Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 40

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

Kevin Nalty Wiki Page

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

hello Having problems with a few people who keep making life difficult in building this wiki page - please look at the history and advise. The user Blubberboy92 seems to have some personal vendetta against the subject. Would like advise on how to resolve. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jischinger (talkcontribs) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes should be discussed on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits rejected as "opinion"

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a research scientist by training and naturally, it saddens me to see science misrepresented and make very effort to correct this. I made corrections to an article, where one study was false and said why, explaining why it was a deviation from the scientific method and even explained in Layman's terms why this is. This is no matter of opinion. It is simply stating the facts. The research used two groups that they called control groups but they were not using control groups. As a result, I am now banned from putting this right. I am only stating facts, not opinions. Conversely, whoever edited was stating opinions and not facts, a matter which is, I am afraid to say, a big stain on the respectability and impartiality of Wikipedia. It is terrible that science and the scientific method are no longer respected. How can we trust or make use any research if not conducted according to the scientific method? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneZacharia (talkcontribs) 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is banned from adding facts to articles the problem you have come across is that to protect the encyclopedia all the contents on Wikipedia must come from a reliable source and not be original research. All you need to do is find a reliable source for the information you want to add as other editors will consider unreferenced information as original research. You really need to explain your position on the related talk page other editors may then understand your position and perhaps help find a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason that your edits have been reverted as original research is that they have not been backed by citations from reliable sources. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability requires that information be sourced. Basically - the fact that you may know something to be right or wrong does not mean that we can trust you without the facts having been published somewhere, as we do not know who you are or if what you say is true. You need to find reliable non self published sources to back what you are writing and include them with the text. See WP:Citing sources for information on how to do that. Mfield (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are actually at least two hurdles that need to be jumped before content is included: the first is that it must be verifiable from reliable independent sources, the second is that it must not give undue weight to a minority opinion. In any case the appropriate thing to do is to raise it on the article's Discussion page. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

edit war

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

please help sort out problems between myself and another user who isn't compromising re:"self hating jew" Untwirl (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Certainly, this would be welcome. There is disputed material I moved to the talk page for discussion, but Untwirl continues to return disputed material to the article. I had hoped that talk page discussion could resolve the problems, and avoid reverts. I have filed an edit warring notice on 3RR noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also at WP:ANI now. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

above user malcolm schosha has also continued to return disputed material and has reverted it many times while ignoring my attempt to discuss. i believe he actually reverted more times than i did, but i grew weary of the game and asked other editors for help.Untwirl (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor errors in judgement

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I have edited the page devoted to "History Detectives", the PBS show, a number of times.

My comment that no member of the on-air staff has a History degree, advanced or otherwise, is borne out by the Wikepedia page itself where the qualifications of the hosts are listed in a sidebar. Close as they get is an Art History degree which is NOT the same.

This is HIGHLY relevant information for viewers to consider when watching the show, I would compare it to the relevancy of the show "Dr. Phil" if Dr. Phil was a dermatologist.

Here's the nonsense response I get that leads me to believe there's an editor involved with a vested interest in perpetuating this show's presentation of it's "experts" in the role of actual Historians, which none are.

History Detectives

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ChuckG92 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a biased statement, and it's unsourced. Even if sourced, it would be called original synthesis. If it's significant, someone must have said something about it in some secondary source. If you can find that, then your edit might be appropriate if referenced with such a source. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How can be biased? It's quite objective and is sourced by both the page itself (read the sidebar) and the PBS website- An art appraiser, two auctioneers and a Sociologist. I have seen far, far more biased statements all over Wikipedia. This is not among them.

I could list this under a new heading, "Show Criticism", if you prefer and insist it's bias. ChuckG92 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)ChuckG92 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You added "Not a single member of the on-air staff is actually a Historian! Quite remarkable, considering the title". This is essentially saying "This show is not credible". There's your bias.
If you wanted a "show criticism" section, you'd still need a source. And you'd definitely need to reword it. Something like "Such-and-such has criticized History Detectives as not having a single historian in their on-air staff", where "such-and-such" is either a media outlet or other reliable source. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the new statement; it's still unsourced and still biased. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputes over Ataru Nakamura article

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Recently, several reverts have been made to the article about Ataru Nakamura. These reverts have specifically erased the fact that she is transsexual. The editor with whom this problem is being had is User:DAJF.

DAJF has claimed that stating Nakamura's gender identity is potentially libel, given that she is a living person. However, stating the truth, a truth about which Nakamura herself is open, is not libel. Furthermore, continued removal of this information makes it seem that DAJF is attempting to hide or cover this fact, an act that seems like an act of transphobia.

I agree with DAJF that much of the article is not well cited. However, Nakamura is a Japanese-only language artist, and thus she does no press in English, or outside Japan for that matter. Thus, finding academic information on her is impossible, and the only "experts" in her biography are fans who translate the material and her website themselves. Hence, the article is as well-cited as if can be given the language restrictions. I translated the Spanish-language Ataru Nakamura page into English in order to keep it here.

I think it would be a tragedy to lose this page because of a dispute. As a transsexual Japanese person myself, I felt very isolated and alone. Ataru Nakamura proved to me that it is possible to be accepted for who you are, and for that reason I want her article to be honest. Nakamura's success as an artist in despite of, or perhaps due, to her status as a transsexual woman is inspiring to the countless trans people around the world, and it would be unfair to them to lose this article.

I am not a native English speaker and use Wikipedia to better my English writing skills. I am feeling very threatened by this user and lack the required English skills to debate appropriately with this editor, and that is why I am requesting assistence. I don't want to be rude to DAJF, but he or she is covering the truth, and that does not seem like the goal of Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miharakamikazi (talkcontribs) 05:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem is that the specific section of the article that talks about Nakamura being a transsexual does not have sources. If you can find reliable sources about Nakamura in Japanese and cite them in the article, that will be acceptable. Sources are not required to be in English, and we do have some editors here in the English Wikipedia who can read Japanese to confirm that the sources are valid. (I can't read Japanese myself, though.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV editors assistance required for the Da Costa's syndrome page where history references have been described as "old", "out-of-date" and "obsolete"?

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The nature and cause of Da Costa's syndrome has been the subject of heated disputes for more than 100 years and is obviously still controversial. I had been contributing to the topic page for several months when an RFC was established to block me here [1], but two editors suggested a resolution where the various individuals do their own subpages to be merged later for NPOV. I am the only person to do a subpage here [2], and continue to be criticised here [3], here [4], here [5], and previously here [6]. What I need now is one or more NPOV editors to replace the current Da Costa's syndrome article text with the subpage text that I have recently provided here [7], so that I don’t get accused of violating a never ending obstacle course of policies such as references must be published in reliable independent peer reviewed scientific medical research journals one week, and the next week they must be secondary not primary sources, and the next week the authors must be recognised “official” “authorities”, and then the following week I am accused of deliberately choosing references from a particular time in history, and then the next week the references in the history of the research must be published in modern journals, not old ones, and the next week that I must cite sources published in the last five years etc. etc. here [8] and here [9]

If heated discussions are not your cup of tea you might not want to get involved, as one editor said “OK, I knew I was stepping in it” here [10], but feel free to join in anyway after considering this - I think that the editors are using the “moving of the goalposts” for the purposes of harassment, but at times I find their comments amusing, like a debate at a comedy festival, and at other times predictable and tedious. You will see just how “highly” predictable my critics are before you get half-way down the first DaCosta’s Talk page which is now archived here [11] - might I say that if I wrote that water was wet this week, they would reply that it was what scientists thought last week, and delete the comment on the grounds that there was no guarantee that it would still be defined as wet in next weeks journal of water divinig. Regardless of any other consideration, they are nevertheless removing the possibility of NPOV by deleting everything contrary to their own POV Posturewriter (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

Dr. Dre Article

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not quite sure where to put my inquiry, so I'll post it here. I was reading up about Dr. Dre, and in the second paragraph it states that he fathered his first son to a Lisa Johnson. Upon continuing my reading, towards the end of the article, it states that he fathered his first son to a Cassandra Greene. I was just curious as to who is the mother of the first son. Thank you. 98.213.17.195 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Snowflake

The confusion seems to have come with this edit, as far as I can tell. I don't know much about Dr. Dre, and have no access to the sources used, which are in book form. I would suggest dropping a line to User talk:Shojego or at Talk:Dr. Dre, where there may be Wikipedians who can better help you. --BelovedFreak 16:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter and associated articles

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Viewers of Talk:Harold Pinter will see that one particular editor User:NYScholar is seemingly impervious to useful suggestions from other editors about the style and content of the articles, see also Bibliography for Harold Pinter. The article is becoming increasingly bogged down with minutiae and a mishmash of impenetrable citation styles making it heavy and unreadable. That is a great pity in my opinion. The editor in question undoubtedly has a wealth of information and research on the subject but does not seem to grasp that an encyclopaedia article is not a thesis or an article in a learned journal. I ask here what can be done, or should I just let that editor get on with it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above the above editor User:NYScholar has now added the full text of a speech from Pinter's play No Man's Land, 1974 which was read by Michael Gambon at Pinter's funeral. I am concerned as to whether this can actually be described as fair use. A few lines maybe, but the full text? Harold Pinter#Career (at the bottom). Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The passage is quoted within the fair use guidelines of U.S. Copyright Law. This is not a "full text"; this is a passage from a play that appears at the bottom of page 69 and part of page 70 of the text properly cited. It is common to quote a passage from a play, and I really do not think that the above editor has any basis for these complaints. Apparently, s/he does not understand the citation format of the MLA Style Manual, which is the longstanding citation format for the article and the option used in the templated Style Sheet. The article passed a "good article" review, and, due to the death of the subject, is in the course of being updated, following WP:MOS. --NYScholar (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jezhotwells that the article's citation style is heavy and unreadable, making it difficult to follow any of the references provided. I find it puzzling that MLA citation style should be used in an article that is intended for consumption by a wide range of readers, when MLA is intended for academic research papers. MLA's audience is "primarily graduate students, academic scholars, professors, professional writers, and editors". This therefore excludes a large number of Wikipedia readers who do not fit into that category. MLA may have been the citation style established by nyscholar when references were first added to the article, but I think that its use on Wikipedia is inappropriate. --TimTay (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I, and several other editors, including some during the GA review queried this but User:NYScholar is absolutely insistent even though this style tends to make the article rather unreadable. See Talk:Harold Pinter for lengthy and tedious discussions on this. It seems that this editor is completely dismissive of other editors' opinions offered in good faith and regards the article as her/his own. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If consensus cannot be reached between multiple people, either on the article's talk page or in any related project, then it needs some third party intervention. Take a look at the arbitration section in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles which gives examples of behaviour associated with editors claiming articles as their own. Any evidence of such behaviour would be useful in support of a request for arbitration. --TimTay (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I have listed the article at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Harold PInter to seek further help. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Brainlab

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why this article was deleted. I had spent quite a bit of time getting the first bit of text written, and wanted to add some additional information that would have made the article notable. In addition, the article I was creating refers to several others articles within wikipedia and also has a German entry. ah9815 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah9815 (talkcontribs) 12:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been deleted per criterion A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. This means that the page was about an entity (a company in this case) and didn't indicate why it is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While I can't view the deleted page, my advice is that when trying to make a page, your very first edit should include some content that says why the topic is significant, important or otherwise notable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to re-create the article, I suggest that you do so in a user sub-page. Please let me know on my talk page if you need any help creating a sub-page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What policy explicitly deals with synonyms in the lead

Resolved: Wikipedia:LEAD#First sentence content is the appropriate page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked this at WP:naming conflict where got no relevant response and WP:lead where was told it was a style guideline but was given no link. I could swear I read in some policy that if a phrase is the main phrase used but other phrases are used almost as much by WP:RS (whether or not these phrases have their own articles) one can say in the Lead: "Xxx Yyy (also frequently called Www Yyy and Zzz Yyy) is (define) etc..." I can't find that now in WP:NAME or articles above. Did I miss it, has it been removed or is it somewhere else? Help appreciated for writing one lead and dealing with a couple truly questionable uses of synonyms in the lead. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:LEAD#First sentence content. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Not as explicit as I remember which is why missed it on second reading, but if that's it, I can use it! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Request: Topic Audience Response

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two editors Islander and KenT who have repeatedly spammed the Audience Response topic by adding external links to commercial sites polleverywhere.com and votepedia.com. They continue to add these links in the Reference section and claim that these sites "prove" the existance of the technology.

There are legit references to PDFs on an *.edu site in the reference section, yet both editors possible meatpuppets continually add their links back in. Your advise on the matter is requested as I am a novice with WP.

Longcall911 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)loncall911

Agree - at least polleverywhere.com and mobilereply.com and promotional. The websites are only selling their services. Also edit summaries like these from an administrator aren't something I like to see. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't using my sysop status to add weight to my view, but just to show that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to spam, and this isn't clear-cut spam, as in my view they are valid references. TalkIslander 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the misunderstanding your words then, a source that doesn't sell anything is required. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :). That's a fair point that I agree with, but wouldn't these sources be better than no sources? TalkIslander 10:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As a 'novice', I'd advise you to be careful about throwing accusations of meatpuppetry. That aside, my view is that these references are valid, because they do indeed show that the technology exists. As we refer to two products, that can't really be called advertising, as we're not showing preference over one product. That aside, it would of course be best if you could find a reference which doesn't use any products, but that's not what you are doing - you're just removing the reference altogether. TalkIslander 09:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean by "the links show the existence of the technology". I'm not in depth with the subject of the article but is it that difficult to find a non-commercial source? Would a {{cn}} template work out better until better references are found, specially when the addition of a bunch of links is being objected to by some and leading to so many reverts? Sorry for the harshness in my first post.(..and maybe this thread belongs to article's talk page) --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

APA Citation Tool

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the Wikipedia citation generator has an error. For example, the "Plagiarism" article gets this reference listing when I click the "Cite this page" link, I see that it generates this reference listing:

Plagiarism. (2009, January 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 06:42, January 8, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plagiarism&oldid=262524014

But the "Citing Wikipedia" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia#APA_style) says that the listing should be more like this:

Plagiarism. (2004, July 22). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

If you look closely, you'll see a number of differences between the two. I cannot imagine that may professors (like me) will take exception to most of those. But the difference in capitalization might be taken as significant. While the 5th edition of the APA Publication Manual does not have a clear example of this sort of citation, the preponderance of evidence seems to be that the second form, in sentence case, is correct.

As I say, I am not a true expert on APA. But this seems like an error. I have no idea where is the correct place to report this to Wikipedia -- it doesn't really fit into any of the normal categories of dispute resolution. I hope that whoever reads this will have an idea of where to forward this just in case I'm correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.141.217 (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which capitalisation should be preferred, since both seem to be used (for example see the logo in the upper left corner of Wikipedia and the header at the main page). I believe the right place to propose a change to this would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). — Twinzor Say hi! 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wausau East High School

Resolved: Edits reverted, looks like it's subsided. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone look at the reverting of my edits at Wausau East High School. I'm confident my edits are within policy, but I don't want to violate 3RR. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted and tagged with {{cleanup-school}}. The other user's edits clearly didn't follow WP:LEDE, as well as added a likely non-notable person to a list of notable persons. However in the future I might recommend that you be more careful in what you revert as vandalism; good faith edits are never considered vandalism, and I don't think there was cause to cease an assumption of good faith for that editor. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The video posted is a little surprising

Resolved: We generally don't put disclaimers in articles, especially when we already have a content disclaimer that covers this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi--I was just looking at the content on the IUD page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iud) and clicked on the video entitled "Video of IUD being inserted - from University of Florida, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology". It's clearly a medical video, not some porno, but the content was a little surprising to see without any sort of a warning. I truly had expected plastic models and drawn graphics, not live crotch shots and a speculum insertion....and I'd guess other folks would be a little surprised, too. I'm not saying to take the video down, but perhaps provide some warning so if someone's nephew is in the room they can choose to watch this kind of thing later.

I'm too nervous to make any edit myself because I don't know how and don't know the rules, but am hoping to point this out for someone else to edit.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilya (talkcontribs) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What is there to edit? WP is not censored. – ukexpat (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The title of the link clearly states what it is already, it should not be surprising. Why on earth are you watching something like that while you have visitors in the house? Entirely your own fault I would say. SpinningSpark 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The link title clearly states what it is; a video of an IUD being inserted. It's probably inappropriate to put something like "EXPLICIT" next to it. It's a medical video. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be totally inappropriate to add "Explicit" or anything similar - that would not be a neutral point of view, one man's "explicit" is another man's "meh, what's all the fuss about?" – ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, we have a guideline that says no disclaimers in articles; all articles are already covered by a content disclaimer which specifically covers this. I don't think there's anything more to be said here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New York Public Interest Research Group and Straphangers Campaign

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a revert war going with two above articles. The USER:Johnnyhotrod is reverting any mention that Barack Obama's early organizing efforts involved those organizations. The Obama comments are referenced. It boggles the mind that somebody would think that is not notable. This is the Straphangers edit and this is the New York Public Interest edit. Making matters worse is [this annonymous edit on the talk page which makes me think that USER:Johnnyhotrod might be the banned sock puppet User:Jimmihoffa. I tend to back off of articles and leave to them to the wolves if there's an aggressive editor. But this one seems just too blatant and inexplicable to simply abandon. Americasroof (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against accusations of sockpuppetry unless you have evidence. Johnnyhottrod has stated a reasoned argument for not including the material. As I understand it, his main argument is not that the actions of Obama are not notable, but that these articles are not the appropriate place to discuss them. I am not going to give an opinion on that one way or the other, but it is certainly true that not all material is suitable for inclusion in a given article even if it is verifiable. You are going to get nowhere by continuing to revert each other. I suggest that the way forward is to attract more editors to comment on the page by starting a Request for comment or, if you can agree between the two of you, to settle the matter by asking for a Third opinion. SpinningSpark 14:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Americasroof (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like some help in removing banner at top of my Wikipedia biography

Resolved: tag is appropriate --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TWIMC: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laquidara (talkcontribs) 01:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Charles Laquidara has a {{coi}} tag at the top of it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Which would appear to be appropriate from looking at the edit history. – ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, the article seems barely notable to me. But obviously COI applies. Proxy User (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

link misdirected

Resolved: issue for armenian wiki --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello at the bottom of the following article in armenian, the link to change/complete the article redirects to a different page! So I do not know how to contribute and complete the article, because that link is not working and redirects me to some Christian propaganda.

http://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%8E%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%B6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sndik16 (talkcontribs) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This is the English Wikipedia. If there is a problem with a bad link in a template being used on the Armenian Wikipedia, it needs to be fixed by the editors of the Armenian Wikipedia. Most of the editors here in the English Wikipedia can't read Armenian so we can't resolve the problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive insertion of unreliable sources

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you guys help me out with the astrology signs' articles? There is a user that insists on inserting material with sources that violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I have already raised the issue on the reliable sources noticeboard and my position seems to be inline with consensus (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Issues with astrology "reliable sources"). The main issue is with the Libra (astrology), Scorpio (astrology) and Aquarius (astrology) articles. I have also attempted to clarify the point for the editors on the articles' talk page, to no avail. Thanks for having a look, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the next step is to try to discuss this with the other editor on their talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
He has already addressed me in my talk page and made some pretty disturbing allegations. I think he has it in for me. Maybe a third party can do a better job at it at this point. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Twinzor for trying to mediate. I am reediting the trait section on these articles trying to get it to work in better coordination with WP:NPOV. I am always glad to hear other people's opinions :-) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Listing

Stale: --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We were sent the below link from a customer (college) who was going to use us until they read the information listed on the link below.

This link implies we are somehow operating illegally which we are NOT. There is a minimum of two years where you must do the work and then and ONLY then can you ask for a review of The US Gov. or CHEA of your work to become recognized. I am told by The Department of Education most take 2-4 years to get that. We like a lot of others are in that window period. Your listing implies we are somehow doing illegal accreditation work, which we are not!

We set the standards for education and accreditation in this country and have for 140 years, (1870). We are a non-profit organization with NO payroll and only good works and we do not want our name tainted by a listing like yours. Please remove said listing or tell us how to remove it as we would like to do this without litagation, Thank you Dr. Brday, VP AAHEA

List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAHEA20006 (talkcontribs) 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting here. Which institution are you suggesting should be removed? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the poster means List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, which contains a redlinked and uncited entry for AAHEA. Given that many of the other entries in the list have citations for why they are on the list, I think there is good reason for removing the AAHEA entry (and any other uncited entry) --TimTay (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Brday says that this list "implies we are somehow operating illegally", but it does nothing of the sort. The list accurately states the status of the AAHEA, it is a factual listing. Dr. Brday in understandably unhappy about this, but the list is factual and unbiased. Proxy User (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fasting

Resolved

Not a major issue, but the medical fasting has basically been turned into an infomrical for some Joel Fuhrman (apparently he's a big fasting proponent). Any attempt to clean it up is immediately reversed.

A third opinion would be most welcome! LSD (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Blatant advertisement material, other editors should consider keeping this issue open for at least 2 more days, under impression one revert by outsider will not result in the end of the issue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he put it back again... I'm really trying with the guy, but I don't think I'm getting through. :( LSD (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I took it out again and left a message asking him to discuss on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

how to handle slander in article

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, There is an editor who is inserting libelous(we believe) content into the article "Xenos Christian Fellowship". I've read the section on handling vandalism, but slander doesn't seem to fall under that category. I'm looking for direction on how to get this person to stop adding malicious content to the article. My name is Jay Reilly. I'm a member of Xenos and I work on the staff. The editor I'm referring to is zanzibelle. I'd really appreciate any direction you could give.

Thanks!

Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayreilly (talkcontribs) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP - such material, if unsourced, can and should be deleted promptly pending discussion on the article's talk page. Also be careful when throwing around terms like "libellous", lest you fall foul of our policy prohibiting legal threats. – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I read the article you referenced and it was helpful. I didn't mean to imply any kind of legal threat - it just seemed like the apt word for very negative, untrue, accusations being added to the article. I've politely asked the contributor in question to stop making these additions. I'm a complete newbie to wiki editing by the way although I use it frequently as a resource. Thanks again for your quick help. Jayreilly (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. Marking as resolved. If the other editor persists please report it to WP:BLPN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate/an interesting problem

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friends, It is a most educational experience to read through the posts of this forum - especially in the context of the edit wars and reasons beyond them. Clearly, if we disregard the obvious factor of emotions, which inevitably intervene when one learns that one's article has been marked for deletion after one has invested plenty of time and energy in writing it, other issues gain prominence. To me, the most important ones the following:

1) It if obvious why the policy of Wikipedia requires references to support information provided by individual Wikipedians: quality of information is of paramount importance. Yet, as opposed to many "traditional" sources of information, Wikipedia has the potential to open up space to publish information verifiable by participation in cultural practice, but not yet addressed by the academic community. An example of my own work is a good one, but before I present it, I wish to make it very clear that I do not mind if the article is deleted: indeed, it includes original research and there are no reliable references in published sources with which to support the claims made in the text and that I hold no grudge whatsoever.

The article I wrote addresses the typological debate concerning sea-songs in the Polish cultural space. The term I introduced to Wikipedia is that of neo-shanty-which is a compromise concept to designate modern, contemporary songs written, composed and arranged today, yet following the structural and poetic principles of the working songs of old. In the context of the huge popularity of sea-shanties in Poland, the emergence of the term helped the "traditionalists" and the "progressivists" work out a platform, upon which a more or less uniform typology of the songs functioning in the Polish space could be agreed upon. Yet for this purpose, the Polish version of the article would, in all probability, suffice. I decided to translate it into English as well because whenever I present my own group to festival organizers outside of Poland by telling them that we sing sea-shanties in modern arrangements, they expect something very different from what they get. Of course, the moment I supply samples - things become clear. Yet, the Polish-coined term of neo-shanties, defined as I did define it in the article, not only adequately describes what we do, but, more importantly, when the definition is translated into English and made available in the English version of Wikipedia, I would be able to use the term in communications without fear of misunderstandings. This also concerns a number of other Polish groups, and - as I suspect - international groups as well, even though I have not yet come across a performer representing this particular style outside of Poland.

Long story short: the term exists, yet its usage can only be documented by reference to internet forums or web-based articles. In all probability, there will come a moment when someone decides to dedicate time and energy to the academic study of the problem thus legitimizing the usage of the term. Should we exclude such an article and wait till academic references appear in print? After all, in my particular case, in all probability it will be me to write this much-needed, refereed academic text. Will then the article in Wikipedia be legitimate?

2) The permanent doubt that haunts me is whether or not to encourage my students to contribute to Wikipedia and whether I myself am not better off writing for scholarly journals only: in contexts such as that described above, it seems more economical to leave the development of Wiki to those who... read my academic, refereed, texts.

3) The third issue is that of the dangers of being accused of vanity self-promotion: bearing in mind that Wikipedia serves the purpose of the dissipation of knowledge, it is clear that - morally - one should be expected to share the knowledge they possess. If one creates an article concerning his own field of immediate experience - for instance, by writing a text about an artist to whom he or she dedicated half a life - and supports the information with references to his own academic work, he runs the risk of being accused of self-promotion. What if nobody else wrote anything of substance on that particular artist, and the academic-Wikimedian indeed wishes to dissipate the knowledge? What if someone writes my own biogram in a given language and I see its inadequacies? Do I have the right to set things straight? Do I have the right to translate it into other languages I speak? After all, I am the greatest expert on myself...

Please, let me know what you think!

Yours,

Paweł Jędrzejko Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As Neo-shanty is the subject of an Afd discussion, this should be discussed there rather than discussion being duplicated here, unless there are broader issues. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No, of course, let us not talk about Neo-shanty here; this is a separate matter; I am more interesting in the type of the problem: what if a phenomenon exists, yet has not been addressed by academic community, or the only experts in the field are non-academic. Accept, reject, or wait? Paweł Jędrzejko 89.74.33.168 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The basic guideline applies -- it has to be notable as verified by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This, definitely, is safer in the large scale :-) Thank you very much for your time! Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Zeumer - need help from a Germanophone editor, if possible

Resolved: Discussion can be continued in WP:Articles for deletion/Thomas Zeumer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this guy may actually be notable (to people who care about supermodels, anyway), but there's been a lot of edit warring between IPs on it, from a vanispamcruftisement version to alleged BLP violations. One IP even put a bogus protection notice up. Sourcing is horrible. Could somebody (preferably somebody who reads German) take a look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot of work to make this into a real article. The version from 15 January reads like a press release from the subject. The current greatly-reduced version is so sketchy that the subject does not appear notable. (Ref. 5 of the earlier version is to a book by Zeumer that seems to never have been published). It is already worrisome that the top Google hit for Thomas Zeumer is this Wikipedia article. The first reference in the current article (in German) is a blog article describing a party that Zeumer helped to organize in Venice. The blog article, perhaps not a reliable source anyway, doesn't give us any useful info about him. Unless someone has time to to a lot of digging for sources I'd suggest this article may be an AfD candidate. One comment on a web forum asserts that

Most important is to remember that Metropolitan Germany is unrelated to Michel Levaton's legit agency in Paris (and don't get fooled by the German website which is a plagiat of the legit website, even the logo is imitated to fool people).

The same forum poster says there are 'complicated stories' about Thomas Zeumer. We have no idea if Zeumer's 'Metropolitan Models' is the real Paris agency that discovered Claudia Schiffer. Ref. 2 of our article doesn't give any evidence that this *American* Metropolitan Models is the same as either of the European ones. All it shows is that Zeumer was an executive of a New-York based modelling agency of that name. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how reliable this is but this article: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/410/ripoff0410675.htm has information suggesting he may be using several aliases. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with another editor

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a contribution into the Snakes and Ladders article was deleted due to being considered advertising. I edited and my entry and made sure it was from a neutral POV before re-adding it to the article. It was subsequently removed again, as trivia/spam. I demanded an explanation, and to be honest, I probably didn't phrase it very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snakes_and_ladders#Specific_Editions The removing editor responded in an inflammatory way and has refused to give me a detailed explanation of why he removed my entry other than "you really just aren't going to get it". I think he has lost objectivity in this case and is still responding to my original (poorly worded) response to my contribution being removed. It's possible that I'm the one who is completely off base here, and I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, but I would like another party to review this incident so that I can learn from my (or his) mistakes. Smnc (talkcontribs) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing to advise you is to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which explains why this is considered a poor argument in discussions on removing material. Concentrate on what is wrong with the material you added, not what is wrong with everything else. What is wrong with your material is that it does not establish notability by referencing a reliable source independant of the game manufacturer/distributor. Your "reference" is to an advertisment for the game, not really a reference at all. SpinningSpark 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Spinningspark for the link and the perspective. I will read the 'Other Stuff' article and concentrate on improving my material, before I pursue this any farther.
If I had a response such as yours from the beginning, I think this problem could have been resolved before it began.smnc (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of stamps

Resolved: User should discuss at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Stamps. ukexpat (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editors have a restrictive interpretation of fair use of stamps (see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Guideline examples). As a result, images of stamps are deleted from wikipedia. The latest deletion request is for a stamp of Andreas Hofer. This Image has been in Wikipedia for nearly 4 years. The fair use for stamps should not be different from other fair use requirements, i.e. critical discussion will justify the fair use of any image, stamp or not stamp. Most German stamps are in the public domain and they are frequently used to depict the subject of the stamp. If all fair use criteria are satisfied including being published on another website, there should be no further restraints. Inwind (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic has already been started by Inwind at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Stamps and should be dealt with there because that is the place for discussing non-free content. It seems Inwind is unhappy with the criteria for non-free stamps and is bringing his ideas to different pages, like here, because he is not obtaining agreement with his viewpoint. He has even tried to influence me and justify his views on my talk page even though I suggested he use the non-free content talk page. I suggest you point him to the same place to keep the discussion together at its appropriate location. ww2censor (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, forum shopping is not appropriate, marking as resolved at least for this page. – ukexpat (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My edits to Usa Shrine today caused needless problems. I don't know how to go about restoring the text to the last edit by User:AnomieBOT? Hopefully, this can be fixed before anyone else notices my mistake. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Go to the article's history (next to "edit this page"), and click on the date next to AnomieBOT. The version edited by AnomieBOT should load. Now click Edit this Page. Fill in an edit summary, click Save page and you've fixed your own mistakes. Bladeofgrass (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think you did wrong? It looks OK to me. – ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that when I created the sub-sections, my edit must have proceeded from the most recent history page rather than the main article page. I first discovered something was wrong when I noticed in-line citation notes in the info box ... and I worried that I'd somehow erased the subtle edits of User:Fg2 This startled me; and since I couldn't see how this could have happened, I couldn't imagine how to repair what I'd done -- and that's why I asked for help.
Bladeofgrass and ukexpat -- Again, thank you both. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has hacked the Albert Camus article

Resolved: --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The first line of the Albert Camus article says:

Albert Camus (French pronunciation: [albɛʁ kamy]) (7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960) was an Algeria-born French loser, philosopher, and journalist who won the Nobel prize in 1957.

I'm not a Camus scholar, but I suspect he was not a loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.98.120 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by another editor. Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)