Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Wikipeida should provide an easy-to-use editor, like WYSIWYG editor asap, similar to what Google does Wrote to Wikipedia: Dear Wikipedia, Can you please have a WYSIWYG editor, like Google Docs/Pages provides ? Editing using your current editor and results in all kinds of funny-language coming up in the text, it is VERY tedious and with Google Knol, it will be very easy to do such changes and will lead to its success too. Please take this up at HIGH priority. From http://people20.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipeida-should-provide-easy-to-use.html

Kaplan University Page

The Kaplan University page is being edited everyday by someone who does not belong to the University. Therefore, they are not editing the website with accurate information. Examples include stating that the University has 30,000 customers instead of students. That is a very unnecessary statement. Kaplan University is a recognized and regionally accredited institution. Also, the page is often edited with a Doing Business As notation. Other for-profit educational institutions are not critiqued the same way. That DBA sentence is neither appropriate after the Kaplan University name. Under the history section the page read that Hamilton Colleges were now under the Kaplan University brand. Hamilton Colleges merged with Kaplan University giving them a name change. The Hamilton Colleges are now Kaplan University campuses. That is factual and unbiased information.

The issue I have is that all the edits on the Kaplan University page are unfairly biased. I would like a resolution to prevent this from occuring in the future.

Thank you, KAPLAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPLAD (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What?!! Being edited by editors who have no association with the subject matter??!! They must stop this immediately. Seriously, though; please follow that link and read the guideline. If you can genuinely claim bias and/or the absence of verification, then you have a valid beef and you should follow those policies (and related links) when dealing with it.Adrian M. H. 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) First of all, welcome! Second, let me point out that nobody owns articles, and it does not matter if someone is affiliated with the university, with regards to them editing. Additionally, anyone who is affiliated with a subject is discouraged from editing, due to the conflict of interest guideline, which explains that someone close to a subject would have difficulty editing neutrally, and neutrality is one of the core policies here on Wikipedia. I'm a bit concerned because your username, and the way you have worded your request, would make me think you are in some way associated with the university, so I would caution you to edit with extreme care, if at all. The best thing is to make comments on the talk page suggesting improvements, giving sources, etc., and allow a non-involved editor add the information, to ensure no COI exists. All that being said, I agree that "customers" is not an appropriate word for a university page, as students would be the proper word. What is most important, is that reliable sources be cited to verify information. The article is currently lacking in reliable sources, the only source given is a .pdf file, which is discouraged because such files require the reader to have non-standard software to access. They can be used sparingly, but should not be used as the only sources in an article. The university's site, or any sites that are associated with it, cannot be used as main sources, as they are not third-party sources. The best way to ensure that information is not removed, or replaced, is to cite reliable, third party sources to verify the statements, and make a note on the talk page that additions should have reliable sources cited. (Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a place to simply promote an organization, so some articles can have criticism sections, if written neutrally and cited with proper sources, although they should not be given undue weight.) My suggestions would be to remind the editor about the policy regarding reliable sources and verification, as these are important policies on Wikipedia, and to add sources to the article so that the current information is verified. I hope this helps, Ariel♥Gold 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan staff is doing what Hamilton staff did on that article, which is to edit out information placed there by others that may not show Kaplan in a favorable light. Kaplan (and the former Hamilton) doesn't like negative press. They've been asked before to cease or cite...they do neither.

They are a DBA, as shown in the reference. They are the Iowa College Acquisition Corporation. If they want to be Kaplan University, fine...they can change their legal name. The source is cited, the facts are relevant.

As a business, they serve customers. Their customers are students, their students are customers. As an alum, I am familiar with their operation, and their standing in the community. (side note, the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, newspaper wouldn't cover Hamilton 'College' in their education section despite Cedar Rapids being home to Hamilton's main campus. They would only cover Hamilton in the business section. All other local colleges are covered by the education journalists. The paper viewed Hamilton, and now Kaplan, as a business - not a school - due to their operational methodology. They didn't act like a college, they didn't treat students as students, they refused to allow student government, they had little involvement in the community. All other area colleges operate as colleges - student focused. A simple comparison of Hamilton/Kaplan's web site with all other colleges in the region will show the difference.)

The Spelling 'reference' is irrelevant to the article and wasn't even set up as a reference. In fact, the only referenced fact in the article is to the DBA information.

It may well be time to put a criticisms section in the article to discuss problems the schools have had, lawsuits against them, profit uber all operational philosophy, censorship, etc...as well as the college itself editing the articles about them to remove unflattering facts.

My advice to Kaplan is to act like a college and they'll be treated as such. --averagejoe (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

They're back! User:KAPLAD is back reverting and removing without discussing, sourcing, etc. Such a good paper (Washington Post)...if only their quality extended to their Kaplan,_Inc. subsidiary. --averagejoe (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have help watching their edits to that page. If they pass the three-revert rule, report it at WP:AN/3RR. Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

is this comment on a talk page really vandalism

Hello, I was dinged for posting the following comment on a talk page of the article 'Drew Bledsoe' by 'Pats1'

- == Stage Diving == - - In the late 90's Drew stage dived at an Everclear concert at the Paradise Club in Boston. Tom Brady and several other Patriots players were there as well. This was big news at the time because Drew apparently broke the back of a female concert goer he landed on. I think it is worth a mention in the article but I do not know quite enough about it to make the addition. Perhaps someone who does might want to add it to the article. 66.235.9.15 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this not what the talk pages are for? To make suggestions like this one? How could this be considered vandalism. I would like to know how to have this reviewed and if there is a way 'Pats1' could be counseled by a higher up at wiki as to what is vandalism and what is not and have my comment reinstated on the talk page for Drew Bledsoe. Thank you for your help. 66.235.9.15 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

apparently this comment by me "here, here mrmurph " in response to mrmurph's following comment:":::That still does not explain why he threw a fit after Angel's challenge. However, this talk page should be about the article, not gossiping about the participants. Take that to a message board. " is also considered vandalism by 'Pats1' as he commented on my talkpage as well about this. Really? agreeing that someone should take their opinions to a message board is vandalism? I fear that I have somehow offended 'Pats1' about my suggestion that an unsavory episode in Drew Bledsoe's career be documented on wikipedia and he seems to be fairly trigger happy about his opinion of my additions on talk pages being vandalism.

I do not agree that anything listed by 'Pats1' as vandalism is in anyway inappropriate or vandalism. Additionally, I feel that 'Pats1' is abusing his privledges as an administrator and should be warned as such by an appropriate authority. I would also like to request that his comments on my talk page be deleted if appropriate and possible. Thank you for looking in to this. 66.235.9.15 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that User:Pats1 had concerns about WP:BLP issues when removing your comment from Talk:Drew Bledsoe, since you did not provide a link to a reliable source. Pats1 might not have heard about this particular mishap, although it was widely covered in the press. If you think this issue needs further discussion, why not leave a message at User talk:Pats1 and invite him to join the discussion here? If you expect to be participating on Talk pages frequently, you would be better off creating an account since it is easier to follow discussions when all the editors have names. EdJohnston 06:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I see your point. I do have an acct that I do use but I neglect to log in as frequently as I should. The issue I have here though is that this was a suggestion on a talk page, not actually on an article. Where I even mention myself that I do not have enough info about the incident and was wondering if someone out there who does have more information feels it would be appropriate to add this to the article. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe my addition to the talk page did violate some sort of TOU by it was in no way vandalism. And the second response from the Phenomenon talk page is simply ticky-tack and petty. I feel Pats1 over reached his/her authority and could simply have made his/her concerns about my intentions on Drew Bledsoe's talk page much more diplomatically than jumping to the 'vandalism' conclusion. Also regardless of being logged in, an honest edit or suggestion should be treated with the same respect as an honest edit by a user who has 5,000 edits to their name it seems to me. Thank you for you attention to this Ed. 66.235.9.15 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mortgage Insurance Reroute to "Mortgage"

To Whom It May Concern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mortgage_Insurance&action=history

My article which I can verify, and wrote as a Mortgage Broker, has been basically deleted and redirected to Mortgage, wherein the actual information provided to the consumer/reader is NOT included anywhere in the existing article.

My editing skills and time are fairly non existent, but whomever was doing this also did a similar thing to one or more of my other contributions.

Please explan what I must do to restore the actual information I originally provided to the online community?

Most Sincerely, Lex Luther Vandross

--LV 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just added the Mortgage Insurance info to Mortgage. Is that what you were looking for? 67.168.65.207 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, thank you all the same. Please check the history. Read the item of consumer information I had provided, and was reasonably edited up through "Revision as of 04:30, 17 December 2006 (edit) Radagast83." After that the redirect squashed the actual information on mortgage insurance. Check the definition, and note it does not appear any more in the current definition. (This happened to several of my other entries, as well.) --76.103.214.50 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient and civil. The entirety of what was previously at Mortgage insurance is now in the article Mortgage loan in the section titled - appropriately enough - mortgage insurance. Pastordavid (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Information replaced by spam

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

My update to Immigration to Germany was replaced by a spam link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_to_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=175989145 This is a consistent problem, and this link keeps getting spammed to work permit, Immigration_to_Germany, and other sites. 67.168.65.207 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The site linked to is primarily to promote the sales of a book, and thus should not be linked to according to the policy on external links. I have removed the link in question, and warned the user. If necessary, the link can be added to the spam blacklist or the user can be blocked. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The user just blanked a section of that page, at [1]. This is similar to actions such as [2] and [3] taken on Work Permit.

This is a persistent problem, as can be seen from the user's talk page at:[4]

Note deleted comments at [5]

Thanks, 67.168.65.207 (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to have disappeared since that last little tirade. Please let me know if he returns and it is a problem, either here or on my talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistient problems with a hostile editor

Stale

 – Dispute appears to have been taken elsewhere. Pastordavid (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I and others attempting to work on the Dissociative_identity_disorder and the user DreamGuy consistently is rolling back my work in bulk, often without appearing to have reviewed the involved sources and data at all. Last month, I noticed that the Causes/etiology section was the copyrighted material of Merck and rewrote the section. He rolled that back along with many other changes, some of those without any justification. After I pointed it out in the talk page, he apologized and said he would get to when he had time. 2 weeks later, I decided that there's no reason to wait for him and put it back in (even cleaned it up and fixed some sources). Now, he comes around and rolls back a few days or work between myself and WLU (mostly my work). While earlier, WLU discovered that another section was copyrighted, re-wrote it very poorly (stated it was poor, I figure it's better than legal liability) and DreamGuy only hits my work.

His attacks seem aimed squarely at me and exceedingly biased. I already have a proposal and have begun work to demonstrate that the validity of the DID diagnosis is not in the state of dispute that he and Cloudsurfer claims and have even avoided those areas for now until that examination can be completed and a formal RFC be posted. I have repeatedly attempted to work with him in good faith (mistakenly presuming that he's going to work towards accuracy, not his own point of view) and he continues to back-stab me. In one occasion, WLU made changes that gave a section it a more of an "anti-DID" sound. I examined the sources and reverted his changes, posted on his talk page why, etc. He agreed (he made an error). He actually improved the wording beyond my ability, giving the entire section a much better flow (and it was accurate). So DreamGuy rolls back to WLU's inaccurate statements that WLU already conceded were inaccurate! This is just an example. Please assist.

Thanks, Daniel Santos (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, as I have described in edit comments and on the talk page is that the above editor has taken a very aggressive stance in favor of the reality of DID and is not trying to hide it, and is very clearly making edits violating WP:NPOV policy to try to make the article conform to his own opinions. He is rewriting sections about research results to ONLY list the side he believes in and refuses to work toward getting a consensus on wording for any changes. The alleged "inaccuracies" were not, or, at the very least, far less inaccurate than the version he changed it to. Any conversation he had on some other person's talk page instead of the article talk page is beyond my knowledge, and I have consistently told him that he needs to work as a group and discuss issues on the talk page instead of radically altering the essay to try to present opinions as facts and to erase all studies and expert opinion contradicting his view. He merely tries to claim superior knowledge and that anyone who disagrees is a flat earther who doesn't understand the topic. As far as the copyright issue, the section in question seems to be a mere listing of symptoms, and mere lists of factual information in list form usually do not have copyright protection because they are the only way to express the facts about the diagnosis. Some tweaking may be in order, but I think he's using it as a smoke screen for other more sweeping edits that simply do not follow our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus! I posted here to seek editor assistance, not to have you hound me! Why don't you stay out of my requests for advice? This page doesn't exist for your arguing pleasure. Daniel Santos (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy came here because someone asked him to, not because he is stalking you. You are going to have to deal with his comments one way or the other, because you are involved in a content dispute, and it would be helpful if you would assume good faith. I would suggest getting a third opinion, but there are already three of you involved (with the consensus, it appears, against Daniel's position). I would suggest everyone adhere to the one-revert rule (for sanity's sake), and list this at request for comment. Pastordavid (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Echo everything Pastordavid said. I had already typed in a response here, recommending RFC rather than WP:3 because with User:WLU this is not a two editor situation. Looking through the diffs however, I determined the situation was too complicated to simply decide that without notifying DreamGuy beforehand and ask for his view. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 20:25, December 6, 2007

I see. My intention was to seek advice on how to proceed, not a "decision", as you said, and not to open a debate in a new location prior to getting advice. I hope you can see why I am surprised at his posting here with his misinformation. I make the claim that he is providing misinformation, not as an attack, but as a defense. So is this forum not a place to get advice on dealing with disputes as advertised?

Editor assistance helps editors find someone experienced to provide you one-on-one advice and feedback. While not a required part of dispute resolution, it is designed to help you understand how to clearly and civilly express your views and work toward consensus. You may request an assistant's help at any time, whether you're involved in dispute resolution or not. Assistants can also help you find the best way to resolve your dispute or issue.

As far as having to "deal with his comments one way or the other", if you visit the talk page, you can see that I have been dealing with them as best I can for a few weeks now. And on the matter of the "consensus being against me", I would have to say that the of the recent editors and other users posting to the talk page, DreamGuy is alone. WLU is neither for or against me, although we seem to have been in agreement on most of what we have mutually done. I have actually found him to be very objective, if bold. I'm not saying that every edit he's made should stay in exactly like it is, but what I've studied closely, I either agree with or have no opinion, aside from a few issues that we've come to agreement on since. Note users (and anon IPs) who have posted in my favor in the past month: Special:Contributions/75.17.201.207, User:Biaothanatoi, User:RobertPlamondon.

But this debate isn't about the validity of the diagnosis as DreamGuy would like to try to frame it. There is still not a solid consensus amongst mental health professionals that DID is a valid diagnosis (see the first study linked WLU's "possible new source" posting for a nice recent example of this). That said, there's no excuse for inundating the article with this controversy when there is already an article dedicated to that topic. If you look at the state of the article a month ago, you can't get through two paragraphs without tripping over arguments as to why you shouldn't believe that it's real, this is inappropriate, as many users have complained about recently. However, that barely scratches the surface of the issues that I have addressed, and documented, and it's not even the point of this posting.

The point is that this forum is supposed to be for seeking advice and I have come here to seek that prior to next steps. Do you disagree that it's wise to get such advise prior to engaging in further argument, especially for one with limited Wikipedia experience? If not, why have you invited him here? Daniel Santos (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When I said "decide" above, I was merely talking about the decision on what best to recommend. The kind of input you appear to be looking for is indeed usually provided in an RFC rather than here. You see, this page is a far less specialised place. When an issue is too complicated or specific, we usually direct users to the appropriate processes. I'm sorry if my "invitation" to DreamGuy gave a wrong impression. From what I understand, the situation is a clearcut content dispute, but I suppose you know about WP:RFC/USER, too. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 23:00, December 6, 2007

I don't think this is a content dispute. There's a longstanding problem with Dreamguy's approach here at Wikipedia. Is there some way that we can get some administrative or editorial help on this? Frankly, there's a bunch of us with an interest in writing some decent articles on child abuse and trauma, and Dreamguy seems to sit on these articles, contributing nothing to the actual article, and blocking every change from editors that contradict his entrenched POV. These blocks are usually accompanied by some reference to WP policy in order to justify a pejorative or sarcastic remark about the editor in question.

This has been going on for years. Can you suggest a way that some of these concerns could be addressed? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there's also WP:RFC/USER, or you can get some input from admins at WP:AN. However, you should back up everything with diffs, and not stray into the realm of incivility or personal attacks. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 02:32, December 7, 2007

"writing some decent articles on child abuse and trauma" in Biaothanatoi's case seems to just be wanting to write from only a specific POV and simply being unwilling to work with other editors. Of course the blocks to bad content are accompanied by references to policy... that's how things are done here. If this editor doesn't want to follow Wikipedia policy then he should create his own website. It's ludicrous that someone can try to portray editors doing exactly what every editor here is supposed to be doing as if it were a bad thing. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I originally missed that you said WP:RFC/USER and not WP:RFC, I'm still a bit green, so I'll have to read up on this. How do we "back up everything with diffs"? Thanks, Daniel Santos (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and clarification. However, I wouldn't call it a clear-cut content dispute because of the chronic misrepresentations DreamGuy is creating. The fine points are lost in the confusion that he attempts to create with misrepresentations, emotionally appealing logic fallacies and even outright lies. A strong accusation to be sure, but let's look at this one. In the earlier posting, DreamGuy claimed:

"As far as the copyright issue, the section in question seems to be a mere listing of symptoms, and mere lists of factual information in list form usually do not have copyright protection because they are the only way to express the facts about the diagnosis."

Now, I have been accused of making POV edits under the false guise of copyright issues. To ask an outsider to investigate first hand is to ask for a very large slice of their time. Thus, I have painstakingly assembled the facts in a form that is both easy to digest and easy to verify.

1. The section that I claimed was copyrighted material was the Causes/etiology (which WLU renamed to Causes), not Symptoms.
2. DreamGuy knows this because it was discussed in two places on the Talk page, the last 3 postings on Explanation_of_Changes and the entire Causes/etiology section.
3. I've assembled a page to compare the text taken from Merck's web site here and here with the November 14th version of the Causes/etiology section. view history comparison here

As you can see from this comparison (link above), the text from the Causes/etiology section indeed uses non-trivial portions of Merck's copyrighted material. You can also see that this is not a list of symptoms.

One can say "well, he made a mistake," but if need be, I can go line by line in his postings and point out the dishonesty that is occurring, although it would be time consuming and I have wasted enough time discrediting this type of attack from him (see the talk page, I have done this this a number of times now). I have spent a good 2 hours compiling this and figuring out which sentence came from what part of which article to demonstrate his dishonesty and manner of attack. Although I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies related to arbitration, I don't see any point attempting to negotiate if he isn't willing to meet us on a level playing field where everybody his honest and straightforward, do you? And there is still a long list of other infractions he's committed that I haven't even gotten to yet because we're busy addressing his lies. Daniel Santos (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction to the Causes/etiology vs. Symptoms issue, it was in three places: the two listed above and one in my opening paragraph of this posting. Daniel Santos (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. OVer and over we are now seeing editors who pretend that content disputes are not content disputes, assume that their content is correct and do not have to take other editors' views into any consideration at all, and then try to portray the editors enforcing policies instead of violating them as the ones causing problems. He's talking about my not operating on a level playing field when he is making radical changes he knows to be controversial without trying to forge any consensus. This is nothing but pure wikilawyering on his part. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

His changes aren't controversial, and that's where this issue stops being a content dispute and starts being a different kind of problem altogether. You are blocking any change to the DID article that attempts move beyond your key POV concern that it might be iatrogenic. In effect, you are acting in a hostile manner by preventing the diversity of views on DID to be presented in the article, whilst pushing a fringe theory that therapists are somehow "implanting" a disorder in their clients. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, enough with the "making radical changes", "pro-DID POV" blah blah blah. You lied right here on this post, were caught doing so and you still want people to believe your assertions. Why did you lie? Are you even reading what I write before posting your responses? I don't suppose it matters though. Daniel Santos (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This apparently cannot be resolved here and I suggest the involved users try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead of bringing it to this page. I dorftrottel I talk I 11:51, December 12, 2007

My article on the Wat Buddharangsi was deleted

Resolved

 – For now, asked and answered. Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why my article on the Wat Buddharangsi was deleted and how I can create it again without somebody deleting it again.

The Wat Buddharangsi is a working Theravada Buddhist temple in Homestead, Florida. I included the URL for this temple's website in the article and I personally know about the temple because I've been to many of its festivals and meditation classes.

This is a Buddhist temple in the every sense of the word. It always has at least five Buddhist monks including and abbot in residence, all of which are from Thailand. The building itself was constructed for the purpose of being a Buddhist temple and was funded by donations from Thais living in Florida. It's not a former school or wharehouse. I included all of this information in the article, and despite that it was deleted.

I created the article after I read another Wikipedia article on Buddhist temples throughout the world and noticed the Wat Buddharangsi wasn't on it, even though it clearly deserves to be. The article on Buddhist temples now includes a link for the Wat Buddharangsi (because I put it there) but the link is red instead of blue. LuisGomez111 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The deletion log says that the article was deleted because it fit the criteria for speedy deletion: #7 for Articles. "Non-notable building, notability is neither asserted nor present" is what the admin put into the deletion log. The admin believed that the building was real, but he wasn't sure why it mattered. You can read about asserting notability in the link I included above. You can read more about notability in general here: notability. Let me know if that helps. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a bit of a minor struggle with another editor

Resolved

 – Problem editor has not edited the page since December 6. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Super Smash Bros Brawl article, the user Stevo1000 has added comments which do not follow suit with what is appropriate on Wikipedia such as personal opinions and reverting other editors without any reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history

Here is where I took my first edit earlier this afternoon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&diff=176219188&oldid=176185183

I provided my reasoning for redoing this section and told him why he couldn't say that, he later edited it entirely after another editor cleaned up my edit and added his same fanboyish statements. I reverted them and put a notice on the talk page on Brawl, he then immediately reverted my edit. I am not going to revert his edit since it'll be a pointless edit war, so I am seeking help with the problem here. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Stevo1000 was reverted and so far hasn't edited the article any more. Please update if the issue continues. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:56, December 8, 2007

need editor help, combative user is constantly reverting an article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina-Clemson_brawl

As you can imagine from the url, that page documents a controversial event between the university of south carolina and clemson university. Someone is posting incorrect, unverifiable content, and continues to revert the article to a state lying about it.

I request that an editor lock the article, and force the party placing these unsubstantiated claims to produce citations for their claims, otherwise, they should remove the false statements they've made in the article.

see the article history for the revert trail, and requests from myself for the other party to produce citations for the disputed statements. Reverseknarf (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is currently not in the article. Also, while you are indeed right that the burden of evidence is with the editor adding the material, there's basically never any need or merit to reverting more than once. If the situation continues, please post here instead of reverting. Alternatively, you're welcome to contact me at my talk page. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:22, December 8, 2007

why were references deleted

On 4 Dec 2007, I posted the following information to the article Boy or Girl paradox.

One of the earliest discussions of this problem, by Martin Gardner, appeared in Scientific American [October 1959, p. 180]. On July 27, 1997, this problem appeared for the sixth time in Marilyn vos Savant's Parade magazine column [p. 6]. Previously, it had been discussed in her columns of March 30, 1997 [p. 16], December 1, 1996 [p. 19], and May 26, 1996 [p. 17]. This problem, involving two baby beagles instead of two children, had appeared originally in her columns of October 13, 1991 [p. 24], with a follow-up on January 5, 1992 [p. 22].

Following the controversy of the Monty Hall problem, Ed Barbeau prepared two lengthy lists of references to the handful of paradoxes that are used to teach the concept of conditional probability. These references were published in The College Mathematics Journal [March 1993, pp.149-154; March 1995, pp. 132-134]. The fact that Marilyn recycled this paradox and toyed with her readers, without providing any references, is a glaring example of her unethical conduct.

The above was deleted by User:Dorftrottel on the same day. I can understand why Dorftrottel would want to delete the last sentence, but User:Dorftrottel did not explain why the references were deleted? I also cannot understand why User:Dorftrottel restored the following immediately under the title, when I had provided references to Gardner and Barbeau?

This article does not cite any references or sources. (June 2007)

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed

I have posted these references in the Discussion page under "Deleted References,", But I feel that the references should be restored in the Article. Italus (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you say, the last sentence definitely did not belong, it violates the neutrality policy and also without reliable sources is considered original research. I would suggest that you take a look at how to properly cite references, by reviewing WP:CITE and WP:CIT, as well as the Manual of style, to understand why the way you added the references was not the way they are done on Wikipedia. I also suggest that you ask Dorftrottel directly on their talk page for an explanation, and discuss the issue with them, as well as those editors on the article's talk page. The tags were rightly restored, because removing the section removed the references, and as you see, the article has no footnote references. The pages I list will explain why these formats are done, and give you examples of templates you can use. In this case, your templates would be Cite journal, and Cite news. Hope that helps you after reviewing those guidelines! Ariel♥Gold 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I did ask Dorftrottel at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dorftrottel#Why_did_you_delete_my_references.3F

but he did not give me an explanation! Italus (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Italus initially added to Boy or Girl paradox here and to Marilyn vos Savant here. I had come across the additions purely by coincidence while reading about the Monty Hall problem. On Marilyn vos Savant, I removed the POV sentence and tagged the section as POV here, looked for the user who had made the edit and thus found that very similar material had been added to Boy or Girl paradox, where I commented out the POV/OR. In addition, I cautioned Italus about OR [6] and posted to Talk:Marilyn vos Savant. The point is that I grew indeed somewhat impatient in this case, especially after ITalus reinserted his POV accompanied with unreliable sources here, since it's glaringly obvious that Italus' main interest was and remains to insert POV into the articles. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:02, December 9, 2007

I can understand why you do not want vos Savant's unethical conduct to be exposed, but why did you also delete my references to Gardner and to Barbeau in the Boy or Girl paradox, and why are you completely misleading readers by restoring: "This article does not cite any references or sources"? Italus (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"I can understand why you do not want vos Savant's unethical conduct to be exposed" - nothing of the sort. I want Wikipedia articles to be free of POV and original research. The sources you introduced are not up to the standards of WP:RS. Look, maybe I was indeed a bit overzealous, but you should really read our content policies on original research, neutral point of view and reliable sources, and understand what was wrong about parts of your edits and be extracareful when doing further edits on those articles. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:59, December 9, 2007

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster

Hello. I have, for the last few days, been engaged in an edit war of sorts on the page for the TNA roster. Just shy of a week ago, a story broke about the release of a wrestler (Senshi) from the company. However, no reliable source has been given in the article to support this. As such, I have been reverting from edits that incorporate that tidbit, and leaving a note to discuss it on the talk page before making the change in the future. Thus far, my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. I left a note on one editor's talk page (NickSparrow), but that was ignored or missed as well. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. Hezekiah957 (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources are required to include information, not to exclude it. Anyway, looks like the issue has been resolved with the addition of this online source. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:01, December 10, 2007

Thanks for the response, Dorftrottel. I'm a little confused by your emphasis on include and exclude; do you mean we need a source to show that he is a part of the roster, and that failing a source, he shouldn't be included on the list? If so, I present to you his page on the TNA Roster. I can settle for leaving him as-is (active roster, with the note about finishing), but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly (for the future and whatnot). Hezekiah957 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The roster pages could be outdated, but I assume they will have to suffice as a substitute for more reliable sources, a common problem with wrestling-related articles. As far as the info of "Senshi leaving TNA" is concerned, yes, a source is needed which specifically covers that. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:57, December 11, 2007

Article Chief channel officer

On Chief channel officer an editor User talk:Hscheel is ignoring requests to discuss content. He/she keeps on putting in a list of "Most influential Channel Chiefs in 2007" despite myself and another editor discussing it on the article talk page and deciding it does not belong. I placed a message on Hscheel's talk page asking him/her to discuss the issue before restoring the content but he/she restored the content anyway without discussion. I don't know what to do if the user will not discuss. Barrylb (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is unreferenced and of doubtful merit for the article. I removed it and restored the {{refimprove}} tag. Also notified User talk:Hscheel, pointing him to the imo applicable WP:V#Burden of evidence. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:36, December 10, 2007

Thanks for your assistance. That should help. Barrylb (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The user User talk:Hscheel is still persisting - further intervention would be appreciated from anyone. Barrylb (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ballet Fantastique page deleted - I need help

Please go to this page and critique it User:Smooshette/Ballet Fantastique. It was deleted because they said it was not notable enough. Before that they said it was advertising. I posted references to articles written about the Ballet Fantastique by papers with very high circulation for Oregon. We shouldn't be discriminated against just because we live in a small state. I would really like help with fixing it so it can be posted, and maybe adding a picture, so it is put in with the right tags. Could you please help me, Christy --Smooshette (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You would be better off going to deletion review for discussion of deletion issues. It appears to have been speedily deleted three times due to notability concerns, and I'm not sure myself that the coverage you've presented in the R-G and Eugene Weekly would really work to meet notability at this point. A wider discussion would be available at DRV, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'm picking up on is the fact that there might be a conflict of interest going on with regards to that article... your use of "We" leads me to think that you are involved with the group, which, by my understanding, constitutes a conflict of interest. Sorry if I either mis-interpreted your statement, Smooshette, or am mis-reading the rules. Just thought I'd bring that up. Hezekiah957 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hezekiah957, please pay a visit to our guideline on conflicts of interest. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:31, December 11, 2007

I said "we" in the context of people who are Oregonians who want to put something on Wikipedia. I am a 38 year old college student at the U of O and recently learned about the company through a class. They are doing something that people should know about. They are taking ballet into the grade schools, giving professional lessons, and collaborating with musicians. I went to one of their performances this Fall. It inspired me to write them a Wikipedia page, because I went to Wikipedia and couldn't find out anything about them. The Ballet Fantastique has had 2 front page stories in the Register Guard. As I have said Oregon is small, but Eugene is the 4th largest city in the Northwest and the second largest city in Oregon. People all over Oregon read the Register Guard. I would like to just have some critique of my page for now, so I can get it right, in order to take it to the deletion review, so they don't rip me to shreds. It has become a challenge for me to get this information on Wikipedia, please help me to get my page up.--Smooshette (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What you need to consider are the notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations as described in that link. Note that it suggests that most "organizations whose activities are local in scope" are not notable, and must be supported by strong sources to show otherwise. As someone who wrote for a local newspaper for years, I produced a heck of a lot of copy on ballet companies, community bands, fundraising groups, and others - that would be quickly deleted and get me a good smack if I tried to create an article on them. Local news coverage is a good start for notability, but it would be bolstered by reporting from outside - regional newspapers, and their ilk. I know you say the R-G is read all over Oregon, but it's really still a local daily (and I have read it). If they've been covered in the Oregonian, for example, that might be a good addition. So, if you have other reliable sources to add to the article, that would be the best approach to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take your advice and contact the directors of BF to find out if they have had any coverage in any other reliable sources. They are a small organization, but are doing something that is new and different with the Experience Dance Project where they bring professional dance to children might never have the opportunity to experience professional dance. Schools are cutting out more and more of the arts, because of lack of funding, not lack of the children's interest in the subject. It would be nice if I could do a page on the Experience Dance Project. Do you think I could just give it a try and see if they would be nice and leave it up? Or is it not worth my time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooshette (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it in your userspace for now, and if you have more resources to work with, add them then go to DRV and ask for thoughts among editors there with regards to moving it to mainspace. With it being deleted several times already, that's the safer way to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:N is that multiple independent local or industry-specific coverage qualifies subjects for inclusion in WP: being significant/notable within one's field is part of the criteria. If not, we wouldn't have articles about most of the world's chess champions, or some of the largest and most powerful businesses and NGOs in Canada, for instance. I am actually a little bit doubtful about the fairness of the deletions; the first two were for advertisement, and the last one was for notability. All three were by the same admin. Not to cast aspersions on that editor or any other, but it probably would have been more appropriate for a different admin to evaluate the article to ensure that the deleting admin hadn't gotten fixated on removal. As was apparent with Zeitgeist, the Movie, for instance, multiple previous removals can prejudice editors against improved articles. Anchoress (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that I will mess it up for Ballet Fantastique to ever get a Wikipedia page if I fight with the Wikipedia admin. It would be a shame, because they are worthy of notice. I agree, the Register Guard and Eugene Weekly are reliable sources, and it doesn't say anything about the sources being national in the notability guidelines. I will wait until the wiki admin cool off about it before I do anything else. How long do you think I should wait till I try again? Should I have someone else post about them?--Smooshette (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't be that quick to ascribe diabolical motives to the deleting admin; very few if any bear grudges of that sort, and most good editors welcome polite inquiries. I'd second the suggestion above that you try Deletion Review. Good luck! Anchoress (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'd recommend against viewing this as a 'fight', or that the admin has to 'cool down' - it's not an issue of anger or aggression, take care not to make it one. If anything I said in my previous post gave you that impression, I apologise and withdraw it, because that's not the impression I wished to convey. Having hard work deleted (it's happened to me) can be emotional, it can even hurt, but that doesn't mean anyone's the bad guy or that fighting is the only way to 'win'. Anchoress (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Smooshette, after reading about the Ballet Fantastique both on your page and in the deleted revisions of the article, my opinion is that the Ballet is indeed notable enough to have an article. I've looked at the Google results; it's covered by the RG, the Eugene Weekly, the local NPR station, and gets a fair amount of other notices. If you bring it to DRV I may be able to help. Anchoress gives some very fine advice in the post preceding mine as well. Note that while I'm an admin, our opinions are supposed to have no more weight than anyone else's: we just have the extra buttons. One of the odd things about Wikipedia, to me, is that we have articles about obscure aspects of video games, minor characters on television shows, but organizations such as ballet companies that serve areas of over 100,000 people, or companies that keep 100 people employed, are often deleted. But let me know if I can help, Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

some light assistance with categories

Hi. how do you like these categopries I created? Feel free to suggest new items to include. also interested in just general feedback. always good to have a more interactive process/ discussion. thanks.

Category:Political charters, Category:Diplomatic conferences.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma Entry

I have posted an addition to the Morals and Dogma entry twice now adding information about a new edition of Morals and Dogma.

The first edition was deleted by "SarekOfVulcan" because he said it read like Marketing.

I revised the entry using text from the "NIV Study Bible" and the "King James Bible" Wikipedia entries to provide an neutral explanation of this new edition. Now "SarekOfVulcan" has said I need to link to an external review of the book which has nothing to do with the validity of the entry.

Please advise. JJ MillerJjmiller768 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My side of the dispute is given at WP:COI/N#Morals and Dogma.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK

User Graham Wellington (talk · contribs) "contributes" to Wikipedia mostly by inserting "He is Jewish" into bios. Most of the bios that he edits are of people with a criminal past or people that are not seen in good light by the larger public (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Travis Kauffman, Zab Judah, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, Joe Francis, and Paul Reubens). The Jewishness of the bios at the receiving end of his edits are either unsourced or dubiously sourced. In the past, I have followed his contributory history and reverted most of his edits. However, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive112#David Berkowitz, Son of Sam he/she basically accused me of WP:STALKing him. If I follow his contributory history and revert all his unsourced contribs am I violating WP:STALK?? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:STALK: "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. You're not violating anything, so long as you aren't harassing the user in the process. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That, and I suggest ignoring such baseless strawman accusations, just like the rest of us will. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:20, December 12, 2007

I added Jewish family history to Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Zab Judah, Michael Mukasey and many other non-criminals. Its blatantly obvious you follow my edit history and "delete first, discuss never". This is in even the most liberal terms WP:STALK. As a concerned fellow wikipedia editor, I urge you seek counseling. Wikistalking may be a prelude to real life stalking. Graham Wellington (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that brewcrewer will become an actual stalker. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Graham Wellington's reply epitomizes what I have to put up with. I need not say more. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Put up with what? I do not stalk your edits. I am a passive, peaceful editor with no agenda. You went so far as to slur me as an anti-Semite. In case you forgot, I am Jewish. My grandparents died in the Holocaust. You know full well I edit the pages of good Jews and criminal Jews alike. Please be mature and stop WP:STALK me. To be honest, I actually thought you stopped WP:STALK until you sent that message to my discussion page today. Stalk and then brag about it? Thats totally off the wall. Lehitra'ot. Graham Wellington (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider that harassment. Graham's reply, not yours, if you are constantly met with that. If the edits are unsourced or poorly sourced, they can be reverted. Graham Wellington, you really need to assume good faith. Also, to dorftrottel: I don't really understand your comment. Who's being accuse of using whom (whom, right? or who?) as a strawman? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Hi

Can we get an editor to look at this article. There's a strange political tug-o-war going on with this entry which means there's a lot of reverting / vandalism going on. I'm tired of trying to be impartial when my good work gets trashed. I've just done a big tidy up and within minutes of posting it's all been undone. There's no way someone could even read my changes in this time. Check out the Talk page to see the debate.

Can someone get involved to make sure this is done in a fair and impartial way.

Thanks

--Maughamish 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what help you are requesting. Editing on that page appears to be in accord with wikipedia policies. Pastordavid (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Considering it is a hot topic in the 2008 Pesidentail Election, the quoting of "Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates.." may sway some users without proper knowledge of the use. The definition should be re-worded to allow the user to make that choice.

"Waterboarding is an technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment." "Waterboarding is an exercise that stimulates drowning in a controlled environment."

Thank You,

Cody Froelich Greenville, North Carolina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.28.240 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what assistance you are requesting. Could you please clarify, and provide links. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposing an article for deletion

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I proposed December 2007 North American ice storm for deletion with a very explicit reason. As a courtesy I advised the editor who created the article. He went ballistic on my talk page and the article's talk page and removed the request for deletion. I think he's too attached to the article because he created it. I think my proposal should be open to discussion. Can you please help? Thank you very much. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not create that article. I have not even edited it much. I just feel that just because ice storms are common, dosn't mean that the article should be deleted. Please give 209.247.22.166 a reality check. Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Juliancolton is the one who needs a reality check. I followed the normal procedure to request an article deletion and provided a valid reason for doing so, and he made himself judge and jury and deleted the request, without a valid reason, I might add. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the deletion policy clearly states that if i feel the article does not need to be deleted, I can remove the deletion tag. Juliancolton (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a step back. 209.247..., it states on the proposed deletion tag that anyone may remove a proposed deletion tag, for any reason. In fact, that is the purpose of the prod tag, to give other editors a chance to see if anyone objects to the deletion. The next step, if you feel it needs deleted, is to take the article to Articles for Deletion, where consensus among editors is sought to either keep or delete the article. I will note, however, that only registered editors can nominate an article at AFD - perhaps it is time to create an account? In the meantime, do not continue to add the proposed deletion tag - doing so would be considered vandalism, as the proposed deletion has been objected to. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is reasonable. Has consensus support and editing by a number of editors. Pastordavid (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

THE HEVENER CHURCH

Dear Sir/Madam:

I wish to contest the decision to exclude the information on THE HEVENER CHURCH. The stated reason for rejection is that the information is not adequately supported.

I believe that this is an incorrect statement. I have supported the information with such references as: WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD; WHO'S WHO IN THE AMERICA; WHO'S WHO IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST; records of THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; records of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY; the website: www.guthriememorial.org; records of LONGWOOD UNIVERSITY.

I also give you the personal names and addresses of three of our dedicated missionaries:

Pastor Charles Mugisa, ((personal info removed)) Pastor Peter Lim, ((personal info removed)) Pastor David Rasaily, ((personal info removed))

Thank you for reconsidering this request.

Dr. Fillmer Hevener, Founder, THE HEVENER CHURCH--75.104.128.58 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe what you are refering to is this request for an article creation, which has been denied. Correct? (For future reference, it is always helpful to provide links to what you are talking about). The stated reason that the article was not created was that the sources you provided (a) were not all reliable, third-party sources, and more importantly, (b) they did not establish the notability of the subject. "Who's Who" is generally not considered a reliable source, as its primary function is to publish vanity biographies so that the subjects will purchase the books. The records of Longwood, UVA, and JMU merely establish that you exist and went to school there, not that you are notable. The church's website is, obviously, not third party. Is there coverage of you or the church in major newspapers or magazines? National television? Is there a scholarly book with a major publisher's imprint about you or the church? Those are the sorts of sources that would establish notability. I hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with Goosebumps / User:Jonamatt

A registered user (User:Jonamatt) has repeatedly added content that is:

1. original research,
2. unreferenced,
3. self-published (i.e. he has cited himself as an authority),
4. unencyclopedic,
5. hoax-like

to the Goosebumps article. He claims to be a part of a Goosebumps club that has "published" this "Scholarly Review." It has been deleted before by myself and another editor. User:Jonamatt relentlessly reverts the deletions.

You may view his contributions and the section he keeps adding: Goosebumps#Scholarly_Review

I am getting fustrated... I know that his material does not belong on Wikipedia, but I can't get through to this guy. What can be done to put an end to this? HELP!!!! -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Section removed; it was original research and POV. I'll discuss it with the editor in question. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But for how long? The user has indicated (Talk:Goosebumps that he will "review" the article and add it back. Furthermore, he has threatend: "If you delete this article [meaning the section] again, I will submit a vandalism report to Wikipedia." This guy just won't give in... -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heading off to talk pages on this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

Greetings. Being a noob, I am in need of assistance in my wording. I am upsetting other editors with my corrections to the article. I must not be using proper wiki-language to explain myself and I don't know the fancy terms. This is a very controversial subject.

Yamashita's gold Talk:Yamashita's_gold

Jim (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

COI dispute solution

I welcome some assistance with the COI claim that BlueAzure has brought upon me and the articles I have made minor edits on. In engaging this user for constructive input, I received false allegations in return. I would like to continue to contribute to WP and would like to understand more about this process. If anyone has suggestions for the one article I created on Mimi Fuenzalida, the minor edits I have made on other articles and what the process is for deleting BlueAzure's COI in a fair way, I am completely open for help and suggestions. I feel responsible for all of the COI's that have been put on the accounts I have made minor edits on and I would like to correct my errors. Please advise.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a Cool Head and some Advice

I recently decided to start helping edit articles here on Wikipedia and chose to start with the article on Jack the Ripper. We almost have every point that's been under dispute resolved. But the real problem is that a few editors don't like each other and, instead of focusing on improving the article, resort to snide personal comments towards the editor(s) they don't like. Other editors have asked time and time again to keep focused on Jack the Ripper and not bring up personality conflicts. But they just won't stop! If you look through the talk page and archives I would say at least half of the discussions have nothing to do with Jack the Ripper and are just certain editors arguing with each other over petty issues. I think that all of us want to get the Jack the Ripper article unlocked but a few of us can't get past things that happened months ago and keep bringing it up. I've tried to help move past all this counterproductive discussion but every time I steer the discussion back to the topic at hand an editor brings up the old personality conflicts and it devolves into an argument again. I've only been dealing with this for a month or so and I am already very frustrated, I am sure editors who have been there longer are even more frustrated. We seem to be at an impasse where any time it seems we are improving the article old personal stuff gets brought back up and we can't move forward. What can I do to put out the flames and get us back on track? - Stephoswalk (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy on self-published sources

I've been directed here on the advice that this is a better source of advice than Village pump.

I was wondering what the rationale for the policy on self-published sources is (see WP:SELFPUB). I was wondering if over-use of self-published sources constitutes advertising-like language. This issue is discussed here. I'll quote the relevant bits:

"Here's another question: does the overuse of self-published sources (as in, well over half the sources; especially online self-published sources that link to subscription/membership/purchasing forms) constitute advertisement-like language? The way I see it, overuse of self-published sources lends an aura of notability to those sources which may or may not be justified. Additionally, those sources make the subject of the article look more notable through their affiliation with the subject (i.e., it appears as if the article is saying, 'Look at us, we have a notable source on our side/in our ranks; that makes us even more significant')."

I'm trying to apply WP:SELFPUB to this article. I was hoping you could also jump into the conversation in the article's talk page (this section). Thanks! SharkD (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the relevant bit would be "it is not unduly self-serving". I take this to mean advertising, and it would apply here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this would need to be applied to every source on a case-by-case basis. I'm looking more for something that applies to an overuse of self-published sources, as a whole. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any particular policy regarding overuse of self-published/primary sources. One featured article which is commonly held up as exemplary is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which has more than 50% primary/self-published sources. That said, the intro on RuneScape is a bit too pushy, i.e. "RuneScape offers both free and subscription content and is designed to be accessible from any location with an Internet connection and to run in an ordinary web browser without straining system resources" could be rephrased "RuneScape has free and subscription content and can run in an ordinary web browser."--Nydas^(Talk) 10:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:SELFPUB says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as (...) the article is not based primarily on such sources". I was wondering what the rationale behind this was. Is it a form of advertisement? Is it an NPOV issue? SharkD (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree on the pushy statement. The fact that the game runs in a browser automatically means that it taxes the system hardware more than it would if it were a compiled executable composed of machine language. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Football Teams

I am unsure of what to do about this. The page List of football teams in Canada covers the scope of teams that are within Canada's borders. Without hitting the 3RR on the page, one editor has continually added the US based expansion teams, the CFL added during the mid-90's. While I understand their importance to the history of the CFL, the scope of list is only those teams in Canada should be listed, ergo the US based teams should not. I'm understand the edits were in good faith, but there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment from the editor that they understand what the page is for. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well trying to work it out on the article talkpage is always a good starting point, and I notice you posted here only 17 minutes after posting your concern there for the first time; so why not wait a couple of days and see if a discussion develops there before escalating? Anchoress (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I only posted that quickly as I did not want to run afoul of the 3RR. But the editor seems to have understood and posted it on the CFL page instead. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about how to resolve a content dispute

Hi. This question can probably be answered without delving into the actual content, but I'll list the story here for reference: Article: John Howard, subject: Talk:John_Howard#PNG.
The dispute was over whether or not to include well referenced information about "New Guinea Plantations" in the article. On the talk page, someone requested an RfC. The RfC attracted many comments evenly divided for and against, and so didn't achieve a decisive outcome. I then submitted a Request For Mediation to try to find some consensus. Two editors declined to participate, so the RfM was shut down. Some edit warring persists. How can a content dispute be resolved when some editors won't participate in RfM? Where does one go from there? A couple of the editors who refused RfM continue to delete the content. Is there a way to finalise this one way or another? How do content disputes like this ever get resolved? Thanks very much, Lester 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Got the question answered elsewhere. Thanks, Lester 06:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

An article about me was removed.

Some time ago, my name (article about myself) was included on Wikipedia. The piece was proposed by 4 humanitarian groups, three university professors, a member of the UN and a U.S. senator. I was not overly concerned at first but once it was up, I assummed it was suppose to be there as it remained so for nearly a year.

Recently it was removed with NO professional or scientific reason and no comments to my kind requests to have it returned.

Reasons for inclusion:

I am a noted professor and a specialist in medieval history and medieval religion; I am a noted Faulknerian Landscape photographer (exhibitions in England, India, the Center for Faulkner Studies, the Center for Souther Studies, Australia, China and Canada.) I am listed as a Tranhumanist; I have been granted 8 knighthoods, 5 major grants, 5 medals; I serve as an Hon. Professor, Academy of National Security of Defense and Law (ANBOP) - licensed by Ministry of Education, Russian Federation and created by the Security Council of the R.F. In 2007 I was elected as a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science and a Noble Prize nominee. I have written 200 major articles and six books. I have titles (Marquis from former kings and crown princes; I am doing ground breaking work on neuropathic pain and biofeedback; I am a member of some of the world's most important humanitarian and human rights groups; 2005 - A.R.N. Anniversary Medal, Russian Assembly of Nobility; 2007 - Medal of Lomonosov - Academy of National Security of Defense and Law; 2007 - Medal of Merit " Heraldist " ("Guerboved" - Russia); 2007 - Order of pour le Merites pour les Compatriortes (Russia); and 2007 - EANS Honorable Cross of Merit.

I did not asked to be added but when I was, I expected my entry to remain as such unscientific and unprofessional behaviour reflects badly on my status as a scholar and scientist.

Where do we go from here? Can something be done. I have also written, as a professional, 30 articles for the Wikipedia. Please contact me.

Your servant

Dr Lindgren (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have raised 1 million dollars for humanitarian aid and human rights.

Hi Dr Lindgren. Sorry to hear about your article's deletion; it definitely happens on Wikipedia. If you look HERE you'll see the information about your article's deletion; it was removed by MastCell in September. The first step would be for you to ask that user, an administrator, for the particulars of the removal. The deletion description simply says 'per expired PROD, which isn't very helpful as we don't know the exact reason for deletion or who proposed deletion in the first place. Good luck! Anchoress (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DrLindgren. I have a feeling, from looking at the deleted content, that it was deleted primarily because it was written like either a promotional (self-promotional?) piece or as your CV. There was a comment on the article talk page, posted by User:DGG, that said "I have strong doubts about the notability of this person, and the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented. His awards are from various unlikely , and almost crtainly unimportant places; his memberships are similarly mostly vanity societies and those providing no special claim to notability. The references given are almost all from personal web sites and similarly unreliable sources/. None of his published works except a book of photographs are from reputable established publishers. He claims to be a professor, but is only the adjunct at one distance learning school." To get a sense of the style of article that is most likely to stay on wikipedia, please read our suggestions for your first article. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

afghanistani

I created an entry for "Afghanistani" but I accidentally did not capitalize the first letter. Can someone please erase the entry with the lower case and create and entry with the uppercase. afghanistani. Thanks CanadianAnthropologist (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it should have defaulted to first letter capitalized (that's how the interface works); either way, it redirects to Afghanistan just fine. So, seems to be under control! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the problem, so either someone else came behind you and fixed, or it resolved itself. Unless we are missing something? Pastordavid (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor abuse

Hi, I am trying to add a simple sentence to the Predicting the timing of peak oil entry :

"In its December 14, 2007 report, the International Energy Agency stated that world oil production in November 2007 had risen again to 86.5 Mb/d ; the agency concludes to a 2007 average of 85.7 Mb/d (+1.1% over 2006), and considers a 2008 further demand increase to 87.8 Mb/d (+2.5%)[1]."

The sentence is merely sourced by said report.

Editor NJGW is being harrassing, and keeps editing this sentence. FYI, the International Energy Agency is just what it says, an international body in charge of keeping track of these figures. Thanks for your remarks.--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in the history, I have changed Environnement2100's edit to reflect what the reference actually says. I did not delete the edit. This editor has a history of misrepresenting sources, using poor sources (about.com, French sites, dynamically updated sites, other wikipedia sites), arguing with facts as they are reported in sources without providing counter sources or suggesting compromises, and deleting sections with out discussion. This editor refuses to participate in talk page discussions despite repeated requests for this. NJGW (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This NJGW editor continues vandalism, as shown on the talk page--Environnement2100 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Hello all. Firstly, this is a content dispute. Please discontinue labeling the content dispute with incorrect label of "vandalism". Secondly, I'm not sure why the most recent edit has the edit summary of "...it's moved to the right section". I don't see anything getting moved I only see something being removed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for your intervention. I am not used to this kind of behavior : what am I supposed to do now ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the previous edit I moved the sentance to where Environnement2100 took it from. I forgot the second instance, so I removed that in the edit you are looking at. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That edit (diff) is not your edit. That edit is Environment2100's edit. Can you please explain what you mean? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry and grabbed the wrong edit. I ment this one. You can see I'm inserting Environment2100's sentence (so that it is now in two places), and removing it from one spot in the very next edit. Environment may not have realized this (s/he doesn't always look at all the changes) and just assumed I deleted the sentence. NJGW (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the said sentence is concerned by the said paragraph : it has to be there, as it answers directly the title of the paragraph. So no, it must not be moved away : editor NJGW wants to hide it away. For a second thing, editor NJGW is lying, because there are two different sentences concerned now :

• one is referring to the IEA, an international agency
• the other one refers to the EIA/DoE, a national US agency. Both agencies provide concurring figures, though not exactly the same.

Editor NJGW is trying to destroy/put away both references, obviously because he is not happy with the figures provided by both agencies. NJGW should not choose what is good and what is not : these references are totally authentic and relevant.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, sometimes it seems Environnement2100 doens't read what s/he's talking about. I'll continue this on the talk page where it belongs. NJGW (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy

I had (several months ago) created a page with the above title which had been subsequently edited by others. Yesterday, I created a page about myself (which I've been slammed and now know is a "bad idea"). However, the admin-editor,User_talk:JzG, who deleted my autobiography also speedy deleted the Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy page. I'm unsure of why, and seem to see this as a retribution type deletion of my contributions. The OMPT page is surely a deserving topic, as it is taught in numerous universities, is managed by not only national professional associations, but an international one as well. Numerous text books and peer-reviewed literature reference this topic. I am seeking assistance understanding why this page was deleted as such.Ekrdpt (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason cited was "CSD G11: Blatant advertising: Apparently exists only to promote the association linked." There are no "retributions" with regards to deletion, possibly at all; I can't think of a situation in which that's appropriate. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That was the reason cited, but that reason is not reflective of reality. There was no advertisement, but a link to the association which aptly defined OMPT. I could have linked to any number of other places for a definition. Should not the page have been edited vs. deleted? The Google search result for the term for site:edu should shed light to support my claims.Ekrdpt (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You could try DRV, that might get the deletion overturned. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

We have provided sufficient references and sourses to this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biositemap) - Please remove the system heading that there is insufficient/invarifiable material on this page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.129.160 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request assistance about a political subject

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have just learned that two link articles I posted for the article "David Cobb" were removed.

Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cobb&diff=168152542&oldid=166181713

Ben Manski, an associate of David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, removed them and commented without justification that they constituted a "hit piece" and blamed past Cobb rival Peter Camejo.

I posted the article links on my own.

I did so because I thought the articles by Joshua Frank, a noteworthy political journalist, and Carol Miller and Forrest Hill addressed a notable malfeasance in David Cobb's 2004 presidential campaign. I left them as links to allow readers of Wikipedia to read and consider which might eventually lead to a more balanced article about David Cobb.

During the campaign, Forrest Hill was indeed an ally of Peter Camejo-- and I myself was partisan to Camejo. When I first began posting at Wikipedia I tried to improve the article about Peter Camejo but soon all but gave up due to the harrassment and disiformation that I began to find posted there-- that tarred Camejo and flattered Cobb. I always tried to improve information, not eliminate it.

All of my postings have been sincere and for the betterment of knowledge. I am not an adept poster-- and still have much to learn.

It was not my intention to "hit" or smear David Cobb when I posted the links as Ben Manski claims. My purpose was to inform and bring balance to an article that lacked important information expressed in the key historical articles I linked to. That information was key because it provided a snapshot of controversies about David Cobb's nomination in 2004. It is not flattering to him, but it was honest analysis with facts.

I would have addressed my concerns directly to Ben Manski about how he made unjust charges against me, and in so doing unjustly smeared the name of Peter Camejo who had absolutely nothing to do with my posting-- but I don't think that would be realistic considering the argument and type of words Manski used when he removed my contribution to the Wikipedia.

I have involved myself about articles regarding the Green Party in the past because I am a Green and am knowledgeable about facts regarding Green party controversies of 2004-- and the articles I provided links to are key articles of bonafide political commentary and analysis.

Ben Manski could have provided links to alternative analysis-- and I would not dare remove them because I believe that truth is served by a diversity of opinion and different analysis.

Rather than go on, I hope that you can consider the issues and suggest a reasonable outcome.

I believe the historic article links should be restored. I preferred contributing the links rather than changing the article itself because I hoped that a less partisan writer would use that knowledge to write a more balanced article.

At this point I almost dare not look at other things I contributed for fear of finding similar destruction of knowledge.

Thank you for considering my plea.

Robert B. Livingston (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the links you had provided, and would suggest that the first one is more of an editorial than independent reporting on the gentleman involved; the second one being an interview with the article subject, I'd think would be a little less of a problem. I'd suggest that if you feel the information in these links is important to the article, you look for more mainstream sources discussing those topics - the Counterpunch articles, as I say, lean more towards opinion than reporting. You can also bring these concerns up on the article talk page for more discussion with editors more directly involved with the subject. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, as I look closer, it doesn't look like you added the interview, at least in the edit that I found in your contribs. One comment: I note that you add a number of links marked as minor edits - I'd suggest not doing that, as the minor edits box is more for grammar, spelling, etc. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I will do what you ask, which I believe is fair. I consider the Counterpunch articles credible sources-- and that is why I called those links "key" links. However, I understand what you are asking, and believe corroborating evidence can be found elsewhere. I apologize for imagining that I contributed both article links. I will try to be more careful about leaving "minor edits' checked. Thank you very much for your advice. Robert B. Livingston (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with a new editor

I wonder if an admin could take a look at my history with new editor User:Trgwilson. We've gotten off to a bad start and I don't think he'll be listening to anything further from me. This began when he added what I saw as a promotional link to Emmet Till; I removed it with edit summary "rv promotional link, please see WP:EL" and left this] message, not a template, on his talk page. (I was the second editor to revert and warn him for his links.) Before retiring for the night I noticed he had removed a copyright warning from his talk page without indicating there that any of the three suggested actions had been taken. I left him this message and restored the copyright warning. The next morning he began the section User_talk:CliffC#Dear_Cliff on my user page. I reviewed his contributions, reverted several plugs promoting a person at the radio station, and tagged for {{db-notability}} an article about the station's executive producer. You can see by reviewing my talk page and his where it went from there. He's gone to the Help desk to complain about my "bullying" and has threatened to turn us in for (I think) violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as at some point he identified himself as sight-impaired and later as blind. I don't care about the lack of civility, all I'd really like is for someone to tell him to participate in Wikipedia under the same rules as everyone else. --CliffC (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• This might seem redundant, but how about requesting a third opinion on the matter? As you aptly noted, the editor is probably unaware or uninformed the rules. --Aarktica (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indianhead Mountain Why marked for deletion?

A page I recently created as part of the Wiki Ski project has been marked as "being considered for deletion." From what I can see, an individual came upon the page while I was in the midst of creating and citing it. I see nothing on the page that warrants this "deletion" tag. Am I missing something? I have plenty of references (internal and external) and have taken pains to make sure it is accurate and unbiased. Comments are appreciated. --Rickdrew (talk)

Spamming gossip and self-advertising on a beauty pageant article

There is a controversy on the article of Julia Alexandratou.

My opinion has been written on the discussion page of the article and I have cleaned up the article accordingly. An anonymous user seems to think otherwise and constantly reverts the page to the previous state claiming that he or she does so due to my "vandalism". However he does not participate in the discussion and it is impossible to understand his rationale.

Can anyone help to resolve the issue?

-- Vyx (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Something that is probably inappropriate

A saw a page about Chris Mortensen, a reporter from ESPN. What I found on the page was highly inappropriate, and obviously posted by somebody who does not like him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.128.43 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report; that was vandalism that snuck through our recent changes patrollers. Fixed now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with graphics

I scaled and converted [7] to .JPG, but I am confused with the "JPEG version available" tags. Can someone please show me how I should upload the image and add the tags in the right place, please?

Thanks in advance. Pseudoserpent (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I can help. Click here: upload Appendixcancer.jpg. Browse to your file. If it's just the same as the .gif file, then put this in the summary: {{PD-self}} File originally uploaded as [[:Image:Appendixcancer.gif]] by [[User:Droliver]] or something like that. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moshpit Tragedy Records

Hello, I noticed someone made a website for Moshpit Tragedy Records which was taken down because it was unable to prove notibility. I've compiled a list of links in which the label is mentioned by others completely independent from any of the labels own press releass etc. I would like to know if this would be sufficient in starting a new page. I don't want to start a new page and have it deleted so the next person to try has that much harder of a time. Thank you here is the list. Myspace profile for upcoming film the label will be featured in, among many other prominent labels http://www.myspace.com/behindthesuitandtie

Behind The Suit And Tie Metal Recording Industry Documentary Issues Update http://www.bravewords.com/news/77302

Behind The Suit and Tie heavy metal recording industry documentary begins filming. (2007 in metal events) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_metal

Moshpit Tragedy Records To Be Featured In Behind The Suit And Tie Record Industry Documentary http://www.bravewords.com/news/74598

There were plans in late 2006 to rerelease the EP onto CD on Canada's Moshpit Tragedy Records (Eyehategod 99 miles of bad road EP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Miles_of_Bad_Road

EYEHATEGOD: Video Interview With MIKE WILLIAMS Available http://160.79.51.94/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71859

ROCKET'S NEW Interview With Gary Mader Of EYEHATEGOD (Wasn't that going to be issued on Moshpit Tragedy Records first?) themetalden.com/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php?p2_articleid=4813

No Reissue for Eyehategod http://fuzzrock.com/news/news.asp?NewsID=6395

MOSHPIT TRAGEDY RECORDS Introduces Sliding Scale Download Series http://www.metalmaniacs.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1083&Itemid=66

Moshpit Tragedy Records: Free Full-Album Downloads http://ricecooker.kerbau.com/2007/09/03/moshpit-tragedy-records-free-full-album-downloads/

CD Review: Extinction of Mankind - Ale to England http://metalinjection.net/blog/2007/05/06/cd-review-extinction-of-mankind-ale-to-england/

NO SOULS LOST SIGN WITH OPEN GRAVE RECORDS http://www.last.fm/user/jamesogr/journal/2007/11/10/571209/

Moshpit Tragedy Release available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Ale-England-Extinction-Mankind/dp/B000OHF14O

"Le label Moshpit Tragedy Records met en ligne différents albums à télécharger pour le prix qui vous convient ! Ainsi, on peut se procurer BURNT CROSS, FILTHPACT, HULLUUS, POWER IS POISON... pour un prix variant entre 0$ et 10$..." (Dec 3) http://www.shootmeagain.com/news

"A small label with some really good bands. Bands included are: Extinction of Mankind, Power Is Poison, The Skuds, Hangover Overdose, Filthpact, Hulluus, and Devil's Son-In-Law." (Oct 11) http://thewaytoequality.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

"The Canadian label Moshpit Tragedy is in a good mood. They have four new ltd edition CDEPs out but are also giving them away for free download complete with cover art! High quality bands and professional recordings!" (Aug 24) http://www.attackfanzine.net/news.htm

"Moshpit Tragedy does sort of the same thing for the EPs they put up for free downloading… sleeve art and everything." http://opnd.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/a-bit-of-housekeeping/

"Mosh Pit Tragedy Records has made a very limited editon Fuck The Facts t-shirt. Only 20 have been printed" ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm

"I have a few CDs for cheap in the shop thanks to Moshpit Tragedy Records" www.apocryphalpublishing.com/

"Released a self titled 3 song demo on Moshpit Tragedy Records this year" (Corprophemia) www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=70433

"Moshpit Tragedy Records bietet zu den folgenden Terminen kostenlose MP3-Downloads der ersten Alben des Labels " http://www.metalnews.de/?metalid=01&action=comment&newsid=11748

"Des extraits des nouveaux Filthpact, Descended From Rats et Burnt Cross sont en écoute chez Moshpit Tragedy Records. " www.metalorgie.com/punk/groupes.php?id=1317

"Canadian label Moshpit Tragedy release another out-of-print album for free" www.metalmongrel.com/page2.htm

"Yo pienso que es una idea excelente en realidad pero bueno ahora leo otra noticia en la que una disquera (Moshpit Tragedy Records) estará liberando un disco ..." foros.slot-1.net/viewtopic.php?t=2474

"Három héttel ezelött a kanadai Moshpit Tragedy Records bejelentett, hogy a már nem kapható kiadványikat ingyen letölthet?vé teszik, hetente egy kiadványhoz" totalrock.hu/hirek.php

"V pořadí už sedmé album si můžete stáhnout úplně zadara u Moshpit tragedy records, nyní si album můžete stáhnout hned na hlavní stránce bez nutnosti registrace na fórum jako tomu bylo donedávna. " http://trojka007.blog.cz/0712/burnt-cross-carcass-of-humanity

74.210.1.188 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the question. Please take a look at the discussion that resulted in the article's deletion to see why it was decided by consensus the article did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Looking briefly through the sources, let me just explain that many of them would not be considered reliable, third party sources. Things like blogs, Wikipedia articles, fan websites, band sites, MySpace, etc., are not used as references to verify statements. Additionally, many of sites you list are not in English, and since this is the English Wikipedia, it is best if the majority of references are in the language most readers can understand, to allow for verification. Take a look at the notability guideline for musical groups, as well as the above policies to understand why the article was removed. Please see Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, and how to edit for additional information. Thanks. Ariel♥Gold 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

A user named HappyTalk22 continues to undo edits to the Nancy Reagan article. I have only re-organized the first few paragraphs to read with better flow, these facts are cited in the article.

Please stop him/her from making vandalistic changes that reflect his bias. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)