Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 25

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


Stale: SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where to post this, but I need serious assistance. On The 8th of June 2008, I was on IRC, when I was requested to join a private channel, which contained 3 people; myself, User:Ryan Postlethwaite, and User:Tiptoety (whom I had an altercation with earlier today, he accused me of 'Harrassment and Stalking' - [1]).
Apon entering this channel, I was instantly blitzed with questions demanding that I "tell them who I was", I explained that I had previously edited as an IP, and that I had decided to create an account for myself. I was immediately treated as a liar, and was threatend with a checkuser case.
I need this sorted out, this is completely unacceptable conduct for administrators, and the whole experience has left me quite shaken and has seriously dented my veiws of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. Chafford (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I said to you that I didn't believe you were a new user given your earliest contributions. I don't believe that you're an IP editor, simply because of the clear knowledge of Wikipedia process and twinkle seen in your earliest edits. I still don't believe you're a new editor and I am still looking into this. I discussed this with you on IRC, rather than here, simply because it was much better to do it in private rather than asking you about it in public - it wouldn't really have been fair on you. Yeah, I am considering filing an RFCU, or sending this to a CU, but I've got to investigate it further first. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You can believe what you want, I just don't see why you are so concerned about me, have you nothing better to do? Evedently not. Chafford (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Have this user's contributions raised a concern of abusing multiple accounts? Using multiple accounts is acceptable in some circumstances, after all. A RFCU typically follows a SSP report. A note to Chafford about one thing you're doing and shouldn't be- don't revert on user talk pages. Users are generally allowed to remove warnings from their own page. If there is a request to block or take other action, it can still be seen in the history that they were warned. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Systematic attack on work referring to J. Marvin Herndon

Stale: SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I posted an article "J. Marvin Herndon" which arroused some ire and after emails and discussion, there was some recognization that notability applied here, and the article was removed from the intention to delete catagory, and edits have begun to be made. Apparently, though, the interaction triggered an assult on nearly every Wikipedia article pertaining to my work, al of which is published in world-class, peer-reviewed scientific journals. The most egregious assult seems to have been perpetrated by Vsmith. I have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but to no avail. For example, someone posted an article about some of my work entitled Whole-Earth decompression dynamics, Vsmith proposed it for deletion. Vsmith, along with D.H., was involved with removing the edit that I made to "Dynamo theory", removal which, as I explained on D.H.'s talk page, intentionally misleads wiki-readership. On the page, "Georeactor" someone had posted a quote from a newspaper article under the section 'criticism', which, taken out of context, was pejorative in the extreme. I added a brief statement ( referencing the whole story posted at )showing the context, which gave a more neutral point of view, but Vsmith removed my edit. What stands now is the unfounded pejorative characterization which is definitly non-NPOV. Another assult occurred on an article I posted two years ago, "Stellar ignition". Over time that article had been improved and an additional reference was added. Then, after I posted the "J. Marvin Herndon" page, Cquan made the page "Stellar ignition" disappear by redirecting the subject name to "Star formation" which is yet to carry any of the information content that was the basis of :Stellar ignition". Taken to gether these all seem to be a concerted attack against me and the work I have published. This is wrong. Science is about discovering the true nature of Earth and Universe and communicating that knowledge truthfully. There is no wiki prohibition about referencing one own work as long as it is done so objectively. All of my posts have been objective and fully referenced. It is wrong to claim "soapbox" and mount a systemic attack against me and my work. This is a serious matter which needs to be addressed.Marvin Herndon (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I want a pardon for my past edition and I am sorry for the same. Please advice me the way for pardon.

Stale: Wikipedia doesn't give out pardons SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I want a pardon for my past edition on chirstianity in India and I am sorry for the same. I was influenced by some outside parties for the same. I confirm that I will not make any edition of similar nature in the future. I also confirm that I will fully abide by your policies. I had tired to contact you in past by sending an e mail but the same was not fruitful. I deeply regret my action. Please advice me the way for pardon.


R. S.

phone number removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit or edits you are referring to, but I would have thought that the best way forward is to simply start contributing constructively to the encyclopaedia. Also, if you haven't already done so, consider getting a user account.--BelovedFreak 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If you could be more specific, as in what you changed and the date; then we can at least figure out what IP address or account you're referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This anon seems to have been editing in conjunction with another anon (also at Barclays Bank), Special:Contributions/ I looked over some of their edit history and various bits of vandalism seem to have been reverted already. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Teachers Building Society page

Resolved: ...for now. Editor is aware of COI guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, This page has included notices about neutral content and conflict of interest for some time. I have ensured that the content is neutral and have used the Society's logo purely for identification purposes (there is another company - Teachers Assurance - that people sometimes confuse with Teachers Building Society). Can someone review the page so that the notices might be removed please? Many thanks Teachersbs (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks quite clean to me, and so I removed the conflict of interest and advertisement templates. I suppose fact of the COI remains, but I didn't see it working its way into the article. BTW, the Talk page indicates that the image may be deleted - you may want to follow up on that to get the licensing straight. JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The conflict of interest remains since you appear to be connected to the Building Society (from your username). Just be careful when editing pages about things you are connected to. The article could really do with some references to coverage in third party reliable sources. As for the image, it should be fine. the warning on the talkpage seems to refer to an old version. --BelovedFreak 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

why was travelonly deleted

Stale: Questions answered, perhaps not to the original poster's satisfaction. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried to enter information like every other travel site. Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, etc. and they all have the same information i uploaded. i think it is totaly unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gluciani (talkcontribs) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! That page was deleted because it was blatant advertising. :-) Stwalkerstertalk ] 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the article you wrote, Travelonly was deleted because an administrator believed it to be blatant advertising. Don't take it personally. Wikipedia has certain standards of notability and verifiability. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory, so many companies do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. See if you can find any significant coverage of Travelonly in reliable third party sources that will help to demonstrate notability. One last thing, I don't know if you are in some way connected to Travelonly, but if you are, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and be aware that editing articles about subjects you are connected to is strongly discouraged. --BelovedFreak 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of blog from recognized authority for BLP

Stale: The battlin' bible references have moved on, apparently. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

2 Questions:

1.) Can I use the blog from a recognized authority as a source for a quote of a Wiki BLP? The blog is that of Tom Ascol, a minister and Executive Director of Founders Ministries ( Founders Ministries is a non-profit organization and has a Board of Directors supervising it. I'm not wanting to quote an opinion from the blog, but some quotes he includes from a sermon of a minister that is no longer available online.

2.) Two editors of a Wiki BLP page apparently have editing powers of the BLP's websites. In one case, an editor cited the sermon hosted at their site, and while he was arguing with the editor, the link from the page disappeared. Another time, the editor changed information on a page he cited, while arguing.

Can you tell me what, if anything we can do about this editing of sources by wiki editors? Romans9:11 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an editor but since did find the answer to this question straight from wiki policy...

"Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources"Johnb316 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, now can I have an answer from someone else besides the detractor who keeps causing all these problems? And from someone who has actually made a contribution to Wiki? I've already read the Wiki guidelines which this disruptive editor (read his contribs page) has posted PARTS of, and they aren't real clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romans9:11 (talkcontribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, Johnb, you are too an editor, anybody who makes any edit to Wikipedia is an editor :)
Romans9:11, the problem you are complaining about of people editing the sources is a very good reason we don't allow self-published sources. If you cite a blog, then the blogger decides they don't like the article, they just change their blog, and voila! Wikiality has changed once again. I would lean highly against using info from a blog, no matter how well respected the blogger is.
Can you give me a diff of the edit you are having trouble with? A guide to creating diffs can be found here. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Stale: No further contribs from IP SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've made some edits to my company's Wiki page (MeadWestvaco) and someone felt at liberty to overwrite the changes suggesting they were PR-talk - the are not, the comments were taken directly from our SEC filing, which is a public and legal document. The content that is currently published is inaccurate and out of date. My corrections were an attempt to rememdy those issues.

I am very concerned that someone without knowledge of the company has the right to undo my changes.

Molly Wenzler (email removed by OnoremDil 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You're referring to this revert. Two major problems with your edits: 1) You made it read like an advertisement, 2) you completely removed the section "Environmental record", which was properly cited. It's not acceptable to whitewash articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
According to Talk:MeadWestvaco you've done this before, and it was also reverted. Administrator intervention might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminately editing my entries

Stale: SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance to intercede for the following users:

1. Nanami Kamimura 2. Howard the Duck 3. Harlock jds

If there’s some irregularities from my previous posts Pinoy Idol, Idol Series, why targeting my other posts? Always reiterating my sources. I got my sources directly from a reputable site, which owned the franchise related to my entries. As I’ve checked the history of that entry, all of them (the users) undoing everything. Even it’s a valid edition.

Hope you can comment on this. Thanks.

Webwires —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwires (talkcontribs) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think you still have a lot of policies to read and understand. Concerning your edits on Idol series, they clash with WP:NFC, espcially on minimal usage. The five logos are already enough to generally illustrate the difference between Idol series logos. About twenty or so is way too many. As for sources, blogs and forums are not the best sources of info; read WP:V and WP:SPS. You can also ask WP:RS/N to make sure if your sources are reliable at all. I'm just reminding you of what you are doing, so don't take it personally on us. (Read WP:ATTACK and WP:POINT for more.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Resolved: (I hope) More eyes are on the article, and the original poster seems to have been proved correct. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the article, because I was interested in the subject material. What I found when I read it was that one of the people editing the article seems to be a first person to the situation. I pointed that out on the talk page and got a relatively bizarre response from the editor in question. Could someone review the discussion on the talk page and tell me if I'm off base? Thanks in advance! --SilverhandTalk 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible that User:LaserHaas has the risk of a conflict of interest in this article. However, it looks like most of his recent contributions have been reverted. The whole article is a bit of a mess; I'll try to clean it up later on. A lot of the legal stuff ought to be moved out to another article - which might or might not endure. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I had intended on doing something similar to what you mentioned when I had time, but after his response where it seems User:LaserHaas ever so slightly freaked out, I wasn't sure what to do. I looked at his talk page and it looks like this isn't the first time with this time of misunderstanding. I just don't think he understands the policies, but I could be wrong. Anyway, thanks for the looksie! --SilverhandTalk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I made a quick pass at removing all of the information relating to the personal travails of User:Laserhaas, restoring the article to the state it was in just prior to August 2007. The article needs further cleanup and citation yet. JohnInDC (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Stale: This may yet resurface in other venues SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting assistance due to recent attacks from editor User:JPG-GR.

I have already asked an administrator to help and was directed here. Here is what I asked for:

I was wondering if you could help me with an issue I have with another user. User:JPG-GR. I feel this editor is putting personal attack warnings on pages without merit. For example, he recently put a threatening personal attack warning on my talk page [2], which had no merit. After I tried explaining to him why he had no merit, I get attacked in reply [3].

What I have come to notice is that this editor is attempting to act like an administrator and believes he has the authority to meddle with every single edit other editors do. The example above was me removing a page from my user page that was defunct and he automatically jumped on me. Same with the ongoing war with another user User:Radiolbx. Not that its any of my business, since he is a different editor, but he is new to Wikipedia and unlike you or I, may not understand policies yet. It took me several months to understand a lot about Wikipedia. I sincerely feel that JPG-GR is attacking radio [4] and assuming he knows the rules, which may or may not be true. Radio is having trouble defending himself!

Both of us are human editors, radio and I. We certainly make mistakes just like everyone else. What I don't like is being attacked and put down for no reason, and having my edits torn apart. I would appreciate some intervention on this matter. If this is the wrong place for this complaint, please direct me to the proper avenue, thanks!

This was taken from the admin's talk page. I would appreciate some assistance on this matter. Thanks! Milonica (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is making my brain hurt as well as Tony's. It looks to me like you removed a link to a deleted page with a comment about "page deleted by bully" and JPG-GR templated you as a result. That might have been excessive, but I too interpreted your edit summary as calling the deleting admin a bully. I then see where you posted on JPG-GR's page with a rationale, which was inventive but not entirely convincing to me. I'm sorry that you feel under attack, but the evidence you posted here doesn't really establish a long-running pattern.
If there are more substantial incidents then please point them out, but this seems like a storm in a teacup. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't calling the admin that deleted the page a bully, nor did I call JPG-GR a bully. I didn't say specifics. If I had anything against any admin, I wouldn't have put the speedy delete tag on my own page. JPG-GR believes that the bully is "him" even though again, I didn't say anyone in particular. Also, what about User:Radiolbx? Doesn't the fact that he is afraid to edit make things worse? Milonica (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
On the deletion/bully incident, I don't know who you thought was a bully; your comments were ambiguous. It might have been better to use another form of words. We might let JPG-GR speak to his/her own beliefs rather than assuming we know what they are; I don't think that will help.
On the question of Radiolbx, s/he can raise his/her own concerns if need be. I can't understand what happened there, not least because you edited Radiolbx's talkpage and that was out of line. I think I would recommend that you assume good faith and go back to constructive editing/writing. This posting will remain in an archive as a checkpoint. If there are subsequent incidents then we can consider them, but I think you're making too much out of rather little. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I can comment on that last bit... Radiolbx (talk · contribs) was making edits that had an unencyclopedic tone and were a potential conflict of interest. JPG-GR reverted his changes. The discussion turned a little nasty, and Radiolbx eventually gave up and left the project.
I'm a little disappointed in that outcome, as I believe Radiolbx was acting in good faith. I can't really point to anything specific that JPG-GR did wrong, though, and near the end Radiolbx was beginning to behave in an incivil manner, which we can't tolerate.
Disappointing, for sure, but I don't see any ongoing problem... I don't even see anything specific I can point to and say, "Ah hah, if I were JPG-GR, I would have done this differently!" I advise him of some more moderate means of dispute resolution rather than taking things straight to the Administrators' noticeboard, and he seemed grateful for the advice. I'm just not sure what other action you want taken...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Playmate Stats

Stale: Please add further comments to the Stephanie Adams thread below SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The playmate stats of one particular playmate, Stephanie Adams, keep getting removed by one or two users (who seem to have a history of trying to harass this article in particular), even though these facts have been in the article ever since playmate stats on Wikipedia were ever created, and should therefore remain in the article. Regardless of how people feel about playmate stats, until all of the stats have been removed on every single Playboy playmates's page, one playmate's page should not be blatantly vandalized. (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been a fairly controversial article for a while, and there has been much debate on the talk page about the inclusion of the stats in the article. There has been no consensus for inclusion, and so I have removed (again) the stats. If you check the editing histories of those removing versus those readding the stats, you will note that those removing have a history of editing more than just one article, while some of those readding seem to possibly be sock puppets, with history (mainly or only) editing the Stephanie Adams page. Would appreciate assistance in mediating this matter. As mentioned on the article's talk page, Jimbo Wales commented in favour of removing the stats. Wandering canadian (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it does not make sense to remove one, when they are all placed on every playmate's page. This celebrity page is no different from any other playmate's page. The only thing "controversial" is removing stats which were there long before when every other Playboy playmate's article was created. There are lots of "controversial" playmates, but they all have stats on their pages. As per Wikipedia articles on all playmates, these stats are consistent with the other ones, were always there, and therefore should remain. Remove them on every article after it is agreed to by Wikipedia. But until then, removing it on one page is considered to be vandalism. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of building consensus, it might be worth filing a request for comment. --BelovedFreak 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Haereticorum and Diocese article naming

Resolved: Discussion moved to better venue SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Haereticorum has moved a multitude (900+) of articles from the format of "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo" to "Diocese of Foo" for the time period from April 2008 thru June 2008 without concensus or support of a WP:NAME guidline. Attempts to contact the user on his talk page have not triggered a response, nor has the user participated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the large scale of the moves, I think your best course of action is to advertise the issue in a few carefully chosen places directing users to comment centrally at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles about whether the names should be moved back and see if there is consensus either way. This page is really not high profile enough to get you a large response, and it's not targted to users especially familiar with naming conventions. I'd try posting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, maybe Wikipedia talk:Requested moves (not quite about requested moves, but many of the most knowledgeable people on naming conventions may see it there), and maybe you could post a request for comment. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started a section in Wikipedia talk:Requested moves regarding this matter; we could discuss this there if all are content with this.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Stale: JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like anyone's help or advice in this matter. I, User: Lantana11, made a factual, documentable, and good-faith edit of article KCBS-TV on 11 June 2008 which was within an hour deleted by User: Rollosmokes in a summary fashion and without discussion (it was dismissed as "unnecessary"; all relevant information is contained in the article's archives). In fact the editor which made this deletion is one which I had been in contention with on similar subjects before; we had gone back and forth regarding another article until I gave up all efforts to reach consensus with him. This had never happened to me before, and I was so frustrated that I resorted to "sock puppetry" (a violation that at the time I did not know existed). My subsequent attempt to apologize to this editor for harsh words and to achieve friendly relations was brusquely rebuffed. As far as the edits to article "KCBS-TV" are concerned, I really have no need to promote the rightness of my information--I peruse Wikipedia merely for enjoyment--but I am beginning to feel uneasy about editing when I know there is another editor who awaits the chance to "put me in my place." Any further argument or "edit war" is not to my taste; I seek guidance or, if warranted, arbitration. Thank you in advance. Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what outcome you're looking for here. According to the history of KCBS-TV, you made 4 edits with UTC timestamps on 11 June; the 4th reverted the sum of the first 3, leaving the article unchanged. There are a further 6 with UTC stamps on 12 June which would have been on 11 June in any US timezone; the net effect of those 6 was reverted by Rollosmokes, about 2 1/2 hours after your last. Those are all the edits I see under your username; Rollosmokes has been editing that article since 9 May, if not earlier. There's no evidence that Rollosmokes followed you to that article; and his/her last revert isn't unreasonable either.
If you have other concerns then please bring them up here, or on my talk page if you prefer, but I don't see that there's a problem to solve here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking specifically at Rollosmokes' edit, I think your first paragraph was easier to read, but the second had a great deal of original research; be sure to take a look at WP:V and WP:RS. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you should be looking at WP:OWN, as the current situation in WikiProject Television Stations is veering dangerously toward one in which one individual (with occasional assistance of an accomplice or two) is systematically removing many contributions from outsiders as "irrelevant", "vandal", "non-consensus", "trivial", "sock puppet" or worse while forcing their own agenda on the series of articles. While some legitimate reversion of vandalism is occurring, massive reverts of valid edits are sadly routine over there. The project is not a small one (1800 US full-power stations, plus non-US stations and low-power TV) and there is much information which needs to be added, but more effort seems to be expended on revert wars than meaningful content. Not sure what to do about this. -- (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?

Resolved: 3O was used; edit wars have ceased. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not once, not twice, not three times but four times, the user Arcayne has persisted to remove sourced continuity points from this article. This follows lengthy discussion in Talk:Silence in the Library (sections 21-25), where consensus hugely overwhelmed his views. He has suggested continuity sections are removed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, which of course he has every right to do. But even though consesnsus appears to be going against him here also, he adamantly believes that his controversial viewpoint should stand while the discussion is ongoing, rather than the current legislation as outlined in the WikiProject. Despite my numerous requests on both his and my talk pages, he completely ignores my request that he leaves things as they are for now, instead choosing to level minor personal attacks on me (I find his claims of ownership behaviour particularly hypocritical). As I am rather dissapointed to receive my first warning for this, and do not wish to be caught in an edit war or be blocked, I have not reverted his removals again but have come here instead. Please can someone help common sense to pervail here? U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Said user has now removed a comment I left on his talk page with a rather rude edit summary. What he's trying to acheive here I don't know, but it's getting way out of hand. He seems to generally assume superiority over all other editors in pretty much every edit he makes. Needless to say I'm not prepared to communicate with him further under the current circumstances. All the evidence has been presented here. U-Mos (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, are users permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages? U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Users can remove warnings from their talk pages apart from those concerning unblock requests I believe, it is considered evidence that it has been read and understood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Considering that the diffs you point out were countered by you each time (1, 2, 3), I think the appropriate response would be something along the lines of 'hello pot, meet kettle'. I would advise you to more closely examine your edits (or rather edit-warring reverts) and look at the bits you keep editing in. I've pointed out numerous times (your discussion page immediately comes to mind) about how you should more closely examine your edits before reverting them, which rather fell on deaf ears. Look at the continuity points you keep insisting should be there. Use the discussion page to bring them up and - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - actually discuss them outside of a terse edit summary.
It also bears mentioning that your approach to any discussion is confrontational and somewhat uncivil and attack-y; you have also been asked to curb that behavior. It became such that you had to be asked to abstain from posting to me on my user talk page on at least one occasion.
I am willing to accept my own culpability in the downwards descent of your behavior, but quite frankly, it takes two to tango. This consensus you claim to have in every article we are both involved in is both incorrect, and a pretty sad excuse for personal attacks and incivility. Maybe you and I should just stay away from responding to each others' posts.
(ec)I would also point out that the removal of the warning (with the edit summary of "got it, only newbies and trolls need template warnings") was largely unnecessary, as I wasn't really edit-warring, but instead following BRD. U-Mos' dogged determination to ensure that his (contended) version of the section remain in place was rather an ownership issue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And dismissed at that venue with suggestions to head on over to WP:3O. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give an outside opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Kansas banner templates

Resolved: editor directed to relevant Wikiproject and Wikipedia:Bot requests. --BelovedFreak 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I glanced over at WikiProject Kansas and noticed they have a mess on their hands with their banner template: they have 3 of them. Two of them must be from the early days of WikiProjects because they seem to be just banners without assessment capabilities: Template:Project Kansas and Template:WikiProject Kansas. The third template is the one linked to the project's assessment stats and is capitalized incorrectly compared to other WikiProjects: Template:Wikiproject Kansas. Obviously, there is no need for all 3 templates to exist. I tried doing simple redirects of the first two templates to the third, but the formatting broke on many article talk pages. Basically, I would like assistance merging 3 templates into 1. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is something you should bring up at that WikiProject too. There was some discussion of templates a while back, but it wasn't clearly resolved. Right now, Template:Project Kansas is transcluded onto 1700+ talkpages, Template:WikiProject Kansas appears on another 600 or so, and Template:Wikiproject Kansas is on less than 200. Seems like a bot would be useful to do the replacements. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You could post the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests; there's one for the Chicago project that is somewhat similar. I strongly recommend getting consensus among anyone active at WikiProject Kansas first, though. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, somehow I never found that Bot requests page. I guess I was just impatient, trying to be bold, to get the templates working like they should and at first glance, WikiProject Kansas looked inactive. I'll go through the channels you recommended to get the mess straightened out. Thanks. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the Project looks a bit under-staffed. I was going to recommend copying the good template over the other 2, but the summary matrix for the Project probably wouldn't work correctly. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture for Article

Stale: Advice given, no further response from editor. --BelovedFreak 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, My grandfather, Thomas Gibbons, is referenced in a Wikipedia article in the same name (He was a past police commissioner in Philadelphia). I have a photograph of him that I would like to post, however, I do not have permission to do so. I am honestly not interested in becoming a regular editor/poster, but I though the picture would be added content for the page. The photograph was taken by his sister, who is now deceased -- it now belongs to my father. If there is any way to get it posted, please let me know. Thanks so much! Carey Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careygroberts (talkcontribs) 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload describes how to upload images. You'll need to show that you own the image and that you grant the appropriate licence to Wikipedia to use it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article

Stale: No comments in the past week. --BelovedFreak 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the article on this playmate and you will see that numerous users (Wandering Canadian in particular) have been vandalizing the article's "playmate stats" as well as removing important information from it. It's almost as if they have some sort of personal conflict with the individual in the article and this is not a place to indirectly rant about celebrities. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have offered to discuss this issue numerous times on the article's discussion page to help resolve this difference of opinion. There are a number of anonymous and very new accounts being used to revert edits made on the page. The user above has also vandalized my user page. Help would be appreciated. Wandering canadian (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your page was not vandalized. You vandalized the article mentioned above and was politely warned to stop doing so. All playmate statistics are contained in article on playmates and should not keep being removed. Not only are there editors who agree, but Wikipedia agrees, simply because they continue to keep info boxes with playmate information. Removing one is considered vandalism because it destroys the consistency of the playmate articles. (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Artist bio.

Stale: JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Having trouble psoting the article I pasted in and even editing. Can't really understand what is needed to uplead the article with the sources. Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talkcontribs) 02:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be glad to help. I saw your draft at User:Mikusart. Would you like to move that into article-space, or are you asking for help in adding references first? I'd recommend the latter. Perhaps you can identify some of your sources, either at the bottom of the page or on the discussion tab, and I'll add some of them to the article. Then you can follow those examples. Would that work? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Julie Couillard article links to wrong article

Stale: JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this happened or if there is some reasoning that I don't understand behind this but an article on Julie Couillard has been linked to this page, Maxime Bernier.

The two individuals are connected but Bernier is not Couillaird. They are separate individuals and should have separate articles IMO. Is it possible for an editor to de-link Julie Couillard from the Maxime Bernier article. DSatYVR (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this appears to be intentional and in line with normal practice. Our policy on biographies of living persons indicates, among other things, that we should be cautious with such articles, and generally should not present an article as a "biography" when really all it covers is a person's involvement in a single event or scandal. Normally, in that case, if the event, scandal, or person with whom they were involved is notable, we will redirect the non-notable person's name to the name of the event or another appropriate article. Hope that clears things up! Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
How does one de-link the article? Couillard has now been linked to another Conservative senior aide, Bernard Cote, and has connections with a real estate company that sought Canadian Federal Government contracts. Also some Opposition party concerns that organized crime allegedly may seek to influence politicians thru individuals such has Couillard who has past links to the Hells Angels. If you want all this in the Maxime Bernier article thats fine but I really do think it belongs in a separate article. DSatYVR (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This comes down to notability. There is no entry for Bernard Cote; a google search makes it look like Cote wouldn't pass notability- for example, this link describes him as a "senior staffer". That means that Couillard's only claim to notability is still through Bernier, and since Couillard wouldn't pass notability on her own, proper practice would be to keep the redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like the best way to handle this is to create a Julie Couillard section within the Maxime Bernier article and if it overwhelms the original article it will eventually get split off. It that how it works at wikipedia? DSatYVR (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

delete user sub pages

Resolved: Fleetflame 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to go another direction and let Mizabot handle archiving my talk page. Can someone delete this subpage for me? User:Samuel Pepys/talk & User talk:Samuel Pepys/talk --Samuel Pepys (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the second as it should be kept as an archive of previous conversation. I'd move it to something like Archive 1? I'll take care of the first page in a moment. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Little overlap. I just deleted the first one, noted your decline of the speedy on the second. I agree with Seraphim Whipp, just move it to User talk:Samuel Pepus/Archive 1. Pastordavid (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's important to retain the /talk item, especially as it contains some of the complaints about that user messing with other user's workpages, about which there is a WP:ANI thread. The user has somehow got the notion that workpages are the same things as articles, and that he has a right to mess with them as he sees fit. He doesn't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that discussion (it led me here), which was why I declined the 2nd speedy. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Kudos. One thread often leads to another. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help with dispute Comet (programming)

Unresolved: RfC is active on the article's talk. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Some people are removing the informative and helpful content of the article [5] and replacing it with fluff: [6]. Further they are accusing people who do a revert to then original article as vandalism. BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here fore help. You can discuss your issues on the talk page for the article. There you can propose your definition of "fluff" and "helpful content". If you want my advice, I highly suggest you start small. I've read through the diffs you provided and it's hard to sort through the huge number of changes that were made to the article. Starting small on the talk page will help you come to an agreement with the other editors that are changing the page. Once you come to an agreement on something small, moving forward will be easier. Come back here if using the talk page doesn't work. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please be aware of this ANI thread. As far as I know, the article has now been fully protected. A Request for Comment is the next step in resolving this content dispute. Thanks for coming here for help! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sword of Fargoal

Resolved: JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have of question of how to resolve some direct misinformation on wikipedia. the page is "Sword of Fargoal". My name is Scott Corsaire and I wrote the machine language programs that made the game playable. This was the heart of the video game and the author is removing credit to me to suit his ego. I'd like to know how to resolve this...He also claims he hired me for some minor routines. That is false. He came to me on a friday night begging me in tears that the company was going to refuse publishing it the way he did it and I had until 72 hours later to rewrite it. He never intended to pay me at all. In fact he said he thought I did it for the experience and he took the more than 50,000 dollars he made and went off to europe.

The money is not the issue, but the false information IS. It is insulting and inaccurate grossly.

Thank You,

Scott Corsaire (wiki Usr name: bion2u2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bion2u2 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scott. Thank you for your concern. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, in that everything we say must be backed by a reliable source. While I have no doubt your allegations are true, do you have a reliable source we could cite to support what you say? In the absence of this, there is not much we can do.
I will take a look at the article. Even if you do not have verifiable proof of what you allege, it is possible that the misleading information is also unsupported by sources, so we could at least remove that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Almost everything in the "History" section is completely unverifiable. I trimmed it back to just a couple of sentences that are actually supported by reliable sources. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My Article was deleted.

Resolved: Original poster appears satisfied with explanations and advice.--BelovedFreak 11:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I created an article about Bruno Covington and someone deleted it. I knew it met all the standerds nothing was wrong with it. But someone deleted it. I dont know who did it. Is there a way I can get it back? I worked for a long time on that page. It has been deleted before that was becuse it didnt meet the standards but this time I made sure it did. Paraparanormal (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It didn't establish notability - who is he? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He is a musician who is nkown for his saxophone playing. Paraparanormal (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't no everyone on the world or everone who's famous. Therefor someone should not have the right to delete an article just beacuse THEY don't know who it is and the article would allow people unfamilar with said person to learn about them. And you still did'nt answer my question. Can I get it back? Paraparanormal (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MUSIC. That will tell you what criteria are used to determine whether a musician is "notable" by Wikipedia standards and therefore whether they qualify for an article. Just as an aside, I'd say that Bruno Covington is not likely to pass the test - a Google search on "Bruno Covington saxophone" produces precisely three hits, two of which appear to relate to the deleted article. JohnInDC (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the criteria and Bruno Covington won the JFJ Foundation Saxophone Contest in 1996. So he does qualify. Paraparanormal (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not confirm the existence of either the JFJ Foundation or its saxophone contest in a quick Google search. That suggests - but of course does not prove - that it is not a major music competition as specified in WP:Music. If the deleted article lacked reliable sources that would establish the importance of the competition, as well as Covington's having won it in 1996, then the article would certainly be at risk for speedy deletion (which appears to be what happened). JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
As other user's have said, it is difficult for us to see notability. This may be because the subject is not notable, or it may just be due to ignorance on our part. If you can find reliable sources to back up your claims of notability, the article could be kept. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was searching all over the web last night and a found a website. JFJ Foundation Paraparanormal (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am afraid, though, that the link does nothing to establish the notability of the competition. The decision to delete the Bruno Covington page appears to have been a sound one. JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it was deleted the first time was beacuse I just wrote "Bruno Covington" to save the page then I was going to come back and add everthing. And on the Notablity subject, like I said before having an article on him would give people a chance to learn about someone new who they didn't know about before. Isn't that what this website all about? Learing new things and getting more informed about things you already were fimilar with. Paraparanormal (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And what do you need to establish the notablity of the competition? Paraparanormal (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that Wikipedia is a great place to learn things that one didn't know before, that doesn't imply the converse - namely, that someone should be in Wikipedia by reason of the fact that no one has heard of them. Take a look at "what Wikipedia is not" and the notability requirements to get a sense of the kinds of articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia.
As for showing that a competition is notable - I paraphrased a bit loosely there. The actual criterion in WP:MUSIC is that the artist have won or placed in a "major music competition". It is pretty clear from the link you supplied that the JFJ Foundation Saxophone Contest, with its 12 entrants, open entry policy, 10 lay and semi-lay judges and $50 entry fee (or none, depending on which page you read) is by no stretch a "major" competition. I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this helps. Hopefully he will be able to have an article sometime. He is a real musician. I have one of his abums. I could upload it. Paraparanormal (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Best not. WP:COPY will keep you out of trouble! JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Advertising | No References | Misleading Information | Blatant Abuse of Policies

Resolved: Original poster seems happy with response. --BelovedFreak 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been struggling with an article (see User_talk:GaryECampbell and User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox. I am working with Wikipedians to ensure the article is notable, citable, referenced, NPOV and not blatant advertising. Although I've found the process frustrating at times, I understand why policies must be enforced. But I am also a bit confused why I have been hammered so hard, yet many other articles seem to be under the radar.

Here's my specific complaint.

The Web Conferencing article once listed vendors (see history), it is now replaced by a biased matrix comparison (see: Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software). Although the concept of a maxtrix comparison is good, the article does not list other major vendors such as GoTo or LiveMeeting (or WebTrain), it is written from a PictureTalk perspective and facts are unreferenced. Many PRIMARY features common to all major web conferencing products are missing, so it's pretty much useless. Such an undertaking requires months of research. My perception is that they created a comparison of what they have to show their checkmarks to advertise how good they are. As well, I see some of the checkmarks for features for WebEx are incorrect. Finally, the matrix was created with their points, to disclude others while omiting what other vendors provide that they do not. No single vendor should be allowed to do this, it is blatant abuse. Finally, I beleive Wikipedia was never meant for vendor comparison matrix articles, the article should be deleted and the web conferencing article reverted to a previous version.

PictureTalk has also added non-referenced facts to the Web Conferencing article. Same as their article. Perhaps the web conferencing article should just redirect to PictureTalk and disclude every company that has helped advance the technology (sarcasm).

In regards to the PictureTalk article, it reads like "Hey, here's my features". AS I previously stated, my article User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox got hammered really hard, yet PictureTalk, Glance, WebHuddle etc seem to slip under the radar. Even Adobe Connect does not include references, at best, their references are their own.

Perhaps no one is aware of these discrepancies. Can someone please determine the proper course of action for the Web Conferencing, PictureTalk, Glance, WebHuddle and the abuse of policies? Perhaps some Wikipedian editor with the appropriate rights can address the issues relating to the articles mentioned. Thank you. GaryECampbell (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the time (or expertise in the subject area) to properly look at the articles you are speakng of but I can address the inconsistent enforcement aspect of your question. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not and many others are in a bad state that haven't yet been tagged for cleanup that should be. There is no central authority that cleans up articles. Rather we're all individual editors and because of the huge number of articles that are created every day (thousands), many slip through the cracks upon creation and may sit around for a very long time without anyone looking at them, tagging them, nominating them for deletion, etc. So generalizing from any article's existence or state to conclude something about other articles is a logic that doesn't work well here. A page that is relevant by analogy here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. So it is not at all uncommon that one crapfest article never gets tagged, and a better but still problematic article is created within moments that two experienced editors land on simultaneously. In the end, though, which do you think will result in a better article? Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
How do I report the above issues to be tagged as such ? (No references, blatant advertising, conflict of interest, unnotable, inaprorpriate content (competitive matrix comparison) and speedy delete). Links to examples would be nice (I'm still a newbie). Am I in conflict of interest since these organizations are competitors? Does everyone have rights to mark articles as such? GaryECampbell (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The simple fact of the matter is this is how things work. Wikipedia has no center. Some things fall through the radar, some things don't. Your article is already shaping up to be something good; no need to worry about these other things. Our culture changes quite a bit over time... it's possible, for instance, that some of those articles were created long before the current culture that doesn't want your article in mainspace ever existed (featured article review would kill me for that sentence).
Please just focus on your article, and any others that interest you. Someone may find these complaints legitimate and funnel them through the proper channels (articles for deletion, prod, speedy, whatever). Someone might funnel them through those channels in 2015, if said channels were to still exist. Some others might build on those article to be as high a quality as yours is shaping up to be. With all this said, it's obvious you're working in good faith, and I applaud you for that; it doesn't happen too often with COIs. But pushing at this may soon look tendentious, even though your worries are in good faith (of that I have no doubt).
Wikipedia is such a strange beast. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Will do. GaryECampbell (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer


Resolved: Fleetflame 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone look at the dispute regarding the deletion of the Joel Widzer page? I think a hot headed edit war pursue and the result was deletion of the page. The past history should support that the page editors have tried to adhere to proper guidelines-thank you reagan (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been restored now (IMO, deleting it G11 was a bit trigger happy after the AfD). The concern was a conflict of interest; it's been cut down quite a bit, just needs further cleanup. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Editor feels situation is resolved --BelovedFreak 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


I recently had a bit of an issue over the Audrey Hepburn article. I added a note about Bunny Mellon in the "Death" section. Rightly, someone named "wikidon" told me to add a reference, but instead of waiting for me to do so, deleted my edit.

So I re-added it with the appropriate reference.

Today, I got a sockpuppet telling me that I am edit warring and giving me a warning about blocking me.

I hardly think this minor episode amounts to warring, and I'd like to know who posted it and what can be done about this behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the WikiDon accused you of being a sockpuppet of User:Reyn116 per this diff The user WikiDon has since withdrawn this allegation per this diff. Your editing regarding the death section of Audrey Hepburn per this diff is still in the article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:SOCK for more info as regards sockpuppets. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Wikidon didn't remove your edit, Antique Rose did. Also, if you check the history of your talk page, Wikidon accused you of being a sockpuppet of Reyn116. He later rescinded that accusation, and the 3RR template was accidentally left behind on your user talk page. I've removed it. Fleetflame 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I realized the edit was not taken out, but I was shocked at the accusation.....I appreciate all the help and am happy that the situation has been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talkcontribs) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Batteries used in aircraft

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir or madam

I had written 6 weeks ago about listing of SAFT and Marathon as suppliers of aircraft batteries in below link.

Nickel-cadmium battery vented cell type

I had asked that our company name could also be included as we are manufacturer and export of batteries just like SAFT / Marathon.

I was informed that it is against your policy to include company names and same have been removed. However, I found now that again these company names are listed?

Can this issue be resolved.

Thank you,

Prabhaker Nittla Global Account Manager HBL Power Systems Ltd.

Retrieved from "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for bringing this up here. I just checked the article and those manufacturers are no longer shown in the article; I believe that's appropriate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a web directory. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

An article that needs making

Resolved: User made a request. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just finished watching a wonderful documentary movie called "Heavy Load"

I think it should be in Wikipedia, but I'm not a registered user... any chance you, or one of your friends, might want to make an article for it?

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, You could request an article at WP:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts#Documentary Films, or, better yet, register an account and write it yourself! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM and WP:TALK concerns

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into what I thought were clear examples of WP:SPAM and WP:TALK violations here and here. These adverts were posted in good faith, but as I explained on the user's talk page here, I do not believe that they belong in the talk space. They responded that the messages perform a "valuable service" and that I'm being "priggish". Am I? They have since removed my prior comments to their talk page. Some illumination would help. Are messages of this kind acceptable? María (habla conmigo) 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think you're wrong here. I don't believe that's how talk pages are to be used. And in particular, if an editor were to ask a direct question of an author in this context, I'm not sure that wouldn't be WP:OR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
the answers would be publicly available on the BBC World Service website to be listened to - permanently! Hardly OR!! And it is a talk with an author on public service radio - an entirely non-profit enterprise - mentioned on a talk page so that editors can ask questions to improve the article. Why not spend your time more usefully by going through wikipedia removing every mention of an upcoming tour date of a musician or promo website for a film which are commmercial enterprises? EdQuine (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The user in question is adamantly supportive of their messages under the argument that "it's no big deal". See my talk page. What now? María (habla conmigo) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
that is an inaccurate representation of what I said. I said that the post alerts editors to the opportunity to improve the article (justification). And the notice takes a couple of lines - it is not a big deal (appeal to your common sense). EdQuine (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the first thing would be to try to avoid making a big deal out of this. While I don't think it's right to link to those broadcasts, I also don't think it ranks very high on the list of things to address. It might not be worth the effort it would take you to convince the other user. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've made my view known and I'm willing to move on. María (habla conmigo) 15:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are to facilitate the improvement of articles. "Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article." Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Central_points. I think you are wrong. EdQuine (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. As an aside, the question of not-for-profit vs profit-making is a red herring, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom Angelripper

Stale: No posts since June 18. --BelovedFreak 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone please review the album articles associated with this artist ?

Since they mostly comprise nothing but a track listing and a cover image (which I believe aren't licensed anyway), I've been changing the album articles to redirects to the Tom Angelripper article as per (my interpretation of) WP:MUSIC. However, two users - Scanion and (which may or may not be the same person) have been either undoing the redirects, or adding new articles with (basically) the same name. I've dropped a message onto both talk pages saying why I've been redirecting, and suggesting a compromise (creating a discography article, merging all the albums into the discography, and redirecting the albums to the discography article - which I believe WP:MUSIC permits). I can't keep on reverting the articles, or I'm going to fall foul of 3RR, so what I'd like is an indication of:

  1. Whether my interpretation of the WP:MUSIC guideline is correct, or at least reasonable in this case - if not, then I don't need to go any further
  2. If correct/reasonable, what can be done (if anything) to prevent, or at least discourage, the recreation of the individual articles.

I should say that I don't expect an answer to my talk page messages yet, as I only put my message there within the last few hours, so have no idea if they'll accept the discography article idea, but I'd like some experienced advice on whether I should even proceed any further, and if so, how. Cheers. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ignore this - ignore this please - Scanion is in the process of creating a discography article... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Although Scanion has created a discography article, the original articles still remain, with a link to the discography. So, unfortunately, my original questions still stand. CultureDrone (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You could well be right. I think AfD is the place that will most likely resolve this, if you don't get a constructive response on the talk pages. The discography has some unusual formatting too. Not ugly or anything, but certainly non-standard. btw, it's User:Scaion, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Resolved: advice given, and help/advice on users talkpage. --BelovedFreak 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I need help learning how to learn to use Wikipedia so I can edit and create articles, and work on images. I will have more free time since school is out and would like to volunteer some time. Tia--Catagraph (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your interest. the best place to get started is the editing tutorial, where you can learn how to contribute and test making edits in the sandbox. Here is a cheatsheet for wiki markup, and some links to get you started. Once you have a feel for editing, be bold and start editing! Feel free to ask any questions that arise on my talk page. BoccobrockT 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Copts Article Page Fraught with bias and error, moderators biased refuse to allow clarifying statements

Stale: No posts since June 18. --BelovedFreak 17:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


The Copts article has a flag adorning its website, and a worldmap with the same symbol. The problem is that this article discusses an ethnic group encompassing millions of people globally. A few years ago a small activist group came up with their version of a "coptic flag". In the past, many fringe groups have come up with their own flags (Source: and same with this new one, the Coptic Church never recognizes any flag and Copts not affiliated with the creating organization have no idea about any flag. Unfortunately, the latest flag has adorned the Copts wikipedia article as the de facto symbol of Copts in a number of places (template, map). The source of this version is a website that has not been updates in 3 years. I tried to amend the page many times. The first few times I admit I didnt understand the nuances of Wikipedia editing. But now, whenever I write something pertaining that this is not an accepted by mainstream Copts, two moderators (mostly Troy and sometimes Lanternix) remove my edit with the excuse "Where is your source that it is not accepted?". This is ludicrous since the burden of proof had to be on the creator of the symbol to show that it IS accepted as a symbol of Coptic Identity and can be used as a de facto worldwide accepted symbol. How can you prove a negative? Ironically, in the discussion page when I discussed this Troy responded with the preposterous statement: "There doesn't need to be a reliable source that says that it's "world-recognized"". So technically, I can come up with my own design for a flag to represent an ethnic group that lacks a flag and plaster it over the main article describing them??!! According to Troy, that would be sufficient??

Additionally, as evidence that Troy and LAnternix are being completely obtuse, they summarily reject my edits when I add the statement that other groups in the past have created coptic flags, and I listed the source (

I urge the editors to look into this to attempt to create an ACCURATE article rather than one that is at odds with reality.

Thanks (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Question for clarification sake could you confirm that you are George and simply forgot to long in. I want to look into the whole thing before I comment and would appreciate being able to look at it from a fully informed starting point. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Till waiting for aid on his matter.

Dealing with Self Promotion

Resolved: BelovedFreak 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've found a case of an editor using Wikipedia for self-promotion, but I'm not certain of the appropriate course of action. Can someone help with the exact procedure of how this should be dealt with? Do I post it somewhere? Do I just revert the articles? Should a warning be sent to the editor in question? etc.

The editor in question is Worldstorey. On June 9, the user has edited pages for International Business and Global Strategy and have add a sentence mentioning the name of Dr. Rajesh K Pillania. I am in the field and have never heard of him, so I searched for him on Google Scholar and he essentially has written a handful of articles in mediocre journals. So, definitely not a leading author on the topic worth mentioning on those pages.

His name is also mentioned on the Emerging Markets article as well as on List of Jats and Strategy. I assume he has added at some point in time, perhaps under another username or as a guest since his username doesn't appear on those pages. But, they all feel out of place, talking about him with great praise while mentioning his contributions.

In fact, I don't think he is a significant enough researcher to have his own personal page ( Rajesh K Pillania ) on Wikipedia.

However, I am not an experienced editor to be able to completely track his movements and conclusively determine if this is indeed a case of self-promotion. I also don't know the appropriate procedures to reverse all the damage and more importantly prevent him from doing so in the future.

Can someone help?


Tkiyak (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Also note that the following users appear to be the same person: Greatlife999 (talk · contribs), Davidman21 (talk · contribs), Intellect12345 (talk · contribs), Globallight (talk · contribs), FreeSpirit111 (talk · contribs), Davidfisherman (talk · contribs), Globalacumen (talk · contribs), Globaljoy (talk · contribs), 123bluesky (talk · contribs) and Worldstorey (talk · contribs).
I have nominated Rajesh K Pillania for deletion. If any of the other accounts starts editing disruptively, I will report it to Suspected Sockpuppets.
Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Piped links for other languages

Resolved: Question answered. BelovedFreak 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A quick question on piped links....

An article I'm cleaning up relates to various places in Ireland. The text, as written, has the place names in Irish, but articles exist about the places using the English versions of the place names. So what's the policy on creating links ? Do I pipe the link to the English article, create a redirect for the Irish name to the English named article (I've checked that they don't currently exist), or change the text to the English name, with the Irish name in parentheses ? Cheers :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All legitimate alternate names of topics should have redirects. Where English language articles on places use anglified name, creating redirects to the native names is de rigueur so I'd go ahead and do that. For the balance please see the MoS at Wikipedia:Proper names#Place names (the answer there is that it depends on context, which you know better than I do).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Merger

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please merge Franklin borough, Cambria County, Pennsylvania and Franklin, Cambria County, Pennsylvania are exactly same. Can someone look into this??? (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

At present, the former is a redirect to the latter. We do that often when one page can be known by more than one name. I think everything is in order here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

'Inappropriate tone' reported on biography

Resolved: Tag was removed --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My biographical entry 'Linda Proud' has been labelled as having an inappropriate tone, which I agree with. I've therefore made several deletions in the content. Now I would like to know how to get the label removed but I don't have the required expertise. I'd appreciate any help.Poppismith (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another editor got there first. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute or Behaviour Problem

Stale: No new posts for a week. --BelovedFreak 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Would some new eyes have a look at The Incredible Hulk (soundtrack)‎. I placed a {{merge| Incredible Hulk (film)}} with a rationale that the soundtrack on its own probably doesn't meet notability criteria and invited discussion. Another user refuses to discuss and simply removed the merge proposal. This is not the first time. I'd appreciate some neutral eyes. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see they've removed a notability tag as well. I'm neutral to both, but discussion should still occur. A tag removal warning might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have left a polite note saying that discussion would be more helpful, and have pointed them to this discussion. Kevin (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Jasynnash2 who is having behavior problem not me. All iam trying to do is creating a page for soundtracks and expanding this. The movie is notable so do soundtrack. I don't like the idea of soundtrack being merge. They deserve to have a separate page. Iam not just talking about The Incredible Hulk soundtrack but for all movies and games soundtrack. They deserve to have a separate page. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My question in that case would be why not simply discuss on the article's talkpage instead of just removing the merge proposal tag? How is following the process of placing the tag and inviting discussion a behaviour issue? BTW if we are going to get into detail should we be discussing elsewhere? At the article or somewhere else? Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You want to merge the page because it is not notable. Listen there is enough of the links in the main page to prove the soundtrack existence. It is pretty hard to find notable links for soundtracks. So tell me expert do you know where to get notable links to make the article to be valid?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that existence doesn't equal notability (I'm pretty sure we have policies that discuss what is or isn't notable). I think the reference/external links originally provided were to places to buy the album and not to anything that contributed to notability or verifiability. I think you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions. I also think this is better discussed in a mature and adult manner at a different section as I'm pretty sure this isn't what Editor Assistance is actually for. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok fine. Where do you want to talk?. Do you want to email?. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the article talkpage would be appropriate to discuss this album or if there is a discussion underway about Albums in general and when they are/become notable we can discuss there. Or your talk page if you want to address the "behaviour" side of things (yours and mine). I'm not sure of the most appropriate place in all honesty. I think maybe a suggestion on where from a 3rd party may be appropriate if you are okay with that (I'm happy to have either of the above two contributors as an unofficial mediator if need be). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeking advice about types of disruption

Stale: --BelovedFreak 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello world, I refer you to my current discussion at Talk:Sahaja_Yoga - see the Nirmala Srivastava section. The page in question is currently frozen due to edit wars. I have found an error in this section and have proposed re-wording it using a new source. However, there is one tendentious editor who is resisting the introduction of this new reference using multiple spurious arguments. Due to the fact that this page is frozen and conveys his POV, it seems to be in his interest to disrupt all proposed changes. What do I do - request mediation or seek to unfreeze the article? Are you able to take a look? Best regards, Freelion (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See above: "The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral." If you go for mediation, you should make it easy for your counterpart to be constructive by avoiding blaming, accusing, criticising and diagnosing.--Simon D M (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The disruptive, tendentious editor who is resisting the introduction of this new reference has just identified himself above. Freelion (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He has indeed. --Simon D M (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Touché Freelion (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)