Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 6

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

Contents

Subject matter: "Royalties" - Outright erasure of all past submissions by Wikidemo without cause

Resolved: --Aarktica 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

For several months now I have been trying ot build up a body of informaton relating to (technology-based) Royalties with a view to help lay understanding of an otherwise complex legal subject.

The material here has been, now an then, edited by others, including Wikidemo, and I have had no reason to challenge the entries or revert.

However, in the last 15 days or so, there has been a major rewrite - and substantial deletion - of my text by the Wikidemo. In this connection, I have engaged in TALK with the Wikidemo but there has been no consensus so far except on the matter of Wiki Style privileges. It now seems apparent that because I was disputing what the Wikidemo had deleted in the article, s/he has overwritten all previous submissions with the same (Wikidemo's) text, although the subject matter differs and the links too have been 'vandalized' to lead to random Wikipedia or internet sites. There appears to be no way for anybody to compare the Wikidemo rewrite with what I or others have submitted earlier unless the deleted files are undeleted.

I can understand if there was copyright violation. None was pointed out even during the almost daily discussion over the last few days. There was no question of any copyright being breached. My fears have been heightened by the recent article in the New York Times on corporate edits of Wikipedia entries.

These actions in my case seem to be in competele contradiction to Wikipedia's widely endorsed and publicly-supported democracy.

This is a field where I have expert knowledge. Somehow personal information that I had submitted in connection with an uploaded diagram, of my own origination, to indicate there was no breach of copyright, has found its way into this Talk page.

Ipsofacto 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. First of all Wikipedia's not a democracy, see WP:DEMOCRACY, although Wikipedia's goal of building well-researched encyclopedias could be considered supportive of democracy. And while Wikipedia editing is open to anyone (until they abuse the privilege), that's a two-edged sword, anyone can edit your carefully written prose because they think their version is better. Frankly, I think in general that the changes that Wikidemo has made to the Royalties article are improvements; the previous writing was OK, but in general was too verbose for the average reader.
After looking carefully at the article, recent changes, and your edit history, I don't understand what you're saying about "vandalized" links. Perhaps you could supply a specific example?
I would encourage you to read WP:OWN, take a deep breath, relax, and continue editing and discussing. Also, since Royalties is such a broad topic, it might be appropriate for it to have sub-articles, for details about different kinds of royalties. I could see a complete article dedicated to music-licensing royalties (about which I actually know something, most of which is not in that article, in any version), and another for drug-patent royalties (about which I only know what I read in the newspaper - not much), for example.
Also, keep in mind that all of your older edits are available in the article history. I would encourage you NOT to make a general reversion to an older version, but if there's a particular important bit of writing that you want to recover, it's still there.
Finally, if you and Wikidemo can't work out your issues, there are various informal and formal dispute resolution processes, see WP:DR. Studerby 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me add that I have worked with Wikidemo before, and not only is he quite a reasonable editor, he is definitely not a corporate tool as you fear. Please do your best to assume that others are working in good faith, even when you disagree with them. It's usually true. And although it's tempting to think so, others are not vandalizing your text simply by virtue of having edited it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

how can I use a flow chart to link to various pages?

Resolved: Inactive editor. --Aarktica 01:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am relatively new at this wiki thing so bare with me. I would like to have a flow chart in the page that allows the user to click on a figure(box or what ever). Clicking on a figure would take them to a page describing the details of what one should do when doing that step of the process.

thanks Seattlestarship 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as if you are writing an instruction manual or how-to guide. Adrian M. H. 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
See the derivatives section of FVWM for a possible example. --Aarktica 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ouch, that 'code' takes me back 15 years :) . But for something small and stable I guess it might do. --CliffC 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, if the user doesn't find the look too primitive for his purposes, the {{familytree}} suite of templates might serve. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


how to reply to an editor who felt my changes were vandalism

Resolved: No new incidents. --Aarktica 01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes on an article and received a message from an editor (Alexf(t/c)) Alex Feldstein who felt my changes were vandalism. I do not mean to violate Wikipedia rules. I felt the description of a person as a gay author was unfair and changed the description to "author". I then moved the comment about him being gay to the end of the description. I believe that describing someone as a gay author is unfairly marginalizing and minimizing. I would like to discuss this with the editor, but I don't know how to send him a message or add a comment to his talk page. Where can I get instructions about how to do this? Jayhowardl 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, kudos for working within the dispute resolution guidelines, and taking steps which will help resolve the issue before it escalates. I see that you have already started a dialogue with the editor in question and exhibited a fair amount of civility in your remarks.
That said, I share your sentiment about the importance of expressing a neutral point of view when editing articles. However, I think your edit could use some work. To that end, I urge you to assume good faith and work with the editor in question to improve the article. Hope this helps, --Aarktica 06:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Space Opera Noir and the definition of Citations and Original Sources

Resolved: No further activity on this article. Adrian M. H. 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I need some assistance in relation to the Space Opera Noir page. I wrote this as a quick little article to help describe a term that I had seen repeatedly used and that I thought could use a definition. I am not an expert on the topic, but had seen the term utilised and so defined it as I could, and sourced it to some of the web related resouces that it appeared in, to show it's use.

Subsequently, a single other user seems to have found it objectionable and has repeated claimed that it represents original research and is unsourced. Someone, presumably him, has tagged it as such.

He may be right, and I would like some advice on whether or not it actually falls into this category. Since no one else really seems to care, I thought someone outside the arugment might be able to give an opinion, and/or some advice on how to improve the article without spending a large amount of time reading articles simple to find examples of its use.

Thank you for your help. --Tle585 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, one source certainly is nowhere near enough for more than one reason, but I changed the tag to {{refimprove}} to be accurate. It does read like original research or original thought. The guidelines and policies to which I linked clearly define the need for multiple reliable references with non-trivial mentions of the subject at hand. I prefer to see more offline sources as well, but you have just a website. I know that's convenient when researching an article, but it is not really solid referencing. Adrian M. H. 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tle585 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 25 August 2007

You will have to enlighten me about the meaning behind your last unsigned edit, Tle585. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute

Resolved: Interested parties can open a request for comment if desired. --Aarktica 12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with an editor (User:Nescio) that has been violating WP:POVPUSH on multiple pages. Multiple users have presented their opinion that this is true. He's gone through numerous dispute resolution attempts and has been blocked in the past for revert warring. I currently have a dispute with him on Talk:Iraq Resolution. Is this enough to start an RFC on him? Isaac Pankonin 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Is it possible to at least present the facts?
  1. I am not involved in POV-pushing. As is common on WP there are differences of opinion between editors. Part of WP:DR is that editors try and discuss their POV and find compromise. To call that POV-pushing seems a deliberate misrepresentation.
  2. The fact I prefer inviting people to mediation instead of starting an edit war can hardly be cause for a RFC on my person.
  3. As to Isaac Pankonin, we are having a discussion on several interpretations which might need outside input (mediation?) but certainly does not warrant any RFC on my person.
  4. As an aside, this comment, taken together with his intimate knowledge of blocked user Zer0faults, a.k.a. NuclearUmpf, may shed some light on this inflamatory and erroneous report.
Why did you post here? I was asking for personal advice. I think it's silly that you think there's some sort of conspiracy out to get you. I've never talked to that user. I only noticed that he posted a source that's apparently relevant to the page we're working on. I'll wait patiently for the answer to my question. Isaac Pankonin 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from other users:

  • "Clearly Nescio is unable to be NPOV on this subject..." GATXER 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Most of your embellishments are as false as anything you've accused the government of. For now, consider this a simple "chime in" that your contribution to this article is light years to the left of objective..." Batvette 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Once again IGNORING the fact that your crusade to impeach Bush and provide a one-sided POV without giving background information." Arnabdas 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing survey questions to make them biased: [1][2][3][4][5]
It's hardly a personal attack if I've got proof. I'm just trying to make an article better. Isaac Pankonin 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • My edits were to unbias your version of framing the question. Also citing known disruptive editors seems a bit provocative. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. This page is not the place for this argument. Take it to one of your user talk pages please. I don't care who started it; you should just all stop.
The answer to the question is that if you feel that the criteria at WP:RFC#Request comment on users are met, then go ahead and open one. It will be closed without prejudice if it's inappropriate at this time. In any event, if the argument has become so heated that you cannot refrain from engaging even on unrelated pages, it's certainly time to either advance the dispute-resolution process or back off entirely, and I get the feeling that the latter is out of the question.
An RFC on the article itself may not be out of line either, if there's been an unresolvable content dispute. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I need some help with the May Pang Wiki entry

Resolved: Parties reconciled their differences. --Aarktica 00:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This page has a long history of vandalization. I stepped in about a month ago and, with the help of some other editors, we were able to weed out some issues.

When one of the "vandals" was blocked, she contacted me thru my Wiki page and signed her name as --deleted--. This person has a history of cyberstalking May Pang (if you check her Yahoo contributions, you can see this).

She's a former relative of Ms. Pang.

Now, she has gotten the ear of another editor, Arcayne, who has not only made a veiled threat to me, but is threatening to erase her entire bio, except for a section called "criticism," because he feels that nothing is "cited" -- when in fact, the comments are sourced where they need to be, and there is (or has to be) some extent of "common knowledge" on Wikipedia or else every single line would have to be referenced.

As this page also involves John Lennon (and Arcayne has edited Ms. Pang out of the Lennon page as well), "common knowledge" is fairly valid.

If someone could please review the history of the page, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you

Hotcop2 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps Arcayne disqualifies for the "nicest person you will ever meet" award, but from what little I have seen, it is hard to determine what qualifies as a threat. Besides, the said user is open to educating you about any guidelines and policies relevant to the issue at hand. --Aarktica 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Being CIVIL goes a long way, but impolite remarks are unlikely to help your cause. --Aarktica 23:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Moot court and user talk discussion

Resolved: Moved to appropriate venue--Hu12 13:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimdugan argues that I'm applying a eurocentric view by deleting what I regard as spamvertising in article Moot court. I'd prefer to back out of this dispute, not because I think I'm wrong but because the topic doesn't really interest me that much and his charge is that I'm not neutral. Would someone with an interest in US Law care to discuss? See also user talk:Jimdugan and User talk:John Maynard Friedman (end of). I'll copy the discussion to talk:Moot court. --John Maynard Friedman 12:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the current situation, I would suggest WP:3O as the next proper course of action when resolving disputes. Hope this helps, --Aarktica 12:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a comment, User:Jimdugan doesn't seem to have any edits beyond adding and defending that link. --CliffC 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course this is my only edit. Moot court is the only thing I know about. It certainly beats the kneejerk edits that have been going on so far in the moot court article. I have no problem with bestmootcourtprograms.com being deleted for whatever reason. I do care that the "whatever reason" is applied consistently within the moot court article. For example, one person deleted bestmootcourtprograms.com mentioning something about it being an advertiser. At the same time, however, he left an external link to a moot court competition, which no doubt charges a fee to competition participants. When I brought the discrepency in application of so-called standards, he deleted it. But he has still left numerous references to moot court competitions under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. If advertisers must be deleted, then these references must be deleted (given the probability that these articles document competitions charging a fee).

If the inquiry turns on whether or not the advertiser is notable, I give kudos to the deleter who is backing out since the topic is not of interest. Those in the moot court world know that, for better or worse, bestmootcourtprograms.com is notable - in a "moot court" world that rarely sees anything notable. The site simply adds up top finishes at large moot court competitions. (Competition A has 24 teams competing. Team 62 wins Competition A. Because Team 62 has beat out 23 teams to win Competition A, its program (its law school) receives 23 points. This information is posted beneath each program's rank so that programs can double-check each other's rank. The competition name is also listed. The programs can go to the competition's web site, or contact the competition administrator, to verify the top finishes at that competition. There is absolutely no profit incentive for posting this info, but bestmootcourtprograms.com does it anyway. I can attest to the fact that the site administrator has received not a single penny of compensation from any program (or anyone at all) - quite unlike the moot court competitions currently touted in the "moot court" article.

The web site administrator has posted the methodology. He is uniquely situated to defend it. Though he won Regional Best Brief at the American Bar Association's National Appellate Advocacy Competition, he does not count best brief awards. Though his alma mater (Chicago-Kent) currently boasts the top advocate at the mega-competition Pace Environmental, he does not include best advocate awards. Though he finished Final Four out of 176 teams at ABA NAAC, he does not make top finishes at mega-competitions dispositive of program rank.

This is the first ever ranking of American law schools in the moot court world. Two law schools have already cited to their rank. Bestmootcourtprograms.com was cited as a footnote authority in the UC Hastings article (by someone other than Jimdugan). Because the first ever ranking only incorporates top finishes at competitions with 24 or more teams, programs will think twice about sending teams to smaller competitions. Thus, it is a change-the-game type of "advertiser." Not only should it be added to the "moot court" article in the main. It should be protected so it can't be deleted by every administrator who admittedly has not interest, or every moot court program director who is upset that the program is not ranked higher.

I'm happy this is going through the proper channels. Jimdugan 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This I believe is decidedly "moot" as an Editor assistance issue. I agree with CliffC. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to bestmootcourtprograms.com. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be bestmootcourtprograms.com related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Not for Self-promotion or Advertising. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? see Links normally to be avoided Hu12 13:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed this has been discussed with other editors previously. At this point discussion (if any) should move to an appropriate area, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.bestmootcourtprograms.com. --Hu12 13:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

asistance with Ilinden Uprising article

Resolved: Situation has been de-escalated by third party involvement. --Aarktica 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I replaced the Ilinden Uprising blurb (less than 300 words), which was largely irrelevant to the topic, with a true encycopledic article (2000+ words), with well quoted sources, while paying attention to be neutral and objective, avoiding disputed issues, like the ethnicity of the participants.

Little did I know that the previous blurb was one of the long string of Bulgarian progapanda on the wikipedia, propagated by a well-connected group of people, who have been warring against me (alone) for days now, and completely deleting my article and replacing it with their own nationalistic blurb.

Now, I don't want any sort of recognition for myself, I only want wikipedia users to have the better article, but I cannot talk sense to these people, since they refuse to talk about anything, but unilaterally delete my content.

What can I do? Most of dispute resolutions on wikipedia involve voluntary involvement of all parties, which in this case is inapplicable.

Capricornis 19:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • As you may very well be aware of, there is a well-documented procedure for resolving disputes that happens to be policy. Given your perception of the other parties, I leave it to you to decide where to start and how far you want to go... --Aarktica 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
sorry if this is inapropriate place, I was just following links from the dispute resolution page, as I am new to wikipedia. my main problem is that the other parties won't even enter into discussion with me, but directly delete my complete article without any attempt of discussion, and all the wikipedia mediation mechanisms presuppose voluntary participation from both parties.
thanks,
Capricornis 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, not all. RFC? Adrian M. H. 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If dispute resolution processes and RFC don't work, or the other parties are not willing to cooperate, try WP:ANI. J-stan TalkContribs 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The previous version of the article was a bit more than a "blurb"; a "short summary" might be a more neutral description. Both Capricornis's new article and the old one have references; the older article does not have them in-line, and I have no idea if they support the text. The original article seems to use neutral language (based on a quick reading); the new article seems to be carrying an anti-Ottoman/anti-Turkish POV (in my opinion, based on a quick reading). This looks like a pretty standard content dispute. You might consider proposing some gradual changes, rather than revert warring between two such radically different versions of the text. You should also try to use more neutral language, and not inject unsourced opinions. For example, the statement: "The main achievement of the uprising was a proclamation of a `Krusevo Republic',[...]" needs to not be your opinion, but an opinion coming from a cited reliable source. It need not be a neutral opinion, but if it's not, then the source's bias needs to be disclosed. For example, "According to X Y, a Z politician/historian/nationalist, the main achievement of the uprising was [...]", and if it's a biased source, alternate opinions from differing reliable sources should be cited. Studerby 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara's children

Resolved: No further response and Che Guevara is protected right now anyway. Adrian M. H. 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I wish to writ a page about Che Guevara's children. Evelyn Guevara-frost's evedance is a photo album from her birth mother. she was sent for adoption in 1955! among other photos the album shows Che's first wife and the birth mother in a camp soldiers and a Cuban flag. To whom do i prosent this evedance? Email <removed> I will be happy to be contacted by phone on request at email adress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.194.245 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2007

Sounds rather like original research to me. If you can offer reliable independent published sources that serve to verify the intended content, you could provide it at WP:AFC. Or you could create an account, learn the ropes, and write the article yourself. Adrian M. H. 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GERARD C HENDERSON, 1920 COMMISSIONER OF FEDERAL TRADE ASSOCIATION

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a polite old lady, trying to enter a a listing of historical interest, but can't get past the mechanics. My article has excellent references. Can I copy it into this box? Please help. Have tried to register under username Mary H Horn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.25.86 (talkcontribs) 23:12, 28 August 2007

How about copying it to the sandbox? That way, others can review it there and provide feedback if requested. --Aarktica 23:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
About your username (User:Mary H Horn); it turns out that an account was created about two months ago. If you remember your password, you can sign in securely here. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. --Aarktica 23:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Another less visited place is the drawing board. You can receive feedback on the content as to whether it is appropriate for inclusion or not.
About your suggested username, I suggest giving yourself a semi-anonymous name, for your own privacy and protection. J-stan TalkContribs 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that none of this advice is going to be of any help? This is a person who is having trouble with the technical aspect of posting an article. If she can't even log in to an account she created, sending her to the sandbox isn't going to help.
But we're in no position to be giving general tutorials here. The best thing to do -- indeed, the best solution for any older person who's having trouble with new technology -- is to find a younger person in the neighborhood with whom you're on friendly terms, who's willing to physically come in to your house and help you out. There's nothing like a hands-on teacher.
There's no shame in admitting that newer technology is troublesome for you, and it's no reflection on your other qualities. My grandmother was a fine, capable, intelligent woman, but never could get the hang of a touch-tone phone. She grew up with party lines requiring frequent intervention from a human operator between exchanges. A dial that worked outside the exchange without an operator she could handle just fine, but beyond that was too new to adjust to. (That kind of thing went away surprisingly recently. As late as the mid-70s, in the area where I lived you had to talk to a human operator to dial outside a set of three local exchanges.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated edits (vandalism?) of 9/11 conspiracy-debunking book

Resolved: No further response. Adrian M. H. 21:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So as a pet project, I often check in here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths

I added the information about the appendix (I own a copy of the book), and have made some contributions to the discussion section. However, 9/11 conspiracy theorists keep logging onto the page to add references to a conspiracy theorist book, and repeatedly turn the entry to a discussion of "their" book, rather than the subject of the article. One pro-conspiracy theorist "editor" attempted to have the entire debunking article removed.

So many edits have taken place in the past few days, I can't tell what's left and useful. Can someone more Wiki-adept clean this article up, and perhaps protect it? The article is going to be the subject of some attention for a while because of the History Channel's 2-hour special featuring the book.

Thanks for any help anyone out there can muster. I'm going to try the 4-squiggle thing and hopefully that will submit this?

149.101.1.118 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, and the edits seem to be legitimate. What you are talking about is a violation of WP:OR, and I just don't see that in the article. Be careful about reverting edits though, you might be accused of trolling by another editor. And by the way, semi-protection would block you from editing, and not editors like Wowest, and Knarly, who have been around for at least 4 days. Consider starting an account to avoid the effects of semi-protection. J-stan TalkContribs 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


What do you mean, "the edits seem to be legitimate." Inserting discussions of the conspiracy theories, and how they are the actual truth are "legitimate?" Converting an article on a book debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories into a promo for a book ATTACKING those theories is kosher? I don't get that at all. But if Wikipedia is content with having conspiracy theorists convert the Popular Mechanics book into a discussion of why the theories are somehow valid, that just undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

149.101.1.118 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only recent example is this, which presents the pro-conspiracy theory view not unlike a Darwinist presenting the theory of evolution to a Christian: The Christian is automatically wrong. But back to the point, I can't find examples of the page being converted into a page about the other book. Remember to stay cool. J-stan TalkContribs 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War and Steps to Resolve - Confused am I

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Over the past week or so a user has been adding and re-adding their link to the 'External Links' section of the Ragnarok Online 2 article. The link the user adds violates WP:EL. This seems to happen a lot with this article and is particularly annoying because each editor who does such tends to be new editors to Wikipedia who make no communication at all with all reasonable attempts by me and other editors. Eventually, they seem to go away. Except this one.

So my question to ask is, what should I do here in this situation? I know theres already a lot of dispute pages, but I can never find one that actually offers help on what to do when an editor makes no move to communicate his or her edits at all. --A Pair of Shoes 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When the link was first entered (or when it returned for the first time) was the ideal time to start going through the warning process. You have to be timely, really, because you might miss the boat otherwise. Adrian M. H. 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A good thing to do is either open a request for comment on the article, specifically about the link, and get some outside opinions. You can also follow some of the other steps in the dispute resolution series. --Haemo 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

SMART Recovery

Resolved: Page deleted again. Adrian M. H. 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Several of us, including Dr. Henry Steinberger, myself, and others have been trying to maintain an article for SMART Recovery on the wikipedia site. It is our belief that our articles have been of reasonable quality, perhaps in need of editing, however they have been outright deleted for various 'reasons'. We are beginning to feel there is an agenda of sorts to delete this reference page here. The last reason listed was Blatant Copyright Violation. There is NO copyright violation here to our knowledge!

We would like an experienced editor to assist us with this reference page. There are many similar groups in this field with pages (RR, WFS, AA, SOS), however, it seems the SMART Recovery page has been selected time and again for outright deletion. If we are actually violating terms of use of Wikipedia, we cannot see it!

We would appreciate help in resolving this, whether it be by editing, or by protecting the SMART Recovery entry from vandalous removal. Oldefarquer 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Oldefarquer

(Please do not paste content for articles here; consider the drawing board instead.)

A few words in response to your request:
  1. "It is our belief that our articles have been of reasonable quality..." Sorry, but ownership of articles is frowned upon.
  2. "We are beginning to feel there is an agenda of sorts..." There is a counter-argument for that perception (see WP:TINC.) You may want to assume good faith as well.
  3. "There is NO copyright violation here to our knowledge!" Charges of copyright violations are unlikely to be bandied about lightly. Usually, the source of such violation is provided along with the charge. If this is untrue, you may want to bring that up for deletion review. (By the way, some of the material appears to have been copied verbatim from the SMART Recovery® - Frequently Asked Questions page.)
  4. "We would like an experienced editor to assist us with this reference page." For assistance with improving said article, a request for peer review may help. In any event, you would do well to ensure that the material satisfies notability guidelines before proceeding.
  5. "There are many similar groups in this field with pages..." There are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; one of them happens to be WP:WAX.
  6. "If we are actually violating terms of use of Wikipedia, we cannot see it!" See WP:FIVE.
The appearance of a conflict of interest cannot be ignored here. Unfortunately, this raises questions about the ability to maintain a neutral point of view when writing on such subjects. --Aarktica 03:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

i just, for the first time edited an article

this was "steve coogan"

just updated with the latest information regarding his denial that he was to blame for owen wilsons drug binge...

now does this break a copyright issue? Being that this information, of course, had to come from another site. It is not word for word however its not very different either.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.186.113 (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2007

We cite sources all the time. Far from being a copyright problem, it's a good thing. Copyright issues only arise when someone posts large amounts of copyrighted verbatim text written by someone else. If you didn't to that, but wrote your edits in your own words, then good. But do say where the information came from. That's especially important when editing biographies of living persons. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am looking for help on 2 things. First, I need help developing Psychology in Switzerland. Second, I am thinking about leaving Wikipedia. I need counseling on the issue. Thanks for your interest. Laleena 21:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to be honest: I nearly stuck an SD nom on that article, per CSD#A1. You really need to do more than that before uploading it, because this makes no claim for notability, has little context, and tells us virtually nothing (obviously, psychology is taught in Switzerland, because it is taught in most countries). Until I saw the article, I was going to suggest RFF but it is nowhere near that level. As for leaving the project: there is little that I can say to make you want to stay, particularly since I do not know why you want to leave. WP is rather like real life: you sometimes meet people that you don't like, you disagree with them, or they are unpleasant. As with real life, it is perfectly possible to avoid such people, but doing so limits your range of experiences. As with real life, we have to stick by certain rules and guidelines, and some folk do it better and more happily than others. Like real life, it is sometimes possible to influence change if a change is needed. Or, you just don't agree with a particular way of doing things, but everyone else does, so you put up with it for the greater good, knowing that we cannot all be right all of the time. Thus endeth today's philosophy lesson. Adrian M. H. 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd personally CSD tag it, if I didn't think it would push you over the edge to retirement from Wikipedia. I do think we should try to keep as many wikipedians on as possible to better the project. If you have been in a conflict that has made you question your place on Wikipedia, you should try to move on.
As for more on the article, it would be more accepted if there was a notable difference setting Swiss psychology apart from the rest of psychology. I won't tag it right now, but there should be a major improvement. I can't really help, because I don't know a lot about psychology, but if you would like to have this page be kept, you should include that quality that sets swiss psychology apart. J-stan TalkContribs 00:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to stay, first. I did it due to all of the things I have going right now. I might do it in December, though. Second, Swiss psychology is notable because every country's psychology is notable for some reason. Also, though, I would like to start an article on chemistry in Switzerland, because apparently some form of research better then U.S. research goes on over there. Laleena 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you a few days to fix the article, but if it does not improve dramatically, it will have to be either speedied or sent to AFD, depending on its state at the time. If you are not able to make the necessary improvements, you should seek assistance at the drawing board. Adrian M. H. 00:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for staying. Secondly, what reason? Thirdly, Maybe you should take all that info and create a "Science in Switzerland" article. That would cover all the bases in an acceptable way. J-stan TalkContribs 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I went to the drawing board about science in Switzerland. It would be nice, though, if you could get me into a mediation coaching program, because I am interested in mediation. Thanks, Laleena 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To perform mediation requires an accurate understanding of policies, guidelines, methods and prevailing consensus. Anything less will make it difficult to form fair and informed judgments, particularly in more complex and less clear-cut cases. It is not for novices, to be honest. Adrian M. H. 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mgekelly too severe?

Resolved: I have noted it on Talk:Fortress Europe and therefore feel better.--Jidanni 04:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am worried that starting at User_talk:Mgekelly#Your_edits_to_Gout and below, he might be editing too severly. Jidanni 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit worrying. Most troublesome is that he's not even bothering with finding sources himself: his "I'm not an expert, therefore I can't track down references" excuse makes no sense. In the Gout article in particular, it's not even clear the statements he removed really were unreferenced. It wasn't all that long ago that referencing an article required nothing more than including a bibliography That's standard for any encyclopedia; none of them use footnoting as extensively as does Wikipedia, most not at all. (Which means that where an article is referenced up to standard, Wikipedia considerably better referenced than a commercial encyclopedia.) IMO, it's therefore going too far to cut out everything that doesn't have a footnote. We already de-list featured articles that were only referenced up to the old standard; removing all un-footnoted material is perhaps going too far especially when the editor who does so categorically states he's not going to look for references on his own. This is not necessarily improving the encyclopedia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For Fortress Europe 8942 bytes became 248 bytes... much content lost... a lose cannon whose user page says he wants to become an administrator?! Somebody please tell him to repair the damage. This just might be the tip of the iceberg. Jidanni 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think he will become an admin. Major shaking down of articles probably will draw negative opinions of recklessness. Secondly, might I just point out that the version before Mgkelly's cited no sources at all. He was probably just trying to stick to policy, but he probably should have discussed this before he made his edits. J-stan TalkContribs 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to disagree with the cut to Fortress Europe. Surely, if this is such a common trope, the article as written would have cited a few instances at least. Gout, on the other hand, is fairly well-referenced, with relatively few sections that could have used footnotes. These were deleted instead of tagged. I doubt the information that was cut was not reachable via of the given external links, but even if it wasn't cutting instead of adding {{cn}} doubles the work someone must do who wants to fix the article. I have a few sources right in my bookshelf from which I could have added a cite or two. (Henry VIII did indeed suffer from gout. This is so well known I find it hard to believe it's worth cutting instead of taking the minute or so needed to track down a cite. But it was.) But to do that now requires either restoring the original statements' entire context or finding some other way to work it in. A ridiculous amount of work by comparison. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. If we're going to create the full extent of human knowledge, we can't be deleting things left and right. J-stan TalkContribs 22:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You must have been looking at the wrong revison diff. Try [6]. Pre-slash it was all about

Fortress Europe is the term given (usually pejoratively) to the concept of the European Union efforts to keep non-EU goods, businesses and nationals out of the Union's twenty-seven member states.

(tons of bytes), and its talk page likewise. Post-slash it's like the whole concept was deleted from history. Wait, all one finds is "A song by Asian Dub Foundation about European immigration controls."

Anyways, I suppose most articles will disappear eventually if not defended 24-hours.

Perhaps one day I will click on Adolf Hitler only to find that it refers to oh. a song about a some past dictator.

Anyways, you young wippersnappers please do something. Old me cannot play battle of the clicks fixing things.

Jidanni 11:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you calling a young whippersnapper, kiddo? Don't even try to pull the "too old and tired" dodge around here.
Yes, I saw the old article. It might be correct. It might not be. Since this is the first time I've heard the phrase "Fortress Europe" used in this way, I don't know. Why? Because in an article almost 9KB long there's not a single reference! Come on, now. A bibliography, at least is called for. There weren't even any interwiki links to speak of, except for the Nederlander version (not even any other European versions!) which wasn't referenced either.
Quite arguably, cutting the entire article was the wrong thing to do, but in this case it's also arguably right. You want the article back? Then restore it -- but not before you add some references. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Bell errors

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the Joshua Bell page (violinist).

Josh has one son borm July 31, 2007. See his own statement of fact: http://joshuabellforum.com/jb/viewtopic.php?t=3877

His mother is not a a DR., either MD or PhD. She has a masters in social work.


johndburger (Wiki name) keeps changing it to "now children" and "Dr. Shirley Bell". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahmomma (talkcontribs) 17:07, 4 September 2007

That's all very well, but fora and blogs are not reliable sources and sources should ideally be independent, whether they are primary or secondary. In other words, you have to produce better sources than that in order to verify your claim. If the counter-claim is unverified, approach it from the BLP standpoint and remove unsourced claims without adding any poorly sourced claims. Heck, you need to follow BLP anyway, whatever you do. Don't forget to sign, by the way. Adrian M. H. 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How to resolve an edit dispute?

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Andy Murray (tennis player) article, JimmyMac82 is knowingly violating wikipedia policy. In the introduction Andrew Murray has long since been referred to as Scottish. This consensus was not only agreed upon and maintained, but follows wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29

JimmyMac1982 continues to violate the policy by referring to Andy Murray as British and removing all reference to him being Scottish, despite it mentioning in the article that Murray is also British. That is not to mention that Scottish actually infers British anyway. I am unsure how to report him for vandalism. I would appreciate some help. Thank you. Clydey 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Scottish infers Scottish; just because they're on the same island doesn't mean they're the same thing, that's synthesis of information. Secondly, I don't know what the problem is: Jimmymac1982 changes that he is Scottish to British, British to Scottish, or that he is both. J-stan TalkContribs 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Scottish does not merely infer Scottish. It infers British. As things stand, you cannot be one without being the other. The problem is that JimmyMac1982 is incessantly reverting him to British, despite it stating explicitly that Andy Murray is a Scottish tennis player who is the highest ranked British player. That is a fair compromise, since both are mentioned and neither are excluded.
GAH! Can you people please learn the difference between imply and infer? "Scottish implies British", it doesn't infer it. Sorry, but seeing them confused is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) was a proposal and is rejected (and I am familiar with its history, having been involved in those discussions). Actions in content disputes are not vandalism. Claiming otherwise and citing a rejected proposal does not help your case. If there is demonstrable consensus and his edits contradict it, you should take it to RFC. Adrian M. H. 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I am unfamiliar with how to properly settle these disputes. The fact is that JimmyMac1982 is doing everything he can to be awkward. The proposal states that the constituent countries take precedence. Why does that not extend to biographies. If we seek consistency, then surely it must extend to biographies. Clydey 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But the proposal's rejection makes it irrelevant and it cannot be cited. It is retained for procedural and historical reasons only. It was specifically about biographies, but as I say, that's moot now. Please check through Dispute Resolution, though be aware that a 3O is out if you have more than two parties involved, hence RFC. Adrian M. H. 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How can it be irrelvant if the rejection supports my case? Are we getting our wires crossed here or do you not recognise that the rejection of *that* proposal supports my view? Maybe I didn't word it right. I should have said the settlement supports my view, not the proposal. Is that clearer? Clydey 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It is quite clear thank you. Still not relevant. Proposal rejection indicates a lack of consensus in favour of one side rather than the presence of consensus in favour of the opposing viewpoint. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you were involved in those discussion, what side did you fall on, if you don't mind my asking? Call it ignorance, but I do not see how the rejection of that proposal does not support my view. JimmyMac1982 is following the guidelines of a proposal that was rejected. How can that not be a violation of policy if his actions were explicitly rejected? I appreciate your patience on this issue, but the idea that it is ok for him to follow a rejected proposal does not add up. Clydey 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent It is not OK for anyone to follow a rejected proposal, but if he has not cited it in his defence, then he has not committed that particular faux pas. I do not know how much clearer I can make this: Let us say, for example, that there is an argument A and an argument B. Some editors support A, which is covered by a new proposal, and some editors support B, which is already standard practice (but, like much of our standard practices, is not enshrined in print anywhere). In this situation, there is quite clearly never going to be a sufficiently large majority to form a consensus that supports the new proposal (A) while a significant number of editors still favour prevailing practice (B). But, once the inevitable happens and the proposal (A) is rejected, its supporters do not suddenly switch sides and favour current practice (B). Therefore, (B) does not have any more support by consensus than it did previously; it only has support by prevailing practice. Some of what we editors do is done not because everyone agrees with it, but because an insufficient number of people disagree with it in order to settle on an alternative. See? Adrian M. H. 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, check this page out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people
It states the following: A note on what people from this settlement are called, (e.g. people from Manchester are called Mancunians).
Does it not then follow that people from Scotland be referred to as Scottish? I am not trying to be awkward here, but that is separate from the rejected proposal and says essentially the same thing. Right or wrong? Clydey 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to be awkward? Really? Setting policy is most definitely not within the remit of WikiProjects. They do not get, or warrant, that kind of latitude. Whatever they agree upon is between their members and is always trumped by outside policy/consensus/practice. I am getting the impression that you think that I agree with this editor's attempts to influence the article in question, which I do not, but my opinion is not influential in your dispute and I was not comfortable with your earlier attempt to garner it with your question about my input in the rejected proposal. You can read its talk page in full, if you have the time and a steady supply of strong coffee. I am trying to help you and guide you here, but my patience is not limitless. I have already suggested the appropriate method of dealing with the dispute. Adrian M. H. 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And please try to use wikilinks; the URLs are distracting and can influence people's customised JS behaviour. Adrian M. H. 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual has removed my link and labeled it as spam.

Resolved: Not before time. Adrian M. H. 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Nate1481 removed my external link on Danzan Ryu for the Martial Arts organization Jujitsu America.

He has removed other links on wikipedia in the past as is evidenced by his talk page: User talk:Nate1481

He made no attempt to contact me prior to this as is Wikipedia's resolution process. I have since readded the link and I'm trying to figure out what I can do from here? Thx. User5802 21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not his responsibility to contact you, if you have an complaint. Returning the link without waiting for his response and discussing it was not the right thing to do. Adrian M. H. 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did he have the right to remove my link without discussing it with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User5802 (talkcontribs) 22:12, 7 September 2007
Because that is how we revert edits. BRD. Adrian M. H. 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree.

According to BRD (your source) the problem must be "Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made."

This is not what initially happened. I posted a useful link initially and the user Nate1481 removed my link.

Accoriding to Resolving_disputes, the correct procedure is to "try talking privately to those involved" User5802 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Which means you talking to him, not the other way around. You need to get acclimatised to our way of working, and then maybe you can seek a change through the usual channels, not simply demand that you be treated differently to everyone else. He removed your link because he adjudged it to be unsuitable, which does not require that he communicate with you without being contacted first. Neither does he have any particular obligation to explain it to you after your request, though it is polite to do so. Adrian M. H. 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a dispute, till probably about now... and you may want to look at WP:SPAM or WP:EL for as to why your link was removed. Gscshoyru 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, asking other users if this user has caused them trouble in the past is hardly the way to go about doing this. Please don't do that. Gscshoyru 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


According to your link WP:SPAM, "advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting")" would have to be the criteria for this. None of this occurred by posting one link to a reputable martial arts organization.

Show me where in wikipedia's policy it says I cannot discuss a problem I am having with other users? You are restricting the rights of all wikipedians and contradicting wikipedia's policy in the first place by saying this. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open forum where any topic can be discussed. I have a concern that a user is not properly following procedure by removing a link he simply wishes to label as spam. It appears now, that multiple individuals are simply siding with one another in order not to back down from something which is incorrect.

I have yet to see one reasonable explanation as to why www.jujitsuamerica.org is spam and why one of the largest organizations for Danzan-ryu jujitsu in the world is being removed from the wikipedia article of Danzan-ryu jujitsu. User5802 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying to implicate another user is an ad hominem attack--this is not about the user, but about the link you're trying to add. Whether or not he is a good user is besides the point -- and besides, since he reverts vandalism, you'll find plenty of people who dislike him. In any case, the organization you link to is not directly about the person, or even about Danzan-ryu jujitsu, as you say it is, as I can't find anywhere it says that. If it does, please show me where. Gscshoyru 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But it is not us or anyone else that you should be asking about why the link was removed. Only Nate1481 can explain his own reasoning, because none of us are psychic, and that is why you need to wait for his reply, if he provides one. About 1 hour had elapsed between your message on his talk page and your post here, which is way too premature. I have already made it clear that he does not have to provide an explanation (though he should, to be fair). You just need to be patient. No one is saying that you cannot discuss this, even though you are not doing so in the right manner. Adrian M. H. 23:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Gscshoyru, I appreciate your responses and you sound fair, so let me clarify "Danzan-ryu" is not a person. This is a style of martial arts. It sounds like you've been misinformed by someone as to what is happening here. Does the administrator Adrian M. H. also think this is a dispute about a person? If so, I'm a little disturbed that such little attention is being payed to the dispute at hand.

I'm not going to get into debating over an ad hominem attack. Let's simply agree to disagree that I was wrong in writing to other users who had problems with Nate in the past.

Adrian M. H. Who asked you to be a psychic? And do you also think Danzan-ryu is a person?User5802 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I misunderstood, the picture mislead me. However, this style is still not mentioned in the organization you linked to, so it doesn't belong as an external link -- if it is, please show me where. Gscshoyru 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(1)No, I am aware that this is not about a person. It is about a website. We get that. (2) Do not misrepresent editors as admins. (3) You, apparently, since you expect me to be give you an explanation for someone else's actions. I am not going to do that. If Nate does not reply (and it is premature to suggest that he won't) then bring it up on the article's talk page like you're encouraged to do. Adrian M. H. 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Adrian the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzan_Ryu is about a style of martial arts. I am not representing any editors. I do not want you to become psychic. I really can't make it any more clear than that for you.

Adrian M.H., you deleted the external link yourself? This is what I am looking for an explanation for. Do you simply do what Nate wants? Or did you research what you were deleting?

Maybe the below will help clear things up: Kodenkan Danzan-ryu was originally the name of the style Danzan-ryu. Kodenkan was the school's name in Hawaii, similarly to the Kodokan was the primary school of Judo in Japan. But no one calls Judo "Kodokan Judo" anymore. Please respond.User5802 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you not read the reply on my talk page??? It explains why I reverted your reversion. Now, I am done with you, because you are treading on WP:POINT. End of. Adrian M. H. 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand why User:User:Hu12 also deleted the external link. Do you know him? User5802 23:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we hang out together all the time and chat about how we can conspire to rid the world of inappropriate ELs. Of course I do not know him. What a ridiculous comment. He did not delete the link - he reverted you, as I did. Therein lies the distinction. Adrian M. H. 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not disrupting Wikipedia. I am simply trying to bring a good source to the public. I resent your sarcasm in not taking this discussion seriously by inserting "we hang out together all the time and chat about how we can conspire to rid the world of inappropriate ELs". I will write further on your talk page, I think that is a good idea. User5802 00:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved, the external link http://www.jujitsuamerica.org can now be placed in the danzan-ryu article.User5802 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing a reference for a copyright

Resolved: Article deleted by User:Jimfbleak three days ago. --Aarktica 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My article has been requested by another user to be deleted because of it being a copyright infringement. The article is now bare bones, because this is my first article and I'm having difficulty citing a reference to the Copyright information for my song that I wrote, produced, produced a video for, and is on my website, and the song is named, "Will Tamara Come". There is absolutely no copyright infringement; however, while attempting over and over to cite the reference to my copyright information for which I can provide you a copy, the reference was deleted each and every time. I truly need help in knowing how to cite a "Copyright" reference. I apologize for asking for this, but I searched through your FAQ's and all the information I could find and I could not get it to reference the copyright information.

The copyright data for "Will Tamara Come" is dated 6/9/06 and is Registration #SR 320-214. It is copyrighted with the Libraray of Congress and a copy of the copyright can be provided if you wish.

Thank you so much for you kind consideration in this matter and for your help.

Charles Kay Docrocker 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First, the obvious problems. By writing an article about yourself, you are at least committing a faux pas. See our guideline on autobiographies and conflicts of interest. It's far better to let someone else write an article about you, which will almost certainly happen if you're notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia.
I removed your protestations from the article, where they really didn't belong. That kind of thing in that much is what the article talk page is for. The hangon template should be placed at the top of the article, and your text should be included as a parameter of the template. Like this: {{hangon|The reasons why blah blah blah...}}. (Multiple lines are OK, just so long as you close it out with the double curly braces.) Precious Roy placed the speedy deletion tag, I suppose because he found identical text elsewhere on the web. That kind of thing is almost always a copyright violation. If the material was from your own website and you own the copyright on it (which will be true if you wrote it, whether it's registered or not) the best way to proceed is to include a notice on the site licensing the text under the GFDL, which is how all text on Wikipedia must be licensed. Then you can paste into articles here with no copyright issues. (There may be other issues, but it won't be copyright.) Alternatively, you can send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org using the boilerplate text so that we know exactly what you're licensing. Since it's text, you must use the GFDL where it invites you to "choose at least one" license.
At present the article is not slated for deletion since the offending text has simply been removed, so there was no reason to attach {{hangon}} anyway.
If the material was not from your website, then as long as the article itself is not unsuitable for Wikipedia then there's no problem with including the information. You only have to write it using your own words, not copying someone else's. Even if you're the subject, it's the writer that owns the copyright on a composition, and you have no rights to it.
The issue had nothing at all to do with the copyright on your video. I'm not sure why Precious Roy consulted ASCAP about it when the appropriate place to check is the U.S. Copyright Office -- perhaps over notability concerns more than copyright -- but it's really neither here nor there anyway. What are you trying to accomplish by giving out the copyright information on it? It proves nothing other than it's copyrighted, and we already know that without looking at a registration. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A deleted article

Stale: No further contributions from this editor. Adrian M. H. 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to retrieve shirlynmyles articles that was posted on 9/1/07 and deleted approx. 1:28pm on 9/2/07. I need to obtain the data asap. My email address is <rm per privacy requirements>. My phone <rm per privacy requirements> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirlynmyles (talkcontribs) 19:20, 4 September 2007

Please do not post personal information. Can I ask why you need to "obtain this data ASAP"? And would you be able to provide a wikilink of the exact article name so that I can see the deletion log, please? (Deleted articles are not listed in editors' contributions). Adrian M. H. 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Flugpo

Resolved: See post below. Adrian M. H. 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in having the article Flugpo considered for recreation. It has been greatly edited since being deleted and it now better meets Wikipedia's article requirements. I have posted the article in my sandbox User:Saracity123/Sandbox; please feel free to make any suggestions that could help further improve the article Saracity123 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First, a markup suggestion: To make a bulleted list, preface each line with an asterisk (*) not a middot (•) That makes a list with actual bullets and with line breaks where you want them.
I can't see this surviving as an article, frankly. There's no getting around the site's lack of present notability. This is very clearly reflected by the dearth of independent citations. Of the four sources cited, one is from the website itself, another from a Flugpo user's personal blog, another from a website whose stated purpose is at least partly promotional (it's hard to say what it's for, really), and the last is of no discernible relevance. Even that Ideamarketer article (by yourself?) which is written like a puff piece, says absolutely nothing to set Flugpo off from other online social networking sites. The only thing it really does is throw classified ads into the mix, but whether this is a good idea or not (or whether it's really all that different from craigslist) has yet to be shown.
I'm sorry, because I can see you really want to get this out there, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It needs to be successful first and in Wikipedia second, not the other way around. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, Flugpo has been deleted five times and has, quite rightly, been salted. The log can be viewed here. Adrian M. H. 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A frivolous deleter

Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just recently wrote my first wikipedia.org entry. I followed as many of the guidelines as possible, though I wasn't aware of a few, admittedly.

An highly experienced editor flagged my post for deletion. I notice, however, rule number one for disputes is to contact the party first. He did not do this. His original claim was my article was "non-notable," though it's the first innovation in photography since digital cameras came out 15 years ago. (My article documents how to create multiple exposures on a single piece of film with a disposable camera. 222 million disposable cameras are sold per year, so I do not understand how this is "non-notable.")

I disputed with him, and he changed his argument to my article lacked secondary sources, which I have now added.

When I visited his user page, and checked out his "discussion" thread, someone had left a note that this editor had *repeatedly* harassed him with *fake* vandalism warnings, and deletions of edits that he disagreed with.

This editor apparently has a history of provocation.

Is there any way to put his flaggings on hold? So that he cannot flag an article for a certain amount of time, like a probation, to teach him how to properly handle these matters?

Thanks for your feedback to a new wikipedia-er.

My article - bang! photography

Dnynumberone 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting any other behavioural issues aside for a moment, you appear to be confusing DR with deletion policy. We do not need to contact creating editors (I see WP:OWN as being somewhat applicable there, because creating editors do not have additional rights over articles) and we rarely do so when patrolling new pages for potential speedy noms. The templates suggest making contact, of course, but it is only a suggestion. Editors are expected to check their watchlists regularly. New page patrol is a speedy process, which is why we use things like Twinkle. Since this has been subject to an AFD nom, I don't see a problem; you have about a week to make the required improvements (if possible) and/or enter the discussion. Though please be sure to read the guidelines about AFD debates before doing the latter. Adrian M. H. 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Well, I have just read the potty-mouthed immature and policy-breaking comments that you made at AFD and the vandalism that earned you a well deserved block, and I am annoyed that I wasted my time and typing fingers to reply to you and try to help you. Adrian M. H. 10:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Determining whether a particular user is actually me

Resolved: --Aarktica 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to set up an account with the username "blay". The system responded that "blay" is already in use. I am wondering whether I was the one who set it up some time ago or whether it truly belongs to someone else. How can I determine that?

Thanks, Blay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.115.28 (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2007

At the risk of telling you the obvious:
  • are these edits ones that you are likely to have made?
  • have you tried signing in as Blay??
-- 77.96.109.167 09:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You can't really. I can only suggest that you find and view the relevant user page and check the contributions. If the contributions pattern matches you and if the user page jogs your memory, enter the name at the login screen and request a new password by e-mail. Assuming that you lodged an e-mail address. Don't do this if you are not 100% sure that the account is yours because it will give someone else a minor security scare when they receive the e-mail. I really recommend that you take the safe and simple route of choosing a new user name. WP:USURP is not appropriate. Adrian M. H. 09:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the "these edits" link. I didn't know how to do that and it answered my question. Blay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.115.28 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2007

How to deal with this article?

Resolved: --Aarktica 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I just stumbled upon this page - Dog Whisperer. Now The original article only dealt with the Program from NGC, but this guy has come and put details about his book bang at the top of it. Does this count as advertising? I'm a bit inexperienced.

Is it right for me to:

1. Remove that info, or 2. Move it to another page, or 3. Cut away a major part of it and move it to the end of the article

Its just that I'm not sure what is the right thing to do here. Some guidance please. Thanks vineetcoolguy 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The last option would probably work best. --Aarktica 12:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean this editor? He has made too many edits to make a reversion, so yes, manual editing will be required. Adrian M. H. 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help. Why should it not be removed or moved to another page? It doesnt deal in any way with the NGC program. vineetcoolguy 13:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I'm all for cutting it right out per your first choice. But like I said, it will be a manual task. Adrian M. H. 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Any mailto: link syntax shortcuts?

Resolved: Pretty well answered. Adrian M. H. 10:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In wikitext, does one really need to do the long drawn out

[mailto:username@domain.tld username@domain.tld]

in order to get:

Email me at username@domain.tld if importaint.

Jidanni 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have the "Enable e-mail from other users" option allowed in the preferences section, you can receive email from other users if they go to your user page and hit "Email this user" in the toolbox below the search box on the right hand side of the screen. I have never tried this, but I believe your email address remains anonymous. J-stan TalkContribs 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I have no worries about spam and wish the user to send directly. Jidanni 04:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case you can display your email if you wish, I've seen some users do that. J-stan TalkContribs 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was just curious if the syntax didn't have a shortcut. Jidanni 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You can always create a template, if you feel the need. It would look something like:
[mailto:{{{1|}}} {{{1|}}}]
and you could name it Template:mailto or something like that. Then, formatting your address like that would be as simple as {{mailto|myusername@mydomain.tld}}. But locating it in your userspace wouldn't save you typing, and posting email addresses is generally discouraged so I don't know how widely used it would be in template space. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

no comments to suggestion - implement or not?

Resolved: Consensus at WT:FA is against the change. Adrian M. H. 10:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, I brought up a suggestion for changing the layout of the topics on the Wikipedia:Featured articles page - on it's talk page. I didn't get any comments to this suggestion, so my first idea was, with no complaints, I should go ahead and change it according to WP:BOLD.

But then, it is one of the basic pages of the project, and one that has been around for a long time, and I was wondering if there are any special considerations before editing those? In particular, should I get more feedback before doing anything, and if so, what would be a good way to go about that, with no reactions from the talk page?

Frostlion 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, how long did you wait and receive no feedback? If it was a considerable amount of time, you could argue that "silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community". If you feel there was enough "exposure to the community", you could be bold and change it. J-stan TalkContribs 16:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I waited a bit over a week, with about 10 new topics and comments made on the talk page during that time. I'm not sure if that's enough exposure, so I just posted a reminder that I'll go ahead and change it in a week if nobody objects. Frostlion 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

edit keeps getting deleted

Resolved: No new incidents. --Aarktica 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I made an edit both yesterday and about a month ago to the world music page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music). I am adding a site at the bottom of the list to the directories and portals section. The site I am adding is worlddigibeat.com. Can you please tell me why this site keeps getting removed? The site focuses on 3 different world music categories (desi/bhangra, reggae, reggaeton), provides video, news and a lot more.

Why does my edit keep getting deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egvandell (talkcontribs) 13:55, 5 September 2007

I assume your 216.27.153.34 (talk · contribs). You may want to add it to the talk page for discussion before re adding. a cursory check would indicate it may not comply with WP:EL.--Hu12 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I add my own talk page, or use the one above that points to my IP?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Egvandell (talkcontribs) 15:53, 5 September 2007
I apologise for being unclear. You should suggest that you would like it added, on the articles (World music) talk page. This way other independant editors can decide/discuss if it is appropriate for inclusion. --Hu12 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me as if the site is being cut as spam. It's not an information source, but a music-related social networking site that seems to make its money from facilitating music sales of independent artists. So I'd call it inappropriate under the external linking guideline. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Visa (document)

Resolved: --Aarktica 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeking some outside eyes on this article. A dispute about the acceptability of an external link is in danger of spiralling out of control. A new editor responds to my comments with, bad faith personal attacks and accusations that I am being untruthful. They made a bunch of changes that were factually incorrect, changed the historical basis of the article and that were riddled with OR and POV. I asked them to source the changes, left them for 24 hours and only changed them after the editor admitted they had no sources. I'm now being attacked again, threatened with mediation and I'm tired of it. Before it gets messy could some experienced editors wander by and cast their eye over the dispute and offer an outside perspective? I think the new editor is taking my actions too personally and I'm hoping that having some extra input would help them understand the need to comply with our core policies. Also, if I'm actually acting like a complete dick having someone tell me would also be useful. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be increasingly typical. Try to follow the system and all you get is abuse. I have not investigated all the background as I type this, but if it is just between you and the other party, I recommend a 3O request. For more than two parties, an RFC is required. Adrian M. H. 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My experience of 3O is that it best works for pure content disputes and there are 2 1/2 parties. I'm hoping that some outside input will avoid the need for an article RFC. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, I have read through all that discussion now. Clearly, the link is unsuitable, based on your expert assessment of its content and you are right to leave it out. I see that two other editors came out in support of your position, which is welcome, but seemed to have relatively little tangible effect. I see from Shanebb's contribs that he is quite happy to remove other links from the article, so maybe there is a bit of a double standard there. I would offer my opinion at the article's talk page, but I cannot claim any knowledge of the subject, which I think would be advantageous in successfully persuading the other parties. Adrian M. H. 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Article: Bloodlines: Harry Potter

Resolved: Decision of AFD was to keep the article. --Aarktica 21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Has a tag reading (app) citations needed re: treating this topic as fictional (it is) but not linking to real world data for clarification.

I have no connection with the article at all, but having read it, it is quite clear - and quite correct as it refers to it's topic. No one with any background in breeding/genetics should have any problem following this material (and I do not think it really needs a sub-section on Mendel - gene splicing for those likely to read it).

If response or further details needed, I am <e-mail removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.250.122 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2007

What's the title of the article? J-ſtan TalkContribs 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No matches for the name provided, so I guess we'll never know. Never mind. Adrian M. H. 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is Blood purity (Harry Potter) which has been the subject of a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood purity) because it flies close to WP:OR. It currently contains {{synthesis}} {{Primarysources}} and {{In-universe/Literature}} tags because of concerns that the article does not follow closely enough the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), particularly "Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." The article does not explain or assert its notability, but appears to delve rather deeply into itself in the manner commonly termed Fancruft: "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." As such the tags appear to be appropriate in alerting both readers and editors to questionable aspects of the article that may need a cleanup. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abdel Bari Atwan

Resolved: --Aarktica 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for the highly respected Arab journalist and political commentator Abden Bari Awtan has unfortunately attracted the attention of contributors who wish to undermine his position for political reasons. The latest 'edit' contains several slanders - including alleged support for Osama bin Laden and a claim that Saddam Hussein funded Mr Atwan's newspaper.

These are extremely dangerous, completely unsubstantiated allegations and, as a professional journalist myself, I find it inexplicable that there is no filtering process to avoid this kind of attack of which the victim could, of course, be completely unaware. I have tried to edit the article on a number of occasions, including changing the spelling of his name which at present is incorrect transliteration, but these are immediately removed as new defamatory material is added.

I will edit the article again now but please advise me of what action can now be taken to ensure these dangerous slurs are not repeated.

Wikipedia is considered a trustworthy information source and it is surely in the interests of everyone that it remain so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalasim (talkcontribs) 09:54, 11 September 2007

I saw from your contribs that you removed a referenced statement from this article, which is likely to attract warnings. I recommend that you revert yourself and open a discussion about it. Adrian M. H. 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. The citations supported the quotations from the subject. However, the inflammatory, and possibly defamatory, coloring given to those quotations was not. Since there was little point to the cited quotes other than to provide context for the commentary, cutting them is at least arguably the right thing to do. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons favors aggressive deletion of badly sourced material and original research (i.e. editors' personal commentary).
There's no preventing this kind of thing in an encyclopedia that anyone in the world is allowed to edit. that's why we need volunteer groups like the Counter-Vandalism Unit and so on. The best thing is for knowledgeable people interested in accuracy to keep an eye on articles that attract this kind of thing and fix problems as they arise. Page protection is available for extreme cases, but that's an absolute last resort when it comes to articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My most recent properly referenced citations and quotes were indiscriminately removed by 'web hamster'. I have been reprimanded for removing a 'referenced' quote (even though it is not from a trustworthy source) for which I apologize and have now left the offending (mis)quote in place. However I must expect the same respect surely for my entries - one of which was a quote from the US PBS broadcast (the equivalent of the BBC)!!? I cannot help but wonder what hidden agenda is guiding 'web hamster' and 'Ice 77' that they feel they must portray Abdel Bari Atwan in an untrue and unflattering light. Do these contributors have any 'specialist knowledge' of their subject? I do, as a professional journalist who has often met and talked with Abdel Bari Atwan as well as reading all his editorials which are translated by the BBC monitoring service. Surely encylopedic entires should be created by people with specialism n the subject described? Please will somebody intervene and take appropriate action. This level of indisciminate vandalism bringing the whole Wikipedia project into disrepute. User Annalasim 10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You do not need any specialist knowledge to edit articles. WP does not make that kind of demand. Frankly, it is hard to tell who has issues with bias in this matter; we are only seeing your side of it, which primarily involves casting aspersions on the other parties. I will ask the other editors for comment. Adrian M. H. 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now requested comments from the two editors concerned so that we may get a fuller picture. Adrian M. H. 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPN would be a better place for this discussion. Basically User:Annalasim has been introducing POV and editorialising into the article in order to counter what he sees as unduly negative content. He claims that a quote sourced from the Jerusalem Post is incorrect but hasn't substantiated this. Any unsourced contentious material about a living person can and should be removed without discussion. However problems with properly sourced material need to be discussed on the article talk page or if that fails on WP:BLPN. Iceage77 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A perfect example of which is currently on the article's talk page right now. It was reported that Atwan was denied entry to Australia on the grounds of his attitude to terrorist organisations. It appeared that this was a false report but as it was discussed first it was never entered into the article. If either Ice77 or myself had an agenda to defame or denigrate Atwan then that would have been a perfect opportunity. Neither of us did as we both only have the intention of being accurate whether it puts Atwan in a good light or a bad one. We both leave Mr Atwan to provide the controversy. --WebHamster 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look at the relevant article by another editor who was concerned that Annalasim's edits were biased, disruptive and verged on vandalism. He/she was frequently making POV statements with no citations to back it up (e.g. the continued attempts to decry MEMRI: "MEMRI is not a reliable source" "it's a Zionist interest group" etc). He/she continually deleted swathes of text on that grounds that he/she didn't think it was right or that it was defamatory. When I came into the equation I attempted maintain neutrality and prevent an edit war. I've reverted and changed both Annalasim's edits and Ice77's in order to achieve a compromise. Personally I have no agenda or even an interest in the subject of the article. Prior to the commencement of editing I'd never even heard of him. I then went off and did research, some of which is in the article. The article history and diffs should speak for themselves. I edited and included any material that was sourced from ostensibly reliable sources whether it put Atwan in a good light or a bad one. As a public figure if his supporters don't wish to see his words in print then they should advise him to keep his mouth shut and not try to delete them once he's spoken them. Throughout the history of this article Annalasim has been pedantic, histrionic and biased. I've placed warning notices on her talk page twice for deleting sourced text and replacing it with unsourced editorialising and personal opinion. Just today I warned him/her that should he/she make any more of these edits then I would bring his/her attention to the administrators. Presumably this is Annalasim's attempt to forestall that. I am perfectly happy for any administrator to audit any of the edits I have done to that article and compare them to the edits made by Annalasim. The words will speak for themselves. --WebHamster 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you, for responding. It is pretty clear from your comments that Annalasim is not being as cooperative as he could and should be and lacks the grounds for pushing accusations of bias on your part. It is clear that you are working in good faith. I agree with you that a BLP noticeboard post, or perhaps a request for comment, would be an appropriate step towards resolving your dispute. Annalasim; I hope that you can work more positively and civilly on this article. Your intentions appear to be good, but you just need to take a different approach and collaborate better, I think. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

strange dispute concerning Covenant College

Resolved: --Aarktica 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to best sum up the dispute. Right now I and another editor Flowanda are in disagreement over some content in the Covenant College article, in particular the section titled "Accreditation non-compliance warnings and restoration". The issue as I understand it is that one of the citations refers to an official statement from Covenant College which was distributed via e-mail and appears only in that blog, which also happens to be my personal blog (which I give in my user profile, along with full disclosure of all my other possible conflicts of interest).

Third part input over the dispute was corrected, and he felt that in this situation it was not inappropriate to cite the "e-mail-within-a-blog", but only that the section needed to be shortened as not to give "undue weight" to that section in regards to the rest of the article.

The other editor, Flowanda, did not agree with this recommendation, nor with a later suggested resolution, claiming that his concerns were not addressed.

I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I feel like I've tried to drill down to the core issue, namely, is it ok to cite a blog that contains an official statement from Covenant College on a matter that has been determined to be noteworthy? I understand it's a tricky situation, as blogs are typically NOT acceptable sources.

Any help/guidance in resolving the issue would be appreciated.

Oh and, I'm in no way affiliated with Covenant College. I did attend there 5 years ago. Qmax 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if the issue is resolved, possibly. 2 of the 3 editors involved in the discussion are in agreement, and I think the third is also, but they seem to still be frustrated and may bring the issue up again in the future. I suppose we could make this matter as resolved. Many thanks. Qmax 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is more for technical help or assistance with editing. Disputes should go to a dispute-resolution organization. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Combat Controller - candidate for deletion

Resolved: --Aarktica 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not computer saavy, but am doing my best to construct subject Wiki. Wikipedia instructions overwhelm me and much of what I do is trial and error. So I often make mistakes.

FOR EXAMPLE: I always provide sources for the IMAGES that I upload, but quite often they are removed within twenty-four hours. Some times I reload them a half dozen times before the "UPLOAD TAKES".

Your assistance is requested to help properly format the Wiki and save it from destruction. I have put alot of hours into the project.

Gene Adcock Gene Adcock 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, images do not use sources as such; they use licenses and tags; get the wrong license and that is serious for obvious reasons, so they need to be removed. Leave the tag out and that is just as problematic. Is it actually the license tags to which you are referring? Upload an image that is copyrighted or something and that is even worse. Frankly copyright infringers should be nailed to something, but obviously, I have a vested interest in that, given the day job. I will comment on the other part of your query when I have gone away and snooped through the relevant pages/histories/etc. Adrian M. H. 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I just went to check your contributions in the usual manner and what should I see, but a user page masquerading as an article. Please take the time to read the User page policy and you will understand why this is up for deletion. Adrian M. H. 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OP seems to have misunderstood the purpose of this project. We're not here to "the collection and preservation of CCT heritage, history and exploits" or anyone else's for that matter where they are not suitable for a general encyclopedia.. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and its resources are not available for other purposes.
It seems clear that a wiki would be an ideal means to accomplish your goal, but you need to set up your own, on your own server. The software that runs Wikipedia is free and is available for download. If you don't have the technical skills to do set it up and run it on your own, try to find someone who is. You are likely to find someone like that among more recently discharged AF personnel, and no doubt one of them will be able to help you. Ask around at veterans' organizations. You would have the advantage of being able to host it under your own domain name, which will make it easier to find, and you will be able to operate it by your own rules. (Hosting costs, but is fairly inexpensive. It's not difficult to find web hosting that will probably suit your needs for the neighborhood of $5-10/month.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kraków

Resolved: --Aarktica 09:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help resolve an ongoing issue with User:Jotel (no user page) who's removing major parts of an article nominated by me for the FA status. I do not wish to engage in a revert war and yet, the user keeps on deleting paragraphs which I write in response to requests made by FA reviewers. His rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is followed by removals of virtually anything I write since my previous nomination. Here are his latest deletions including his edit summaries:

User:Jotel is poised to fail the nomination and has been adding his "oppose" votes in different parts of the nomination page (as if there were two or three of them). Here are some examples of his multiple "oppose" votes including his edit summaries:

I responded to user's actions with the thorough explanation of criteria in the following edit made to the first nomination page:

However, feeling trolled by User:Jotel I also stopped editing Wikipedia for a month, which I'm used to doing everyday. I'd like to thank you in advance for responding to my query with positive feedback. --Poeticbent talk 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure of what guidance you are looking for here. If you have been harassed/stalked/trolled, you could try posting at the administrators' noticeboard for further assistance. --Aarktica 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I’m not sure what kind of guidance I myself was looking for around here. Even though POV warriors like Jotel fall under the definition of trolls, generally speaking, checking on other editors and reverting their edits is not illegal. Most importantly though, User:Jotel has already achieved his objective which was to fail my FA nomination. I decided that I would leave it at that for the time, and take a well deserved brake. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk

Help me post a new article

Resolved: Editor moved article to Sharan Merriam. Adrian M. H. 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have written a new article as "User: Jeffhoffman1" on the topic of Sharan Merriam one of the most prolific writers in Adult Education. How do I get it to post. That doesn't seem to be an option anywhere on the page I have created. I believe that I have followed all instructions. Obviously I'm doing something wrong. Jeff Hoffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhoffman1 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 17 September 2007

I see that no one has welcomed you yet. I guess you must have been one of those that slip through. Creating new articles is a very easy process (a little too easy, actually). See Help:Starting a new page. But first things first. Before creating a new page, you should familiarise yourself with some of the basics, like notability, verifiability, No original research, etc. together with some of the other links that will shortly be on your talk page. I am a bit concerned to see article content on your user page; that is not what it is for and quite a lot of new editors post content inappropriately like this. Some of them use it as a form of spam, though I can appreciate that you are not doing this. Please be sure to move it to a sub-page (something like User:Jeffhoffman1/Drafts for example) or keep it offline. Most of the editors who create articles do so offline or in sub-pages and only upload them when they reach the required standard. Post here again if you need further assistance. Adrian M. H. 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

jann haworth

Resolved: No response despite requests. Adrian M. H. 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I posted a page on this artist yesterday which seems to have been deleted. As to her notability, please note that she was a leading member of the British Pop Art Movement in the Sixties, co-designed the Beatles Sgt Pepper Album cover, has been referred to in over 6 reference books on modern art, and has had 11 one person shows, with forthcoming shows in Paris, Rome, Salt Lake and Philadelphia. Her work is represented in 6 public collections and she has published several books on art for kids. There are 12 references to her in Wikipedia articles already. In light of these verifiable facts I trust you will restore the page. Richard Severy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severy (talkcontribs) 15:07, 17 September 2007

I have no say in the matter. As requested in the header instructions, can you provide the exact title of the article, please? I first want to see the deletion log before I advise you in any detail. Adrian M. H. 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unable to access new contribution

Resolved: --Aarktica 12:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I contributed an article headed Hossein Khan Sardar but when the heading is typed in the heading appears in red, i.e. no such article

KB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procivic (talkcontribs) 11:05, 22 September 2007

Actually, it seems that you created the article at Article Name: Hossein Khan Sardar before it was moved to Hossein Khan Sardar by another editor. What probably happened was a delay in the system which has been known to happen when articles are just created.
In any event, it appears to be available now. --Aarktica 11:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article on Rocket Engines

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been going through the article on Rocket engines and have found that it does not mention the momentum equation m1v1 = m2v2 or the generally accepted equation for thrust. F = ma . Without these two equations an article on Rocket Engines does not make sense. I had added a couple of sentences to the article to amend this situation but they were promptly deleted by the editor on the grounds that there was no reference. How do I handle this situation, how do I post a reference. if I post a reference will my edit then be accepted. Is a website an adequate reference. I find that the article in its present form is misleading, several people have actually quoted from the article with words to the effect that a rocket cannot be effecient unless it is moving as fast as the exhaust. See the section on performance in the same article. I feel that this is a situation that has to be remedied. DDjames 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See the FAQ for info about why edits are reverted. Broadly speaking, content must be verified. That means that you must cite your sources. Said sources must be reliable, etc. and you should provide as much detail as possible in the appropriate style. You could claim that F = ma, but unless you cite your sources, who other than someone with a knowledge of physics is going to know whether you are right? This info is only the basics, so you should read in full the policies and guidelines about verification, sources, and citations. Adrian M. H. 16:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you will probably see a lot of unsourced content around on WP. The two main reasons for this are: (a) it was added before we started to realise just how vital it is to provide proof and tightened up the policies accordingly, or (b) it was written by editors who did not follow said policies. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with an anonymous editor who does not follow guidelines

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 01:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am dealing with an editor who declines to create an account despite my requests, and shows limited knowledge of WP procedure. He is now finally engaging on the talkpage, which is a good sign. I have tried to provide strong and clear guidance, pointing to policy pages. I find his replies unhelpful. I warned him once for vandalism, with the lowest level template (on the article talkpage, as he has no user page). Can anyone provide constructive tips for dealing with this situation? Thank you. BrainyBabe 12:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As you noted, you efforts at dialogue appear to be working. Seeing that such is the case, I would simply suggest reviewing WP:DR for additional guidance on how to proceed. --Aarktica 12:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You should not have placed a user warning template on an article talk page: User talk:96.224.40.10 is the place for such things. Place it under a month/year section heading and state the type and level of warning in the summary. Otherwise, no one else will ever know that a warning has been given. Adrian M. H. 15:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, Adrian. How does that work? If the person doesn't have an account, how can a user page exist? Also, this person has used at least three IP addresses. Should I therefore create the warning in triplicate? BrainyBabe 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
IP user talk is how we communicate with and warn IP users. Dynamic IPs are just something with which we have to make do, even if it occasionally leaves us chasing ghosts. Blame the lack of IPs in the current build of the internet. Adrian M. H. 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Now done at User talk:96.224.40.10. Is it correct to also place it at the other two IPs, or would that be overkill? Thanks for your advice. BrainyBabe 16:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
More than overkill; it would be inappropriate unless separate incidents occurred in relation to the other IPs. One warning per instance, placed for whichever IP was used at the time, even if it is not used now (since we cannot normally be 100% certain that it is the same editor). This is important to bear in mind when scaling warnings levels because it is not usually appropriate to use, say, a level 4 warning when no lesser warnings have been issued recently for a specific IP. Adrian M. H. 16:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that's clear. Is there a template, or series of templates, you can suggest for future warnings, that would be more apt than just the vandalism ones? This editor has stopped reverting the article, which is a good thing, but is not following policy on the talk page (nor did he on the article page edits either). BrainyBabe 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I would advise against that; it is considered poor taste to do such (see don't template the regulars for an explanation.) --Aarktica 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with that essay, so thanks for pointing it out. The difficulty is that I don't know how much of a "regular" this anonymous editor is. I have no idea if he has edited other articles, for example. He doesn't seem to have read the basic policy pages. So some form of education is needed, and templates are a quick way of showing what he needs to read and abide by in order to contribute within the spririt of WP. Also, if he continues being disruptive, I want to show I have taken the correct step before requesting a block -- though I hope very much that it won't come to that. I just want to use the right templates specifically, and the right steps in general. BrainyBabe 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If we're talking about 96.224.40.10, then he has made (as of this posting) 6 edits since starting on 9/17. That, IMHO, doesn't qualify as a regular. I also believe that the "regular" being talked about in DTTR refers to logged-in users, but I don't know. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent It is accepted to be aimed at account holders; most IPs cannot readily be identified as "regular" and if this editor does not even know the fundamentals, I think that you are safe to assume that he is inexperienced and/or an infrequent contributor. WP:WARN for the full warning template package. Adrian M. H. 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...or Twinkle to make the whole process a lot easier. J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag without details provided

Resolved: --Aarktica 11:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bodies ...The Exhibition article recently has been tagged but no details of the objection were provided. There were some old sections on the discussion page that had made some suggestions, but the NPOV appeared separately. I made the edits suggested in the old posts. The person posting the NPOV doesn't seem to be interested in dialog. What should we do?

Thank you in advance Mom de guerre 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's at BODIES... The Exhibition, for the record. And the NPOV tag is most likely there because the criticism section of the article is more than twice as long as the rest of the article, which is probably far too much considering the guidelines for neutral point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your action was the proper first step. If you wish, you could seek a third opinion on the subject matter. Hope this helps, --Aarktica 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

black and gray work/ tattoo category

Resolved: Page has been cleaned up a little, and no further discussion has taken place. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

need help adjusting paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ta2man (talkcontribs) 03:11, 19 September 2007

In order to elicit the desired assistance, you're going to have to provide more detail than that. Adrian M. H. 11:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the user's contribs, it appears to be Black-and-gray. There isn't much there to adjust at present. ---- WebHamster 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I cleaned up the article a little, I think it looks better, more encyclopedic. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)