Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Infidel

At the article Infidel I am having an issue with another editor over the validity of the inclusivity of the 1913 Catholic Encylopedia, and I suspect a particular direction that the article may take as well. If someone would like to help out that would be much appreciated.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason you insist on basing the article on that 100 year old source, rather than on broader, modern, reliable sources. That, in a nutshell is the main problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has been noted but not agreed with. I'd rather debate our disagreement on the relevant article talk page than clutter this one.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Without wading through the talk page there, let me say: (1) Articles should avoid incorporating text from the 1913 CE, as it is POV, (2) When contridicted by a more contemporary source, the contemporary source should be prefered, and finally, (3) secondary sources, where possible, are to be preferred over tertiary sources like encyclopedias. Pastordavid (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would "partially" disagree with point one, as a summary of it for you then per Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material, the WP:RS noticeboard [[1]], the Administrator noticeboard [[2]] as well pages such as discussions on articles such as Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Anti-Masonry, Knight Kadosh and a multitude of others. In short my stand is the same as those on the aforementioned threads that 1913 doesn't merit a blanket exclusion because of its POV or age and can be used but with due care and understanding that it represents a dated Catholic POV. I agree with both points two and three and don't see an issue with removing or amending of the 1913 information in that light. I do however object to information sourced from it being removed without verifiable cause, and can undertake to substantiate the information in the 1913 from more modern sources as well. I see you are a Pastor, maybe you can take a look at the article and give us some feedback on content of the article as well.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been told it's not reliable, and you should use modern sources. Accept that and comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Trollish comments will be ignored to keep this thread civil and productive. A discussion has just begun, consensus is being established.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How odd; you keep claiming elsewhere that consensus has already been established. Which it has, of course. And that consensus is that it's unreliable, don't use it except in extremely limited circumstances. Leading the Infidel article, and forming the basis for its contents, obviously isn't one of those circumstances. And please abide by WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph J. Romm

This article is all out of scale with the importance of the subject (the talk page shows concerns over the subject even being notable enough for an entry at all). I've been trying to at least tighten up the language and remove trivia and redundant info, but its being zealously guarded by one particular editor who reverts any change which shortens the entry, however valid. Recently, a personal friend of his (by her talk page at least) has begun to assist him, making claims my edits were "bad faith" or vandalism.

I'd like someone to objectively view the situation, and determine who is in the right here. Thanks! FellGleaming (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into the edits by User:Broadwaygal, it does seem to be a clear case of Meatpuppetry, based on her past level of interaction with Ssilvers, and the fact she's never before shown any interest in this article. But I'd like a neutral opinion.FellGleaming (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think notability is established (the talk page discussion about it is two years old and a request for deletion failed) but I do agree that the article does contain information of marginal relevance or significance - e.g., what Romm's brother does for a living or an entire paragraph setting out details of a Department of Energy program that Romm "helped manage" as Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary during his tenure there in the mid-1990s. (That reads more like a resume entry than anything, and if "helped manage" is all that he did with it then the information is really pretty tangential.) Other parts of the article do read a bit puffy to me, but not so thoroughly that removing the text is really demanded. Perhaps you would gain more traction by identifying the things that are really beside the point and taking discussion of those to the talk page, rather than making wholesale changes to the article, which, while efficient, often simply invites wholesale reversions.

These are of course just one person's opinions, upon a brief review of the page and the edits. Others may have different views - JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. When Romm was the acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, he was in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. When he was Principal Deputy AS, he "helped" run the office, but he was the #2 guy for those periods. This office is the DOE's billion-dollar energy efficiency and renewables research and applications program. Since this is Romm's bio, describing his activities at this important government job would seem to be definitely worth a paragraph. I'm not sure what the basis would be for excluding it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - thanks for the thanks.

I guess it's that, when you are in a high (politically appointed?) position in government, you oversee a lot of different operations and programs, with many possible levels of actual involvement. "Helped manage" -- to me anyhow -- is one of those slippery resume words that can mean as little as "I had to sign off on memos written by knowledgeable subordinates and otherwise had no clue about what was going on". It smacks of puffery. (Indeed given that the phrase, "helped manage", as well as the program description, tracks language from four or five nearly identical, separately and sometimes repetitively footnoted, presumably self-authored, bios of Romm, I think this observation may be well founded.) You're right that it's his bio but that being the case then what matters first is what *he did*. Did he devise the program, champion it, give it new direction, rescue it from moribundity (a word?), acitively direct it - what? If none of those then the program details strike me as only so much clutter. (By contrast, his role in "The Five Lab Study" is plainly stated, although the significance of that study is not clear.)

Just so it's clear - I am not saying that these segments violate Wikipedia policy or that it's *wrong* to include them -- but instead that the article does seem to go off a bit on tangents, and that -- as FellGleaming contends -- it could use a bit of tightening, and these examples seem like pretty obvious candidates for excision. It would make a better article, I think.

(Maybe the Romm talk page is the better place to continue this, if we are going to.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Mahamad

Note - This was copied from conflict of interest

The Mahamad articles current revision isnt appropiate. The article is redirected to Bhavishya Purana, and the way Muhammad is described is ridiculous plus isn't fair to the other vedas (holy books) that Mahamad is prophised in. This revision would be better [3]

Note - Mahamad is not only mentioned in Bhavishya Purana, Mahamad is cleary mentioned in RigVeda and other vedas, puranas etc... (i have sources/refs to claim that). further Muhammad had successfully completed the prophicies in some Vedas.

Note - Those users have no sources to even claim Mahamad in Bhavishya Purana article and further some users watch that article and do not allow any users to contribute and fix up the inappropiate wording view.

This view is much better [4] . Would an Redirect to that Link be better?. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - Even if them users want to keep Mahamad in that article Bhavishya Purana this revision would be more appropiate [5] cause just the way they mention Mahamad is outrageous and further it says Shiva will destroy when thats false, i could mention why if needed. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a conflict of interest problem to me. Perhaps you would be better taking this to requests for editorial assistance. Howie ☎ 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mahāmada for context. The edit history of the Mahāmada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article also shows a sockfest in favour of the version proposed by Mujahideen194 (talk · contribs) above. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The History of Mahāmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) That was the first Article to be made than got redirected to all sorts of places because of many socks from many users.

Actually the Mahamad article was very popular at one time (see [[6]] ) after being reidrected many times, right now it needs to be fixed up just look at the Mahamad article and content is (without any support for claims) is just hidious.

--Mujahideen194 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Forum-shopping. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mahāmada for context. The edit history of the Mahāmada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article also shows a sockfest in favour of the version proposed by Mujahideen194 (talk · contribs). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note what don't you understand ? Mahāmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the first article created (see the history time-line) and it clearly shows many users participating in contributions and all these socks from different users redirecting, adding cites, links, etc ... --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That article needs to be opend up and all those other books that Mahamad is prophised in must be mentioned, and all the prophicies he completed according to the vedas to claim titles must be mentioned as well.

Those prophicies regard an important role. its useless to only redirect to Bhavishya Purana cause thats not fair to all the other books. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - The philosophy of Buddhism in which Mahamad has been prophisied is also highly related to the Hindu scriptures, which describe the reincarnation (process) and whom form it has claimed. that information shold also be merged into that page. Its best to open up that page and line up all the information thats related to it. The current redirect is not fair to all the other scriptures and even Buddhist scriptures, the Hindu script have an part related to the Buddhist script. The current redirect is not enough and the page should be opend up for more information. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slanted Article

I need help. I have been trying to correct a slanted article to represent a neutral point of view. Howdoyoudoit (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least tell us what the article is called...? Howie ☎ 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably this article, but I don't know what the concern is. Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BSFC article

Hi,

I have an issue with edit made to my post on the Wiki Article for BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumptio) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

A fellow editor (unregistered) removed my post without any explanation (see below) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brake_specific_fuel_consumption&oldid=204090949

Can you assist me?

Kind regards

Shane GTMnetwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtmnetwork (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Fair City

I notice a proliferation of articles about fictional characters from this RTE radio soap programme. On a similar vein, the characters from The Archers are all (by and large) listed in one article - List of characters in The Archers. So, should the character bios for Fair City be condensed and dropped down to one article - e.g. List of characters in Fair City ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral part needed on Maemo page

I could be wrong, but I think we are dealing with a WP:TE on the Maemo page. I would like a neutral third party to review this dispute and either block one or more users, possibly myself, from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brontide (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should add more information to give background. GeneralAntilies started a community effort in January to cleanup Maemo and related pages http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=166717&postcount=1 . On or around April 13th a user named meanwhile on iTT stared a flame war about the security under maemo and related technologies http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19074 . After two days of trolling the forums he started inserting a security section on the Maemo page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maemo&oldid=205859127. The wording and tone has not changed significantly since that first draft and he insists on inserting it into the page no matter how many editors have objected. The problems are compounded by the fact that he continually does weird editing of posts on the discussion page making it nearly impossible to carry on a discussion with him. Since that time the section has been reverted approximately 6 times, 2 by myself. I have given up trying to revert the text since it's clear that he has more time to police the page than I do.

While backed by some facts, the majority of my complaint and that of others is that the arguments he is making are inapplicable to the maemo platform or they are generic arguments against unix. I had worked up a security section that I believed was NPOV pointing out the maemo specific security concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maemo&oldid=207671119. We have tried to resolve this on the discussion page with almost no success.

I am more than willing to cease editing that page and/or section if I'm in the wrong here. Brontide (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Toddst1

I wanted to put the official US Army report to the 'My Lai massacre" as it is published in the Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations into the My Lai Incident, Volume III of the Peers Inquiry. Your Wikipedia says the wounded is unknown. This is wrong as if you would only read the http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RDAR-Vol-IIIBook3.pdf at PDF page 478, you would discover the truth as there are five vietnamese suvivors, by name. I tried to correct your Wikipedia as it is incorrect and some user erased it as vandalisim. I only put what was in the report and nothing else. This is the official and only report as to the My Lai massacre. If what I put on the article is wrong than the Peers report is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.187.244 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry for Producer's Edge Magazine

Resolved

This page has been re-edited, but the advertisement note is still up. Could someone edit this page further to conform with the wikipedia standards or remove the advertising warning if it does pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer's_Edge_Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.106.211 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. I think it reads well enough now but I left the tag up pending someone else's look at it. I'm not altogether sure it warrants a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam page deleted WP:CSD#G11, Timothy Dampier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave Zirin Revert War

I am having a problem with another editor who insists on reverting a change, based upon verified information duplicated on the talk page, to the article of Dave Zirin. The change is as follows:

From: "Zirin maintains the opinion that the aggressive hatred toward the use of steroids by Barry Bonds is in large degree due to racism. Zirin is also one of the few reporters that believe Bonds has never done steroids."

To: "Zirin maintains the opinion that the aggressive hatred toward the use of steroids by Barry Bonds is in large degree due to racism."

Why the change? In an interview, Zirin denies the validity of this specific sentence. He says:

"Ah. Wikipedia. The source of truth for the desperate college freshmen and terminally stupid among us. I never wrote that I "believe Bonds has never done steroids." I wrote a column in 2003 called "The Case For Reasonable Doubt" where I go through the ways Bonds was breaking many of the accepted truisms about roids: I wrote, The greatest case for reasonable doubt lies in Bonds' very late career success. His unparalleled middle-aged majesty screams his innocence. Steroids and rapid 'unnatural' muscle growth puts tremendous pressure on the joints and tendons. Admitted steroid users like Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Lenny Dykstra and banned substance user Mark McGwire all saw their bodies break down as they hit their mid 30s…Bonds has thrived as he hurtles toward 40, not unlike Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, Reggie Miller, and Randy Johnson. To go by the rumors that surround him, Bonds' ankles should be snapping like toothpicks every time he jogs to first base. Also, worth mentioning that unlike oh so many others, the man never actually failed a steroids test. Is there a ton of circumstantial evidence that the man juiced? Absolutely. But he is still the best player I've ever seen. The best player of what will go down as the anabolic era."

To my mind, the statement "Zirin is also one of the few reporters that believe Bonds has never done steroids" is too strong in light of this interview. But 96.247.37.46 disagrees and continues to revert my change, even after being directed to said interview.

Some form of mediation, it seems, is necessary. Editor437 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Article

Resolved

I updated a wikipedia article a few days ago, and it was immediately marked for speedy deletion, I believe by a spammer. Then it was moved to my Upload Page, citing that it was bungled. The article was written with a great amount of research. It is possible that the article should be tied in with another subject, and if this is so, I apologize for not doing so. I would appreciate assistance in having this page successfully uploaded in the right context instead of being toyed with by a spammer named Ziggy Sawdust. Lessmoore (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One of our core values on Wikipedia is assuming good faith; please be sure to do so in this case. In looking at your contribution, the article reads far more like a personal essay and original research than an encyclopedia article; I can't even tell what the actual topic of the article would be. The other editor was quite correct to relocate the piece out of article space and to your personal space; it was created with the name "Upload page" and moved into your user space. I'm going to leave a welcome message on your user page; please take a look at the links included in it to learn how to properly formulate and edit articles here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Ziggy Sawdust 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright policy and the {{cite news}} template's "quote=" parameter

I am the original writer of Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Expecting parts to be challenged, I cited it thoroughly, using 12 sources – 11 in the New York Times and one at a Weather Underground figure's website. Each citation used the {{cite news}} template with its "quote=" parameter, and each citation included the cited story's lead paragraph as the "quote=" value. The idea was to provide footnote followers the essence of each story so they could decide whether to click on through to the page-image PDF of the original. I believe this is fair use.

Between the article's first posting last year and April 22 it drew only a few edits, but after the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers/Weather Underground so-called "connection" story broke last week, it attracted more attention and a major rewrite and trimming. In the rewrite, the article was described as "overfootnoted", a term I have not heard before. The original citations were retained, but their "quote=" values were removed, with the single exception of a self-serving statement by Mark Rudd describing his Weather Underground comrades' nail bombs as "...crude mirrors of the anti-personnel weapons the U.S. was raining down on Indochina".

The rewriting editor and an anonymous IP from the same geographical area have accused me on the talk page and in edit summaries of copyright violation, as well as of "lacking judgement in a big way", and have given an uncivil recounting of my other alleged crimes against Wikipedia. I admit that I am not the world's best or most terse writer, and now that I have had time to cool down I will not deny that the rewrite generally improved the article. But I do need to know whether citing a news article's lead in a footnote constitutes copyright violation. --CliffC (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As a secondary issue, the names of the reporters writing the various Times articles were also removed from the citations, as "trivial". I'd like to have an opinion on this action as well. --CliffC (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Gemini Thwaite aka Mark Thwaite - attempts to update biography keep being removed

Both myself and my partner have tried a couple of times to update my own personal biography currently posted on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thwaite. The most recent revisions I made a week or so ago - all factual and pertaining to myself, including some info included from pages relating to the various bands I play in - including wikipedia content - were all removed except for the original header. The comment with the revision said "looks like a violation of copyright from various mirrors". I don't see how telling my own biography - which i ensured was correct - can be a violation of anything. I have spent hours recreating the biography text, refining and updating as required, only to find you guys pulling it down a week or two later, probably because a paragraph here and there may also be featured on a website for one of the bands I play in. Please cite which 'mirror' webpages or other peoples rights I am violating, no doubt they all relate to bands and artists I perform with. I have just 'undone' the edit, restoring my biography and the discography which i had also included on my last revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.224.10 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things, please read WP:COI if you are the party in which this article is referring too, meaning you should not be editing this article if you're the subject. Please also read WP:CITE, none of the information on the article has any reliable sources of information. Alternatively, you can also read the talk page, where the original editor of this article made a copy and paste move from another Wiki or another article [7] That kind of copying and pasting could be a violation of copyright unless you can cite where it was copied from so references or the status of the text can be verified. If it was copied from another article, it could be a violation of the GFDL license Wikipedia runs on. — Κaiba 09:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

I posted a 4 or 5 search links into my website, www.comicartfans.com, on wikipedia today and had all them removed. The reason the other editor gave was because my site was an auction site, and that it was commercial. I operate a free site where collectors of comic art display their collections. The overall site search displays artwork from my members collections from published comic artists. The links I added to wikipedia were on wiki pages about that artist, the title of the link was something like "Artwork by John Byrne on Comicartfans". The link was a straight keyword search on the site that brought up original artwork by John Byrne. I do have a column on the search results page that links to ebay with related John Byrne artwork (for example). I don't see how that classifies me as a commercial website (my site is 100% free to my site users) or an auction site. My site is built around art collectors and the ebay links are seen as something useful to the art collectors. I would be happy to make a special landing page on the site for search results that didnt include these related ebay results if that would correct the problem. My intent was not to promote the auctions but to promote the art. My site has more than 350,000 pieces of comic art on it and has been online for more than 5 years. I've done nothing but promote the artists and the hobby in this time. If you feel my site isn't linkable from wikipedia please let me know. I see links on many of the comic artist pages to sites which sell art books and other things, but the links are to "interviews" and somehow that makes it okay to other editors. I guess I do not understand why my site isn't allowed considering all it has to offer. -Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrcox (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

http://.comicartfans.com Here is some additional reading:

• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
  • Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a repository for links
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising

--Hu12 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I was linking to a site that is my own, I do not see how the content isn't valuable as a link from Wikipedia. Wikipedia only allows a sampling of representational artistic images, etc. My site could have several thousand examples to view for an artist depending on who it is. And it isn't like I'm selling the art, or profiting from showing it. These are collectors showing off their collections for people who appreciate the artwork. Ah well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrcox (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Its your site, therefore neutral and independent Wikipedia editors get to decide whether to add it, Not you. By making the decision to argue for your own link, is an incompatibility between the aims of Wikipedia and you, the webmaster, because your not neutral. Adding your own site is "promotion" and a conflict of interest. Links to commercial (sales) sites can often be appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your own site site are not. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites, but to neutral editors.--Hu12 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used for political propaganda

On the Bob Schaffer page, political opponents have added an "Election Controversies" section, most of which is used to post unsubstantiated claims against Schaffer. Simply being able to link to a report of a claim by a political organization which opposes someone is hardly the same as it being real or unbiased information. Most of my attempts to clarify the bias of the information/propaganda in that section get deleted. Then, when I added a parallel "Election Controversies" section to the Mark Udall page, containing two verifiable FACTS (Udall has received contributions from Jack Abramoff, and Udall's wife is a liberal activist with ties to at least one group attacking Schaffer), that section gets deleted. Wikipedia should ideally not allow the bogus "Election Controversies" section on Schaffer's page, but if it is allowed, a similar section on Udall's page...with FACTS that are easily demonstrated...must also be allowed and its deletion must be prevented. --Rossputin (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (Mountain Time)

Well, here are the problems I see here: the section referred to in the Bob Schaffer article is backed up by a number of good reliable sources - media sources, newspapers, etc. - while the section you inserted on to the Mark Udall page did not. (I'm not sure FaceTheState.com would qualify as a reliable source; it appears to be a conservative-leaning editorial site to me.) I see Udall has been protected to deal with the dispute; can I suggest that you seek out references backing up the insertions you'd like to make and take them to the talk page of that article? (I'd personally say that the Bob Schaffer controversies section seems overlong, too; again, something to discuss on the talk page.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I had an article deleted that was notable,...

Stale

 – I'm still laughing. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Staff, I hope this reaches a human being, for it appears that the computer that runs Wikipedia dos run amock at times. My name is Dr. John F.Kossowan ( retired dentist) I am "notable". I found, when I did at Google.com, that there was a link to Wikipedia, two days ago, to start an article about me, "John F. Kossowan,D.D.S.". Evidently, Google.com, or Wikipedia, was getting wuite aq few requests for biographical information about me from many, many people. The reason being: I am "notable". Yes, littel old me, is a candidate for President in the USA. I made this announcement to over 390 newspapers, and The Washington Post, The New YorkTImes, and The Wall St.JOurnal, back in Agust 2007. Yes, I am "notable". I have a web site, since August 2007, with my stand on all the major issues of this Presidential Camapaign. Only 12 out of 400 newspapes, getting my weekly emails on MY STAND on the issues, requested to be taken off my email list. ONLY 12. The rest of the 390 newspapers, thought I was "notable".

Therefore, I put together, for ONE HOUR of TYPING,a biography of myself, at Wikipedia, to supply an accurate biography about myself. Again: the reason being: I am "notable".

AND, I am not just a retired dentist, but a known professional artist. I was given membership to the PRESTIGIOUS ART SOCIETY, in Boston, Mass., The Copley Art Society, the OLDEST ART SOCIETY in America, in 1991. Yes, I am a "notable" artist !!! Yes, a "notable" artist. Please POST my article about myself, an article about: "John F. Kossowan,D.D.S." that I typed up into Wikipedia yesterday, April 24th, 2008 Thank you for your attention. Obvioiusly, this is a computer mistake, where the computer's brain thought I was not "notable" simply because it does NOT know the world of art, and does not know all the Candidates for President taht Foxnews, CNN and 390 newspapers, from Hawaii to Florida, are following. Please, again, correct the computer mistake, and insert my article about myself, that so many want to read, the article on: "John F. Kossowan,D.D.S." Thank you, Sincerely, DR. JOhn F. Kossowan

Hello. I don't think I'm a machine pretending to be human. Your situation sounds similar to one just above (see here). I think the same advice applies to you. If not, get back in touch and I'll see what else I can do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your article did not assert notability to the point really required by our notability guidelines. There are no immediately accessible reliable sources that seem to have covered your announcement of running for president, and the claims in the article that you "helped" previous presidents cannot be backed up either (receiving "thank you" letters from the White House doesn't really seem to fit our notability requirements). I don't seem to have been able to track the artist notability either. Having said all that, if you feel there are reliable sources that would back up the article, pelase do go to deletion review. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Someone has been trying to distort facts and reverted my good faith, NPOV edits. See [8]. Tx --AI009 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are both reverting each other's edits without discussion. Start a thread on the Talk page and discuss the matter. Consult our guidelines on dispute resolution for help. Continuing down the path you're on will probably lead to an admin deciding to block you from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I find out why an edit was removed?

Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fredric_Wertham&diff=207846742&oldid=203328266

I made additions and corrections based on one of the books mentioned on the page, namely

1. David Hajdu. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. ISBN 0374187673

The book was not quoted verbatim, but my edits were accurate based on the contents. As a new wiki contributor, how do I find out why the edits were removed?

75.38.179.94 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) zdub

You seem to be linking to edits you made, and as of now they haven't been changed. In any event, you can either check the edit summary, or ask the editor on her/his talk page why s/he edited as s/he did. To that general end, please try to supply an edit summary when you edit, and sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tilde characters, thus: ~~~~. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you click the History button at the top of that article, you will see that your edits are the last edits (as of the moment) to that article. One recommendation: When you include material, please include an inline citation to indicate the source of the material. That helps other editors to verify that the material accurately reflects what was written in the source. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fred Lawlor

Resolved

 – It's officially notable.  :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please review this and see if it falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS, or if the person is genuinely notable. CultureDrone (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd say notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

David Haye

I have a user that has repeated the same edit the page on David Haye twice.

The user is editing the wording from "Kyrenia in the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"

to "Girne, in The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"

I would rather not get into the politics of what the city is and isn't called according to which side of the border someone lives on.

The wiki article is currently listed under Kyrenia

I don't expect the cyprus problem to be resolved but it doesn't need to spill over to a page about a UK Boxer

GenestealerUK (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the simple solution is to write (known as Girne in Turkish) or just simply (Turkish: Girne)? Howie ☎ 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't hurt

GenestealerUK (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This was edited again despite the change. This apparently remains unresolved. There are two IP addresses that have repeated this change: Special:Contributions/87.84.240.238 and Special:Contributions/90.199.224.114

GenestealerUK (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This user continues to revert the page despite my attempts to appease Special:Contributions/87.84.240.238. Can this user be blocked. His only recent changes to wikipedia relate to this continued revert. GenestealerUK (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is / is not / is / is not sovereign - Gallery of sovereign-state flags and elsewhere

Thought to post at WP:ANI, but came here for a "first look". Can you please point me to the best place to find or ask for the current consensus on the sovereignty of Kosovo. Slow-motion edit war at Gallery of sovereign-state flags and a number of other places. Including commons.

As directed by top of gallery talk page, I've been consulting List of sovereign states. (Kosovo is under second page description "10 sovereign states lacking general international recognition:") Last talk page discussion there mid-February.

But gallery talk page also says "inclusion of individual sovereign states is discussed at talk:sovereign state", which now redirects to Talk:State, which has no discussion on Kosovo.

Talk:Sovereignty says WikiProject Philosophy, the flags pages say WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, neither inspiring me to bother them with this contention. WikiProject Countries seems (rightly) concerned with the Kosovo article, and I don't think appealing for help there is necessarily wise.

Since I've seen otherwise good edits to Balkan/Russian articles by some IPs repeatedly making these deletions I don't want to start throwing warnings around. And I've contacted the latest repeat editor more than once, though less than politely, perhaps because new editor continues the IP's edits.

But where to get a yes/no on whether the list is still definitive and 'current'? And ensuring this is the determination of more than just the loudest latest? Shenme (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the International situation International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence, which is largely about politics not what Wikipedia does. The constitution of Kosovo has yet to be ratified by its own government and until it does it is still part of FRY. I think the schedule for ratification is 14/15 June 2008, but check WP:Kosovo for policy confirmation. Recognition or the lack of it doesn't play on Wikipedia (and boy is there fun on disputed territories), verifiability demands a ratified sovereign constitution. Until then the Autonomous Republic of Kosovo would be the likeliest candidate for the flag - I think it is still flying on WP:Kosovo. -- EhsanQ (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mars Volta

I recently created an account after I viewed some poorly written pages about The Mars Volta. These pages are, for the most part, filled with this user's opinion on songs. Here is an example of one of the pages for the song "Day of the Baphomets".

"It starts off with a mind blowing bass solo from Juan Alderete, who cut his teeth in metal bands such as Racer X. In this solo, he seems to emulate the jazz-rock styles of the late Jaco Pastorius, of whom Alderete is a self-professed fan. The song turns into total chaos. This is the most inaccessible song there is here, mainly because it is complex and very loud. Like Tetragrammaton, it has many changes within the song, but is more coherent; and in Mars Volta style, there are great riffs and solos. In minute 6, an amazing rhythmic riffs blows you away, and it will later come back with a mindblowing guitar solo. Between the space between the two riffs, you have a catchy and fast-paced section with a great background riff.

If any of the lyrics “Baphomets” sound familiar, it’s because Cedric recycled some of them from a previously unreleased Mars Volta song "A Plague Upon Your Hissing" . “Baphomets” also prominently features a percussion solo by Omar’s brother Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez, and a very odd battle of Omar Rodriguez-Lopez and Adrián Terrazas-Gonzálezas the style of bands like "Yes"."

As you can see, the page has absolutely no purpose other than this user (whoose username is Themarsvoltafan) to show his opinion. I tried contacting him and I fixed all the pages, but he ignored me and retyped them back up. I want to get this fixed. I would not like somebody visiting these pages and getting turned off by the poor writing. So can anyone please help me get these pages deleted.

Links to the pages created by this user that have not been fixed, and should be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Baphomets_%28song%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilos_Magdalena_%28song%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concertina_%28The_Mars_Volta_song%29

Links to pages created by this user that I fixed for temporary use, but should be deleted because they are songs that aren't singles and thus shouldn't have their own page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron_%28song%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_%28song%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette_Dares_%28The_Haunt_Of%29_%28song%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunkship_of_Lanterns_%28song%29

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

Tollanddrummer (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely in need of some cleanup of the notable ones here, and redirection to parent album of the non-notable. Getting to work here, also have left a message to the editor who seems to be doing most of this, hopefully will help to prevent the problem in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in Graphology

This is between me (the IP that stars with 190.51) and Pseudo daoist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It has already over or at least that was what i thought ´till i saw his edition on 17:57, 8 April 2008. I think that this section: "But this is called "science" by the graphologists despite of being considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community." could be changed if is not neutral but what he is doing is eliminate all of it including the references without talk. He even called it a "minor edit" when did so.

Finally, another problem that i have is that he considers my actions as vandalism, so i can´t really have a productive talk with him...456hjk (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Try using dispute resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainlina (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this and am wondering why the edit needs to be added at all. The third sentence of the article states, "Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of thousands of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters." This language seems uncontested; surely that covers the concept, and any pertinent citation can be wrapped up into it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Style

I'm not that well versed with Wikipedia's policies regarding prose, grammar, spelling, structure, etc. I'm looking for someone who *is* experienced with these things to assist me in cleaning up Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Any help would be appreciated. The Clawed One (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you been directed to Wikipedia's Manual of Style yet? It contains lots of really useful guidelines - and if other editors object to your changes, it can help in resolving disputes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Currency images

Thai baht has had the ฿1,000 note's obverse and reverse deleted, and the reverse, only, of the ฿20 note. The latter was also deleted from Ananda Mahidol's In memoriam, and the Rama VIII Bridge. Wassup? Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: ฿100 images are gone, too! I guess the whole currency section is undergoing meltdown. Pawyilee (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of automated bots have removed the images because they were not freely licensed and there may have been problems with their Fair Use rationales (see WP:NFCC for more on this). It's always possible that the bots were malfunctioning, but whatever the problem, if this happens again, I suggest taking a good look at the images in Pound sterling and US Dollar. If necessary, copy their wording to ensure that you get the same treatment they do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indestructible (Disturbed album)

Resolved

 – An admin blocked the offending IP. (Non-admin closure) 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 00:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I and XLinkBot are having a problem with an IP who insists on adding Disturbed Argentina's Blogspot site to the bottom of the page, regardless of our repeated warnings. What to do, what to do?... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with Neutrality, POV, and COI

My article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Public_School_Employers'_Association) was tagged with neutrality, POV, and COI issues a while back. I've read the tutorials on how to improve those respective issues and have edited the page based on those articles. However, I'm still unsure if i'm on the right track--this was my first article and i'm still trying to familiarize myself with wiki's policies. I understand the importance of having unbiased and neutral articles and would like some guidance in resolving these issues as quickly as possible. I would also like to know what steps I need to take to remove those tags. Any help would be great! Thanks.

Camrose23 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked those questions of the editor who posed them? That might be a good way to approach it. To find out hwo added the tags, look at the "History" tab and the edit summaries for each edit of the page. If that doesn't help then you might need to look at each successive version to find out when they were applied. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I question Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. I edited an article that included a reference from "Media Matters" by including the phrase "a liberal watchdog group" as an exepegetical addendum. I was blocked from editing from that point. However, the article on MSNBC refers to the Media Research Center as "a conservative watchdog group". This is a clear example of the double standard Wikipedia has in its editorial policy. Why label the Media Research center as "a conservative watchdog group" and ban me from editing when I used the phrase "a liberal watchdog group" to refer to Media Matters. The only answer is that Wikipedia DOES have a liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nworb4591 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to comment on this charge without specifics - your registered name has only the above contribution associated with it. I do see a several attempted edits by an anonymous IP to Media Matters for America‎ inserting the word "liberal" into its description (per one edit summary, 'to reflect Media Matters' bias"); those were reverted. Are those the edits to which you're referring? You mention being blocked, but no block resulted from those edits, so I am not sure. In any case, if I've properly identified the circumstance then your edits were reverted, properly, on the grounds that on when an organization is the subject of a page, it's standard practice to hew to the organization's description of itself. Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" organization, rather than "liberal". See here. By contrast, Media Research Center expressly proclaims its "conservative" heritage and point of view. E.g., here. Rather than "liberal bias", I see the consistent application of policy. JohnInDC (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(I should have asked before - do you have an actual request for assistance, or was this just commentary?) JohnInDC (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has millions of occasional editors and tens of thousands of active or very active editors. We are all volunteers. We decide which articles to edit and we bring our own biases. Some (most?) of us try to write with a neutral tone; some try to spin an article to fit their own POV. There is no central Wikipedia editorial staff that establishes a liberal bias. FWIW, I suspect that most people don't even realize that they are showing their biases; they believe that theirs is the only POV, perhaps because they have not heard any other POV.

You can help make Wikipedia more neutral by contributing yourself and pointing out (on an article's talk page) wherever the tone is non-neutral.

As to JohnInDC's point that "it's standard practice to hew to the organization's description of itself" I tend to agree with that idea but I suspect it is honored more in theory than in reality. If some articles follow the practice and some violate it, it is most likely that different editors wrote different articles rather than an indication of systemic bias. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists reminds us that just because other bad stuff exists is not a precedent for allowing more bad stuff. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Organization

Hello, I work for a well-known organization that is considered controversial in some circles. We recently noticed that our entry in wikipedia has a handful of factual inaccuracies, and also is framed in a way that favors our opposition. (With the latter issue, while some of the statements may be factually correct, they are not supported by add'l facts that would place them in context and make them more neutral.)

I've heard that it's considered bad practice for organizations to edit their own entries. So I'm wondering, is that true, and if so, what is the best way for us to deal with these issues?

Also, I have heard about certain entries getting a "controversial" designation which places certain editing restrictions on the page. I am wondering exactly how this designation works, what it implies, and how we could investigate getting such a designation for our entry.

Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

Jplats (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)jplats

One approach would be to make some suggestions on the article's talk page. Assuming that there are some other active editors who keep an eye on the page, that would gain their attention and lead to some discussion of your concerns. Thanks for bringing this up, and thanks for doing it in a way that's open about your affiliation too. Please feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page if that doesn't work out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edit

Any concern with an edit like this [9]? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Certainly it's an entirely unhelpful edit and possibly a test ("can I really change this page"), but as for the content, if that's what your concerned about, we take death threats very seriously, but this is directed at no one. I see you reverted the edit. It's also a good idea to warn users when they make improper edits. You can explore many templates for this purpose at WP:UTM. Here I would use {{uw-test1}}, and will add that to the ip's page as soon as I finish this post by typing on the ip's talk page {{subst:uw-test1|:Category:Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was mainly concerned about the content because this was quite different than the normal nonsense I see. Also, thanks for warning the user. I generally try to do that, but in this case I wanted to come to this page first. Thanks again, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Technocracy articles

Im looking for assistance from anyone willing to help me improve this article Technocracy movement and disambiguation page Technocracy as they are suffering from rolling edits/reverts, accusations, personal opinions and general controversy

any input on how to get some consensus and reduce the continuous sets of rolling edits/reverts and provide some neutral comment would be welcome

as I'm relatively new it would also be helpful if anyone can tell me if I am misinterpreting and policies, guidelines or definitions relevant to the article, Im attempting to remain neutral but, its getting a little difficult when edits are reverted with little explanation or discussion, and what comment is made does not appear to make sense to me

thanks for any assistance (Firebladed (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

my lai massacre

you changed the casualties from 504 to 347 and listed it as the us army report, this is wrong and if you would only READ the Peers report you would find the right numbers. It may not be the numbers you would like to post but at least for once Wikipedia would be correct. The wounded are also listed by name and is not unknown. The only unknown is why you don't post the correct information as listed in the peers report. I expect a higher standard from Wikipedia. I am just not getting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.206.49 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

haddonfield, new jersey

I just happened to go through the Haddonfield, New Jersey, entry, mostly because I am a longtime resident--and a journalist who has had to do stories on some of the things in the site. I registered, but don't really want to edit it until I communicated with someone in authority. There seems to be a dispute among some about whether Steven Spielberg lived there. I think I can resolve that. He lived in a nearby community, Haddon Township (on Crystal Lake Terrace--his teenage home, as you can imagine, is a makeshift tourist site), which uses a Haddonfield zip code since it does not have its own post office. One of the disputants has an entry from a book that apparently misquotes Spielberg, since in many of his interviews following "Schindler's List," he mentions growing up near Haddonfield, since Haddonfield was notoriously non-Jewish at the time. Also, there is a notation that the first dinosaur--found in Haddonfield, as correctly noted--is on display at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. It is not. The dinosaur on display is fuller. The bones of the Hadrosaurus are in storage. I suppose they would let anyone see them, but they are not, as the entry reads, on display. Since these are only minor things, I didn't want to edit them particularly, just to bring them up to someone.

Robert Strauss personal info removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsstrauss (talk • contribs) 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. As far as the Spielberg info, I would leave it as is right now. The primary location is listed, with the possible other location given as well. Each statement is referenced by reliable sources, and so we leave it at that. We only report what other sources say -- we don't draw conclusions about which source is right or wrong. Same with the dinosaur info: if you can find sources who state that information, then change it -- otherwise, I woud leave it be. Pastordavid (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Page concerning Alia Sabur

It seems that an edit war is about to develop on the page. User from IP 98.173.235.54 seems to be removed legitimate concerns that are being raised about the credibility of the news reports. Instead of arguing or referring to further sources of information, the other editor seems to be simply erasing the parts that contain the concerns. What should I do? 205.200.220.91 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it with them on the article's Talk page. Refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and take care to be polite and remember to assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia, even though they might not want to go about it the same way that you do. If this approach doesn't work out, either ask for more help here, or read the helpful information at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've removed the latest unsourced addition to this article, as required by our policy on biographies of living people. I've also left a note on the IP's Talk page, and explained the removal on the article Talk page. Hopefully this should prevent any further problems. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor refuses to discuss diputed changes

User Marxus, often editing without logging in at 67.87.7.132, repeated undoes changes other editors make to the pages associated with Richard Brautigan's books (see So the Wind Won't Blow it All Away" for an example). I have never seen an edit of his with even an edit summary, let alone a talk discussion.

I have requested that he discuss such changes via his talk pages and the talk pages of some of the articles. I have reverted his edits with comments saying that changes should be justified, or at least discussed. None of this generates any response other than a continuation of the same behavior.

This is not major matter, but how does one deal with such rude behavior short of an edit war or just letting him run roughshod over others. Thanks, Rknasc (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For others looking at this request, I believe the editor in question is Marxus (talk · contribs), possibly also 67.87.7.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.151.57.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

You appear to be on the right track with this. Unexplained changed can certainly be undone if they are unhelpful to the article. Marxus has been blocked 3 times for his editing style. I would suggest that you also consider using User warnings on his various talk pages whenever you encounter specific problems. This makes it easier for an admin to see that you have attempted to address this problem, and have warned him that it is inappropriate -- thus making a block easier should it become necessary. Pastordavid (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello, I have updated the Teachers Building Society page purely with the intention of providing accurate information. I do work for Teachers Building Society, and consequently a potential conflict of interest has been identified. Please advise how I ensure that the content is deemed neutral so that the notices at the top of the page can be removed. Many thanks, Jo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.116.22 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, I'd advise reading the conflict of interest guidelines. You're by no means prohibited from editing the article in question; however, if in any doubt, discuss any changes you want to make on its Talk page, take care to leave edit summaries explaining any changes you make, and be very careful if anyone undoes any of your changes. Do bear in mind that "inside information" cannot be included in Wikipedia: our policy on Verifiability requires us to use only published sources. Polite discussion should be able to avoid any problems before they arise, and once other editors are assured that you mean to work with them, I'm sure that the notice at the top of the page can be removed. You can also get help from editors who're experienced in COI issues at the COI Noticeboard. Good luck, and let us know if you need any advice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect editing

Resolved

 – Go forth and sin no more, my son. .. sorry, Pastordavid, is that your line? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to edit a page, apparently I did it incorrectly. My apologies.66.210.5.90 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um ... Apology accepted? Pastordavid (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Seven Sisters Oak

Resolved

I’m afraid I messed up on my first attempt to edit an article and don’t know how to fix it.

The Seven Sisters Oak is the largest certified southern live oak tree. Located in Lewisburg, Louisiana, it is estimated to be up to 1,500 years old with a trunk that measures 38 feet (11.6 meters). This oak is also the National Champion on the National Register of Big Trees and the Champion Oak of Louisiana according to the Louisiana Forestry Association. The owner who first named the tree was Carole Hendry Doby, who was one of seven sisters. There are seven sets of branches leading away from the center trunk [1]. The Seven Sisters survived a near direct hit from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.

The "Seven Sisters Oak", formerly known as "Doby's Seven Sisters" is the current president of the Live Oak Society [2], a status awarded to it by being the largest live oak registered by the society.

[1] Southern Living Magazine, May 1986, pg 5tx [2] http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/live_oak_society/about.html

Added name clarification, and references.

Robert L Smith (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article per your information. I can't know what you did when you tried to edit it but you ended up with three copies of the original paragraph and two copies of your additional paragraph, plus your signature (which is for talk pages, not for articles). Also, we do references a little differently than the way you tried.

Anyway, thanks for the additional information and providing references. With practice, you'll learn how to do it correctly yourself. Don't worry about messing up because the old versions are always available in the History and can be recovered easily. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The National Brain Aneurysm Center

Background

An aneurysm (or aneurism) is a localized, blood-filled dilation (balloon-like bulge) of a blood vessel caused by disease or weakening of the vessel wall. Aneurysms most commonly occur in arteries at the base of the brain (the circle of Willis) and in the aorta (the main artery coming out of the heart), a so-called aortic aneurysm. The bulge in a blood vessel can burst and lead to death at any time. The larger an aneurysm becomes, the more likely it is to burst.

Stand Alone Centers of Excellence in the Unites States

At the National Brain Aneurysm Center (http://www.brainaneurysmcenter.com/), the focus is complex neurovascular conditions. To be competitive, they treat hundreds of brain aneurysms each year, substantially more than the average neurosurgeon. They perform more surgeries on unruptured brain aneurysms than nearly any other hospital in the nation, and our patient outcomes continue to surpass national benchmarks.

In addition to brain aneurysms, they offer advanced surgical and minimally invasive treatments for other brain-related diseases and injuries, including strokes, vascular malformations (AVMs), skull base surgery and blocked blood vessels in the brain. Located at St. Joseph's Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, we take on the toughest cases and have mastered the most advanced surgical treatments available.

Specializing in neurovascular care means better outcomes for our patients - saving lives and preserving quality of life. Patients and referring physicians from around the country recognize the National Brain Aneurysm Center for leadership in neurovascular surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stparente (talk • contribs) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You apparently are suggesting that an article be written on this subject. That is something you can do yourself. Before you start, please read WP:Notability (organizations) or WP:FAQ/Business to verify that the subject meets our guidelines. I note that there are many hits in Google to its old name, HealthEast Neurovascular Institute, but few to its new name. There may be enough references to write an article. Remember that all information should be referenced to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropbox template

In the French Wikipedia article on Association des bibliothécaires de France#Liste_des_pr.C3.A9sidents , I saw this example:

{{boîte déroulante|titre=Liste des présidents de l'ABF|contenu=
*1906-1908 : Joseph Deniker
*1908-1910 : Charles Mortet
*... }}

Is there a corresponding template for the English Wikipedia? --Mikaelbook (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We have many such templates. Are you looking for one for this topic, or for something else? Pastordavid (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted permanently?

To whom it may concern,

I'm admittedly fairly inexperienced to wikipedia, I have donated on several occasions but haven't posted anything to wikipedia in a few years, no problems back then, having a few challenges this time: Trying to figure out how to get retrieve the article about Rich_Internet_Experience back, why it doesn't show under "my contributions", why no response from DragonflySixtyseven

   * 21:42, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎ (→Why did you delete page: Rich_Internet_Experience)
   * 21:42, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎ (Request to undelete)

brief history: Dragonfly had marked it as an sounding too advertisment like, I updated to be more factual vs concentrating on features.

Kind regards, Charles

Havranekc (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left DragonflySixtyseven a note asking him to come and comment here...if he hasn't said anything in a few days, you might want to start a new section at the bottom of his talk page (by clicking the "add comment" link at the top)...when you're there, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. I'm sorry I can't help more; as a non-admin, I can't see the contents of a deleted page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rich Internet Experience was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) as a violation of criteria for deletion #11 - that is, that it read like an advertisement (aka, what we call spam here on wikipedia). In addition, from looking at what was there, the page did not come up to our minumum threshold of notability, a key requirement for all articles on wikipedia. Might I suggest that, rather than starting right in with a new article, you spend some time just editing here on wikipedia. It would give you a chance to learn your way around a bit more before you write your first article. Pastordavid (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tieto

Appearently somebody created article on Tieto as a redirect to Tiestö. Why, I do not now. Tieto happens to be a company, and I have therefore changed the article to a stub on that, but it is repeatedly reverted in a manner that I consider vandalism. I therefore request interference from wikipedia to stop this.193.15.240.59 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant Tiësto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.240.59 (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, based on the information you inserted about Tieto ([10], [11]), there is no apparent reason that that company fits in with Wikipedia's guide to notability. If you cannot give a good reason for Wikipedia to have an article about that company, there's no point in keeping the page from redirecting to Tiësto or some other article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of data

I posted two edits to two different subjects that related to wastewater (sewage) byproducts. In both cases these edits discussed the issue of antibiotic resistance---my field of medical research. Under biosolids, I attempted to edit via discussion of antibiotic resistant pathogens within-------Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)----------. That edited material, by the next day, was completely deleted by someone else. I also attempted to edit the discussion on reclaimed water----again inserting a discussion on standards and antibiotic resistance. This was also deleted by the next day by someone else.

These two deletions deprive the public of understanding the wheres, whys, and whats of the movement of antibiotic resistant pathogens from sewage byproducts (biosolids and reclaimed water) into the community at large. This nation is having a crisis with antibiotic resistant pathogens but information as to why seems to be kept from the public. I am on a national scientific panel looking at this.

The existing discussion of reclaimed water within Wikipedia is thus deficient because it shows only the positive aspects of this sewage byproduct and thus is highly biased. Accordingly, discussions within Wikipedia lead the reader to conclusions that are half-truths for recycled water. The article on biosolids is a bit more balanced but neglects to discuss antibiotic resistance and its spread.

Dr Edo McGowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Edo McGowan (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually - or one hopes anyhow - that when a large addition to an article is removed, it is accompanied by an explanation of the edit. There wasn't much said on the Reclaimed water talk page, but an editor posted two pretty good explanations for the action on your own talk page, here. Have you seen those? They provide some good guidance about how you might revise or amend the material to make it acceptable in a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of sex work types

Resolved

 – Deleted. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this really belong in the main space ?? CultureDrone (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:09, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

cross reference without ToC entry?

I want to create cross references \[\[#xxx\]\] or <a href="#xxx">yyy</a> to an image on the page I'm editing, but there is no reason for it to appear in the page's table of contents. Is there any way to do this? I tried creating a pseudo-heading '======' with a style="display: none;", and that prevented the header from displaing on the page, but it still shows up in the ToC.

Is there any way to accomplish this? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear here. If you are trying to add a wikilink or a hyperlink, then it will not show up in the ToC. If you are trying to create a section heading (with the equals signs) then it will always show up in the ToC. Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a link to elsewhere in the same page, the Wiki equivalent of <a href="testplace">xxx</a>, where the place I'm linking to would be <a name="testplace">. But as you can see when you edit this page, the <a> tags don't turn into hyperlinks, they are displayed as literal text. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To link to a specific section on a page, the mark-up is two brackets, followed by the article name, pound sign, the section name, then two closing brackets. Thus, a link this section would be [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#cross_reference_without_ToC_entry.3F]]. To then give the link a different text, use a piped link - that is, double bracket, article (or article and section), then a "pipe" |, then what you want it to say, then two closing brackets. like this: [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#cross_reference_without_ToC_entry.3F|This Section]]; which looks like this:This section.

If you know html, it takes some adjustment to get used to it. But once you learn it, the wikipedia system of WP:MARKUP is pretty simple. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't want the place I'm linking to to be a section. I just want to point to an image I inserted once, and not have it appear (and take up space) everywhere I want to refer to it. Is there any way at all to do this? Or am I just out of luck? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack_Obama#Relationship_with_William_Ayers

I seek help with the discussion here: Talk:Barack_Obama#Relationship_with_William_Ayers. I am trying to insert a sentence into the article, but have not done so yet as I am seeking consensus first. However, I feel there is an editor there with WP:OWN issues towards the article. In essence, what I hear back is "POV! POV!", with not enough on-point reasoning/ explaination. I feel that I have done a good job of making may suggested sentence 100% proper as per wiki guidelines, but I am stumped as to how to address the "POV! POV!" chorus that seems immune to reason. Any assistance/advice that can be rendered, will be appreciated. 7390r0g (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly claim to be an expert on matters Wiki, but there are a couple of things you could try (or consider). One question is: where are you trying to insert the material. It could go into the Presidential Campaign section, to the extent that it is a significant controversy affecting his campaign. OTOH, at the moment it seems to be completely overshadowed by the whole Wright thing. Another option would be to start a section titled Controversies and mention it there. Another consideration is whether you were able to provide verifiable sources for what you write (i.e., avoid "original research"). There seem to be some in the page on Ayers, so that's a starting point if you haven't already found sources.

Once you've dealt with that, I think you'll have to deal with it on a person-to-person basis. You could point Scjessey to the WP:OWN page. If that doesn't solve he problem, you can follow the procedures for reporting abusive editing. I wish I could think of a better way of solving the problem, but it may be that you will have to get the managers involved. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Source in Article: Tony Jackson

Resolved

The article "Tony Jackson" contains a passage that should be cited: "Clarence Williams noted "He was great because he was original in all his improvisations . . . We all copied him." More than Jackson's music was copied. Jackson dressed himself with a pearl gray derby, checkered vest, ascot tie with a diamond stickpin, with sleeve garters on his arms to hold up his cuffs as he played. This became a standard outfit for ragtime and barrelhouse pianists; as one commented "If you can't play like Tony Jackson, at least you can look like him"."

How do I request a citation? (I am an absolute beginner). --Rdhclark (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a citation; if none comes in a while, we can delete the information. Simply put "{{fact}}" (minus quotes) after the unsourced information to request a citation. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I happen to recall that is discussed the book "Storyville, New Orleans" by the late Al Rose, which has several paragraphs about Jackson in the chapter about music in Storyville. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man, I fixed your ref, too. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fred Durst article/74.137.85.53

User 74.137.85.53 is censoring the article, removing key references to terms such as "Get Naked" and "Nookie," even though the latter is the name of a song by the performer. He/she has also changed "Sex tape" to "tape" and modified URLs so they do not appear valid.

There is profanity in the article, however it is in the context of a quotation. What is the policy of including profanity when it is a quote by another person? Should this article be censored?Sottolacqua (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so no, there's no need to censor the quotes, or any of the other things that the IP is doing at Fred Durst. I've left a note to that effect; if it happens again, just revert and, if the IP is persistent, report it to WP:AIV. I'll watchlist it myself, and keep an eye out. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Re: Canadian Army Veteran Motorcycle Units (CAV)

I am new to setting up an article in Wikipedia. I have been told I need reliable sources for the article by User:MickMacNee. However, on this article I have no idea what additional sources are required in addition to those already listed under References on the article. Some help on this would be appreciated. Bumpsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumpsy (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might like to read our policy on verifiability and some notes on reliable sources. That should give you a good start. Some examples might be coverage in a major newspaper or two, or an article in a magazine. The key thing is that it should be written by someone who's not affiliated with your organisation, and that it should be a reputable, fact-checked publication. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copa Sudamericana 2008

In the Copa Sudamericana 2008 article, I have gotten into a revet war with another user who is seeking to make an assertion without any source. The debate in question is over the involvement of a team (Deportivo Saprissa) in the competition. He refers to an out of date article as proof that they are involved. I have continued to cite that article as well as a more recent article that makes a different assertion (specifically, that they will not participate). Furthermore, I have made my points on the talk page for discussion. I have made the point that information should not be listed unless it is definite and supported by source material. Ltv100 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

michael husbands

the info on me is wrong and i would like it deleted thankyou michael husbands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.114.99 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Please take a look at this page for information on how to report issues with an article on yourself. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, FYI, I copied your message on the IP talk page, just in case. Pastordavid (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help with disambiguation cleanup

I created a disambiguation page for Pedro Guerrero. Unfortunately, there are far too many pages linking to the disambiguation page to handle manually. As of this writing, every one of them should be pointed to Pedro Guerrero (baseball). I was unable to find a tool or an active bot that could help with this. Can someone with appropriate tools help? Thanks! Cleanr (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on Cleanr's talk page that an alternate and valid solution is not have the disambig page named Pedro Guerrero (disambiguation), with an otheruses tag at the top of Pedro Guerrero. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrestled with that before deciding to go with the disambig. We have two notable people with a similar name. Backlinks would usually provide a good context (a might lean to a disambig on the established page), but something's going on here. One problem I noticed is that if you click the "what links here" page you get a big list, but there's actually no link back from many of those pages that I could find. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere&target=Pedro_Guerrero ... Johnny Bench and Roberto Clemente and Reggie Jackson among other players have no backlink. Weird template thing somewhere perhaps? Cleanr (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:World Series MVPs linked to Pedro Guerrero. I've dab'd it for you. So most of those links should go away - eventually. (l think the database doesn't get cleaned right away.) Sbowers3 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That knocks it back to a manageable number. I'll clean the few stragglers manually. Cleanr (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welsh village of Pentyrch

I reverted some vandalism and unlikely statements in Pentyrch, but other parts seem doubtful, maybe someone familiar with the area could take a look. --CliffC (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My site about Eleuthera in The Bahamas got black-listed and removed

Hello,

On the Wiki page about the island Eleuthera in the Bahamas - where my wife and I live - I had listed my site discover-eleuthera-bahamas.com but got black-listed. I really wonder why, because...

By many visitors it's considered the best site about Eleuthera. To prove it, I'm including this link to a comment by a New York M.D. on Amazon >>>

http://www.amazon.com/review/RUW9UGWWNNFIH/ref=cm_cr_old_cmt_rd/103-5302530-7549457

Here are some excerpts thereof...

"... the "Beaches" part of the site was of particular interest. I photocopied the information on the approximately 30 beaches described, together with the maps available on the site, and in May began exploring. What a treasure map we had!

We also used the site to find restaurants (directions are included, as well as links to those restaurants which have websites). As for getting to and from Eleuthera, the travel tips and links to ferries and airlines are very thorough and up-to-date.

And if you cannot find a detail about Eleuthera on the site, you can contact the person responsible for this excellent website. I did just that by sending an email from the site when I needed to get the more detailed maps of Eleuthera. Dieter got right back to me and I now have those maps.

This site is THE best guide to Eleuthera."

Of the three main sites about Eleuthera, mine has the best Alexa Ranking.

Please cancel the black-listing.

Best regards,

Dieter Schoop discover-eleuthera-bahamas.com/faq.html#responseform —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deetix11 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've called for assistance from someone who knows the spam blacklist far better than I. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems the site is blocked due to a similarity (regex) to another unrelated site. However I did find these IP's which you used previously to add your site;
63.245.118.155 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
63.245.119.52 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
First the amazon review reads like an advert, and any one can add reviews, and is utterly unreliable. (see duck test). Secondly, External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia by adding your site discover-eleuthera-bahamas.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Lastly, discover-eleuthera-bahamas.com fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, including the External links policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. As far as Whitelisting this site I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation or source. However, unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A149 road

I added the {{essay-entry}} template to this article because the route description in prose format is not encyclopedia-friendly (compare, for example, to A1 road or A66 road). An editor has twice removed this tag [12] [13], for the reason that I can only believe to be because he feels he "owns" the article. The community's thoughts on this would be appreciated.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Netley Military Hospital

I am writing a biography of my father Lt. Joseph Shenton Williams, M.C. Royal Field Artillery, who was badly wounded in France near Buquoy between 21 and 27 August 1918, was evacuated by ambulance train from Le Treport to Le Havre, then on 29 August by sea to Southampton and Netley Hospital.

I have been studying your article on Netley Hospital during WWI and realise that records may no longer be available, but if you could give me an address to which I could direct further inquiries regarding his injuries, and the destination to which he was sent on discharge, I would be most grateful.

Best wishes from 'down-under'.

Michael Shenton Williams, Col. RAE (ret'd)

121.221.108.207 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for your note. We don't hold any records of the sort you're seeking, I'm afraid. In fact, "we" is rather loosely defined at best. Each article is written by someone who feels moved to do so. By checking the history tab of the article, you can see that a user registered as User:AlanFord wrote the original article, which has then been modified by various others. You might like to leave a message on his talk page too; he might know of some primary source records. Otherwise, I can only suggest the QARANC archives, but I'm sure you've thought of that already. Best of luck with your book, --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

freemason entry

Hi,

I believe that the freemasonary entry is biased towards freemasonary. In particular the critism section seems to marginalise all critism as being either religious, political or a conspiricy theory. The political critisms are further marginalised as communist. All scandals are characterized as hoaxes and scandals.

The fact that it is a secret society does mean that it may be used to further the interests of its members in getting jobs and contracts etc. This forms the basis of the critism and it should appear in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.145.98 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So it's bad if a "secret society" helps its members get jobs or contracts? That's very interesting; perhaps we should change this to reflect that too. If you're very sure there's a point of view problem, you can report it here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Újpest FC

Hi there,

Please help me out with Újpest FC page. On the bottom of the page at the template areas there is a break row between Template:Újpest FC and Template:Soproni Liga. However if you check, both templates are okay by itself or everywhere else. Do you have any ideas on why it is like this? Thank you, --gabute (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They look alright to me; maybe it's just your browser rendering funny or something. I purged the page to see if that helps anything. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Preview" in Edit function

(1) I noticed a sentence in an article where adding "not" would obviously (to me) clarify the intended meaning.

(2) I clicked on the "edit" tab, and tried to follow instructions.

(3) While I have had a Wikipedia account for at least a year, I had to go through the process of setting a new password before I could log in.

(4) After logging in I could not find any way to create a temporary copy, but I did see the request to "preview" my edits, so I went looking for how to do that. Somewhere in the morass of instructions I saw a note to the effect that there is a "Preview Button Below the edit box" -- but I see no such button anywhere.

IN OTHER WORDS, I'M TRYING TO JOIN IN THE PROCESS, AND AS I HAVE FOUND OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN, EVERY TIME I TRY, I END UP IN A BLIND ALLEY!!!

Reichart (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Show preview" button is right beside the "Save page" button you pressed to make your above entry. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited an article

This afternoon, I changed the content of an article, titled "Buster from Chicago." All went well and I logged off. But when I returned to the same article later in the same day, the uncorrected version was still up there. Why is this so? Does it take a day or two before corrected articles appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukthesis1 (talk • contribs)

HI there. It looks like you pasted your copy in here, then removed the entirety of the article body that had existed prior to your addition. That likely caught the attention of the administrator who reverted you. The copy you entered was not really written in the style that Wikipedia prefers for its articles, and the removal of the previous article copy isn't really the best way to go about correcting what we have.

Might I suggest that instead of that approach, you edit the existing Buster from Chicago article, including a shorter summary of the information you posted? Do ensure that the information you've got is based on reliable sources, as it must be verifiable to remain in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

HELP WITH A SITE AND FOR A ROOKIED.E.SANGREVALE 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I REALIZED THAT I WAS PROMOTING MY WIFES BOOK TOO MUCH, BUT I STILL WANTED TO SHOW THE WORLD WHAT INFORMATION SHE HAS FROM HER LIFE STORY.

PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS, AND IF I AM UNABLE TO, THANKS FOR YOUR DIRECTION!

THANKS

D.E.SANGREVALE —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.E.SANGREVALE (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Page published without consensus

Hello all, I need some guidance on how to handle this situation. This is regarding the Sahaj Marg page which has been published today suddenly without achieving consensus. User: Cult Free World started this page in his userspace [14], and filled it up with information not meeting WP policies. Myself and other editors spent a lot of time pointing out the violations as you may see here but so far almost none of them have been implemented. Clearly there was no consensus achieved on the content among all involved editors. Surprisingly, User: Sethie published this page, apparently after getting fed up with no progress [15] happening at the discussion. Other noteworthy things about the User: CFW is that it would not let anyone edit this article when it was at its userspace, also there is a sock case going on this user against users who have attempted to create similar pages on this subject in past filled with content not meeting WP standards, those pages and users have been deleted/blocked from WP permanently.

My question is, what is the right thing to do in this case? Duty2love (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Ferdinand Schörner

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism on Ferdinand Schörner. Trying to revert caused my browser to crash twice. Request assistance. Hydra2 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see why - 500k of crud can do that toa browser. Thanks for the heads up, vandalism reverted, user warned. Pastordavid (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of article

I spent 30 minutes today writing out a corrected article for the "Buster from Chicago" story. Seemed okay when I looked at it. Returned later. The corrected article wasn't there ! Just the flawed old article. I was told by you guys subsequently that I should have done this and that. Advice that wasn't available before I spent half an hour writing the correction for nothing. I know of other people who've had a similar problem with correcting a Wikipedia article. Most didn't try again. Anyhow, I'll post the corrected version (with full sources) on relevant internet websites - where it can be read without any hassle and doesn't get taken down. I should add that the "Buster from Chicago" story that's still up there at Wikipedia is very outdated and misleading, and recent research has made it obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukthesis1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

... As I pointed out above, you're more than welcome to *edit* the article that we have already, instead of replacing it wholesale with your own work, which was not written in an encyclopedic manner and wiped out the work that other editors had done on that article. Feel free to correct and add to the existing article, that's not an issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Buster from Chicago" article is almost wholly wrong. It's over 90 percent in error. So rather than spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to salvage from it the bit that's right, its better to start from scratch and replace it. To repeat the earlier point - the article you have up there is misleading in the extreme, and needs to be totally rewritten in the light of new research findings.

The talk page is the best place to bring this up. I realise that it's frustrating to be reverted without discussion, but that can cut both ways. btw, I've reinstated the text immediately below here that you, no boubt inadvertently, removed when you added your last comment. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in article link that is beyond my ability to fix

Resolved

The article here

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

has a link to a book named "Bretheren" in the article's "In Fiction" section. The line in question has the external appearance:

Baibars is one of the main characters of Robyn Young's books, Brethren and Crusade.

In this line, "Bretheren" is a link which does not point to a book article. It points to this page:

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

which is clearly not the intended target. Nor does the disambiguation page list the book in question. I have an account but fixing this problem is beyond me.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmillsbridge (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Brethren (novel) is what we need. I think it's better now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove block from the article

I recently started to create a page in memory of renowned astrophysicist of Estonia Izold Pustylnik. It was my first attempt to publish an article according to General Help. This article is about a real person (http://www.aai.ee/~izold/index1.html). I made a mistake trying to publish it immediately. The article name is "Izold Pustylnik".

Please remove block from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moiseyo (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moiseyo - Sorry that you seem to be getting caught by our super-efficient New Article Patrollers before you have a chance to get much done on this article. I see you have a sandbox page already started, which is the perfect place for you to build the article until there is sufficient information to add it to the main space. On your own talk page, I am going to put some information with links for you that will help you build your first article. I hope this helps. Welcome to Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

edit war on "History of Pizza" page.

Hi. I wonder if someone experienced in the workings of Wikipedia can help with this. 2 words keep being reverted on the "History of Pizza" article by 97.92.40.152. I have tried to discuss this on the the discussion page under the heading "Origins Section Again" but this editor continues to change the words without comment. I feel I have given good reasons for using the particular words I have and have requested that if anyone wants to change those words, they should explain their reasons on the discussion page for doing so. Could someone look into this and take the appropriate action? Many thanks Shoebill2 (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits and added some Talk discussion. By and large I agree with the anonymous editor, who favors "mankind" over "humankind", and "flavorful" over "flavoursome". I substituted "civilization" as compromise, and restored "flavorful". JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut for Lieberman page

I would like to post content from this article to the CFL page. There has been some dispute as to content, and an outside editor is needed for additions.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/columnists/ci_8927138 Thank you. --Seraphim55 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Jersey

One editor has latched onto the Central Jersey article and is using the space to create complexities that don't really exist. Suggestions and criticisms on the talk page are greeted with derision. I've commented on the main editor's tone without effect. The article wanders into related topics and creates terms that don't exist. I posted a banner challenging the topic and saying sources were insufficient, but the main editor removed it. I tried reducing the article today and I received a series of hostile replies. The article needs to be much simpler, less filled with controversy and conjecture. There is no question of whether Central Jersey and the Raritan Valley exist. I hope you can help to get the editor to let this be a collaborative process as it should be. I've had considerable success in other areas of Wiki. --Pat (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't resolve the issue with the article itself yet, but I've sifted through the article's lengthy and convoluted talk page, making some formatting changes (leaving content untouched) so that the past discussion is at least readable for any other editors that want to jump in. I also archived some of the older talk page sections which may help some of the article's regular editors to put some of the past friction behind them. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a start. --Pat (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am ashamed to report that in my attempts to encourage more collaborative behavior out of the main editor, I ended up getting sucked down into edit warring with them. I think I may have ended up steeling the editor's resolve to rule the article with an iron fist like never before. My sincere apologies for this botched effort. I'm going to stay away from this article and editor for the forseeable future. This issue still requires assistance, from someone with more experience and skill than I. Please help the editors of this article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

List of World War II aces from Finland

Could someone check this article appears to have been vadalised ? beside the red link at the top . Not sure how to check who the user was thanks JS1 (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page and the vandalism should now be gone. In future, you should be able to check this yourself using the History tab at the top of your screen. This will let you see who did what to the page and, if it's vandalism, easily undo their changes. Happy editing, and thanks for pointing this out! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I presumed a warning or question would have been added to the user talk page but it appears to be an Anon IP address JS1 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Help to block user

Hi. Can you please help me to find a way to block a user who a) undoes everything I change on a page even though my changes are relevant, b) has registered on Wiki with a name close to mine to mock me, and c) writes both under his new name and a anonymous one with only his ip address showing. The page concerned is "Ann Scott" (french writer), the name of the vandal is Olaf150 and his ip address is 62.64.210.19 Thank you in advance. Olaf750 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf750 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing Sources

I just submitted an improvement to the existing Noise Temperature article. I followed the guidelines on Wikipedia for citing sources, but there is still a banner at the top of my article that says "this article does not cite any sources." What should I do?

--EEDave (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Take the banner off, perhaps? WP:Be bold. Make sure you have in-text citations -- that means footnotes or parenthetical citing. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 05:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the banner. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I´d like to post an article about a dotcom

I know that there are several dotcoms published in wikipedia, and I can only imagine that it´s because those companies are known and therefore deserve to be listed.

As such, the company I intend to talk about it´s fairly known in several countries: just google for "Kviar" and you´ll find countless newspaper articles in several languages about its doings.

Still, I do not want to seem that I´m spamming or anything like that, so first I´m kindly asking the administrators to first check to see if it´s ok before I send a first draft (of course, you are free to also check if the text I send is not biased and all)

Thank you for your kind support

Al Costa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.247.166 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to review the article for you if you post it at my talk page. -- Naerii 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an offer of adoption

Resolved

 – Per user talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

by "save the humans" My page is user:fx303 I wish to accept but being a newbie do not know how to. Any help appreciated thanks Fx303 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Spam Listing

I have been working on fixing a series of articles in order to bring them up to Wikipedia standards of notability and objectivity. Additionally, I have been going through the articles adding references and information. An administrator attempted to remove a large group of these articles and then listed them as well as several other articles on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private equity firm Spam articles. After several AfD discussions, these pages are being kept by the wider Wikipedia community and would suggest that the listings on the spam page be removed. I have requested the original administrator (User:Hu12)do this and he has not and has not responded to my requests in any way. Urbanrenewal (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alerted Hu12 to this discussion; see what he says first. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't delete Talk page discusions of record, We archive them.--Hu12 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a very satisfactory answer. Under that logic I could put any person, organization or article on that page and nobody should be able to take it off because it is part of the discussion. There should be some burden of proof on the posting editor. Once those pages have been validated by the larger Wikipedia community then by definition they should not be spam and the user responsible for editing and fixing them should not be listed as a spammer for performing the primary function of wikipedia.Urbanrenewal (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Winter Olympics stubs

I just stumbled over Category:Winter Olympics stubs. And that's all I'm going to say for now. Dorftrottel (ask) 07:26, May 5, 2008

What exactly is wrong with that category? Something wrong with include vs. noinclude? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Click almost any random article. Dorftrottel (canvass) 09:21, May 5, 2008

Please tell me there's at least one decent article in there. Please! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd even go one further and say: Please tell me there's one decent stub in there. Dorftrottel (complain) 10:19, May 5, 2008

Oh, my. I clicked on five or six and every one of them is a clear-cut A3. Other than the taxoboxes, the content doesn't do much more than echo the title...and these have been hanging around here for two years. Mass deletion, anyone? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what I was getting at, but I wanted to make sure that it's not just me. Some may say that I'm a bit of a deletionist, although I like to think of myself as an inclusionist interested in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedia and usually, I dislike making broad judgments about the worthiness of a general category of article. In this case however, it's literally an entire category. I've also noticed that all of the pages (at least all that I probed) have been created by one user. Hm. I think now that it's established that others share my concerns, this should be pursued at another, more central venue and the author be notified. I'll do the latter right away, but would appreciate any advice how else to proceed. Post at WP:VPP? WP:AN? I'm also reluctant to sift through the entirety of the ~500 pages in the category all on my own to determine which ones should definitely be deleted. Dorftrottel (complain) 15:42, May 5, 2008

Before you start undoing a tremendous amount of work, please read WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. The WP:WikiProject Olympics team is working on a fairly massive and ambitious project of compiling the complete results for each Olympic Games, and these articles—even in their current state—are part of the "foundation" or "frame" of that project (if you follow the house metaphor). I would say that most of the "builder" attention right now is on summer Games articles, so these winter ones have been sitting as stubs for a while, but of course, WP:There is no deadline. Personally, I had ben planning to do a lot of work on the winter Games articles to rectify that neglect, but probably not until after Beijing is over. I would be very, very, pissed off if these articles were all deleted in the meantime. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright there's no deadline, otoh there is a threshold for inclusion. Please note that I'm not trying (or rather: trying not to) debate what exactly that threshold is. But why not create those articles one by one? Some (most?) of those placeholders have been practically unchanged for one and a half years. Also, I'm most certainly not trying to destroy anything. That's why I first started this thread to see whether it's just me or not, and also why I immediately notified you after it was clear that there is some basic agreement with my concerns. How about deleting the substub portion of the category, but put all the article names on a subpage of WikiProject Olympics? That way, any admin could undelete the stub at request without any work being lost. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 16:12, May 5, 2008

The biggest reason for having all those stubs in place is that there are a lot of cross-linkages across the articles for each Olympic Games, and we think it is better to have a set of stubs than a sea of redlinks. For example, you'll see that every one of those articles has two sets of navigation links—the infobox has links to all of the other appearances of the nation at other Games, and the navbox at the bottom of the page links to all of the other nations at these same Games. Additionally, we make extensive use of templates like {{flagIOCathlete}} on per-sport results pages, which automatically creates links to the appropriate "Nation at the year Olympics" article. See List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing (men) for yet another example where the existence of all these Winter Games stubs dramatically helps. I guess it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here. Before I created all those stubs, we were getting calls for deletion of the navigation templates etc. because of the redlinks, and now we're getting calls to delete the stubs. (But don't get me wrong—I understand your comments here are good-faith.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I was personally unsure whether or not the users in question were aware of all of these, but I see your point. Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose comments sound ok to you. Are you happy with my explanation of the current status and structure of WikiProject Olympics articles, and are ok with leaving the status quo unchanged, or are you ok with Dorftrottel's suggestion of a mass deletion of stubs anyway, with undeletion when editors want to work on them? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Open question to the editors contributing to this thread: what amount of detail would be considered as the minimum threashold for stub status? Right now, a lot of that detail was placed into the infoboxes and not duplicated in prose text (things like how many medals they won, etc.) so perhaps that's why the stubs look "thin" right now (e.g. Switzerland at the 1928 Winter Olympics). I would also say that some of those articles (e.g. Finland at the 1924 Winter Olympics) should have the stub tags removed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems re. inline citations (resolved)

Resolved

Hi. I've self-nominated a bio I did on Robert E. Thacker for the DYK page. I haven't done this often, but every now and then, I get an article on the page. Problem is, I'm getting some feedback regarding a lack of inline citations. I just attempted to add a few, but to no avail. I've edited this site for years and never once added an inline citation, even to my features. Might I impose on someone to add a few so that I might see how it's supposed to be done and so that this important figure might be properly recognized? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Note on your talk page. -- Naerii 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ann Scott page

I'm having problems with a user on the Ann Scott article (french writer). He undoes everything I change, even though my changes are relevant (such as correcting errors in translations of citations in french, adding new elements found in the french press recently, adding a new lay out for the bibliography etc). His name is Olaf150 (he just created a account with a name close to mine) and also makes changes not logged in with different UK ip's. Each time he's not saying why he's undoing what I've done. There is no dialogue and he's getting obnoxious, as on his own page for example, when creating his name, near Olaf he wrote oh-laugh. I'm not looking for problems, I'm just updating this page I created a while ago for this french writer, but if this person carries on undoing everything I do, I will have to give up because he is wasting my time. Can you help at all ? Thank you very much in advance. Olaf750 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you post this at WP:ANI, with links to relevant diffs, as it's probably against the rules to register a username so similar to a current username with the intent of winding someone up. Just my two cents. -- Naerii 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Olaf750 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User access level?

When confonted with an unfamiliar user name, how do I quickly and easily determine whether they are, for example, an admin, or autoconfirmed, or a steward, or a checkuser? I have been round and round in circles trying to find a page where I can enter a username and get a result, and I'm sure such a thing exists, but it is one of the hardest things to find in Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the "special pages" (link in the lefthand, lower toolbox). The specific link is Special:ListUsers. Enter the username in the specified field, and there it is. Pastordavid (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you live and learn. Thanks :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New article: Intentional Customer Experience

New user. 1)The top half of my new article shows when I click Show Preview. Why doesn't the bottom half show? How do I get it to show? 2) Do you allow trademarked (TM) items? The TM is in the article title: Intentional Customer Experience (TM). 3)I cannot find my article again when I start at the beginning of the web site and type it in the search. I type Intentional Customer Experience (without the TM). Thank you for your help. Amdpc (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Amdpc

The page has been deleted; it was thought to be advertising rather than encyclopaedic content. If you'd like to develop the page in your user space, perhaps at User:Amdpc/Sandbox, then I'd be happy to look at it and give you my own point of view. Others might differ, but I've been here for a while and I'd like to think I have at least half a clue by now! --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter May (writer) citing references

I need some help.

I read all the instructions about disambiguation and thought I was was doing the right thing creating a Peter May disambiguation page. And that was reversed. In my defence I would have to say that while Peter May might be famous to cricket fans, in a more objective sense, he is really not so well known (A google search on "Peter May" turns up the other two Peter Mays I listed ahead of the cricketer.) But I realise there's no point arguing this case against cricket fanatics.

The point is, that obviously because I got this wrong, people had a look at the Peter May (writer) page I'd been working on, and decided that it wasn't up to scratch.

The claim has been made that the page doesn't cite references or sources. But I have read all the help pages, and tried to follow the guidelines. The official Peter May website is listed - it's obviously a primary source available online. The other sources are not online, though. But I have listed all the publications with their dates and publishers, as recommended. And I have been precise about the television companies and dates of shows which are listed. And I have given all the details about the titles and dates of awards and nominations.

Would it help to add a link to the Peter May listing on IMDB? Peter May is a member of the Crime Writer's Association, the Mystery Writers of America, and the International Thriller Writers, would it help to add this information?

I'm looking for advice on what other references I need to add, and I want to know what I can do to rectify the situation? The article looks unreliable at the moment, and it really isn't. Janice.hally (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, You seem to have a couple of different concerns here, so I'll answer each one in turn.

1. On the disambiguation, Peter May (disambiguation) seems like a good idea, but it doesn't preclude Peter May by any means. Since the cricketer was already there, there's no need to move him. One might tweak the hatnote (italics at the top of the article) to point to to the dab page explicitly.
2. On the sources, and references, you might like to read our guide on reliable sources. You've cited primary sources, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.
3. You might also have a Conflict of interest since you've chosen a user name that appears to coincide with the name of your subject's wife. That might lead to the impression that you're not objective, and a neutral point of view is very important here.

I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture! Please feel free to ask more questions here or at my talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

SunGard neutrality/verification questions

I work for SunGard and I'm hoping an editor can advise me on next steps for article review. There are a few sections of the SunGard article that I feel do not represent a neutral point of view. I posted my concerns on the article talk page on 20 Mar 2008 but have not received any responses. Much of the business model section reads like opinion rather than verified fact. Please see Talk:SunGard for specifics. I greatly appreciate any help as I'm new to Wikipedia and want to be sure to follow the COI policy. Lapatterson (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How to keep a new article from being deleted

I created a new article called Highwinds Network Group. It was flagged for deletion. I made changes to the article, and listed numerous reasons why I felt the article was newsworthy. I also provided many references and links to build a sold case for the article's validity. Now the article is gone. I am not sure who took the article down, so it is difficult to have a conversation with them or to learn why they took it down....and more importantly....what I can do to have the article replaced.Wjmoore (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The message in the deletion log reads "Expired PROD, concern was: This company is not notable. The only purpose of this article is advertising" PROD is short for proposed deletion, and means that for at least 5 days a template was attached to the article proposing deletion for the stated reason. Nobody objected, so the article was indeed deleted. I can't see the deleted content, but I imagine that it described the company and its activities without explaining why it was notable, or worthy of inclusion here. You can contact the deleting admin, User:Jmlk17 at his/her talk page and request that they post the contents to your userspace in order to improve it. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you need help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

China / PRC / Chinese Civilization

I'm just a lowly recent changes patroller. I see a single, relatively new user User:Singaga making his first contribution first agitating for changes (Starting April 29) and then making major changes across China People's Republic of China, and Chinese Civilization starting on May 6th. I can't see any record of discussion. This is an issue for powers greater than me. I really don't care how it is resolved (the new setup seems as good as the old to me), but I do care that the process be respected and that there be some "paper trail" that it was respected. What do I do?KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

typifying valuable new user as as a canvasser violating WP:EL and threat of block

Hi, have come across a situation in which a respected hard-working admin has reverted EL placed by a new editor, and threatened them with blocking. On being asked why admin replied, in part, "If you examine the editors brief history, you'll see that they started out by canvassing numerous articles with links to the same site, a violation of WP:EL and probably WP:COI...."[Discussion at admins talk page] [diff of blocking threat at new users talk page]

I can see nothing that the new editor has done that is contrary to WP policy. I see edits that benefitted WP. I am concerned that a valuable new editor with an outlook rare on WP is being given a negative introduction to WP without having done anything disruptive.

The new user says they are an agricultural scientist from a tropical country. The links added seem notable, very relevant and well suited to the articles. This editor appears to be offering information from a much needed global perspective on these articles.

The new editor added ELs to 4 pages - the ELs are still in place on 2 of those pages - apparently accepted by the active editors. The involved admin appears unique in identifying a violation of WP policies here.

I have expressed my concerns to the admin involved on his talk page. He repeats his position. (see 1st paragraph)

I am seeking an understanding of WP policies and procedures as it applies to this situation. Is the admin correct in his view of the situation? If so please show me how. If not, what can I do to prevent him threatening other valuable new users without proper basis? SmithBlue (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Didi

This limited individual chose to remove a reference to Didi and accused me of vandalism.

CENSORSHIP is supposed to be non-existent in the United States of America and on the free internet, such as on Wikipedia.

So, before I restore the reference, I request editorial assistance to remain respectful to the free-world community.

The uptight, repressed individual's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gary_King#Vandalism.3F

My entry:

The Mistress Didi (http://www.classicfetish.org), an innovator in Fetish Art & Education whose mission is to restore the concept of Fetish as Therapeutic Art to the mainstream from the distasteful, deviant, ignorance portrayed by sensationalist media.

was listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didi

until that guy deleted it.

Glamourdomme (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)GlamourDomme

Glamourdomme, those kinds of pages (known as disambiguation pages) link to other wikipedia pages. Mistress Didi does not have her own wikipedia page, so there's no reason for her link to be there. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of notability. Redrocket (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redrocket, I wrote you a personal thank you on your talk page where the uptight one whined. However, as there is no entry for Mistress Didi. I am going to contact her people and have one added because her work is worthy of standing alone and not having to deal with people who spend too much time online trying to regulate the world instead of living life in real-time.Glamourdomme (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. Thank you. Gary King (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, any wikipedia editor who saw that external link on the page would have assumed it was advertising and deleted it. That happens a lot around here. I'm glad you understand that your best bet here is to prove Mistress Didi is notable, and get her her own wikipage. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)