Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Lee Jong wook

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited this article Mar 26/08 and a major contributing editor to the article Pju0353 would like an explanation for my deletion of material. I have not yet replied to him/her as I am unable to come up with a better explanation than my original edit "Removed Election section and Margaret Chan para as of no real consequence; not TIMES (engineering}" and I fear that repeating myself will not satisfy this editor. Might you come up with some wording of a reply (if you agree with my edit) or critique of my edit to help me with this. Although the article required insubstantial grammar correction you will see in the posting by Pju0353 a substantial problem with English that makes it difficult for me to understand aspects of his argument and will probably be a major problem in my communication with him unless I keep it simple.

I removed the whole of the "Election" section and don't know whether any part of it merits inclusion. The material is very poorly written also. I can see that the section "Campaign for Secretary General" that s/he alludes to for Ban Ki-moon has merit. --User:Brenont (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Troy Southgate Article

Stuck

 – Dispute resolution probably needed SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Someone keeps removing the controversy section of the Troy Southgate article and I suspect it is Southgate himself. I requested protection but was denied. The criticism is a direct quote from a Sunday Telegraph article about Southgate.

Here is the link: Troy Southgate

Please advise as it has been taken down 5 or 6 times. I am new to editing so please help.

Thanks,

EVOLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evola (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is more than a one-on-one dispute; I'd say file a Request for Comment to get outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• As AndonicO told you on your talk page, you need to find more sources for the section before inserting it. Also, 98.217.67.42 (whom I assume to be you) said, "I will just keep adding the Controversy section on this page. Ask for protection if you like." This is not the attitude to take. I would definitely try to attempt a discussion on the article's talk page and see if you can reach consensus on if or how the section should go in. Fleetflame 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of article

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the anonymous user Yopie is abusing the article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha. How can judgments from Italian courts be "self-published sources" ? Or expert opinions ? Guy Stair Saintys accusations are all unverified, he does not offer a single shred of evidence in support of his claims. To refer to his criticism therefore violates Wikipedia principles on Verifiability and Reliable sources.PeTom (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First, just to correct your usage, they're not an "anonymous" editor, as that refers to edits from IP addresses. It looks like a dispute that would need to go to Mediation Cabal or a Request for Comment. It looks, though, like someone has tried a new version that's a compromise edit; you might find that one a bit more neutral. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: PeTom is currently involved in a sockpuppet case. We'll see how things turn out. Fleetflame 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest Yogi Bhajan

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The page titled Harbhajan Singh Yogi contains information that is almost exclusively written my members of this man's cult who continue to promote his "work". If you visit http://yogibhajan.tripod.com/id23.html You'll see that this person's life is riddled with controversy and yes immorality and crime. There should at least be referrals to web pages of former cult members. I am a former member of this organization. There are hundreds of lives that were irreparably damaged by this group. A neutral person editing this page can do a service to those lives and possible prevent future victims. A fair and balanced edit should at least state that there is controversy surrounding many of Bhajan's claims to authority. Including claim to be "the Siri Singh Sahib Chief Religious and Administrative Authority for the Western Hemisphere", claim to be the only living "Mahan Tantric, White Tantric Yoga Master" and claims to be a "Master of Kundalini Yoga" none of these claims can be substantiated outside of his sphere of influence. Just the opposite. The following is a quote from the formerly referenced web site. the Monterey District Attorney pointed out that I was a member of a large crime family complete with sex, rape, drugs, smuggling, murder and more and that this 3HO Organization had nothing over on the Mafia.Hue many (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially in biographies of a living person, we must be careful that any material added be from a highly reliable source. In the interest of neutrality, this applies to positive information as well as negative. However, self-published pages from those who knew the person would probably not rise to the level of reliability required. Are there any independent sources regarding the subject? If not, it may not be notable or suitable for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User Cquan and my article for "Steven Chayer" (I don't care if the article is removed at this point I want this guy to be more civil)

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User Cquan [1]. He's mean and on a power trip and he knows it because I pointed out how mean-spirited and unnecessary something he had on his user page was and he did the following:
A) Deleted that comment I made about his callous, smug User Page in the Articles for Deletion discussion [2]
B) He then edited his user page to remove the stuff I had pointed out as mean and needless.

We have discussions over this article on both AfD [3] and the article's talk page [4]

Thank you for reading,

Drewhamilton (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Citiation requirements: Newspaper article not available online

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have recently attempted to make some changes to a Wikipedia page which were reversed by an Administrator due to a lack of a proper reference (pertaining to a statement about a living person). I received a temporary block as a result. I was wondering what Wikipedia would accept as citable evidence? My reference is a newspaper article which was printed last week in Perth Western Australia, but the newspaper article is not available online. Will Wikipedia accept this article as a reference without it being available online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightcorruption (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally this wouldn't be a problem. However, in this case you are much less likely to get such a citation accepted, on the basis that you've already added controversial and unsourced information to a biography of a living person - a violation of one of our strictest policies - not to mention that your username implies that you may be a single-purpose account and/or possibly have a conflict of interest with the subject. It might be a good idea make some less controversial edits for a while and see if any other sources also publish similar material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing your contributions, I think that the non-neutrality of your prose might be an issue too. Take this diff as an example. I think that you should read Wikipedia's neutrality policy very carefully. Good luck, and happy editing! Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Information Related to My City

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres an abuse of the info related to my city, as an istanbulian i kindly request to keep the info i provided below and not let to be edited Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul

Goldeneye1980, Istanbul

{{Infobox Settlement |official_name=İstanbul |settlement_type= |established_title= Founded |established_date=667 BC as Byzantium |established_title1=Roman/Byzantine period |established_date1=AD 330 as Constantinople |established_title2=Byzantium period |established_date2=until 1453 named as Constantinople and various other names in local languages |established_title2=Ottoman period |established_date2=starting from 1453 named as Istanbul by Ottoman Empire |established_title3=Turkish Republic period |established_date3=Istanbul since Ottoman Empire

Quoting from tr:Konstantinopolis: "11 Mayıs 330 tarihinde Roma İmparatoru I. Konstantin Byzantion'u imparatorluğun yeni başkenti seçmiş ve Yeni Roma (Lat.: Nova Roma) diye tekrar isimlendirmiştir.". And from tr:İstanbul (şehir): "Ancak; devlet işlerinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Konstantiniyye ismini kullanır." Please get your facts straight.  --Lambiam 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My biographical information on Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Editor directed to OTRS SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

TWIMC: I just noticed a “conflict of interest” sticker on my page bio page. I identified myself and made some changes which were factual and not editorial or opinionated. What should I do to take off the citation on my page? I have no problem waiting until things are checked out, but am just curious as to what my next step is, if any. Thanks for any help you can give me. I know that I am not supposed to put an e-mail address in here, but my address is already public because of my public blog. If one of you would please call or contact me I would really appreciate it. I have a lot of difficulty navigating your “rules, regulations, directions and editing” etc. pages, so hope I'm doing this right. Thanks again, Charles Laquidara 808 268-1525 charles@radiowaveX.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laquidara (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can start by contacting OTRS to verify your identity. Per your edits, 1) make sure they're neutral, and B) it still needs to be cited to a source of information. It looks like a lot of the inaccuracies were uncited and have since been removed anyway. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton page

Resolved

 – Editor's questions have been answeredSHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to edit the Hillary Clinton page. I realize that political pages are a hotbed and they have their own cadre of people on both sides patrolling them. I was browbeaten because my edit did not conform with somebody's conception of "verifiability" but as all intelligent people know this is a relative thing and just about nothing is perfectly verifiable. I pointed out the incongruousness of Ms. Clinton seeking Obama's VP slot in light of her disrespectful treatment of him during the campaign. That just seems common sense. I am not a heavy wiki person; I had written and edited a few articles to do with Latin and Greek mainly. So the Clinton page has been locked down by her people. Is that what Wikipedia is for? I know because of the non-professional ethic (not unprofessional) of wikipedia for the unpaid editing staff there's only so much you can do in these kinds of situations. I wish I knew more about editing wiki but I just don't have time. My edits are quick and dirty and I think substantially accurate. Thank you very much. Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyodysseus (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first edit, here, was in the manner of an editorial comment, and not an encyclopedic addition; it was not backed up by reliable sources, and therefore was quite rightly removed from what is a high-traffic and highly visible article at present. Your second edit was a personal attack on the editor who had removed the previous edit. Personal attacks are bad things. Verifiability is not an option here; it is a policy, and must be followed. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page hasn't been locked down "by her people". See WP:Protection policy, it was locked by Wikipedia administrators in order to prevent WP:Vandalism. Those who have an account older than four days can still edit the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's especially problematic by the weasel words, e.g. "people have said". A) Something like that isn't really useful to the article, and B) you'd need some kind of source for it (e.g. newspaper editorials). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sernio article and help with other editors

Resolved

 – Other editors are looking at this article; please re-list if further assistance is neededSHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could some other people please have a look at this article. I'm trying to work on getting it cleaned up so that if the subject actually is notable enough for inclusion the article will be legiable and coherent (as well as formatted properly). I've been attempting to AGF and have suggested improvements and tried to enter into conversation with the "current" main editor without success. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request: How to code dates

Resolved

 – Questions answeredSHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is about the dates in an article. For example...

Say the article says, "In January 1956, I bought ..." Would the month and year deserve an internal wiki link seperately? Just the month? Both together?

"In [[January]] [[1956]], I bought ..."
"In [[January]] 1956, I bought ..."
"In [[January 1956]], I bought ..."

OK, a whole date. "... was born on March 27, 2001, and ..." Now, the Month and date together get a wiki link, but what about the year?

"... was born on [[March 27]], [[2001]], and ..."
"... was born on [[March]] [[27]], [[2001]], and ..."
"... was born on [[March 27]], 2001, and ..."

And finally, what if there is a date and no year? "Each March 23rd we celebrate..."

"Each [[March]] 23rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March 23]]rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March 23rd]] we celebrate..."
"Each [[March]] [[23]]rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March]] [[23rd]] we celebrate..."

Thanks for your help. Feel free to strikeout the incorrect lines and maybe highlight the correct lines. I have read the wiki guidlines on the subject, but receive conflicting response from other people (both admins and non-admins alike). --Noxia (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My non-administrative 2c would be to follow the principle of Only make links that are relevant to the context. So, frequently, no link is needed. If the context requires an explanation of the date, then a link would be justified. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I (and our manual of style) agree with Andrew. There's no reason to link dates unless relevant to content unless it is a full date. Full dates should in most cases be linked but for display, rather than context reasons. Dates come in various formats all over the world (mm-dd-y, dd-mm-yy, etc. Wikipedia lets registered users set date display preferences for their accounts, which only works with linked full dates. With a linked date, it doesn't matter how the user has written it; if properly linked, it will display for users however they are used to based on the setting they choose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Actually, linking dates like March 23 (not March 23rd - we avoid -st, -nd, -rd) is also helpful. That way it comes out 23 March or March 23, depending on user preferences. Mangostar (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalker

Resolved

 – Editor has apologised SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve an issue with Iblardi...but he continues to stalk me. His actions continue even now. I have tried to make light of it so as not to give him the satisfaction of an angry reply. I do not want to get into the long-winded, verbose, never ending conversation that he does. But...I can not do ANY editing without him coming behind me and undoing them...in reverse order the articles are... 1) White Bass. 2) Fremont, Wisc. 3) Desiderus Erasmus. 4) Hans Brinker and the Silver skates. 5) Tim Moore. 6) Low Countries 7) Belgium 8) Dutch customs and ettiquette.

There are more. But these should show a preponderance of action that is contrary to Wiki-Standards. Earlier ..before I left for work...I was ready to move on and leave the Low Countries to Iblardi and his ilk. It wasn't worth the aggrevation.....Please respond ASAP. --Buster7 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I did it right....ie...I just submitted a formal request for a dispute resolution.--Buster7 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I am reluctant to do anything on Wikipedia because the stalker will just revert it. Time and time and time again he has hunted me down and reverted my efforts. His interferance is tedious. At least I have an editing record, albiet a short one, built on good will and friendliness. He now begins to present this Trojan Horse of a defense; that somehow my editing is questionable or unusual or non-encyclopedic...and that's why he follows me around like some braying mule! Perhaps, at times, it may have a hint of some of those "newbie" qualities. Afterall, Ive only been at this for A MONTH!!!! It is a defense that he has created out of thin air to cover-up his improprieties. I have had disagreements with other editors. But there was always a meeting of the minds and we moved on. But, to anyone that looks at all the facts and the history of my involvements with Iblardi, they will see what I see. Iblardi is full of Hot Air!!! His previous history with other editors he has stalked should be proof enough. Iblardi is what I call a Right Fighter. He has to be right! This all started when I wouldn't sit still and let the "Belgians are stupid" joke exist on the Dutch page. He is probably surprised that I am NOT as stupid a Belgian as he first thought. BTW...when this is resolved, I would like to find out about a new account or something like that. No matter how it turns out, a bully like Iblardi will not let it die. His continued vandalism proves it! Please advise whats going on and how to proceed ASAP...--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Buster7 is neither a Belgian, nor a 61-year old, nor a newbie. He is an internet troll, possibly trying to make the point that it is too easy for vandals to hide behind policies as Don't Bite the Newcomers. I am now reverting his last edit on Erasmus, as it has reinstated previous vandalism. Iblardi (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from making comments that could be construed as personal attacks as they aren't constructive and could lead to consequences --Firebladed (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for the provocative accusations above. I merely observe that this user is putting up a masquerade. Normally I am not at all quick in accusing other editors. Just for the record, how can I be a "Right Fighter"? I engage in factual discussions on talk pages all the time (for instance [5], [6], [7], etc., including with the above user ([8], [9]). I am generally a cautious editor ([10], [11]). I do help newcomers ([12]) and I correct myself at times when it becomes clear that I made a mistake (removing my own contribution after a talk page discussion: [13]). User:Buster7 also created an article of questionable notability (probably taken from the cover of the book he was using for his edits on the Low Countries: [14]), which I didn't touch since I saw no factual inaccuracies. Hardly an editor who "has to be right" at all costs, it seems. Iblardi (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my Jesuit teachers was an ex-marine. He taught us, his students, calmness in the face of battle. All the facts on my user page are just that---FACTS!--Buster7 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that someone who is genuinely concerned with this issue does not post frivolous reactions like this one: [15]. And this explanation [16] about a "brother" who allegedly has been checking all of this user's contributions and has done so for years (while the user professes to be a newcomer) doesn't sound convincing to me. And even here -- a Jesuit teacher who is an ex-marine? How plausible is that? Iblardi (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am responding only for the benefit of any administrator that might read our "banter".

1. 1)My response was jovial, not frivolous. You offense is very serious so anything to do with it is certainly not frivolous. As I state elsewhere, to others, I will not let you pull me into an angry respose. My response may seem light-hearted but the intent behind it is very serious. Stop Doing What Your Doing! Leave me alone.
2. 2)You should read content better! My brother has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I guess you would call him a customer. I placed my edit, called him on the phone, asked him to give a "look-see (he is my fishing partner..On the Wolf River in WIsconsin) and let me know what he thought. Strictly as a consumer not as an editor.
3. 3)You assume that I was refering to editing at Wikipedia. How limited an outlook! I didnt just start writing a month ago. Ive been writing journals, short stories, correspondence and letters for many, many years, again, having nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. While they are in the drafting stage, I use spaces to sigify that I'm not sure of the word I want...this allows me to move on with the thought and not get stuck on searching for the "right" word.

(Whatever story you made up about what I wrote or who I am, is Your story. It really has very little to do with me. Like your interpretations of my edits they are far from the truth)

1. 4)As to the Jesuit Marine. I dont know what to say. He didn't show us any references. He looked like a priest and he said he had been a Marine. Now that I think about it...I remember a tattoo...USMC...on his bisep. Is that sufficient proof?

This is my final talk with you. At such a time when an administrator gets involved in our "situation", I will respond to any and all claims that you make. But until then, I will not respond to any request to talk. About anything. So, dont bother to ask.--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to send you an e-mail. Maybe I have been a little mistrustful. Iblardi (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work. I apologized to the user on his talk page. Reading this I realize that I got carried away by my own mistrust and over-interpreted his words and actions. Iblardi (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Recurring problems with an unconstructive editor (reposted from User talk:PhilKnight)

Resolved

 – Useful suggestions have been made and the original poster seems happy - please repost if not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am posting here because of problems I have had with an editor who has, in 2 lengthy discussions with myself, refused to debate constructively, leading to many hours of wasted time and much wasted effort. I believe that if he is not made aware that his behaviour in the debates was unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the future, he will continue to conduct himself in a similar fashion in the future and many more hours will be lost. I originally posted this message on User talk:PhilKnight to seek his assistance, but he was not sure what to suggest and recommended I copy and paste the message here for someone else to take a look at. As such, that is what I have done:

(begin reposted message)

Hello PhilKnight,

I arrived on your talk page via Wikipedia:Editor assistance, because of your discription: "Reasonably experienced in dealing with edit wars and the dispute resolution process". I have, on 2 seperate occasions now, had lengthy discussions with a particular editor (LeaveSleaves (talk)) in which this editor has employed counterproductive debating techniques. I believe that this editor does attempt to make good faith edits, but whenever his position is challenged or mistakes are pointed out, he refuses to read, take note of and address the points raised in any replies. Instead he sticks to his original position no matter what arguments are put forward or evidence presented, and seems to take it as an insult if I explain where he is mistaken (with reasoned arguments, links etc) or why I disagree with his opinions. I have also taken issue with his excessive haste to nominate an article for deletion, rather than addressing any concerns he had with the article on the talk page or by editing the article itself.

Although I have no current dispute with the user, I feel certain that I will have to deal with the user's editing and discussions in the future, and I would like it made clear to him that his counterproductive debating techniques are not acceptable, so that I, and other users, do not have to waste valuable time and effort in the future dealing with similar behaviour. I have little experience in dealing with dispute resolution, so I am unsure of the protocol for dealing with such users, both initially and if they refuse to modify their behaviour, and as such your input into this would be valuable. Having said that, there seems little point in me ever trying to reason with him about his conduct, considering the obvious animosity he now feels towards me. I will now detail the history of the disputes fully, to allow you to judge for yourself the conduct of both of us, and so that you can make an informed decision on how to proceed. I should note that both of the disputes were cricket-related, but the conduct to which I refer is not.

The first dispute

This dispute started on the talk page for the 2008 Indian Premier League article, a cricket tournament that has just completed its inaugural season. The season and its corresponding article were both then at an early stage, and I had created a template, (since then improved by having nicer looking icons but essentially the same) to improve the presentation and clarity of the score summaries for each match in the tournament. LeaveSleaves very quickly objected to my edit (and all 3 of the major aspects of it) and a lengthy discussion ensued. I moved the discussion to a different talk page at the suggestion of LeaveSleaves in order to facilitate a discussion, despite my (continuing) belief that the discussion was only relevant to the original talk page, something which I stated in the discussion. As such, the remainder of the discussion took place on the new talk page. The complete discussion can be seen (under 3 headings) here: 1st heading, 2nd heading and 3rd heading.

During the discussion there were a number of occasions where he did not address the points I raised, but continued to insist that his own opinion should hold sway. Some of the links he provided (which were supposed to prove his viewpoint) I subsequently investigated and demonstrated in the discussion in fact contained information in opposition to the viewpoint he espoused. As you can see from the discussion, of the 3 issues, the main focus was on the issue of which of the 2 teams should be listed first in the scorecard (an important consideration for a cricket scorecard). I advocated that the side listed first should be the side which batted first, while he stated that it should be the home side. Incidentally, my edit had still managed to retain the information showing which side was the home side by adding an (H) symbol in an appropriate place. During the discussion, not only did he not refute any of my arguments as to why the modification was an improvement (some arguments of which I had to repeat multiple times), but he repeatedly claimed that my edits should be reverted because he knew that the consensus regarding cricket articles was for the home team to be listed first. I was initially unaware if this was true or not, but I took his claims at face value. However, whenever I asked him for specific links to relevant pages showing this consensus, he would ignore the request and continue to advocate his position. I eventually discovered, through my own efforts, that the overwhelming consensus in fact supported my format and opposed his. As you can see, I wrote a post to state this information (with multiple relevant links) and to tell his to not engage in such obviously unhelpful debating techniques in the future. I posted an extract from this post on his talk page, to inform him that his conduct was not acceptable and should not be repeated in the future, and this extract can be found here. After this post he ceased his participation in the discussion and the modifications that I had made continued in existence.

The second dispute

This occurred only over the past day or 2, and concerned the newly created article for 2009 Indian Premier League. The discussion took place on its talk page As becomes clear from the discussion, since well before the 2008 (and inaugural) season of the Indian Premier League, yearly editions had definitely been planned to occur in 2009 and 2010, not least because the players were already under contract to play during the 3 years from 2008 to 2010. There had already been an initial thread dealing with the specific dates in 2009 that the IPL was to occur, and the lack of a reference for these claims. Before LeaveSleaves posted on the page, 2 Template:fact tags had already been placed in the article to deal with this. However, LeaveSleaves proceeded to enter the discussion with a new thread in which he proposed the deletion of the article, and slapped a Template:PROD tag on the article itself, with the added text "Based purely on speculation, no official or other substantiation". In his talk thread he had posted 2 links, which he claimed demonstrated there was "no indication anywhere as to when the next season is or what are the possible changes taking place". In fact the 2 links had referred to another proposal by the IPL chief, where it was mooted that there be 2 IPL seasons inside a single year. It was this proposal that had been shelved for the next few years at least, and not the plan for a single IPL Season in 2009, which was still definitely planned to go ahead. When I saw LeaveSleaves' post I explained the situation and removed the deletion tag from the article. However, the user evidently did not give my post due consideration and instead claimed that I had agreed with his assertion that the wikipedia page was "invalid", something which I definitely did not do, and that I was contradicting myself by opposing its deletion. I attempted to explain again, and after that once more, what the articles were referring to, including extracting specific quotes from one of the articles, but still he refused to consider my arguments or reread his own links. By this time he had become quite annoyed that I might try to explain his mistake, and I myself was starting to become frustrated by his unwillingness to engage in rational debate. After this he put the article up for deletion and opened this discussion, closing the discussion when another user had added what he considered to be an adequate link. As you can see from the remainder of the discussions, all my other posts on the topic proved fruitless, and my attempt to reprimand him for his conduct was met with a tit-for-tat reply calling me "condescending and pedantic". The argument about whether a 2009 season would occur or not was cleverly avoided in his statement:

• "And for the last time, the reason I entered those links was only to point out that the information about the next season (again, the details not occurrence) is extremely hazy and unclear"

The thing which was in fact somewhat hazy was the dates within 2009 for the 2009 season, not whether the next season would occur in 2009 or not. There was also another issue raised about whether the article should be merged with another article (he proposed the merger and I opposed it).

This is the current situation with regard to this second dispute, and I have not replied to his most recent post, as I think there is no point in me doing so.

My main concern out of all this is not to do with deciding any of the issues regarding the content of particular wikipedia articles. Rather, it is so ensure that LeaveSleaves is put on notice that his debating techniques were counterproductive and to ensure that he will not be allowed to engage in such conduct again without reprimand and sanction. Considering that I (and other users) are likely to encounter him again in dealing with cricket-related, and specifically IPL-related articles, I think this is a matter of high importance.

Assuming that you decide to take this matter on, I thank you for your assistance. Juwe (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again PhilKnight, but I notice you have been editing recently and are presumably still online. I know my post is a bit of a long one, and the story somewhat complicated (I tried my best to summarise the key points) but (will you have)/(have you had) a look at it at some point? Just a simple yes or no answer would be appreciated. Thanks Juwe (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Juwe, sorry for not replying earlier, however, after think this over, I'm still not sure what to suggest. If the problems were more severe, I would recommend a request for comment on user conduct, but in this case, that would probably be excessive. Perhaps it would be better if you copied your message onto the request page of Editor Assistance, and someone else handled this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(end reposted message)

I am sorry for the length of the post, but I have tried to be as concise as possible, while ensuring I don't omit any important details. I greatly appreciate anyone's assistance with this matter.

Thanks, Juwe (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no-one has responded, and that this issue does appear a tricky one for an assistant to intervene in (given that there don't appear to be any deliberate acts of bad faith, even if the editor should know that simply ignoring arguments put forward , and evidence given for those arguments, is a bad faith practice), I might just let this one slide. Assistants, feel free to archive this request. Juwe (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. You could have cut down significantly on the noise in that post. Essentially: you wanted to add an (H) symbol to signify the home team for the readers, and he resisted this and ignored your arguments, claiming consensus. Did I miss anything? Please tell me if I did. Note that I didn't bother to read the second. One important point that you left out: where was this overwhelming consensus? Brevity, which consists of attention to relevant details -- your evidence -- cannot be emphasized enough. By the way, you will encounter this often. PhilKnight actually basically [[endorsed this type of "I have consensus and I don't need to explain myself" behavior when I raised a Wikiquette alert in a similar incident with Jefffire. So get used to it. Sorry for the rant. Now for the solutions: use a WP:3O template the Talk page where you have the trouble. If necessary, do a WP:RfC (and please check them out; they are highly neglected). Also, check out WP:DISPUTE, where all your options are listed. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about the noise. You will notice that I didn't originally post this request on this page anyway, I merely copied and pasted from another talk page after that was recommended. I'm afraid also that you missed much in your assessment of the disputes, the "(H)" issue was only 1 of 3 issues in the 1st dispute, and not even the main issue. The listing of ordering of teams is also not as unimportant as it might seem, as incorrect ordering will often fundamentally misinform the reader about what happened in the match itself. There were also issues relating to the 2nd dispute (which I acknowledge you didn't read), but I don't think it fruitful to elaborate further. I haven't yet read your linked discussion, but the problem (in my dispute) wasn't even that he refused to explain why consensus was with him, it was that it turned out that it was unequivocally contrary to his position (something which unfortunately took hours to discover). My evidence for the "overwhelming consensus" was contained in the discussions which I linked, and specifically in my reprimand to him that led to the conclusion of the first dispute. I will point out that the tournament pages I linked to there are for the highest-profile recent cricket tournaments in the world, and that the template I linked to is similarly mainstream.

Maybe, having seen this, you will appreciate why I inserted the "noise", as without it the dispute can't be properly understood (as your post aptly demonstrated). Once again though, I now acknowledge that this was an inappropriate forum for such a lengthy and detailed post. As for the "get used to it" line, I appreciate you don't want people whinging to you about their (often self-made) problems with editors, but as you can see, I actually didn't call for any outside intervention during the first lengthy dispute, and tried to engage the other editor multiple times in the second dispute before bringing the issue up in a separate forum. My own personal view, and why I indeed brought this issue up, is that if unconstructive editors are not informed that behaving in such a way is not acceptable, not only will they continue their improper conduct, but that many other "victims" of the editor (ie frustrated constructive editors) will be driven away from wikipedia. Maybe you disagree with my assessment, but I hope you appreciate where I am coming from.

Thankyou, firstly for taking the time to consider my post, and secondly for your suggestions about resolving such issues. I will check them out, although for this issue I might just let things be. All the best, Juwe (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "get used to it" comment is just to prepare you. It's not meant to impolite. I'm sorry; I skimmed your post very fast. It is very low on my priorities (as are articles on sports, and most other information which doesn't do something to help aid our troubled world or help me somehow). What matters is that you had a disagreement and couldn't figure out how to resolve it. I agree that these people are a major problem. I personally think that Requests for Comment on Users should be displayed on all Userpages, along with other major decision. The biggest problem with WP is that so much time and energy is wasted in bureaucracy, and many things get rehashed over and over because the earlier problems are not displayed prominently. Plus, there's not much transparency in editor quality -- people count edits, but those are pointless. I've suggested a couple times that we need ways to sort through edits by size, on particular articles (see the persistent proposal). Also, getting outside input is a good thing. You may have trouble getting it, however, because surprisingly, out of the (at minimum) 500 million English-speaking people, apparently only a very small handful are interested in getting heavily involved in a free encyclopedia (and many of those appear to have been driven away by its ridiculous bureaucracy and resistance to positive change). ImpIn | (t - c) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

May also want to consider mediation (likely at the mediation cabal) if it's borderline behavior/content. It's a more open process, if anything. I know a guy who's been wanting to pick up sports cases, although there's no guarantee he'll pick it up. Just a thought. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry ImpIn, I didn't take offence to your comments. Considering that there is no current dispute with this editor, I might just let this one go and move on. Thanks (to Xavexgoem as well) for your suggestions though. Juwe (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Stale

 – No further contribs from this IP SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what a sockpuppet is. Why am I being accused of it? I do not have an account here. I use Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. I am a real person and do not spam or hack anyone's site or email.

Blocking IPs on the web is a useless remedy for any problem I have encountered yet. The "bad guys" know how to forge the IP and use perfectly innocent IPs, such as the one I am currently assigned.

This practice is egregious and ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.148.28 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/User:Hdayejr

See WP:SOCK

--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight edit-war with Clamp (Manga Artist) article

Stuck

 – Talk page discussion has started, but isn't making progress SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some ongoing dispute (albeit at a low level) whether the fact that Clamp is an "all-female" (or simply female) mangaka group is noteable enough in the article.

The JP:Wiki article does contain this little tidbit but it has been constantly removed from the EN:Wiki article as "not noteable" without any explanation as to why it is not noteable.

All of the users that claim it as not noteable did so without a wikipedia username, thus making it difficult to discuss with them their reasoning or an explanation.

A talk entry was raised but no one seems to have replied to it.

I was planning on raising a RFCBio but that may be just a tad overkill for a one-word description.

Any help on how to resolve this kind of issue (or an explanation on noteablility) would be welcome.

Dasmarinas71 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's only been the one IP, this one, that's removed it three times now, with edit summary comments. That IP looks to be static, to me, so you may want to drop a note on its talk page and ask for dialogue to take place on the article talk. I'd suggest finding a couple of good sources that state the group is all-female; I'd say that's a defining characteristic of Clamp, myself, so should be mentioned in the lead. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Unfortunately for me, I haven't found any 'hard' sources that explain Clamp being all-female (the most were in short articles about their work that stated 'series X' was created by Clamp, an all-female mangaka. This made it a bit hard to try to counter that IP's edits. I'll try to continue hunting down some info but any help would be great! :) Dasmarinas71 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know some very hardcore anime geeks whom I'll consult this evening. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried leaving a message on the IP's talk page. Although it's only been 2 days, hopefully I can get a reply from the user. Thanks again for the help, Tony! Dasmarinas71 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: He's still at it. Fleetflame 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tour Dates for Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

After numerous anon IP vandalism to Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour article, I provided references for confirmed tour dates

---

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

---

However, Crackers2007, feels that dates in Mexico, Brazil and Montenegro have been confirmed by Live Nation (as he or she states in the edit summary as "promoters"). I warned him or her three times on their talk page about adding unsourced materials before he or she provided reasoning for the edits. The references that are provided (as stated on my talk page, not within the article)

---

• [22] Entirely in Spanish thus I cannot navigate through the site to find information. When the link is clicked, the page opens and does not mention Madonna

• [23] This is in a language I do not know.

---

I have already reported him or her to be blocked from editing the page. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That second link is a .hr domain, which is Croatian. Google can translate it, the result is here: [24] If the translation is right, it seems to say that she will not appear there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

William L. Palminteri

Resolved

 – Explanation and links providedSHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My article "William L. Palminteri" has been removed. I have no idea why or who did this. Please advise. Thank you, William L. Palminteri —Preceding unsigned comment added by William L. Palminteri (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, looking at the deletion log for the page it seems that an editor proposed that the article be deleted because there was no assertion of notability and references to reliable sources had not been added. Since the content of the article is in your userspace, you can work on it there to improve it before trying to add it to the encyclopaedia. However, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is strongly discouraged that you write articles about yourself or people close to you. You should wait for somebody completely unconnected to you to write an article, and even then you should exercise extreme caution when editing such an article. --BelovedFreak 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First conty in the U.S. to endorse Senator Obama

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to the Senator Obama Presidential Campaign section under subject "Barack Obama": Senator Obama did not have to wait long for an endorsement. On January 31, 2007, the Democratic Party of Christian County, Illinois under the leadership of Chairman Jack Mazzotti, became the first county in the United States to endorse Senator Barack obama for President of the United States. The endorsement was recorded by Christian County Recorder Linda Curtin February 16, 2007, #2007R00725.

I am a first time editor and would appreciate your assistance in editing the above record into the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign section per your lead on the appropriate insertion location. Questions can be directed to: 72.9.124.95 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC) email address removed.

Do it yourself. Fleetflame 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to insert an academic article into Ozzy Osbourne

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to add a reference to an academic article[25] into the Ozzy Osbourne article under the heading "Controversies." The article in question discusses Ozzy's controversial portrayal in the media, and compares it with that of occultist Aleister Crowley. The connection stems from the fact that Ozzy sang a song about Crowley, called Mr. Crowley. The article makes some argument about the perception of both Osbourne and Crowley in the light of the Christian Right.

I have been repeatedly blocked from adding this reference by a few other editors. They have argued that the author of the article is not notable, however I argue that the reference does not highlight the author but the article itself, which is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. As an academic journal, it confers authority on those articles it publishes.

One editor argued that there was a conflict of interest, suggesting that I was in fact the author. I stated in Talk responses that I am not the author. Even if I was, however, the wikipedia rules seem to indicate that academics can cite themselves when necessary, so the editor here has it wrong regardless.

I have posted messages relating to this issue on the Ozzy Discussion forum, on my own Talk page, and on the Talk page of the Admin. Scarian, but aside from the initial arguments against my insertion, there has not yet been any response to my arguments. I need to know 1) if there really is a genuine problem with this article, because I can't see one, and 2) how I can get the thing listed online as it seems to me that it would be of general interest to readers.

ThanksWikigonish (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide a link or reference to the article in question, as your question is very difficult to answer without the specifics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some links (see above) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I re-inserted the articles in question assuming that silence equals consent since there have been no further rebuttals to my arguments. I note that the latest attempts at posting the articles have not been "undone," and have actually been defended by other editers so far. Am I correct to assume that the last word in an argument posted on the discussion lists is effectively the last word, and so the "winning" word? Wikigonish (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The aim should never be to get the last word, but to achieve a consensus, a solution that the editors contributing to the discussion will consent to. Unanimous support isn't necessary, and compromise is often but not always involved. Discussion is key. There's more to read at Wikipedia:Consensus. Hope this helps :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I understand that there is effectively no "last word" per se as "consensus" is subject to change. Now that my edits have remained un-challenged for many days, I take that to indicate that they have been accepted, to a degree. On the first day one of my edits was made, another user "undid" it, to which I responded by reverting, followed by their "undoing" it again, which led to my being warned of being banned for engaging in an edit war. Given that I have entered into discussions and have achieved the last word there, can I take that to indicate that the edit war is over and I need not worry about threats of my being banned? It seemed to me odd that I was being threatened with such a sanction where my opponent(s) seemingly were not. But, as I said, since it appears to have ended in silent consent to my edits, the matter appears resolved.Wikigonish (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zonjati Ferero Roch Holsteiner Warmblood

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Zonjati Ferero Roche Holsteiner Warmblood bread by Mrs S Voigts 2006 in Namibia. Ferero is registered with the Warmblood Breeders' Society of Namibia also registered with the SAWHS http://www.sawarmbloodhorses.com/ Sire of Zonjati Ferero Roche is Consuelo Imp Holsteiner, background of the Sire breading: BREADING:

Corofino I: was rewarded buy the judges with a 10 at his licensing test for his spectacular jumping abilities. As four year old he qualified for the Bundeschampionat and achieved 9.6 in other show jumping test. He was internationally successful under Valerio Sozzi. Corrado I: winner of his licensing and started a sky rocketing career as stud stallion as well as an international competitor under Franke Sloothaak. He won Aachen and Frankfurt and the German masters in 1994. Capitol, Farnese, Lord and Ramiro all produced world class horses. Landgraf I: was the first Warmblood sire who’s progeny turned him in a 6,5 Million DM millionaire making him one of the most successful sire Romantiker grandson of Ramzes, the outstanding sire that produced sport horses in all warmblood breeds. The Ramzes-line was identified as nick to the Achill - line. Farnese: the most outstanding representative of the Achill-line. The only Holsteiner line that can be followed right up to the early beginnings of the Holstein horse as a breed. Jumping ability and a correct foundation is the trademark of the Achill-line. Anna Tevka; GB A-Grade showjumper under Dirk Hafemeister, mother of Grannex by Grannus, a halfbrother to Consuelo Active

www.cordez.co.za info@cordez.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordez (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You might like to read WP:Your first article and then, if you have some reliable sources, you could create this article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over content of NWFP article

Resolved

 – Dispute resolution in progress; please re-post if needed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute over the content of the North-West Frontier Province article, it only really seemed to be me and another editor who disagreed (from the start of this month). So I asked for a third opinion however this was removed on the basis that there were more than two editors involved. I think the ip contributor maybe a banned user (I am guessing he was banned along with an opposing editor by looking at his contribs). However I would just like an uninvolved editor to look at the page and give an opinion or advise on the merits or either edits, if possible. Pahari Sahib 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion is indeed for one-on-one disputes. For more people, you have two routes. A Request for Comment will bring in outside opinions; a Mediation Cabal case can help you reach a compromise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks :-) I have asked for an RFC. Pahari Sahib 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you request an article be split?

Resolved

 – Question answered. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me the tage to request an article be split, or tell me where there is a list of common tags so I can read them and find it? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at the instructions and guidance at Wikipedia:Splitting. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over Sybian article

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to restore a link on the sybian article that was posted in January but recently was deleted by user Ronz. We have had a back and forth link dispute over a video that shows with the Sybian is and how it works. Ronz's explanation for the deletion is "wikipedia is not a how to". Is this a correct assumption? I find all kinds of information on Wikipedia including how to do certain things. I could be mistaken, but I didn't think wikipedia had a policy against posting any sort of how-to. Buttysquirrel (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not looked at your particular case but suggest you read What Wikipedia is not which discusses that articles should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this video be considered a how-to? www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEYNtIuw_Wg Buttysquirrel (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from anything else the video you are wanting to link to advertises the same porn site that you have previously been warned about. Given the singular nature of your contributions, you do seem to have a conflict of interest here, especially looking at what a quick google search of your username turns up: "Wanna learn how to ride the Sybian? Check out this link I pulled from Wikipedia:". So really, this link should definitely not be included in the article.--BelovedFreak 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chafford

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where to post this, but I need serious assistance. On The 8th of June 2008, I was on IRC, when I was requested to join a private channel, which contained 3 people; myself, User:Ryan Postlethwaite, and User:Tiptoety (whom I had an altercation with earlier today, he accused me of 'Harrassment and Stalking' - [26]).
Apon entering this channel, I was instantly blitzed with questions demanding that I "tell them who I was", I explained that I had previously edited as an IP, and that I had decided to create an account for myself. I was immediately treated as a liar, and was threatend with a checkuser case.
I need this sorted out, this is completely unacceptable conduct for administrators, and the whole experience has left me quite shaken and has seriously dented my veiws of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. Chafford (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I said to you that I didn't believe you were a new user given your earliest contributions. I don't believe that you're an IP editor, simply because of the clear knowledge of Wikipedia process and twinkle seen in your earliest edits. I still don't believe you're a new editor and I am still looking into this. I discussed this with you on IRC, rather than here, simply because it was much better to do it in private rather than asking you about it in public - it wouldn't really have been fair on you. Yeah, I am considering filing an RFCU, or sending this to a CU, but I've got to investigate it further first. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can believe what you want, I just don't see why you are so concerned about me, have you nothing better to do? Evedently not. Chafford (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Have this user's contributions raised a concern of abusing multiple accounts? Using multiple accounts is acceptable in some circumstances, after all. A RFCU typically follows a SSP report. A note to Chafford about one thing you're doing and shouldn't be- don't revert on user talk pages. Users are generally allowed to remove warnings from their own page. If there is a request to block or take other action, it can still be seen in the history that they were warned. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Systematic attack on work referring to J. Marvin Herndon

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I posted an article "J. Marvin Herndon" which arroused some ire and after emails and discussion, there was some recognization that notability applied here, and the article was removed from the intention to delete catagory, and edits have begun to be made. Apparently, though, the interaction triggered an assult on nearly every Wikipedia article pertaining to my work, al of which is published in world-class, peer-reviewed scientific journals. The most egregious assult seems to have been perpetrated by Vsmith. I have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but to no avail. For example, someone posted an article about some of my work entitled Whole-Earth decompression dynamics, Vsmith proposed it for deletion. Vsmith, along with D.H., was involved with removing the edit that I made to "Dynamo theory", removal which, as I explained on D.H.'s talk page, intentionally misleads wiki-readership. On the page, "Georeactor" someone had posted a quote from a newspaper article under the section 'criticism', which, taken out of context, was pejorative in the extreme. I added a brief statement ( referencing the whole story posted at http://NuclearPlanet.com/naysayer.htm )showing the context, which gave a more neutral point of view, but Vsmith removed my edit. What stands now is the unfounded pejorative characterization which is definitly non-NPOV. Another assult occurred on an article I posted two years ago, "Stellar ignition". Over time that article had been improved and an additional reference was added. Then, after I posted the "J. Marvin Herndon" page, Cquan made the page "Stellar ignition" disappear by redirecting the subject name to "Star formation" which is yet to carry any of the information content that was the basis of :Stellar ignition". Taken to gether these all seem to be a concerted attack against me and the work I have published. This is wrong. Science is about discovering the true nature of Earth and Universe and communicating that knowledge truthfully. There is no wiki prohibition about referencing one own work as long as it is done so objectively. All of my posts have been objective and fully referenced. It is wrong to claim "soapbox" and mount a systemic attack against me and my work. This is a serious matter which needs to be addressed.Marvin Herndon (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I want a pardon for my past edition and I am sorry for the same. Please advice me the way for pardon.

Stale

 – Wikipedia doesn't give out pardons SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I want a pardon for my past edition on chirstianity in India and I am sorry for the same. I was influenced by some outside parties for the same. I confirm that I will not make any edition of similar nature in the future. I also confirm that I will fully abide by your policies. I had tired to contact you in past by sending an e mail but the same was not fruitful. I deeply regret my action. Please advice me the way for pardon.

Regards

R. S.

phone number removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.250.54 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit or edits you are referring to, but I would have thought that the best way forward is to simply start contributing constructively to the encyclopaedia. Also, if you haven't already done so, consider getting a user account.--BelovedFreak 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could be more specific, as in what you changed and the date; then we can at least figure out what IP address or account you're referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This anon seems to have been editing in conjunction with another anon (also at Barclays Bank), Special:Contributions/62.189.169.182. I looked over some of their edit history and various bits of vandalism seem to have been reverted already. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Teachers Building Society page

Resolved

 – ...for now. Editor is aware of COI guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, This page has included notices about neutral content and conflict of interest for some time. I have ensured that the content is neutral and have used the Society's logo purely for identification purposes (there is another company - Teachers Assurance - that people sometimes confuse with Teachers Building Society). Can someone review the page so that the notices might be removed please? Many thanks Teachersbs (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks quite clean to me, and so I removed the conflict of interest and advertisement templates. I suppose fact of the COI remains, but I didn't see it working its way into the article. BTW, the Talk page indicates that the image may be deleted - you may want to follow up on that to get the licensing straight. JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The conflict of interest remains since you appear to be connected to the Building Society (from your username). Just be careful when editing pages about things you are connected to. The article could really do with some references to coverage in third party reliable sources. As for the image, it should be fine. the warning on the talkpage seems to refer to an old version. --BelovedFreak 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

why was travelonly deleted

Stale

 – Questions answered, perhaps not to the original poster's satisfaction. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried to enter information like every other travel site. Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, etc. and they all have the same information i uploaded. i think it is totaly unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gluciani (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! That page was deleted because it was blatant advertising. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article you wrote, Travelonly was deleted because an administrator believed it to be blatant advertising. Don't take it personally. Wikipedia has certain standards of notability and verifiability. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory, so many companies do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. See if you can find any significant coverage of Travelonly in reliable third party sources that will help to demonstrate notability. One last thing, I don't know if you are in some way connected to Travelonly, but if you are, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and be aware that editing articles about subjects you are connected to is strongly discouraged. --BelovedFreak 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of blog from recognized authority for BLP

Stale

 – The battlin' bible references have moved on, apparently. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

2 Questions:

1.) Can I use the blog from a recognized authority as a source for a quote of a Wiki BLP? The blog is that of Tom Ascol, a minister and Executive Director of Founders Ministries (www.founders.org) Founders Ministries is a non-profit organization and has a Board of Directors supervising it. I'm not wanting to quote an opinion from the blog, but some quotes he includes from a sermon of a minister that is no longer available online.

2.) Two editors of a Wiki BLP page apparently have editing powers of the BLP's websites. In one case, an editor cited the sermon hosted at their site, and while he was arguing with the editor, the link from the page disappeared. Another time, the editor changed information on a page he cited, while arguing.

Can you tell me what, if anything we can do about this editing of sources by wiki editors? Romans9:11 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an editor but since did find the answer to this question straight from wiki policy...

"Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources"Johnb316 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, now can I have an answer from someone else besides the detractor who keeps causing all these problems? And from someone who has actually made a contribution to Wiki? I've already read the Wiki guidelines which this disruptive editor (read his contribs page) has posted PARTS of, and they aren't real clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romans9:11 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, Johnb, you are too an editor, anybody who makes any edit to Wikipedia is an editor :)

Romans9:11, the problem you are complaining about of people editing the sources is a very good reason we don't allow self-published sources. If you cite a blog, then the blogger decides they don't like the article, they just change their blog, and voila! Wikiality has changed once again. I would lean highly against using info from a blog, no matter how well respected the blogger is.

Can you give me a diff of the edit you are having trouble with? A guide to creating diffs can be found here. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue

Stale

 – No further contribs from IP SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've made some edits to my company's Wiki page (MeadWestvaco) and someone felt at liberty to overwrite the changes suggesting they were PR-talk - the are not, the comments were taken directly from our SEC filing, which is a public and legal document. The content that is currently published is inaccurate and out of date. My corrections were an attempt to rememdy those issues.

I am very concerned that someone without knowledge of the company has the right to undo my changes.

Molly Wenzler (email removed by Onorem♠Dil 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.124.170.10 (talk • contribs)

You're referring to this revert. Two major problems with your edits: 1) You made it read like an advertisement, 2) you completely removed the section "Environmental record", which was properly cited. It's not acceptable to whitewash articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Talk:MeadWestvaco you've done this before, and it was also reverted. Administrator intervention might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"KCBS-TV"

I would like anyone's help or advice in this matter. I, User: Lantana11, made a factual, documentable, and good-faith edit of article KCBS-TV on 11 June 2008 which was within an hour deleted by User: Rollosmokes in a summary fashion and without discussion (it was dismissed as "unnecessary"; all relevant information is contained in the article's archives). In fact the editor which made this deletion is one which I had been in contention with on similar subjects before; we had gone back and forth regarding another article until I gave up all efforts to reach consensus with him. This had never happened to me before, and I was so frustrated that I resorted to "sock puppetry" (a violation that at the time I did not know existed). My subsequent attempt to apologize to this editor for harsh words and to achieve friendly relations was brusquely rebuffed. As far as the edits to article "KCBS-TV" are concerned, I really have no need to promote the rightness of my information--I peruse Wikipedia merely for enjoyment--but I am beginning to feel uneasy about editing when I know there is another editor who awaits the chance to "put me in my place." Any further argument or "edit war" is not to my taste; I seek guidance or, if warranted, arbitration. Thank you in advance. Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what outcome you're looking for here. According to the history of KCBS-TV, you made 4 edits with UTC timestamps on 11 June; the 4th reverted the sum of the first 3, leaving the article unchanged. There are a further 6 with UTC stamps on 12 June which would have been on 11 June in any US timezone; the net effect of those 6 was reverted by Rollosmokes, about 2 1/2 hours after your last. Those are all the edits I see under your username; Rollosmokes has been editing that article since 9 May, if not earlier. There's no evidence that Rollosmokes followed you to that article; and his/her last revert isn't unreasonable either.

If you have other concerns then please bring them up here, or on my talk page if you prefer, but I don't see that there's a problem to solve here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking specifically at Rollosmokes' edit, I think your first paragraph was easier to read, but the second had a great deal of original research; be sure to take a look at WP:V and WP:RS. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be looking at WP:OWN, as the current situation in WikiProject Television Stations is veering dangerously toward one in which one individual (with occasional assistance of an accomplice or two) is systematically removing many contributions from outsiders as "irrelevant", "vandal", "non-consensus", "trivial", "sock puppet" or worse while forcing their own agenda on the series of articles. While some legitimate reversion of vandalism is occurring, massive reverts of valid edits are sadly routine over there. The project is not a small one (1800 US full-power stations, plus non-US stations and low-power TV) and there is much information which needs to be added, but more effort seems to be expended on revert wars than meaningful content. Not sure what to do about this. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute or Behaviour Problem

Would some new eyes have a look at The Incredible Hulk (soundtrack)‎. I placed a {{merge| Incredible Hulk (film)}} with a rationale that the soundtrack on its own probably doesn't meet notability criteria and invited discussion. Another user refuses to discuss and simply removed the merge proposal. This is not the first time. I'd appreciate some neutral eyes. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see they've removed a notability tag as well. I'm neutral to both, but discussion should still occur. A tag removal warning might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a polite note saying that discussion would be more helpful, and have pointed them to this discussion. Kevin (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Jasynnash2 who is having behavior problem not me. All iam trying to do is creating a page for soundtracks and expanding this. The movie is notable so do soundtrack. I don't like the idea of soundtrack being merge. They deserve to have a separate page. Iam not just talking about The Incredible Hulk soundtrack but for all movies and games soundtrack. They deserve to have a separate page. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My question in that case would be why not simply discuss on the article's talkpage instead of just removing the merge proposal tag? How is following the process of placing the tag and inviting discussion a behaviour issue? BTW if we are going to get into detail should we be discussing elsewhere? At the article or somewhere else? Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You want to merge the page because it is not notable. Listen there is enough of the links in the main page to prove the soundtrack existence. It is pretty hard to find notable links for soundtracks. So tell me expert do you know where to get notable links to make the article to be valid?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that existence doesn't equal notability (I'm pretty sure we have policies that discuss what is or isn't notable). I think the reference/external links originally provided were to places to buy the album and not to anything that contributed to notability or verifiability. I think you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions. I also think this is better discussed in a mature and adult manner at a different section as I'm pretty sure this isn't what Editor Assistance is actually for. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok fine. Where do you want to talk?. Do you want to email?. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article talkpage would be appropriate to discuss this album or if there is a discussion underway about Albums in general and when they are/become notable we can discuss there. Or your talk page if you want to address the "behaviour" side of things (yours and mine). I'm not sure of the most appropriate place in all honesty. I think maybe a suggestion on where from a 3rd party may be appropriate if you are okay with that (I'm happy to have either of the above two contributors as an unofficial mediator if need be). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?

Not once, not twice, not three times but four times, the user Arcayne has persisted to remove sourced continuity points from this article. This follows lengthy discussion in Talk:Silence in the Library (sections 21-25), where consensus hugely overwhelmed his views. He has suggested continuity sections are removed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, which of course he has every right to do. But even though consesnsus appears to be going against him here also, he adamantly believes that his controversial viewpoint should stand while the discussion is ongoing, rather than the current legislation as outlined in the WikiProject. Despite my numerous requests on both his and my talk pages, he completely ignores my request that he leaves things as they are for now, instead choosing to level minor personal attacks on me (I find his claims of ownership behaviour particularly hypocritical). As I am rather dissapointed to receive my first warning for this, and do not wish to be caught in an edit war or be blocked, I have not reverted his removals again but have come here instead. Please can someone help common sense to pervail here? U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Said user has now removed a comment I left on his talk page with a rather rude edit summary. What he's trying to acheive here I don't know, but it's getting way out of hand. He seems to generally assume superiority over all other editors in pretty much every edit he makes. Needless to say I'm not prepared to communicate with him further under the current circumstances. All the evidence has been presented here. U-Mos (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, are users permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages? U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Users can remove warnings from their talk pages apart from those concerning unblock requests I believe, it is considered evidence that it has been read and understood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Considering that the diffs you point out were countered by you each time (1, 2, 3), I think the appropriate response would be something along the lines of 'hello pot, meet kettle'. I would advise you to more closely examine your edits (or rather edit-warring reverts) and look at the bits you keep editing in. I've pointed out numerous times (your discussion page immediately comes to mind) about how you should more closely examine your edits before reverting them, which rather fell on deaf ears. Look at the continuity points you keep insisting should be there. Use the discussion page to bring them up and - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - actually discuss them outside of a terse edit summary.

It also bears mentioning that your approach to any discussion is confrontational and somewhat uncivil and attack-y; you have also been asked to curb that behavior. It became such that you had to be asked to abstain from posting to me on my user talk page on at least one occasion.

I am willing to accept my own culpability in the downwards descent of your behavior, but quite frankly, it takes two to tango. This consensus you claim to have in every article we are both involved in is both incorrect, and a pretty sad excuse for personal attacks and incivility. Maybe you and I should just stay away from responding to each others' posts.

(ec)I would also point out that the removal of the warning (with the edit summary of "got it, only newbies and trolls need template warnings") was largely unnecessary, as I wasn't really edit-warring, but instead following BRD. U-Mos' dogged determination to ensure that his (contended) version of the section remain in place was rather an ownership issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And dismissed at that venue with suggestions to head on over to WP:3O. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give an outside opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User Planecrash111 vandal to page Jeff Gordon.

User Planecrash111 is continually vandalizing the Page Jeff Gordon as well as my talk page. I have asked this person to stop and provided all necessary references to support my claim. I have tried to reason with the user but they just don't want to be reasonable. Thank you for any help in this matter.--Vertigo315 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. I'll keep you appraised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, the biggest issue is changing official referenced stats to unofficial unreferenced stats in the 2008 table. --Vertigo315 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo315 continuously vandalized Jeff Gordon for many weeks and removed content without specifying why in the edit summary. He did only a couple of times. He specified a link that said Gordon qualified 28th at Richmond, but before the race he changed engines and I changed the position from 28th to 43rd and gave a link to show Vertigo315 that this is not vandalism. Vertigo315 being the coward that he is removed it anyway and said some bogus statement that made no sense.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I warned him on his talk page and he kept on removing the warnings saying it was "page cleanup" which however it was really a cover up of evidence. Vertigo315 did the same thing on my talk page and it is still there. For some reason Vertigo315 doesn't understand the reality of reaction force which in other words is retaliation. Its like saying you threw a rock at me and I throw a concrete block back. Fair enough.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Vertigo315 seems to think that all Wikipedians are stupid enough to believe that he has been on for 3 or more years when actually he hasn't been on for 1. I'm sick and tired of Vertigo315 that I just wish that editing wasn't allowed on this website any longer due to the fact that Vertigo has started 3 of the 5 edit wars this week alone. Vertigo315 game me outdated sources and I gave him up to date references which he simply ignored.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't want to see Vertigo get blocked, but I would want him to show more respect, use good faith, don't use my age as a personal attack, and just go on with his life.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Okay, having taken a good look at the article and both of the user talk pages (and past contributions), I am arriving at pretty much the same advice I was going to offer at the beginning. I feel kinda goofy giving it because I am not always that good at following it myself. I will offer them point by point, so that if you decide I and my advice totally sucks, you can rip into me number by number:

1. . Calm down - You guys need to calm the heck down. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. You are not getting paid or officially recognized for any of the work you are doing here, so why in the Holy Name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are you essentially taking part in a Monty Python sketch?
2. . Put yourself in the other guy's shoes - Both of you are currently engaging in activity that is not going to convince the other person of how terribly wrong they are. They are not going to join a monastery and give you all their possessions, and go forth in a hair shirt, telling people how wonderfully intelligent you are. One of the most difficult facts to accept when editing in Wikipedia is that you (in the infinitive sense of the word) are not the smartest person in the room. Ever. The snide comments and not-so-subtle attacks on each other doesn't make either of you want to suddenly up and say, 'omigod, he's right - even if he is. By cutting them down, you've effectively removed their ability to backtrack on an incorrect statement. Be gracious; you will all too often need this same sort of retreat path yourself.
3. . Be nice - Let's face it, it's always best to be nicer to the noobs and boobs (new folk and idiots) because even a broken clock is right twice a day. By being nice and not sniping away at them isn't going to give them the best impression of Wikipedia and how this can actually be a pretty cool place to waste a few hours. Some of those noobs and boobs will be admins and bureaucrats someday (trust me on this), so if you cannot find any charity in your heart, consider the Machiavellian downside of burning your bridges. And stuff that crap about being anonymous. Your edits will come back to haunt you at the least opportune time. I've got an editor who still uses my arguments from over a year ago to claim I am but the Anti-Christ writ small and wiki-like. Grudges last a long, long time. Being nice makes it easier for yourself in the long run. Consider it karma.
4. . See rule number three again, in the off-chance you missed it.
5. . Be willing to find a solution that works for both of you - Unless one of you is the sort to be interested in annexing the Sudetenland, you are probably fairly reasonable people in real life. Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate, and it is not because a crack team of fact-checking eggheads is stowed away in the Wikimedia equivalent of the Batcave, checking the minutiae of the Wiki-en. It is pretty accurate because regular folk like you or I use what knowledge we have to help keep things accurate and cited. I haven't read every book in the friggin' world, and neither have either of you, but collectively we've read a bunch of books, so we all bring something to the table. Working together is what makes it all work. If there is no compromise, then only one side is getting their say in an article, and that skews the neutrality. That sort of problem is what brings the article dispute-locking tools out of the admin;s toolbox, and people start getting blocked left and right. It's not a pretty sight. Seek a compromise/consensus whenever possible.
6. . You are not always going to win - This is arguably the hardest lesson to learn, because we are all in thrall to the idea that the internet doesn't have to suck in the ways that the real world does. However, we are working with other real people, and their views are valid too. A more extreme way of saying this is that sometimes, you are the the dog, and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. Your view might be a minority opinion in the mainstream without you even knowing it. You might be a little wrong, or the kind of wrong that requires two whole syllables to describe (wrooo-oong!) Some chucklebutt hermit on a mountaintop says that recognizing you are wrong is the first step to learning how to be right. I say that Wikipedia is full of ways to get a larger opinion on a particular problem (Mediation, MedCab, DR, AN/I, ArbCom), and all are available to you. But sometimes you are going to lose, and lose big. Sometimes you don't have the citation you need, or you just don't want the other guy to win because they are moronic ass-clown. When you find yourself feeling that way, step away from the keyboard and go away or a bit. It stings that your version isn't in place, and the wrong one is, but that's life. You can always approach the situation again when someone notable produces a citation that you need to make your point. Don't expend too much frustration on it, or you will burn out.
7. . Time is on your side - It really is, as articles are essentially a revolving door for editors who come and go, your consensus can change along with the new editorship. It doesn't matter what last-years' consensus was, you can seek a new one (usually, the unofficial length an older consensus is considered valid is about 3-5 months, after which someone questions the whole thing ,and the process starts anew). So, it isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Ever. However, if you get blocked or banned for being an edit-warring, uncivil ass-clown, your chances of having any effect on that consensus drop considerably.

Okay, I am tapped out and tired. I hope some of it sank in. It wasn't my wittiest (that was here, and it was totally ignored, boo-hoo),but I don't think it was the worst advice I've ever offered, either. Have a pleasant evening. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In respone to planecrash111 alegations, first of all I am not trying to hide evidence as you claim, I am cleaning up my page of the garbage you posted on it trying to pretend you are an admin or something, second, I have NEVER been accused of vandalism on here and have a long list of page contributions. I do not vandalize pages. Period. And for the last time, the point of contention is the fact that you are changing referenced statistics on a page with unreferenced material. Nascar car's official statistics for starting position are where they qualified, this is in the Nascar rules and regulations. It is a fact. Nearly every race is influenced by changing in starting position at the beggining of the race for nearly every driver, many times at the last moment, making it diffucult to track. I have tried to keep a cool head over this but I have for a long time taken great pride in helping keep the stats on this page and other pages very accurate to the standards that have been set. --Vertigo315 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not pretending to be an admin. Posting vandalism warnings is not a sign of pretending to be an admin. If i posted a block notice, then I WOULD BE, but was I? NO!! You have been accused of vandalism, but you foolishly removed the warnings to cover up the evidence. You claim to be a Wikipedian for more than 3 years when an investigation by me claims that you have been on for only 8 months. Here is a hint. There is only 12 months in year. I posted the references and you removed the references on PURPOSE!!!! After qualifying ended Gordon was 28th and you posted a reference that he started 28th, but before the race started Gordon changed engines which caused him to start 43rd and I provided a link to support my edit, but as i said before you removed the reference. You no nothing about NASCAR because in the end of the race on the website it says Gordon start 43rd Finish 9th. You have made mistakes and you have never admitted your mistakes. I wish you would because if you don't it shows how bad of a sport you are. You may have cleaned up your page, but you removed evidence of your vandalism which I think is wrong.(Planecrash111 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Er, did you guys not bother to read that fairly long post above? I know attention spans are pretty short (apparently amongst admins they are fairly miniscule ;) ), but I rather thought it was worht reading. The fact that I had to indent both of your replies tells me you folks are each trying to have the last word. That isn't how it works here, though some folks always try. Take the time to remove the recrimination and aggro from your posts and actually take the time to listen to the other person. It might make things easier if each of your posts aren't full of accusations and name-calling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Without reading up on the background to this, and just going on what's been said here, I must say that Planecrash needs to pay careful attention to both Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Those are the behavioural standards here, and I've seen multiple violations of them, just on this page. I'm not interested in how rude the other guy was; you need to clean up your own act.

On a more general note, it seems to me that you two both want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of NASCAR. Since you're on the same side, maybe the two of you should make an effort to work together. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP. Fleetflame 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Kansas banner templates

Resolved

 – editor directed to relevant Wikiproject and Wikipedia:Bot requests. --BelovedFreak 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I glanced over at WikiProject Kansas and noticed they have a mess on their hands with their banner template: they have 3 of them. Two of them must be from the early days of WikiProjects because they seem to be just banners without assessment capabilities: Template:Project Kansas and Template:WikiProject Kansas. The third template is the one linked to the project's assessment stats and is capitalized incorrectly compared to other WikiProjects: Template:Wikiproject Kansas. Obviously, there is no need for all 3 templates to exist. I tried doing simple redirects of the first two templates to the third, but the formatting broke on many article talk pages. Basically, I would like assistance merging 3 templates into 1. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is something you should bring up at that WikiProject too. There was some discussion of templates a while back, but it wasn't clearly resolved. Right now, Template:Project Kansas is transcluded onto 1700+ talkpages, Template:WikiProject Kansas appears on another 600 or so, and Template:Wikiproject Kansas is on less than 200. Seems like a bot would be useful to do the replacements. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You could post the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests; there's one for the Chicago project that is somewhat similar. I strongly recommend getting consensus among anyone active at WikiProject Kansas first, though. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow I never found that Bot requests page. I guess I was just impatient, trying to be bold, to get the templates working like they should and at first glance, WikiProject Kansas looked inactive. I'll go through the channels you recommended to get the mess straightened out. Thanks. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Project looks a bit under-staffed. I was going to recommend copying the good template over the other 2, but the summary matrix for the Project probably wouldn't work correctly. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminately editing my entries

Stale

 – SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance to intercede for the following users:

1. Nanami Kamimura 2. Howard the Duck 3. Harlock jds

If there’s some irregularities from my previous posts Pinoy Idol, Idol Series, why targeting my other posts? Always reiterating my sources. I got my sources directly from a reputable site, which owned the franchise related to my entries. As I’ve checked the history of that entry, all of them (the users) undoing everything. Even it’s a valid edition.

Hope you can comment on this. Thanks.

Webwires —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwires (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think you still have a lot of policies to read and understand. Concerning your edits on Idol series, they clash with WP:NFC, espcially on minimal usage. The five logos are already enough to generally illustrate the difference between Idol series logos. About twenty or so is way too many. As for sources, blogs and forums are not the best sources of info; read WP:V and WP:SPS. You can also ask WP:RS/N to make sure if your sources are reliable at all. I'm just reminding you of what you are doing, so don't take it personally on us. (Read WP:ATTACK and WP:POINT for more.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Resolved

 – (I hope) More eyes are on the article, and the original poster seems to have been proved correct. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the article EToys.com, because I was interested in the subject material. What I found when I read it was that one of the people editing the article seems to be a first person to the situation. I pointed that out on the talk page and got a relatively bizarre response from the editor in question. Could someone review the discussion on the talk page and tell me if I'm off base? Thanks in advance! --Silverhand^Talk 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible that User:LaserHaas has the risk of a conflict of interest in this article. However, it looks like most of his recent contributions have been reverted. The whole article is a bit of a mess; I'll try to clean it up later on. A lot of the legal stuff ought to be moved out to another article - which might or might not endure. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I had intended on doing something similar to what you mentioned when I had time, but after his response where it seems User:LaserHaas ever so slightly freaked out, I wasn't sure what to do. I looked at his talk page and it looks like this isn't the first time with this time of misunderstanding. I just don't think he understands the policies, but I could be wrong. Anyway, thanks for the looksie! --Silverhand^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a quick pass at removing all of the information relating to the personal travails of User:Laserhaas, restoring the article to the state it was in just prior to August 2007. The article needs further cleanup and citation yet. JohnInDC (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture for Article

Stale

 – Advice given, no further response from editor. --BelovedFreak 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, My grandfather, Thomas Gibbons, is referenced in a Wikipedia article in the same name (He was a past police commissioner in Philadelphia). I have a photograph of him that I would like to post, however, I do not have permission to do so. I am honestly not interested in becoming a regular editor/poster, but I though the picture would be added content for the page. The photograph was taken by his sister, who is now deceased -- it now belongs to my father. If there is any way to get it posted, please let me know. Thanks so much! Carey Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careygroberts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload describes how to upload images. You'll need to show that you own the image and that you grant the appropriate licence to Wikipedia to use it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

Stale

 – This may yet resurface in other venues SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting assistance due to recent attacks from editor User:JPG-GR.

I have already asked an administrator to help and was directed here. Here is what I asked for:

I was wondering if you could help me with an issue I have with another user. User:JPG-GR. I feel this editor is putting personal attack warnings on pages without merit. For example, he recently put a threatening personal attack warning on my talk page [27], which had no merit. After I tried explaining to him why he had no merit, I get attacked in reply [28].

What I have come to notice is that this editor is attempting to act like an administrator and believes he has the authority to meddle with every single edit other editors do. The example above was me removing a page from my user page that was defunct and he automatically jumped on me. Same with the ongoing war with another user User:Radiolbx. Not that its any of my business, since he is a different editor, but he is new to Wikipedia and unlike you or I, may not understand policies yet. It took me several months to understand a lot about Wikipedia. I sincerely feel that JPG-GR is attacking radio [29] and assuming he knows the rules, which may or may not be true. Radio is having trouble defending himself!

Both of us are human editors, radio and I. We certainly make mistakes just like everyone else. What I don't like is being attacked and put down for no reason, and having my edits torn apart. I would appreciate some intervention on this matter. If this is the wrong place for this complaint, please direct me to the proper avenue, thanks!

This was taken from the admin's talk page. I would appreciate some assistance on this matter. Thanks! Milonica (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is making my brain hurt as well as Tony's. It looks to me like you removed a link to a deleted page with a comment about "page deleted by bully" and JPG-GR templated you as a result. That might have been excessive, but I too interpreted your edit summary as calling the deleting admin a bully. I then see where you posted on JPG-GR's page with a rationale, which was inventive but not entirely convincing to me. I'm sorry that you feel under attack, but the evidence you posted here doesn't really establish a long-running pattern.

If there are more substantial incidents then please point them out, but this seems like a storm in a teacup. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't calling the admin that deleted the page a bully, nor did I call JPG-GR a bully. I didn't say specifics. If I had anything against any admin, I wouldn't have put the speedy delete tag on my own page. JPG-GR believes that the bully is "him" even though again, I didn't say anyone in particular. Also, what about User:Radiolbx? Doesn't the fact that he is afraid to edit make things worse? Milonica (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On the deletion/bully incident, I don't know who you thought was a bully; your comments were ambiguous. It might have been better to use another form of words. We might let JPG-GR speak to his/her own beliefs rather than assuming we know what they are; I don't think that will help.

On the question of Radiolbx, s/he can raise his/her own concerns if need be. I can't understand what happened there, not least because you edited Radiolbx's talkpage and that was out of line. I think I would recommend that you assume good faith and go back to constructive editing/writing. This posting will remain in an archive as a checkpoint. If there are subsequent incidents then we can consider them, but I think you're making too much out of rather little. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I can comment on that last bit... Radiolbx (talk · contribs) was making edits that had an unencyclopedic tone and were a potential conflict of interest. JPG-GR reverted his changes. The discussion turned a little nasty, and Radiolbx eventually gave up and left the project.

I'm a little disappointed in that outcome, as I believe Radiolbx was acting in good faith. I can't really point to anything specific that JPG-GR did wrong, though, and near the end Radiolbx was beginning to behave in an incivil manner, which we can't tolerate.

Disappointing, for sure, but I don't see any ongoing problem... I don't even see anything specific I can point to and say, "Ah hah, if I were JPG-GR, I would have done this differently!" I advise him of some more moderate means of dispute resolution rather than taking things straight to the Administrators' noticeboard, and he seemed grateful for the advice. I'm just not sure what other action you want taken...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Playmate Stats

Stale

 – Please add further comments to the Stephanie Adams thread below SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The playmate stats of one particular playmate, Stephanie Adams, keep getting removed by one or two users (who seem to have a history of trying to harass this article in particular), even though these facts have been in the article ever since playmate stats on Wikipedia were ever created, and should therefore remain in the article. Regardless of how people feel about playmate stats, until all of the stats have been removed on every single Playboy playmates's page, one playmate's page should not be blatantly vandalized. 71.167.236.169 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been a fairly controversial article for a while, and there has been much debate on the talk page about the inclusion of the stats in the article. There has been no consensus for inclusion, and so I have removed (again) the stats. If you check the editing histories of those removing versus those readding the stats, you will note that those removing have a history of editing more than just one article, while some of those readding seem to possibly be sock puppets, with history (mainly or only) editing the Stephanie Adams page. Would appreciate assistance in mediating this matter. As mentioned on the article's talk page, Jimbo Wales commented in favour of removing the stats. Wandering canadian (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it does not make sense to remove one, when they are all placed on every playmate's page. This celebrity page is no different from any other playmate's page. The only thing "controversial" is removing stats which were there long before when every other Playboy playmate's article was created. There are lots of "controversial" playmates, but they all have stats on their pages. As per Wikipedia articles on all playmates, these stats are consistent with the other ones, were always there, and therefore should remain. Remove them on every article after it is agreed to by Wikipedia. But until then, removing it on one page is considered to be vandalism. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of building consensus, it might be worth filing a request for comment. --BelovedFreak 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Haereticorum and Diocese article naming

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to better venue SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Haereticorum has moved a multitude (900+) of articles from the format of "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo" to "Diocese of Foo" for the time period from April 2008 thru June 2008 without concensus or support of a WP:NAME guidline. Attempts to contact the user on his talk page have not triggered a response, nor has the user participated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the large scale of the moves, I think your best course of action is to advertise the issue in a few carefully chosen places directing users to comment centrally at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles about whether the names should be moved back and see if there is consensus either way. This page is really not high profile enough to get you a large response, and it's not targted to users especially familiar with naming conventions. I'd try posting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, maybe Wikipedia talk:Requested moves (not quite about requested moves, but many of the most knowledgeable people on naming conventions may see it there), and maybe you could post a request for comment. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started a section in Wikipedia talk:Requested moves regarding this matter; we could discuss this there if all are content with this.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article

Take a look at the article on this playmate and you will see that numerous users (Wandering Canadian in particular) have been vandalizing the article's "playmate stats" as well as removing important information from it. It's almost as if they have some sort of personal conflict with the individual in the article and this is not a place to indirectly rant about celebrities. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have offered to discuss this issue numerous times on the article's discussion page to help resolve this difference of opinion. There are a number of anonymous and very new accounts being used to revert edits made on the page. The user above has also vandalized my user page. Help would be appreciated. Wandering canadian (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your page was not vandalized. You vandalized the article mentioned above and was politely warned to stop doing so. All playmate statistics are contained in article on playmates and should not keep being removed. Not only are there editors who agree, but Wikipedia agrees, simply because they continue to keep info boxes with playmate information. Removing one is considered vandalism because it destroys the consistency of the playmate articles. 66.108.3.221 (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Artist bio.

Having trouble psoting the article I pasted in and even editing. Can't really understand what is needed to uplead the article with the sources. Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be glad to help. I saw your draft at User:Mikusart. Would you like to move that into article-space, or are you asking for help in adding references first? I'd recommend the latter. Perhaps you can identify some of your sources, either at the bottom of the page or on the discussion tab, and I'll add some of them to the article. Then you can follow those examples. Would that work? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Julie Couillard article links to wrong article

I'm not sure why this happened or if there is some reasoning that I don't understand behind this but an article on Julie Couillard has been linked to this page, Maxime Bernier.

The two individuals are connected but Bernier is not Couillaird. They are separate individuals and should have separate articles IMO. Is it possible for an editor to de-link Julie Couillard from the Maxime Bernier article. DSatYVR (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this appears to be intentional and in line with normal practice. Our policy on biographies of living persons indicates, among other things, that we should be cautious with such articles, and generally should not present an article as a "biography" when really all it covers is a person's involvement in a single event or scandal. Normally, in that case, if the event, scandal, or person with whom they were involved is notable, we will redirect the non-notable person's name to the name of the event or another appropriate article. Hope that clears things up! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How does one de-link the article? Couillard has now been linked to another Conservative senior aide, Bernard Cote, and has connections with a real estate company that sought Canadian Federal Government contracts. Also some Opposition party concerns that organized crime allegedly may seek to influence politicians thru individuals such has Couillard who has past links to the Hells Angels. If you want all this in the Maxime Bernier article thats fine but I really do think it belongs in a separate article. DSatYVR (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This comes down to notability. There is no entry for Bernard Cote; a google search makes it look like Cote wouldn't pass notability- for example, this link describes him as a "senior staffer". That means that Couillard's only claim to notability is still through Bernier, and since Couillard wouldn't pass notability on her own, proper practice would be to keep the redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the best way to handle this is to create a Julie Couillard section within the Maxime Bernier article and if it overwhelms the original article it will eventually get split off. It that how it works at wikipedia? DSatYVR (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

delete user sub pages

Resolved

 – Fleetflame 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to go another direction and let Mizabot handle archiving my talk page. Can someone delete this subpage for me? User:Samuel Pepys/talk & User talk:Samuel Pepys/talk --Samuel Pepys (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the second as it should be kept as an archive of previous conversation. I'd move it to something like Archive 1? I'll take care of the first page in a moment. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Little overlap. I just deleted the first one, noted your decline of the speedy on the second. I agree with Seraphim Whipp, just move it to User talk:Samuel Pepus/Archive 1. Pastordavid (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's important to retain the /talk item, especially as it contains some of the complaints about that user messing with other user's workpages, about which there is a WP:ANI thread. The user has somehow got the notion that workpages are the same things as articles, and that he has a right to mess with them as he sees fit. He doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that discussion (it led me here), which was why I declined the 2nd speedy. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. One thread often leads to another. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User Dgtsyb persists in editing war even after a second third opinion is given

As can be seen here Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion and here Talk:Signaling_System_7#Moving_Forwards user Dgtsyb persists in undoing changes made by user LeeDryburgh and does not stop creating allegations against the user, all of which so far have been deemed to be false. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has provided a resolution that both you and Dgtsyb have agreed upon, but you still haven't provided your material in PDF format for the website you are linking to, or to the very least, you aren't linking directly to the PDF as opposed to the website as per the resolution. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read back thru the saga at Talk:Signaling System 7 you can see that a PDF is not legally possible and this was stated many times. There is nothing that says something has to be PDF over HTML! Leedryburgh (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help with dispute Comet (programming)

Some people are removing the informative and helpful content of the article [30] and replacing it with fluff: [31]. Further they are accusing people who do a revert to then original article as vandalism. BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here fore help. You can discuss your issues on the talk page for the article. There you can propose your definition of "fluff" and "helpful content". If you want my advice, I highly suggest you start small. I've read through the diffs you provided and it's hard to sort through the huge number of changes that were made to the article. Starting small on the talk page will help you come to an agreement with the other editors that are changing the page. Once you come to an agreement on something small, moving forward will be easier. Come back here if using the talk page doesn't work. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of this ANI thread. As far as I know, the article has now been fully protected. A Request for Comment is the next step in resolving this content dispute. Thanks for coming here for help! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sword of Fargoal

I have of question of how to resolve some direct misinformation on wikipedia. the page is "Sword of Fargoal". My name is Scott Corsaire and I wrote the machine language programs that made the game playable. This was the heart of the video game and the author is removing credit to me to suit his ego. I'd like to know how to resolve this...He also claims he hired me for some minor routines. That is false. He came to me on a friday night begging me in tears that the company was going to refuse publishing it the way he did it and I had until 72 hours later to rewrite it. He never intended to pay me at all. In fact he said he thought I did it for the experience and he took the more than 50,000 dollars he made and went off to europe.

The money is not the issue, but the false information IS. It is insulting and inaccurate grossly.

Thank You,

Scott Corsaire (wiki Usr name: bion2u2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bion2u2 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scott. Thank you for your concern. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, in that everything we say must be backed by a reliable source. While I have no doubt your allegations are true, do you have a reliable source we could cite to support what you say? In the absence of this, there is not much we can do.

I will take a look at the article. Even if you do not have verifiable proof of what you allege, it is possible that the misleading information is also unsupported by sources, so we could at least remove that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost everything in the "History" section is completely unverifiable. I trimmed it back to just a couple of sentences that are actually supported by reliable sources. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeking advice about types of disruption

Hello world, I refer you to my current discussion at Talk:Sahaja_Yoga - see the Nirmala Srivastava section. The page in question is currently frozen due to edit wars. I have found an error in this section and have proposed re-wording it using a new source. However, there is one tendentious editor who is resisting the introduction of this new reference using multiple spurious arguments. Due to the fact that this page is frozen and conveys his POV, it seems to be in his interest to disrupt all proposed changes. What do I do - request mediation or seek to unfreeze the article? Are you able to take a look? Best regards, Freelion (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See above: "The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral." If you go for mediation, you should make it easy for your counterpart to be constructive by avoiding blaming, accusing, criticising and diagnosing.--Simon D M (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The disruptive, tendentious editor who is resisting the introduction of this new reference has just identified himself above. Freelion (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He has indeed. --Simon D M (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Touché Freelion (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom Angelripper

Hi. Could someone please review the album articles associated with this artist ?

Since they mostly comprise nothing but a track listing and a cover image (which I believe aren't licensed anyway), I've been changing the album articles to redirects to the Tom Angelripper article as per (my interpretation of) WP:MUSIC. However, two users - Scanion and 189.61.21.255 (which may or may not be the same person) have been either undoing the redirects, or adding new articles with (basically) the same name. I've dropped a message onto both talk pages saying why I've been redirecting, and suggesting a compromise (creating a discography article, merging all the albums into the discography, and redirecting the albums to the discography article - which I believe WP:MUSIC permits). I can't keep on reverting the articles, or I'm going to fall foul of 3RR, so what I'd like is an indication of:

1. Whether my interpretation of the WP:MUSIC guideline is correct, or at least reasonable in this case - if not, then I don't need to go any further
2. If correct/reasonable, what can be done (if anything) to prevent, or at least discourage, the recreation of the individual articles.

I should say that I don't expect an answer to my talk page messages yet, as I only put my message there within the last few hours, so have no idea if they'll accept the discography article idea, but I'd like some experienced advice on whether I should even proceed any further, and if so, how. Cheers. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

:Ignore this - ignore this please - Scanion is in the process of creating a discography article... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Although Scanion has created a discography article, the original articles still remain, with a link to the discography. So, unfortunately, my original questions still stand. CultureDrone (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You could well be right. I think AfD is the place that will most likely resolve this, if you don't get a constructive response on the talk pages. The discography has some unusual formatting too. Not ugly or anything, but certainly non-standard. btw, it's User:Scaion, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I need help learning how to learn to use Wikipedia so I can edit and create articles, and work on images. I will have more free time since school is out and would like to volunteer some time. Tia--Catagraph (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your interest. the best place to get started is the editing tutorial, where you can learn how to contribute and test making edits in the sandbox. Here is a cheatsheet for wiki markup, and some links to get you started. Once you have a feel for editing, be bold and start editing! Feel free to ask any questions that arise on my talk page. Boccobrock•T 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Copts Article Page Fraught with bias and error, moderators biased refuse to allow clarifying statements

Hi,

The Copts article has a flag adorning its website, and a worldmap with the same symbol. The problem is that this article discusses an ethnic group encompassing millions of people globally. A few years ago a small activist group came up with their version of a "coptic flag". In the past, many fringe groups have come up with their own flags (Source: www.thecopticflag.com) and same with this new one, the Coptic Church never recognizes any flag and Copts not affiliated with the creating organization have no idea about any flag. Unfortunately, the latest flag has adorned the Copts wikipedia article as the de facto symbol of Copts in a number of places (template, map). The source of this version is a website that has not been updates in 3 years. I tried to amend the page many times. The first few times I admit I didnt understand the nuances of Wikipedia editing. But now, whenever I write something pertaining that this is not an accepted by mainstream Copts, two moderators (mostly Troy and sometimes Lanternix) remove my edit with the excuse "Where is your source that it is not accepted?". This is ludicrous since the burden of proof had to be on the creator of the symbol to show that it IS accepted as a symbol of Coptic Identity and can be used as a de facto worldwide accepted symbol. How can you prove a negative? Ironically, in the discussion page when I discussed this Troy responded with the preposterous statement: "There doesn't need to be a reliable source that says that it's "world-recognized"". So technically, I can come up with my own design for a flag to represent an ethnic group that lacks a flag and plaster it over the main article describing them??!! According to Troy, that would be sufficient??

Additionally, as evidence that Troy and LAnternix are being completely obtuse, they summarily reject my edits when I add the statement that other groups in the past have created coptic flags, and I listed the source (www.thecopticflag.com).

I urge the editors to look into this to attempt to create an ACCURATE article rather than one that is at odds with reality.

Thanks

129.85.55.205 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question for clarification sake could you confirm that you are George and simply forgot to long in. I want to look into the whole thing before I comment and would appreciate being able to look at it from a fully informed starting point. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.205 (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with Self Promotion

I think I've found a case of an editor using Wikipedia for self-promotion, but I'm not certain of the appropriate course of action. Can someone help with the exact procedure of how this should be dealt with? Do I post it somewhere? Do I just revert the articles? Should a warning be sent to the editor in question? etc.

The editor in question is Worldstorey. On June 9, the user has edited pages for International Business and Global Strategy and have add a sentence mentioning the name of Dr. Rajesh K Pillania. I am in the field and have never heard of him, so I searched for him on Google Scholar and he essentially has written a handful of articles in mediocre journals. So, definitely not a leading author on the topic worth mentioning on those pages.

His name is also mentioned on the Emerging Markets article as well as on List of Jats and Strategy. I assume he has added at some point in time, perhaps under another username or as a guest since his username doesn't appear on those pages. But, they all feel out of place, talking about him with great praise while mentioning his contributions.

In fact, I don't think he is a significant enough researcher to have his own personal page ( Rajesh K Pillania ) on Wikipedia.

However, I am not an experienced editor to be able to completely track his movements and conclusively determine if this is indeed a case of self-promotion. I also don't know the appropriate procedures to reverse all the damage and more importantly prevent him from doing so in the future.

Can someone help?

Thanks,

Tkiyak (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Also note that the following users appear to be the same person: Greatlife999 (talk · contribs), Davidman21 (talk · contribs), Intellect12345 (talk · contribs), Globallight (talk · contribs), FreeSpirit111 (talk · contribs), Davidfisherman (talk · contribs), Globalacumen (talk · contribs), Globaljoy (talk · contribs), 123bluesky (talk · contribs) and Worldstorey (talk · contribs).

I have nominated Rajesh K Pillania for deletion. If any of the other accounts starts editing disruptively, I will report it to Suspected Sockpuppets.

Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Eco Freeko

I put up some information about a CD released in March 2008. There was no Wiki info for it. It is not there today. Says there are some problems about it. Please explain and how to put this article.

Eco Freeko is my creation. I could not open an account with my name TONES which I have as a trademark. To make this page I had to create Tonesee as a user name. Ialso can not put a page called Tones here for Wiki info because it says there is another page that is that. There is not a TONES page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonesee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! It appears Eco freeko was originally deleted because it was deemed to lack notability in the context of an encyclopedia. Please see the Wikipedia policies on notability for further information. You may have a similar problem with your idea for a "TONES" page. You may also wish to review WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, please have a look over Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is generally discouraged at Wikipedia to create articles on yourself or subjects you are personally connected to. You should also be careful when editing articles that already exist if you are connected to their subject. As for your problems creating that username, please also read the Username policy which states that you are not allowed to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and that using a name that is the same as your company or group is not recommended. It may be better to try editing articles that you are interested in, but not connected to, and thereby become more familiar with our policies and guidelines. Hope this helps, --BelovedFreak 11:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My Article was deleted.

Resolved

 – Original poster appears satisfied with explanations and advice.--BelovedFreak 11:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I created an article about Bruno Covington and someone deleted it. I knew it met all the standerds nothing was wrong with it. But someone deleted it. I dont know who did it. Is there a way I can get it back? I worked for a long time on that page. It has been deleted before that was becuse it didnt meet the standards but this time I made sure it did. Paraparanormal (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It didn't establish notability - who is he? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He is a musician who is nkown for his saxophone playing. Paraparanormal (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't no everyone on the world or everone who's famous. Therefor someone should not have the right to delete an article just beacuse THEY don't know who it is and the article would allow people unfamilar with said person to learn about them. And you still did'nt answer my question. Can I get it back? Paraparanormal (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:MUSIC. That will tell you what criteria are used to determine whether a musician is "notable" by Wikipedia standards and therefore whether they qualify for an article. Just as an aside, I'd say that Bruno Covington is not likely to pass the test - a Google search on "Bruno Covington saxophone" produces precisely three hits, two of which appear to relate to the deleted article. JohnInDC (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the criteria and Bruno Covington won the JFJ Foundation Saxophone Contest in 1996. So he does qualify. Paraparanormal (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not confirm the existence of either the JFJ Foundation or its saxophone contest in a quick Google search. That suggests - but of course does not prove - that it is not a major music competition as specified in WP:Music. If the deleted article lacked reliable sources that would establish the importance of the competition, as well as Covington's having won it in 1996, then the article would certainly be at risk for speedy deletion (which appears to be what happened). JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As other user's have said, it is difficult for us to see notability. This may be because the subject is not notable, or it may just be due to ignorance on our part. If you can find reliable sources to back up your claims of notability, the article could be kept. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was searching all over the web last night and a found a website. JFJ Foundation Paraparanormal (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am afraid, though, that the link does nothing to establish the notability of the competition. The decision to delete the Bruno Covington page appears to have been a sound one. JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason why it was deleted the first time was beacuse I just wrote "Bruno Covington" to save the page then I was going to come back and add everthing. And on the Notablity subject, like I said before having an article on him would give people a chance to learn about someone new who they didn't know about before. Isn't that what this website all about? Learing new things and getting more informed about things you already were fimilar with. Paraparanormal (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And what do you need to establish the notablity of the competition? Paraparanormal (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that Wikipedia is a great place to learn things that one didn't know before, that doesn't imply the converse - namely, that someone should be in Wikipedia by reason of the fact that no one has heard of them. Take a look at "what Wikipedia is not" and the notability requirements to get a sense of the kinds of articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia.

As for showing that a competition is notable - I paraphrased a bit loosely there. The actual criterion in WP:MUSIC is that the artist have won or placed in a "major music competition". It is pretty clear from the link you supplied that the JFJ Foundation Saxophone Contest, with its 12 entrants, open entry policy, 10 lay and semi-lay judges and $50 entry fee (or none, depending on which page you read) is by no stretch a "major" competition. I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this helps. Hopefully he will be able to have an article sometime. He is a real musician. I have one of his abums. I could upload it. Paraparanormal (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Best not. WP:COPY will keep you out of trouble! JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Advertising | No References | Misleading Information | Blatant Abuse of Policies

Resolved

 – Original poster seems happy with response. --BelovedFreak 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been struggling with an article (see User_talk:GaryECampbell and User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox. I am working with Wikipedians to ensure the article is notable, citable, referenced, NPOV and not blatant advertising. Although I've found the process frustrating at times, I understand why policies must be enforced. But I am also a bit confused why I have been hammered so hard, yet many other articles seem to be under the radar.

Here's my specific complaint.

The Web Conferencing article once listed vendors (see history), it is now replaced by a biased matrix comparison (see: Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software). Although the concept of a maxtrix comparison is good, the article does not list other major vendors such as GoTo or LiveMeeting (or WebTrain), it is written from a PictureTalk perspective and facts are unreferenced. Many PRIMARY features common to all major web conferencing products are missing, so it's pretty much useless. Such an undertaking requires months of research. My perception is that they created a comparison of what they have to show their checkmarks to advertise how good they are. As well, I see some of the checkmarks for features for WebEx are incorrect. Finally, the matrix was created with their points, to disclude others while omiting what other vendors provide that they do not. No single vendor should be allowed to do this, it is blatant abuse. Finally, I beleive Wikipedia was never meant for vendor comparison matrix articles, the article should be deleted and the web conferencing article reverted to a previous version.

PictureTalk has also added non-referenced facts to the Web Conferencing article. Same as their article. Perhaps the web conferencing article should just redirect to PictureTalk and disclude every company that has helped advance the technology (sarcasm).

In regards to the PictureTalk article, it reads like "Hey, here's my features". AS I previously stated, my article User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox got hammered really hard, yet PictureTalk, Glance, WebHuddle etc seem to slip under the radar. Even Adobe Connect does not include references, at best, their references are their own.

Perhaps no one is aware of these discrepancies. Can someone please determine the proper course of action for the Web Conferencing, PictureTalk, Glance, WebHuddle and the abuse of policies? Perhaps some Wikipedian editor with the appropriate rights can address the issues relating to the articles mentioned. Thank you. GaryECampbell (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the time (or expertise in the subject area) to properly look at the articles you are speakng of but I can address the inconsistent enforcement aspect of your question. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not and many others are in a bad state that haven't yet been tagged for cleanup that should be. There is no central authority that cleans up articles. Rather we're all individual editors and because of the huge number of articles that are created every day (thousands), many slip through the cracks upon creation and may sit around for a very long time without anyone looking at them, tagging them, nominating them for deletion, etc. So generalizing from any article's existence or state to conclude something about other articles is a logic that doesn't work well here. A page that is relevant by analogy here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. So it is not at all uncommon that one crapfest article never gets tagged, and a better but still problematic article is created within moments that two experienced editors land on simultaneously. In the end, though, which do you think will result in a better article? Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How do I report the above issues to be tagged as such ? (No references, blatant advertising, conflict of interest, unnotable, inaprorpriate content (competitive matrix comparison) and speedy delete). Links to examples would be nice (I'm still a newbie). Am I in conflict of interest since these organizations are competitors? Does everyone have rights to mark articles as such? GaryECampbell (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is this is how things work. Wikipedia has no center. Some things fall through the radar, some things don't. Your article is already shaping up to be something good; no need to worry about these other things. Our culture changes quite a bit over time... it's possible, for instance, that some of those articles were created long before the current culture that doesn't want your article in mainspace ever existed (featured article review would kill me for that sentence).

Please just focus on your article, and any others that interest you. Someone may find these complaints legitimate and funnel them through the proper channels (articles for deletion, prod, speedy, whatever). Someone might funnel them through those channels in 2015, if said channels were to still exist. Some others might build on those article to be as high a quality as yours is shaping up to be. With all this said, it's obvious you're working in good faith, and I applaud you for that; it doesn't happen too often with COIs. But pushing at this may soon look tendentious, even though your worries are in good faith (of that I have no doubt).

Wikipedia is such a strange beast. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Will do. GaryECampbell (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

Apparently

Resolved

 – Fleetflame 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone look at the dispute regarding the deletion of the Joel Widzer page? I think a hot headed edit war pursue and the result was deletion of the page. The past history should support that the page editors have tried to adhere to proper guidelines-thank you reagan (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been restored now (IMO, deleting it G11 was a bit trigger happy after the AfD). The concern was a conflict of interest; it's been cut down quite a bit, just needs further cleanup. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Piped links for other languages

Hi. A quick question on piped links....

An article I'm cleaning up relates to various places in Ireland. The text, as written, has the place names in Irish, but articles exist about the places using the English versions of the place names. So what's the policy on creating links ? Do I pipe the link to the English article, create a redirect for the Irish name to the English named article (I've checked that they don't currently exist), or change the text to the English name, with the Irish name in parentheses ? Cheers :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All legitimate alternate names of topics should have redirects. Where English language articles on places use anglified name, creating redirects to the native names is de rigueur so I'd go ahead and do that. For the balance please see the MoS at Wikipedia:Proper names#Place names (the answer there is that it depends on context, which you know better than I do).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to the Topic: Snail Shell Cave (Tennesssee)

Yesterday, June 19, 2008, I made significant additions to this topic.

Everything that I added has been deleted, and the comment was that I was quoting Copyright Material.

If that person had bothered to email me first, they could have found out that all the quoted material is in the Public Domain, and in fact, was never Copyright. The material quoted (and it was clearly in quotation marks) was from the book "Caves of Tennessee" (1961) which is Bulletin 64 of the Tennessee Division of Geology.

I used to work for the Tennessee Divison of Geology (in fact, I am the author of their Bulletin 69) so I know what I am talking about. However, if someone had bothered to contact me, I could have given them the telephone number of the Tennessee Division of Geology, which is: (615) 532-1500. The State Geologist is Ron Zurawski, who is a personal friend of mine. In fact, we went to college together. Check it out, if you have any questions.

Equally disturbing, the non-Copyright portion of my additions was deleted, too. I have been exploring Snail Shell Cave since 1963 and had much original material to contribute.

I would like to have this material restored. I certainly don't want to spend a lot of time adding it, again, only to have it deleted for no good reason.

Next time, be polite. Ask questions first.

Larry E. Matthews (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, and the material you quoted is in the public domain as a US Govt publication, then you should be able to include it in the relevant article. However, from the edit summary of the edit that hid your text, the other editor felt that your addition looked like a mass copy-and-paste from the textbook. I'm glad to see that you started a polite discussion at Talk:Snail Shell Cave - that's the best way to reach a consensus about how to include this material. If the other editor doesn't respond, you might make a short post on their User Talk page. If you decide to re-introduce any material that's been removed by another editor, make sure your edit summary includes "please discuss on Talk" or similar text. Hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually published by the State of Tennessee, not the U.S. - if state-published materials are not presumptively in the public domain then I think we need a citation to a reliable and verifiable source to show that this material has been in fact released to the public domain. JohnInDC (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we need to be careful about this. From WP:Public domain#U.S. government works: State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain. (emph. in original) Ideally, we would just paraphrase the material to avoid any difficulty.

Larry E. Matthews, I am sorry you feel like your hard work was erased. For what it's worth, if the material is deemed appropriate it is very easy to go back in the page history and re-add it. I can help you with that if consensus is to include material. For now, though, I would recommend you continue the discussion on the talk page as SheffieldSteel recommends. If the consensus is to include the material, let me know and I will help you restore it very quickly. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the user who edited out Larry E. Matthews' additions. Having provided most of the content previously in the article (to help save it from possible deletion), I was delighted to see additions to the article, but perceived that the additions as provided were clear violations of Wikipedia policy (note that the 8-paragraph quotation was referenced to a "book," not even to a state publication). To make it easier for the contributor, I did not actually delete the content but simply converted it to invisible comments, and left the following explanation on the user's talk page:

Thank you for your extensive additions to Snail Shell Cave. Unfortunately, long quotations such as the one that added are generally considered to violate copyright. Accordingly, I "hid" the section you added. Would it be possible to extract key items of information from that passage and add them in your own words?

Also, I hid the unreferenced advice about safety in this cave. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Is there a source you can cite as saying something like the following?

"The Southeastern Cave Conservancy, Inc., which manages the cave, describes the cave as 'extremely dangerous' due to deep water and flooding conditions. The organization permits only highly-skilled cave explorers to visit, and at least one member of any group entering the cave be either an SCCi or an NSS (National Speleological Society) member."

--Orlady (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope Larry E. Matthews will follow through and convert this material to a form more suitable to this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's one way that you're going about re-adding this, Mr. Matthews. Having a big chunk of text pasted in is a nightmare to work with- it would need massively wikified. It would be much better to paraphrase it; you'll bypass the copyright concerns, and it will be more manageable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: editing

I wrote a new article titled 'Licensing parents'. I now find that there are notices to correct grammar, correct spelling and there was a lack of references. But the editor didn't tell me where the problems were--and I can't find any. As a retired professor who has published over 40 books with top publishers and has taught college English and doctoral level research writing--I need some direction. Coachoconnorucla (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Basically, it looks like the article Licensing parents has been tagged because it's currently a single solid block of text. The page WP:YFA will give you a ton of information on how to create and edit articles using wikimarkup - the formatting mechanisms editors use to improve article layout. You can also find a stack of information on our manual of style at WP:MOS. You can also find a guide to citing references at WP:CITE. I'll add some further links to your talk page to help guide you further, but feel free to ask me more questions if you have them! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for contributing! The tags added are, I'm afraid, rather general-purpose and I hope they won't scare you off. I think the first one wasn't complaining about grammar so much as the style or tone. Your article is basically one huge chunk of text, and it would benefit from being broken down into sections, beginning with a brief introduction. There's lots of helpful information about article layout at Wikipedia:Manual of Style but perhaps Wikipedia:Your first article would be a better start. The notice about citations is just to let you know that the article doesn't use our approved format (defined in Wikipedia:CITE). Give me a few minutes to work on the citations, and once the basic structure is in place you should be able to add more quite easily. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article needs protection

Take a look at this article: Revision history of Peregrine Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire

I have personal knowledge that a stalker of the family keeps changing this article and myself and other wiki users have to fix it daily. I really think this article should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geno2008 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The proper place for requesting page protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, since this appears to be repeated vandalism from named users, rather than a content dispute, full page protection may not be appropriate. I have warned the most recent users inserting the information into the article and they can be blocked if they continue to vandalise. It also seems likely that there are sockpuppets operating here.--BelovedFreak 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have created a Suspected Sockpuppet report here. --BelovedFreak 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Editor feels situation is resolved --BelovedFreak 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently had a bit of an issue over the Audrey Hepburn article. I added a note about Bunny Mellon in the "Death" section. Rightly, someone named "wikidon" told me to add a reference, but instead of waiting for me to do so, deleted my edit.

So I re-added it with the appropriate reference.

Today, I got a sockpuppet telling me that I am edit warring and giving me a warning about blocking me.

I hardly think this minor episode amounts to warring, and I'd like to know who posted it and what can be done about this behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the WikiDon accused you of being a sockpuppet of User:Reyn116 per this diff The user WikiDon has since withdrawn this allegation per this diff. Your editing regarding the death section of Audrey Hepburn per this diff is still in the article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOCK for more info as regards sockpuppets. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wikidon didn't remove your edit, Antique Rose did. Also, if you check the history of your talk page, Wikidon accused you of being a sockpuppet of Reyn116. He later rescinded that accusation, and the 3RR template was accidentally left behind on your user talk page. I've removed it. Fleetflame 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I realized the edit was not taken out, but I was shocked at the accusation.....I appreciate all the help and am happy that the situation has been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World

There are two subjects that were deleted.,

Miss Pakistan WOrld and Sonia Ahmed

I think that this was not a fair delete.

I have tried contcting some people... but obviously, dont know much about Wikipedia rules.. I would like am Editor to look into these two articles and correct them. But the pages have to be restored as they are important pages for history in PAkistan. --Sonisona (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The relevant AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pakistan World and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Ahmed. I didn't way in on the second, but I specifically remember that on the first, there were few or no sources that we could find to establish notability. If you really think there was foul play, you can request an overturn at Deletion Review, but I don't think these would be overturned. There were also COI concerns with these articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Graphology

jonathon (talk insists in show only his point of view in a controversial topic, when both points of view are relevant enough as to be shown. 190.51.174.73 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)P.S. He blanks the same section over and over.

question: this is not recommended is it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReluctantPhilosopher&diff=220616270&oldid=219649531 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=prev&oldid=220687160 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.174.73 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Cygnus Business Media page

I would like some third party assistance, please. Over the past several months, I have been trying to provide facts on Wikipedia's Cygnus Business Media page. One former employee - Rich Handley - continues to add commentary and misrepresent facts. There is also a person called "The Truth Please" that you'll note has ONLY edited the Cygnus Business Media page and consistently adds editorial. In this:

In 1997, Cygnus (then called PTN Publishing) was acquired for about $100 million by a group lead (I've changed this to led and Rich changed it back to lead) ...or a reported $275 million. Paul Mackler, President of Commerce Connect, was installed as CEO.

This was a private sale and ONLY the principals know the exact price. I edited out the amount and now it continues to show up. It is not fact and I wrote that in the comment section.

This is misrepresented and is inflammatory: In 2006, a few months after Standard and Poor's warned that levels of financial risk were "very high" at Cygnus, Mackler and Cygnus President Richard Reiff resigned. Carr Davis and Anthony O'Brien replaced Mackler as co-CEOs while ABRY denied reports that Cygnus was up for sale.[1][2][3][4]

Paul and Rich did not leave because of the Standard and Poor's report which looks at debt and other things when it makes its reports. It has nothing to do with operations.

Other problems:

Subsequently, Cygnus continued its reorganization by laying off vice presidents Bob Stange and Paul Bowers and several veteran publishers. Five "brand directors" were appointed to replace the terminated publishers.[4]

Companies reorganize all the time, I'm sure Bob and Paul would not like to be used in this way, quotes should be take n away from "brand directors"

In September 2007, Cygnus management announced plans to reduce employee salaries by 7.5 percent and cut hours to 37 per week per employee, though deadline pressures remained in place despite the reduced labor and pay scale. According to Folio magazine, "The dramatic cost cutting comes in response to greater-than-expected revenue shortfalls." Folio estimated Cygnus Business Media's net pretax profits for 2006 at about $30 million.[5]

Again, estimated.

The company's aforementioned salary cut, as well as repeated layoffs of experienced industry veterans, frequent editorial budget cuts and other situations resulted in a public backlash in the blogging community, as bloggers expressed dismay over the company's actions and employees aired many grievances.[6]

This is just another way for our former employees and competitors to paint us in a bad light. The bloggers all remained anonymous so it is unfair to state this.

Downsizing continued in 2008 as Cygnus eliminated its Inside Sales department, a move that also proved controversial with employees. The controversy grew as the company restored the 7.5 percent salary cut to some salaried employees—but not commissioned salespeople and some editors—and called the salary reinstatement a "bonus."[7]

In May 2008, four of the six full-time staff members for Cygnus' Aircraft Maintenance Technology, including the publishers and editor-in-chief, resigned to start Director of Maintenance magazine, a competing publication. Around the same time, former Cygnus Vice President Paul Bowers launched Airport Improvement, another magazine that competes with Cygnus' aviation titles.[8]

This memo below was done as "tongue and cheek"

Shortly thereafter, Cygnus Human Resources Vice President Judy Heidebrecht issued a memo to Cygnus employees stating that they could wear "nice jeans" on Tuesdays to see if it would make them "more productive." As reported on Foliomag.com, this resulted in a further employee backlash against Cygnus, and criticism of Heidebrecht in particular, as many considered the memo to be indicative of a disconnect between the problems widely publicized at Cygnus and upper management's perception of those problems.[9]