Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 33

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


Does Wikipedia have a policy on global warming denier information?

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I discovered what I would call a bias in the page Methanol economy. The page said (and says again), 'The use of methane (and other fossil fuel) for the production of methanol using all the above mentioned synthetic routes has a possible drawback: the emission of a "greenhouse gas" CO2. However, the CO2 effect on the climate, if any, is the subject of debate.'

Note the quotation marks around the phrase "greenhouse gas", and the "if any".

There is no scientific debate on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has been settled since the 1930s. The question of the degree to which CO2 warms Earth has been the subject of scientific inquiry, but there is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Moreover the degree of warming from levels of CO2 is now established in the literature. There has been a debate raised by global warming deniers in the popular press, but again, no scientific journal debates the question.

Is science to be ignored here? Note the sentence in question does not cite any sources. I would call into question the neutrality of the whole article. (How does one insert one of those neutrality questioning warnings.)

Anyway, again my question is what is Wikipedia's position on anti-science statements? EarlKillian (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no such things as "anti-science" statements. The only thing of concern to Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" and to maintain a neutral point of view. Therefore if you have a source that says something to the contrary, then change the article and add your source. You may also want to look at the guideline at WP:FRINGE; however, it probably does not apply in this case. There is still a good amount of debate as to the actual effect of greenhouse gases in relation to global warming by serious scholars so to call their theories "fringe" or "antiscience" would be a stretch. If other take issue with your edits, you may want to start a conversation on the article's talk page in order to achieve a consensus. Best, epicAdam (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added back the changes you made along with a couple sources to back them up. I also created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. By the way, I think {{neutrality}} is the template you're looking for. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does labeling something as criticism count as WP:OR?

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a bit out-there, I know... Anyway, I've ended up wanting to add one little bit to the Ctrl+Alt+Del article, after stripping out the only part I thought could be OR - a more in-depth reference to the "B^U" thing.

: [[VG Cats]] released a [[2008]] [[April Fools' Day|April Fools']] comic parodying Ctrl+Alt+Delete, entitled "Bee Up Arrow You".<ref>{{citeweb|url=|title=Bee Up Arrow You|publisher=VG Cats|month=April|year=2008|accessdate=2008-08-29}}</ref>

User:Thrindel has repeatedly claimed that even saying that this is criticism at all (eg. putting it in the Criticism section of the article) is WP:OR, but this doesn't seem at all right to me, given the explicitly self-deprecatory nature of the parody comic in question. Are either or both of us in the wrong here? (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're interpreting the intention of a piece of artwork, a parody, with no sources from the artist as to what the intended message really was. That's why it is WP:OR. If it is criticism, then it requires special knowledge to view it as such (ie, whatever criticisms are represented in the comic) because the comic itself does not explain them. Since you can't provide corroborating, verifiable sources to explain the criticism you feel is present in the comic, it is OR. And simply listing that "this comic did a parody of this other comic" is minor trivia. We left that link in the article's criticism section for over a month, waiting for additional sources to be found. None were. That's why it was removed, and that's why we continue to remove it.--Thrindel (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You say it requires special knowledge. I say it doesn't, given (at the very least) the explicit nature of the "Ever notice how these last two panels are relatively useless?" exchange. It's obvious neither of us will agree on this topic, which is why I've asked for an outside opinion. (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you asked for a 3rd opinion, which you got. Was it just not the opinion you wanted to hear?--Thrindel (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I'm looking for an outside opinion - Knowledgeum seems, as far as I can tell, one of the "usual crop" who keep an eye on the article, and while this doesn't necessarily imply bias, I'd be happier finding someone who hasn't regularly dealt with the topic at hand, all the better in regards to the overall neutrality of any opinions given. (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I have to comment on this. You requested a 3rd opinion. You recieved one. It obviously wasnt the answer you wanted. Just becuase someone may be from the "usual crop" or takes part in a article actively does not discount thier opinion or make it invalid in a 3rd opinion request. Further a 3O would have probably been dismissed as this perticular subject was already discussed further up on the talk page, even with a 3O request that was also dismissed because there were more than one editor involved. 3O does not work when more than one editor is involved, such as the case with this topic. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In this case, I'd say it's original research. But that aside, I think that statement doesn't really belong in the article as it just constitutes a mention of a trivial reference to something else. If it's significant (i.e., it's mentioned as a parody of the other comic in secondary sources) and important to the topic of the comic, then it should be included somewhere. But to me, this sounds like a piece of trivia trying to masquerade as criticism. Hope I've been of some help! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the help (and for politely pointing out WP:PSTS, which looking at it again seems more the issue here than most of the things Thrindel's been saying). I'll let it be, given lack of a secondary source. (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Glad to have been of assistance! :-) —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Argentina: Ethnicity

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago, "Dúnadan," a Wikipedia user from Spain, decided to attach a genetic study to the bottom of the paragraph touching on the background of the Argentine people. The genetic study he attached is given ample mention in "Demographics of Argentina" and elsewhere, as this user attached it there, as well.

Though questionable both in its method (320 samples - for 40 million people) and rationale (ethnicity is something typically limited to a respondent's self-identity), please let no one lead you to believe I think it should be removed from ALL pages it appears, outright; to include it in the flagship country page, however, shows poor taste and questionable judgement, as it so harkens back to the time Nazis took blood samples in an massive attempt to discover a way to determine the prescence of "undesirable genetic admixture."

To leave not one, but two such studies on the country page amounts to a thinly veiled character assassination of all Argentines and, in any case, unnecessarily so, since the studies are given plenty of mention on the "Demographics of Argentina" page (easily linked to atop the paragraph).

Wherever you grew up, please consider what such material could do to the people in your home town or land, in the eyes of whomever came accross such a thing.

Please contact me, should you have any questions.

Sincerely, John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Typically, as long as a work meets the standards set by WP:VERIFY, namely that the information provided is from a credible source, the information can stand. If you do not believe that the information provided is given undue weight on the main page, or violates a neutral point of view, then I would bring the topic up for discussion on the article's talk page. That way, a consensus can be reached as to what should actually be presented in the main article, and what can be left to the sub-pages per WP:SUMMARY. 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) 07:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather Clause

Resolved: Editor blocked. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article about the Grandfather Clause states "The original grandfather clauses were contained in new state constitutions and Jim Crow laws passed from 1890 to 1910 in much of the Southern United States to prevent blacks, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and certain whites from voting."

The fact that it was intended to prevent blacks from voting is not in any way cited. There is not a single source on the entire page indicating that this was the case.

I also happen to know that it is not the case. I can't prove it.

But is not the burden of proof on those that wish to include it in the article?

I have modified the article 315 times and each time the revision has been reverted by some leftwing imbecile wishing to push their agenda.

I know the terms of Wikipedia must support my side. I am unwilling for there to be biased opinions in the article that have no source whatsoever. Just the opinions of a bunch of brainwashed liberals.

I do feel that assistance is needed in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a nice "[1]" after that sentence, which goes to a WP:RS WP:CITE. It's also been explained to you in detail on the talk page. That you claim to not believe it (in a previous comment you made an even less believable contradictory claim) is your problem. Note that you have a pattern of edit-warring and attacking other editors on multiple pages...I'd block you myself just for that if I also weren't involved in the content. Note this appears to be an IP-hopping editor who has been blocked before for this behavior. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd weigh in since I have not worked on the subject or article. The source for the sentence does provide most of the information; however, it needs to be edited to reflect certain things not mentioned in the source. The source does not mention the term "Jim Crow laws", nor does it mention Native or Mexican Americans. Given the source provided, a more precise rewrite would be: "The original grandfather clauses were contained in new seven state constitutions and Jim Crow laws passed from 1890 1895 to 1910 in much of the Southern United States to prevent blacks, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and certain whites from voting." Whatever User talk: believes to be true is irrelevant. There is no "burden of proof" on Wikipedia; this is not a court. Wikipedia works based on sources that meet the criteria of WP:V and WP:CITE, and on a consensus. I would be careful as to who you call "imbeciles" as by doing so you have most certainly violated WP:ATTACK. Tread carefully. 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. -epicAdam (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the user after numerous racist outbursts. Other admins, feel free to unblock him if you think I was premature. DMacks (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. How can I get my own articles, written in English, translated into Spanish and Russian and Hebrew?

      a) I speak/write in those three languages, but not very well.  Could I get someone to edit my own writing in those languages?
      b) What about Other languages?

2. Is there a forum for discussing translation issues?

      a) if there isn't I'd like to start one
      b) I'm also interested in Spelling and Transliteration.

-tzipcode- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to start articles on non-English Wikipedias, the place to ask for help would be on those specific Wikipedia projects. If you are unable to speak those particular languages well, but are able to navigate the foreign language site and ask for help, then you may wish to ask for another editor's assistance in creating the article. Or, you may simply create the article yourself to the best of your ability and then request assistance in editing and refining the prose. For a forum to discuss such Wikipedia translation issues, see Wikipedia:Translation for assistance. 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. -epicAdam (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My links are gone

Resolved: Asked and answered. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem, I have a blog called saito-network that keeps up to date info on Mega Man, including past information videos, music, anime ect. . I have tried to post my link to your topics on Mega Man Star Force 3, Mega Man (franchise) and Mega Man (series), but all links have been deleted and I do not know the admin who deleted them. I assure you that my blog is an all Mega Man blog.

If my being 15 is a problem, then I am sure my parents will sign a consent. It was my impression that Wikipedia contains, not only past information but up-to-date information regarding it's topics, and that we should be able to post relevant information on these topics-the premise of Wikipedia. I have one of the leading information sites on MegaMan (Rockman), and am well known through most of the MegaMan forums.

If there is a problem with my site, please describe this problem.

Thank you, I appreciate your suggestions and Wikipedia's excellent information and structure. admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazinglight (talkcontribs) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem, I suspect, is that it's a blog. Under our external links guidelines, blogs aren't considered reliable sources, so are likely to be removed when used as a reference and, likely, as an external link (as you inserted it). Tony Fox (arf!) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedia is acting as both judge and jury in condemning any material coming from a "blog" as un-reliable which, sounds very much like censoring due to a personal bias, or dinosaur mentality. Blogs now contain far more information than in the past, and sites are used by many different venues including businesses and legitimate informational sites to add writing style and flair to create an exciting atmosphere, and that information is painstakingly researched for accuracy, as the "blogger" would be flamed for any inaccuracy. Perhaps to avoid sounding like Wikipedia considers only itself as the most imminent and totalitarian site on the internet, it should consider each submission on a case-by-case basis. I would also think that the rest of the bloggers on the internet would be very interested in Wikipedia's views of how un-reliable blogs really are...something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazinglight (talkcontribs) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Many, many, many blog links have been removed because they were considered unreliable. Before condemning the guidelines, please take a look at them and the discussion that developed them, and if you feel they need changed, feel free to discuss them on the talk pages. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

Resolved: Several experienced editors appear to be watching this page now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

An anon user (User: has inserted text on Debbie Wasserman Schultz that appears to violate the NPOV policy. I reverted this insertion twice, and each time left a message on the user's talk page. The user has re-inserted the material both times, and has not responded to either message. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to revert a third time, so I am asking for other editors to look at the article and advise as to a suitable resolution. --Russ (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it as uncited opinion and additionally placed a 3RR warning on the IP editors talk page as if they add it again they should/will be blocked for violating 3RR. Mfield (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Various editors have issued appropriate warning messages. The edit in question violates Verifiability as well as Neutrality policies, and constitutes edit-warring. A block will follow after one more edit. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How Do I Edit a Page that has Vandalism Protection?

Resolved: Question answered. -epicAdam(talk) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The page Homeopathy is protected. The content needs updating and I am qualified for the task. Can someone tell me how to edit the page?

Thank You, Dr. Robert Dalpe —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineHomeopath (talkcontribs) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any changes need to be discussed on that article's talk page. An established user would then have to make the change for you. Please note that the page is under close surveillance as well as under the protection of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. That means that any changes deemed to be in violation of the committee's ruling will be reversed and violator could be banned. 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) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medal table

Stale: Discussion is now appropriately at the talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get an outside, neutral opinion on Olympic medal table (note:there is more than one person involved, and I need additional input outside WP:Olympics). I have tried to clarify the article to reflect that the United States has an established history of ranking Olympic medals by total, not by gold, and that any form of ranking is not endorsed by the International Olympic Committee. One editor in particular, Wikipedian06 has changed the page three times now to reflect his/her opinion that the majority of American media suddenly changed ranking methods in 2008. In my opinion, this is incorrect, but of ultimate importance is that there are no references to show that the majority of US media has ranked by gold in the past. Can someone help check the current state of the article to see if it is in an appropriately verifiable, NPOV? Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as far as I can tell from previous rankings, has always ranked NOCs by the number of golds won. It really doesn't matter what the consensus of the media is, but rather what the consensus of Wikipedia users is. If you think you can build a consensus to change the medal count to total medals instead of gold medals, then you should open a discussion on the talk page to do so. IMHO, I don't even think the article Olympic medal table should even exist. The information provided there should just go on the ranking pages, most of the information there is notable as a footnote at best. -epicAdam (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The dispute is apparently not about how Wikipedia should make medal tables but about the article Olympic medal table which doesn't display medal tables. It talks about Olympic medal tables and how they are commonly made in US and non-US media. See for example this edit by Wikipedian06. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
PrimeHunter's right, the page in question isn't about Wikipedia consensus for ranking medals, but about how different media has been ranking medals and the IOC's position on the matter. Either way, a few more editors have come in and done a fantastic job helping to clean it up even further. More input, of course, is welcome. --Jh12 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. My thought is that the article is pretty much a non-article and that the information would be relevant, perhaps, as footnotes on the individual medal pages. As the article currently stands, however, it is basically just a breeding ground for people frustrated with the Olympic medal count between the U.S. and China (notice the page was only created during this past Olympics). No matter what sources are used, the page will simply be a clearing house for the opinions of various authors, reporters, etc. who have an opinion one way or another about how the medals should be tabulated. That, to me, is not encyclopedic information. -epicAdam (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. A sounding point for this clarification is needed somewhere on Wikipedia, and it is important enough for Jacques Rogge to directly mention it, as well as being covered by multiple national and international news agencies. --Jh12 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Take United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I wanted to change the Olympics infobox so that it read "Rank by gold" instead of "Rank." Because the United States does not traditionally rank by gold, I thought it should be made clear what kind of standard we are ranking countries by, especially since the IOC does not officially recognize any ranking system. The editors at Wikiproject Olympics were opposed to such a clarification, but they did not object to changing rank so that it linked to Olympic medal table, a page that explains the alternative ranking methods. --Jh12 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This may be a problem requiring administrator attention. I think User:Wikipedian06 is having problems understanding the neutral point of view and is trying to push his/her vision of the "truth." The user is encroaching on the 3RR for Olympic medal table, and has been removing information and possibly disrupting several other articles. --Jh12 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Territory FM

Stale: Moved to talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the listing for 104.1 Territory FM there is a section highlighting a recent breach decision made by the ACMA. This breach is not denied and by no means is the repeated editing of the breach decision an attempt at censorship. The fact is the breach accurred, however the station as reported recieved its license renewed for 5 years. The attempt to remove this content was made because the notation serves no purpose is malicious in nature and stands out as a vindictive addition by some with an agenda who have decided to use Wikipedia to further a cause. We seek editor assistance in this matter as there are two parties continually reverting the post and threatening a restriction of access. Lantanabelle (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's notable and fact. I'm not part of any group nor do I have an agenda. I see that the removal (which is also vandalism which is the reason why I've reverted the content and warned the users) is being done by someone who works for Territory FM (Mostly due to a user Territory fm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who was also removing the same content[1]) who is trying to make as if nothing has happened. The content removed is all sourced from the ACMA report who also handles the licensing of TV and Rado stations. Yes ACMA renewed the license however stated within the report is that ACMA will monitor Territory FM (Who's call sign in 8TOP) and if it breaches it's license it could face lossing the license or be forced to go on a temporary community license (Like other community stations which can be found within it's media release section). Bidgee (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Also the media release and the investigation report is also linked in the release. ACMA finds Darwin community radio service 8TOP breached licence conditions. ACMA doesn't do investigations into minor issues and this breach was a serious breach however the section about the breach could be expanded to include more detail which I didn't at the time have much time for. Bidgee (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If one was to read ACMA report behind the media release comprehensibley you will find the investigations were in conjunction with a scheduled license renewal. Two of the three complaint resulting investigations were found to have no basis and where dismissed. The one complaint found to have sustance was in regard to an apparent "tagging" breach which the AMCA found to be accidental. The breach of community participation resulted from apparently insufficient documentation or public access to it, as stated by the ACMA. It appears the station or the license holder has agreed to make the changes and the ACMA will check back on it. For your information the ACMA under legislation must investigate any and every complaint it recieves regardless of how trivial or significant - tax payers money at work. Your assertion the station could lose its license or go to temporary is purely speculation and your behalf and evidence again you have an agenda to pursue.Lantanabelle (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read the report the investigation didn't happen just when the station renewed it's license and ACMA also called it a serious breach. I've got no bloody agenda to pursue geez! Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have taken it upon yourself to post without forethought. As stated by the ACMA all stations go into a review period of 12 months and 6 weeks. 6 weeks for a station to complete and submit its renewal application and 12 months for the ACMA to make enquiries and process it. It appears the complaints which by their nature appear to choregraphed and timed arrived during the renewal period, so the ACMA states it ran the processes concurently. This is the point people rush in now with the internet without the appropriate "inteligence" and slap in fast food comentary on subjects they are not qualified to do so. Wikipedia is a wonderful reference tool so why use it to devalue, denegrate and besmurch? This radio station may have recieved a rapp but it must also be doing something right by its listeners to command the audience the site states. At the end of the day what is a broadcasters purpose to cater for its presenters or its listeners? Lantanabelle (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it clear that you work for Territory FM which the station dislikes having a bad image. Stop being a vandal and replace the content. Bidgee (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help. This is why we have talk pages. Please discuss the issue there. Editors who continually violate policies on edit warring will probably get blocked. Please, please, stop reverting. If you cannot come to a compromise on the talk page, please come back here for further assistance. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted on the grounds of censorship and content removal without a vaild reason which is also classed as vandalim! Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
What's going on here is not classified as vandalism. This is clearly a content dispute. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

iCarly Episode List

Stale: iMoved to talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot keeps changing the name of an iCarly episode to an incorrect name. They change it from iMatchmaker to iWin A Date. This really bugs me as within hours, sometimes, it get reverted back to the incorrect title. I have never read, seen, or heard this episode being called this incorrect title except here. I have always only known it as iMatchmaker. That is the correct title I will continue to put back for the episode....but it gets really annoying to have to keep correcting someone's mistake over and over.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick search on google gives 647 hits for "iMatchmaker" and 1,740 hits for "iWin A Date". This suggests that a) it's not vandalism occurring, it's a content dispute and b) you could well be incorrect in your assertion that the "proper" title is "iMatchmaker". The Internet Movie Database lists it as "iWin A Date", saying that "iMatchmaker" is a teaser title. Discussion is always key to resolving cintent disputes, and you should always try to reach consensus rather than edit warring. I know that can be frustrating when nobody responds to you on the talkpage, you can always try requesting a third opinion or a request for comment if you want to get other editors involved. In this case, it seems to me that both titles have been used for the episode, but that "iWin A Date" is probably the official one. Also, please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and remain civil. Calling an editor "some idiot" isn't going to help any situation. --BelovedFreak 10:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I made an addition to the Wikipedia article about Robert Healy, City manager of Cambridge, Ma. Originally, the article stated that he "served at the pleasure of the City Council." This was not true and I cited that he had a contract and that it expired in August 2009. A day later, the statement about "serving at the pleasure of the City Council" was removed by him or someone else. However, my edit which described the peculiar (for North America, at least) form of government and power that this form of government gives the City manager, was also removed, despite the fact that it was footnoted and true. I immediately replaced the comment in a subsequent edit.

People throughout the world know about Cambridge, MA, particularly since it is the home of Harvard and MIT. I am a local political activist who is attempting to change the form of government in Cambridge. MA and believe that every reader of articles dealing with Cambridge, MA should be aware of its peculiar form of government.

What I write is true and documented by footnotes. I believe that if Wikipedia is removing my verifiable edits, it is infringing on my right of freedom of speech. If my edits are being removed by representatives of the Cambridge government, I would like to know how such removal can be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanghia (talkcontribs) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Schweich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanghia (talkcontribs) 15:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I have reverted the edits made by User:Ckgirl120 to Robert W. Healy. I'm not sure if she deleted the information by accident or was a form of petty vandalism, but it has been undone. I have also revised the paragraph about Cambridge Needs Reform, because as originally written offered an opinion and probably violated Wikipedia's policy that articles maintain a neutral point of view. As always, you can revert any attempts at perceived vandalism by going to the article history and undoing edits; however, if another editor disagrees with your changes, it is always best to achieve a consensus by talking about the conflict on the article's talk page. If you need further assistance, you can always ask for help again here. 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) 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over how to settle a debate on album sales figures

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many, many, many websites around the world state that HIStory by Michael Jackson is the best selling multi-disc album ever with sales figures of 18 million copies (36 million CDs). It's so easy to find I won't even provide a source. However, The Wall by Pink Floyd has sold 23 million copies in the USA alone, 46 million CDs. Global figure is 30 million copies/60 million CDs but a source on this is harder to find.

Confusion arises because the album is certified at 23x Platinum in the USA. It is a double album, but under 100 minutes long. Normally, a double album (like The Best of Both Worlds by Van Halen for example) is 100+ minutes. When one copy is sold 2 "units" are added to the sales total. So when it was certified Platinum, that meant it had sold 500, 000 copies - 1 million CDs. The Wall is under 100 minutes, and counts as a single album. So 23x Platinum = 23 million copies.

So is the one with a higher figure or the one that has claims to being best selling, the one we should state is best selling?

(The Elfoid (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Me and the Elfoid have been trying to figure this out for a long time. Like the Elfoid said, there are many sources that cite HIStory as the worlds best selling, yet you can't find a reliable source that backs up The Wall. The Elfoid has a lot of mathematics going on, it might even be correct, but it crosses into original research. We also have the problem whereby The Wall was released in 1979. The Elfoid is apply today's rules over at the RIAA that probably were not in existence when The Wall was released. The RIAA has changed a lot in 30 years. The best idea would be to find a source that gives WORLDWIDE sales figures of The Wall, avoiding the confusion over the US sales all together. However even with that, if the source doesn't say "The Wall is the best selling...." then we can't say it is. — Realist2 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's seem very odd to me that we can't find a reliable source (that would get through a GA/FA review) that sites The Wall as the best selling multi-disk album. If it has sold so many copies, as the Elfoid has theorized, sources would surely be readily available online, it leads be to believe that the mathematics behind it are off. Probably due to the fact that we are applying todays RIAA rules to an album released 30 years ago. If The Wall had really sold 46 million CD's/Units in the US and 60 million CD's/Units worldwide, that would make it the biggest money grossing album since Thriller. Hard to believe. Sources would be available for this surely.— Realist2 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Who cares about how many discs an album has? It seems like a fairly silly and soon-to-be outmoded way to calculate sales. In any event, I agree with Realist. There has to be a source that says The Wall is the best-selling "multi-disc" album of all time in order to contradict the claim about HIStory. Attempts to calculate the number of albums sold on our own would invariably run afoul of WP:OR. I too find it odd that there are no reliable sources that say that The Wall is the best selling multi-disc album of all time, if that is indeed the case. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The RIAA website, which is a reliable source, gives a sales figure for The Wall as 23x Platinum and explains on the site. It's a higher figure than the total worldwide sales for HIStory. Personally I think it would be best to say "Despite sales figures seeming to be far lower than those of The Wall, HIStory is frequently cited as the best selling multi-disc album ever". (The Elfoid (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
Well then, I would contact the RIAA and ask for an explanation. I presume there has to be one, most likely in the way the term "multi-disc" is defined that accounts for such a discrepancy. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly lets stop using today's RIAA methodology for an album released 30 years ago. Secondly stop looking at the RIAA sales and look at world sales, it gets rid of all the confusion in one go. Thirdly find a reliable source that actually gives The Wall this title. At the end of the day, we are debating a pointless issue. If you read the article on HIStory, we aren't saying that it's the worlds best selling multi album, we are saying that MSNBC site it as the worlds best selling. That is 100% accurate no matter how you look at it. — Realist2 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If the US sales for the wall are higher than the world sales for history, then it is physically impossible for history to have the higher total. So we don't need a world figure. To state that it is often claimed to be the best selling without looking at the details does STRONGLY IMPLY it really is the best selling, even if it is infact quoting MSNBC. Oh and Realist, you were asking me if the system for certification changed and when? I looked up the certifications for The Wall. It was 10x Platinum in 1995, 11x Platinum in May 1997 then 22x Platinum in September 1997. So we can assume that was when the system changed and it was recertified. It was then upped to 23x Platinum in 1999. Citing WP: common sense I would say it is obvious to anyone that unless it sold 11 million copies in 4 months, roughly 20 years after the original release, doubling sales, that the system changed at that point. Not concrete evidence I know, but a start.(The Elfoid (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
We are confused. You have explained (without proof) how The Wall doubled from 11x platinum to 22xPlatinum (then it reached 23x plat). OK that's fine, but HIStory is still at 36 million. How did The Wall double again to 46 million in the US? — Realist2 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on XBRL

Resolved: I hope. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


An unidentified user (ip undid my contributions of today on this page (XBRL).

I would like to avoid an edit war, which has already started, on this subject.

Any assistance on this matter would be much appreciated.


Lancet (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for posting here. Based on a a quick look at the most recent diffs, the issue appears to be the material relating to XBRLS, which does have its own page. Rather than adding copy about the latter throughout the article, would it make sense to concentrate it into one section? I guess it could be 'Further developments' or 'Additional dialects of XBRL'? While it's certainly frustrating, I do see the IP user's point in wanting to have this page written about its topic and not another, albeit closely connected. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello AndrewHowse, and thanks for you helpful answer. I find interesting your proposal of making a 'Further developments' section to inform about XBRLS. Indeed both subjects are more than closely connected, the actual subject is XBRL and XBRLS is its latest development. Maybe I was wrong in creating the independent XBRLS page, which has immediately been tagged for lack of notability and primary sources (I have added an 3rd party primary source since). Lancet (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect as a result of AfD was undone by article author

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugoy Bogayan, the decision was to redirect to the game show. Having a quick look this morning, I see that the article editor restored the original article having made no substantial changes. I've rolled back their changes to the redirect, but because the article author may think I'm picking on him (see the article talk page for their previous comments), I'd like an independent opinion as to whether my rollback is in line with WP policy, and whether the author should be warned about not undoing the results of AfD debates unless the content is substantially changed. CultureDrone (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read over the article version to which you're referring. The article still fails notability guidelines (there are zero references of notability and the subject has no real world notability outside of the tv show). I can't say whether the user should be warned because I don't know how similar the original article was to what was reposted. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this qualifies as an official problem or not, but on this template, an IP address ( keeps editing the structure of the Quarterbacks section. I believe the user feels that it should be a depth chart, however the entire template is a numerical listing of the players. I have reverted his edits with an edit comment of "not a depth chart. Players are listed numerically." I have also posted on his talk page about this and have added this to the Template's talk page. I am not sure, what else I can do to stop the person from editing the structure of the template. Any ideas? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shootmaster. You've done all you can for the moment. If the editor ignores your attempts to contact him and continues to revert the changes, he will be in violation of WP:3RR. Feel free to report him there if the edits continue. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

wilderness diarrhea article reverts etc.

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness diarrhea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently added a good deal of relevant sourced material to wilderness diarrhea and an editor reverted it to his version, which included considerably less information as well as inaccuracies and original research.

His justification is difficult for me to understand, and he often doesn't seem to respond to questions on talk page. It seems like entering an "edit war" would be futile.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talkcontribs) 16:02, 3 September 2008

Hi, Thanks for posting here. It appears that there's a fairly lively exchange on the talk page, which is an excellent start in resolving this. If you like, you could try requesting comments which should bring a few more editors to the discussion and help in reaching a consensus. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

mickie knuckles NPOV

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted this in the articles talk page, but someone posted an article called "the Mike Levy incident" that is full of slander, since I am VERY new to wikipedia, I just removed it and reposted it to the talk page. Its pretty bad, and I have no idea how it could be edited to be unbiased. Spdk1 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

further: a more unbiased view: Spdk1 (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great removal. That section is brutal. I'll comment on the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violation regarding "Template:Islam"

Resolved: the question here. Still debating at talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This request about a WP:NPOV violation regarding {{Template:Islam}}. There is a position which claims that "Politics of Islam " and "Jurispudence of Islam" is not integral part of concept of Islam. The view is shaped by User:Enzuru's understanding of Islam and based on his perception of Politics and Jurisputance rather than the factuality. They are removed from the template or hidden under other concepts. This is a NPOV violation, by creating a WP:FORK and removing these issues (look at this edit [2]) beyond the visible sight (look at this edit [3]). Also, these concepts are currently, and correctly, represented by many sub articles in Wikipedia. This position claims that "Politics of Islam " and "Jurispudence of Islam" should not be represented as thet are represented at wikipedia article space. It is claimed that it is bloating the concept. The issue is covered under Template_talk:Islam#Removal_of_integral_part_of_Islam_is_a_NPOV_violation. Thank you for your interest. --TarikAkin (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. First, I'm not sure that this is really a pov fork since I don't see a second template emerging here. I think this is better described as a content dispute. In any event, the conversation at Template talk:Islam is exactly the right place to resolve it. If you thought it helpful, you might mention the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam where other knowledgeable editors might well be found. btw, please look at a few of the pages where the template is currently used and see the way your {{NPOV}} tag appears, to confirm that it does what you expected. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I need some help getting my page published

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ineed to knoww what I have to change about my page to get it published.

I have asked befoere but have not received a response. ITs been too long to assume one is coming.

So Iam asking again.

What do I need to do so that mypage gets published, which protions do not coincide with your system?Yitzhaac Pesach (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I assume you're referring to the page at User:Yitzhaac Pesach about Elite Answers? The act of publishing is under your control; you'd simply move the page to Elite Answers using the move tab at the top of the page (and then delete the redirect that would be put in its place at your user page). As for what might happen after that ... you might have problems about notability, so please consider whether you have reliable sources to support that. You might be challenged for WP:COI, since almost all your contributions here are around this one page. It might be considered advertising too. I hope thathelps; please post again if we can help further. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I've looked at your content. It appears to be marketing material created by a promotional department. Usually articles that are created on Wikipedia are created by users who have no affiliation to the subject of the articles they edit. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation styles

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering how to go about citing a magazine article. I have a URL to actual article, but it is quite long (


What if I have a magazine article that is not on the internet? Can I cite it still?

If so, what is the proper format?

Thanks for the help!

KestesCollectors (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might like to start at WP:CITE; Template:Citation might be useful too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Taken to Talk:Ticket to Work. --BelovedFreak 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been the content manager for the Social Security Administration's "Ticket to Work Program" article (I guess that means I am the only peson who has edited the page). The page has four cautions on it that I would like to work to have removed. How do I fix an orphaned site, and there are too few links to my article, and i don't have any citations? Are you able to check out the article and provide personalized feedback as to how I may resolve the issues?

I appreciate your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickettowork (talkcontribs) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. That article has multiple issues that need to be dealt with. I'll go to its talk page and provide some comments there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll talk to you there. Thank you so much for your help

Tickettowork (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Garden Hill, Manitoba stub contains inappropriate content

Resolved: According to some guy.... (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Please see the article about Garden Hill, Manitoba.,_Manitoba

It contains a long observational editorial about the Native population there that has no factual basis and is opinion only.

-Alexandra Yarrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrayarrow (talkcontribs) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD question

Resolved: --BelovedFreak 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I read MOS:BOLD and am still a bit unsure: is it right that Ruminant has so many words in bold? It does not seem correct to me, but I thought I'd check. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, bolding should only be used on the article's title, official name, and synonyms (or acronyms, as the case may be). I would say all the bolding besides the word "ruminant" is unnecessary. Best, epicAdam(talk) 08:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Right-o - removed. It Is Me Here (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help reverting mass vandalism


There has been mass vandalism of John by multiple users - I need help reverting all of it (I tried to revert one edit using WP:HG but that just resurrected earlier vandalism). Thanks. Never mind. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute problem

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having problem with user:WestAssyrian. He basically just makes unconstructive edits, for example like this one, [4], he doesn't in anyway try to improve articles. He has a clear agenda in Wikipedia (spreading the Assyrian name on the Syriac names expense), I've tried to talk to him, both in Swedish and English, but the guy doesn't listen, I've reverted most of his recent edits because they are all unconstructive. What can I do with this guy? Also I'm wondering (just to be sure, since I know it's like this in svwiki), if there is a template with "X people", it is unnecessary to add the same in the "See also"-section, right? Thanks. The TriZ (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If he continues to make the changes, then he will violate the WP:3RR rule. I'm not exactly clear as to why he feels it necessary to remove that information as it is backed up by the cited source. For any future changes, you may want to refer him to this discussion. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But I will break the 3RR aswell if I keep revert his edits, his doing this on many articles and instead of improving articles we end up fighting revertwars. The TriZ (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the relationship between Syriac and Assyrian? I've briefly skimmed a few of the articles linked from Assyrian and it's unclear to me. In other words, what exactly is wrong with replacing Syriac with Assyrian? Thanks. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated, but I can try to simplify it. The whole group accept the name Syriac, but those who identify with the Assyrian name, normally calls themselves Assyrian. Those whom call themselvs Syriacs normally believe in a Aramean-Syriac identity. There is also a third group, Chaldeans, some of them identify with a Chaldean identity and other with the Assyrian. The Assyrian and Syriac groups are almost as big as eachother (the Syriac is most likely a bit bigger), those who identify with the Assyrian identity mostly lives or comes from Iraq, and the Aramean-Syriacs mostly lives or comes from Turkey and Syria. Eastern Syriacs (mostly Assyrians) and Western Syriacs (mostly Aramean-Syriacs). So there is a namingconflict, where some believe they are the descendents of the Arameans and other the Assyrians. So what is wrong with replacing Syriac with Assyrian then? The problem is, is that you force an identity on a people, an identity wich they don't accept. The TriZ (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what you can do. For example, this edit is clearly incorrect because the source clearly refers to Syriac and Assyrian. I would NOT have called it "vandalism" (what WestAssyrian is doing is not vandalism) as you did in your edit summary on the next edit. If your edits are challenged by WestAssyrian, you can refer to the source. Start a discussion on an article talk page where you can work things out. Always, always, go to the talk page and discuss there instead of reverting. I say again, reverting will only escalate the disagreement, whereas going to the talk page will forward the discussion. Let me know what you think. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But if it is intentional, isn't it then vandalism? So I start a discussion in the talkpage, if he ignores it? What can I do then? Should I just let it be, or am I supposed to revert his edits and refer to the talkpage? The TriZ (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. It's a content dispute. If you reach a consensus on the talk page, then you can refer to the discussion in your edit summaries. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 05:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will do that. But if a user ignores it? Where am I supposed to report that? The TriZ (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You could discuss it directly with the user on their user talk page. Or you could bring it back here and we could discuss possibilities. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark They Were page

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been using Wikipedia for about 4 years; I just contribute when I can, to pages where I have some knowledge and can help by filling a gap or correcting a mistake. For example, today I noticed the organisation BUFVC in a list of pages missing from Wikipedia - I've worked with them, so started that page as requested.

I have been working on one page in the last week, for Dark They Were, and Golden-eyed (bookshop). The original page on Dark They Were and Golden Eyed was speedy deleted - where an 'under construction' tag would have been more useful. I've already successfully challenged a second Speedy Deletion of this page.

And now, I have asked user Boston not to tag the page with a wikify tag; it's small page at present, taking some considerable research to make into something more useful, and I don't want to overlink a short page. Boston's response seems to be to tag as many pages that I've contributed to as he/ she can.

The attitude of Wikipedia seems to have changed, from people helping each other work on pages to people just throwing tags around wherever they can.

I've just about had enough - I've tried to contribute usefully to the project, but this current craze for tagging every page in site doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the project and is putting me off bothering at all. In addition, because of the US/ UK time difference pages can be speedy deleted while I'm asleep so I don't have time to challenge.

Can you clarify when somebody should tag a page, and when they should just do the work they want done?

Many thanks

WorthyDan (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First point about speedy deletion of article Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed (bookshop) please understand that some editors review all the changes made and new pages created they judge the article as they see it. They do not know that it is still being worked on they look at the article at that point in time and if appropriate add a speedy delete notice. If you want to give your new article some protection then you need to add either inuse or underconstruction notices but you need to be active in then updating the article. The reviewing editors do not know otherwise of your intention to improve the article. You can always develop the article in your sandbox until you think it is ready then move it as an article. The same applies to editors adding other tags like wikify they are just flagging that some work needs doing they sometimes do not have time or knowledge to correct the article themselves. Assume good faith on behalf of the tagger and remember the notice is a request for any editor to help with the article it is not aimed at the original creator. If you think the tag is wrong then discuss it on the talk page. Remember you can always ask at related projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Books for help. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, Ive managed to fix some of the "issues" but, probably best if some others had a look and contributed just in case. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for de-listing from Blacklist

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi -

I'm trying to figure out why a URL was Blacklisted in Wikipedia. The given reason is "spamming" -- but I'm not quite sure what this means in this context. The URL is

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraEY (talkcontribs) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The blacklist is described at WP:BLACKLIST. If you search the log for the site you mention, it's there in the context of some spam links being added, including some insurance urls. You could try requesting that it be de-listed, or request that particular pages be whitelisted; thereby over-riding the blacklist. Best, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of drinks

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just come across the Irish Cow article. The only reference is a website which invites people to submit their own drinks recipies. I'm therefore wondering, what is the notability/verifiability policy regarding drinks - do they have to be officially approved by some body before they can be included ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would mark that article for deletion. There is no evidence that the drink is notable on its own and probably violates WP:IINFO for just being a copy of an article from a drinks database. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough :-) But, in answer to my original question, is there some 'official' list of drinks that meet notability criteria, or is it just multiple mentions in suitable journals/publications ? CultureDrone (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There should be normal notability and verifiability requirements. If you are interested in drinks articles then you could join Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed Drinks. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines#Mixed Drinks 2. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Blum article

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me why the article on me was deleleted and, if possible, if any other user requested deletion.

Thank you.

Bill Blum —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article on Bill Blum is your article, it was not deleted. There is a question as to whether or not your work is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. If you have any other critical sources of your work, those will help verify notability. It is not recommended that you put your personal email online as it is an easy way to increase the level of spam you receive. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANIs were deleted

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For last two weeks my ANI appeared to have been deleted twice. How can I find the reasons and who did it.

The recent one deleted was posted at

Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a broken link. Are you referring to this and this? user:Everyme 11:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Your edit link is broken because the page no longer has an 87th section. Click the "history" tab to see the page history. In [5] you started a new section on the archived page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive471 which is the wrong place. It was reverted in [6]. A new section should be started on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

world population

Resolved: per posting editor. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, i'm trying to resolve an editing dispute within this titled argument, however it appears i have come across a rather eager editor, who besides suggesting that I am partaking in an edit war and stating that I am not discussing the edit with himself and others who are reverting it but also seems to be working his way up from the graham's hierarchy of disagreement, rather than what he should be doing. here is how i have approached the disagreement:

A point I left on his discussion page: [7]. Reply by User:Ckatz: [8]. Note to User:Kintetsubuffalo: [9].

Now it is been suggested that i have started this edit war, can anyone suggest any reasonable help without me being banned from editing? This editor chris Kintetsubuffalo appears to be not allowing me to have my opinion and discuss it with him or others without fear of banishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossg21 (talkcontribs) 13:20, 9 September 2008

1. Immediately stop editing the article for now. 2. Engage in constructive discussion at the article talk page. 3. Be ready to accept that your edits may indeed have been suboptimal. At the very least, they were controversial otherwise they wouldn't have been reverted by more than one person. user:Everyme 13:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rossg21, Thanks for posting here. One of our essential pillars is that everything added to an article needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. In other words, any material added needs to be drawn from a reliable published source. Consequently, any sort of analysis of the data, even if it's accurate and relevant, is at risk of being considered original research. There's nothing wrong with original research; but an encyclopaedia isn't the right place to publish it. I hope this helps to explain why your analogy was removed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ross, how did you get this information? Did you read it in a book or newspaper or somewhere else? Or did you do the math on your own? user:Everyme 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all thanks guys for having the time to speak to me and not treating me like a vandal or an idiot as the other editor seemed to behaving. No, all information I gathered was from statistics in the relevant wikipedia entries, i.e. population density, population figures. No external information was retrieved. I can understand that this can be construed as original research and i can understand obviously why wikipedia is not the place for subjective opinion. Therefore, can i only cite these independent statistics as to show the variance in population density between russia and bangladesh and not come to any other conclusions from the estimated data? I would of course still like to contribute to this article of worldwide popn distribution. --argonorgan (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You could just start looking for sources. Look, I spent 2 minutes on Google to find e.g. this. It's not a prime example of a reliable source, but it makes the direct comparison between the population densities of Bangladesh and Russia. I'm sure there's much more and much more reliable stuff out there. I also agree in principle that such a note comparing the extremes of the densities of human population in different regions is both interesting and relevant for that section. Just find a reliable source or two and adjust the statement to what exactly can be backed up with those sources. I'd omit the exact statistics for now though, at least as long as there is no source that mentions them. But a source that says something to that effect should be fairly easy to come up with.
(Also, would you mind using your username "Rossg21" or something sufficiently similar in your signature? It's quite confusing when it's something completely different.) user:Everyme 14:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ive reverted the change, thanks for your suggestions. I'll make sure I make good use of them. Thanks for having the time to speak to me, a bit easier to speak to yourself than a powercrazy deletionist. Sorry im still quite the newbie so I have not got used to things, like my signature, which i prefer to my username. so i think ill keep it that way, thanks anyway. --argonorgan (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to come back if you have other questions! Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I add a hatlink?

Resolved: per posting editor. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently saw that Huggle redirects to Hug; should I add a hatlink at the top of the article linking to Wikipedia:Huggle, or not? I'm sure I've seen a rule somewhere that you shouldn't include links from the main namespace to the Wikipedia namespace, but equally there are mainspace pages (e.g. Bureaucrat) that do have [[WP: links. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it's necessary. IMO, people who use Huggle are typically going to be more-advanced users of Wikipedia and probably wouldn't need a hatlink to redirect them to the proper location. Having said that, I have no idea why "huggle" is a redirect to Hug, that just seems unnecessary. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The page history of Huggle shows that it was decided to keep it as a redirect to Hug in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 5#Huggle → Hug. I certainly don't think Hug should have a hatnote when it isn't itself the name of Wikipedia:Huggle, Huggle users probably don't need it as epicAdam says, and it's not an important page for Wikipedia users. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Right-o, then I'll leave the page as it is. It Is Me Here (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My passwords have all been changed

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My name is Roxanne Tippett and I can not access my myspace account. Someone has changed all of my information if you could please send me an E-Mail at (removed email address) on how to fix this problem please let me know as soon as poosible. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You seem to have us confused with someone else. Wikipedia is not myspace nor is it in anyway associated with them. You are best off contacting them directly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ekologkonsult Harassment

Resolved: Posting User "retired" one minute after posting here (see user talk). Fleetflame 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has reported me twice for disruptive edits in less than 24 hours. I have no choice but to file a complaint for his harassing behavior. Much ado about nothing, but he has taken it to the next level with his vandalizing reports, putting my account in jeopardy. I have said many times I have no intention of using wikipedia in the wrong way.

You can see the facts behind this harassment carried out on his user page. He has just filed report #2 against me. I have done nothing to deserve this. Please tell him to stop masquerading as an Admin and to stop abusing power. Also, please reset my account to good standing.

Jeffason (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider

Resolved: vandalism reverted and user warned -epicAdam(talk) 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User ShandraShazam deleted all content from the Large Hadron Collider article and replaced it with "OH SHIT WE'RE ALL FUCKED" before I undid his edit. (WannabeAmatureHistorian (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

The user has already been warned. Should he/she continue to make disruptive edits, the user could be banned. Thank you. -epicAdam(talk) 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Not banned, but blocked. There's a difference. user:Everyme 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Camelot Group Article - Spammer front? Experienced Editor Review needed.

Resolved: Dodgy reference to a legit company. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I draw editor attention to a wiki article that may be a front to ligitimise a spam operation. I seek your attention and better experience for review and its possible listing for deletion.

I am not an experienced wiki user.

This is how this wiki article came to my attention.

I received a spam email today. This particular spam email presents that the sender received my bank account details from my bank, with an attached zip file presenting that it contains what they received (to which I have not opened recognising this as spam.) This spam story is fairly irrelevant to what comes next leading me to the wiki article in question.

Generally ignoring spam, I was curious about the second email addresses on the email list similar to mine. (The email address includes the phrase "c......camelotclaimsofficer ... ".) I decided to do a little net research.

Searching Yahoo members, it would appear this yahoo email address no longer exists.

Searching this email address on Google - I find a blog entry quoting this email address and an example of what appears to me as spam referencing the email address and the "Camelot Group" wiki page. (Copied below to enable quick assessment of this issue. From


получаю сёдня такой The Camelot Group,: operators of The National Lottery. 3b Olympic Way, (.. an address in Liverpool) , L30 1RD

WINNING NOTIFICATION The United Kingdom National Lottery wishes to inform you that the results of the E-mail address ballot lottery international program by Great Britain held on the of 10th of May 2007. Your mail account have been picked as a winner of a lump sum pay out of Eight hundred and ninty-one thousand,nine hundred and thirty-four Great Britain pounds £891,934.00 pounds sterlings) in cash credited to file REF NO. REF:UKL/74-A0802742007. This is from total prize money of GBP 4,459,670.00shared among the FIVE (5) international winners in this category.

All participants for the online version were selected randomly from World Wide Web through computer balloting system drawn from over 100,000 names database, union associations and corporate bodies that are listed online.You are to contact our claims agent for validation.

Mr Pedro M....... Email: ....... Tel: +447024....... Tel: +447024......

He will brief you on steps to be taken for due processing and remittance of your prize money.

поверить, учитывая вот этот линк: или как мне теперь спать спокойно?

(I have deleted some contact details with ...... re posting here.) _____

Following the link to the wiki page "Camelot Group".

I note the wiki article is currently flagged for not citing references or sources.

I also note this wiki entry was first created (oldest entry in edit) 10:08, 27 April 2004 H1523702 (Talk | contribs), so it seems a fairly well established article. There are many editor contributors to the page over some years, some of which may be ligitimate wiki users simply stumbling across the entry in its own right and suggesting ligitimate improvements, but having no knowledge of the spammer type emails referencing this wiki entry.

Within the wiki article is a home page link to Camelot Group home page. This leads to a well presented home page for this "lottery group".

Between the well established wiki entry and the home page, all presents as very authentic.

My concern is that this wiki entry is a front for scammers to ligitimise the Camelot Group and their spam email to those it targets, as part of a scamming operation.

Depending on how elaborate, there may in fact be a company registered with this name to enable the scamming and even ligitimise this wiki page re verification, etc.

I do not think I have the experience to evaluate this concern fully, hence have not listed this page for review for deletion. Contacting one or more contributors is unlikely to resolve this concern. Some may be genuine in their edits, and those involved will tell a story to cover the articles purpose.

Instead I thought the best action was to bring this wiki entry to the attention of more experienced editors.

Hope I have chosen the best action within wiki user community. I did spend an hour and a half seeking the best and most appropriate action, going through many wiki pages, protocols, options etc.

Hope my actions are well received in their intention. I think wiki is a great initiative, and hence efforts here to weed the garden.

CofE001 00:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I believe you're quite correct that the email you received was a scam and did not in fact represent Camelot Group. There is indeed a real Camelot, a joint venture of various respectable companies to administer the UK's National Lottery. I imagine they're not too happy at being associated with this sort of nonsense either. Nonetheless, thanks for checking it out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As Lottery scam says: "Many email lottery scams use the names of legitimate lottery organizations, but this does not mean the legitimate organizations are in any way involved with the scams." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did not think of that possibility - scammers using a legitimate existing company and site. I thought Camelot Group may have been a constructed front, not a misused legitimate company managing lotteries. Thanks guys for resolving. Appreciated.

CofE001 03:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy reverts


To whom it may concern: I know there is some oversight taking place in ongoing 'disputes' concerning the article on Indian author Arundhati Roy, but I would like to ask someone to (again) take a look at some of the things going on there. One or more people (some of them perhaps sock puppets) keep rehashing old smears; I myself have added factual information (from the article cited by the smearers, so to speak, on what is called 'Violation of forest law') to mitigate and contextualize a rather ad hominem attack. Please inform. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. You might try a request for comment in order to get some more editors to take a look. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ascension (album)


Help - the article about John Coltrane's 1965 album Ascension is dangerously incomplete. See the bottom of the talk page for details. Any (and all) assistance will be, at the very least, greatly (if not wholly) acknowledged. (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be sure that any contributions are verifiable and reliably sourced. You might like to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as incomplete. Hopefully this will draw the attention of interested users knowledgeable on the topic. user:Everyme 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)



Having difficulty finding info on the NEG-red/POS -green on listings in "my watchlist" - is it like an EBAY rating? Where can I find more info on this.

Example below:

(diff) (hist) . . Greensboro, Pennsylvania‎; 23:26 . . (-9,506) . . DodgerOfZion (Talk | contribs)

(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Greensboro, Pennsylvania‎; 20:17 . . (+177) . . Lots42 (Talk | contribs)


Rhjiv (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The colors don't mean anything other than to differentiate when someone has added to the article (i.e. green) or removed something (i.e. red). The actual number is determined by how many bytes (i.e. characters) were added or removed; it's not an ebay ranking or anything of the sort. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that clears that up!

The 1832 Reform Act

Resolved: Moved to article's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reform Act 1832 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The way this article is currently drafted it suggests that the 1832 Reform Act had a great impact on the growth woman's suffrage - which I don't think is true. The movement the Act mostly impacted on is the Chartist movement - which has much less coverage in the article. As it stands the article is very misleading.

The last line in the second paragraph states "The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement."

Women were unable to vote before the Act - so the Act could not have disenfranchised them. The Act only disenfranchised non-resident electors and some electors living in rotten boroughs. The Act did exclude women from enjoying the franchise rights it introduced - thereby introducing the first legislative bar to women voting which is an interesting to note but of no great moment as it didn't change anything - I wonder therefore if it is worth mentioning? The Act did not bar women from enjoying existing franchise rights - it didn't have to as they were excluded by usage, practice and common law.

The English woman's suffrage movement began in the mid 1860's - galvanized by the reform bills of 1866 and 1867. Because the 1867 Act used the word "men" instead of the phrase "male persons" as the 1832 Act had used, it was argued by some that under the Interpretation Act 1850, that women were enfranchised - this is the only bearing I've discovered that the 1832 Reform Act had on the development of the woman's suffrage movement. To say that the 1832 Reform Act sparked it is quite unfounded.

I've removed the line I've quoted a number of times - giving my reasons on the discussion page. It is always replaced by Chrissieboy whom I believe is the author of the line and the "women's suffrage" sub-section in the article. Singlehandedly it seems Chrissieboy is giving a view on the 1832 Reform Act which will be found nowhere else. He backs it up with a reference to:-

1) Marcus, Jane (ed.). (2001). Women's Source Library Vol.VIII: Suffrage and the Pankhursts. London: Routledge.

this quotes from a speech Emeline Pankurst appears to made from the dock in 1912. In the speech she made some contentious claims. It is on these claims Chrissieboy seems to rest his claim that women were disenfranchised.

a second source he appears to quote is

2) Rover, Constance. (1967). Women's Suffrage and Party Politcs in Britain, 1866–1914. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

I think the following words, used in the article, come from this book:-

The passing of the (1832 Reform) Act seven years later enfranchising "male persons" was a more significant event however; it was the inclusion of the word "male," thus providing the first statutory bar to women voting, which provided a focus of attack and a source of resentment from which, in time, the women's suffrage movement grew.

Taken at face value this sentence does suggest the 1832 Reform Act lit a long fuse that ignited the women's suffrage movement - I think, though, this is the result of careless writing. Rover was really intending to point out that the wording of the Act became a particular focus of the resentment which developed in the 1860s - not the sole, or even, major source of that resentment.

At most I think all that is needed to cover the Act's relevance to woman's suffrage is a brief sentence - but as so little is given to the Act's impact on Chartism even that would be unbalanced.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with this article for a related reason: the claim that the act specifically disenfranchised women seems to be inconsistent with an (unverified) sentence in another section (1.2: The franchise) which reads: "Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of Henry VI, standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these acts, all (male) owners of freehold property or land worth at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county. This requirement, known as the forty shilling freehold, was never adjusted for inflation; thus, the amount of land that it was necessary for one to own in order to vote was gradually diminished over time.[6]" (it being unclear just what is within the scope of reference number 6) I have asked for some work to be done to make this quoted section and the one on women's suffrage, given by Ned of the Hills more consistent, or at least for work to be done to "explain away" the seeming inconsistency better, and yet Crissieboy has ignored my comments and request, even though he has continued to revert later changes to the article about the women's suffrage sentence. In fact, the amount of protection given to one aspect of this article seems to be giving it undue attention when other more serious problems exist with the article concerning inadequate referencing (either none or unreliable ones). Given the importance of this act to UK parliamentary representation and government, I think it needs greater attention from editors with some knowledge of these matters.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice you have attempted to work this out on the article's talk page. Please note that any changes to an article, especially one that has achieved WP:GA status, must be cited using reliable sources. Further, actions that are contested by other users must follow the consensus of the community. Besides lend a voice for discussion, there is not much the editors here can do; we certainly cannot force a consensus. I would simply gather your sources and continue to make your case on the article's talk page. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Epicadam has simply said that there is nowt that can be done.
This line
"The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement."
is simply wrong - the women's suffrage movement began in the 1860s it wasn't sparked in 1832. You can't easily give a citation for something that shouldn't be in an article in the article. But if anyone wishes for citation for why the last five word of that article not to be there here it is:-
".....the agitation for women's suffrage is usually dated from John Stuart Mill's 1865 campaign to be elected to parliament, although the subject had been discussed much earlier."
This comes from Votes for Women. By June Purvis, Sandra Stanley Holton. Contributor June Purvis, Sandra Stanley Holton
Published by Routledge, 2000. (As regards discussion - yes it had taken place much earlier - before the Reform Act - and I can provide citations for that too - indeed the article does.)
Wrong the statement maybe but it has become gospel on Wikipedia thanks to one individual - and this - Editor assistance/Request - page doesn't seem much help at all.
I certainly now have my doubts as to the reliability of Wikipedia - which is a pity.
Ned of the Hills (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Using the resolved tag here means that advice has been given on how to proceed. Our aim here as assistants is to advise editors on how to work within Wikipedia's policies and processes. We're not here to advocate one position or another on behalf of the editor requesting assistance. User:Epicadam and USer:Ddstretch have offered their advice, both here and at the article's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
DDStretch expressed his concerns with the article - only Epicadam offered some advice. As I understand Wikipedia (and maybe I don't understand Wikipedia) the site depends on users eliminating mistakes when they find any. I've sought to do this. But what I deem is a correction is always uncorrected by the same person I deem to be in error. It has happened three or four times. It would no doubt happen each week if I made my deletion each week. How does a "consensus" emerge? It doesn't does it? If some one wants to say women in England lost the right to vote in 1832 even though they couldn't vote before 1832 and is persistent enough in reinstating the statement every time its removed - well that's just what Wikipedia is going to say - isn't that the case?
Ned of the Hills (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not the case. You need to find a source to support your assertion that women were unable to vote before the passage of the 1832 Act. Once you do that, the reference to the disenfranchisement caused by the Act will become untenable and Chrissieboy could and would be sanctioned if s/he were to reinsert it. Again, this isn't the right forum for that debate; it should be at Talk:Reform Act 1832. Assistants at this page will advise you on how to navigate the process but will not advocate on your behalf in content disputes. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where in the world before 1832 did women have the vote? Is a source truly required? But if a source is needed here is one: A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Elections by Arthur Male published in 1820. - "Women cannot vote in elections" Page 165 "The right of voting at elections for members of parliament, constitutes the much admired and envied liberty of an Englishman. Women, infants, idiots and madmen are absolutely disqualified from the exercise of this privilege."Page 242. This book can be accessed on line using Google Book Search which, indeed, is how I discovered it. Not everything in print however is the truth - though I've no doubt the statements I've quoted are correct. I've discovered a couple of errors on Wikipedia that quote a source - I've viewed documents held in the National Archives in Kew, however,that prove them to be false. These errors I've let pass because they are minor and tend to be colourful rather than a distortion of history.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and so I advise you to start a discussion at talk:Reform Act 1832. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perineum article edit war

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am asking for a few extra opinions on this. Please see the talk page for the article. David Shankbone and I have been editing the article concerning some images that I feel aren't scientific enough for the article. Review the article and the images, and the history to try and get a consensus. I don't think I am alone in my feeling about the images not being scientific, plus there are enough images in such a short article. I recently registered and am new to this, so any guidance on how to handle these situations in the future would be helpful as well. Thanks Now registered —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Resolved: Advice given.--AndrewHowse (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, So it seems that there is no way a scholar who is accepted as one of the main sources for a subject can edit or add to information on the subject becase 1. Wikipedia wants reliable sources to be cited but 2. if the scholar's book is a main reliable source he is not allowed to submit quotes from i because it is what you call COI if 3 the scholar writes anything that is in his book or can't know the persons he discsses; but no PhD committee will give a degree on field work done wherein the informats are total strangers or mere acquaintances and 4. to be interested in a subject and the experts who represent that subject is deemed a conflict but 5. to disagree with anyone is considered non-neutral and not accepted.

Thus, as a scholar, I and others like me are banned from ever adding one word to Wikipedia because we can never be considered neutral, non-conflicted or in any way fit the Wikipedia criteria. Maybe that is why when I first found Wikipedia, I thought it was too amature and not correct in its information because only people off the street with no deep knowledge or understanding of a subject are allowed to edit or post. Sorry that you have banned all us scholars from participating because Wikipedia could be a wonderful source of correct information if we were allowed to work with you.

Also the hundreds of hours of reading draconian rules regulations and being sent from one blue highlighted category to another around in circles for hours is a lot more work than writing a PhD dissertation.

Therefore I will have to forgo ever helping correct or improve anything on Wikipedia because my kind of people (senior citizen scholars with dozens of years of experience) are unwelcome and don't have the weeks of time for the required constant clicking in circles to be able to fit into your cirteria. It was easier to get a driver's iicense in France or a residence permit in a Soviet country in the 60s or 70s than to add one word to a Wikipedia article. Dr. Lloyd Miller, PhD Persian literature and music.04:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorlloydmiller (talkcontribs) 04:13, 9 September 2008

Is there a particular article that you are attempting to edit? There is no single person who "runs" Wikipedia, nor is there any provision which prohibits scholars from contributing to Wikipedia. The only requirement placed on those wishing to add content to Wikipedia is that the content be verifiable. If you're having a particular problem, please provide the details; otherwise, the volunteers who contribute here will be unable to help. 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) 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
if the scholar's book is a main reliable source he is not allowed to submit quotes from it — That's not true. There's no bright-line rule as to what constitutes a COI (please make sure to follow that link), or whether an existing COI poses a problem (i.e., whether or not it results in non-neutral editing). Every single editor has more or less strong biases in at least some fields; the relevant question is whether they let it cloud their editorial judgement. So, editing an article you've published a book about or are personally familiar with is not in and of itself a problem. Note that the posting you received at your talk page from admin Athaenara is a template notice, not specifically addressing your exact edits but more a general warning that judging from your edits and comments you may have a COI and should therefore exercise great caution when editing those articles.
One minor technical suggestion I offer you is to format inline citations using our Citation templates so others won't have to do it for you. Alternatively, you can go to the "Gadgets" tab in your preferences and activate "refTools". This will add a cite tool to your editing tools where you can fill the information of a book into a form. As an aside, please sign your talk page postings with four tildes (> ~~~~ <). user:Everyme 06:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that you're talking about Preservation of Persian music. The problem with the article (besides it not being properly formatted) is indeed that you're only using the one book as a reference and the article even states that it is "completely quoted" from the book. I have two distinct suggestions to address this problem. One is to look for and incorporate other sources, many of which you as a scholar probably know, or alternatively can look for e.g. at Google Books. The second suggestion is to maybe better start small, by adding a concise section dedicated to the preservation of traditional Persian music at the article Persian traditional music. On a general note, it must be said that the portion of direct quotations and other copyrighted material should be kept at a necessary minimum. user:Everyme 06:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I less biased?

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


I added a paragraph to a page and it was removed very quickly, but I see nothing wrong with it. I there a way I can see who removed it? I'd like to know if the information was deleted at the discrimination of a wiki editor or a 3rd party.

Also, would you take any sort of exception to this paragraph as written?

===Customer Service===

Dreamhost does not give customers call-in access to phone support and there is no phone number for which to contact them directly. All customer service is via email request or request from their server based panel. <ref>[ Michael Arrington "Dreamhost Overbills Customers $7.5 Million" Tech Crunch, Jan 15, 2008]</ref><ref>[ "Looking for dreamhost phone number?" Robert Ellis, Sept 14, 2005]</ref>

Thanks very much Spiney deluxe (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I think you're asking in the context of Dreamhost? I've put nowiki tags around your markup for ease of reading in this context. As to taking exception, I think it depends on the reliability of the sources, and perhaps the reliability of other sources offering a different take. I'll look at the sources and the page some more . Oh, you can see the whole edit history of every page on the history tab, or click on history in the article links below this section's title. We're all editors here - you, me, and whoever reverted your edit. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the sources, they're both blogs, which aren't usually considered reliable sources here. I didn't see where the first ref supported your text, and the second ref says they only offer phone support on higher cost tiers, which doesn't quite bear out what you wrote either. I don't think you've got much of a case against the reversion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Two part request re: copyright

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

String Theory (novels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1) Just how badly is this page violating copyright? I know the answer is 'Some', but details would be appreciated. It's a HUGE morass of confusion.

2) What is the most efficent way to report suspected copyright violations? If there is some Wiki-HTML that I can put on the top of the page to alert editors, please tell me. Thanks. Lots42 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I should start by saying we're all editors here; you, me, everybody else. There's no mysterious band of 'others' who fix things - we all do it. </soapbox>. The overall policy on copyright violation is at WP:COPYVIO, and there's more detail at WP:CP including some reporting processes. It's not obvious to me why you're concerned - do you think the quotes are too long? Or perhaps the body copy is copied too? You'll need to spell that out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand but when I don't know what the heck I'm doing, I need others. And as I understand the article, most everything on it -is- copyrighted/maybe, there is text copied from the back of all three novels in question and text from inside the novels as well. The sheer amount is confusing and made me unsure of what was what. Lots42 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you rephrase the plain text, and shorten the quotes? That might help. Brief quotes are usually OK under fair use. Or, use the article's talk page to seek help from other editors. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Key factor of Eating Disorder Etiology grossly unexplored.

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Having sufferred from a severe eating disorder for 13 years, I found that your article overlooks the prevalence of highly disturbed family dynamics in the onset of eating disorders. The public assumption that eating disorders are due to media pressures further perpetuates the emotions that fuel starvation and the binge-purge cycle in those for whom the media was not a central contributing factor. Unfortunately, my experience having been in residential-type treatment in five renowned treatment centers where I met and closely interacted with more than 100 eating disorder sufferers made clear the following idea. Family dynamics, particularly fathers who stress perfection often academic, but also in sports and other realms are a hot button for the majority of those in treatment centers. In the book, Italic textAnorexia: A Guide to Recovery[1] a highly prevalent family structure of an over-bearing mother and controlling mother and a father who is unavailable for emotional support is discussed. Father Hunger is a notable text used in the treatment of eating disorders.

I would appreciate that the editors further explore these issues as the psychological fragility of those with eating disorders often fosters a need for validation. Reading information that perpetuates the essentially inaccurate assumption that the media has caused eating disorders can be infuriating to the anorexic or bulimic who was less profoundly affected by these forces. In my experience, I have met only 3 anorexics and bulimics that engaged in the stereotyped behavior of obsessively looking through magazines at pictures of models. These young women who come to mind, shared of their highly warped family expectations as well.

Although many chronic sufferers are kindly referred to by psychologists, as "the real experts" in eating disorders, a true professional is far better equipped than I to convey these factors. I would like to refer you to some sources that I found highly useful in my recovery.

The article at is among the most thorough I have in succintly describing the maladaptive families that foster children with maladaptive eating disorders.

Other sites from which to springboard into this topic might include,

Some experts that I have found to be the most knowledgeable on this topic over my years of treatment include Dawn Kendall, a therapist in the Orlando area who can be reached through an essential website to those seeking recovery,

Two essential points are overlooked in eating disorders, when attributing origins. One is that eating disorders far pre-date the media obsession with thin-ness. They also fail to distinguish between disordered eating, and eating disorders. Furthermore, the possibility exists that many of the new "wannarexics" influenced by low self-esteem, the media, etc. are being coupled into a more clearly defined and exclusive group of psychologically ill men and women.


Thank you for coming here for help. You seem to know a lot about eating disorders, so please feel free to add information to the article to which you are referring. When adding information to articles, try to source your information by finding references in reliable sources. Also, try to be unbiased in your editing. Each of us have a bias in one direction or another, but we must show all relevant sides of every argument (even the sides we disagree with). ~a (usertalkcontribs) 14:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Zuhari webpage

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Zuhari webpage appears to have been vandalised —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a page by that name. Could you re-post the exact page name please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Microwave Assaults

Resolved: Editor created article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a new kind of crime and little has been written about it and there are no current laws in effect.

I am not a writer, but I was investigating the abuse of an elderly woman and we watched and took pictures of a drug gang which included police who parked cars in front of her house at strange times. From there I became a victim of this crime. I have physical damage from these attacks. The woman I was helping went blind.

Subsequent inquiry and research led to the knowledge that this crime is being perpetrated on many innocent people who have become knowledgeable about crimes by coincidence.

I need help determining what kind of editing my article needs. There are doctors and several books written on the subject and deletion of this information would keep more victims realize this is a global situation.

Perpetrators would love for this information to not be available. There are pictures and testimony that many people are suffering from being "shot" in this new age of radiation weapons.

Please help me edit this information and tell me what is needed in the way of references, etc.

All of this information has been experienced and researched by professionals.

I need comments before I can make this article like the others on the wikipedia.

Can you help me improve this accurately so this information can be available for victims.

This is not a hoax, this is entirely true by personal experience. It is ongoing. I could name the police officers involved in Irving, Texas but I thought that might be too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustawaldorf (talkcontribs) 05:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for "entirely true by personal experience" items. If the subject you speak of has been covered significantly by 3rd party reliable sources that is a different matter though. Have a look at the following policies and see if the subject you wish to write about meets them. notability, verifiability, reliable sources. You should also check out WP:COI and some of the general "help" stuff that is probably located on the screen to your left under interaction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

UN Press releases

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is using information from a United Nations Press release a copyvio? Please see article Jorge Urbina. I used education data with dates, names and places from press release and used career appointments and dates as well. How many different ways can I reword such information? Please comment. Thanks --«JavierMC»|Talk 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even a press release is subject to copyright unless it's specifically released into the public domain. I saw that you had re-ordered and reworded many parts, and I've just paraphrased a couple more phrases that were common to the article and the release. Should be OK now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ Hall and Cohen