Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

To make a general request for assistance, please place your name and a brief (a few sentences) description of the issue you need help with at the bottom. Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived.

Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

Babylon Translator

Resolved

 – No new incidents. --Aarktica 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for advice on developing the Babylon Translator page. It is proprietory software and a user user:Yellow up has consistantly been eliminating my additions (in favour of the manufacturer) making me think that it is indeed an employee of the company. Could you please take a look? I've been working in good faith.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.55.9 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One major problem I see is that you're citing web forums as a source. Forums generally do not meet our reliable source guidelines, since posting on them requires no fact-checking or editorial review. Your best bet is to find more reliable sources which back up the claims made. For example, a reputable site or source which commonly reviews software (CNet, Wired, etc.), may have made a review or written a piece on the situation. Information sourced to reliable sources is much less likely to be challenged. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an answer to your question, but it's a good idea to link the page you're asking someone else to look at. Just put two square brackets (like [[this]]) around the exact word(s) you want to be a link. Or if you put brackets, link, pipe, any text, brackets, you can do something more complicated. Edit this page to see what the markup looks like. Also, it's a good idea to sign posts (on talk pages etc) with four tildes (~~~~)  - Demong ^talk 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Demong, I think our anon. editor doesn't understand your verbal description. You should say, with this code, [[Talk:Babylon (program)|more complicated]], you can do something more complicated. --Deryck C. 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have a name now. I am also getting a better grasp on coding.Teguiste 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)S:

Here are the links to the pages Babylon Translator and to the discussion Talk:Babylon (program). I have been searching for reviews of what happened to Babylon and unfortunately there isn't much written. The documentation at the time was mainly generated through usenet and forums on the babylon site. I suspect the program itself was not big enough to generate criticism in the press. I understand these to be "primary sources"; moreover there is a sufficient quantity to conclude that the complaints were not isolated. The complaints concern a) the appropriation of the work of an "open source" community and b) the attachment of cydoor to the software. I suggest that common sense be used here: we know what happened, how it happened and when it happened. Cannot forum members discussing an event be considered primary source witnesses? Teguiste 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As an addition to the proper use of sources, [[1]]contemplates use of forums. In this case, there is a lack of other sources and the forum was moderated by Babylon.com. Here is an example [[2]] (one of many archived and not necessarily the best example.) Teguiste 09:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Wayback Machine is down for right now, I'll try to view your link later on. Yes, it contemplates use of web forums and such sources, but only in very exceptional cases. (For example, if Science were to start up a web forum, and it were limited-membership and moderated by the editors of the journal, such a source may be acceptable in some cases.) It's not intended so that we end up cataloguing every dispute that takes place on a forum somewhere. In this case, the moderation of the forums is by an interested, non-independent party. You can certainly try to make a case on the article's talk that the material should be accepted on the weight of the forum sources alone, but do be aware that it's unusual for such arguments to be accepted. Your best bet is still to find more reliable sources. If no reliable sources have written on the matter, send some of them an email, and let them know what's going on. Who knows, one of them may write up an article, and then you've got an editorially-controlled, fact-checked source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance/advice concerning List of notable converts to Christianity

Excuse my lack of talent for brevity. Three paragraphs is as short as I can make it while trying to explain everything fairly. Please assist me in this; I need advice into the matter, and information on policies and guidelines (in relation to the matter, obviously).

There is a current debate over whether or not to include Bob Dylan on the List of notable converts to Christianity page. While the opposing party (2 frequent participants) deny any real conversion, and claim it to be merely an insignificant 'phase' in the man's life, they have provided absolutely nothing to support their arguments. Not a single source has been used in their argument. On the contrary, we have provided 3 widely-available books as sources to his conversion, and ten internet sources. The opposing party's demands become increasingly ridiculous. It seems that they demand evidence of baptism (as to them, Dylan's numerous statements of belief and the sources explicit language concerning the fact that 'he converted' is not enough), and when 2 or three sources claim baptism, they demand nothing short of actual baptismal documentation.

In addition to this, however, there is another element to the argument. They claim that Dylan is currently a Jew (and provide no sources; in fact, it seems he currently has either no religion or a pluralistic view which synthesizes Christianity and Judaism), and as a Jew, has no place on the "List of notable converts to Christianity. However, to my party, this assumption is incorrect. The list is not intended to include only current Christians, but those notable people who have converted to Christianity in their lifetime. Consider that other pages, such as List of vegans, also has this inclusive parameter: any one who has professed veganism is included, even if they are not currently vegan. The conversion is notable, whether it is between religions or diets. (Consider also that many of the List of Christians pages/sub-pages already indicate which current Christians came to the faith by conversion)

The opposing party (one of whom seems to have a very strong bias towards Judaism) is accusing us of attempting to proselytize on Wikipedia. We make it clear in the article's introductory paragraph the criterion for inclusion: any notable person who has converted to Christianity, or any person who has had a notable conversion at some point in their life is included here. We also make it clear in the entrant's description what their current status is. They believe that since Dylan is now a Jew, he should be removed. Compare this example: if Abdul Rahman converted back to Islam, should his entry be removed? Considering his conversion made world news because of the death penalty he received for it, it would be foolish to remove him. It is noteworthy. Bob Dylan is notable himself, and his conversion caused a chain of events which changed his style and alienated his fans; he played only new, post-conversion songs and proselytized from the stage, to panning reviews and atheist protests. We are including his conversion because of his, and its, notability. (Besides, how can one honestly say that listing a person who left Christianity is 'pro-Christian proselytizing'?)

Please ask me for further details. The argument has gone on for a very long time, and hasn't gone anywhere; therefore, the advice and assistance from an editor more knowledgeable in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is urgently needed.--C.Logan 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I wish I had an answer, as I've encountered several similar situations. Will be watching this in case one appears :) However, might I suggest this as a "brief" version of your question: "what do you do when consensus is impeded by bad arguments?" (bad meaning POV, illogical, unsourced, etc etc) - Demong _talk 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty excellent answer from ObiterDicta: read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing; and "I'm a little curious as to why people feel the need to keep responding to his posts. This isn't an Oxonian debating society where a point stands if not responded to." In other words, continually responding to a point that has already been addressed invites further repetition, and continues the argument without advancing the discussion. That is, if the discussion goes A-B-A, it's better to leave it at that, or to continue A-B-A-C-D if a different point C is made, than to make it A-B-A-B-A-B (-A-B-A-etc).

Also, remember that consensus is what stands. - Demong _talk 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: This issue is far from resolved; the parties involved just brought the fight to my doorstep... --Aarktica 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, by the way. Hopefully, the discussion on your talk page will cease. --C.Logan 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's quite alright. As long as it helps bring a worthwhile and timely resolution to the matter, I will allow it. Aarktica 04:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon article

Stale

 – Requester ignoring follow-up efforts. --Aarktica 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I need some assistance with the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon article. An anon IP and user account Landau7 are vandalizing portions of the article and removing information. I discuss this on the article's talk page itself[3][4][5][6]. I believe that there's an attempt to bully me from the page because of the unfavourable, but verifiable, information I have put up on this group's article. I am a good faith editor who is trying to make sure that all sides of the issue are being addressed fairly, however, I think that the editors in question want to make the article read more like a religious tract. If one reads the first archive on the talk page, Landau7 has a tendency to try to get my emotions involved and I've decided to keep it cool this time after the advice of a fellow editor, Alastair Haines.

Because I suspect the identity is the group's leader himself, I do not expect this process to really go anywhere. But I am going through the process because I've already filed two sock puppet reports on this individual in the past[7][8] and I was recommended to go through this process next time. The user has demonstrated that he has access to this religious group's "secret archive" about me, both under the Landau7 account and the anon IP account (if you look at http://www.nccg.org/archive/, you will find that people must have a password to post, but these two accounts are able to post articles from there liberally -- I discuss this on the talk page). I do not want to go through a repeat of what happened on the talk pages' archives, where I feel I must be pressured to give into them because of (what I think is) sock puppeting. He mentions an agreement I made some time back where I agreed to stay off this article, but I only said that because at the time, it effected both my mental and emotional health and I thought that I had no chance. I came back to the article later when I was over much of that and was able to make (what I feel) were more neutral edits. Part of the other reason I made this decision was because another former member on the talk page was making similar statements to my own and this made me feel relieved as I realized I wasn't posting a minority opinion. If one takes time to read the archives, they will find I was both bullied and pressured into believing that my contributions did not matter. Every little thing I contributed was nit-picked and poked apart whereas the edits of another anon IP (which points back to the group's HQ in Sweden) and Landau7's own edits were left alone or ignored.

The edits being disputed largely involve the comments I made in the Garden subsection of the Beliefs section in the article text itself. Each of these edits were backed using the religious group's own website and materials, but after the anon IP vandalism, were immediately removed from the group's site itself in order to kill my sources. I restored them on my own site, but then deleted them a day later to avoid legal complications and because I found a Wikipedia policy that protected dead links. Landau7 has demonstrated his own subversive influence by removing a reference to a statement by cult specialist Mary Alice Crapo that refers to the group as a dangerous sect. I have the newspaper article which mentions this statement. I even linked to the group's own site where they reference the statement was indeed made.

If there's anything that's really needed, please feel free to post it on here or on my talk page. I really am desiring to follow Wikipedia protocol and sometimes, I have to learn the rules the hard way. However, I feel in regards to my edits, the rules are being used as a stick against me to justify Landau7's own edits. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being the one to feel like my contribution does not matter, when the group has counselled its members[9][10] to keep a watchful eye on the article to ensure "accuracy". Personally, I think the accounts need to be blocked but do not want it to be percieved as harassment. However, due to the fact that I think the attacks are either from or being provoked by the group's leader itself, again, I do not expect this to go anywhere. I ask that people be weary of any manipulative or emotional attacks which may arise on Landau7 or other sympathiser's behalf (there's also uaasun/Lil'Dummy whom I know off-site and who has likewise tagteamed with Landau7 in the past, but he's largely backed off, I think).

I hope this helps. The reason I raised the issues on the talk page in the first place was so that other editors may be aware. However, I think from now on, in the future, I'm going to go through the resolution process, as I do not intend to drag it out like I did when I was more emotionally involved in the past. I only want this article to present all sides of the issue fairly, regardless of how I feel about the group or my own activism against it off-site. Drumpler 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this under the Landau7 Removing Unfavourable Material Section on the article's talk page:

I did a trace route on the IP that I thought was from the Netherlands and it traced it right back to Sweden[11], TeliaNet, the location of the person who initially wrote the underlying text for most of this article[12] and likewise the location of the group's known compound[13]. I think it is settled and would recommend a trace route on the Landau7 account. If one reads the archives, they will find that Landau7 dispassionately referred to 81.224.220.232 as an anon-IP and tracing back will show if this is true. The other possibility is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet as the purposes are the same. I have decided on dispute resolution with another editor to see what s/he says and will not file any reports until then. This likewise gives Landau7 an opportunity to explain himself. Drumpler 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this abuse? I'm going through this process to get a fresh pair of eyes, so do not want to file any reports until I get a clearer perspective on it. Drumpler 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just Noticed Your Message

So it isn't really stale. ;) Drumpler 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello.. Regarding Door Games

Resolved

 – At least at the current stage. --Deryck C. 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Related discussion at Talk:BBS door. --Deryck C. 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks..

Regarding BBS Door Games as listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBS_door

We had edited that page to link to several different places where a number of Door Games were located. About 3 more links were added I think. Maybe 4. But they were removed by someone and only the dmoz web site was left. Did you all do that? Or was it someone else?

The dmoz web site (the only remaining link) only has about 4 or 5 games listed. The links that were inserted at the lower half of that page had many many BBS Door Games available for download, of almost every variety.

Was it a problem listing where many other Doors can be found, as there were aleady some other links there before we added any? Now there's only one link there and apparently only 3 or 4 games.

The links we provided were

http://www.ultrasoft-online.com

http://www.bbsfiles.com

http://www.ultrasoftdoors.com

Lots of doors available at those locations and some freeware utilities for BBS Operators too. I'm not sure why they would have been removed.

I'm wondering if we did something we shouldn't have by adding in those new links on that page? If so I'd like to know not to do that again. But if not I'll add them back in. Because I'm sure people reading about it would like to know where to get the software the articles refer to.

Thanks in advance for your answer..

Steve

jmushad@hotmail.com

It was RTucker who removed the links. He left a message concerning this on the talk page. For the time being, upon my own rationale, I included back all the links. However, further discussions ought to be done on that talk page. --Deryck C. 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FDCPA

Resolved

 – Appears that it's time for EA to step out of this matter. They've successfully got to the stage of calm consensus-building. --Deryck C. 06:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act edits of my posting of infinitecredit.com.

I did not spam this website as InfiniteCredit is not a website that asks for fees or money. It is a legitimate external link that utilizes self-help in resolving FDCPA and FCRA problems. It was not a frivoulous linking as it is a website that helps people recognize their rights under the FDCPA and the FCRA and is just as legitimate as NACA or any other site that are for consumer advocates. If you allow CreditBoards.com as a link, then InfiniteCredit.com is as legitimate as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.124.188 (talk • contribs)

I'm trying to catch arichnad's attention and see if there could be an appeal. --Deryck C. 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me, Deryck. 141.153.124.188, I assume you're also speaking for 76.108.0.110. Thank you for coming here to request assistance. Let me start by stating that I don't believe that InfiniteCredit.com is a notable website. The policy clearly asks that all external links be reliable sources for the readers. A non-notable forum clearly doesn't meet these guidelines. When assessing external links you need to start by asking the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it would never qualify to be used as a reliable source for anything," then don't link. The fact that InfiniteCredit is not a website that asks for fees or money doesn't mean that this isn't spam. Please stop adding your links to Wikipedia articles.

If you believe that NACA doesn't meet WP:EL, then you're free to remove it (though you might want to explain your reasons in the edit summary). Please respond here if you have any more questions regarding this issue. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

InfiniteCredit operates the same as Creditboards.com and if they are allowable as a link then so should InfiniteCredit. We are as reliable as they are and have several lawyers, law students, and paralegals answering questions on the site. As for the question of why we were not used as a source for the article, I would say that this is because Congress actually wrote the article and it was merely regurgitated piecemeal as wikipedia content from the FTC website, edited of course. I believe that you do your readers a disservice by not allowing links to legitimate websites dealing with everyday application of the content of your articles. In addition, I do not see where Creditboards.com was used as a source either. User: blitzkim 141.153.124.188 05:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "If you believe that Creditboards.com doesn't meet WP:EL, then you're free to remove it (though you might want to explain your reasons in the edit summary)." ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So am I to assume that you are not going to change your stance on my request for InfiniteCredit.com to be included as a legitimate link? Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic (We Are); information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (We Are); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (We Are). User:blitzkim 141.153.124.188 05:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't convinced me yet, but I'm always open to discuss things further. You think that the article was regurgitated from the FTC website and that we're doing a disservice to our readers. I'm close to agreeing with you. However, instead of adding the link to a forum, I challenge that we should instead add unbiased information that is well sourced to the article body. i.e. add content, not links. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Content devoted to individual circumstances could make the article entirely too lengthy and potentially incorrect for everyone as no one with debt collection or credit reporting problems ever has quite the same problems nor can all their problems have the same solutions. Only by posting an individual problem can their problem be dealt with correctly whether they post on Creditboards or InfiniteCredit. The caselaw alone for FDCPA or FCRA violations is enormous and would not begin to include the opinions by the various courts both federal and state that are decided everyday. Only by linking to legitimate websites that can help with everyday solutions to FDCPA or FCRA problems can the article maintain it's own legitimacy in being the number one web source for research into the FDCPA or the FCRA. Don't you agree? User: blitzkim 141.153.124.188 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain a fundamental concept. That everything on Wikipedia needs sourcing is a basic rule. On the other hand, as our anon editor has mentioned and Arichnad has agreed, Creditboards is no better than InfiniteCredit. It can thus be argued that the sites should either be both included or both removed. Since we should make our list of external websites balanced in terms of exposure of contents, including both seems to be a better way than removing both. --Deryck C. 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I don't agree, but I'm willing to let this go. I should mention that other editors will possibly disagree with your assessment and remove the links without my involvement. However, I'll leave the article alone. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That is agreeable with me. May I put the links back or will that be done by you? Please advise. Blitzkim 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Links? Are you planning on adding the link to multiple pages? I have a striking feeling that Deryck thinks we're only talking about one page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act articles. Only those two as they go hand in hand. Is that permissible? Blitzkim 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, I don't agree with any of this in the first place. However, if you add it to those two articles only, I'll stay uninvolved and I'll let other editors work it out. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will contribute some content I believe is lacking as well as the links. Again, thanks! Blitzkim 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The content you added, assuming you are 76.108.0.110, was redundant with information already contained within the article - there is another section that clearly lists prohibited activities and is labeled as such. You also seem to have simply re-iterated the basic definition of the act and sourced your information to a forum post on your site? Why? Please read WP:RS. On the topic of your forum, you were clearly adding a promotional link to several tangentially related topics in order to promote your forums. It does not add to the topic, and seems to simply be a conflict of interest. You were warned many times not to do so without any reply, so the warnings were indeed progressive stern. I would love to see you use your knowledge of credit related topics to actually add to the article set, but I would ask that you contribute without promoting your site. If you have a problem with another link that you feel is not appropriate, simply remove it with an edit summary as to why it was removed, and/or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 00:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be nice negotiation. I think it's time for me, a complete outsider about the article's matter, to step out and leave this alone to you. --Deryck C. 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Page needs HTML fixs that are beyond my ability

Resolved

 – Thanks Demong's technical effort. --Deryck C. 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Page needs HTML fixs that are beyond my ability

For article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans

It all started with the thought, "Oh, a broken link. Even I can fix that." So I signed up and fixed it.

Then I noticed that part of the article below "References" was displayed as raw HTML. I've corrected as much as I can, but now I need expert assistance. The "edit" links seem to be mis-numbered (starting over at "section=1") at the section titled "Effect" just below "References". I can't figure out how to access any more of the damaged article further down the page about 10 lines into the section titled "Levee failures".

I also question where these sections should be *below* the "References" section, but that could be a noob thing. After all, this is my first attempt at editing.

tj

Xnonymous 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Actually, that wasn't your fault: the article had been "broken" for several revisions (usually such things are corrected immediately, but layout problems at the bottom of a long article are less likely to be noticed right away). I tried to find the actual problem so I could fix it and retain your edits, but unfortunately I couldn't. Instead I reverted to the last "good" version, which was from yesterday, and repeated one of your lost edits (but why did you remove the <ref> tags?) — Demong _talk 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that problem had been there for weeks at least! It was an unclosed <ref> tag (so everything that followed it was put under references). The open tag was "fixed" by some vandalism that replaced it (the version I reverted to), but when I subsequently put the correct text back in place of the vandalism, it re-broke because the "correct text" contained the open tag. I found the correct, complete ref in a very old version and replaced it in the current one. Problem solved?

Also, you can link to a Wikipedia article (wikilink) by putting double square brackets around the text to link (for example, [[Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans]] becomes Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans)... you'll barely ever use html on Wikipedia, and wikimarkup is pretty easy (and you can always edit a page to see the code behind it). — Demong _talk 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help Demong!!

I recognized the open "ref" tag, but went about fixing it the wrong way. Xnonymous 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Now the problem is solved and you know how do things work. --Deryck C. 07:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Company Profile Page Deletion Administrator refusing to accept edits

I created a Wiki page to link to our company profile page "valpak" off of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Communications profile page. Within 2 months the page was deleted so I followed up according to Wiki policy contacting the administrator who removed it asking for assitance and offered her to review forthcoming edits which were denied. I would like to open this up for third parties to review since our internal communications department also reviewed the previous content and made additional adjustments according to the Wiki policies.

Please follow up with me at roaldrich@yahoo.com --12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)roaldrich

Hello,

For proper context, I have two questions:

1. Could you please provide links to your correspondence with the administrator in question?
2. Do you know if there was any discussion prior to deletion of the article?

Unfortunately, the involvement of an "internal communications department" raises questions of objectivity. Additional scrutiny based on WP:CORP is par for the course.

That said, I would like to see a copy of what was deleted. If you have such information available, please post it to the sandbox for review. --Aarktica 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page to review all of the content thank you for helping me with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaldrich (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Major COI issues at work here, and while that is officially only a guideline rather than a policy, it is a particularly important one. I would like to ask what you mean by "denied". Not replied to? Rebuked? Adrian M. H. 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

First, I implore you to review WP:EDIT before posting again. Posting garbled text is a very efficient way to discourage others from providing [constructive] feedback.

Second, the content you posted leaves much to be desired; it reads like a resume and is anything but encyclpaedic material. As Adrian mentioned above, your actions indicate a conflict of interest. The following warning was likely presented to you before posting the content:

---

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, YOUR COMPANY OR PRODUCTS, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Caps mine)

---

Based on what I have reviewed, I am afraid that the article fails to meet notability requirement for articles relating to business entities.

Nevertheless, I assume good faith on your part, and hope that this adresses your request. --Aarktica 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aarktica, just be a bit warmer. Newcomers seldom understand the issue of "conflict of interest". Nor do they understand any of the content policies. You should address the things one by one. Of course, it would be irritating to tell a company that "you are not allowed to edit your article on Wikipedia", but if possible, do it calmly =] --Deryck C. 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the ability of people to read and understand instructions. I was new once and I don't recall having any issues with the key policies, of which I had looked over the most obvious dozen or so before creating an account, when I used to edit anonymously for a short while. The biggest factors relate to new editors not reading the policies, either because they cannot find them, or they do not know to look for them, or in some cases, they choose to ignore them. I help many new users and they rarely say "I don't understand that policy". Adrian M. H. 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with this issue. I had spent a great deal reading all of the policies and distributed them for those that assisted in this project. I apologize for the sloppy WP editing I have been trying to manage this issue and communicate in a timely fashion. I would like to undertstand how other "companies" are able to retain their wiki pages with "notable" content such as "Publix", "target", albertsons...and so on... The content I provided seemed conservative in nature compared to the afformentioned pages to name a few. Roaldrich 20:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAX sums up that argument. All too often, editors say something along the lines of "why delete this article when all these similar articles exist?" but without considering why the other articles exist. Some of them may actually meet the requisite guidelines and policies, such as Cisco Systems for example, but many others are victims of two things: the backlog and indifference on the part of many editors. There are many policies at work in this particular field: Notability, Corporations, spam, and COI to name just four. One cannot fairly assess these articles without first understanding the relevant guidelines. Adrian M. H. 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Adrian: Thanks for the reminder. --Deryck C. 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Smashboards

Resolved

 – Editor agreed to rewrite article per guidelines. --Aarktica 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I created Smashboards less than three months ago, and by a week it was deleted. After asking about, I filed a deletion review, which I think is archived in the May 5th or 9th. This article is not WP:FANCRUFT and can be rewritten to fit all guidelines, however, it's against the rules to recreate a deleted page, I think. Deletion Quality 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not against policy to rewrite a deleted article and re-publish it if and when it meets all of the most important standards that are subject to deletion policy. However, if the original article was deleted per Fancruft, and yet you claim that it was not fancruft, that suggests one of two possibilities: either you are not truly familiar with the required standard for articles or the deletion was unfair (perhaps only marginally so). I cannot recall ever witnessing an AfD closure that was clearly unfair, however. Perhaps you should do what many of us do and create a drafts sub-page, which would allow an informal peer review before you finalise the article's new incarnation. I should also point out that your username may be considered a bit provocative, at least in the context of this issue. Adrian M. H. 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How to remove "Contents" in short articles?

How do you remove the automatically generated "Contents" in very short articles where it does not seem necessary? I see it has been done in some articles. woodpecker 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

__NOTOC__. Usually placed at the top of the page. However, you should not really be doing that in mainspace articles. Help:Magic words. Adrian M. H. 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting

Resolved

 – Thanks, Tony! --Aarktica 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to post a press release of a person who's involved in the Sound & Entertainment business. They have articles on Yahoo and Google. Can you show me how to post.

Here are the links...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/sound/ultimate_fx/prweb523772.htm

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/5/emw526990.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrich (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Answering on editor's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake Account

I believe that this account has been set up by somebody using my details. How do I get it deleted? The email address is mine so I will have to resolve email security from my end but I would appreciate any help in getting this account deactivated. Dhan1986 21:23, 17 May 2007 GMT (London)

User accounts can't be deleted on Wikipedia, but if you simply don't want to use the account, then I've seen suggestions before that your best bet is to go to the 'my preferences' tab at the top of the page, disable your e-mail address there, then set a completely random password (that you aren't going to be able to remember), then logout. I think that'll work, anyhow.. other thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony, I think Dhan1986 is addressing a different issue. This user's personal details are stolen. Of course, the solution is the same. Since there is Email activation, you can change the password of this account and put it aside. Of course, we've all assumed that you've seized the account's control. --Deryck C. 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help on a couple of vanity articles

Hi, I've been alone in a struggle against repeated unsourced edits on Global Panel Foundation and on Prague Society for International Cooperation, two closely-related articles which I stumbled upon when I cleaned-up the autobio of their president Marc S. Ellenbogen. These articles are advertising and are fully unsourced. Every time I do a rv, someone from those organizations comes and restores the original text. I would appreciate if some kind fellow would help me here as I honestly don't know where next to take this. (I've always documented my rv's, either in the edit comments or in the Talk pages, so it's easy to see what's going on.) Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just list them for deletion. You might even try {{prod}} per G.11 and A.7. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, speaking, I would not bother with Proposed Deletion when SD is not possible, but AfD instead. Prod tags can be removed freely (which these probably will because the articles are clearly being watched by someone with a vested interest). The AfD process is free of that shortcoming and, if successful, the deletion is (re-creation notwithstanding) essentially permanent. The procedure is more fiddly, but worth it. Adrian M. H. 11:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, what PROD works for is for unwatched pages, or pages so skimpy that they will be abandoned. Remember that PROD is not intended for controversial articles--it's clearly stated several times, so if there is reason to suspect controversy, it is necessary to go to AfD. (It's not speedy A7, since it asserts its importance, and G11 is only if there is no usable core.) These articles might be possible, suitably trimmed. It's hard to judge an article whose only references are to printed books in Czech, but that does meet the WP requirement for sourcing, as any language is acceptable if that's where the information is. Obviously there's no assurance that the material is in the book, but it is reasonable to ask for page numbers.

Suggest you wait a day so I can join in there. What is needed to overcome resistance to necessary editing of spammy articles is more than one person editing reasonably, so it doesn't become a revert war. (naturally the threat of deletion also does tend to help editing, but in my view it's a last resort, because it makes to much work for too many people--AfD lists are too long for proper attention as it is. Therefore, listing the material here was a good way to go. A more general consensus will help. (and if necessary, the way to attract even more community attention is RfC.) DGG 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a step back. Thanks a lot for the comments. --maf (talk-cont) 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been three days now, and the articles have stayed in their long-spammed form as I have pulled back. Other than User:DGG who said he will, is someone else willing to look at them now? Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look as well. If you believe that an editor to the article may have a conflict of interest, you may also wish to list the article on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Several editors and administrators who are experienced in dealing with such situations monitor this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I didn't know about WP:COIN - will xpost there as COI is effectively the central issue here. --maf (talk-cont) 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

why the wikipedia delete links to my site

i have developed a virtual gallery of art http://artgallery.lojadeluxo.com

why wikipedia delete the links to my gallery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomazfranzese (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because other editors felt it did not meet the criteria for external links as given at WP:EL. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of policies and practices that most editors try to follow. There are two documents that I think you should read that might help explain things. The first is the policy WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not, and the second is the guideline WP:EL external links. Of these, WP:NOT is the most important of the two. It is a policy, meaning that it represents a standard that editors are expected to follow in most circumstances, with relatively little deviation. WP:EL is a guideline, meaning that it represents a standard that editors are encouraged to follow in most circumstances, but that some reasonable deviations seem more likely.

WP:NOT tells us Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. We are not willing to allow links to all artist-related websites in each artist's article; we try to limit external links to only those that further our purpose as an encyclopedia. Since there are literally thousands of websites for images of most major artists and they are all easily found using a search engine (such as Google), there is no point for us to have a link to an image collection anyway. For example, there are nearly 6 thousand sites with at least one of the versions of Caravagio's The Sacrifice of Isaac, and in fact, Wikipedia is one of them. There's no point in linking externally to content we already have. Also, it seems that lojadeluxo.com is a brand new site that is trying to build traffic; Wikipedia isn't here to help you with that. And finally, I personally have deleted links to lojadeluxo.com, such as this one - http://art.lojadeluxo.com/index.php?id=Goya - that were to galleries full of nothing but public domain images and Google AdWords. The fact that there is a variant of the site without the ads is irrelevant; there are thousands of sites that want to increase traffic and/or improve their Google pagerank by having links from Wikipedia and we're not here for that purpose. Studerby 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, but the new site is http://artgallery.lojadeluxo.com , now not have any kind of ads. (ADS FREE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomazfranzese (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could sign your comments. It is still just a gallery and forum, so it does not address all of the shortcomings raised byStuderby. Have you not yet read the pages to which Studerby linked? Adrian M. H. 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are still advertisements on the main page. Questions are also raised regarding promotion of your own site; please see WP:COI. It also does not look good that it appears that you use different IP addresses to continue to link to the site. JNW 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that most of these concerns, and warnings, have already been expressed on the talk pages of these IP addresses, and have been ignored. JNW 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a friendly warning at [14] about the 9 May wave of additions, but later on I went back and added

(Later) My first look at this site was a quick one, now I have taken a second look and must say that all those great images are pretty much worthless without the inclusion of their titles. I would not support this link being added to any articles. My first look used Firefox with Adblock turned on; using IE I can now see a commercial aspect to the site, not that there's anything wrong with that. --CliffC 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

--CliffC 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

michael hardinger

Resolved

 – Thanks, Tony! --Aarktica 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

somebody has removed my info on wikipedia. I wonder why.

I am a danish musician with 32 albums to my credit.

regards, Michael Hardinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.67.228 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. From a quick look around, it appears the article Michael hardinger was deleted because a proposed deletion tag was on the article for five days, and was not contested. A note was left at User talk:Danishmusic to let the article creator know its deletion was proposed, but no response was made, and the article was deleted. However, a look around does seem to indicate that music notability guidelines may be met, so what I'm going to do is pop a note over to the deleting admin's page and see if we can't get the article restored and at least sent to articles for deletion discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got the article contents on a user subpage, and will try to bring it up to guidelines, then look at reposting. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

I'm involved in a content dispute at this rather contentious article. I'm having a very hard time dealing with Simplemines and massive assumptions of bad faith. Comments I've made have been misconstrued and personal attacks are par for the course on the talk page. I'd love some help dealing with this page, as I've had very little experience dealing with a high profile controversial article like this. There are arguments about reliable sources, bias, and appropriate content. It's going round in circles, and I just don't have the experience on how to deal with editors who refuse to assume good faith. We tried mediation, but it was rejected by one of the parties. Even comments to a user on "my side" of the debate telling him he was acting inappropriately were twisted to show my bias. Any help would really be appreciated. AniMate 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If mediation has been ignored by one or more parties, there is little that one editor can do to change that other than to raise the issue to a more serious level, if it warrants it. You are probably already familiar with the advice at WP:DR, but I cannot suggest any more than that. WP:RFAR is described as a last resort, so it is up to you to decide whether it is worth pursuing. Adrian M. H. 14:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging question

This is a question conerning the entry for Rosetta Biosoftware, which has been merged with the entry for Merck & Co.. While it is correct that Rosetta Biosoftware is a business unit of Rosetta Inpharmatics, which is a subsidiary of Merck, I was wondering if it is possible to nevertheless re-create a page with a proper description of this entity. Rosetta Biosoftware has many customers outside of Merck; in fact, the majority of its revenue is coming from organizations that would be considered competitors of Merck in the pharmaceutical space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmwill (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page says Rosetta itself does not qualify for an article... So I think there's little we can do. However, you can bring this issue to the talk page Talk:Merck & Co. and see if there could be any change. --Deryck C. 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

stop a deletion

Hello

I wanted to write a wiki entry so i chose to do one on the thing i like doing punting. I put my first page up on wiki a week (TOTE Tasmania) or so ago and it got a tag calling it advertising. I rewrote the article so it didnt read like an advert as this was not my intention. Now there is another tag calling for deletion.

Can you help me find what im doing wrong? Also it asks for a reference to the logo i put on the page how do i add in the reference

Thanks Broke punter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broke punter (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean TOTE Tasmania, it does not meet the basic minimum guidelines for inclusion, particularly Notability and WP:CORP. Where are the independent non-trivial sources? Adrian M. H. 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Guardians of Knowlege" problem

Although the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are fair and unbiased, I have on occasion run into pages where even small changes are rejected out of hand. As a copy editor, I recognize this as the "guardian" syndrome - anything is rejected that was not written and contributed by them or a small select group.

We all appreciate Wikipedia for its embracement of public contributions. What is the procedure if we run into a "guardian" editor whose priority is what they want, as opposed to what is factual and fair use for a subject page?

Thank you,

Ruth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootsie (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please review WP:NPOV and WP:OWN; see if any of that matches up with what you have described. If so, you might consider submitting the affected article for peer review. Hope that helps. --Aarktica 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance with page move

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you guys. I'm a new user and I can't move pages. I guess this is a good thing, or else I might have made a mistake! Anyways, I would like to know whether or not my idea to move the article Magician's_Force to Magician's Force(Yu-Gi-Oh) is good or not. Basicly, the concept of "Magician's force" is a concept in magic tricks. The only place I can find it at the moment is at the force disambiguation page Force_(disambiguation), where it says "A (card magic) trick wherein the spectator picks a seemingly random item ("Pick a card, pick any card"), but the process is rigged so that they receive a pre-selected item known to the performer." I have a book called "Giant Book of Card Tricks" (ISBN 1-4027-1052-6) which details this further. I wanted to ask for opinions at the Yu-Gi-Oh Wikiproject, but it seems inactive. Any help is appreciated, thanks.--0rrAvenger 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)