Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 4

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

request - wikipedia entry for Dean Barker

Resolved: Thanks, Jreferee. --Aarktica 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a sailing journalist and have known Dean Barker for many years. Since the outcome of the America's Cup on Tuesday someone has been editing his wikipedia entry to his detriment with their own opinion, rather than fact. Dean Barker is one of the world's top sailors. Most recently this was shown by his helming and skippering the team that defeated all others (5-0 in the final) to take on the present America's Cup holders to challenge for the world's oldest sporting trophy this year. The America's Cup match itself was extremely close - as is reflected in the win by the Defender by one second only in the final race. It will go down in the record books as one of the closest fought and best sailing series of all time. I appreciate that some people like to hammer those who lose in sport, but feel that the level of personal attack, and inappropriate and inaccurate remarks concerning Barker's extremely successful sailing history and personality (he has superb team leadership ability), is unwarranted and highly inappropriate for any encyclopedia. Somehow I cannot imagine that the person who wrote the comments has ever represented their country internationally in sailing (I have done so), let alone been an Olympic representative after a campaign of only a few months, or been part of winning America's Cup and Louis Vuitton Cup teams, which are points included, amongst many others, in Dean Barker's extremely successful sailing career.

You will see my edit removal of yesterday (anneh1), which appears to have been auto-replaced, with the addition of a sentence, which is now duplicated, in the first section of the article on Dean Barker.

Could you please bar the IP address/user ID that is creating this auto-replacement of personal attack material from edit access to Dean Barker's wikipedia entry? Could you also ensure that the text that I removed yesterday is deleted once and for all?

Thank you,

Anne Hinton anneh1 (email address removed) 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take into account the criteria for blocks before requesting that an anon IP be blocked for something that does not warrant a block. This is just a content dispute and since there are only two parties involved, you have 3O as your first option. I would not advise that you continue to edit against the other party, partly because edit wars help no one, but also because you may get close to COI and ownership issues. Keep it civil and start by pointing out the need for all BLP material to meet Verifiability and NPOV. The latter is a policy, and one of the five pillars. Adrian M. H. 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed BLP, NPOV, and WP:OR material from the article and placed a note on Lgask's talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Logging in problems

Resolved: --Aarktica 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


I logged in twice to edit articles on the 83rd infantry division and Buchenwald concentration camp. After both revisions I was informed that I was NOT logged in and that information would be made public that might expose me to spam et al.

No giant problem in this . . . but . . . thought you should know.

Note . . . after entering my user name and password I was informed that I was "logged in" . . . but got the "not logged in" message when trying to submit the edits.

Dan Morrow (e-mail removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2007

I suggest making a check of cookie handling behaviour in your preferred browser, together with any cookie filtering that may be present in your security suite. Though the session cookie handling is the prime suspect. Adrian M. H. 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking help from a biology editor

Resolved: Enoktalk 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

After years of gnoming, I started editing bear to see how much I could improve an article if I focused my attention on it. Unfortunately, after finishing a new introduction I got stuck on the next section (taxonomy and evolution) and am now looking for a more knowledgeable editor to help me in this area. I already have numerous sources (print and digital) but I'm having a little trouble understanding some of the terminology and knowing which taxonomy/theories to present in the article (as there are several). In other words, I have all of the necessary references and need help putting them together. Thanks. Enoktalk 06:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that any of us regular EA respondents are mammal experts, but you could enlist assistance at WikiProject Mammals. One of its members could bring to bear their expert knowledge! Couldn't resist a pun! Adrian M. H. 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Teehee. Good answer! - Demong talk 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality check - Falun Gong

Resolved: --Aarktica 23:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor and I have been engaged in what could be described as an edit war on the above article, which is under probation. There is a year-old to-do list on the article's talk page, and I have tried to transform the article from through some fairly radical edits in conformity with said to-do list, but a certain editor has taken an offense to my edits. My efforts have been repeatedly (at least twice) reversed by said editor, who has furthermore accused my of sock puppetry and vandalism. The person has refused any dialogue with me despite several attempts to create a discussion on the article's talk page, and on the editor's. I have tried to be more open and transparent as possible with the editing after the first failed attempt, but said editor has not only reverted all the changes I introduced, he has put it in a more biased state than when I first touched the article by deleting sourced material placed by someone else under a rather spurious interpretation of violation of WP:BLP. His edit history reveals that he rarely strays outside the FG series of articles, and continues to make rather blatant POV edits including removal of tags, and sourced information. He also edits talk pages of other editors to preach, which again seems to prove he is avoiding me deliberately. Another editor has engaged me in constructive discussion on my talk page, and appears to agree that the individual may be behaving inappropriately. I do not know how article probation works in practice. I believe I am wasting my time with trying to get this article into a good one, but still believe that the individual's actions should be brought to someone's attention. Ohconfucius 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me commend you for retaining your composure and maintaining civility when it might have been easier to do otherwise. This is anything but a "waste of time", and is greatly appreciated here.
According to the dispute resolution guidelines, you have a few more options available to you. Seeing that you have already sought a third opinion, I would suggest you seek mediation; this comes in two forms — informal or formal. Hopefully, this approach will work for you.
Good luck. --Aarktica 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your reply. I have just had a reply back from the editor concerned, who left me some long messages, so I think the dialogue can continue from there. Thanks for the trouble. Ohconfucius 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have received a Warning on my talk page that is totally without merit.

Resolved: Anchoress 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just received a Warning template on my talk page, warning me not to "experiment with Wikipedia".

Here's the problem: I have not done anything at all that can be construed as vandalism. The newly registered User:Luvente (reg. 15:42, 14 July 2007) has gone into a edit war with me over a couple of articles I have created (with plentyful sources) and claims that these articles constitute Vandalism. He has no sources to back him up, I have half a dozen right now and can get hold of nother dozen quickly if I should want to.

I do not want a completely, utterly, totally false warning on my talk page, I take honor in the factual accuracy of my edits and have so for over two years without complaint. What can I do with this talk page vandalism? Please help me here. Manxruler 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you're not obligated to keep any warnings on your talkpage, so feel free to delete it. Second, the best thing to do is to discuss it with the editor who left the warning. Perhaps you could explain to her/him that you feel the warning is undeserved and/or find out from the editor what it was s/he was warning you about. It's always best to go to the person you're in conflict with first, before escalating it. Good luck! Anchoress 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information, Anchoress. I have actually addressed this individual, but I do not expect to receive any constructive replies from him. He seems to be the "I'm right and nothing else counts"-type. Its a good thing I can delete the warning, but I think I'll wait and see if I can't clear the issue up with User:Luvente before doing so. I feel he needs some guidance in proper procedure. Manxruler 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! I noticed after I posted this that you had replied on your talkpage; I haven't checked back since, but if it were me, I'd delete the whole thread from my talk, and post an extremely civil, neutral message on Luvente's talkpage inquiring about the reason for the warning. You might also note that (per many discussions on WP:AN and WP:AN/I) it is generally considered de trop to give established users vandalism warnings. There might even be an essay about this somewhere. Anchoress 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you once again. Since the last "Warning" I have received a "last warning" with threaths of being blocked from Wikipedia from mr. User:Luvente. No response to me inquering as to what the problem seems to be, just a harsher "warning". I'll delete the thread alright, but this guy doesn't seem to be willing to either explain his actions or cease his "warnings". Any other advice, Anchoress? Manxruler 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the 'final warning' template before I commented on Luvente's talkpage. I think you (and Mike and I) have done as much as is warranted at this juncture; Luvente's actions to date appear to be meritless (particularly in view of the fact that s/he hasn't taken the opportunity to clarify or defend her/his actions), so you needn't credit them further. I'd just leave it as is for now, and file it as 'resolved as far as possible with an uncooperative party' and await further developments. Luvente's actions, however perplexing, don't warrant any action beyond what's been taken so far (I noticed that Mike notified AIV about Luvente - I don't know what the result was). Anchoress 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I would be alone in finding Luvente behaviour very strange for a new user. One of the first acts he did was to raise an Afd, even longstanding members get confused raising Afds. I will raise a note at WP:AIV, I can't guarantee it will do any good, but the behaviour strikes me a regular either blocked or just on a mischief spree under a diferent name. Mike33 10:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I sort of suspect something like that myself. This user went straight on the attack at once, usually people need a little time to get comfy. Manxruler 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to label this thread 'resolved'? Two experienced editors (in addition to Manxruler) have now posted to Luvente's talkpage commenting on the issue, I'm not sure that anything further will result from discussion here. Comments? Anchoress 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that it can be marked as resolved. Adrian M. H. 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. Anchoress 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, HERE is the resolution to Mike's AIV report. Anchoress 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help correcting NPOV

Resolved: --Aarktica 22:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My page -- -- was tagged as "reading like an advertisement", which complaint I don't understand. What can I do to make this article fit protocol? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgord01 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 9 July 2007

The history shows that you have not contributed to Analysis Group. Indeed, this is your only edit (notwithstanding any deleted articles, obviously). And you should not refer to any page as "my page". Have a look at style guides (MOS, IA, etc.) and the featured articles to better gauge good quality formal encyclopaedic writing. Adrian M. H. 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone help me close/archive this peer review?

Resolved: Based on status update provided by requester. --Aarktica 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I filed a peer review on I Not Stupid on 8 July 2007, to prepare the article for a GA nomination, which I filed on 15 July 2007. As I Not Stupid has achieved GA status, and I have no intention to get it to FA status, I see no need to continue the peer review. Could someone please help me close/archive the peer review? Thanks in advance. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs, the review was archived over a fortnight ago. However, the review was left on the Peer Review list (perhaps an oversight?)
In any event, I went ahead and removed the listing from that page. Hopefully, this completes the archival of the request. Cheers, --Aarktica 04:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a little more complicated that it first looks [See logs] I had a similar problem with a recent Afd that was moved/renamed and disappeared from the daily log. I had a look at it yesterday and came to the conclusion that current Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive5 should be moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive4. Well I think that is what needs doing. I would spd the current (08 Jul 07) Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/archive5, so that if it does need another PR, it doesn't go through the same problem again, and just manually adjust the PR red links on the talk page to the right archives. Mike33 - t@lk 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
How could a peer review be archived six days before it was filed? It was probably the article's second most recent peer review that was archived on 2 July 2007. This request is now moot, as the most recent peer review was archived yesterday. However, the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the article's talk page may have errors that need to be corrected. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Addhoc 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to write an informative page about Nature's Cure - a company too often confused with nature cures (already with a wikipedia entry). The goal is to create one similar to the Burt's Bees wikipedia entry, but I'm having trouble since there is a "please help review this article from a neutral point of view" flag on the entry.

I have external links which discuss Nature's Cure - would that help with notability?

Also, would it be helpful to put links in the entry which would link it to other wikipedia entries?

Please advise. Thanks! Christyae1 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are describing two different problems, so I'll cover them in order. No one has raised the issue of bias, and I do not really see any problem from that standpoint unless you are subject to some undisclosed COI. It is not apparent from the article anyway. The issue of advertorial has been raised by someone, but is actually a little misguided in this instance, I believe. If you want to see what advertorial really looks like.... well, you don't have to go far to find it on WP. Some of the articles at AFD absolutely stink of it. Notability is easy; just read that guideline and you will see what needs to be done. Related to that are the policy of verifiability and the guidelines about footnotes (two links there). Where are those reliable neutral third-party reference sources with non-trivial editorial treatments of the subject matter? Get plenty of those and notability tends to fall into place. Adrian M. H. 22:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, forgot to say that the editor who added the Notability tag should have opened a discussion on the talk page to explain his reasoning, but didn't. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Christyae, I've edited the article to remove bias and included references to establish notability. However, I haven't been able to include the company logo in the infobox. Perhaps someone else could assist? Addhoc 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) now fixed. Addhoc 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help on Railpage Australia

Resolved: Addhoc 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to prevent the Railpage Australia Forums article [1] (a rail enthusiast site) turning into a vanity page. As it stands much of the article is poorly referenced with unreliable sources. Every edit I have made is supported by verifiable facts which justifies that change. My first attempt earlier this year was to reinstate information posted by another user that concerned one individual's railway criminal activities who was also involved with the operation of Railpage Forums as a moderator. The criminal activities of that individual were reported in the Australian national newspapers.

My most recent edit resulting in a edit war, was to call the Railpage Forum "commercial, free to join, voluntary payment for service". I have justified this edit based upon that the Forum is owned not by a individual, but by a registered corporation and on Australian taxation law/rulings. The problem is I suspect there are two or three die hard supporters of the organization which the article is about who delete my editing with little (just a statement with no verifiable facts)or no explanation. The other day, I accused two of them of suspected conflict of interest COI. It seems that these two registered Wikipedia users have gone away, replaced by two or three anonymous I.P. editors. I'd like someone to look at the whole article and make a few comments. Thanks. Tezza1 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that much of it is unsourced and only refers back to the forum. As an anorak myself (worked at Ballaarat station 94/95), I tend to keep very well clear of railway accidents etc. I do notice that you have only just started editing under Tezza1, that isn't a bad thing, but if you are accusing others of WP:COI, they may well doubt your neutrality. What do I suggest? mmmmm find a neutral party from say Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways and raise your concerns there. I know it isn't an Australian project, but neutrality is the only way you can move forward. Mike33 - t@lk 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A few comments:
  • the article does clearly require a rewrite and inclusion of secondary sources
  • editors are allowed to source citations from the web site if these conditions are met
  • the criminal activities material probably contravenes the presumption in favor of privacy aspect of the BLP policy
  • if someone reverts you take it to the talk page
Addhoc 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Tezza is certainly NOT neutral. He has a history of attacking the site on Usenet newsgroups. 07:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Tezza1 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the "little or no explanation" comment in tezza's post. Certainly, there was disagreement with tezza's edits, but the replies (as witnessed on the talk page) were well constructed and seemed to refute tezza's arguments. My take on the COI affair was that tezza was frustated that he could not get his edits to stick, and made the COI accusation in that spirit. There are many factional splits in the Australian Railfan/Gunzel/Anorak community, and it appears to me that some of this has spilled over to the Railpage wiki article. Yes, I am a Railpage member (not moderator/admin), and I do have concerns (raised with Tezza, but with no direct reply), as to Tezza's motive behind his edits. If that makes me in COI, then so be it.Johnmc 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User Mike33 I put it up for peer review as you suggested, and guess what happens? the anonymous IP's become activeTezza1 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo Sails.

Resolved: link spam see [google]

I tried to ad a page about a recently patented product, PHOTO SAILS. Wikipedia has files on other patented products such as Rubics Cube and the Swiffer. Why are you blocking my addition of a product that holds 30+ worldwide patents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronkiss (talkcontribs) 18:59, 19 July 2007

Wikipedia does not do "ads" and your addition was purely an 'ad'. Please consult WP:NOT and if you were directed to this page from an SEO site, I would suggest you pay more attention, because this is one of the pages that are listed to avoid. Mike33 - t@lk 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe Girardi

Resolved: Requester blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Pascack. --Aarktica 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

The Joe Girardi page has been subject to consistent edit wars regarding the team colors in his info box. The colors previously had listed the colors of the Chicago Cubs (red and blue) since Girardi played the most years (6) for the Cubs than any other team covering two separate stints. He played 3 years for the Yankees, 2 years for the Rockies, and 1 year for the Cardinals. However, several users, mainly IP address have repeatedly changed the box to Yankee colors. Can you please help as the constant re-editing is ruining the page. Thank you. Joeidaho 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that, if you can have only one, you should choose the most significant. Which would normally have to be judged by longevity for sake of avoiding subjectivity. Perhaps you should suggest to the other editors that no colours should be included at all, and see what they say. Did he have greater success with any of the other teams, by the way? Adrian M. H. 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the players are listed with teams with the most longevity. However, user mghabmw continues to violate the 3RR rule either under his own name or IP on both the Joe Girardi page and Reggie Jackson page. He appears to be a Yankee fan and constantly changes players' colors to Yankees colors. In Girardi's case, he played 6 years on the Cubs and 3 years on the Yankees. In Reggie's case, he played 9 years on the A's and 5 years on the Yankees. He is consistently reverting and I don't know what action can be taken at this point. Joeidaho 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone at requested my password

Resolved: Nominator concurs with closure. --Aarktica 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I received an email from with subject line New temporary password for Wikipedia. The text is

Someone from the IP address requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "CliffC" is "(redacted)". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL:

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't ask for my password to be sent and I don't know who is. When I go to his talk page here I see that he's a spammer with three sock accounts, but I don't see any intersection between the articles he's spammed and those where I've reverted spammers, or even visited.

So... "What's all this then?" I once saw this question asked elsewhere in Wikipedia, I don't recall where, but the answer was something to the effect of "nothing to be concerned about, move along". Can someone explain (or speculate on) what's going on? --CliffC 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit disconcerting, I agree, but probably nothing to worry about. I have seen this mentioned at the VP before. I suspect that someone decided to try something nefarious and picked your account at random (perhaps from article history or a talk page). As they will no doubt be aware by now, they are out of luck! The important thing is to (a) have a very obscure password, (b) never sign in at a publicly available PC, and (c) avoid spyware. Adrian M. H. 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It means you're famous Cliff - you must be doing something right, if people are trying to undo your good work. "my preferences" button at top of the page lets u change passwords as many times a day as you want. You can even forget and get a new code - remember only you know it unless somebody has access to your email. It could just be a mistake tho, if you're bored try Special:Listusers and search for a blue link Cliff! Mike33 - t@lk 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, gentlemen. I lean towards Mike's "famous" explanation since articles I edit are still trolled once in a while by the honey-roasted peanuts vandals. Aarktica has suggested that this item might be closed, and I agree. --CliffC 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac

Resolved: Adrian M. H.

Hi there Editor.

I just thought I'd let you know that an article about me was initiated by people who wanted to highlight what I did with Bill Gates/DVD Video, Internet Cafes and Digital Audio. I felt rather uncomfortable about it, and understandably, with the treatment that some loons on here have given these people, as well was thinking they know best without really helping, suggesting or trying to help edit such article, makes absolutely no sense to me and the supposed "spirit" of wikipedia.

Right now, being the subject of such article, I'm feeling quite peeved and want any such material erased, which would hurt the original authors, but understandably I've been quite hurt by Media in the past and would require that such article be either protected or governed in its formation or writing due to my sensitivity to such exposure.

I would appreciate your thoughts about such behaviour as I was nearly ready to let someone I didnt know have the source listing to such verifiable articles and content re-published to support the article further, but if the article is going to be further scrutinised without expert opinion as to why and how to improve, then I'm not willing to divulge information pertaining to such.

I realise these two or three editors are novices to wikipedia and one is also a person that, being a member of a minority group in Australia, would further cause controversy and bad media about this service. Who am I to judge? They want a chance to be a part of this! So why not give them a chance? I have certainly given thousands of people such a chance through my mentoring as part of the same scheme that I began my career with, before retiring last year.

I would humbly ask for your thoughts on such. I dont want to hurt the novice authors feelings but I feel quite upset this article is being mocked by amateurs. Understandably, its been written by the same!

Thankyou --Achidiac 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The article is quite likely to be deleted anyway. And by editing it yourself, you are in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI and, judging by the article's current state, WP:NPOV. Adrian M. H. 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article rejection

Resolved: --Aarktica 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted several articles on an indiviual and It has been rejected each time. Attached is an article. Can you please review and either publish or explain to me why not? Please see below. Thanks! -Cedric

Brice Carrington, Sound Designer establishes Ultimate FX, a sound library that revolutionizes the industry by bringing Hollywood styled sound effects DIRECTLY to the consumer.

> Ultimate FX, the new sound library led by sound designer Brice Carrington produces some of the world’s most popular sounds for feature films, video games, software and ringtones. With over 20 years of experience, and amassing a vast sound collection, led Brice to create Ultimate FX, a surround sound library whose materials are in great demand by consumers. A key element of the signature Carrington sound is the use of a male African lion in virtually all of his sound effects. All of Carrington’s sounds are original works that are recorded in the field, using six microphones, creating the true 5.1 surround sound. >

According to Carrington, “Working in sound production over the years has afforded me the ability to create some of the most unique sounds you will ever hear, and we will soon have the ability to share our library of sound effects with the world. Now anyone can incorporate professional sound effects into their own home movies.” An example of an Ultimate FX exclusive is the recreation of the famous sound of the T-Rex eating, in the film Jurassic Park. This sound was created by recording a lion crunching bones; the splash of hogs in water; the flesh tearing sound of a lion tearing the fur off of a rabbit; an elephant’s roar; even the whirring of an old-school push lawn mower. Ultimate FX was the premier surround sound effects library of BMG/Killer tracks, one of the most state of the art sound libraries in the world. Ultimate FX has also been used at Universal Studios theme parks in Hollywood, and Sea World in Orlando, Florida. Ultimate FX is currently sold by Pinnacle Systems and Carrington is in development of a consumer based sound mixer which will allow its users to create their own sound effects in their home movies. “By including many ready made sound files from Ultimate FX in Pinnacle’s video editing product line, customers can easily create polished, Hollywood-style results that are fun to share with family and friends,” says Amy Whelan of Pinnacle Systems. “Beginning with Pinnacle Studio version 9, Carrington’s audio content is now also included in Pinnacle’s most recent iteration, Studio 11 Titanium Edition.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrich (talkcontribs) 19:55, 20 July 2007

  • My hunch is that the article was rejected either because the notability of the subject or product was questioned. Please review WP:BLP, WP:EDIT, WP:GA and WP:RS (not necessarily in that order) for possible tips on avoiding future denials. --Aarktica 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hi there. The problem with an article on Brice Carrington is that it would appear to be nearly impossible to write in any way that would meet our notability guidelines for biographies. Articles on Carrington have been speedy-deleted several times as either promotional (such as the copy above, which is essentially a press release - that makes up most of the sources that can be found with regards to the subject through Google searches) or as an attack page. (Note that I did tag one of the articles for speedy deletion, and at the time left a message on your user talk page with regards to the reason.) Articles must be verifiable through multiple, non-trivial reliable sources to meet guidelines for inclusion. If you feel you can create an article meeting those guidelines and policies, you may want to start it in a personal sandbox (perhaps at User:Cedrich/Sandbox), then check with established editors and ask them to look at the page you have created before moving it into the article space. This might save the trouble of having it speedy-deleted again. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need advice on external links with potential COI issue

Resolved: Thanks, Mike33. --Aarktica 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I own, and recently became aware that some articles here about specific games I host (such as Anchorhead) contain links directly to that game on my site. The problem is, the links typically use a URL that I expect to be changing soon. Rather than trying to maintain some number links throughout the wiki, it occurred to me I could create an external link template to make the link easy to add, and keep the URL in one place. Then I could replace the existing links with template references, add the template to other existing game articles where it was relevant, and possibly set up a similar arrangement for the links to game reviews at Baf's Guide. But first I wanted to research the COI policy, to get guidance on whether what I think would improve the articles is in line with the community's opinion on the matter. On reading WP:EL#What_should_be_linked, I figured that

  • Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

would apply, since actual game play is clearly not suitable for inclusion. But then I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MobyGames.2F_Flipkin. That's a much more extreme situation (6000+ links to stub pages, possible bots, sock puppets, etc), but there's enough similarity to what is clearly a sensitive issue that I decided I should get some Editor feedback on whether (or how much of) my plans are appropriate. Comments, anyone? --Diggernet 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:FUI and WP:OR are issues that get practically all editors very animated. In real terms, conflict of interest is only of concern if an editor is pushing unverifiable material in an article or excluding controversial material. On some of the articles I regulary work on, we get imput from the relevent non-profit making organisations suggesting new leads or advising on POV problems. They are open about who they are, are happy to receive email and respond to user talk. It doesn't effect any other editor's neutrality and I think it help Wikipedia as a whole. There are exceptions of course and say for example Jesus Army the article seems to be policed entirely by members of the organisation.

Correcting a dead link, albeit your own, should never be looked on as contradictory to WP:COI. However, the template seems a little extreme. External links should obviously be visable, but not eyecatching enough to disturb the flow of the article. If you do have concerns, suggest to the regular editors of anchorhead, zork 1, interactive fiction etc. that they change the links for you.

Please remember that this is my opinion and I am sure other editors will have other opinions converse to mine. Mike33 - t@lk 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Your statement about dead links is clearly correct, but I guess I should clarify that the template I had in mind would be based on and similar to Template:Imdb title. That is, it would just be a shorthand for adding one line to the External Links section (as it should be), not something intrusive like an Infobox or link box. Whether done with a template for maintainability, or manually, I am also interested in any opinions on whether adding such links to other articles would be viewed by others as a helpful addition (as intended), or self-serving link spam. --Diggernet 06:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPAM should only refer to sites that are only vaguely concerned with the article, paysites, or particular lines of opinion which promote illegal activity. Despite Wikipedia being the "free encyclopedia" it has never discouraged outside profit making organisations making use of its content. The same goes for external links. No outside website can use Wikipedia to gain google points because it is completely "no follow" now. Your template idea still spells trouble though, editors may well view a template not as quick shorthand but as bigging-up your site. When ctrl-f can find a bad link, what is the need? Mike33 - t@lk 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh. "Profit making". I put ads on the site a few weeks ago as an experiment to see if it would pay for its own hosting. So far, it doesn't look promising.  :)
By "bigging-up", I assume you mean trying to make the site seem important because it's got a template? I guess I can understand that logic. Though to be honest, that idea was inspired more by laziness than any false sense of importance. Ctrl-F is fine for finding the link in a particular page. I was thinking more about the task of finding all the links throughout the wiki. Easier to have the URL in one place.
Anyway, so far I gather that adding links from specific game articles to that specific game is acceptable, but using a template is pushing it. Fair 'nuff. Anyone have any other input on this? --Diggernet 23:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be that many external links to the site - see [External links]. Laziness shouldn't be an issue on Wikipedia, if an article is notable enough there are bound to be diligent editors willing to repair bad links, not just remove them. The beauty of Wikipedia is that its content is never static. I have no problem with any site trying to make money. If the minimum wage applied to the maintenence and updating of sites, there probably wouldn't be the web. Wikipedia is mirrored on lots of "for profit" sites, including to my horror the mailing lists and we actually exclude CC 2.5 (NC) licenses for medium on the project to take this into account. I'm suprised I seem to be a lone voice here. If you need anymore imput I would certainly suggest getting a straw poll from the WPs that actually edit the articles. kind regards Mike33 - t@lk 10:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I didn't realize searching for external links like that was possible. That nicely addresses my biggest motivation for using a template, which is the task of finding all the links if they need updating. After letting this sit a few days without any additional comments, I have to conclude that you are the lone voice here simply because anyone who has read your responses agrees with you and had nothing to add. Thanks for your helpful advice! --Diggernet 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Resolved: --Aarktica 13:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


I would like to contribute on some things. The Resident Evil pages in one good example. Here is another for Britney spears. I wrote a fanmail but it lasts 10 pages. English is not my native language but practise makes perfect. How can I best sent the letter to wikipedia?

Britney is asking her most die-hard fans for some assistance in order to name her upcoming album.

1 Omg is Like Lindsay Lohan Like Okay Like - mono comercio 2 What if the Joke is on You - real bromista 3 Down Boy - chao chico (hacia abajo) 4 Integrity - Integridad 5 Dignity - Dignidad

So here are some more:

Olé Corsé Pene Anillo Fértil Vinilo hush funkateers

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Fransen (talkcontribs) 22:01, 23 July 2007

Thanks to Studerby for wrapping that!!
Martijn, I don't know if you are yet up to speed with what Wikipedia is about, but in case you are not, I will post a "welcome template" on your talk page and you can have a look at the pages to which it links. I will assume that you are just a bit misguided about Wikipedia and are not trying to wind us up here, but what you have posted here has absolutely no place anywhere on WP, except perhaps WP:BJAODN. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request reality check on claim of personal attack

Resolved: --Aarktica 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am in a discussion with User:Edgarde at his talk page regarding my perception that he has engaged in personal attacks towards me and at least one other editor. He has stated, "don't see this as a personal attack." I am asking for your assistance on clearing this up. I am concerned that my ability to see things straight is blinded by my emotions. Thanks for your assistance, —WikiLen 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment isn't even close to being a personal attack - the advice given in the No Personal Attacks policy about commenting on content instead of conduct does not equate to saying that all comments on user conduct are by definition personal attacks. Addhoc 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
By way of a second opinion, in case it is needed, I concur with Addhoc's assessment. Neither the comments nor the edit summary could in any way be deemed to be a form of personal attack. It is probably, as you have acknowledged, a case of being too close and subject to the influence of prior dispute. Adrian M. H. 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

North East England

Resolved: No further assistance needed. --Aarktica 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Username = Hunnam

I do not see how other links can be kept on yet mine cannot, my site gives information about the North East unlike other sites listed.

Is there some reason why I am being singled out, a site I added has more information than a similar site that has been left on and my site was mentioned in the local papers.

I do feel I am being singled out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnam (talkcontribs) 18:11, 24 July 2007

If is the link you are referring to, the site is a forum and forums are usually discouraged as per External links guidelines. Please read these guidelines, specifically the Links normally to be avoided section, for more information. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No its not at all but I have tried adding various sites to see if they get removed and they all have, the site provided information and pictures. There are a few sites similar to mine that were added after my site was added and have less users and less information, could this be racism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnam (talkcontribs)

Allegations of racism are misplaced and assume bad faith. Are you saying that it's not the forum listed above? Which site is being removed from where?

The Rhymesmith 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Racism??!!! Please do not level baseless and misguided accusation against Wikipedia or any of its editors. There are policies/guidelines that ask you not to do things like that. Two things to bear in mind: 1) Most good WP editors are strict about external links and 2) different editors apply different degrees of latitude. That's assuming that an editor who checks and removes links that they deem inappropriate has even seen your addition. Please remember to sign, by the way. It is annoying to have to add {{unsigned}} so often. Adrian M. H. 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would invite the requester to review the guidance provided on what to expect from assistance — recklessly playing the race card or raising the spectre of Godwin's Law might get you a denial of any further assistance. --Aarktica 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How come a forum is still listed on the North East England page then! What else can be said to explain this, I really feel that someone is abusing power here or letting it go to their head because my sites were removed while others were kept on. I will no longer post on Wikipedia but I will do everything possible to find out why I was being singled out. Some sites I listed had nothing to do with me and were for the benefit of people visiting the page and they were removed, if I were an editor I wouldnt let it go to my head or pick on someone which is obviously what is happening here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnam (talkcontribs) 09:59, 25 July 2007

Help with proceeding with pseudo-troll

Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the Radio Stations WikiProject. Unfortunately, the project isn't overly active at the moment, so the few of us who do make many edits across the spectrum tend to run into each other.

I have recently been butting heads with User:Neutralhomer. At first, his repeated posts to my talk page were merely a minor nuisance. This escalated when he would repeatedly ask me to help him do work on his "niche" area of the project. I, in turn, asked him repeatedly to learn our naming conventions so that I wouldn't have to move multiple articles he created to their proper locations.

This continued to degrade when I would fix minor Manual of Style issues, which he would immediately revert (as if the pages were his own). We then disagreed on a discussion involving translators where I recommended merging, and he argued (both there and my talk page) to integrate instead. Much to my frustration, he wasn't able to grasp that these are, in fact, the same thing.

Despite asking me multiple times (as archived on my talk page) to watch his contribs to fix these things, he's now harassing me to stop doing so, despite the fact that half the time it's merely our two paths crossing.

The final straw tonight was while checking my "What links here" page trying to find any forgotten pages in my namespace, and finding this [dif personal attack, which I then reverted. He has since notice this, reverted it back to the attack version, and proceeded to accuse me of stalking him again.

While I agree that I have not acted as best as I can in this situation, I am completely frustrated and would like some advice on how to proceed. I have put too much hard work into WP:WPRS, and do not want to abandon it, but at this point, to avoid this guy, it may be worth it.

Thanks for your help. JPG-GR 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do believe this user is trying to act in the best interest of the project, as he has created many articles for radio stations that have helped the project. I'm not quite sure if he just doesn't understand what's going on, doesn't care, or what. JPG-GR 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered Mediation at the Cabal?

The Rhymesmith 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with that process. JPG-GR 07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
/sigh/ OK, I have changed my editing style and the way I make radio station (and TV station) articles so as to find a happy medium with User:JPG-GR.
I asked him if he would mind helping me make some of the radio pages (it gets kinda monotonous after awhile) and since he was online and would be better WP:MOS and naming convention whatnot then I am, I thought it would be a way that we could work together and not be butting heads. All I got was static.
After finally having to explain something that was really easy to understand, I posted that edit to my talk header. It is not meant as a personal attack, but more of a message, if you will, to User:JPG-GR that he doesn't have to make things so damned difficult.
But I have changed my edit style for User:JPG-GR, adding calls in bold, attempting to learn the naming conventions (which I am still not getting, but I am trying).
As for my "stalking" claim, it strikes me as odd that within a moment or two after I make a page, a new page, it is tagged, edited, or moved. This continued to strike me as odd, when User:JPG-GR posted a comment about the Stephens City, Virginia page I am working on. This is unrelated to his WP:WPRS work and would only be found if he was checking up on my contribs. I don't mind if he wants to tag the talk pages, that's fine, but when he is moving pages within a minute of me making them, that is a little weird.
But, I have made attempts to work with this editor and finally after being threatened with being reported and having a link to my talk page posted (in a hidden link) on his talk page, I posted that I thought it best that he not post to me anymore and I wouldn't to him.
This is unfortunate, because I have alot of respect for User:JPG-GR and for his work with WP:WPRS, so much that I gave him a Barnstar for about 8 hours of work he did one day. I have made attempts, many attempts, to work with him and for not. I will stay away from User:JPG-GR and continue working on radio stations (by the way, I am also a member of WP:WPRS) and if User:JPG-GR would like to work with me, I will be glad to work with him, so as we are not butting heads again. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, The Rhymesmith. I have read up on and started a case at the Mediation Cabal. Moreover, I will be referencing this area as evidence of User:Neutralhomer "stalking" my contribs, the very act he is accusing me of. JPG-GR 07:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this, I am just going to let you deal with the radio station pages (you can build them) and I will go work on something else, because you and I are not going to be able to work on the same website. Ain't happening. You want to "referencing this area as evidence" against me, go right ahead. I'm done. - NeutralHomer T:C 07:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of Mind

Stale: --Aarktica 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my English is not good enough to edit context of article directly. Please, take a look on proposed editing and post it after grammar corrections. unsigned by (Talk) at 05:20, 13 July 2007

Gosh I don't know where to start. i am purely arts and wouldn't have a clue at trying to judge if the ammendments are right or not The post should really be on the talk page of the article. I will add an {{anon}} to the editors talk page and ask him to consider editing Wikipedia under a username. I honestly don't have any other ideas. Mike33 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you managed to collapse that! I tried to use "toccolours collapsible collapsed" yesterday, but I think the formatting of the post prevented it from collapsing, so I had to leave it as is. I was reluctant to just delete it. If the anon editor returns, perhaps he can tell us what his first language is; he might be more confident and better placed to contribute to another WP. I'm sure they have translation service like we do here, but from English, so that he could work on a version of this article. Adrian M. H. 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If the anon comes back - I would suggest (a) getting a user name (b) sending it to psychology or metapsychics or philosophy wikiproject. Otherwise Its on the page and its so difficult to compare the two versions (even if I understood any of it). Do you think we can repost it to anons user page User_talk: until we find project help? Mike33 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No, best to leave it here. It may well be a dynamic IP. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ping says he's in ohio US. I suspect that when he said his English wasn't good, he meant that he was an English speaker, but his grammer was poor? Gonna cross my fingers and hope a psychologist can make head from tail. Mike33 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll make head from tail and deal with the coherency and philosophical issues relating to the proposed edits, if that is what is wanted, coming from the perspective of an academic specialty in philosophy of mind. I'd be happy to look through the comments, but this does seem rather long and it's difficult to identify the differences between the proposed version and the current version. The manner of phrasing,however ("(My point of view on the problems is provided after an original text as numbered comments."), does make me suspect original research. I defer this to the editors already assisting. Comments? Yanksta x 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It strongly suggests OR with potential for bias. No references were provided. Adrian M. H. 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Article given the deep six by Natalie Erin. No further action necessary. --Aarktica 19:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I need some help to italicize words in a published article - book titles and names of journals and newspapers in the article which were not italicized before publication; how to use superscripts for citations used for documentation; and categorization - I added the categories after the article was published but there's still a notice saying the article is ucategorized.

I clicked on "Edit" but there were no buttons I could click on for "Italics" and "Superscript" after the article was published.

Also, some text is boxed and stretches beyond the right "margin" of the page and I don't know how to fix that.

I would appreciate if someone could correct that for me. I have very little knowledge of the technical aspects of electronic publishing.

If someone can handle that, the article is "Godfrey Mwakikagile."

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Dave 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Working. JPG-GR 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've taken care of your citations in the most basic way (which is the only way I know). I also cleaned up your odd indentation problems. However, this article still needs quite a bit of work from a style perspective to work within the Manual of Style. Additionally, many of the categories you did list either do not exist or are slightly different from what you put.
It should be noted I did the editing from a purely stylistic POV, and didn't actually read it for content & context. Someone else should be along to help you out! JPG-GR 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Usually, I don't do this in my capacity as an EA, but I have wikified the article and done some copyediting on the content. Some sandblasting might be needed, but there is plenty of information contained in the article assuring notability. --Aarktica 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ladies and gentlemen..."

It seems we have been had. Taking out the weasel words and POV material, most of what is left was lifted from the subject's personal page at Geocities. I am contemplating reverting the edits to the article in question to a pre-JPG-GR state, making the COPYVIO painfully obvious. --Aarktica 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

...dirty word...another dirty word....more dirtt words.... Thanks for checking.... Studerby 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited out copyrighted material. The author can be contacted at for approval to use whatever material you think needs to be approved for copyright reasons. From what I know, there's no objection. Dave 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

sean parker-perry

Resolved: Article disposed of by Wangi — again. --Aarktica 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

this page was removed once due to edit wars - see doc glasgow (editor) comments

please remove this page 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistants are not in the business of removing articles "on demand." Please review the deletion policies for guidance on how to proceed. Feel free to resubmit the article for deletion or see if you can make a case for speedy deletion of the article. Cheers, --Aarktica 13:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(The Sean Parker-Perry article was nominated for deletion last month, and was summarily deleted on June 15, 2007 by User:Wangi. The article — on several occasions — was protected and unprotected by User:Doc glasgow, who agreed with the deletion as well.) --Aarktica 13:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spyware page vandalism

Resolved: --Aarktica 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is continuous vandalizing the page on spyware.

The nature of the vandalism implies the user will not comply to reason and will continue to revandalize the page whenever it is repaired.

Please ban this user from editing for a period of time.

Have a great day,

--DevinCook 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Issued a final warning ({{uw-vandalism4}}) to the user. If the user vandalizes again, report the account to the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard, you'll get a much faster response that way than you will here against vandal accounts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Your help is greatly appreciated.--DevinCook 09:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Retired user; no further action necessary. --Aarktica 15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Problem - Advice Needed:


I am having a problem with someone editing a page on this site. I am aware that anyone can edit a page, however; the edit changes they are making are not correct. Also, I have several books to support the editing changes that I want to make on the page that interest me. If I quote something out of a book and others wikipedia members and especially one person in particular may not have access to the same book(s) that I have - how is this problem handled? Also, what if someone is making changes based upon a website? The changes that I proposed are based upon several books that can be verified. The person making the editing changes is informing me that I should put potential changes to the article in the discussion page, but they are making changes to the page and they are not putting the potential changes in the discussion page. I will admitthat I am a very new user to this site and I am not certain of all the policies of this site. I have read the welcome guidelines and instructions, but there are still some things that I do not understand. Thanks HistoricDST 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also when you reply can you send a copy of your reply to my email addresss just in case I have some difficulty finding this page again. My email address is [EMAIL REMOVED]. Thanks for you assistance and have a wonderful day.HistoricDST 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing from a book per here. You do not need to dicuss changes unless they are controversial. If you can find a reputable source, there should be no problem, unless Wikipedia:Undue weight or WP:FRINGE are contravened.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested for United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide asistance - 'User:Cumulus Clouds', whoever he is, has removed content inappropriately. The lack of participation has allowed him to get away with this.

He apparently is not familiar about the involved issues. First, the article section he removed said nothing about 'palestinians' - he introduced that as a straw man. He discounts a respected congressman as an inappropriate source, as he does an established newspaper. What he discounts as controversial is established fact. That was the basis of the criticism of the museum that he removed -- for example its refusal to display the documentation that exists, such as a picture of the mufti and Hitler together.

Please help.

Thank you. Mike Grant — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2007

Provided you have reliable sources to back your claim, the content may remain in the article. At this point, my suggestion would be for you to request a third opinion on the subject matter. Cheers, Aarktica 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The mention of Palestinians was probably a good faith error - the editor incorrectly assumed the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem would have necessarily been a Palestinian. Otherwise agree with Aarktica - reliable sources are required and a third opinion could be useful. Addhoc 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with dispute with unregistered user - RE: inclusion of links to a political blog

Resolved: --Aarktica 14:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble with two entries: City of Casey and Endeavour Hills, Victoria

As I've explained on the discussion pages Talk:City of Casey and Talk:Endeavour Hills, Victoria, I don't believe the links to a personal political blog are appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. I've attempted to enter into discussion with the unregistered party, however have been unsuccessful. When I edit the articles to remove the links my edits are reverted by the unregistered party without explanation. I'm unsure of how to proceed with this issue and would appreciate the advice of a more experienced editor.


--SRHamilton 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The blogs shouldn't be linked unless the article is about the blog, or common views of something which the blog shares, etc. If there is no discussion, and it is personal blog, it appears to be promotion. Remove them, and drop a note on my talk page if they revert.

The Rhymesmith 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked, and the blog is completely inappropriate. I have warned the IP to stop spamming.
The Rhymesmith 04:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New Editor looking for a second opinion

Resolved: Thanks, Adrian. --Aarktica 01:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, i've not long started doing edits for Wikipedia, but i just need someone to check over the first article i made. It's at National Sleepy Head Day. I know it's only a stub but any constructive criticism would help as i'm looking to start a requested article that is likely to be much more in-depth. Thanks Bizzmag 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied to RFF. I will respond there. - Adrian M. H. 18:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)





HERES THE LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utyliti (talkcontribs) 01:50, 27 July 2007

Please do not type in all caps. It is the equivalent of shouting, rude, and difficult to read.

It is not our job to intervene in content disputes. If he is consistently adding unsourced information or deleting sourced information, he may be warned. However, in the absence of information provided in either direction, we cannot randomly interfere. It would be advisable to speak with him regarding the questioned information, and ask him to provide a source. If he cannot, then you may remove it, and if he continues to replace it, having been notified of the lack of sources, then we will warn him.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I need some help with this user User talk:Utyliti.

He is changing the page Jealousy/Screwed to Screwed(song), saying the information I have added in the "Jealousy/Screwed" page was false, which is not true, because there were sources to prove it, and he's deleting the information about the song "Jealousy".

I'm not going to change it again because I'm sure he'll continue deleting.

John Biancato 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you request a 3O, which should carry more weight than anything written here. If what you have written here is accurate, then the other party appears to be in the wrong. I take it that the sources in question were reliable per WP's definition? ie. not fora or blogs or yet-another-fansite that has no oversight. Incidentally, it should be Screwed (song) with a space. Adrian M. H. 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Received Warning for Spamming

Resolved: --Aarktica 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I attempted to edit: on 28 July 07.

I wanted to add material about Battlefield 2 (BF2) and was warned, "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia".

I was trying to provide readers a consolidated visual list of BF2 maps. I attempted to add the following link:

I believe the content is appropriate.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated,


Login: Sfscriv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfscriv (talkcontribs) 07:41, 28 July 2007

This is a content issue, and thus we cannot actually comment on it. The best solution would be to contact the editor who warned you and discuss it with him. If you are unable to reach an agreement, then comment here and we'll do our best. But do talk to the user first.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 09:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it polite, of course, and remember that most editors are (quite rightly) strict about [[WP:|EL]]s and some are more or less strict than others. Adrian M. H. 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Person using Twinkle reverts article every time it is updated


Please help. I have no idea how to address this, but user Gscshoyru has activated a program called Twinkle that simply reverts an article every time it is changed. This person has done this consistently and to several people who have tried to post. The posting is to the page for the Analytic Hierarchy Process. There is no contact information about how to get in touch with this person.

Thank you,

John Saaty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsaaty (talkcontribs) 21:49, 30 July 2007

Ok, I'll leave a message for the editor, however please could you stop the revert battle? Addhoc 21:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a revert battle yet, Gschoyru has left a message on the users talk page about copy-vio problems on Analytic Hierarchy Process. i shall post this text to both editors talk pages. Mike33 - t@lk 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Jsaaty is close to going over the Three-revert rule. --Addhoc 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Siding article: using external web addresses as sources

Resolved: --Aarktica 14:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from RFF. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently did a major edit on the wiki siding article. I included a web address as my source, and I noticed it was removed within a day. Am I not allowed to use external web addresses when I am contributing? I would like to know for future reference. Dawmaulan 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved your question here, Dawmaulan, as it is much more appropriate than RFF (which is for informal peer reviews of work on specified articles). To answer this question, I'll have to do a bit of checking to be sure, but my first guess is that you did not follow WP:REF (minimum) and WP:FN (preferable), which resulted in what amounts only to a group of external links. ELs are usually treated strictly by most editors (myself included) and if it does not obviously function as a satisfactory reference, it will be subject to potentially strict interpretations of that guideline. See discussions at WT:V and WT:RS for more background info about good referencing. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Had the time to do a quick bit of digging. This diff shows the removal of what are undoubtedly spam links that fail to meet the criteria outlined in EL and expected by consensus. You failed to apply these links as sources (never mind even getting as far as using footnotes), so the editor who removed them was correct to do so. I appreciate editors who want to cite their sources, but your effort did not meet WP:V. I often guide new editors in good referencing practices, so if you need advice, you can ask me. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help verifying violation of WP:OR

Stale: --Aarktica 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On the page Man vs. Wild, there has been a continual debate between a few wikipedians who maintain that the show's content is "fake," although they have no external sources. Myself and a few others have attempted to remind them that this is editorializing and no content of that nature can be included without some sort of credible citation. I would appreciate it if we can somehow end the debate that has existed on the talk page for quite some by having a more experienced editor voicing their opinion. If I am proved wrong, I will step aside, hopefully the said can be said for others. --Tao of tyler 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For those visiting the page, allow me to correct this distortion: the clear majority of the people on the talk page think that criticisms of the show should be allowed. The types of citations range from quotes from the host of the show himself, documented in interviews, to cast member interviews, to photographs from Bear's website, clips of the show, and other primary sources displaying things that require as much "technical knowledge" to interpret as posting a picture of a fire hydrant does, and so. Some claims were as unreliable as people with expert knowledge publishing in non-peer-reviewed sources such as forums, but others, like the interviews, are as clean-cut as it gets. Tao of tyler has been very aggressive in attempting to control the article, and won't have any of it. Thus, I second the request for editors. I would also request comments on whether we are allowed to label an indisputably well-referenced, dangerous activity as dangerous, or whether we must simply report it as "life saving" because the show does. -- Rei 05:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that multiple participants are involved, 3O is unavailable as an option. However, before the situtation degenerates into one requiring dispute resolution, how about submitting the article for peer review? As a disinterested observer, I think reliable sourcing is important. Just a thought. --Aarktica 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed for page move

Resolved: DAB page restored per request; article on non-notable subject speedy deleted by Carlossuarez46. --Aarktica 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DustinRamZ has managed to move The Beginning with all it's history to Blood Stayn. He has only made 3 edits and so I can't see how he could be an admin. After moving The Beginning to Blood Stayn he replaced all the information with information about an non-notable band, presumably his own. Could an admin move The Beginning back to it's rightful place and delete the Blood Stayn page. Cheers, Jack 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:AN/I? This looks like it might be right up their alley... --Aarktica 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. After verifying, the edit seems to be a simple mistake and as such, the user should be given the benefit of the doubt. The content from both articles is back where it belongs and I have warned User:DustinRamZ. However, I have not read the material on the Blood Stayn article so I suggest you read Wikipedia's deletion policy first and then follow the deletion process if the article satisfies deletion criteria. - Dorvaq (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)