Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 32

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


Assistance needed on notability guidelines

Stale: --BelovedFreak 09:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please go ahead and check through my most recent contributions, and you'll see that I've nominated a few articles that (to me) are fairly obviously non-notable, even though they are barely squeezing through with a offhand mention in a long-ago newspaper article or something of the like. It is my contention that they are not notable, and I plan to continue nominating articles that aren't notable, like for example Embassy of Gabon in Ottawa. However, I'm clearly going against what consensus appears to be in the AFDs so I'd like to get some kind of assistance for a centralized discussions where other parties can weigh in. I don't know what the proper place is to get a wide variety of viewpoints, however. Aaronw (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a huge place and many types of discussions belong in different places. Do you want to discuss the general articles for deletion process, or the specific articles you have already nominated, or articles of that type, or the notability guideline in general, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Articles of that type, or notability as it relates to those articles. WP:WikiProject Architecture will probably not be interested in the (hopefully admittedly!) non-notable buildings like the one linked above. There's also WP:WikiProject International relations , but for obvious reasons I think they might have a horse in the race, as it were. I'm more interested in what the WP community at large thinks of these articles. I've already looked at WP:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks) , but the people who are voting keep are not going by that guideline and believing that that diplomatic missions are prima facie notable, and I simply do not follow that line of reasoning nor can find any support for it on WP guidelines/policies. As the courts do, are other people just looking at previous cases and using those for precedent? The courts have a duty to look at the previous cases and make sure that they were based on the correct arguments. Does there need to be another category of things in WP:N? I don't know the answer. Aaronw (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If you believe that there are some articles on Embassies that should not be included in the Wikipedia, write up the objective inclusion criteria on the relevant project pages and see if it matches the past practices of editors de-facto and if it has the consensus of current editors. Embassies are more than architecture. patsw (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you consider a discussion at the relevant WikiProject again. A statement like "for obvious reasons I think they might have a horse in the race" is not supportive of Wikipedia cooperation. My largest subject interest is prime numbers (hinted by my username and user page), but I have nominated several articles in that field for deletion, and merged many others into broader articles. Don't assume editors will support inclusion of something just because they have indicated an interest in the field. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia contributor requests assistance

Resolved: Advice given. Apparently, the article he's written is on his user page if anyone wants to take a look and let him know what you think. Fleetflame 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've written an article for inclusion in Wikipedia and i would like to request a peer review so that I can edit it to comply with Wikipedia standards. How do I go about getting this peer review? Thank you. Fastfact (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the easiest way to do so would be to request a review at WP:PR. There you will find all the instructions you need to set up a formal review. Best, epicAdam (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

William T Corbett

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern I am the daughter of William Corbett and am distrubed by your profile/desciption of my father. First off he was born in Norfolk, VA not Romanno Bridge. My father is known for many things including: his all encompassing intelligence, sharp wit, sensitivity, generosity, passion for everything from his family and dogs to music, art, movies and all sport. He is not known by anyone who are family and friends for his "druken episodes". Please remove this from your profile/desciption.

Thank You, Arden Corbett —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So removed. Apparently vandalism. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Stale: No further response from original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Avoice: African American Voices in Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After the article "Avoice: African American Voice in Congress" was tagged as being written like an advertisement, I made changes to it to make it unbiased. I would like to know if these changes have been reviewed, so that the tag can be removed. If after review, the article is still perceived as biased, I would like to know what measures could be taken to rectify this issue. Lokoots (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Vanessa Bean

I've cleaned up the lead a bit and added a note to Lokoot's talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The other question is notability. The congressional black caucus is certainly notable, and much of the article deals with that rather than the avoice website. What makes the website itself notable enough for an article? Are there any references to back that up? Pastordavid (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing newswires

Resolved: It appears. Asked. Answered. Pastordavid (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation template that I ought to use for citing information that I got from a newswire (I'm getting stuff from Lexis Nexis)? Or should I try to just use a newspaper that reprinted the newswire story? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any citation templates beyond those at WP:CITET and in CAT:CITE. Ideally, yes, you should cite a newspaper - otherwise just use your best judgment and try to match the referencing style at WP:CITE. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You should cite the source. An Associated Press story might be printed in hundreds of newspapers, but the source is the A.P.

To cite the Dinkletown Daily Gazette as the source for an A.P. story, for example, would be incorrect. Calamitybrook (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Caro


Resolved: Changes made, advice given, no new user contribs. Fleetflame 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sirs: I have changed the birth place of Joseph Caro (Yosef Caro) from Spain, which is a mistake according to the sources I refer, to Faro, in Portugal. There is still the same mistake in the head of the article, which doesn't appear in the editing page. So please give coherence to it, or teach me how to go to that part of the text, so that I can also change it.

Thank you,

jorge campos da costa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge campos dacosta (talkcontribs) 23:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes - is this what you mean? I've changed "Spain" to "Portugal" and put the source there, and referenced it again in the Biography section. [1] x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
One of the ways to edit the lead of an article is clicking the "edit this page" tab at top. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Nicktoons Page

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is onepiese226 and in need of help. I recently cleaned up a page...Nicktoons: Globs of Doom and put all the already confirmed correct information such as already announced characters and such. Since then some people have been adding not announced characters such as, Invader Zim characters and taking off the Fairly Oddparents characters. Now since this happens once a week, ive been cool about it and changing it back, but i'm really tired of it. There isint much about the game yet. But the stuff ive put on has been confirmed in many sites. please helpOnepiece226 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226

Hi, since the information you are adding is "confirmed", it would really help to add references to reliable sources that back up your additions. This will give people less reason to delete them. As for the other additions, if they are not verifiable, then you are right to remove them. The first step when you have disagreements with other editors should be to discuss the issue with them. This can be done on the article talkpage, but they may not notice that, so try talking to them on their user talkpages. The revision history for that page shows a large number of edits in a short place of time, and edit warring. You may well be in the right, but if it's not blatant vandalism that you are reverting, you can still be blocked for edit warring. You should try to reach a consensus with the other editors. If you have no luck engaging them in conversation, then try a third opinion or request for comment to get other editors involved. But, first step: get references for you additions. --BelovedFreak 10:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists and WP:V

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I cleaned up the List of frequently misused trademarks and converted it to table form. I thought I had established a consensus that the only allowable entries were those which asserted generic misuse of a valid trademark in its main article. I had been patrolling occasionally to be sure no one added a link without an article supporting it. Recently, User:AlistairMcMillan deleted the list asserting that each entry required a source documented on the list page. (He did leave a few entries which had in-line citations, but apparently did not actually read the sources--none of the sources related to the generic misuse of the marks.) I tried to point out that this left the "challenged" information on the main pages and did not alert most interested editors that a statement had been removed/challenged. I'm currently working on a sortable table intended to replace both List of missiles and List of missiles by country. But if every list entry does require an in-line citiation, I'm going to throw it away as it would be unmaintainable. Does WP:V, in fact, forbid the use of index lists? ComputerGeezer (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the diff, I would say yes. Those articles should have any uncited statements removed as well, but if there was a citation, it should be put at both the table and in the other article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've deleted my work and closed out my user page. You guys have fun... ComputerGeezer (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a request for delete be considered as vandalism for it self?

Resolved: per the conversation on the AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a request for delete be considered as vandalism for it self? Would appreciate your help on this issue, there is a group of political activists whom try to eliminate any detail that may associate the killer of that little girl with his actions of killing her. Thanks On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If an AfD nomination is clearly in bad faith, it may be closed as a "Speedy Keep". Note also that an editor who repeatedly makes bad-faith AfD nominations may be sanctioned by an admin - again, assuming that the bad faith is clear. However, that does not seem to be the case here (I have also commented at the AfD itself, and laid out my opinion in more detail). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment, uncivility and POV editing by User:Cityvalyu

Resolved: Or, at least, was taken to WP:AN, although I suspect the actual issue is not resolved.--BelovedFreak 10:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Something should be done about this editor and fast. His continual POV pushing edits and harassment of other editors, that do not favor his POV and are trying to maintain NPOV, is rampant. You can not try to come to a consuses, because he feels that anything that does not blatantly support his POV is simply the POV of the other editor even when sourced. His harassment then spills over to the editors talk page (see User_talk:Jmedinacorona) where he then tries to further push his point of view without end, using words stating he's using WP guidelines in editing and that everything said to him is lies. Below are just a few examples of his edit style:

  1. Extensive weasel insertion
  2. Claims to remove weasel words then adds some of his own
  3. More weaseling
  4. Here he even admits to posting non neutral views
  5. See diff then read his edit summary, NPOV? In who's eyes?
  6. Here he makes a controversial revert and says in his summary to talk about such reverts in the talk page, where it was already being discussed for consensus, yet he makes the revert despite it.

Do editor's on WP really have to put up with someone like this constantly pushing their view and then following it up with harassment? I think this kind of incessant behavior discourages the participation of all and as a new editor myself, it has nearly discouraged me from participating further. I did not come to WP to have verbal confrontations of this caliber, I came to try and contribute as I can within WP guidelines. Thank you for your consideration and hopeful intervention. --«Javier»|Talk 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you already report this information to WP:AN? If so, what was the outcome? -epicAdam (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No I did not. After reading the guidelines for posting there, I was absolutely confused on whether it belonged there on on 10 other different assist pages. It was all very confusing to say the least. So I chose here so I could be directed to where I might actually post it, trying to get a consesus of where it is appropriate from more seasoned editors.--«Javier»|Talk 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you feel like you are being personally harassed, then you should post to WP:AN and specifically detail the incidents of harassment; those admins will take it from there. His edits, despite violating WP:NPOV, are not blockable offenses in themselves but he could violate the WP:3RR rule, which could then lead to a block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -epicAdam (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ariakon SIM-5

Resolved: Advice given, one of the articles was prodded.--BelovedFreak 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Having come across an uncategorised paintball gun article (BT TM-7), I was debating marking it as an advert, but thought I'd check if there were other articles of the same sort. Picking the Ariakon article at random, can someone tell me why this counts as a valid article, and not advertisement ? I can't see anything that refers to 'real world' references - indeed, the only references seem to be for the company and a discussion forum. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that at present the article reads like an advertisement. I would probably recommend both for deletion. -epicAdam (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Send them both to WP:AFD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done it.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 09:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: answer left on usertalk, no further contribs from original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to upload a new picture of Charlene Tilton, herp page is protected and only specific editors belonging to two groups are allowed to change the content. How can I edit the entry about her uploading a June 2008 picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Lindner (talkcontribs) 13:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe you may be in error as the page does not appear to be protected at the moment. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
User:William Lindner is a brand new account today - I wonder if there's an autoconfirm requirement here? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's it. William, stick around and edit some more. Brand new accounts are not allowed to upload pictures - that will resolve itself shortly (with just a few edits by your account.) Enjoy WIkipedia. Pastordavid (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Haywood Article

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Documentation, and editing have been done, but still the deletion warning is showing. What else can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KLH1986 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to remove {{Dated prod}}, and I see you have done so.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Kije article possible fake

Resolved: There is now a dab page there (created six minutes after Xavexgoem's reply). Fleetflame 05:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kije article reads like a possible fake by vandals. Could someone with more experience than me check this out and take appropriate action. I previouly put cleanup tags on the aricle and they were simply removed by the tending editor(s). I put the tags back. My comments on the talk page about the article probably being phony have been ignored. Hmains (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedied at AfD. The chances of me being terribly wrong are about as likely as a snowball lasting for a very long period in a very hot place. <crosses fingers> Xavexgoem (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why am I a vandal?

Resolved: Explained quite well on user talk. Pastordavid (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited Tomb Raider Underworld and added that it is speculated that Natla will return (the voice at the end of the trailer and you see her wing in that tank thing). So why an I considered a vandal?

Gjdickie1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdickie1992 (talkcontribs) 09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

left response on your talk page - you're not a vandal, don't worry ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a dab guideline

Resolved: Per posting user. Fleetflame 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking for a disambiguation guideline, but can't find it and the help pages seem to be taking me in circles. When disambiguating a common name, sometimes pages are created using their middle names. I believe this is discouraged (unless the middle name or initial is commonly used to disambiguiate in real life, as in George W. Bush), and a short description in brackets is preferred. To be specific, I believe Robert Leslie Brown should be renamed to Robert Brown (Australian Shooters Party politician). Does such a guideline exist? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names says: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised.". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank. I was sure something like that was somewhere, I just couldn't find it. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion sought on legal article

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at Pro se? An editor has added some good text but also a lengthy anecdote dealing with what appears to be the editor's own legal case. --CliffC (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I revert the additions, they appear to be either soapboxing or possibly original research. Take it up on the article's talk page if it continues to be an issue. Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Aafour's edits were reverted; mostly by Copana2002 (talk · contribs). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has added the adjective "Arab" to a long list of biographies. I'm not sure what this constitutes or whether or not this is even a problem. If someone could take a look and weigh in with an opinion, it would be appreciated. The user's contributions are here. Thanks! TNX-Man 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, please let me know if this is the appropriate forum for this question. Thanks. TNX-Man 18:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSBIO, a person's ethnicity should not generally not be mentioned, unless it's directly relevant. Further, the changes this user made appear to be rather indiscriminate. Just because a person is from a majority-Arab country or speaks Arabic does not mean, necessarily, that the person is an Arab. I would suggest putting a note on the user's talk page directing him or her to WP:MOSBIO. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article in contention : Renuka Chowdhary

Resolved: Poster (as well as other accounts) blocked as sock accounts; article locked down. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The page of "Renuka Chowdhary" is frequently being changed after I have modified it to prevent others from knowing the truth about the person. I would like to request you to take a look at the topic "Renuka chowdhary" which is in contention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeid222 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Your additions would be much more credible, and much more likely to remain in place, if they were sourced. Please see our policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Remember, the standard for inclusion here is verifiability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHowse (talkcontribs) 10:42, 24 August 2008

closing accounts

Resolved: Asked and answered. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What actions are needed to close an account, as all attempts seem to fail. Further advice appreciated in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GFEpisodes (talkcontribs) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, but see Wikipedia:Right to vanish. You can also just stop editing and possibly place {{Retired}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in Nauru / Menen Hotel / OD-N-Aiwo Hotel

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re the above articles, I'm having a hard much content that is actually encyclopedic and doesn't read like a travel guide - do these really meet WP:N ? In the history for the OD-N-Aiwo Hotel, there's a comment that notability was established because it was one of only two hotels on the island - I don't remember that coming up as a reason for notability in the past.. Anyway - any feedback on these articles, or pointers to how to improve them would be appreciated. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, I'd recommend merging the first one into Nauru. There isn't much there to keep separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yea, they are both stubs so you could probably sum up their information in a sentence or two on Tourism in Nauru. Bullet the list like what was done in "Leisure Activities". Tourism in Nauru could also be merged itself into Nauru if you feel the need. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there. I am User:Troy and would like to request for help on the following.

There is a content dispute in the said talk page (the very last section and the third-last section are currently active). I did restore some of the text that was removed temporarily as there was not yet a consensus, but I still take that the original (partial) deletions were in good faith as FunkMonk likely assumed that there wouldn't be an issue. I sort of over-reacted (*oops*) as I easily took it personally when it came to the idea that the Egyptians were all "Arabized", but now, I am trying to keep things a little calm. Dab, of whom we obviously do not know eachother very well, appears to disregard my attempts, and whenever I try to respond, he appears to take offence at my comments. I have already explained that the ethnicity issue in regards to Egyptians (mostly surrounding how it relates to Copts, but also Arabs and a few berbers) was discussed to its death on Talk:Copt, the linguistic-ethnicity relation was decided on Talk:Coptic language, and most importantly, the Egyptian identity was discussed as a whole on Talk:Egyptians a while ago.

Dab, already after FunkMonk made good-faith edits, continued them when he was aware of the fact that there was absolutely no consensus. Most recently, this included adding a government newspaper, Al-Ahram, which notably deflates Christian figures in Egypt and is not reliable in the first place as it is a government source (see WP:SOURCE—you can't use sources like Al-Ahram if it is it is contentious or is biased towards the opinion; ie: the opinion of Egyptian politicians). It uses government census figures that are decades-old, and, quite frankly, there has already been discussion surrounding the Egyptian government's religion figures—even the CIA factbook and some of the Muslims admit about 10% of the population (Al-Ahram says something like 5% or 6%). He also appeared to have ignored the fact that I wanted to head towards a resolution.

Also, in regards to Zerida and his sock puppets, I, somewhat understandably, was erroneously accused as being one Zerida's mean-old "buddies" by Dab—I highly resent that. Sure, I may have agreed with Zerida's "views" on the Egyptian ethnicity, but I still withhold that I am 100% against sock puppetry.

Lastly, when I clearly explained that there was no such source that proves that all or most Egyptians are "Arabized" (specifically the Copts), Dab said that "You are welcome to present academic sources for each and every one of your claims" and "again, if you want to discuss the persecution of the Copts, bloody well do your own homework, go to a library, and dig up some quotable sources". The response should really be quite simple: "you can't prove a negative". On the contrary, if Dab feels that he should insist on making claims that all Egyptians were "Arabized", then I feel that the burden of proof is on him to add a reliable source for that.

If anyone is careful to read all of this, please kindly accept this request and see to it that we can stay on the same page. My utmost apologies for the long, complex but yet important post.

Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now doesn't seem nearly as urgent as before, but if someone is willing to make sure that everything is alright, then go ahead. Hopefully it isn't as bad as before. ~ Troy (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Gilkey

Stale: No further contributions from User:Gordon Gilkey.--BelovedFreak 10:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My daughter pointed out the wiki relating to my father. He and I have the same name. The entry was originally posted by Oregon State University but lacked much detail and was factually in error, particularly in regard to his military service at the end of WWII.

I fleshed out the entry and look for more editing from others.


Gordon Gilkey (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Gordon S. Gilkey

May I suggest requesting help at the article's two Wikiprojects?: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. The editors there have some expertise in the matter and have indicated a willingness to help improve articles. This project is meant help deal with disputes among other editors, and may not be the best to request help in fleshing out a page. If you're simply looking for general comments, you may want to refer the article to Wikipedia:Peer review as well. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've done as much as I can to improve the article. I'd like to echo the recommendation that you contact WikiProject Oregon, of which I am a member. We have produced many excellent biographies and are good at finding sources for citations. But, I'm puzzled that you've ignored the messages I've placed on your talk page so far. BTW, I don't think the entry was originally posted by OSU. You can look at the page history for more information. (And you will also see why I asked you to use show preview and edit summaries.) Mostly what the article needs now is citations to reliable sources, many of which I've placed on the article's talk page, which is a good place to further discuss any changes that need to be made to the article about your father. Unfortunately your personal knowledge of the subject is considered original research, so though it's helpful to know from you which inaccuracies exist, it would also be good to find sources to back up the accurate information you provide. (P.S. no need to write your name after you sign your posts with ~~~~--the wiki software will automatically render your user name and a timestamp.) I hope this helps! Katr67 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why my addition in article was undone?

Resolved: advice given.--BelovedFreak 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir: I want to seek your help. In article Ka'ba, I made an addition in the sub article "Islamic Tradition". First I tried to copy from my own blog whose url is "", but then after noticing that copying from a web page is not allowed, i changed the wordings. I was astonished to note that my changes were deleted.

Is it not allowed to copy from ones own blog? If not, is it not allowed to add information by changing wordings from ones own blog? I want your help, as the information I want to add is important. I have already added an image, which is my own work, representing this information. But is placed in the wrong place i.e in article "Since Muhammad's time". Its correct place is "Islamic Tradition". Please guide me, how can I add the said information.


Muhammad Uzair Bhaur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaur (talkcontribs) 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that your additions were reversed because they were not properly sourced. Per Wikipedia rules at WP:VERIFY, sources should consist of "reliable, third-party published sources"; blogs and other self-published sources are therefore not used on Wikipedia. If you have information from a published book, peer-reviewed journal, etc. then please feel free to add to the article using those sources. Further, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name and date stamp. Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over verifibility of an official forum for a game article

Resolved: Editors found information from third-party source, rendering debate moot. -epicAdam (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors involved: User:MuZemike, User:Vin Kaleu

Article involved: Hearts of Iron III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Location of dispute: User talk:MuZemike#Forums are not good sources?

There is a disagreement between us over whether the official forum for the article Hearts of Iron III is a verifiable source. I claim that it is not because it is a self-published source. Vin Kaleu disagrees, claiming that a company's official forum (here) is indeed reliable and verifiable because it is "official communication" and a primary source. However, I disagree. So here we are, looking for someone else to help out with resolution of this dispute before it escalates any further. MuZemike (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at the talk location. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I claim that the best source for a statement from a company about its work are messages from the company itself. If the game developers in question operates an official forum, has easily identifiable "officials" (the game creators in this case) and clearly posts official messages about their work (and the forum is open to everyone, regardless of registration), then that source should be considered authoritative and correct regarding their own work. The publications of third-party media will ever only be further repeats and interpretations of those initial messages. A good source is authoritative on what is claimed in a wiki-article; and nothing could probably be more authoritative about a company's doings then their own publications, be they web-site press releases, e-mails, phone conversations to other third party media or in this case a forum. Suppose the game developers release highly interesting information through their forums, should that information be disregarded simply because some third part site hasn't made an article about just those posts? Vin Kaleu (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Like I posted over at the talk page, normally forums would not be allowed. Why not just use the press release? I mean, the fact that IGN also published the release now makes the point moot. -epicAdam (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Source related article trouble

Resolved: The Spanish Inquisitor 12:43, 29 August 2008

I've recently edited the article Milan Tepić by providing NPOV tags + requesting citations. The user User_talk:Damjanoviczarko responded by adding the Serbian version of the Wiki page as source. I've reverted the edit by noting that's against policy and provided links to the Wiki policies, but he just keeps reverting my removal of his changes.

I need an admin to step in because I don't think he'll stop with this...The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the tags and removed the citations to Wikipedia. I have also warned Damjanoviczarko about edit warring. If he/she reverts again today, I suggest you report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. In the mean time, remember that discussion is the best way to resolve disputes. I see that you have engaged Damjanoviczarko on his/her talkpage and they replied. Could you tell us what the response was (since it's not in English).
Thanks. Basically, in the talk pages he says: "Everything written is true. You know nobody can find something about him from a non-Serb, non-Croat page." then rambles on about heroism. My response was "This is an encylopedia, people can't just write in what they like. You must source your material." (twice in the talk page and twice in the history page). He made no response to this. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image help please

Resolved: Image not used on any article page, no conflict. epicAdam (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Castro Market.jpg

This image is actually a compilation of four or five other images. It misrepresents what is actually there but I'm unsure how to approach it; is it a policy violation of some sort? I'm less experienced in images so would appreciate any advice. Banjeboi 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It all depends what images were used to create that final compilation. If those images are in the public domain or have the appropriate creative commons license, then that image should be okay. -epicAdam (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well let's pretend that all those images are fine. My concern is that someone's artwork which misrepresents, in this case the neighborhood depicted, is misleading and a form of fraud. Banjeboi 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever dude, I don't see how this can be considered fraud, maybe you should look the word up. I don't care. Since you're losing so much sleep over this, (being the guy that I am) I'll happily remove it.EditorUSA (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As Epicadam notes, as long as the original photos are free (or taken by the uploader) and the composite image is only used on user pages, it should probably be OK. It's not really appropriate for use in articles, though — it doesn't seem to illustrate The Castro (or any other article-worthy subject I can think of) any better than the several unaltered pictures we already have. Also, the fact that the image has been retouched should probably be noted on the image description page (e.g. with {{retouched}}), even if it is kind of obvious. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I must've read the question incorrectly the first time. If a user has it on his or her personal page, then it's fine. Like Ilmari Karonen, I would not recommend that it be used on any article pages. There are a handful of pages which use a photo montage for their infobox images, but these are mostly created by simply combining photos into a gallery (see New York City, London), not photoshopped together like that into a single image. -epicAdam (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's my bad as I should have pointed to the Castro neighborhood article it was on. I have no concern if it's just in user space. Banjeboi 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It does not appear that the image is used in any article, including The Castro, San Francisco, California. Since this image is only on a user page, there's really no conflict. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism that cannot be reverted

Resolved: User:Ilmari Karonen 14:55, 28 August 2008

I found vandalism at article, Hugh Dancy, where entire filmography has been deleted by User:GossipGirl16, as evident from page history [3]. Revert not working, so I have copy pasted text from edit before that [4]. If this request can be directed to a more appropriate forum, Thanks! (Ekabhishek (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

It looks like your manual revert worked. Thanks for that. GossipGirl16 has already been warned, so I see nothing more to do here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for fixing this. Many edits cannot be undone with the "undo" link because there have been other edits in the same region since. See Help:Reverting#How to revert for another method to revert by editing and saving an older page version. I have posted the message {{uw-delete1}} from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to User talk:GossipGirl16. This was only the second edit by a user who has not received warnings before, and no other reaction is needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson article

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was browsing the article on Jack Nicholson and it ends rather abruptly mid-sentence, it seems there is also a lot of data missing from the page such as film lists etc. Not sure how this works as there didn't seem a clear way of reporting a problem with a page, hope this gets through.

Miss sina (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looked like an inadvertent problem. Should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with a Dispute

Resolved: Taken to WP:BLPN. --BelovedFreak 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a dispute with another editor on a page. The problem goes more in depth than I want to say (I don't know if this will be a public comment or not). Can I discuss it with someone privately? I need some advice. Thanks!

Fiona2211814 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually disputes are discussed publicly where they can be handled in an open forum. However, if you need to discuss a private matter, there are ways. If you need to contact an administrator, you can contact one of the administrators here or add a post to administrators' noticeboard. Otherwise, you can send me an email, here. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze -Should suicide be used as a category

Resolved: it would seem.--BelovedFreak 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed someone changing categories here in the Freddie Prinze article .In glancing at the article I noticed various categories using the word suicide .While his death was originally ruled suicide it is now classed as "death by accidental shooting due to the influence of Quaaludes " as mentioned in the article . Should those suicide categories be removed since they now have no legal justification . Garda40 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The user who made the change is a well-known admin. I would just ask him on his talk page why he made that change and explain to him that the death was not officially a suicide. Or simply revert the change and perhaps make a note on the article talk page. The real question is does a suicide have to be intentional. I would say it has to be intentional to be called a suicide, even though that may be difficult to determine in certain cases. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply .Garda40 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

hemoglobin or haemoglobin

Resolved: Active WP:ENGVAR discussion started on article talk page -epicAdam(talk) 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

The original article (obtained by looking through the history) appears to have been writen with haemoglobin as the spelling (British English). According to wikipedia rules, an article may be writen any form of accepted English, but that the original form (in this case British English) must be adhered to. Should this article not therefore be titled 'Haemoglobin' and continue with this spelling throughout?

Many Thanks

James Hounslow —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any spelling should be consistent throughout. You may wish to start a discussion on the talk page and determine whether American or British English would be most appropriate for the article. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

POV fork

Resolved: Pages locked and conflict resolution under way at another assistance board. epicAdam(talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please advise how to deal with the Pakistan occupied Kashmir article. The article was created after the Azad Kashmir article was protected from editing. I believe this is a POV fork, I was going to ask for a third opinion on this but there seems to be more that two editors involved. What is the way forward? Pahari Sahib 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that an administrator has locked both pages until a consensus can be reached on the articles. The best way forward, then, would be to have a rational discussion on the talk page of both articles. It appears there is a centralized discussion on the issue on another noticeboard at Wikipedia:CCN#Azad_Kashmir_.26_Pakistan_occupied_Kashmir. You may wish to continue your discussions there. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

stub on Bo Lozoff

Resolved: Editor(s) involved appear to have stopped reverting edits. -epicAdam(talk) 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent article in a newspaper about this person ( which I tried to add to the external links of this article. However, it was removed. I posted on the talk/discussion section of the page, hoping to talk to the person who removed the link and re-posted the link. It was removed again. This is a recent article (August 27) that includes criticism and negative views of the person. The stub currently doesn't have any criticism or any links with criticism. I would like this view to at least be reflected in the links, however I don't know how to contact the person removing the link and I don't want to simply keep reposting it.

Is this a the kind of article I should be linking to? (as far as I can tell from the guidelines, it is) and if so, how can I either communicate with the person removing it or put it up without it getting removed?

Ray (under various IPs in the history of that page, because I don't have an account) (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have re-added the information in question, albeit with a more encyclopedic tone and made sure to reference the information properly. The issue with making such claims is that we have to be very, very careful to source information properly so that it is not found to be libelous. As this story is from a reliable source, a well-known newspaper, I do believe it is appropriate to provide the information. Should User:MaryBrig revert the edits again, she would be in violation of WP:3RR and could be reported. Also, if you plan on making contributions in the future, you may want to seriously consider opening an account. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, Indiana / Miller Beach, Indiana

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two articles involved: Gary, Indiana and Miller Beach.

Undisputed: Miller/Miller Beach was once upon a time an independent municipality which was subsequently incorporated into the City of Gary. Gary as a whole is mostly black. The Miller neighborhood is mostly white. Some in Miller are not happy about being a part of Gary.

The dispute: Some editors on the Gary page and especially on the Miller Beach page repeatedly try to state that Miller Beach "is" an independent town. Additional weasel words or language with NPOV problems are used to suggest that the incorporation was forcible or illegitimate.

My position: Miller (aka Miller Beach) in fact is, today, as a legal matter merely a neighborhood or part of Gary. I don't have a problem with a historical piece on the former Town of Miller Beach, but see it constantly stating, erroneously, that Miller Beach "is" a small town, when it is not an independent entity at all. Even the other editor's edits acknowledge Miller's having been incorporated into the City of Gary as a legal matter. Constantly saying that Miller Beach "is" a small town (not "was") seems more a part of an agenda by the editor involved.

The problem: Constant editing and reverting back and forth...

How to fix the situation so that information -- however one may feel about it -- which is clearly (and admittedly) factually erroneous not be constantly re-edited back in?

See also the discussions on this topic in the Gary and Miller Beach pages. This topic has been discussed among a few editors. Xenophon777 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be a bit late, but Its nice to know that someone is interested in your problem. You seem to be the person who is right in this situation in that it is a neighborhood, yet I don't see the problem of leaving the page as a separate article. For example, Dorchester, Massachusetts was once a separate community, but was annexed by Boston. It has its own article with information concerning only Dorchester. The "neighborhoods" section should tell a brief history with a link to the article for more indepth info (I'd suggest bulleting that list). Hope this helps. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually mind that there is a separate article (though I have suggested a merger in the past). My concern is about one or more editors who insist on saying that Miller Beach "is" a town, not "was," notwithstanding that Miller was long ago incorporated into the City of Gary (which is not in dispute). It would be a bit like an editor's insisting on editing the Dorchester article to state that Dorchester is *not* a neighborhood but an independent town. Xenophon777 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Review on policy

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Something feels weird about the article John Fleming (DJ). There aren't that many references and the wiki-links seem to go to other articles which have poor references. Though I haven't looked finding other sources, I question the notability of the subject and the verifiability. I also wonder, what or where is that policy that talk about promoting your own website? --CyclePat (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean, is that this article, and some of the related articles, don't appear to have any 3rd party references. It uses references which appear to be right from the original source. That's okay, but according to WP:OR we should use some external or 3rd party sources, right? --CyclePat (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That lack of third-party sources makes me question the DJ's notability. I tagged it as such. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wickethewok added substantial information to the article and used two refs, and Allmusic. If we're willing to accept these as reliable sources, then it's fine. You can ask about them at WP:RSN or attempt to reach consensus on the article talk page. Fleetflame 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Allmusic accepts user content, so I doubt that would be reliable. I don't know anything about DJ Magazine. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Does AllMusic accept user content? I was under the impression that they used a staff of professional music critics. Of course, that doesn't preclude them accepting user content... I have used them as a source before (often) & always thought they were reliable. I'll try and see if there has been discussion on them before.--BelovedFreak 10:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
They have professional writers and accept user content; I'm not sure of a way to tell what's been submitted and what hasn't. IMO, this link is probably okay, as it's credited to an AMG writer, but some might consider it shaky. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I searched around a bit and it seems that opinions are divided, although most disputes with their version of things seem to have been with regard to genres. It seems to have been accepted as a reliable source in some featured article and list candidates. But, obviously, anything that's user submitted wouldn't be reliable.--BelovedFreak 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Inhumer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and FatalError (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - on the Emarosa page, both of these users are changing the genre from "Rock" to "post-hardcore" repeadedly and change my information as soon as I get it on the spot. WP:RS states the source needs to coexist with the fact, the album. The album redirects buyers to and which lists "Rock" as the genre. My source is and it's a PROFESSIONAL music metadata base review staff widely recognized even on wikipedia. This PROFESSIONAL source coexists with and as the genre "Rock", which is listed on their album. These two users have listed either OLD information or minor websites that do not coexist with the genre on the album. Their sites do no coexist with the facts which in turn makes them non reliable sources. I have the only reliable source on the page. I need these two users blocked in order to be able to make my changes because they instantly delete "ALL" of my professional information. HELP!!!!!!!! please Thisisyourwayout (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)thisisyourwayout

It appears that the changes made by User:Inhumer and User:FatalError are good faith edits. The source you point to indeed lists the band's genre as "Rock"; however, the argument made by the other users is that "post hardcore" is simply a subsection of the all-encompassing "rock" genre. I therefore see no conflict in the sources. The fact that the AMG, MySpace, and Rise Records only categorized the band by the overall category does not, at least to me, mean that the band cannot be listed as "post hardcore" as well, as the other sources say. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't see what would be wrong with having both Rock and Post-hardcore as genres, as they have both been used by different sources to define the band. If you can't reach a consensus though, I would suggest a third opinion or request for comment to get more editors involved.--BelovedFreak 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident: RCMP Surveillance/Interference?

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a curious experience posting a paragraph to the 'Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident'. The posted paragraph disappeared within seconds and when I tried again the same result obtained. This is the missing paragraph from the 'political response' section in question;

'Mr. Dziekanski's death occurred following a string of lethal force, police brutality and corruption incidents that have undermined public confidence in the RCMP. (reference: CBC The National: Special Edition, A Deadly Landing. In British Columbia, several municipalities without their own police departments are reviewing their contractual arrangements with the RCMP and there has been some interest in reviving the province's civilian constabulary, the British Columbia Provincial Police (BCPP) that existed from 1858 until 1950 and which was administered from the provinical capital in Victoria'.

This, to me, seems fair comment. Now had this paragraph been removed after a few hours or days, then no suspicion would attach. However, given the sensitivity of the RCMP to this issue and my previous experience of the force as a journalist, I feel I should Red Flag this as a case of suspected police surveillance and interference. Is this paranoid delusion, you might ask? Possibly so, but if you dig into the scandals that surrond the force and the potential that criminal prosecution may be forthcoming, it is not such a bizarre conclusion. Please keep an eye on the 'Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident' and other matters connected with the RCMP and let me know if you detect any suspicious activity.

Best wishes,


Your edits were removed on the basis that blogs are not reliable sources as they convey the opinion of the author. See [5]. x42bn6 Talk

Mess 09:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reposted the comment without the offending link and was just about to include a reference source (Mr. Justice W. G. Craig (retd) of the B. C. provincial court) when I received the following message;

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Robert Dziekański Taser incident. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the judges are not neutral, what hope is there for the rest of us? Your advice would be welcome.

What is the link for the source you have from the Justice? You have to make sure that the source provides all the exact information you are about to insert. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
W. G Craig, 'Hold Your Politicians to Public Account' North Shore News, 6/8/08
The problem with this source is that it is an op-ed. Per WP:RS, "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." Therefore this article cannot be used to source the information you are trying to add. Is there a regular news report that provides the same information but not in an op-ed? Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the pointers. Much appreciated. It is difficult to envision such a wide chasm between 'news' and 'opinion' in this context, however; Mr. Justice Craig's articles (see also See Craig 'Tasers a Misuse of Police Power' North Shore News seemed to fit the bill, because according to Wikipedia;

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.

In British Columbia, this credibility issue is complicated by the RCMP having ceased to respond appropriately as more people have come to regard the force as a law unto itself -- the provincial government has no jurisdiction, the (provincial) Police Complaints Commission is impotent and the federal government shirks responsibility. The RCMP's E Division (British Columbia) publishes a rapid rebuttal page on its website, a professional spin operation that has been working in overdrive since last November. Nevertheless, the the Dziekanski Tasering detonated long-simmering problems and represents a turning point. The aim of what I thought was a succinct but accurate paragraph was to place in context what has become a complex political crisis. Best, MacBiggles.

Also, your edit wasn't neutrally worded. The bolded parts don't really fit the bill:
...following a string of lethal force, police brutality and corruption incidents that have undermined public confidence in the RCMP.
1)Unless the source actually says that a string of officers were convicted of brutality, it's only opinion that their actions constituted brutality. 2) "Undermined public confidence" is also opinion- there's really no way to determine that. As this is an encyclopedia, articles need to be a fairly dry statement of what occurred, without commentary. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, Jeremy. I suppose I was, to put it mildly, shocked and dismayed by the unconscionably anodyne wording that failed to represent the story accurately. One only needs to look at Wikipedia's pages on 'Scandals Surrounding the RCMP', 'Ian Bush' or 'Maher Arar' to gather that the RCMP -- of today if not of yesteryear -- is an institutionally corrupt agency. Most of the Canadian press shrink at tackling such a powerful institution, although small independent newspapers have shown more courage. I suspect that if manslaughter charges are not lodged against the four constables responsible for the death of Mr. Dziekanski by December (when all enquiries are scheduled to be concluded) the contributions to the 'Robert Dziekansi Taser Incident' page will soar. ---- Best, MacBiggles.


Resolved: For now, at least. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted this on Wikipedia:Help desk and got directed to here.

Hi. I as well as a couple other editors are currently in a naming/merging dispute of an article. We have requested a third opinion, and got 2 of them. All other members support the proposed merge, as well as the users who posted the third opinions, which is supported by the official website of the event, while 1 user opposes it. If all other users support the move while 1 opposes it, is that considered a consensus? I have looked at all the other help pages on resolving a dispute, but nothing seems to work with this one user, while the consensus wikipedia page is not clear on what is considered a consensus. The specific dispute is at Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Merger proposal. I do not really know where to go from here, since everyone seems to support the move expect this 1 user who is opposing it (with Original Research too). If someone sees an obvious consensus, could they close it? Thanks for the help in advance. Greekboy (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help? This whole dispute is getting so out of hand with the opposing user. Greekboy (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the compromise that was reported at WP:AN on the 18th? GlassCobra 03:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The user reverted his compromise (which moved the page to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992) since it went against what the source says and what the actually performance was performed under and against general naming conventions. (which was just Yugoslavia regardless of the political situation then) Now what we have is a general consensus to move/merge the page/information into Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest with a third outside opinion supporting this too, with 1 opposing user. And no one wants to step up and close the subject. Again, any help is appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I would have updated the AN, but it seemed like no one cared anyway. I agreed to the compromise because I caved in because I got no support or other opinions. It was me and this user going back and forth dozens of times. When I woke up the next morning, some members of the wikiproject had reverted some of the merger things and it made me realize how wrong it was to merge, esp when i was going against the source. So I put everything back the way it was before, and started a "real" merger proposal to the page I had originally wished to merge the content into. We are really hitting a wall here; the user won't give up even though I believe we all provided enough reasons, even getting 2 outside opinions in support of us. We need someone to come in and make the decision and close the discussion with whichever solution seems to have the consensus. Please help! Grk1011 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone? Greekboy (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

After a quick look at the talk and the straw poll at the MEDCAB page, I'd say there's a pretty clear consensus to merge it. In both instances, only the one user dissented. Keep the discussion at the MEDCAB going at this time. There are times when you have to proceed, and revert the dissenter when they revert you, until the dissenter gets blocked for violating consensus. You should keep discussing before you take that step, however. Your mediator will help. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the merge has gone through and the dissenter has not yet reverted, but I feel like he has something up his sleeve so its good to know that there is another option. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

German Pinscher Article

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


An unsubscribed user keeps deleting facts from this article. Please prevent this from occuring.


Elle —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosenAtTara (talkcontribs) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the IPs were reverted - a good deal of info (though unsourced) has been added by IPs, so I don't think it's that huge a problem right now. Although I see a bit of an edit war brewing between you and another named user. Perhaps you should take your troubles to the article's talk page? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That's me, I've left a message on CaT's talk page about it since he immediately reverted me. I've also tagged the article as unreferenced, since it currently has no secondary sources at all. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the symbol of the waffen SS Skanderbeg is not serbian ..Its an albanian unit

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Its Albanian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. -epicAdam (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's about 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian). The page history shows disagreement about the country parameter in the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required with Company article submission

Resolved: Asked and answered. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello- I would like to place general public information about our company on Wikipedia, similar in nature to Quest Software.

What is the best way to go about doing this without violating COI/spam/advertising rules? We only wish to provide basic and accurate public information.

Please advise, thank you in advance-

Regards, Kurt Lewis CEO SysOp Tools, Inc.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sys0pTools (talkcontribs) 14:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to create their own articles at any time, given that the subject meets the standards set by WP:NOTABILITY. In general, this means that information about the company should come from reliable third-party sources. That way, it's not just information publicized by the company on Wikipedia, which I believe is your main concern. If you noticed, the Quest Software page is sourced from a third-party publication ( ) and the company is listed on the NASDAQ, indicating the company is indeed notable. As for how to create the article, you can simply click on this link: SysOp Tools and begin creating the wiki article. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the Wiki markup language, I would read Wikipedia:Introduction first; that guide will provide you an overview of how to edit pages. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best and good luck, epicAdam (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that you also read Guideline regarding Conflict of Interest. One way to avoid COI problems you may want suggest that it is created by somebody else at Wikipedia:Requested articles or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business, if it is notable enough I am sure somebody will create it. When the article is created you should suggest changes and additions on the related talk page to avoid any conflicts of interest. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blockbusters (US game show)

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide assistance in ending an edit war for Blockbusters (US game show)? Two users are going in after each other makes an edit to the spelling of a particular contestant's last name ("Yung" vs. "Young"). Sottolacqua (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first problem is that nobody has provided a source for the information. If you have a source that says how many games he won, then that would most likely have his name, right? Further, if there's an edit war, that user may be violating that three edit revert rule, and can be reported there. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lou 1955 di Guido Ruzzier.jpg

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I am Guido Ruzzier - personal information removed - and I am the author of the photograph of Louis E. Sauer which is discussed in page

Free publication of the photo was originally granted by me to the owner of the webpage

I am quite willing - being a very, very old friend of Louis' (the photo was taken in 1955) - to let anybody else freely use the image, with no restrictions, provided my name is mentioned as the author's.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get in touch with "Yvonnert" (who probably does not know how to reach me), but I'm sure you'll find a way to solve this small matter to everybody's satisfaction.

Best regards, Guido Ruzzier, Milano, Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Grazie! I'll leave a message for Yvonnert pointing this out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did someone undo all my work on the GSD page?

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did someone undo all the work I did on the GSD page? The GSD wiki page is full of incomplete information and erroneous information about the breed. For example, the claim that there are only two types of GSDs is false! The King Shepherd is a mixed breed, not even a GSD variation!

One of the very most common health problems that owners of GSDs are likely to see in their dog, panosteitis (a temporary painful lameness "growing pains" in the long bones of the limbs), isn't even mentioned.

The info on colors and patterns in the breed is VERY imcomplete and while the statement about white being more visible was said, Von Stephanitz also said a good dog cannot be a bad color. Horand had white longcoated grandparents and white didn't become a disqualification until WW2...mostly due to politics and lack of knowledge about genetics, white was erroneously believed to be due to albinism.

The most dominant genetic pattern, agouti (called Sable in the USA and called "grau" aka gray in Germany) isn't even mentioned. Sable is dominant genetically over black and tan pattern. Solid black is recessive to both. There are also two different recessive dilutions of black, called blue and liver in the USA (blau or blauling in Germany for blue, and braun is German term for liver). White in the GSD is totally unrelated to the above color inheritance, white acts as if a GSD of any other color, just had a white sheet dropped over it, hiding the dog's genetic dark color & pattern.

Links on GSD color genetics where the different colors patterns and coat lengths are discussed and illustrated in photographs.

King Shepherd isn't a variety of the GSD, it's a mix breed with emphasis on GSD appearance.

There are several varieties and they are different enough from each other that the trained eye can usually look at a dog and say if its American show, German working or East European working lines, German show, etc! These variations and others differ in proportions, structural aspects, head type, and even temperament! None of these are mentioned in the article!

One of the most common health problems in the breed is the temporary lameness disorder panosteitis. Megaesophagus also is common in the breed. A number of other problems such as hemophilia A, PRA, and genetic epilepsy, are not mentioned.

BTW, I have all the AKC & SV studbooks back to 1940, SV magazines back to 1954, GSD reviews as far back as the 1950s, SchHUSA magazines, DVG, NASA (an old working organization pre SchHUSA), GS Quarterly, as well as small numbers of issues of other GSD newsletters, magazines, etc, thousands of pedigrees and photos, and most of the really good GSD books ever published (meaning books with indepth breed info, not the basic pet care books that are almost totally generic except for photos of the breed in the book), some koerbuchs, and I have written articles on the breed, done indepth pedigree & genetic research for years, as well as having bred, shown, trained, etc, for years.

Another question maybe you can answer....why does wikipedia forbid original research? By doimg that, WIKIPEDIA AUTOMATICALLY SHUTS OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE OR EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD!

It seems quite illogical that Wikipedia has a rule to keep truly knowledgeable people from contributing!

1337 ---= —Preceding unsigned comment added by .1337. (talkcontribs) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to German Shepherd Dog were reverted because they contained information from two websites (Geocities and Angelfire) that are deemed to be unreliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines found at WP:RELIABLE. In general, sources are considered reliable when they come from published books, journals, magazines, or third-party websites that are deemed to be reliable (such as news organizations). Original research is not absolutely forbidden, however, there are more rules governing its use. From WP:COS:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

If you have sources that meet the standards of WP:RELIABLE, please replace your edits citing those references. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi 1337. Your story is one often repeated: a new editor comes to Wikipedia, and does a large edit, without fully understanding the conventions of Wikipedia. I encourage you to begin with small edits, learning how Wikipedia works.
If you have some good research of your own (I'm guessing you're the author of those Geocities pages), probably the best thing to do is to suggest it as an external link on the article's Talk page (the "discussion" tab near the top of the page). Wikipedia experiences many people coming in and inserting links promoting themselves, but if you suggest it via the Talk page the editors will probably look more kindly on it.
As for Geocities, it depends on the subject matter. I wouldn't trust a self-published Geocities page which put forward new theories on Rocket Science, for instance. But for hobby type topics (like German Shepherd Dog), which don't attract a lot of mainstream publishing, self-published sources can be quite good and needn't be dismissed out of hand. I note that many (even most) of the sites linked to from German Shepherd Dog are also self-published, it's just that the site authors have gone to the trouble of spending a few dollars registering an official-sounding domain like or rather than putting their material on Geocities for free. But you should let the community of editors decide, rather than being adamant that your work must go in. All the best. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit because it mostly constituted original research and as I am trying to get the article up to good article status, the information needs to be adequately sourced, with a reliable source - such a published source or a credible website. With regards to what Peter Ballard has written above, all the sources used are reliable;, while indeed self-published, has enjoyed significant media coverage for their information and fact checking, having been mentioned in books, magazines etc. and is the website of what used to be the official East German Shepherd Dog club. Geocities sites are not reliable and an article would not get to Good Article status with a reference to Geocities - whether it be on Quantum Physics or Pokemon. I would love to work with you on the article as you are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject, however please understand that anything added to the article must be supported by a source that is deemed reliable. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 02:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Resolved: Advice given. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Undisputed: a complaint has been made in the talk page that the article includes "Poorly sourced statements backed by advocacy NGOs and organizations that do not meet the requirements of WP:RS as a source (,, youtube clips, even other Wikipedia pages just to name a few)" After a revert war (which I am guilty of participated in) the page "is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."

The dispute: 1) no other information has been provided despite requests to provide some (which makes it hard to resolve the dispute! but my appeal to the admin was unsucessful), 2) human rights groups are by definition advocacy groups but does that make them not reliable? If it does, that would seem to disqualify the vast majority of human rights complaints made, and a great many ones listed in other wikipedia articles.

My position: the RS tag appeared on the article along with other tags and with no comment in the talk page. The article had had no complaints about any of the tag issues for over a year, and in the mean time it had been extensively rewritten. (The comment above about poorly sourced statements was added a couple of weeks later after a RfC (request for comment) by me.) This seems to me a might suspicious. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a brief look and go by the reference numbers as they currently appear:
  • 5: This is a website on It doesn't meet RS, since anyone can create a page there.
  • 25, 28, 30, 38 (possibly more): The Human Rights Watch website. This is an advocacy group, so it's natural to be concerned with a bias.
  • 41: Letters to the editor page; since these are submitted by readers, it's not a RS.
  • 44:, the "Iran Terror Database". More slanted than HRW.
  • 51: Crimes Against Humanity: Indict Iran's Ruling Mullahs for Massacre of 30,000 Political Prisoners, published by a group that, according to its Wiki page, "advocates the overthrow of the Iran government". Again, strongly biased source.
I'm not going to go through any more, since there are over 100. I think there's definitely a concern with these sources. While it's courteous to post on the talk about a tag, it's not required, and I think this case is pretty self-explanatory. The tagger's talk-page rationale seems sufficient. One thing about human rights groups: as you put it yourself, "vast majority of human rights complaints made". A complaint is not automatically true, simply because someone makes the public complaint. Nothing suspicious here; that article is a mess. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your input and will delete the mujahideen and tripod stuff. But as for Human Rights Watch ....
The Human Rights Watch website. This is an advocacy group, so it's natural to be concerned with a bias.
Could you be a little more specific???? "concerned"?? Is it or isn't it legit? Of course "A complaint is not automatically true" and the government's response (if they have one) should be given, but is a complaint by HRW notable? The problem here is the tagger's line is non-academic advocacy website are not reliable sources ... There is nothing further to explain here
But the word "advocacy," as in "non-academic advocacy" does not appear on the [Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We routinely quote Human Right's groups like Amnestry International. If all else fails we can always attribute each supposed fact to the source. Information by Human Rights groups should not be removed, especially in an article specifically about Human rights. This is from the instructions on the POV template:

Place [The POV tag] at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page.

Whenever you add a NPOV dispute where there previously was not one, you are supposed to say why you added it, not point to previously resolved disputes as a justification of the current tags. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's okay to use HRW as sources; it just needs to be phrased that it's coming from them, not as fact. I was looking at the sources before and not the text; at least the first instance says "according to Human Rights Watch", so it's fine. Didn't mean it to sound like you couldn't use those sources, it just needs to be phrased as the view by a group. Same with, for example, PETA or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

orphan deadend unreferrenced?

Resolved: Some improvements made. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


I have read editing tips, but am confused on some of the editorial comments on our page for Rice Alliance. The page is in progress. At the top of the page there are editorial comments that say Orphan, Deadend, and Unreferrenced. I have provided web and wiki links to the Rice Alliance, Rice University and specific Rice Schools and articles related to the Rice Alliance. What other sources do I need to make our page NOT orphaned, deadend or unreferrenced?

How can I referrence awards and high rankings for our educational services without it being seen as advertising or spammy. My intention is to show outside sources opinions or rankings of the program and schools. I thought outside sources would help verify us. Can you provide me guidance?

thank you, Mary Lynn idshoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idshoes (talkcontribs) 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Idshoes (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no single great Wikigod that adds and removes those maintenance banners on pages. If you have added links and references, then you can remove the tags yourself. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That's right. I think the spam tag related more to the copy than the listing of references; the latter is generally seen as a positive. I'll take a look, convert the refs to look like refs, and so forth. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I just messed with the display; hopefully it's clearer what needs fixed. For the orphan concern, only one other article links to it. To avoid the orphan tag, links pointing to it should be introduced in other articles. The tone and advert concerns come from the language- some of it sounds like it was written by a PR person (e.g. "World-class Faculty" as a section title). I removed the deadend and wikify tags; it has formatting. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing that the article really needs is references to coverage in independent reliable sources. In particular, all of the statements that could be challenged need to be backed up by reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

need help with a dispute

Resolved: Advice given. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am requesting assistance with a dispute over the article called OSUNY. Towards the beginning of 2007 there was an edit war over some contested bits of history, and a specific set of language was chosen as the compromise. At this time there is an attempt being made to change the article back to one side's version. In order to avoid another edit war, how may we request assistance from a senior Wikipedia editor? Art Cancro (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first move would be to leave a note on his talk page, directing him to both the article's talk page and this discussion. If he is unwilling to discuss the edits, then WP:3RR would come into play. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to get other editors involved to help reach a consensus, you can try a third opinion or a request for comment. If you go for the latter, and put it in the Maths, science, and technology section, you should have a good chance of attracting editors familiar with the subject.--BelovedFreak 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a question, do we normally mention ongoing lawsuits in Wikipedia articles? There was a dispute at the Albert Asriyan over whether to include this. The only source for this is a press release, and I'm not really sure if it's appropriate to mention an ongoing lawsuit like this. However, the wife of the subject insists on its inclusion ([6]). Does anyone know of any similar incidents and what to do in this case? Khoikhoi 08:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate. Until a lawsuit has been mentioned by reliable sources, it is necessarily insignificant, in addition to general neutrality and BLP concerns. We have to consider that anyone can file a lawsuit, and they can say anything they want in it. So we have to follow the same rules as self-published sources, and never use them as sources concerning people other than the writer. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
A press release doesn't count as a reliable source for something like this, which appears to be all she's quoting in that paragraph. It looks like she's been nicely asked to refrain from restoring the material as she has a really strong conflict of interest here, has she responded to it? In any case, I agree with Someguy above- when and if the lawsuit is mentioned in a reliable source, then we can talk about it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ted Kendall, remastering engineer - factual error

Resolved: Editor advised. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am the Ted Kendall referred to in the above entry, and I wish to make it clear that the final paragraph of the current entry is entirely wrong. I do not live in New South Wales, I have no particular interest in fish, and I am not married to Phoebe and do not have a daughter called Charlotte. There may be another Ted Kendall in this happy state, but I'm in my own happy state, thank you. My wife, whom I married in 1992, is called Collette; we are still married; we have a son, not a daughter; and we still live in the Welsh marches.

I deleted the offending material as soon as it was brought to my attention, and it was almost immediately reinstated. I repeat, this information does not apply to me in any particular whatsoever. The rest of the article, as far as it goes, is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing blocks of information from articles often looks like vandalism and gets reverted. I'd suggest that it may be best to contact something called OTRS about this (which other more experienced users can explain better) as there are proper procedures in place for this sort of thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for some options and Wikipedia:OTRS for information about OTRS. I am not from OTRS but will watch the article for a while to see that unsourced claims like these don't get back in. It was all added by an unregistered editor with an IP address from Canberra, Australia.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Per the Biographies of living persons policy, you are perfectly justified in removing unsourced material from the article, even if it wasn't about you. As Jasynnash2 said above, deleting information from an article, particularly without using edit summaries looks like vandalism so that is probably why you were reverted. If you want to add the correct information to the article, you will need to back it up with references to reliable sources. --BelovedFreak 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)