:FAQ/Business to verify that the subject meets our guidelines. I note that there are many hits in Google to its old name, HealthEast Neurovascular Institute, but few to its new name. There may be enough references to write an article. Remember that all information should be referenced to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of data

Resolved: directed to the appropriate steps. Pastordavid (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted two edits to two different subjects that related to wastewater (sewage) byproducts. In both cases these edits discussed the issue of antibiotic resistance---my field of medical research. Under biosolids, I attempted to edit via discussion of antibiotic resistant pathogens within-------Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)----------. That edited material, by the next day, was completely deleted by someone else. I also attempted to edit the discussion on reclaimed water----again inserting a discussion on standards and antibiotic resistance. This was also deleted by the next day by someone else.

These two deletions deprive the public of understanding the wheres, whys, and whats of the movement of antibiotic resistant pathogens from sewage byproducts (biosolids and reclaimed water) into the community at large. This nation is having a crisis with antibiotic resistant pathogens but information as to why seems to be kept from the public. I am on a national scientific panel looking at this.

The existing discussion of reclaimed water within Wikipedia is thus deficient because it shows only the positive aspects of this sewage byproduct and thus is highly biased. Accordingly, discussions within Wikipedia lead the reader to conclusions that are half-truths for recycled water. The article on biosolids is a bit more balanced but neglects to discuss antibiotic resistance and its spread.

Dr Edo McGowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Edo McGowan (talkcontribs) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually - or one hopes anyhow - that when a large addition to an article is removed, it is accompanied by an explanation of the edit. There wasn't much said on the Reclaimed water talk page, but an editor posted two pretty good explanations for the action on your own talk page, here. Have you seen those? They provide some good guidance about how you might revise or amend the material to make it acceptable in a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Stale: if someone wanted to step over and give the article Canadian Army Veteran Motorcycle Units (CAV) a good clean-up, it would be very helpful. Pastordavid (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Canadian Army Veteran Motorcycle Units (CAV)

I am new to setting up an article in Wikipedia. I have been told I need reliable sources for the article by User:MickMacNee. However, on this article I have no idea what additional sources are required in addition to those already listed under References on the article. Some help on this would be appreciated. Bumpsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumpsy (talkcontribs) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might like to read our policy on verifiability and some notes on reliable sources. That should give you a good start. Some examples might be coverage in a major newspaper or two, or an article in a magazine. The key thing is that it should be written by someone who's not affiliated with your organisation, and that it should be a reputable, fact-checked publication. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

michael husbands

Stale: Message copied to IP talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

the info on me is wrong and i would like it deleted thankyou michael husbands —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Please take a look at this page for information on how to report issues with an article on yourself. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Tony, FYI, I copied your message on the IP talk page, just in case. Pastordavid (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help with disambiguation cleanup

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page for Pedro Guerrero. Unfortunately, there are far too many pages linking to the disambiguation page to handle manually. As of this writing, every one of them should be pointed to Pedro Guerrero (baseball). I was unable to find a tool or an active bot that could help with this. Can someone with appropriate tools help? Thanks! Cleanr (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on Cleanr's talk page that an alternate and valid solution is not have the disambig page named Pedro Guerrero (disambiguation), with an otheruses tag at the top of Pedro Guerrero. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrestled with that before deciding to go with the disambig. We have two notable people with a similar name. Backlinks would usually provide a good context (a might lean to a disambig on the established page), but something's going on here. One problem I noticed is that if you click the "what links here" page you get a big list, but there's actually no link back from many of those pages that I could find. See ... Johnny Bench and Roberto Clemente and Reggie Jackson among other players have no backlink. Weird template thing somewhere perhaps? Cleanr (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:World Series MVPs linked to Pedro Guerrero. I've dab'd it for you. So most of those links should go away - eventually. (l think the database doesn't get cleaned right away.) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That knocks it back to a manageable number. I'll clean the few stragglers manually. Cleanr (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My site about Eleuthera in The Bahamas got black-listed and removed

Resolved: Spam or not, still doesn't meet WP:EL. Pastordavid (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, On the Wiki page about the island Eleuthera in the Bahamas - where my wife and I live - I had listed my site but got black-listed. I really wonder why, because... By many visitors it's considered the best site about Eleuthera. To prove it, I'm including this link to a comment by a New York M.D. on Amazon >>>

Here are some excerpts thereof...

"... the "Beaches" part of the site was of particular interest. I photocopied the information on the approximately 30 beaches described, together with the maps available on the site, and in May began exploring. What a treasure map we had!

We also used the site to find restaurants (directions are included, as well as links to those restaurants which have websites). As for getting to and from Eleuthera, the travel tips and links to ferries and airlines are very thorough and up-to-date.

And if you cannot find a detail about Eleuthera on the site, you can contact the person responsible for this excellent website. I did just that by sending an email from the site when I needed to get the more detailed maps of Eleuthera. Dieter got right back to me and I now have those maps.

This site is THE best guide to Eleuthera."

Of the three main sites about Eleuthera, mine has the best Alexa Ranking. Please cancel the black-listing. Best regards, Dieter Schoop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deetix11 (talkcontribs) 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've called for assistance from someone who knows the spam blacklist far better than I. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems the site is blocked due to a similarity (regex) to another unrelated site. However I did find these IP's which you used previously to add your site; (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · COIBot · count · block log · x-wiki · Edit filter search · WHOIS · RDNS · traceroute · · tor · StopForumSpam · Google · AboutUs · Project HoneyPot) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · COIBot · count · block log · x-wiki · Edit filter search · WHOIS · RDNS · traceroute · · tor · StopForumSpam · Google · AboutUs · Project HoneyPot)
First the amazon review reads like an advert, and any one can add reviews, and is utterly unreliable. (see duck test). Secondly, External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia by adding your site Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Lastly, fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, including the External links policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. As far as Whitelisting this site I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation or source. However, unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: X mark.svg Not done--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Netley Military Hospital

Resolved: We don't have the info in question. Pastordavid (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am writing a biography of my father Lt. Joseph Shenton Williams, M.C. Royal Field Artillery, who was badly wounded in France near Buquoy between 21 and 27 August 1918, was evacuated by ambulance train from Le Treport to Le Havre, then on 29 August by sea to Southampton and Netley Hospital.

I have been studying your article on Netley Hospital during WWI and realise that records may no longer be available, but if you could give me an address to which I could direct further inquiries regarding his injuries, and the destination to which he was sent on discharge, I would be most grateful.

Best wishes from 'down-under'.

Michael Shenton Williams, Col. RAE (ret'd) (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your note. We don't hold any records of the sort you're seeking, I'm afraid. In fact, "we" is rather loosely defined at best. Each article is written by someone who feels moved to do so. By checking the history tab of the article, you can see that a user registered as User:AlanFord wrote the original article, which has then been modified by various others. You might like to leave a message on his talk page too; he might know of some primary source records. Otherwise, I can only suggest the QARANC archives, but I'm sure you've thought of that already. Best of luck with your book, --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of World War II aces from Finland

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone check this article appears to have been vadalised ? beside the red link at the top . Not sure how to check who the user was thanks JS1 (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page and the vandalism should now be gone. In future, you should be able to check this yourself using the History tab at the top of your screen. This will let you see who did what to the page and, if it's vandalism, easily undo their changes. Happy editing, and thanks for pointing this out! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I presumed a warning or question would have been added to the user talk page but it appears to be an Anon IP address JS1 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, you can leave a message at the Talk page of an IP address if you want to, although it might not be read by the right person, since editors are allowed to remove messages from their Talk pages. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Brian Sherwin

Resolved: Kept at AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to wikipedia so I hope I'm asking this in the right place. I'd like some opinions about this article/bio I contributed. When I first created this bio about Brian Sherwin it was deleted within minutes. I tried again and it was deleted. I could not make any changes. I tried again and a different person marked it for deletion but opened a debate about it. Brian Sherwin is the senior editor for Myartspace and has interviewed hundreds of artists. He is also a writer for Hi Fructose Magazine and his interviews are referenced throughout the net and can be found on the CVs of very influential artists and mentioned on sites like Juxtapoz and the beinArt Collective. My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. I've been working hard on the bio. I even removed the fact that he is an artist from the top of the entry since that seems to have been the main reason for it being marked for deletion. I don't want to say much here because I do not want to sway opinions. I want honest opinions. So if you have time please take a look and let me know how I can improve the bio. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

It looks like the AfD discussion is going along now; it usually remains open for 5 days. You might read, if you haven't already, Wikipedia's 5 pillars; if your article can meet those, then you can usually survive deletion requests. If you need more time, then work on the page in your sandbox, e.g. at User:Roodhouse1/Sandbox, where your work is much safer from deletion. I hope that helps; please feel free to leave a message at my talk page if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

creating an additional listing

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a new user and want to create a new page for my school, PIlgrim Lutheran School. There is already a school of the same name in Texas, and I want to redirect the user who types in "Pilgrim Lutheran School" to a page that references both schools--rather than having our school be a "spin-off" of theirs. How do I do this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relish2! (talkcontribs) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're describing a type of page that's called a disambiguation page here, or a dab page for short. We tend to discourage dab pages with only 2 entries (although I'm sure you could find lots of counterexamples). Your best approach might be to put your school at Pilgrim Lutheran School (town) and then ask here for help in putting a note at the top of the other page (a hatnote) to alert users to the presence of your page.
Of course, your first consideration should be whether or not your school merits a page at all. Please read the links in your welcome message, and be careful to demonstrate notability and verifiability for any page you add. Otherwise, it's likely to be deleted and that would render the whole disambiguation page moot. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest, in addition to what Andrew has pointed out above, also reading these suggestions for writing your first article on wikipedia. Perhaps it would also be helpful to spend some time just editing other articles and getting the hang of things before creating your first article. Pastordavid (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Sauron

Resolved: per conversation below.Pastordavid (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is some dispute over fan art being put on the article for Sauron, it is getting to a stage now where one person deletes the picture and then another user puts it on.

We could do with some clarification of what kind of images should be included on an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Sixsmith (talkcontribs) 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I briefly commented here. The issue is the appropriateness of including one's personal conception of a Tolkien character, in the form of a self-created drawing, to illustrate a Wikipedia article about that character. It seems - at least to me - an interesting question, and perhaps others would like to weigh in as well. JohnInDC (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Might be a tad tricky to demonstrate WP:V ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. At least one of the images that the editor claims as "self-created" is not. Compare Melian with daVinci. What's an appropriate course of action here - both for the mislabeled image, as well as for the others, now suspect, uploaded by the same editor? JohnInDC (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that many of the images uploaded by this user were simply lifted from other places and as such constitute copyright violations - this is being addressed at Wikimedia Commons, where about half of what he's uploaded has been deleted now (though yet not the particular image at issue here). This particular dispute may thus wind up eventually mooted. JohnInDC (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the insistent user's images have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons as likely copyright violations; I expect this issue can be marked as 'resolved'. JohnInDC (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly/Peter Hart--Technical help

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I added a publication, and the edit preview shows the correct edit, but the "finished product leaves out half the edit. I've tried to fix it several times, without success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimintheatl (talkcontribs) 13:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You had a missing / in a closing <ref> tag. It's fixed now. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Help for correction on 2 pages please

Stale: No contributions from original poster for a week and a half. Pastordavid (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My name is Nadia McCaffrey. My son and I (Sgt Patrick McCaffrey KIA in Balad, Iraq June 22 2004) have 2 pages who have been published by someone else, on your Wikipedia, the problem is that the facts are not exact or other things are just missing.

I have tried to log inn without success...I would appreciate your help with both pages, thank you very much.

In Peaceful Service Nadia McCaffrey Gold Star Mother of Patrick McCaffrey

(email removed) www.veteransvillage.or

(phone number removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadiamccaffrey (talkcontribs) 22:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles in question appear to be Nadia McCaffrey and Patrick R. McCaffrey, Sr. Aleta Sing 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, First, I've removed your email and phone number; it might not be a good idea to publish them here. As to the content, would you mind letting us know what changes you think should be made? You can do it here, or you can do it on the discussion tabs of the 2 pages in question. Thanks! Any problems, just leave another message here, tell us what the problem is, and we'll look into it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Patrick as also the Bronze medal & Combat Badge, other who are not so important. His website For me, I am not supporting the war, never have, I have created in 2006, a 501C3 Nonprofit Patrick McCaffrey Foundation, or, I work in helping our veterans Nationally as an advocate and a Gold Star Mother. The websites up-dates are,, I also like to have a small photo up if that is possible. I also like to send another photo for Patrick, I like the one that you have too. Our organization is in the process of opening permanent centers across the US for our vets. You are welcome to take anything you need from our website. How do I send some pictures to you to post? nadiamccaffrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadiamccaffrey (talkcontribs) 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the info. Is there a reference for his award of the bronze medal? We can't add that unless we can reference it. I think we're good for photos. I'll see if there's a good place to add links to the websites you mention, but that's a bit of a grey area since it's not really a description of either of the subjects. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Vandalism on Sam Fisher article

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading the Sam Fisher article, I have noticed that many things in the character info-box have been vandalised (quite immaturely if I might add). If anyone with knowledge of the character would fix things up, this would be appreciated. Lediur (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

if you get to it before anyone edits it the simplest way to remove vandalism is to find the entry in history for the user that did it and click undo and that will remove changes made by that user in that edit, if multiple of changes have been made you can revert it back to a specific point in the history have a read of Help:Reverting, though it looks to have been mostly cleaned up now by other people --Firebladed (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Request for protection denied. Pastordavid (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm daily deleting an claim in this artical that the UK goverment forced the company to remove everyone over 35 as a police state action. Obviously this is false as it would be huge news in the UK that the goverment did such a thing to such a single small company. I was wondering how I could resolve this, i've tried talk, tried to get semi-protect however both these failed. These are all IP non-logged in editors and seem to be people with a grudge, espcially the tiscali forum link i just removed which only consisted of four posts by users that they considered "evidence".


Mbhmirc (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the suggestion from the semi-protect page: "There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. If there's significantly more disruptive activity in the future, consider relisting".[1] Once heavy vandalism starts appearing, you can list it for protection again. Until then, keep trying to discuss the issue with the other editors. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of 'Ted London'

Resolved: POV tags removed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the neutrality of the 'Ted London' article is disputed.

-From hmoehle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoehle (talkcontribs) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it's not obvious to me why it's there. Looking at the history tab, I think User:N5iln added the tag; you could leave a message on her/his talk page if you really wanted to know, but it's been there for a year and s/he might not remember. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Demographic Racial Listings

Stuck: Disagreement still seems to remain, but not sure that there is much more to do about it. Pastordavid (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does wikipedia in most cases list demographics regardless of percentages with the white population first. Example Atlantic City: The racial makeup of the city was 26.68% White, 44.16% Black or African American. Your demographics section listings should be based on percentages and not racism, i.e. Atlantic City: The racial makeup of the city was 44.16% Black or African American, 26.68% White. I've tried to edit any page where I see this racist listing and in some cases I can edit and in others I can't. Let's apply a more scientific standard for listing racial demographics.

Phillip Rivers email: email address removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The demographics from these articles were pulled from the U.S. census bureau's own data and posted by an automated bot in these articles. If the order of the data is not to your liking, the proper place to complain is probably to the U.S. Census bureau directly. If you want to fix these numbers in all of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. cities to a more logical order, be our guest. But don't assume racism where none exists... 03:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think It's wrong and I searched through Manual of style to be able to reply. That a bot adds census figures is obnoxious in every sense. Please tell us the name of the bot owner? It would appear that most wikiprojects have decided that as most places in the US have a higher white majority so the w/b/a/o system is more "workable". Try that system in Europe? or Asia? -- EhsanQ (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really obnoxious in any sense. Its repetitive and noncontroversial. Would you rather personally go through the U.S. census bureau's data yourself and add the figures by hand. As I said, you can certainly feel free to re-order the data into a more logical order if you like. 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What BOT? when has it ever had permission - this is not top off your head. Give instances when this bot has ran on Atlantic City the article quoted. C'mon -- EhsanQ (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Rambot did most of its work from 2002-2004. I couldn't give you specific dates on each article it did, since it updated census data for some tens of thousands of articles. Looking around that time period, the data was added on November 8, 2002 and given that a new U.S. census isn't due until 2010, I wouldn't expect any further updates until then. 03:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a serious place despite what you may think and I can assure you that Rambot only made this edit and certainly no other bot here Please either help or say yes it is bad and we should all try and correct. Whay is you? This is a Wiki? -- EhsanQ (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, around that time User:Ram-Man was running the automated script from his main account. He created the secondary account somewhere in that time period. The edit I quoted was earlier in Rambot's career when it was still being run through Ram-Man's main account. I don't think the actual Rambot account as it were was created until December, 2002, while Ram-Man was running the script itself for several months before that. 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Truth be known that the article has been in that sate since 11/12/02 without any bot needing to interfere. It is outrageous on Wikipedia. I'm confused why you don't see it as a problem? If It was German speakers over Czech speakers we'd have to lock an article for days until it was agreed that %speakers over-rides place in the list. -- EhsanQ (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you just read any of the words I just wrote? RamMan ran the bot from his main account until December 2002. The edit on November 12, 2002 by RamMan was using the Rambot script. The whole point is, there was no malicious intent in the ordering of the numbers. If you want to fix it, feel free, but don't assign bad intent where there is none... 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem I understand what you meant, do ya think if we still here in four years time he'll have worked out the problems with race and percentage? Still not convinced this was all bot. Look too individual, you got access to his contribs? Love to see if the prose on all of the articles matched the math. -- EhsanQ (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

postscript What Jayron32 should have said is that a very talented editor collated and added the figures himself during fall 2002. The most expedite way to post similar prose is to cut and paste it. As White will be a majority in many counties, it was utilised as a speedy solution not to be encountered nearly six years down the line. There is certainly no implication of a racial bot reverting edits to the correct order of things. Maybe it is time to clean up lists into orderly (and presumably percentage ways):

  • White
  • Black
  • Asian
  • Other

Sometimes a simple truthful answer gives a much better result. Off the cuff replies are not only unhelpful for questioning editors but those who have to archive your answers. As an addendum, we should all have a goal to resort the figures in a 2008 state like other wikiprojects outside of United States territories. --EhsanQ (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Actually, that;s pretty much a perfect paraphrase of exactly what I said. Stange, did you think I was saying something different?!? 05:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
mmm I think so -

The demographics from these articles were pulled from the U.S. census bureau's own data and posted by an automated bot in these articles. If the order of the data is not to your liking, the proper place to complain is probably to the U.S. Census bureau directly. If you want to fix these numbers in all of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. cities to a more logical order, be our guest. But don't assume racism where none exists... 03:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That underlined sentence isn't nice and certainly is not explanatory. -- EhsanQ (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the two of you really don't need to argue about this. Certainly we should list demographic breakdowns in order largest-to-smallest. On the other hand, it is not at all helpful to go making statements such as "That a bot adds census figures is obnoxious in every sense." Jayron32 is right that the data we have is copied verbatim from the source, and it's hardly surprising if the entries are in a fixed order. Then again, the ordering problem might be fixable by altering a bot (or writing a new bot) to sort the entries before updating the articles.
So you're looking at a bit of programming work on a bot, or a lot of tedious and error-prone editing of articles. Either way, there's not much to be gained from arguing about it here. Please take a mint on your way out, and don't forget to tip your waitress and assume good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

George Anson's voyage around the world

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This was incorrectly added by the editor to RFClist template, removed to here to open up the question.

Hello !( I hope I'm writing in the right place ...) .Attracted by its queer name , I translated " War of Jenkins' Ear 1739-1748 " , & btw blended it with some pieces of the pompous spanish article ( = Guerra del asiento)...In the middle of that stench of money , canon powder & putrid death , I have been very much relieved by he freshness of the article "Voyage of G. Anson around the world" . Mind , there has been also about 90% casualties , but so much fresh high sea air ! . So , I should like to translate this fine article ( under the name of : "le Voyage du Commodore Anson") in french WP , and therefore

1°/ first thank the author(s?) for his work , I'll try to equal it ... ( btw , who is he  ? Peter4Truth , I think ...but his page is missing : ...)

2°/ Ask him - a/ if he does not mind my emphasizing the stay of the squadron at Juan-Fernandez Islands , I think it helped the men to find the strength to go on ( & I love "Robinson Crusoé"...) - b/ ask him , or any specialist , if it is possible that tuberculosis were , among many others , the cause of so many Anson's sailors demises

the illness was common by the time , and I have read somewhere Captain Bligh ( HMS Bounty) seemed to have thought phtisia was a big danger on board ...Thanks a lot , Arapaima , a french contributor ( Ah , the fresh air at Rock End , in the sixties ...)--Arapaima (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

top secret sites-mind control and C.I.A.

Resolved: No actual request for assistance (snide comment suppressed with great self-control. Pastordavid (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I put some factual info on this site but it was deleted very quickly!They are Govt controlled and edit out what common people have to say,i entered facts but did not reference the source,will i be allowed back in to cite ref or am i forever blocked from this very tidied up and carefully written article,people need to know ,how else can citizens make proper judgements peer 678 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peer678 (talkcontribs) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The results of your experiment are certainly disappointing. They don't tell us conclusively whether the government deleted your post to silence you, or an ordinary editor didn't want to see material added to Wikipedia that violates our policies on neutrality and original research. For your next experiment, I recommend that you eliminate one of the variables by citing your addition to a reliable source. Make sure you include the cite when posting the material. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Project MKULTRA could be said to be many things but I would say it isn't tidy enough. The problem with articles about covert operations by government is that some aspects of them will always be difficult to source without using information from Conspiracy Theory sites. Those sites are often full of imagined or unnamed sources and couldn't be taken seriously by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia despite it's own flaws is an attempt at a user led encyclopaedia. Its focus is about using the best of the information out there using a policy of verifiability and ensuring that statements of proof can easily examined by anybody reading an article.
The information you posted is not all that controversial, it is already discussed on Wikipedia in the article Cathy O'Brien, who claimed to be part of the project you described. Perhaps if you read how that article is it will give you an idea of the best way to structure your own ideas for a paragraph in Project MKULTRA and help you find further reading in a way to source them.
You are certainly not blocked and relevant, truthful and sourced information is the whole goal of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were controlled by government agents as you suggest, I would doubt that we would have many editors prepared to give up their time only to see their labours vanish in the click of a mouse button. Good luck with your editing, -- EhsanQ (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with a hacker on my computer and I resolved it. I was wondering if you could delete all the warnings from me? P.S. Hacker knew my password so I changed it.

Sincerely, (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. I suggest you register an account to avoid such problems in the future. The events occured from source IP (Eastlink HSI EASTLINK-HLFX-ARRIS-3). History of the ip goes back to 29 April 2005. It's in Wikipedias interest to have this IP's history veiwable, in order to prevent such extensive vandalism in the future. thanks. --Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the talk page guidelines: Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users. The IP certainly may remove any warning he or she wishes to from the talk page. Please note, however, that they remain the the page history, and are viewable by all users. As to the contributions from the IP (it is unclear which this request is actually about), they will remain indefinately - we don't delete IP contribution histories. Pastordavid (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i have read some information on wikipedia and would like to know who the author is and when it was written, as i need to reference it. the site is thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. If you're intending to cite a Wikipedia article, you may find the information here useful. I'd recommend, though, seeking out the sources linked from that section of the article and using those as the basis of your project - some instructors won't accept Wikipedia articles themselves as references. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
A simple tool for citing Wikipedia in various popular formats may be found here. Simply put in the article's name. Fleetflame 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: per original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I have been editing articles for a while. I didn't know most of the advanced stuff. I just added a sentence here, a link there. Recently I found a stub, and I decided to fix it up into a much larger article. I have been doing reaserch, as well as reading the entire Wikipedia editing Tutorial. When I got to the External Links section, I got stuck. Whenever I tried to make a footnote in the sandbox, everything that was supposed to be after the foot note was not there. I thought maybe it was just the sandbox, so I did the same thing on a regular page (I changed it back to normal afterwards), but it still was weird. I did exactly as the tutorial said,but I could not figure out what was wrong. If you can help me that would be appreciated

-Remilo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talkcontribs) 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you haven't properly closed the <ref> tags. You need to close them by putting </ref>. I think you were using \ instead of /. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info.--BelovedFreak 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


         Thank you that did it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remilo (talkcontribs) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 

Copyright policy and the {{cite news}} template's "quote=" parameter

Resolved: per original poster, at least for time being. Pastordavid (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the original writer of Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Expecting parts to be challenged, I cited it thoroughly, using 12 sources – 11 in the New York Times and one at a Weather Underground figure's website. Each citation used the {{cite news}} template with its "quote=" parameter, and each citation included the cited story's lead paragraph as the "quote=" value. The idea was to provide footnote followers the essence of each story so they could decide whether to click on through to the page-image PDF of the original. I believe this is fair use.

Between the article's first posting last year and April 22 it drew only a few edits, but after the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers/Weather Underground so-called "connection" story broke last week, it attracted more attention and a major rewrite and trimming. In the rewrite, the article was described as "overfootnoted", a term I have not heard before. The original citations were retained, but their "quote=" values were removed, with the single exception of a self-serving statement by Mark Rudd describing his Weather Underground comrades' nail bombs as "...crude mirrors of the anti-personnel weapons the U.S. was raining down on Indochina".

The rewriting editor and an anonymous IP from the same geographical area have accused me on the talk page and in edit summaries of copyright violation, as well as of "lacking judgement in a big way", and have given an uncivil recounting of my other alleged crimes against Wikipedia. I admit that I am not the world's best or most terse writer, and now that I have had time to cool down I will not deny that the rewrite generally improved the article. But I do need to know whether citing a news article's lead in a footnote constitutes copyright violation. --CliffC (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As a secondary issue, the names of the reporters writing the various Times articles were also removed from the citations, as "trivial". I'd like to have an opinion on this action as well. --CliffC (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A better place would be to head to the requests for thirs opinion page or list a request for comment. These will help you to draw more comment on the content of the page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree with those suggestions. This is a broad policy question, not a question about a single article. I know copyright is a sensitive subject and questions about it can take a long time to answer, but I'd like to see a statement of Wikipedia policy on this. Surely it's an issue that has come up before. I have removed the 'resolved' tag. --CliffC (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. Consider reading these policies dealing with copyrights and how material may be used in Wikipedia articles. I don't see that they definitely discuss what you're talking about, but they're a start. I applaud your attempt to discuss on the article's talk page, but you never responded to Hurmata's reply. If you cannot resolve things on the talk page, then you may consider following Pastordavid's advice or even dispute resolution. Fleetflame 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, although I had expected to be pointed to specific policy on the fair use of copyrighted material in {{cite news}} templates, and perhaps on whether reporter names are "trivia". I don't have time at present to pursue this, so for the purposes of EAR you may mark the subject closed. I'll copy this section to the article's talk page for the record. --CliffC (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Technocracy articles

Stale: Please open a new thread if further assistance is needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Im looking for assistance from anyone willing to help me improve this article Technocracy movement and disambiguation page Technocracy as they are suffering from rolling edits/reverts, accusations, personal opinions and general controversy

any input on how to get some consensus and reduce the continuous sets of rolling edits/reverts and provide some neutral comment would be welcome

as I'm relatively new it would also be helpful if anyone can tell me if I am misinterpreting and policies, guidelines or definitions relevant to the article, Im attempting to remain neutral but, its getting a little difficult when edits are reverted with little explanation or discussion, and what comment is made does not appear to make sense to me

thanks for any assistance (Firebladed (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

This appears to be a very involved discussion. If you and other editors are having difficulties resolving your differences, you may consider trying some form of dispute resolution. If anyone is close to breaking the three-revert rule, warn them (put "{{subst:uw-3rr}}" minus quotes on their talk page) and report them if they break it. You may wish to request page protection if things get way out of hand. Good luck! Fleetflame 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Copa Sudamericana 2008

Stale: Please open a new thread if needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Copa Sudamericana 2008 article, I have gotten into a revet war with another user who is seeking to make an assertion without any source. The debate in question is over the involvement of a team (Deportivo Saprissa) in the competition. He refers to an out of date article as proof that they are involved. I have continued to cite that article as well as a more recent article that makes a different assertion (specifically, that they will not participate). Furthermore, I have made my points on the talk page for discussion. I have made the point that information should not be listed unless it is definite and supported by source material. Ltv100 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Jersey

Stuck: Additional help may still be needed if anyone wants to jump in. Pastordavid (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One editor has latched onto the Central Jersey article and is using the space to create complexities that don't really exist. Suggestions and criticisms on the talk page are greeted with derision. I've commented on the main editor's tone without effect. The article wanders into related topics and creates terms that don't exist. I posted a banner challenging the topic and saying sources were insufficient, but the main editor removed it. I tried reducing the article today and I received a series of hostile replies. The article needs to be much simpler, less filled with controversy and conjecture. There is no question of whether Central Jersey and the Raritan Valley exist. I hope you can help to get the editor to let this be a collaborative process as it should be. I've had considerable success in other areas of Wiki. --Pat (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't resolve the issue with the article itself yet, but I've sifted through the article's lengthy and convoluted talk page, making some formatting changes (leaving content untouched) so that the past discussion is at least readable for any other editors that want to jump in. I also archived some of the older talk page sections which may help some of the article's regular editors to put some of the past friction behind them. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It's a start. --Pat (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am ashamed to report that in my attempts to encourage more collaborative behavior out of the main editor, I ended up getting sucked down into edit warring with them. I think I may have ended up steeling the editor's resolve to rule the article with an iron fist like never before. My sincere apologies for this botched effort. I'm going to stay away from this article and editor for the forseeable future. This issue still requires assistance, from someone with more experience and skill than I. Please help the editors of this article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Konami Code

Stuck: If it is beyond DGG, it is beyond me as well. Pastordavid (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a user unilaterally dominating the Konami Code article, specifically the subsection on "References in Popular Culture." No clear criteria for notability has been established for this section, and yet whenever I add a reference, he declares it non-notable and reverts the edit.

Meanwhile, when I removed one of the references he added, which appeared to be no more notable than mine, he put a warning on my Talk page and re-added his reference.

I think we need an outside adjudicator to step in and provide some guidelines as to where to draw the notability line.

-- (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any established guideline that might be more specific, Wikipedia:Notability is the standard. It's always worth posting to the article's Talk page to try and discuss the matter quietly and civilly. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:N does not deal directly with article content, and with the use of references. I'll take a look at the article, just as an outside editor. I find I do not know enough about the subject and the allusions to understand the significance of the sources here. DGG (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Trailer Gator

Resolved: Not much else to do now. Fleetflame 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Trailer Gator is a new coupler lock. The Trailer Gator is not easily defeated, yet it maintains a simple design that provides utility and security to the vast majority of trailer styles in America. Without the Trailer Gator, the typical coupler lock secures the hitch, leaving the coupler exposed and vulnerable. The Trailer Gator protects the trailer by covering the coupler and preventing its removal.

This entry is on your list for early deletion; this is a new device and is patent pending at the USPTO. The web-site is currently under construction and will be available 05/19/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagartglobal (talkcontribs) 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the product you're attempting to create an article for is not notable under our guidelines. It requires substantial reliable sources discussing it before it would become notable, something that a new product is very likely not going to be getting. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Needing help on this issue

Resolved: discussion is normally the key - in this case another editor solved the problem

Designated Market Area and city of license are sometimes different for TV stations. For instance if you click the above link provided you will see if you go down to Florida station WJXX- Orange Park. Orange Park is the COL for WJXX while Jacksonville is the DMA for the station--the market the station is in and serves. In order to show this on this list when the COL and the DMA is different the DMA is put in brackets for example "Orange Park (Jacksonville) - WJXX 25" In this example which is one of many it NOT made clear on the top just what Jacksonville in brackets is. It does not clarify what cities in brackets by the COL are. I think for some people it may be confusing so in the top of the paragraph for this article as well as other affiliates by state I added in the words " and Designated Market Area in parentheses when the COL is different then the DMA." One other editor on here has a issue with this at which time has resulted in a dispute between myself and him. I am asking for help on this as far as opinon. The DMA is already listed on these lists. I just want to make it clear for those that may be reading them.

This is what is the original wording in the paragraph. "This is a listing of ABC's affiliates, arranged alphabetically by state, and based on the station's city of license."

This is what I am proposing. "This is a listing of ABC's affiliates, arranged alphabetically by state, and based on the station's city of license and Designated Market Area in parentheses when the COL is different then the DMA."

Thank you Oak999 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that your proposed version is confusing and perhaps misleading - you've added information to the clause beginning "arranged alphabetically by...". I note that another user has since put in a compromise version and I hope this is okay. In future, just discuss it on the Talk page and try to avoid reverting without comment or discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization Typo in Title

Resolved: Moved --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just put up an article about Ed Lucas. Unfortunately I failed to capitalize his last name in the article title. (It is currently "Ed lucas" rather than "Ed Lucas") Is there a way that I can fix this myself or will an editor be so kind as to change it for me? Thank you.

Done. You can do it too; just click on the Move tab at the top of the page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed to format Ferrite (iron)

Resolved: Dorvaq (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a wiki markup expert please have a look at Ferrite (iron)? There's a big blank space above the text and I don't know how to fix it. It looks as if text is failing to wrap around the infobox, so perhaps the infobox template itself has a problem. Thanks. --Heron (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cancel that request. I've fixed it. --Heron (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Page published without consensus

Stale: Certainly more needed here. Assistants encouraged to watchlist. Please open a new thread as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I need some guidance on how to handle this situation. This is regarding the Sahaj Marg page which has been published today suddenly without achieving consensus. User: Cult Free World started this page in his userspace [2], and filled it up with information not meeting WP policies. Myself and other editors spent a lot of time pointing out the violations as you may see here but so far almost none of them have been implemented. Clearly there was no consensus achieved on the content among all involved editors. Surprisingly, User: Sethie published this page, apparently after getting fed up with no progress [3] happening at the discussion. Other noteworthy things about the User: CFW is that it would not let anyone edit this article when it was at its userspace, also there is a sock case going on this user against users who have attempted to create similar pages on this subject in past filled with content not meeting WP standards, those pages and users have been deleted/blocked from WP permanently.

My question is, what is the right thing to do in this case? Duty2love (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut for Lieberman page

Stale: Please open a new thread as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to post content from this article to the CFL page. There has been some dispute as to content, and an outside editor is needed for additions. Thank you. --Seraphim55 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

typifying valuable new user as as a canvasser violating WP:EL and threat of block

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, have come across a situation in which a respected hard-working admin has reverted EL placed by a new editor, and threatened them with blocking. On being asked why admin replied, in part, "If you examine the editors brief history, you'll see that they started out by canvassing numerous articles with links to the same site, a violation of WP:EL and probably WP:COI...."[Discussion at admins talk page] [diff of blocking threat at new users talk page]

I can see nothing that the new editor has done that is contrary to WP policy. I see edits that benefitted WP. I am concerned that a valuable new editor with an outlook rare on WP is being given a negative introduction to WP without having done anything disruptive.

The new user says they are an agricultural scientist from a tropical country. The links added seem notable, very relevant and well suited to the articles. This editor appears to be offering information from a much needed global perspective on these articles.

The new editor added ELs to 4 pages - the ELs are still in place on 2 of those pages - apparently accepted by the active editors. The involved admin appears unique in identifying a violation of WP policies here.

I have expressed my concerns to the admin involved on his talk page. He repeats his position. (see 1st paragraph)

I am seeking an understanding of WP policies and procedures as it applies to this situation. Is the admin correct in his view of the situation? If so please show me how. If not, what can I do to prevent him threatening other valuable new users without proper basis? SmithBlue (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question spends a great deal of time dealing with inappropriate links on wikipedia - and gets a lot of flack in return from editors who want to promote their own websites. The "blocking threat" is simply what we call a warning - there are all sorts of user-warnings, and they usually progress up to the point of warning about blocking (as these did). They are not personal attacks, they are statements of reality - continuing to add inappropriate links leads to blocking.
As to the quality of the links - well, I'll stay out of that and defer to people (like this admin) who spend more time sorting through the thousands of self-promotional links wikipedia gets everyday. What I will say is that the editor was repeatedly adding links to the same site - and that sure smells like spam to me. Indeed, he/she continued to add the links after being warned not to - which is what led to the warning about being blocked. Pastordavid (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue Falcon

Resolved: Or at least, moved on to WP:AFD and the thread below. Pastordavid (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone please have a look at this article - from the history, it seems to be the subject of a revert war involving Ronjohn - he's quoted several references, but this would seem to fall under WP:NEO - what's the next step ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See #Blue Falcon article further down the page. Might be best to let the jargon have its day and then see if it stands up. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I get a person to stop reverting my edits?

Stale: Please open a new thread as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have gotten involved in a bit of an edit war and I'm trying to find a civil way of resolving it. I guess I can do a third-party opinion, but I want to find out if there are other ways.

User has been adding information and (red) links to the article, List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums, and the template, Template:NOW music albums, that I feel shouldn't be there because of it being about an unconfirmed upcoming album (Now That's What I Call Music! 29 (U.S. series)), even though it is more than likely it will happen. Others have tried to add an article for it, but they have been speedily deleted and I think, for the same reason, this info shouldn't be on these pages.

After going back and forth a couple of times, I have posted messages on the user's talk page at User talk: with my reasons and have changed things back, but still the person reverts my edits without explanation.

Hopefully, I've provided enough info here, but let me what I can do to prevent this from continuing. Of course, I guess, I can just let it go. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First, be careful not to violate WP:3RR yourself. Asking for help was a good idea. I'll take a look at the article and see how things look. Aleta Sing 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Need Help

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to represent both sides of the argument on the Meijer article. Ten pound hammer reverts my edits. The current article is not accurate and portrays Meijer as a gay unfriendly company. I worked at Meijer and they have many policies in place that protect all employees. I am new to Wiki and I need help with this. How do I do it?

Howdoyoudoit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdoyoudoit (talkcontribs) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything you add needs to be sourced, or it can be removed, as is the case here. You need a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper, an independently written article in a reputable magazine, or something like that. This guideline might be worth a read. Feel free to come back or leave a message on my talk page if you have questions. Good luck, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

my link

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good morning,

Today i posted my first article about link brokers on the "linking page" with a link to the website Unfortunately when i later went back onto the page to view my post i noticed the link had been removed.

Please advise as to why this happened and how i can go about getting the link back on my article as i get alot of useful information from this site and would love for other people out there who are also interested in these topics to be able to view this veru useful site.

Kindest regards

New487 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by New 487 (talkcontribs) 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When adding links consider this from External links to avoid: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.. The particular site you added is a mishmash of forum/auction/blog/SEO guidance and I wouldn't hesitate for a minute removing it. One of the links you created for a deleted article linked directly to a blog there. The other problem is overly emphasizing a site, when a more neutral site would be better. Many of the issues raised on the site you linked to are covered by mainstream media and more importantly discuss issues in a neutral way. If you can find a source it is better to use it from a researched article than somebody else's opinion.
Wikipedia is not a how to do it site, SEO blogs do it much better. So forums/blogs/education articles based on personal experience is a big NO. SEO blogs are interesting and informative, but not reason enough to link to them. Even some of our Administrator's have contributed to SEO sites - a great example is this by Durova, SEO Tips and Tactics from a Wikipedia Insider. The golden rule here is that if a site looks like it is selling something, don't link to it; If it contains opinion or "my experience", then keep it very far away from Wikipedia. -- EhsanQ (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

image deletion

Resolved: asked. answered. copyrighted. Pastordavid (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the article "Difference map algorithm" I created an image reconstruction demonstration based on the Wikipedia logo. The data for the reconstruction is the diffraction pattern of the logo, and is shown in the image "Wiki speckle.png". The whole point of the demonstration was lost, however, when the image of the reconstruction process was deleted. This image, Wiki reconstruct.png, was created by the reconstruction algorithm using just the complex speckle pattern of "Wiki speckle.png". The Wikipedia logo is an appropriate choice for this demonstration because the demonstration was created specifically for Wikipedia. There are also technical reasons (grayscale contrast, white background) that make the Wikipedia logo an excellent choice.

I hope the editors acknowledge the considerable effort involved in the creation of this image and will reverse the decision of the robot to delete it from the article.

Veit Elser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veit Elser (talkcontribs) 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the Wikipedia logo is a copyrighted image, and while its use is allowed in the top-left corner of the screen you're probably looking at, it is not allowed to be used on Article, User, or Talk pages. The thing that makes this complicated is that other websites are allowed to copy our articles and images under the terms of the GFDL but that does not (if I understand correctly) allow them to use the Wikipedia logo. I think that this is why you can't use the Wikipedia logo as a basis for an image in an article. I'd suggest you use an image of your own creation, or a public-domain image (hint: US government or NASA). Hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Needing eyes on a content dispute

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am watching/participating in a content dispute at Pontius Pilate's wife (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). With my involvement, there is already a 3rd opinion, so that's not an option, and its not to the point of needing an RfC. A relatively new editor took a stab at this (learning the ropes of article building) and was quickly reverted. Certainly, the additions he made needed some help, but the way it was done did not meet the cooperative spirit he was expecting on wikipedia. I jumped in, helped to improve his referencing and style, only to myself be reverted a number of times as well. I think everyone involved is editing in good faith, but there is certainly a slow edit war evolving.

All of this long explanation is to ask for you all to have a glance on this, and tell me if I am totally off base. I feel like sourced material, which is in the process of being improved, is being wholesale removed to get rid of a couple of questionable weasel words and insert some terrible wiki-formatting. Pastordavid (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Major change of spellings required everywhere in Hindi (India's national language) Wikipedia

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the spellings of Hindi in all the pages of Hindi language and written script word "Hindi" is wrong and needs editing everywhere where it says word Hindi in Hindi script on wikipedia. I have written the correct spellings below . If you need any further details please refer to BBC Hindi for correct spellings.

िहंदी् - This is the right way to write "Hindi" in Hindi script - GOOD फगल्ग - This is the wrong "Hindi" in script -BAD

I agree, फगल्ग (حىندى) is not acceptable and hints at Urdu, िहंदी् (Hindi).

Add all your concerns and let editors decided by concensus. -- EhsanQ (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

COI help

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I work at an academic medical center with existing entries for our medical center and school of medicine. These entries are brief and contain little about the history and missions of the institution. Would it be in violation of Wikipedia COI for me to add to these entries this sort of neutral and non-promotional information?

Thanks. Carlsburg (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would not necessarily be a problem. All contributors should consider Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and verifiability—material needs to be fair and neutral, and sourced to reliable sources so that it can be verified by readers. The above links should provide some guidelines to you. As for conflict of interest, you can get answers from people who are more expert in COI issues at the COI noticeboard: WP:COIN. Hope this helps, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over "Norman Ralph Bowen"

Resolved: Or heading that way, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Ralph Bowen. Pastordavid (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like an article I posted some time ago (Norman Ralph Bowen) has been singled out by one or two editors for deletion due to a personal agenda and request assistance in resolving this dispute. Thank you.

Pbsolomon (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Eustress and Dhartung, the two editors you seem to be dealing with, have raised good points: because of Wikipedia's policy of notability, which states that "Notability requires objective evidence," reliable, third-party sources must be found to back up the notability of any article's subject. There seems to be a lack of them for Norman Ralph Bowen; therefore, unless you can find some and cite the article very well with them, it looks like the AFD will result in a deletion. Please be aware that this is not a real dispute, and we are not questioning your editing abilities; it just doesn't seem like Norman Bowen is notable enough for an article. Fleetflame 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus and disambiguation

Resolved: Discussion has been brought up at appropriate article talk pages. Pastordavid (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In Sanskrit Jesus is known as Easa and Easa Maseeha according to Bhavishya Purana and other scriptures. In Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka Jesus is known as Easa and Easa Maseeha. That information is important to South Asian Christians and needs to be merged in Jesus article.

Source - [[4]]

Source - [[5]]

--Rajput94 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best place to discuss this would be Talk:Jesus. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Jesus? Doesn't that redirect to Prayer? I'm so sorry, I couldn't resist....:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All that may indeed be true. However, this is the english wikipedia. Every article does not cover the name of the subject in various different languages. Pastordavid (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RSPB page

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)



The RSPB page in Wikipedia states that the organisation is environmentalist. However the organisation has a history of opposing major ‘renewable energy projects’ in the UK. This I feel is a somewhat hypocritical stance, yet when I tried to include the information along with references from the BBC it was removed in seconds and my ID was blocked as vandalism. I am aware that the RSPB is a very influential group and are not to keen on anyone questioning their position.

In addition I also included reference that they tend to object to anyone legally using the UK countryside in a manner that they consider inappropriate eg wildfowlers (those who legally hunt large birds).

Whilst not a wildfowler I do take acception that an inclusion in article can be blocked identifying what I understand as hypocrisy, who’s heard of an environmentalist group objecting to renewable energy. Surely if such an influential group take such a stance it must be highlighted, it is not for the group to remove the comments in this public domain but to either explain why or drop the ‘environmentalist’ tag from the article or is it that they consider that such observations should not be brought to the public eye lest they loose support, influence and income. Perhaps they want to control peoples thoughts and consider the page their property.

Contact cascade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contact cascade (talkcontribs) 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that your edits are being reverted by anyone connected to the RSPB trying to control "their" page. Edits are likely to be reverted when information is added that is controversial and not properly sourced. It is really important that you cite reliable sources whenever you add new information to an article. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources.) It's also important that articles have a neutral point of view. The best thing to do before adding this information again would be to start a discussion on the article talkpage explaining your intention and getting other opinions. --BelovedFreak 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Air Force Good Conduct Medal ribbon.png

Resolved: Discussion moved to the appropriate venue. Pastordavid (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the following use of Air Force Good Conduct Medal ribbon.png - Image:Air Force Good Conduct Medal ribbon.png considered acceptable?

User:Pesco deleted the image from User:BetacommandBot with the following edit summary: (→Awards: A real military award should not be used as part of a Wikipedia award....)

User:Betacommand, as expected, reverted the deletion

I personally agree with Pesco that it is an inappropriate use of the image; but I have not been able to find any Wikipedia policy that would support either POV.

I have reviewed all of the other user pages where the image is being used, and in every case it is in relationship to the actual military award, not some made up Wikipedia Award.

Thank you for your assistance in advance. Dbiel (Talk) 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It has since been deleted again by User:Pesco Dbiel (Talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain. As such, anyone may use it for any purpose at all. There's no need to remove it from a user page. 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply Dbiel (Talk)
Jayron, I appreciate your response. I agree that the image is public domain, but I disagree that it may be used for any purpose at all. There are laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 704 that govern the use & display of military decorations. It certainly is not appropriate, and it may not be legal, for a military decoration to be incorporated into a Wikipedia award. I would ask you to reconsider. Thank you. Also, I would ask that other editors state their opinion on this issue. --Pesco (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be mixing the use of an image and the physical medal or ribbon. 704 is about Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration the image is not a physical medal or ribbon it is a public domain image which can be used for any purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on that language, I don't think it's illegal, but it's certainly disrespectful to those who have been awarded the medal to repurpose it like this. Why not just make a specific ribbon for that Wiki award? It's not that difficult. – flamurai (t) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I would agree it does not have to be used but note that most readers would see it as a pretty ribbon (and it only appears on very few user talk pages) and only a very small number of people would even know what the origin of the ribbon was. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We have, in the past, changed some wikipedia awards that were too close to real awards - such as when the purple heart was used in a barnstar. Can and should are two very different questions. Might I suggest posing this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards? Pastordavid (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it matters how many readers know its origin. It's a sensitive area, disrespectful, easily replaceable, and has little reward. There's no reason not to make a unique award, so it seems pointless to use an actual military decoration. – flamurai (t) 22:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be benefit to discussing the issue in a more of a policy-making related area, I'm not sure where the best one would be. The U.S. Code cite may not be totally applicable in this case, but another reference is: 32 CFR 507.12(c). If you read paragraph (c), it states that "ribbons and service ribbons... or colorable imitations thereof, will not be used by any organization, society, or other group of persons without prior approval" of the military. So to display the image in the context of the original award should be fine, but I interpret someone using the image to make a new Wikipedia award as "use" by Wikipedia, which is not permitted without approval. --Pesco (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds more like it applies. If it needs to be discussed in a policy making area, it needs to be discussed there. But I think this is just common sense. Make your own award graphic! – flamurai (t) 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll find some kind of policy area and bring it up there. Wasn't an award I gave out or given to me. --Pesco (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've opened up a "Request for Comment" at the talk:Image use policy page. Thanks! --Pesco (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

please explain why my link is black listed?

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


i tried to edit the external link section of the reggae page, with the link, i really think that the reggae auction website has it's place under the links of this page as it represents not only buying / selling activity, but a lot of long lost recordings and usefull informations as also the possibility to hear those rare and hard to find records records. The Website provides a wide aperture on the reggae music scene from all eras with concrete content and extensive media representation. Please explain to me why you think exactly the website do not belong on that external link section apart from beeing a market place, and even if finally it was the only reason i would like you to reconsider that point as clearly the site provides usefull content on long lost reggae materials? Best Regards, Renaud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggae auction (talkcontribs) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, links are blacklisted because someone affiliated with the site is trying to insert them into articles. That does appear to be happening here. If you are affiliated with the site (which, from your username and use of "my link", I presume you are), you should suggest the site on the talk page to see if other editors wish to include it, as it is a conflict of interest to do so yourself. Repeated insertion of links, especially commercial ones and especially when there is a COI, will result in blacklisting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Love Tractor

Resolved: No actual request for assistance. Pastordavid (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Love Tractor is a band that is still active...continues to make albums...has a current record contract, plays gigs, etc.... former members of the band from days gone by continuosly DELETE information about the band in the days since they decided to leave..... out of jealously and sour grapes.... they have already been overruled by lawyers and courts of law, but, having nothing better to do with their lives, they screw with the history of the band on WIKIPEDIA. We'd like this to stop....thank you ! Love Tractor - 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on Love Tractor has remained substantially unchanged since April 1, 2008, when unsourced info about the band's break-up was removed. What assistance are you looking for? Pastordavid (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

External links in body of article

Resolved: Thanks to Fuhgettaboutit. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody have a moment please to take a look at Talk:Intangible_asset_finance#May 08 edits and so on please? I think I'm correct in removing ELs from the body of the article, but I'd appreciate another point of view before I get too close to 3RR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Detailed post left on article's talk page. Short summary: removal of links is proper based on WP:EL and other policies and guidelines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent policy breaches

Resolved: At least in this instance. Please open a new thread if problems resume. Pastordavid (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you guys take a look at this guy removing good content and sources and inserting poorly sourced / unsourced material in Taurus (astrology) and Cancer (astrology)? I don't want to edit-war this guy. Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left information on the IP's talk page; we'll see how things turn out. You may consider requesting page protection. Fleetflame 00:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with it! I've been so caught up with them warning templates, but you wrote it down perfectly. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue Falcon article

Resolved: Discussion moved to AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also mentioned at #Blue Falcon
Every time I post the military use of the term Blue Falcon User talk:Kinu keeps removing the military connotation of the word (with references) and replaces it redirects to a cartoon character. In my Blue Falcon edit I make sure that I include a "wiki link" to Blue Falcon. I'd like to report him for vandalism.Ron John (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Replacing an unsourced junk article with a legitimate redirect is not vandalism. And if by "every time" you mean "once" (up until just now)... --Kinu t/c 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron John, you could put your slang article at Blue Falcon (military jargon) and then create Blue Falcon (disambiguation) as a disambiguation page to distinguish between them. We could then put a note on the top of the Dynomutt article to say "Blue Falcon redirects here. For other uses, see Blue Falcon (disambiguation)." That might be a good way to manage it.
Of course, I don't know if the jargon article would survive for long; that would depend on the quality of the sources. But give it a try. Let me know if you need help with any of this. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The only "references" provided were Urban Dictionary and a blog. In order for this edit not to be perceived as vandalism, it should be written in an encyclopedic manner (the version I reverted was hardly close) and also contain reliable sources. Otherwise, it will simply continue to be reverted. --Kinu t/c 14:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite, but let's not be too bite-ish. Ron John can take a shot under another title without disrupting the existing redirect; that can be evaluated on its own merits; and there are fairly easy ways of tying it all together. No urgent need to pre-judge, as far as I can see. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The military jargon iteration got nominated at AfD so this thread has been superseded, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also blue falcon is known as the: 3rd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment[6] . There should be no redirects to some corney carton that barely anyones about.Ron John (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. As for your other comment, neither you nor I can decide that; it will be determined by consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Robert Todd Carroll, 2005. "The Skeptics Dictionary: Graphology".
  2. ^ Docentes - ARP-SAPC
  3. ^ Forensic Document Examination
  4. ^ Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience - Barry L. Beyerstein (in English)
  5. ^ How Graphology Fools People
  6. ^ 3rd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment