Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 44

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

Section removal from Right to keep and bear arms

Unresolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, to understand this issue better, to read the text below on face value without following all the lnks I have given in the first instance. The references can of course be followed thru later at leisure.

BACKGROUND On 14 Feb I added a section to the article entitled "Correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths" which was effectively drawing the link between the actions of campaigners who wish to restrict the Right to keep and bear arms who often point to the correlations discovered by researchers between the high level of gun ownership and the high level of deaths from guns and correspondingly the low levels of gun violence in countries with low levels of gun ownership. The intial edit is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=270583927&oldid=270565333 (added for completeness only.. this is not the edit that got deleted. That is referenced a little further down).

The initial edit was a first attempt and did not contain too many references. The section was deleted several times and reinstated several times, and at one point (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=271201858&oldid=270583927) the section got renamed as "Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms".

The section has been controversial and several editors have sought to delete it. One editor User;Yaf actually deleted it in breach of 3RR but I generously did not report him (although he tried to blank references to this at some place(s). The final version which was deleted (and should be the main focus of attention) is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=next&oldid=272894916. It was deleted by an editor not logged in but deleted the edit within minutes of User;Yaf deleting it and me reinstating it.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES Editors have claimed the section is either POV pushing, not conforming with NPOV, WP:OR or else WP:SYN. The most serious focus of attack has been the claim that it comprises WP:SYN.

Most of the discussions about this have been discussed in the the talk page in the sections here and here.

I would like to use WP:EA to review this deletion and determine whether its deletion was justified.

(P.S. I see some editors are continuing to argue about this edit, which I personally view as pointless until we get an independent review. The issue is a simple one to review. Either the edit was WP:SYN or it wasn't. Either it was WP:POV or it wasn't. And WP:OR or not. A simple assessment on the right and wrong interpretation is all that we need to make collective progress. The issue has not gone stale just because I am not contributing to that ongoing discussion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

The discussion on the talk page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#This_deletion_.5B.5B3.5D.5D_has_not_been_properly_discussed and some have continued elements of the discussion in later sections. However, my main argument is laid out clearly there.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


ADVICE IS SOUGHT FROM NON-U.S. BASED EDITORS ONLY

I know how controversial this article and its content is in the United States. I therefore would like assistance from an editor who is not in the United States so that this can focus purely on WP policies and not be infuenced by their own personal opinions. Because I have been accused (falsely in my opinion) of canvassing (see next section), the person providing assistance should not be User:HowardBerry.

you're making the broad assumption that merely being a citizen of the US predisposes editors to being biased, and that editors outside the US are not predisposed to being biased. that's overtly contra to WP:AGF. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For information (not really relevent to the main issue but added for completeness)

Before making this request I used a proxy account to raise this matter with User:HowardBerry, a contributor in the UK who is listed in the Editor Assistance page as someone who can help in disputes. I did so because I wanted to discuss the issue in general terms to know how to proceed, especially as I have some particular concerns about the editors at the article and the possible presence of persons in an advisory or administrative capacity who allow personal prejudices to sway their response (whether knowingly or otherwise). I have too much experience of editing controversial articles in areas covered by powerful and well funded lobby groups to know that this kind of thing goes on. I happened to make a single edit in the wrong account and my silent approach to this person involved in WP:EA became exposed. I have since been accused of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, canvassing, and heaven knows what else, but in my opinion, my actions were perfectly reasonable and well within the rules. You can see the consequences here , here and here

Hauskalainen (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

using a "proxy account" to raise the matter is the very definition of sockpuppetry. this requires sanctions. Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
also, you contradict yourself blatantly above. you claim that you raised the matter with howardberry using a proxy account "because i wanted to discuss the issue in general terms [etc]". then you claim "I happened to make a single edit in the wrong account and my silent approach to this person involved in WP:EA became exposed.". so, you admit doing it purposefully, then claim you did it accidentally. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
May I ask why my own neutrality has been brought into this discussion? I have found several comments in different wikipedia pages relating to me and this issue, with the moniker "meatpuppet" banded about quite a lot. Firstly, I would state that I have not been swayed by any supposed canvassing; secondly, I informed the user in question to go through WP:EAR and then I would look into it; and thirdly, I have not engaged myself in editing or becoming involved with the editing of any of the articles in question, nor have I contacted any of the users in question regarding the comments left on my talk page. I have totally kept out of the debate. Now I see it is being stated that I am not allowed to be involved. I see nothing wrong in my actions that merit such a statement and it seems as if I am being accused of being impartial or as having been solicited as a "meatpuppet" when my actions prove otherwise. I would hope for an explanation and an apology. Howie 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Howie. It's because these people are desperate to throw dirt, that they don't really care who gets hit in the process. The key things for anyone reading this to know is that
(a) Under WP:EA, approaching an editor directly IS ALLOWED (it says to do via the assister's talk page, which is what I did),
(b) my using an alternate account was because I wanted to get the advice in private
(c) I was not hiding my real identity from you. I made it easy for you to work out who I am. SO I am not a sockpuppet.
(d) I made it clear that I did not want you to edit the article (so soliciting a meat puppet is also clearly a false accusation)
(e) It was me who suggested that you now don't get involved (only because I want to protect you from such accusations as meat-puppetry, but as you see, I am already too late). But if you are prepared to put up with an assault on your reputation, you are welcome to try! Personally I'd sugggest you don't.

I agree wholeheartedly that you deserve an apology from the people who have made accusations against you. Funnily enough I think I need some apologies too from much the same people (but somehow I do not think that they will be forthcoming). I for one certainly apologise to you for the consequences of my approach to you (even though I acted with honour throughout and I have not been the issuer of any of the false acusations made against you). I am especially aggrieved by the statements of Edit Centric made towards me. I have come across such editors in the past in articles of a contentious nature, Their actions are ugly and they and their friends are such they always want to have the last word on the matter. See if I am right.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the whole article is unbalanced with large sections on UK and US law and little on elsewhere. The artcile title is questionable. It would be more accurate if it were called gun legislation or similar. hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really helpful because it does not address the issues of alleged OR/POV/synthesis. I do think the article rather over plays the issue of the "right" because almost no country allows an unfettered right to bear arms. Most countries control the right to have a firearm for instance (see http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf). The right to bear arms is no more significant than the right to drink alcohol or the right to drive a motor car or the right to take a life-saving controlled medicine, ot a thousand and one other things that are regulated. Firearms control is, however, antithetical to the unfettered right to bear arms. Firearm controls are introduced by legislators in civilized societies for the purpose of reducing death and injury. I know of no other reasons why firearms use is regulated. Attempting to say that there is no connection between (a) the right to bear arms and (b) the deaths from gun violence (whether deliberate or accidental), as the people who want the section out of the article argue, is just plain nonsense. If there were no deaths from the use of firearms there would be no need to regulate them. The statistics may or may not prove the issue, (and I doubt that they do totally), but they are totally relevant to the topic of the article, whether they do or do not. Other people have made the connection and that makes the deleted section neither WP:OR or WP:SYN. I also believe that it fairly represented the evidence so it is not WP:POV either. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue is still active. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

regardless, the proper venue is the original research noticeboard, where i have opened an incident. resolution is unlikely to be found here, considering all of the above issues unrelated to the original issue. Anastrophe (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "considering all of the above issues unrelated to the original issue"? Why is it unlikely to be found here? The issue you have raised is identical to the one I have asked for comment above. Does the independent research on gun ownership rates and gun violence have a bearing on the right to bear arms. I have given ample evidence that other people have made that connection. That the references do not use the exact words "right to keep and bear arms" is of no significance. The right to bear arms is regulated in almost every country. That regulation only occurs to stem the risk of gun violence (whether deliberate or accidental).It is oxymoronic to claim that statistics on gun deaths have no connection to the right to bear arms because if there were no gun deaths there would be no need for restrictions on the right to bear arms.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite best efforts and much dispute, this is still an unresolved issue.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, and that's when a topic is normally marked as 'stale' by the editors who mind this list. unfortunately, you've been artificially "bumping" this section by repeatedly stating that it is 'active', when apparently there isn't interest by the editors here to resolve it. likewise, my request at the original research noticeboard is moribund, so i suggest it's time we took this matter to mediation, or whatever the next formal step is. Anastrophe (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it will be stale if the editors at the talk page have dropped the matter. Clearly we have not! This item still has not yet reached the top of the list. It certainly is not stale just because the assisters here have been busy on other items. I specifically asked for the editors at the OR noticeboard to wait until this had run its course. It will be dealt with here in due course I am sure. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
quoting from the top of this page:"Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after approximately five to seven days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.". so, you are mistaken. there is no 'top of this list' on this page. this issue has been stale for well more than seven days, except that you keep posting every day or two to keep it artificially 'active'. your request at the OR noticeboard is meaningless, no assistant has suggested that your request was even read. there is no policy that suggests that one or the other of these noticeboards takes precedence. since this is a question of synthesis, the OR noticeboard is the more relevant place; but regardless, neither of these topics has received adequate attention. we should move this to mediation. Anastrophe (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop this ridiculous argument over what the assistants here should and should not do and leave it to the assistants themselves to decide. You just caused me an edit conflict for no good reason at all on a post that had taken a long time to compose. SpinningSpark 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the main reason that there has been no response here is that instead of simply asking for assistance, the argument has been continued on this page making it difficult for assistants to actually work out what is being asked, and reluctant to get involved in a dispute which will probably attract odium to them from both sides. The only editor who dared to give you any advice on the article (Jezhotwells) above was immediately shot down as not being what you want to hear, even though, in my opinion, his advice was quite useful and relevant. I am British, and have no strong opinions on gun laws, so I meet your requirement of a non-US editor. Against my better judgement and initial decision to leave this one alone, I will give you an opinion anyway.

I am presuming that the question being brought to this board is the contents of this edit on the link between gun crime and gun laws. I see from the edit history that there are several other disagreements on related edits but I will concentrate on this one as that is what was originally asked. In general, I find the accusation that the section is POV to be unfounded. It has a neutral tone and is well referenced. I say in general because I do have a problem with the very opening statement which is then going to set the tone for the whole section. Legal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are usually put in place by legislators because they believe that they will reduce gun related violence. I do not doubt that the three newspaper articles given as references are discussing politicians who do indeed have this belief (or at least hope). However, it is OR to synthesise those three articles into a general statement if you do not have a source that has made that synthesis. I find it wholly credible that in the majority of cases gun laws exist for entirely different reasons - my OR would be fear of the guns being used to overthrow the government would be top of the list in many countries.

Besides the question of reliability, there is the question of whether the material is suitable for this article. The article subject is the "right to bear arms" in the various jurisdictions of the world. Certainly proposals to change those rights have a place in this article. Discussion of the link (if any) between gun ownership and gun crime is really getting a little off-topic. Certainly, there is an obvious connection between the two subjects and if this is discussed elsewhere it should be mentioned and linked in this article. If you really need to put all this material in this article then I would suggest you need to be looking at renaming it to something more suitable.

Finally, I would caution you to carefully distinguish between politicians' beliefs and policies, statistical correlations and causal links. These are far from being the same thing. For instance, there is a strong correlation between the sun rising and the amount of city traffic. You would be very unwise though, to claim a causal link; the traffic has not caused the sun to rise, nor has the sun caused the traffic. This is still the case even if you can find politicians who do believe in that cause.

Hope this has helped. SpinningSpark 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry you took umbrage at my edit causing an edit conflict, but i think it's a bit over the top to chastise me for it. edit conflicts happen.
that said, i disagree with the suggestion that the article be renamed. as has been pointed out, there are manifold other articles that are appropriate for statistics on crime, 'gun' crime, homicides, suicides, gun ownership rates, etc - Gun politics, Gun politics in the UK, etc.. - those are the articles that exist for expanded discussion of the politics of the issues. Right to keep and bear arms is about the right itself. a section addressing opinion on the connection to gun violence et al has been proposed, but never responded to. editor hauskalainen has insisted that gun ownership/gun homicide/suicide statistics must be in the article, ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is elective, thus those statistics are misrepresentative of the topic of the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It is likewise a bit over the top to specify that only non-US editors respond, and then for a non-US editor to join in on a topic for which they obviously know very little. Would it be equally acceptable to demand a white people ethnicity editor only must comment on an article written on, say, the history of South Africa, rather than for everyone simply to assume good faith? No. It is a violation of assume good faith for prejudice to enter into evaluations through a demand for a particular kind of response through forum shopping. It is likewise entirely rich to state that the section is NPOV and well referenced, being that the cites do not verify the text as was even pointed out by SpinningSpark, after assessing the proposed content. The presence of unrelated cites does not mean a section is well cited. Well referenced, OK, but with sources and cites that do not verify the text. The POV becomes even more evident by virtue that the cites do not verify the proposed text. It is likewise offensive and POV to see speculation on "Certainly proposals to change those rights have a place in this article.", when no such proposals exist, and "forum shopping" has evidently produced an equally biased editor who advocates pushing a POV into an article without any cites to verify the viewpoint that this indicates. Again, this is further evidence of extreme POV bias, in speculating on future events in violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In the United States, there is even a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits any infringement on this right. Speculating on a removal of the US Constitution for citizens in America through including discussions of non-existant constitutional conventions that would be required to extinguish the right is entirely POV and undeserving of inclusion in this article. Yet, that is what "Certainly proposals to change those rights have a place in this article." when no such proposals exist outside of one or two editors' minds, where it appears to be a goal. This is Original Research, clear and simple. It has no place in the article. So, despite the "Hope" that this OR has helped, no it has not. Such a "Change", inserting text for which there is no verifying cite(s), has no place in Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank User:Spinningspark for his positive and helpful contribution. I think that he has given both sides in this dispute food for thought.

As I see it the NPOV opinion is clear. It is not POV.
The WP:SYN issue raised by User:Spinningspark about the generic action is easily correctable. It can mearly say "some politicians and activists" rather than make the seeping statement. The WP:SYN claims by people opposing the section inclusion seems to have been rejected because of the statement "certainly, there is an obvious connection between the two subjects". I am assuming that is because I gave adequate references for the connection cites that that others have made the connection (so it cannot be either WP:OR or WP:SYN on my part).

On User:Spinningspark's own WP:OR point I agree with him that we need to be careful not to draw sweeping assumptions about the correlation statistics of presence of guns and gun violence. My feeling was that the edit was cautious about this issue. It said "Speculating on possible causes the researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a - fatal - role in this"". These words were in the original report but I would habe no problem with adding words of additional caution if they are in the UN report that we have referred to. I suspect there may be such words but I have not yet cross-checked. On the other WP:OR raised by User:Spinningspark I don't think that gun control lobbyists are seeking to prevent the armed overthrow of the government however, though it may be true that some unstable governments are unhappy about the people being armed. I am sure we could incorporate some suitably cautious reading into the text. Finally. the point that the issue of the connection is already made in other articles has been made already and we can and no doubt will link to other articles for readers needing more details. I just argue that we need more than a passing reference to the connection buried low down in a dry academic article based largely on the situation of rights in the United States. It is quite germaine to the article. Sadly we have had two major shootings again today, one in the US and one in Germany and the calls for tigher controls will no doubt follow. The Finnish government today published its proposal for tightening the law following two tragic school shootings http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/03/ministry_of_interior_new_age_limits_for_gun_ownership_605768.html. --Hauskalainen (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

as i said before, it's time for this to go to mediation. editor assistance can't render an formal decision on the salient issue of WP:SYN. user spinningspark doesn't understand the nuances involved here. the article is about a right. laws and rights are two different things. rights are elective. gun ownership is elective. drawing a connection from the right, to ownership, to homicides and suicides is drawing a synthetic connection, because there are millions of people around the world who have the right to keep and bear arms yet do not even own guns, so are not capable of committing homicides and suicides using them. i'm exhausted at the number of times this has had to be repeated, yet it falls on deaf ears. hauskalainen has provided no references that bridge that gap, so the material is simply not admissable to the article. mediation is further exhausting, but seems the only solution to this problem. Anastrophe (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
So you just want to keep asking different groups until you get the reply you want? Laws and rights are intricately intertwined. Indeed in some languages the word for law is the same as the word for right. Rights means legal rights. A child or a criminal or an insane person may elect to carry a gun, but in most jurisdictions the law will have been broken. Electiveness does not imply legality. For WP:SYN to apply, I as editor must have connected two things which may or may not be connected. That is not allowed. But if on the other hand other, using WP:RS I can demonstrate that respectable academics and pressure groups clearly have connected these things, then WP:SYN cannot apply and failure to include such material would mean that the article did not reflect all main streams of opinion. My ears are not deaf, but your argument (that inclusion in the article is outside WP guidance) is false. I will add the section back to the article (with amendments to reflect User:Spinningspark's comments. --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
you seem to misunderstand what WP:EA is. it is just that - editor assistance. it is not a formal resolution venue. we've had one editor weigh in, and - with all due respect spinningspark - you miss what the issue is, that's evident in suggesting that the article be renamed. the synthesis has been demonstrated clearly, you have simply refused to accept it. your material does not make a direct connection to the article, which is the test of synthesis. obviously POV pushing, synthetic material cannot be allowed to stand in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Have removed the content in violation of WP:SYN, to reflect Anastrophe's and my comments. Mediation is an appropriate course of action. Yaf (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And I just added it back! Your accusation of SYN has not been upheld. I have been patient and kept the edit out and not warred with you about this edit on the main page whilst WP:EA was in progress, nor have I formally complained to an admin about your previous 3RR on that page about this section. But if you persist in this I will. Please be respectful and allow the edit to stand now that we have had this response. I have waited about a month for this. Now you can wait. By all means take it to mediation, but please allow the edit to stand until you get a reply. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And, I have removed it again. There is clear evidence of synthesis, in that the new cites do not mention the right to keep and bear arms, only an attempt to limit gun violence through increasing legislation. It is synthesis to link these legislation changes to the right to keep and bear arms without a cite linking them to the right to keep and bear arms. Respect the consensus to date, and take it to mediation if you feel strongly about it. But, synthesis is clearly evident in the latest POV push. Yaf (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Drawing attention to your edit warring on this board is only going to result in a passing admin blocking both of you, it certainly will not succeed in getting you any help. I suggest you think of a better way to resolve your differences. SpinningSpark 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Austin

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A soap character yet to appear - I've redirected to the list of characters, the author keeps changing it back. Can someone else have a look ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to a redirect and left the user a talk page message. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi i need to edit my OWN biography and i cannot

Resolved: Per [1] and [2] - posting user blocked. Fleetflame 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, This is Rosalind Wisemans assistant and I need to update her bio because the non profit she ran is no longer in exsistance, and when people get her bio off of here and introduce her to speak everyone gets confused. I have been trying to edit her content but have not been allowed to. All i want to do is cut and paste a new bio on her wiki page, can you please please help me? thanks ever so much Zoe Nightingale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpwinc (talkcontribs) 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot cut and paste a new bio in from elsewhere as that will be a copyright violation unless the material you are copying is released under a compatible license like GFDL. What you need to do, as you have a conflict of interest in the situation, is to explain on article talk who you are and which bits of the article are incorrect and why, providing sources to back any new information. Then wait for other editors to discuss the matter and if no one disagrees make the corrections and if it is any way controversial let someone else uninvolved make the correction to avoid it being reverted. If you are making any edits you will have to comply with our policies on verifiability and neutrality. Mfield (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I join in the suggestion of Mfield that you use the article's Talk page. The big problem with this article is that it lacks references, so it is vulnerable to deletion. If you have access to press coverage about Rosalind, you may be able to help with this. (Supply references that back up what is in the article). EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that there is a similar discussion on the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#I need to edit my own wiki account. Let's pick one place to discuss it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RPW Inc. is Wiseman's corporation; this account has been blocked as a spamusername violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. --Teratornis (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article "Married and maiden names"

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Married and maiden names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I'm not really sure what to do about this article, so I thought I'd ask for help.

Basically, a user named Redaloes keeps adding a paragraph to this article every day or two. He never cites anything, and it's not written from a neutral point of view. Essentially he feels very strongly that women should change their names after marriage, and that this is important for society, especially in India.

Other users have posted about this on his talk page and have deleted the paragraphs, as I have, but he doesn't seem to get that he needs to cite rather than giving his opinion. I've looked around to try to find citations for him, so that we could have a sentence in the article like "Some feel that X is very important...," but all I've found so far are articles from sites like AskMen.com, personal blogs, and comments on articles (rather than an article itself) - none of which seem like reliable sources.

It's a drag constantly fixing the page, but I don't want to let opinion just sit there. Also, at first I thought Redaloes was a troll, but I'm not sure - maybe English is not his first language and he just doesn't understand what people have been saying to him. Please, can you give me any advice? Ricardiana (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky when it's such a slow-motion battle. I'll watchlist the page and if it happens again I'll leave some more messages on his (or her) talk page. Hang in there, this kind of thing usually peters out eventually. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, AndrewHowse - I appreciate it! Ricardiana (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ford RS200 page

Resolved: Jamesrs200 spam blocked  – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ford RS200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RX-Guru (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Jamesrs200 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Hello, a man RX guru always remove the link of the official book concerning the Ford RS200,why this man always remove this link, I have ask him but of course, he don t reply. It just look like that this man have a agenda against the people book and that he go against the communauty. Can you stop him ? Thank You http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_RS200&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrs200 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but the Wikipedia is not a platform for you to advertise your not yet published book nor to advertise a website that is nothing but a copy of a much older website. And if you want to squeeze something else into the WP just follow the common rules here. A quick look into your User contributions shows clearly what you are doing here. RX-Guru (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Douglas Coupland; am I off the mark?

Stale: PLUMBAGO 09:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctantly involved in an edit war with a new user (who may not be so new judging from their knowledge of WP policy terminology) about some particularly (to me; obviously) questionable lead material that I do not believe is supported by the source used. Over the past week or so the article has see-sawed between versions that include / exclude this material, but despite repeated talkpage requests the other participant has not tried to support the material with a more appropriate (to my eyes) source. Anyway, before I try other avenues to resolve this problem I thought that I'd best calibrate my assessment of the source via a third party. Hence this request.

Essentially, the material added to the lead is a rather lionising assessment of the author Coupland that compares him to other more well-known luminaries. I've no in principle problem with this (though the tone is rather fawning), but the current source appears to point to a guest lecture that Coupland himself gave at a university. Additionally, as the source is not accessible (there's no web link, and I can't find a trace of it via Google) I'm unable to check the lecture's content or even that it took place. For these reasons, I believe that the source is completely inappropriate as support for the material added (especially given this is a BLP).

Anyway, that's just my POV. I'd be grateful if someone could find the time to have a look for me. Currently, the article is in the "include" phase of the edit war, so the "offending" material is in the lead.

Thanks in advance for any assistance that you can offer. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 09:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sought help at the Admin Noticeboard and the warring editor appears to be desisting for now. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg Glienna Vandalism!

Unresolved

They keep making this great actor of our time 8 years old when he graduated high school! Please help me stop this senseless vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptuminaro (talkcontribs) 04:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and issued final warning to the IP making the changes. If it happens again, report the IP to WP:AIV. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
And reported. Shouldn't be a problem anymore. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
IP blocked 2 days for vandalism to Greg Glienna. Report to WP:AIV if vandalism resumes later. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It's continuing from more IPs; actually now that I look closer at the article, I think the problem is at least related to the fact that we have no reliable source to state Glienna's age. I've tried to find something, anything, that gives a hint as to what his age is, but I've had no luck. I'm marking this unresolved. Can anybody help find this guy's age? Since it's a BLP, I think it's moderately important that it be sourced. I've poked around in LexisNexis but found little of use. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am 2 days old here and already in trouble :)

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems I am engaged in an 'edit war' and have been subjected to 3RR warnings, I would like someone to assist me finding out how to resolve this constructively and amicably. Thank you.

The dispute in question can be seen at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy

Unomi (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear a bit heated and certainly at least one editor is not particularly interested in debate, merely contemptuous responses. Might I suggest referring this to WP:Wikiquette alerts Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It is true that Unomi is being treated with less than model courtesy. However, I do not think that is the root of the problem. There are several established editors opposing Unomi and the reason is clearly stated higher up the talk page - that Unomi's sources are from the political world and are not suitable reliable sources for a medical article. Unomi, you have made many arguments to your opponents but you have not addressed the claim that your sources are counter to WP:MEDRS. I note that immediately after making a post here you returned to the article and made another contentious edit. You need to slow down - there is little point asking for advice if you are not going to stop long enough to listen to it. The first thing you need to do is read the guideline indicated and digest it. If you agree that your edits are counter to it, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to try to insert material in the article. It is possible to change guidelines, but the article is not the right place to do that (try here). On the other hand, if you think you do have solid medical references, then explain on the article talk page. Likewise if you think source guidelines other than WP:MEDRS apply then you should state them and make your case on the talk page. There is possibly some debate here: Aspartame is clearly a chemical/medical article and should rely on good quality scientific sources; Aspartame controversy goes beyond the sphere of science, but the article still needs to be factual and it is wrong to blindly quote unfounded opinions from unqualified sources, even if they have been published. SpinningSpark 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
this 3rr report by Unomi is also relevant. SpinningSpark 15:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias in article on Obama - (which there is not in article on Bush) !!

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a huge problem of bias in the article on Obama. The fact that his place of birth is an issue (hundreds of thousands have signed a petition to see the actual birth certificate which he can not produce), and he has only produced a cert that anyone can get in Hawaii. His family says he was born in Africa. Some of your "volunteers" keep deleting that info, and I'm just about to sue Wikipedia and involve Alan Dershowitz or another top lawyer in it. Get back to me on why you are allowing this. And when people tried to ask you why, you had no answer on why they kept the controversial issues that happened during Bush's presidency, but keep scrubbing O-Bomb-Us. Give me an answer and it better not be a canned email.70.172.205.97 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) And what's with the 4 tildas???????????? 70.172.205.97 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the other posts along similar lines, a little further up the page. If you then have questions about process, please come back here. IF you'd like to discuss the contents of a page, then click on the discussion tab at the top of that page and discuss it there; that's what that discussion tab is for. The tildes are simply a shorthand to create a signature that allows the software we use to show who posted (or your IP address, if you're not using an account) and when. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No legal threats. You can give Alan Dershowitz as much of your money as you like, and my guess is he will tell you what any person of modest intelligence could figure out: Wikipedia is a Web site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and can publish anything it wants, within the limits of the law. How do you suppose Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter respond when someone threatens to sue them? Do Rush and Ann instantly knuckle under and recant everything they have said? Do you imagine you are the first person to make such threats? If you want influence on Wikipedia, you have to earn it like anyone else. Consider upholding the traditional conservative values of hard work and ingenuity, rather than imagining you are entitled to a welfare handout, by reading Wikipedia: The Missing Manual and learning how things work here. You might want to modify that chain e-mail your fellow right-wing dittoheads are spamming to each other so it includes instructions on how not to make yourself sound foolish when you come to Wikipedia looking for a free lunch. --Teratornis (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Before you instruct Dershowitz, or other "top lawyer" please read locus standi, because you don't have it! – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

New Editor Asking For Help

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am a relatively new editor here at Wikipedia. I have been having some issues with User:Tennis expert, though I will attempt to keep my complaints strictly related to the article at hand. I have attempted to approach changes I believe work with what I have learned of WP:BRD, WP:Consensus and "Good Faith". This user has 'followed' my edits and has routinely 'blind reverted' them. I started an article (Williams Sisters rivalry) which he (seemingly in bad faith) nominated for deletion without discussion. The article was, except for the aforementioned user, unanimously voted to 'Keep'. He has now repeatedly edited and changed the Williams Sisters rivalry article, in the process (to me at least) ignoring any notion of 'Consensus' or WP:BRD. I would ask for a review of the article I have linked to, or at least a brief message on my talk page explaining how I can proceed with a user who I believe to be working not in good faith and solely to 'punish'. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a third opinion? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I have tried '3O' in the past, but the user has said 'Three doesn't make a consensus' (more or less). Being new, I just want to make sure also that I am understanding 'BRD' and how compromise works here. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps WP:RFC might be the next step, or you could ask for other interested editors at WP:TENNIS. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


People Discrimination

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Several electronic and acoustic engineers of Argentina, Colombia, Peru and other countries of Lation America are involved i a discussion with two editors: Binksternet and Oli Filth in several pages. Please see MP3, FM Broadcast, Room Acoustics, Audio amplifiers, etc I am the last of them to join the goup This editors are erasing all pages with the Bonello´s name (he is a well known argentine researcher) Mr Robert Tanzi explains well this situation at MP3 discussion page. I will copy it for you:

People Discrimination is not legal and against Wikipedia rules I noticed that some editors (see at History of this page) discriminates Latin American engineers and researchers. Frequently Oscar Bonello of Argentina is discriminated although he is a Fellow member of AES, New York. He is probably the most respected researcher in Audio Engineering and Acoustics in Latin America. He teaches at several universities with thousand of graduated engineers or doctorate students. If you are not convinced, please do a test. Go to the AES website (www.aes.org >> awards) and get a list of Fellow members. Take a few names, of well known researchers (all with the same FELLOW degree). Then go to Wikipedia using the “Google search option” and search for names between quotes; you will find:


Leo Beranek He has 265 entries in Wikipedia James Moir He has 98 entries Robert Moog He has 166 entries Ray Dolby He has 45 entries Oscar Bonello He only has 15 entries

Then when an editor erases any contribution of Bonello as “promotion” please note that he lies; it is a simple act of discrimination, that is unfair and privates the Wikipedia readers of knowing his important contributions. I ask to his many past students to edit articles to help that the Latin American Science and Engineering will be known at the level it deserves. RobertTanzi RobertTanzi (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC


My question is: how I can stop this discrimination ? Please note that one of the editors destroy entirely the " Room Acoustics" article This attitud of intolerance discourages the goodwill of ne editors, like myself Regards Rodolfo Mita —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodolfoMita (talkcontribs) 20:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you have discussed this on other talk pages. I applaud you for attempting to discuss this on the talk page. My suggestion to you is to continue to argue your point there. You obviously believe that Bonello should be discussed on some of these articles. Sadly, we can not accept anything but notable and unbiased content that is adequately sourced. Your claims of discrimination are also taken seriously, but please comment on the content and especially avoid ad hominem arguments. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. All the articles that Oli erased are "Peer Reviewed" because are articles published at AES Journal and in the best text books of Acoustic. Either way, I will intent again to get agreement between editors. Rodolfo Mita —Preceding unsigned comment added by RodolfoMita (talkcontribs) 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles Nominated For Deletion Question

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently started an article entitled Oracene Price. The article was rather quickly nominated for deletion. I don't mind defending the article. My question is that I looked at the requirements for Deletion, and while I understand that they're not 'strict requirements', it seems to me like none of the guidelines listed really fit. In addition there were no messages on the Talk page or and tags on the page to recommend it be edited or fixed. Is there a more 'discussion oriented' way that this can happen? Or is there a quick way to request someone look at the article's lack of editing/suggestions for improvement to have it removed from the list of Proposed Deletion? Thanks in advance for looking at this question. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is here although nobody has yet commented. Editors can raise concerns first on the article talk page or directly with you. However, since this editor has chosen to take it straight to a formal AfD you will now be expected to make a comment there in defence of the article. The reason given for deletion is that the subject is not notable in her own right, merely related to someone notable. This is based on the idea that notability is not inherited. To counter this you need to put in the article multiple reliable sources which give non-trivial coverage to the subject and don't just mention her as the mother of the Williams' sisters. I have not checked your sources to see if they already do that, I leave that to you. SpinningSpark 09:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chaldean Christians

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Simonsaysabc123 seems to be making questionable ethnicity related edits. These are pretty extensive in Chaldean Christians [3] and similarly on Family name in relation to Maltese surnames. Nothing is ever sourced, always sweeping, always pushing the same pov (the user has made other, similar, contribs). If this isn't the place to raise this type of issue, I have no idea where else to take it. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be considered discussion on Talk:Chaldean_Christians#Recent edits contradicting sources? which is where you should air your concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Coast conflict resolution

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article: Oregon Coast

Conflict: One member has put a considerable amount of time reorganizing the site, but is resistant about suggestions about other changes.

It has been generally agreed that the Oregon Coast has three distinct geological areas: North, Central, and South. I live on the south coast and have expressed interest in expanding information about the south coast since that is where I am most knowledgeable.

While "Geology" was divided into the three areas, when it was suggested that "Tourism" be also divided into those three same areas. This was met with resistance from the editor who has made comments like, "Simple fact is, there actually is more to do up north.", "However, you have to remember that I've lived in the state for my entire life.", "As I've stated, I've been the length of the coast. Many times. I've also stated that the Oregon Coast is not just the South Coast. Obviously you favor the south coast." These comments are argumentative and are not leading to an agreement.

I am looking for resolution to this conflict. I would like to expand the coverage of the coast in a manner similar to the way the Geology was covered.

Thank you for your help.Lhammer610 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read the talk page might I suggest that you consider taking this to Wikipedia:Third opinion Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

reverse needed

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A disruptive editor moved List of Hungarian Americans to List of Americans of Hungarian descent. This was done without discussion or notice and was done in the face of previous reversions of all such work by this editor several months ago. If this change were to stand, then this article would be named different from, and contain contents different from, all the others in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin.

Upon finding this, I attempted to get the article/talk page and history back to what is was prior to his editing. I know I did an incomplete job and it needs admin help to fix things back to their status prior to today. Help please. Thanks in advance. Hmains (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's taken care of. A few things you should know. We do not cut and paste content to new titles. This destroys the article's page history. Instead, we retitle articles by moving them to new names. When the user moved the article to the new name (which also moved all of its page history there), you could have simply moved it and its history back. However. Once you made edits to the moved page name, cutting and pasting in the old content without GFDL attribution, you needed an administrator to perform the move for you since only administrators can move pages that have any page history other than a redirect. So if you find an out of process page move in the future, you can move it back, and if you can't for whatever reason, you can ask an adminsitrator to move it back, but don't try to paste the content. Also, please note how to revert a page to a prior version. You apparently were laboriously unding the edits of the user by hand, when two clicks was all that you needed to do:-) Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the work I caused. Next time, I will just go to the Admin Noticeboard for help. This is resolved from my point of view. Oh, I think someone else was doing the 'by hand' reversals, not me. Hmains (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian Point Energy Center

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian Point Energy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello i am looking for assistances in having this page be looked over by another neutral individual about this article as per wp:Npov. I hope to keep this article efficient as we can and factual and non opinionated.

Thanks,

Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've already requested a 3rd opinion, and User:Fr33kman has offered to provide that. Would it be OK to focus discussion at the article's talk page? (btw I refactored your post a little, to make it easier to read. I hope that's OK with you.) --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oracene Price/ Biography Question

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've got a question related to the Oracene Price article and its talk page. (I'm a month old on Wiki, so bare with me if I'm missing something obvious.) When I started the article I added a reference to an incidence of alleged domestic abuse, which is sourced from a book from a noted tennis journalist. I listed the page number, and was (to my mind) careful to avoid anything overstepping the source. A note was added on the talk page by TennisExpert, citing my sole responsibility, which is fine. The information, without intervening changes, was deleted by the same user. I added the information back, double-checking just to make sure that the source is followed. Another note was added by the same user, citing my sole responsibility. Here's my questions I guess:

1)Am I correct in this, in how I am citing works? As I understand it, the source (being a journalist who himself cites police reports) keeps it from safely being Libel.

2)Where can I read up further on Wiki's specfic Libel policy? Anything more than WP:LIBEL?

3)The user's comments seemed a bit intimidating and intentionally so. Is this normal for material such as this?

Thanks in advance for helping me out, and baring with my (I'm sure simple) questions. Alonsornunez (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This user already has been referred to WP:REDFLAG. See also WP:BLP. Tennis expert (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's clearly sourced, cited to a book published by a highly-reputable publisher. I don't think WP:REDFLAG or WP:BLP applies here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course WP:BLP applies here. This is a biography of a living person. As for WP:REDFLAG, the problem here is that there is no easy way for readers or other editors to verify that the information posted by Alonsornunez is correct because he is citing a book. The risk of libel for Wikipedia is not worth having this unnecessary information in the article. The article would be perfectly fine with just saying that they divorced without delving into why their marriage failed. Tennis expert (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain how you think WP:BLP is being breached, perhaps? That might help to clarify things. Books are pretty clearly reliable sources. You can't just ignore the way WP:V is written. And Wikipedia isn't censored. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not abolished just because you don't have a copy of that book to hand. We accept footnotes to much, much more obscure sources than that. If the citation is incorrect, correct it and say so. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and also for the reference for WP:AGF. I'm glad for clear, concise discussions and logical refutations like these. Thanks! Alonsornunez (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mean Everything to Nothing

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Re this article, can someone have a look. I keep redirecting the article as not currently sufficiently notable (pwe WP:NALBUMS), the author keeps restoring it. Rather than continually bouncing this one around, can someone else give an opinion - I'm not too concerned which way the opinion goes - I'd just like to be able to take it off my watchlist ! :-) Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this has been locked as a redirect by an admin, so resolved for the moment. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In the future, WP:RFPP or WP:AN3 might have been better venues to get help, since most of us here aren't administrators. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor abusing his admin status in personal vendetta, knowingly supporting misinformation

Resolved: Viktor has been indefinitely blocked for violating WP:NPA, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#Viktor van Niekerk. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [[5]]

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator. Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [6] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the resonance, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings", as Andrewa is falsely claiming. If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" [[7]] because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his status as an administrator to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim [[8]] that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements.

Viktor van Niekerk tenstringguitar.INFO Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This has previously been brought to this board (archive discussion here). SpinningSpark 17:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this has been on ANI before too (unless I'm just thinking of the old EAR thread linked above). My best suggestion, Viktor, is to concisely request help at one or more WikiProject talk pages (such as WikiProject Music) where editors who are interested/experienced in working with music articles can drop in and resolve this.
I will say however, that broadly accusing an administrator of wrongdoing in a content dispute while only providing references to your own website for proof of why you're right will turn off a lot of editors immediately. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The fact is that my website lists numerous articles and interviews published in books/journals and these contain verifiable evidence of Narciso Yepes's statements, including that the 6-string guitar lacks eight resonances, which his 10-string guitar's tunign adds. The admin who has been waging a personal vendetta against me has again on 8 March defended his support of links to misinformation, pages that contain verifiably incorrect information, like claiming that Yepes heard that the guitar lacked four (not eight) resonances. I will follow your recommendations. Thank you. It is just that I am not au fait with the ins and outs of wikipedia red-tape, while the administrator is. I feel that he has been abusing his status and know-how of wikipedia policy to get his way in something that is nothing more than a personal grudge against a more authoritative editor. For example, he has accused me of sock-puppetry, simply because it sometimes appears (incorrectly) that I am signed in because I haven't refreshed my browser. He has also on 15 March accused me of attacking him. It is quite the contrary since he is the one involved in making defamatory statements about my authority on the subject of the 10-string guitar, while I am defending certain historical/scientific truths as well as wikipedia's policy on linking to misinformation by objecting to his continuing desire to link to a page that contains proven misinformation. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree it would be very good to get others involved. I have previously posted to several WikiProjects without success.

But the basic problem is Viktor's behavior. His charges against me here and now on two WikiProject pages are baseless personal attacks. Raising the same charges here after they have been already been recently dismissed is harassment.

I feel that this behavior issue must be settled before we can expect to make any real progress with the content issues. Andrewa (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Common European Language

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor:

I wrote Common European Language: Practical Solution and I would like to see the article published in Wikipedia. Could you publish it for me?

Best Regards, Alexander Popoff email address removed

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.162.111 (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All content must cite reliable sources. However, seeing as you may have researched this topic extensively, you may consider contributing verifiable material to articles on the general concept, such as universal language, world language and International auxiliary language. Verifiable material would include anything you can source to an academically published book or journal, or you might mention proposals that have received significant media coverage. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this marked resolved? Fleetflame 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the draft article has been moved to your user space here: User:Fleetflame/CEL:PS. In its current form it is original research and inappropriate for the mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't in the mainspace, it was here! I just moved it off so the post wouldn't take up half our space. The question was not where to store the article, so therefore the question wasn't answered, so it's not resolved....right? Fleetflame 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It's still basically resolved; as Someguy correctly asserts, the article is inappropriate as apparently being original research. It's interesting from a linguistics perspective, but unencyclopedic as it's not descriptive in its current form. If the editor in question wishes, he may like to contribute to related articles, but otherwise there isn't anything anyone here can do to help this.
In the future, Fleetflame, you might want to use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} to hide extended content such as this which really doesn't belong on EAR in the first place. Moving something to your userspace implies that you're taking charge of rewriting the content to be encyclopedic. Unless this is the case, I think this is as resolved as it'll get. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've moved it back like you suggested. I should have thought of that. Fleetflame 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unable to remove "vandalism" in wiki article

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In the article Refracting telescope I was unable to remove the words "suckdickk", right prior to a header (that didn't show up) about Refracting telescope designs. I don't know why I couldn't remove it by editing the article, so posted it here. Thanks... 85.166.19.252 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dutch T-bone fixed it. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism#Didache_and_immersion

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A sentence in this section reads 'It indicates a preference for baptizing'. The English word 'baptizing' here is ambiguous. I found four reliable sources which said that the 'baptizing' referred to here in the Didache is specifically 'immersion'. I amended the text to reflect this, and quoted the sources. Two other editors disagreed, and have refused to allow the text to be changed or to have the reliable sources quoted in the article. I have met their successive requests for additional reliable sources relevant to the subject, and have now provided over a dozen. They still insist these sources should not be used, and the text should be unaltered. The discussion starts here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, a bit abstruse for me, I can't say I found it easy to follow the discussions. Perhaps WP:Peer review or WP:Third opinion? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's actually fairly simple. A long list of reliable sources say that the Didache prescribes immersion. Two other editors are refusing to have these sources added to the article, and refusing to have the article content changed to agree with the sources. But perhaps WP:Peer review or WP:Third opinion would be better. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My attempts to post a link is vandalised by user Themfrom space

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I have been trying to post an essay on sustainable living [9] in both Sustainable living and Simple Life and at both places a user Themfromspace has been vandalising and repeatedly removing it. I guess he has not been able to understand this concept and simply on whim is removing it. I have already posted NPOV on the site and yet he insists on removing the links on some vague notions he has.

I will greatly appreciate if the dispute is amicably solved.

Wikipedia is a great medium where anybody can make changes but there is a need to see that some mature individuals take some responsibility in its editing.

218.248.79.4 (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume bad faith on a user who is removing links to your own website. The relevant guideline largely restricts against linking to one's own personal experiences. I'd highly advise actually discussing the issue and trying to understand Themfromspace's arguments, instead of dismissing him as a "mere student." You may think you're an expert at Simple Living, but you're also a novice at Wikipedia. You can't honestly expect us to just accept a person's judgement because he asserts (via the internet) that he is an expert, and to take action against everyone who diagrees with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This has been raised at WP:COIN#Simple living external link too, and I've also advised this user to stop the bad faith accusations. It would help if this user would get a single account. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to contributing, but a big fan. I noticed repeated references to Che Guevara as a 'Physician' and a 'Doctor' in the Che article, so I wrote to point out that there is no evidence of Che as having been either. At best, he might have qualified as a medic. The editor got back to me, conceding as much. So I assumed the point taken and corrections to follow. Now, months later, I find no changes to these spurious references. How do I pursue this? Thank you - Eggioto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggioto (talkcontribs) 05:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check how the discussion actually wrapped up at Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#"physician"? and then re-open discussion in a new thread at Talk:Che Guevara. While you may be tempted to just be bold and change the article, I'd suggest taking care in doing so considering the article subject. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Eggioto, as the "editor" you are referring to, I have also replied to your question on my talk page. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Request/Ty Cobb

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance/ruling from an editor. When using statistics on wikipedia, what takes precedence, official statistics or statistics that have been peer-reviewed and recognized by the relevant community at large? In this case, there's a debate whether or not 4189 or 4191 should be considered the more "important" statistic. The 4191 is a number listed at MLB.com, originally culled from a deceased, unknown individual in 1916 from newspaper box scores while 4189 is the number listed in Total Baseball, which was granted official encyclopedia status by MLB and the number used by various independent, mainstream sources of baseball statistics such as ESPN, baseball-reference.com, and the Society of American Baseball Research.

So, my question is what type of statistic has jurisdiction?

DSZ (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I think the answer to this might be that we don't need to resolve it. It's relevant, and even interesting, to know that different sources post (marginally) different numbers, and it's perfectly possible to present that in an encyclopedic and neutral way. In fact this might be the only resolution; any analysis to prove or disprove one number versus another might well be original research. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Andrew,
Thank you for your input. My question is, would it be appropriate to have some kind of notation next to the statistic primarily given to denote that there is a dispute? In this case, I wouldn't need to present original research as the research as to why there's a discrepancy (SABR and John Thorn both published individually researched accounts of a double-counted doubleheader in 1916) is available, while the research as to how the original researcher came up with the 1916 hit figure is unavailable (unknown and long deceased). Obviously, this is an issue of extremely minimal importance, but as someone who works with statistics for a living, the incongruity between official statistics and statistics that have verifiable sources is a particular bugaboo of mine.
DSZ (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, although it would potentially open the door for other disputed statistics and would eventually lead to our needing a threshold for disputedness - what level of dispute would merit the scarlet "D", as it were. I like the way it's handled in the lede. I certainly sympathise with your frustration over inconsistent sources! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Andrew, I made a small link next to the disputed statistic in the information box that also directs to the appropriate section of the page that deals with the dispute, which I have expanded to include the most relevant official and unofficial disputing sources (rather than simply an anonymous private sources). I hope that it's acceptable as I don't want to be one of those obnoxious wikivandals (and I appreciate your attention to this subject).
DSZ (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any policy or guideline about this so it'll be a matter of achieving consensus at the page.--AndrewHowse (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


how to address flagged issues

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I posted essentially the same list of questions and/or discussion of the flagged issues on the talk page of myJosef Norris article. My first question, then, is whether simply doing that will initiate an editor's review of the article with consideration of the changes I made. Is it just a matter of someone having time to get to this "job?" If so, how long does that normally take?

I also wanted to to address the autobiography and conflict of interest issue. I am a writer hired by Josef Norris to adapt his biography. The article is entirely fact-based and to the best of my knowledge contains no unfounded assertions or misleading statements.

I also logged in as Josefnorris. I am authorized to do so, and I hope that doesn't present problems. If it does, will it work to re-publish under a different log-in? This would address the problem of its being an "Autobiography," but would it then be flagged as a copy of something that WAS classified as such?

I went in and added sources and references here, including press coverage, conference presentations, and his Amazon.com page, among others.

I know this is a cumbersome list of questions, but I hope someone can help. Thanks! Josefnorris (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all you create an account that is in accordance with the user name policy. Then, don't edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism in Cuba

Stale: Zd12 blocked for 2 weeks --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I recently got into a dispute over the article Racism in Cuba. An editor keeps posting unreliable information, and I'm not exactly sure what I can do about it. I've listed reasons on his talk page and my edit summaries, but he keeps putting them back, and I don't want to keep removing them if it will only get me back. Some help in resolving this the correct way would be greatly appreciated. Zd12 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than just reverting each other back and forth, you and the other user should discuss this on the article's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
To be more specific, I believe we're discussing Censorship in Cuba? It's useful to have the discussion at the article's talk page rather than on an editor's talk page because it's much easier for other editors to see it there. Zd12, after your block has passed, you need to explain why znet.org is reliable at the article's talk page before you repost anything, please. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with a non-communicative editor, with possible bad faith

Resolved

I started a new entry some time ago (International SOS), which I've been editing on-and-off ever since, as a way of learning more about how Wikipedia works. It was recently flagged as advertising by another editor who had, immediately before, had his/her own entry for a rival company speedily deleted for blatant advertising. I've tried to communicate with this editor through the International SOS discussion page and the user's own discussion page, to get more detail on what aspects of the text they feel break the rules, but have so far had no response.

I'm reluctant to simply delete the maintenance tag, as I've not contributed to many other entries and don't want to be accused of bias. Also, if there is a genuine problem with the entry, I'd like to correct it (although it has been scrutinised and edited by other editors in the past). It has also previously been the victim of an abusive nomination for speedy deletion, once again from the creator of an entry for a rival company, which was swiftly rejected.

Should I seek out another opinion on the entry before deleting the tag? If so, as there hasn't been any real discussion, what is the best channel for obtaining this? Letsplaydrums (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look and removed the advtg tag. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew Letsplaydrums (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)