Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

fas-break

Resolved

 – No action taken regarding DRV. Adrian M. H. 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have read over your policies and want to make it known that Fas-Break has been a subject of numerous newspaper articles and even front page news. I can supply copies of these articles and a new one is even being written in Missouri as we speak. Does this warrant a second look at adding Fas-Break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soat (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the use of the phrase "second look", I conclude that this was probably deleted. Which article are we talking about? Find it, then type the name of the article between pairs of brackets ([[ ]]) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is what is being referred to... Special:Log/delete&page=Fas-break ---- WebHamster 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah-hah. Well, if you are in no way affiliated with the company, you should go to WP:Deletion Review. Editors will form opinions as to whether they endorse the deletion, or whether the community should overturn it. Read up on Wikipedia's deletion policy just to make sure that it should really be overturned. The article appeared to be deleted because it was spam, so maybe instead of going to DR, you could recreate it as an encyclopedic article. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sean Parker Perry

Resolved

 – The article was speedily deleted. ---- WebHamster 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above article has been deleted TWICE by editors doc glagow and mike33

The member submitting the page gayboy_ds is acting in a malicious manner and has been advised by wiki previously.

Please delete the article

the Rockin Dave taylor was removed as being copied from another website. They actually copiedfrom my website. www.midnightrock.eu and I am the legal owner of the article. How do I reinstate the article?--88.18.196.224 10:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stella Slver

• I've put a CSD notice on the article. The article's subject doesn't actually meet WP:BIO anyway and given the undue weight of the criminal allegations I'd say it was also a breach of WP:BLP too. Also given its CSD/AfD history it's a slam dunk for being got rid of.---- WebHamster 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article has now been speedy deleted. ---- WebHamster 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Mike33 would not have deleted it because he is not an admin. He may have nominated it. Adrian M. H. 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

nevermind

Resolved

 – Sort of. Adrian M. H. 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel my last two blocks where unfair. (I know, everyone says that, huh?) No really, they were. The last block I received was for 3 days!! and was done by an admin that was involved in a content dispute. I was blocked a day later after my edit. I think it is unfair that an admin involved on an article, and then the reviewing admin looks at my block log and uses it against me. The first incivilty block was reported by a self-proclaimed racist and troll. Blocked by Jimbo Wales himself. I believe that block should be removed from my record, because it was used against me in my recent block by an admin with a conflict of interest. How do I go about defending my blocks so they will not be held against me in the furture? Also how do I report a admin who has abused his power by blocking me? TIA. Jeeny 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you haven't been blocked. Don't worry, same thing happened to me once. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not blocked now. How would I be able to post here if I were? I'm asking how to not let them be used against me in the future. this is my block log Jeeny 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny: you need to remove the personal remarks from your talk page before someone else removes them and/or files a report. Accusing other editors of being racists is totally unacceptable, which should be obvious, but apparently isn't. That sort of attitude probably contributed considerably to the previous blocks. Adrian M. H. 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Um, that's the point. They are self-proclaimed racists, and white supremacists. They have been banned for it. Racist is not an insult or personal attack, in this case. My god, it's a fact. Wikipedia is not censored, right? I guess you didn't look at User:Fourdee's contributions. I was insulted by his racism, so were many others, and Jimbo Wales banned him. Jeeny 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of all the details, but that does not give you the right to perpetuate bad behaviour by proclaiming editors to be racists on your talk page. May I point out that you made a sweeping generalisation in the very first line and did not even restrict your unnecessary comments to Fourdee. If you cannot see how responding to bad conduct with bad conduct in turn is unproductive and antagonistic, then it is not at all surprising that you got blocked. That kind of attitude is inevitably going to have a negative effect on other editors who come into contact with you and potentially prejudice your dealings with them. Sometimes, you can get further (in WP as in life) by mollifying people and not reacting negatively to a negative situation. Adrian M. H. 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.... two wrongs do not make a right. That makes you the flip side of one coin. The answer to bullying is not bullying. Your user page seems to say you are "on" to anyone not agreeing with you. That kind of attitude sends the message that you are on a witchhunt, not to contribute to an encyclopaedia. If you are looking for trouble, you are bound to find it. This says more about you than the people you might be going after. Self-righteousness causes toxicity in the air. If you believe that Wikipedia is "fascist" and the "joke of the internet", it might be time to take a break to explore other things. 205.212.75.97 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative technologies paragraph on Binary Economics

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I please have some help arbitrating on:

Binary_economics#Uses_of_Central_Bank-issued_Interest-free_Loans

regarding the paragraph on 'alternative' technoligies, some of which violate the laws of physics as mainstream science accepts them. There's a whole lot on the talk page at the bottom.

88.108.136.7 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like some basic dispute resolution, go to the mediation cabal. EA is about helping with problems some are facing, but there are many dispute resolution "professionals", if you will, to help in this area. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American Artist Notibility

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a new editor and a fledgling art writer, having contributed to several American Artist profiles among other things. I'm trying to resolve conflicts with this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Downes (an artist whose catalogue was sent to me from a gallery and whose work has received much attention).

I ran into obstacles in trying to expand it because the edits were repeatedly re-edited or deleted entirely and for no reason. There is an ugly 'talk page' rant by Fountains of Bryn Mawr that discontinued and returned with similar rants and meaningless edits from RoXbo. One message accused me of being a sock-puppet and being another editor.

I explored the history of the later user, and realized that this user applied a notability tag and seems to be attacking the artist and anyone who edits or tries to expand the information, going as far as to deny the fact that she has a family. There seems to have already been a vote on the page and this is not enough, so this has gotten personal and very nasty. No other article I've edited/expanded has gotten negative response.

As an art history graduate, I feel I have so much to offer Wikipedia but now I'm afraid to log into my account because of the hate mail I'm receiving from RoXbo.

Is there a way to block the user, or a way for me to handle this issue? I don't feel that I can communicate with this person and expect a rational, non-objective response.

Thank you for your time.

Annlanding 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)AnnLanding

Well, if you would like serious action such as blocking to take place, you might want to post on WP:ANI. Until then, remain cool, assume good faith, and remain civil. That way, when you make the report, you will be blame-free. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I also add that you appear to be the unconstructive editor here. The comment on your talk page lashes out at FoBM and others who are editing the page in a way you see unfit. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the user talk has been deleted. The intention is to be constructive and expand articles according to the five pillars of wiki wisdom!Annlanding 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)annlanding

And I'm saying that comments like "Are you an art expert? No. Are you a bully? I think so. Are you biased against young talented women? Perhaps" are unconstructive. If you would like to be respected because of your "expertise" on the matter, you should go to Citizendium. But this is Wikipedia. We do not go by unpublished statements by "experts", only reliable sources. We also have a code of civility. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice clarity J-stan. Annlanding also falsely signed my username to an attacking comment on his/her discussion page. This is clear as the edit history clearly shows it was Annlanding who placed the edit which added my username signature (see below)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annlanding" This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Annlanding (Talk | contribs) at 01:27, 23 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision: "This is a response that I called you meat puppet. This is not junior high school and stop being obsessed in your little loser life with people who don't give a bugger about you. Move on to Marmalat.ROxBo 15:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annlanding"

This is 100% Annlanding's comment (deceivingly labelled), not mine. I believe this reflects a lack of integrity on behalf of this editor. Nonetheless this has been a very unconstructive time, time to let it go from my end. But for the record there has definitely been no hate mail, and the refered to notability tag for Doris Downes was put on by User 69.72.2.72, 26th MarchROxBo 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is sadly not the first occasion on which I have seen an editor make a claim and get caught out by the simple task of checking diffs. She has obfuscated her history of warnings as well [1] [2] which really ought to be discouraged by a guideline (but isn't). She has violated NPA with this edit. [3] shows another removal and the mis-attribution to which RoxBo referred. Then she has the nerve to ask for civility [4]. I think Annlanding has used up her allowance of good faith. I have not looked into the possibility of sockpuppetry, but if you have good evidence, you should raise it at ANI. Adrian M. H. 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Samael Aun Weor article

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have come to ask for external help regarding a dispute on the Samael Aun Weor article. An editor showed up a while ago and started adding material that was POV and unreferenced. This is pretty expected from a new user, and I and another editor on that article tried to explain to that particular editor why his edits were not allowed on Wikipedia and direct him to the relevant policies and guidelines. We have since then several times tried to explain to him, but apparently he does not listen or does not want to understand, because he has repeated those edits several times, claiming that he is right. It would be helpful if someone that is not involved in the subject could give an unbiased opinion on this. The editor in question is Bluemanang and also uses the IP 207.164.192.115. The sections that are disputed are mainly "Official organisms and dissenting organisms" and the headings under External Links which are currently reverted but that can be found in the reversion history. Please ask if you need any more information. Thank you in advance, Anton H 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out this. He doesn't understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't an organization, and he treats it like a bureaucracy. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't seen that. Anton H 10:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted, so no one else can :) He appears to think the administrators are an actual administration, and that you are trying to infiltrate the organization. I assume you have little affiliation with a spy company involved in infiltrating the Wikimedia Foundation, so he's probably just confused. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I hope that he will come to his senses and stop his reverting, otherwise I'm going to ask an admin to block him, it seems to be my only choice at this point. It's sad that it has to come to this though. Anton H 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article natural logarithm I had inserted a passage illustrating that the "common," or base-10, logarithms are not the simplest or most natural variety. To drive home the point, I wrote "the only thing special about 10, after all, is the evolutionary accident that it happens to be the number of fingers with which most humans are born." Twice now that comment has been reomoved—by anonymous editor(s) and seemingly on creationist grounds.

I do not wish to war, or to violate 3RR. I'd be happy to take the issue to talk:natural logarithm, but if I leave the deletion standing, is there any reason to expect the deleter(s) to join the discussion? Is it not verging on cowardice to delete anonymously? (I'm trying not to impute ill will to other Wikipedians...) If I don't leave the deletion standing, is there any reason to expect the deleter(s) to join the discussion, rather than just deleting again? If a consensus is reached, is there anything to keep the minority from ignoring that consensus?

For background on my view of the substance of the matter, yes, I imagine I could be persuaded to leave the deleted passage out. But the deletion weakens the impact and muddies the point that there's nothing special about the number 10 (beyond a cultural convention), whereas there's a good deal that's special about the number e, and that's why the logs to that base are called natural.—PaulTanenbaum 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The history appears to show that you provided only one reference for your additions, but does that reference adequately cover the entirety of your additions? Could the other editors have taken it as unverifiable and/or original research or thought? I am not keen on the essay-like tone of the writing in that article either, which your additions only perpetuated. A more positive contribution would have been made by rewriting the affected prose in a properly encyclopædic style. With regard to edits and reversions: As the mantra goes, it's "bold, revert, discuss" rather than "bold, revert, bold, revert, bold, revert" so you would help your position by being the one to open a dialogue and see what comes of it. I cannot really criticise those reversions. Adrian M. H. 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. Open the dialogue is what I shall do.—PaulTanenbaum 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase referring to an "evolutionary accident" is the only phrase that has actually been removed twice. And it should be removed per WP:NPOV. It has nothing to do with those "creationists", it's that the article should not appear to favor either viewpoint. What remains of the same phrase still gets across the same message. Reswobslc 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Distillation

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

My name is Karl Kolmetz - I have 7 nationally published distillation articles - 5 in Oil and Gas Journal

You were asking for additional content - I went and added some content (twice)

One of your friends Milton Beychok has decided to block my comments

You may wish to contact this gentleman.

Thanks Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkolmetz (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• This was done because the only thing you added/contributed to the article was a link to your own website. ---- WebHamster 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of my depth

Resolved

 – Listed at BLP noticeboard; attended to by Jossi. Adrian M. H. 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Help. I've strayed into an edit war.

I came into conflict with users User:Bugeyewoodchuck and User:Biggish_Bertha with them reverting my edits of article Brian J Ford. I'm not a very experienced user so I did some reading of the help pages and tried to discuss things, this was met with rudeness. I didn't think my edits were anything outrageous, but I posted an rfc to try to get some other views. No result. I gave up trying to make any useful edits and just reinstated the pov and newsrelease tags on the page, which they kept blanking.

Now they've been editing my user talk page, talking about embarking on some kind of vendetta against me. Which isn't very nice!

Were my edits awful? Have I been naive to expect a community involvement in the dispute? Are there any good ways to get these users off my back? Any advice much appreciated! Andy Farrell 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be my day for trawling through diffs. I have examined every edit to your talk page and every edit to the article since you first edited it, and my head hurts! For now, I will just ask whether you have raised a post at BLPN because the article does not adhere to the BLP policy. Adrian M. H. 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your hurty head. No I've not been near BLPN, hadn't found that among the masses of help pages out there. Andy Farrell 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it a go and see what comes of it. Certainly, this article needs some outside attention. I'll keep an eye open for proceedings and you're welcome to come back here whatever the outcome. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Andy Farrell 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wild Adventures Price list sections.

Resolved

 – Section has been removed from article. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am need someone helps to resolve some confusion on Wikipedia Policies and Guild lines that has been going on here at Talk:Wild Adventures.

The article in discussion is Wild Adventures in the sections of Wild_Adventures#2007_Concert_Series, Wild_Adventures#Pricing including its subcategories. The problem is it seems to written like an advertisement but does not have any external links for those sections, so it does not seem to violate WP:Soap and WP:NPOV. We found a policy that might allow it at WP:NOT#DIR under section 4., stating that if they can be sourced it would be acceptable. The other person stated that he can source those prices.

So are these sections that I listed acceptable or not. IF they are or not tell me which policy's allows them or not. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned section 4, WP:NOT#DIR, which states "prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention." Also, see CSD G11, which states that blatant advertising as an article should be removed, and I believe this is relevant for this section. I don't think they should be included. I don't see how you could fix that without it reading like the blatant advertising it reads like now. See as a benchmark Six Flags. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Independent perspective required

Resolved

 – 3O provided by HelloAnnyong. Adrian M. H. 19:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Mo Foster article an edit war is currently building up between myself and another user. The basis for this is bad faith emanating from an article I referred to AfD which was subsequently deleted by consensus. This other user is now following me round WP reverting, deleting and commenting on my edits. This has now appeared to have come to rest on an article on which I am the predominant editor (although I didn't create the article), i.e. Mo Foster. This other user (details are on the article's talk page) maintains that the personal info section of the article is in direct contravention of WP:BLP and as such has deleted it in its entirety several times now. He maintains that it wasn't sourced. I have now sourced the relevant sections and now the other user contests the sources and is making comments that imply bad faith on my use of the sources. His contrib history and talk page (and history as he deleted several vandalism warnings) will attest to the fact that he is wiki-stalking me. He is currently attempting to distract attention by appealing for 3rd party opinion, the problem is that he is only doing so on the article talk page. I rather doubt that this article is in anything more than a wiki backwater, so I am taking it a logical step further and bringing it to more public attention. Many thanks. ---- WebHamster 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It has just been listed at 3O now. We'll see what comes of it. I probably won't be able to take it myself, though, due to time constraints. Adrian M. H. 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Are these links spam? Is this device notable? Does it belong here?

Resolved

 – You're welcome, Cliff. Adrian M. H. 10:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing links to a rather odd-looking device with only 94 Google hits here. Thoughts? --CliffC 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cliff. I think that's pretty blatant product promotion. It fails the spirit of WP:EL and the letter of WP:NOT. Adrian M. H. 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the edit-summary sound bite. --CliffC 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Forms on the Wiki

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 21:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello:

At the large telecommunications company for which I work, my department has created a private wiki for our use. I've been tasked with creating a form on the wiki in which we can capture data and then save it. Further, the form needs to generate and send e-mail messages.

I would truly appreciate and guidance you can give me on this.

Thanks so much. Smtaggart 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)S. Taggart

This is not a question for EA, but one for MediaWiki, assuming that you are using MW's Wiki software. If you are using another form of Wiki software, then they will not be able to help at all. Adrian M. H. 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

request for translation from Russian to English

Resolved

 – User pointed in right direction J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way we can confirm a translation of a few words? There is a 1930 Soviet social realism poster currently used at Breast#Disorders. User:Snowman has pointed out that we are accepting the stated English translation on good faith, and has suggested that we obtain another view of the Russian text that appears on the image. Can anyone point us towards an trustworthy editor (ie a good reputation) who is capable of this task? Thanks. BrainyBabe 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello BrainyBabe, You can request your translation at the Translation page. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am creating an article but I need to make a change to the article name.

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I change the name of my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreambuildersco (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Right next to the "History" tab, you should see a "Move" tab if you are logged in. Go down to the box "to new title" and change the name. Type in your reason, but before you move it, make sure all the redirects go to the new title. Hit "Move Page" below the boxes, and then you're done. By the way, it isn't "your" article. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After 96 hours, of course. Adrian M. H. 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation..... Adrian M. H. 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania dispute

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

hello , Im currently in dispute with a poster named Mike.lifeguard, who says he's an editor at wiki, over the article about the RMS Lusitania. I've had a line of dialogue in the article for nearly a month until he started messing with it. The dialogue is this: "Two previous non-Cunard steamers had held the name Lusitania and both were lost tragically". This dialogue has been in the article for a month or so and is reference from Frank Braynard and William Miller, two experts on historic liners. Editor or not he should not delete info that he knows nothing about. And I put the info in the body of the Lusitania's history because I didn't want to start a trivia section per the guidelines. yours sincerely User:141.161.98.98

• According to the talk page the sentence you added was removed due to being unsourced/referenced and that it didn't belong in the paragraph where you put it. Have you tried getting into a dialogue with the regular editors to see what can be sorted? BTW I reformatted your signature above so that it fits in with normal usage. ---- WebHamster 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't remove the line [5]; I'm just suggesting that you discuss changes on the talk page (per policy) and that if you can't manage to do that, then you'll be referred to the admins. Since you couldn't abide by WP:3RR, you've been reported [6]. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

John Frusciante guest appearences

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 23:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A year before I expanded a section in this article, with every track that John recorded with other artists. Like any other artist, I think that it could help in the knowledge of a discography. Then... a guy who only wanna know if an article is 'featured' or not came and deleted all this section. At first he said that there is no citations, then, after I made citations, he send me a message talking about other 'featured' discographies that doesn't got a 'guest appearences', and then, deleted again. His message:

Please do not re-add the information. It is an unencyclopedic blob of nonfactual information. Hilary Duff discography, Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography, Natasha Bedingfield discography are all Featured Lists of solo artists that do not contain a "guest appearances" section. NSR77 ^T_C 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My english is poor, i'm not the kind of guy involved in the wiki like this guy, but everything i can do here is a pleasure. So... Thank you.--César 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My initial impression of your description is that the other editor is doing what we all should do; use the benchmark. It is not that he cares only about FAs; it is that he quite rightly wants any article with FA potential (ie, a large percentage) to follow the standard. I'm sure that you are aware of the need and preference for a certain amount of consistency throughout the project. Adrian M. H. 12:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed with deleted page, that I need to dispute.

Resolved

 – Well answered, but editor has not listed it at DRV. Adrian M. H. 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding this site extremely difficult to navigate and need some one-on-one assistance. I posted an article regarding a book swapping site named Frugal Reader. There is an already existing article about a similar site called Paperback Swap. I'm not sure why my Frugal Reader article was considered spam, advertising or what-have-you and the other article was approved, but I'm unable to set any kind of tag to dispute the deletion.

I'm a new member/user of Wikipedia and would really like to get this resolved. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvnsnow (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are 2 articles you should be aware of, the first one is WP:WAX which should answer your "well there's another article..." point. As for resurrecting the dead, please look at WP:DRV. Incidentally, please get into the habit of signing any comments you leave as no-one knows who's asking the questions/making the statement. ---- WebHamster 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cynthia Gouw" page says it reads like a resume, but I disagree respectfully and ask for assistance

Stale

 – Article has not received any further attention. Adrian M. H. 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Folks,

The biography on the Wikipedia page under my name "Cynthia Gouw" has been reportedly very helpful for community organizations who use me for community events. They just take my bio right off the Wiki page for their printed event programs.

But it is also discouraging to see that my article "reads like a resume" and is "orphaned". I'm trying to change that. But I am unsure how because your instruction page is quite difficult to navigate.

In my humble opinion, the article seems to be written in a very neutral fashion. Respectfully, I don't think it should be labeled as "written like a resume". I would very much appreciate it if you could review it. I'm very open to suggestions on how to change it, and very much welcome your advice. I've seen other biographies on people who are in my similar profession (Dale Hansen, sportscaster) that are clearly slanted, but they aren't labeled as "this looks like a resume".

Also, I am discouraged that the article seems orphaned, which I am unclear of what that means. "Katherine Creag" or "Wayne Freedman" bios seem similar to mine, however theirs aren't labeled that way.

I would greatly appreciate any advice or any consultant I could talk to. I am also prepared to compensate someone for their time and effort to assist me.

Many thanks for your consideration, time and help,

Topwinggirl75.196.10.189 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cynthia. Welcome to Wikipedia! The article on you isn't bad as far as neutrality is concerned, but it doesn't read like a biography. The way the data is organised by category does seem like a resume. You might try checking out some WP articles on other newscasters and models in order to get a feel for what your WP article should look like. Dan Rather, Cindy Crawford, Barbara Walters, Bill Moyers for instance. As for the 'orphan' tag, links to your article need to be added to relevant articles. Maybe do that after your article has been improved. And I assume you are already familiar with the thin ice of Wikipedia conflict of interest? This applies to folks editing articles about themselves. It's not forbidden, but it must be done with care. Consider just commenting on the talkpage of the article with your suggestions for improvement. Or, if you wish to do a complete re-write, post it in your userspace for evaluation by other editors. And finally... When outside people and agencies use WP content it must be credited. I hope your associates are doing so? Good luck and happy editing! Anchoress 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mugabe page

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 10:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

While I realise you must be very busy, I wonder if it would be possible to take a look the entry on Robert Mugabe? I afraid it's turning a bit thingy.

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

TB77.101.75.15 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, might I say you have quite extensive contribs. Have you considered creating an account?

Second of all, your edits to the page appear to be biased. Wikipedia is neutral. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Help uploading a file

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 10:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have created an account with you to try and upload a file. I thought I had successfully done this, however, I am having difficulty locating the file - please can somebody call me <removed phone number> to talk me through where I might be going wrong.

The file is in PDF format and it titled Red Hot Roulette - I have since tried to upload it for a second time and the site tells me that a file with that name already exists, however I cannot find it anywhere.

I would really appreciate it if someone can please get back to me today at some point.

Many thanks

Natalie Stack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.137.59 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't accept PDFs, so that's the biggest issue first of all. File upload is intended for images and some other media files. Adrian M. H. 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Flugpo

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 10:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in having a page added to List of social networking websites as I feel it is relevant to the topic. The article can be located here User:Saracity123/Sandbox. Saracity123 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a sense of de ja vu. You could add a mention of Flugpo in that article, though you should make sure that you provide a reliable and independent reference source. To do otherwise would be to perpetuate the problem that currently afflicts that list. Adrian M. H. 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Breach of revert rule and NPOV propaganda - Article on Abu al-Walid

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please inform me the way to deal with this issue? I have discussed it but the person who wrote the article originally seems to think no one has a right to change it. They have reverted it four times wthin 14 hours too. Can the page be locked, or a third party to use logic and neutrality to resolve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should use reliable sources; as such, I think any content that could be challenged should contain appropriate references. Also, as you may very well be aware, OWNership of articles is frowned upon. In any event, I would encourage you to keep the dialogue going. You may want to try WP:30 as well. --Aarktica 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing for Petition Project

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 10:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

I am the director of the petition project. I edited your posting because I know, from first hand personal knowledge, that many of the allegations in the posted text are false. The edit I submitted was immediately rejected. These false statements are demeaning to me and the to other scientists who work on this project and are harmful to our work.

While the Internet contains numerous false statements about this project that have been posted by its opponents, these false statements should not appear on your site.

The text I posted is truthful and correct.

I very strongly object to the continued posting of a libelous description of my personal work.

Art Robinson BS,PhD (Caltech and UCSD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page William M. Connolley 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Truth" is often a subjective concept, and without being in possession of all the facts, we are not necessarily in a position to judge "the truth"; we therefore have to put the quantifiable qualities of verifiability and neutrality ahead of everything else. WP:FIVE. Without introducing undue weight, all WP articles have to strive to report any and all available information (with a very few specific exceptions) that has been published in primary and secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. In other words, if you go around removing referenced material, expect a warning template, and if you want to contest unreferenced material, you should always follow due process. Adrian M. H. 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:COI. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with page vandalism

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 10:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Edgewood, New Mexico entry has been vandalized several times by an anonymous poster with IP address 68.35.156.158. I'm the author of the original content, except for the "standard" geographic information. The content is apparently politically motivated, contains false accusations against public officials, and is not appropriate to a "municipal information" type entry.

What is the procedure and/or process for dealing with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:REVERT, WP:VAND, and WP:WARN for the low-down. And WP:3RR (because I actually saw someone claim recently that reverting vandalism is restricted by 3RR, which it is not). Please don't forget to sign your comments. Adrian M. H. 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hope that edits such as this one are not what you are referring to as vandalism, because that is a content dispute. Edits such as this are vandalism. Adrian M. H. 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had to remove the "content" (I use the term very loosely) that you added in this edit. This is obviously completely unsuitable for article space. If you want to make comments, that is what the talk page is for. Alternatively, if you want to add a brief and informative hidden comment into a certain section, you can do so. Adrian M. H. 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and attention. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, and still learning the ropes. I suppose this sort of thing is inevitable, especially given the strong feelings that tend to accompany these local "debates." Your comment here gives me a much better understanding of the difference between "article space" and "talk space." I'm still trying to figure out how this can proceed to mediation, etc. if the other party is posting anonymously; I'd really like to keep the "pedia" in Wikipedia for this article.Weckerleje 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As editing issues go, this is small and routine, so mediation is not on the cards at all. Since no discussion has taken place, no form of DR is appropriate. If the content that you consider to be unsuitable is added again, try to rewrite it: condense it down into one short paragraph that merely reports the issue without any inflection and find references to support it. Of course, that is what the anon should have done in the first place, but that's life. Remember that "neutral" does not mean "devoid of any negative content". It would be pretty tricky to write certain biographies otherwise! Academic now, but you could have applied escalated warnings from the first occurrence using {{uw-npov1}} or {{uw-unsor1}} onwards, or left a more explanatory talk page note in your own words. Adrian M. H. 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your willingness to bring me along on all this is greatly appreciated. An interesting aside: I looked at the vandalism example you provided, and checked out that IP address's other edits, a large majority of which involved similar vandalism of a wide variety of Wikipedia pages. I traced the IP address, and it turned out to be a server at one of the local high schools. The school administration is looking into it.Weckerleje 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. You can add {{SharedIPEDU}} to the IP's talk page so that other editors will be informed. See the template's talk page for info. Adrian M. H. 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mark Twain Intermediate School 239

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing format:

• < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&action=edit&section=new >.

Thank You, Hopiakuta 02:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll need a little more information than that. Thank you. J-?tan^Talk_Contribs 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I, literally, do not comprehend that.

I could interpret that as evasive, that you do not want to go to that page.

Or, I could guess that you mean that directly, & that you want me to copy & paste half of a discussionpage.

That would lead to my pasting the paragraph that I dispute,.... Then, I would need to paste the entire page that that references,...

Or, I could oversimplify the problem,...

Well, to do that is to say that:

"No one @ that school knows how to spell anything."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&action=history >. Hopiakuta 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to, wastefully, paste all of those pages here?? Hopiakuta 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be helped, you can start by revising your signature; the current form is, in a word, distracting. --Aarktica 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Making remarks like "...No one @ that school knows how to spell anything..." is rude, unhelpful, and could be considered disruptive. Unless you can provide reliable sources for such claims, that could be considered libelous conduct. --Aarktica 05:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, inferring that J-Stan is being evasive when he is offering to be of help fails to assume good faith. Should you decide to persist in your current behavioral pattern — including the injection of URLs without context in your posts, excessive wikiling, etc. — you could be denied any further assistance (please see WP:EXPECT for more on what to expect from EA.) --Aarktica 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are literally, factually, the three interpretations that I could think of.

The only remaining one is to paste all of that data here.

If I were to do that, would you denounce that as well??

I, hereby, back-off from all three interpretations; I, am, now, left with gibberish. So, as if my original request were here as originally written, please, attempt an innovative comment.

That is, if all of the intervening comments are withdrawn, mutually.

Do you truly think that I would scribe however many hundreds, or thousands, of comments, without sincerely, genuinely, wanting responses??

So, maybe you all could begin assuming my good-faith as well. More than half the time, it does seem that that respect is simply not afforded me.

So, please, begin w/ the original comment, assume my good faith, & try to think of an alternative method of approaching it. The same should be true of all else that I'm requesting as well.

Incidentally, if a school cannot spell the name of their very own self-chosen mascot, what would you interpret that as?

Thank You, Hopiakuta 06:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem on that page, and this request for assistance is totally unnecessary. There was a minor spelling error on the page which had been overlooked; this editor corrected it and added some meta-comments in the article text about the fact that the name is often misspelled. I removed those comments as they are not appropriate or relevant to the article about the school. This is a lot of noise about nothing and I recommend it be ignored - there's no problem there. It's an article about a gifted-and-talented students' junior high school, probably written by its students, so the editor is commenting on what he sees as irony in their misspelling of the given name of the person the school is named after. Seeing as they are kids trying to do a good job on their article, I think the sarcasm is misplaced. I have no connection to this school or the article, but I'll keep an eye on it. It obvkiously could use some re-writing, but it's basically ok. Also see this.. Tvoz |talk 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored his ridiculous signatures. Adrian M. H. 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what was confusing. Why did he post links to start a new discussion on this page? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)