Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

help with Asmahan dispute!

Answered

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I need help with a dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Dispute.2C_3O_given

This is very important, We need an admin that is directly and actively involved and takes a close look at every single one of the 7 different points I have made. And also changes the article in to what he decides.

We have been argueing over this for almost two months. Admin has to take action now.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You already have a third opinion discussion open and an admin involved in the dispute so I am not quite sure what you intended to achieve by posting here. It is not the function of admins to make binding rulings on content disputes, and in any case, this is not the right forum to find administrators (that would be WP:ANB). But for what its worth, my understanding of the facts are, briefly, 1. born Syria, 2. naturalised Egyptian. Surely to goodness the two of you can find a way of stating these simple facts in the article without getting into an edit war over whether she is Syrian or Eqyptian. Phrases such as Syrian-born can be used, there is no need for Wikipedia to decide which nationality she should be described as unless there is a source that affirms she self-describes a particular way. SpinningSpark 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually she was born on a boat heading to the French mandate of Syria. We need an administrator that is actively involved and helps us. We can not do it ourselves. No admin is doing that right now and the third opinion is closed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not need an administrator and you are not listening so I will say it again, administrators do not make rulings in content disputes. I can give you an opinion, the same as any other editor, but I am not permitted to use my admin powers to enforce my opinion. You need an admin for things like locking a page to stop disruption or blocking editors who are edit warring, but not for deciding what articles should say. I seem to be missing where the 3O was closed. If it is closed, the 3O should have given you an opinion, if that is so why are you both not following it? It is pointless asking for the opinions of others if you cannot agree to actually use it. If the 3O is not closed then either you can expect an opinion to be forhtcoming, or if the original editor has gone away, go find another one. The fact that Asmahan was born on a boat does not change my opinion of how you should proceed, state the facts, including that one, and leave the reader to make up their own mind on everything else. SpinningSpark 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

factual updates to your pages constantly removed

Answered

 – Although the OP didn't like the answer. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Harkness Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Les Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Factual important updates to certain pages on your site keep being removed by someone. Granted if originally they were too lengthy, that I can understand, but please make allowances as it is my first attempt trying and I do have a disability and no acumen for complex sites. I then added just a project website link as references and again, some of that has been removed, in one instance the term Supervising Director of Animations relating to a project, details of which you do not have. Another relevant page you asked for more information then promptly removed it. All are verifiable as I am an Executive Producer and Management Company of said project and celebrities are on board, do I give up trying to update your site as I do not know what is going on. Is someone at wikipedia removing the detail and if so, may I ask for what reason, otherwise may I ask if someone is choosing to follow the links and remove detail as a form of vandalism to our project ?

Many thanks for your help in explaining things to me. Most obliged.

My reference to your records is under the chosen title of Admiral Lord Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralLordNelson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Right you have been external link spamming the above articles. Possibly you have a conflict of interest. In any case your edits have been reverted and you have been warned about this. If you do not desist you will be blocked. Please read up on our policies. the link is on your talk page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion of Harkness Roses as the whole article is balatant advertising. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That speedy has been declined. Fleetflame 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the discussion for that entry but I guess if the entry is closer to a case study than something of appeal to customers it could make it but as-is it looks like a stub without much notability headed towards an ad.

[[My reply and final comment is that YOU invited factual updates on some of your pages and then you accuse me of spamming when I am the project Management Company and Executive Producer ! You need not block me as I will not be attempting to post anything else on your website pages, and this was my first attempt. I do not Spam and resent the fact you accuse me of spamming when all I have done is post a legitimate update on 'related' pages the people who feature on those pages are my project Team Members. Shame on you Wikipedia. I will not reply to anything else you may post about me, but remind you of your responsibilities not to blatantly discredit a legitimate posting nor be slanderous in your remarks, which would be inaccurate about myself, my project, and celebrity team, and any such remarks would be truly unprofessional on your part]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralLordNelson (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with Dispute Resolution

The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:

• AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
• AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
• AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
• Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:

• WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
• Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
• WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
• WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
• WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Flat Earth : Since notability is the criterion, you are documenting what peopple think of thought. For looking at other articles, I find wiki pages on spontaneous generation, and presumably there are pages on alchemy, and other notable theories that a researcher could wish to investigate even though not widely held today. There would be nothing wrong with a page on theories of the origin of life that included a link to spontaneous generation or creationism ( the latter presumably has more support today than spontaneous generation). In the case of humanism, where the definition is debatable, you are just arguing about words not facts. Are you a humanist? Are you a good person? etc. If you just need to make a taxonomy of the different humanist cults, I imagine you run into selection bias- anyone can find hundreds of articles to support his own conclusion while you argue about which 99 or 101 are more credible en masse against the other group of 100 authors ( using numbers to make the rationalizations seem logical and scientific...). Is a merged article even pointless compared to say just a disambig pages with humanism_according_to_x, humanism_according_to_ama, etc? I guess with religions the group defines itself, presumably the Pope defines Catholics. Literally perhaps, you could give weight to the well-covered AHA but there are plenty of "defintions" from religious groups too. I appreciate that none of this helps, I'm just backing up a bit seeing if I am on the right track so far. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor keeps deleting my posts

Resolved

 – From looking at the article history. Please feel free to open a new thread as needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted a brief explanation of Eric McDavid's appeal and time after time an editor has deleted it. I am new to posting on wikipedia so I did not fully understand how to correctly cite or reference my sources, but I have made the citing and referencing corrections and I have adjusted my post to fit the wikipedia guidelines. This editor claimed that, "A Motion to Appeal is NOT a reliable source." However, I believe it to be the ONLY reliable source regarding information pertaining to the appeal. I am not taking a stance as to the defendants guilt or innocence, I am simply providing the facts stated in the appeal. Please help me resolve this conflict.MReichel (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment : Apparently, your alias matches the lawyer mentioned in your controversial contribution. Furhter, there are several puffery items related to the lawyer, at least in the one version I checked. The citation is not fully documented ( please let everyone write to the PACER webmaster or higher-ups to change this, it is really silly to have a court system with an interface that is not automation friendly and the token payments discourage several investigations such as looking into this article). In the context of the larger article, it isn't clear what role this information would take but in present form it seems to be a bit much. I'm sure the other editor spotted your puffery and COI and probably reacted a bit strongly. In any case, there is a bias against primary sources in some contexts, although apparently medicine is magic since wiki seems to single this out as an area where primary sources are ok. In any case, assuming you could link to a free copy of the court documents, and it managed to get by the primary source OCD people, the comments you make about the documents would need to be quite limited, largely to things in secondary sources or otherwise "obvious" ( that dont't require original thought or hypotheses to be introduced). Simply citing the documents should be fine but the text is POV and a bit extensive. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You should definitely read our guidelines - as the subject's lawyer you are bound to defend your client, and I highly doubt that this is in any way easily reconcilable with our neutrality guidelines. As such you should recuse yourself from editing an encyclopedia article about the subject. If you cannot, or indeed are prevented by your very position, from editing the article in impartial manner, then you should refrain from editing it at all. Instead you should present the material and links on the article talk page and let uninvolved editors make a decision on the material's suitability, notability and neutrality. Mfield (Oi!) 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Certainly don't get into a double bind but we are not your parents nor a bar association. The end product, the contribution is what we need to evaluate. The problem with being too concerned about COI , rather than the result, is that it becomes difficult to get informed parties who can even put secondary sources into reasonable perspective. I have had fairly good luck approaching some business subjects ignorantly ( which are quite similar to legal issues and less aligned with scientific pursuits) , with information only from electronic sources, but those sources did tend to be SEC filings which are designed to be "encyclopedic" compared to most self-authored works from commercial organizations discussing themselves. My point being that the filings I used must have been more or less accurate as they allowed people to make certain predictions that came true. It is possible for an entity to present decent self-referrential works but quite difficult esp in an anon forum like this. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• PS I got so taken with myself, I fogot the other example, the FDA. Had someone else not deleted my contribution, you could have read about this on the Dendreon page. I added a factual description of events leading to oncologists to perceive physical threats but my own cues to reader motivated people unfamiliar with material to delete it. In any case, the FDA needs experts but they are usually active in the field and have their own projects from which they hope to feed themselves. Yet, they do contribute to official FDA decisions that have some force behind them. You need to worry about the data or facts first, and consider COI or ad hominens when all else is lost. Normally the standard are towards disclosure, not disinterest. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sympathetic though I am to my editor colleagues above, there are biography of living persons concerns here which, I think, do need scrutiny. Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view and where there is a dispute, give correct weight to the various sides of an argument. I think it best to invite further comment from the BLP noticeboard.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• If the source is reliable and relates to information cited in the article then it is a valid source and should be referenced, in my opinion. It is always a bonus when content can be referenced and attributed with material that most Wikipedians can check, although I also understand that less readily available source material is certainly important when a case remains unreported. It might be wise to add references to content from news publications as well, if the appeal is reported - with links to online news websites mentioning the appeal. Overall, the actual appeal in this case appears to be primary source material and really should be referenced if the appeal is mentioned in the article. Everyone wants Wikipedia to be well regarded with good reference material - right? Frei Hans (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jury Duty

Answered

 – And also posted on user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Duty_(TV_series)

i am the creator and producer of the tv show Jury Duty. Someone with the user name of ChrisP2K5 is writing false information about my show. I have changed it and they keep changing it to the false information. They are claiming that the show is cancelled and we purchased time on stations. That is completely false and I need your assistance to stop this.

Thanks, Vincent Dymon <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimon911 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Per our verifiability guidelines, controversial claims, or claims with potentially legal ramifications need to be cited to reliable sources. It is inappropriate for an editor to be adding such claims without a reliable source to back them. I am warning the editor and will watch the page. The article also contains a large amount of other material that needs to be referenced anyway. Mfield (Oi!) 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On another note, there has been no dialog on article talk about this, only a slow motion edit war. Both sides of this dispute should be engaging on talk and providing sources to back their sides of this dispute, not continuing a pointless revert war. Mfield (Oi!) 05:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute on Project 86 page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_86&action=history

Hi. I Would like to say that a editor called Schwabette77 is removing sourced information from the page. When I asked to the editor stop with this, he (or she) said the reason why, but not cited any proof, reliable source of what he said. Then, I come here for help, I reverted the edits that Schwabette77 done on that page. Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Summary : From what I gathered looking at two recent versions, the debate hinges over a few adjectives related to being a "Christian" band, maybe the top picture, and a quote from a band member explaining the religious aspect of their group. The quote is rather extensive but presumably the source is reliable for documenting how the group views and describes itself. You get some real zealots on these things but paragraph size quotes do come up from time to time and you would need to consider relevance and POV issues as at some point presenting a monologoue from the group ( or one of their critics ) would be more of an advertisement/soapbox than an encyclopedic description. Offhand, the ideas don't seem worthy of being yanked unless grossly wrong (I'm assuming the band describes itself as religious ) but edit for POV may make more sense. What wiki guidelines or other reasons did the redactor give ? Personally, if I find an informed contributor I tend to not yank whole sections of text especially if ignorant of the subject myself but some people take the bold editing thing a bit far...( note, I'm really tired and unlike SCIGEN my grammor deteriorates alohng with typing- if missed something please correct ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Schwabette77 has been warned on his/her talk page to note remove cited information. They seem to be associated with the band in some way, and have come the the (mistaken) conclusion that that gives them some "authority" on the page. It doesn't. Feel free to return here, or take up a complaint at the conflict of interest noticeboard if the problem resumes. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

false prophets repeated deletion without comment

Answered

 – Answers given, but not well received, to this and the following thread. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On the page "false prophets" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet a group of people claiming to be wiki editors have repeatedly, summarily deleted my posts with no reason or vague claims like NPOV or references not appropriate. This includes direct quotes from the bible and the addition of modern day false prophets like David Koresh and Joseph Smith. Additionally they have tried to limit the discussion to Christian, Jewish and Islamm prophets.This is clearly bigoted. The definition of false prophet is abundantly clear from the words themselves; someone who makes a prophesy which turns out to be false. Joseph Smith's own mormon church admits he made prohesies which did not come true. My reference is from a mormon.

They refuse to discuss this on the approriate pages and delete my npov marker for thei extremely biased viewpoint. I believe it is clear and obvious that this page is appropriate for:

1. A discussion of anyone who made false prophesies. 2. not limited to Christians, Jews and muslims.

BMcC333 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

In this edit, you (perhaps unintentionally) blanked content the page had before. The best forum for discussing specific changes to this page is Talk:False prophet. Please continue your constructive editing and thank you for improving Wikipedia. Newportm (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made severall attempts to discuss this and the only response has been blanket deletions. Why is a web link given as a primary source but my web reference called inappropriate? Did you read the discussion page?

his church with claims that there are parts of it missing? 1st the LDS tried to claim they don't exist at all, and then when a museum comes up with them, they try to claim there are other parts missing?? The Museum of Modern Art is a very objective source. They know if they have all of a collection or a fragment of a collection. They have been in the collection business a long long time. The inventory of a museum belongs in an encyclopedia long before the pure speculation of other papyri with no proof whatsoever that they exist. http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=a8c1d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BMcC333 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

There is such brilliant logic that to an atheist all prophets are false?? Does wiki approve content based on fringe groups? unsigned by BMcC333 (talk)

You don't seem to understand our underlying principles, which include a neutral point of view and "no original research". Your edits routinely violated these principles, which are not to be compromised in favor of your personal beliefs. This is a cooperative project, in which we Christians are no more privileged than Hindus, atheists, Wiccans, Muslims, Scientologists or anybody else. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the term is often used colloquially as an insult or colorful reference to a secular person who makes a prediction that is grossly wrong- in any case I wouldn't be suprised if you get more opinions than facts "contributed" and I would imagine some "neutral" text may help but it will probably come down to "balance" between competing POV's - this may be fine as long as the article doesn't attempt to "pick the right one." Maybe a passing comment or even disambig page may help. The general idea of the name suggests that a prophet is judged true or false the same way a scientific theory is judged- does it/he have predictive value( even today getting people to think about testability is difficult ). You can't do controlled tested on a prophecy, but you wait if it is specific enough to be shown true or false. In the religious context, probably most people associate with the more popular religions and since notability is an odd popularity contest ( vocal opponents make the topic "popular" LOL) those would probably be given more representation than "fringe" beliefs. I did note a lot of quotes and some people object to this- with a little care and editing however personally it would make sense to go to the source which is authoritative for the POV being described ( again, you don't want to support or refute it, just document it ). I don't think anyone will claim the Bible is copyright vio but some paraphrases and things like NIV notes are protected. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference in being treated the same and biased against. As pointed out in the discussion page, the page was voted to be kept and the bible has been accepted as a reference for years on that page, Only MY bible quotes are deleted with this excuse.

The same anti-Christian bias has been pointed out by others in the discussion page for unfulfilled prophesy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_religious_predictions The excuse for deleting joe smith jr thre was since he did not live long enough to see his prophesy it should not be held against him??? No one forced him to predict so far in the future. It did not come true, the deletion should be reverted. I am starting a dispute resolution request for this page also. Allowing this type of bullying is not right. These 3 people can not be the only editors on WIKI. What kind of dispute resolution allows the same people who are blanket deleting to run the "resolution" I want to see some neutral, or at least new, mediators65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

Here is proof that these 2 admit they knowingly applied an arbitrary standard to my use of the bible when an established standard already existed on the page, as set up by these 2 people. What else needs to be shown to prove an obvious discrimminatory bias againt my contributions? Pasted from discussion page: The bible has been an acceptable reference on this page for YEARS, when is is used to prop up this pseudo-definition, but as soon as a real definition is given, the bible is not good enough. Who is NPOV?? 65.60.137.141 (talk)BMcC333

I attempted to remove all Bible quotes that were not the subject of commentary within the article. I was reverted. I agree that consistent treatment is necessary.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I reverted Kww, ....—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "

• Yes, I did that. It remains to place my reversion in context, which you can see here, and as you can see it was hardly "without comment". I welcome scrutiny of my actions in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

65.60.137.141 (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

" (cur) (prev) 21:40, 4 July 2009 S Marshall (talk | contribs) (16,731 bytes) (Reverting to last stable version. If this happens again, I will see that the article is protected from editing until discussion is complete.) (undo) "

A threat to block comments counts as a comment? This seems to just prove my point. I do not see any rationale for blocking bible quotes when the definition of false prophets is clear and allowing ones which attempt to support some wishy washy definition. It is my opinion these are out of context and off topic. Insisting a definition is not needed is not any improvement to the article or even an attempt at dispute resolution. All we have is a threat to take your ball and go home. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

same bias in unfulfilled religous prophesies

Answered

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the false prophets page, no one is making the claim a few misses can be allowed but still the blanket deletions of anything but Christian prophesies continues.

Unfulfilled religious predictions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The same anti-Christian bias has been pointed out by others in the discussion page for unfulfilled prophesy as exists in flase prophets. Will the response to this request also be to remove the page? The excuse for deleting joe smith jr here was since he did not live long enough to see his prophesy it should not be held against him??? No one forced him to predict so far in the future. It did not come true, the deletion should be reverted. Allowing this type of bullying is not right. These 3 people can not be the only editors on WIKI. What kind of dispute resolution allows the same people who are blanket deleting to run the "resolution" I want to see some neutral, or at least new, mediators. As usual there is no discussion to my contribution and now I can expect the usual NPOV and improper reference excuses AFTER THE FACT. This bias is evident to all and does not put wiki in a good light. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What do wiki help pages have to do with an obvious anti-Christian bias? It is not like Joe Smithh Jr only missed a few: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/falseprophecies.htm Shouldn't wiki represent a balanced presentation?

65.60.137.141 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

• Comment: Many articles that document a POV can do it in a balanced way- I happen to look up "right to life" and "pro choice". This list however, is essentially a list of evidence that supports a given POV. Personally, I have nothing against the "adversarial system"- various parties become unconditional advocates for a POV and do their best to ( rationally ) support it as you may see in a legal trial- research groups and scholars can do the same. For wiki, with an interest in making unbiased articles, I'm not sure you can obtain "balance" even with an opposing page or "prophecies that came true." The topic is in essence loaded with no interest in obtaining balance with in the article. While there is no inherent reason for an author to add personal opinion ( inflict bias or original research upon it), the topic is inherently in support of a POV. If you had a list of "patriotic women who had abortions" or " women who ordered the execution of defensless babies out of convenience and lifestyle choices " or "counter examples to theories I don't like" etc it doesn't seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Thoughts? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute over mention of brief character appearances in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm a regular contributor to the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen article, and am currently holding a long-running dispute over the inclusion of some brief appearances of characters in the movie. The first one is the decapitated head of a character from the previous movie in the series. The second, the appearance of a vehicle that (although not certainly the same character), served as a character's alt mode in the first movie. The relevance of this information comes from the nature of the films' universe, in which even after being suggested dead, characters are bound to be reintroduced as having been 'repaired', had their outcome been sufficiently unclear. Taking this into account, the provided information intends to aid in the reader's ability to determine the aforementioned characters' fate. The discussion on the matter, in which other regular contributors are participating, can be seen here. --uKER (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Colslee/once:radix

Hi! I have been working on getting this page right. Originally it was written as once:technologies but there were issues with that. I believe that I have overcome the main objections and hope to get it moving forward.

Could you take a look at the page and let me know if there are any problems.

Also, I am unable to upload a copy of the logo and screen shot to complete the page. I believe there is a block that needs to be cleared. How do I go about doing that.

This is my first attempt at creating an entry. I realise there will be issues but hopefully it will be better than my first attempt.

Many thanks. Colslee (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You have some references, but not many. There are many unreferenced statements. Software articles usually have sections on their reception. It reads a little like a publicity blurb. Have you any connection with the product or the company? You can't upload pictures or move the article into main space yet as you are a new editor. You shouldn't have a download link in the ELs. The citation format is a little unusual, check out WP:Citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dail Mail

I have a serious issue with the management of this page. Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The creator is censoring it. He consistently deletes, or changes, any source-able facts that he feels paints the title in a bad light.

This includes him deleting a "critism" section, completely, in which every point in it had a link to the fact the paper had been fined by the Press Complaints Commision over said point.

He frequently threatens people who edit it. Threatening to report them for vandalisation. Even if what they are posting is completely sourceable and accurate.

I believe that Wikipedia is a source of fact and knowledge. Not a political, economic tool for big newspapers. The creator of the page censoring anything negative about the newspaper, and threatening users, is completely against the principles of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So - can you produce any evidence of reliably sourced material being removed by another editor. All I see on a brief glance is undourced POV posts being reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT the creator of the page and as Jezhotwells rightly says all I have done is removed unsourced POV, I have not been removing sourced material. These accusations are false. The warnings I sent for vandalism were NOT sourced comments they are unsourced POV. I think the accusers need to check their facts before accusing me with no evidence. I also did NOT delete any 'criticisms' section as there wasn't one published. My edit record shows no proof of this accusation. Christian1985 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually what was removed had a approximately ten if not eleven references. So this was definitely not POV. So, it does pose an ethical problem to have the same people removing information that is validated by valid sources. In fact, other people added as I recall and I do not see their postings as well. I think the problem is that there is a huge political angle to this holiday that is repressed on the Wiki and all people want to do is to demonstrate this polemic. I think it is fair that the counter arguments, if you will, remain. For instance "Once made a statutory holiday, June 24 officially became a holiday for all Québécois rather than only those of French-Canadian or Catholic origins." is not sourced and anyone will tell you that this statement is flatly untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn incorrectly reverted my edits

Answered

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to communicate directly with Alansohn, who reverted my edits to the article on the movie "Frida." However, I don't see how to add a comment to his talk page. When I edited the page, I corrected several factual errors and clarified several confusing points, in addition to correcting some grammatical errors. Pablito (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Papipaul

• His talk page is here, and you can add a comment by clicking "edit" at the top of the page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Darwin at "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've never done this before and hope I'm doing it right.

Regarding the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

The article rightfully criticizes the movie for partially quoting Darwin. However, Wikipedia also only partially quoted the passage, so I completed it. Dave Souza and Shoemaker's Holiday believe the Wiki article should cut off the last part of Darwin's paragraph. This last part is very pertinent to the argument, and its suppression distorts Darwin's thought.

I have linked to the article above; here is the link to the talk page. It's the seventh subject, eugenics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Thank you for your help. Yopienso (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Request: With the guy complaining about the Brazil Wax article, it was pretty easy to fill in the gaps. In this case, there is so much text and archived material would you mind actually quoting the quote central to your immediate complaint? It is rare to see the full title of Darwin's seminal book quoted any more so I have to confess a bit of interest here. There is a lot of selective disclosure in these debates and anything explicit may help. Apparently there has been a lot of discussion already, what caused this text to be more of an issue than anything else? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Happily. This is the text as it stands in the article:

   "In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:[30]

{{quotation|

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Stein stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the very next sentences in the book state:[30][75]

{{quotation|

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[75][76]

After "...with an overwhelming present evil," I want to include, "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." In the original text, according to Cambridge's online version, that is the final sentence of the paragraph. You have to scroll down. It would be easier to go to the article itself and then to the History and Discussion pages. Or so I would think. Again, thank you for working on this. I do want Wikipedia to be trustworthy. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor wants to quote new sections of the book that no reliable source mentions in the context of the debate, makign this a request that his or her original research be forced upon the article, no source necessary. We have tried to explain original research to them, they refuse to listen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming I'm "the editor," all I want to do is finish Darwin's paragraph. Originally I explained he was headed toward eugenics--just as the movie claims--but I'm willing to drop that. There is an unfactual paragraph in the article immediately following the quote that claims he wasn't. As long as the actual quote is in the article, I think it's fair enough to let the readers decided what he said and what he meant; the claim will fall on its face without any comments from me.

This is what D.S. and S.H. have "tried to explain" to me.

"I've removed it from the article as synthesis, drawing a novel conclusion unsupported by a secondary source. To clarify things I've also shown the SciAmn source for the selection as well as the link to Darwin's original writings. There's a case that can be made that what Darwin was advocating is the same as Dor Yeshorim, where there's some argument as to whether that can legitimately be called liberal eugenics. However, NOR policy means that we need a source for that case directly relating it to the article subject, and I've not seen one. . . dave souza, talk 08:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

"As Darwin said, "this is more to be hoped for than expected". He was opposed to coercion, and did not see a clear way to achieve the aim. However, Dor Yeshorim gets the weaker couples to voluntarily refrain from marrying and reproducing. We've used the selection that SciAm chose, if you think that's dishonest then find a reliable source making the selection you think is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

(I never brought up Dor Yeshorim and see no reason to include it.)

"Ahem, Dor Yeshorim is not about perfect Aryans. Which is why we look to reliable secondary sources to avoid the sort of WP:SYN you're committing in your interpretation of a primary source. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

"No reliable source quotes the version you want. I think that's the end of the story. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"

"No source on the film includes the quote you wish to include. That means you're replacing the sourced debate with a synthesised original research commentary of your own creation, intended to attack Darwin. That will never fly here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"

No source on the film includes the quote I wish to include? The Wiki article partially completed a quote the movie misleadingly failed to quote in full. I wish to fully complete it. Why is it "synthesised original research" when I go to a footnote provided in the article, notice that it has been truncated, and include what was deliberately omitted? Why am I not allowed to accurately quote from a first resource but Wiki can quote from a second resource that has left out part of the original? I am adding no commentary, only giving Darwin's own words in context. I have absolutely no reason or intention to attack Darwin. What I see on the part of D.S. and S.H. is a blatant suppression of the truth. I expect better of Wikipedia.

I have omitted here my queries and replies, which I stand by. They are all right there on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed Yopienso (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is Wiki's policy that no primary sources may be quoted? Question: Is Wiki's policy that when a quoted secondary source is found to be incomplete in such a way that it detracts from or distorts the original meaning--exactly what Stein did in the movie--it may not be completed?

If that is the definition of "synthesised original research," I am indeed guilty, and terribly disappointed in Wikipedia. I'm still hoping for a satisfactory resolution with Nerdseeksblonde's help. Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to smear Darwin by quote-mining to make it appear Darwin supports eugenics in a section about that having been done elsewhere in the quote, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis is indeed putting two sources together to present a novel conclusion: the preceding section of our WP:NOR policy is Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which requires that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Primary sources may be used with care, but any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Which is why we rely on the cited secondary source for the interpretation and selection of the relevant section. Unfortunately specialist knowledge is required to fully understand Darwin's nineteenth century writings: the passage concerned is not supporting eugenics, because that subject was not developed or named until after Darwin's death. It describes the same kind of voluntary process as is nowadays used by Dor Yeshorim, and that organisation appears to reject the description "eugenics", probably because the meaning of the term was tainted and changed by misuse in Germany during WW2. Thus, you might feel that the additional text shows a "slippery slope", but the historians I've read don't share your interpretation. It's easy to be misled by such selections of text, which is why we rely on reliable secondary sources for the selection. The Descent of Man seems to have been moved to its full title of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex before my time: it's a book with two main subjects which overlap to some extent. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• To Summarize  : If I understand this, the whole debate concerns the inclusion of the last sentence(LS) of a paragraph in a piece of quoted text. While it could be construed as changing the apparent thesis of the original author, it is objected to as being OR because the secondary source who quoted the earlier part didn't see fit to include the LS in the quote used to make that author's point. The rest of the comments above seem to be an apology for Darwin, which would certainly be OR/POV and you have to question relevance. I thought this article was about a movie, not a general debate on " resolved, Darwin was a bad man." In any case, and please correct this if wrong, the quote in question would seem to have been lifted from a secondary source ( so you would cite it something as "Darwin Work quoted in POV secondary work") and the wiki author including the ( partial ) quote apparently makes some point about the movie from this quote in a secondary source( which is presumably analyzing the movie ) . I guess I'd have to ask about relevance here- can you provide context. All the other stuff addresses a question like, " Would Darwin prefer ATT over Verizon?" plenty of speculation and it may be best to just site a bunch of secondary sources in one sentence ( " there has been lots of speculation over Darwin's attitude towards cellular carriers, some opinions include[1-n]"). Certainly the focus you have presented is more about reading the mind of Darwin than documenting a movie. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We can cite the views of reputable historians on the mind of Darwin, but the sources used here specifically counter the allegations in the film that Darwin promoted Nazi eugenics. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum : - I am asking for comments above as it isn't even clear if there is a secondary source which quotes the movie's quote of Darwin as I suggested above. I would like to note some concern with this quote however from the other commenter, "Unfortunately specialist knowledge is required to fully understand Darwin's nineteenth century writings: ." While not relevant to the OP's issue, this comment almost amounts to an appeal to authority. It would probably be construed that way if uttered by a religious person explaining that only an expert can interpret the Bible or if you were selling stock in a speculative biotech company and needed to remind people to appeal to experts to interpret scientific literature ( in a field in which wiki seems to advocate citation to specialized primary sources since the above are often similar to infomercials ). If there are details we need to know about please enlighten us or just drop the comment. This whole topic is really too nebulous to even debate ( " it isn't right, it isn't even wrong" as the physicists say LOL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My reference to specialist knowledge is in relation to the requirement of NOR that we look to a secondary source for such specialist knowledge, not an appeal to my own authority: my knowledge is limited, and I have to turn to published sources for such knowledge for inclusion in articles. Hope that clarifies things, if you're interested, there's other wording used by Darwin in the book that can be easily misunderstood by modern readers. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To summarize my stance and request: 1. The movie partially quoted Darwin. 2. Scientific American wrote a critical review of the movie and added to the quote, accusing (rightfully so, as I understand English) him of quote-mining. However, SA did exactly the same thing, cutting off the end of Darwin's statement. 3. Wiki is not allowing me to finish the statement. The statement completes his idea and furnishes the context. The missing statement begins with the word "Hence," thereby not introducing a new idea, but the clinching statement of his paragraph. This statement has much to do with the movie's premise. 4. I believe it is against common sense, and certainly counter to intellectual honesty, to publish here only what a secondary source has edited when the original is readily available. 5. Most adamantly, I am NOT making "...analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source" within the text of the article. I am only including the sentence that has been eliminated from Darwin's own words. (I did at first insert that into the article, but Dave quickly and appropriately moved my comment to the Discussion page, where it is certainly allowable.) 6. A refusal on the part of Wiki to disallow this one sentence, "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage," could only come from the stance of presenting what the editorial staff wishes Darwin had said instead of what he truly wrote. I am being falsely accused of "attacking" and "smearing" him, when the truth is that S.H. wants him to be misrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops--sorry--forgot to sign. One more point here: I am being accused of "quote-mining," yet they are the ones who want to omit/suppress part of the quote, while I'm the one who wants to furnish the context of the quote. Doesn't that sound backwards?Yopienso (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Revised Summary : So the quote from the movie was a central part of a SciAm critique of the movie. Part of describing the movie and the notable controversy surrounding the movie involves a comparison between how it depicted a historical figure, in this case Darwin, and what other sources claim him to "really have been like." And, of course, all the claims in dispute are rather subjective and inherently untestable- patriot, good person, racist, homophobe, good father, etc. Certainly the OR part would involve how the last sentence(LS) was introduced and if there are any sources that mention the LS. The best thing to do would be to find sources that mention the LS while describing Darwin's portrayal in the movie. If there is success here, and you start to encounter appeals to authority ( " only an expert knows how to interpret the Bible or Darwin's words") then the issue becomes bias ( "clearly the source that says Darwin was a nice guy must be right") disguised as RS issues, it still doesn't seem hard to include the source in passing along with the LS but you would then argue over how much weight to attribute to the source's comments. Alternatively, if you can find the full paragraph quoted in another work about Darwin, you may be able to say, " other analyses of this controversy[] have included the LS." If it is even relevant enough to include the quote from SciAm, certainly at a minimum I would include " the complete text of the disputed passage is from [Darwin's orig work]" but even here sometimes the primary source people get upset. Secondary sources are thought reliable by their correspondence to primary sources and on a specific basis, opinion pieces in SciAm, or the New York Times or even Nature may not be considered reliable and indeed would lack the "professionalism" normally associated with the journal unless they were peer reviewed etc. Was the SciAm work a full article or a shorter opinion piece? You don't need to decide if Darwin was good or evil, just document that there is debate about his beliefs if that is even relvant to the movie or its notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While I try to be helpful, it's hard when postings become this long and involved. As the advice at the top of this page says, can you make this a little more concise and state exactly the assistance that you are seeking? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now what?

Nerdseeksblonde: I have no need or reason or intention of debating whether Darwin was good or evil, I just want his complete paragraph included because its omission distorts the context.

Ukexpat: You can see the first concise post I made above. Nerd requested amplification. Once again, I am requesting to complete Darwin's own paragraph without any synthesis, interpretation, or comment. I cannot see why the fact that an omission from Darwin's original text in a denigrating article byScientific American means the original text cannot be quoted. If that is the case, I will appeal to the next step up the Wiki hierarchy. Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Summary 2: : The specific issue is inclusion of the last sentence(LS) of a paragraph authored by Darwin as some of it was cited in the movie and then more of it in a SciAm citation. I would question relevance of any of this except to the extent it discusses the notability of the movie and the issues it raises. LS is objected to as being OR since it seems to be new evidence to support a POV ( like in the "failed religious prophecies" page discussed earlier where everything is new evidence to support a POV). I was trying to suggest that this topic tries to resolve an ill-posed question about Darwin which may or may not relate to the movie. Since this seems like a non-scientific issue, I questioned if the SciAm source was reliable for the claim- was this an opinion piece or clearly contrary to fact? At least one poster suggested this is too complicated to understand and I suggested we stick to facts, not appeal to authority( the wiki article shouldn't say " the leading authority on Darwin who everyone knows is right because of his good works and publication list, says blah blah blah"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

<ec> The issue is that in commenting specifically on a film alleging that Darwin was a bad man, two reliable sources described the partial quote given in the film as misrepresenting Darwin's intent, and cited further sentences of Darwin's text to convey that point. Yopienso wants to extend the quote further, having originally stated that "Yet, oddly enough, this article does not complete Darwin's original paragraph, footnoted above, which certainly does suggest practicing a mild form of eugenics." I've tried to convey that this is misleading and complex, that it's a question of interpretation which should be resolved by a reliable secondary source for the intent of the primary source. NOR states that "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." It's accurate to state that there are more sentences in Darwin's discussion of the issue, the question is of which sentences to cite to properly represent his views. We've cited secondary sources for the current extent of the quotation, if we go further without a secondary source related to the film, then we would also appropriately add Darwin's summary that "Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known." We can refer to established historians who are biographers of Darwin for the relevance of that quote, but they're not talking about the film. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

Thank you. The Scientific American article is a hostile review of the movie entitled "Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin." The opening line is, "One of the many egregious moments in the new Ben Stein anti-evolution film "Expelled" is the truncation of a quote from Charles Darwin so that it makes him appear to give philosophical ammunition to the Nazis." The movie quoted Darwin from pp. 168-169 of The Descent of Man. SA made the quote more complete, and I wish to include the last sentence of the second paragraph of the passage in question. Yopienso (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification of your objection. The film is a propaganda movie promoting intelligent design pseudoscience, and we have to avoid giving equal validity to the arguments promoting that pseudoscientific view: Scientific American well represents the majority view, which has to be given due prominence as required by WP:PSCI. We've described the creationist quote mining and the mainstream response, you seem to want to extend the quote to counter the mainstream view by implying an argument not made by any secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I knew Darwin would have picked ATT over VZW  : LOL, ok we all have our opinions. But, if in fact the SciAm article is a movie review, irrespective of what you may think of the content, does it carry the reliability of a SciAm article or is it closer to a letter to the editor ? I've written comment letters to various federal agencies, are those backed by the full faith and credit of people who aren't seeking blondes? You can't just cite an unreliable source, use the name of the wrapper to inherit reliability, and then claim it must be reliable because I KNOW EVERYONE THINKS THE VIEW IS RIGHT ( no reliable sources to follow, or is it common knowledge? ). In short, the quote from SciAm then becomse suspect as a movie review, not a reviewed article. How's that? If that is the only source for the expanded quote, it seems the whole thing goes other than, " isolated opinions have sought to clarify the opinions expressed in this movie[]". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education page covers the same issue, and similarly omits the sentence being discussed, so we've two reliable sources presenting the mainstream view about this specific aspect of the film. Movie reviews are covered in other sections. There's been some useful discussion on this on my talk page and on User talk:Yopienso, so I'm hopeful that this is getting resolved. While other secondary sources give Darwin's views on this issue, they're not specifically related to this film. . dave souza, talk 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Movie Review as RS : Originally, you claimed a "SciAm" source and now claim a movie review is a reliable source about Darwin's attitudes. What about an editorial in Psychology Today? Would that help? I'm not familiar with the NCSE but it sounds like an advocacy group, certainly if they have a view on the movie it may contribute to notability as would comments from well known Creationists, or other established organizations, that make statements based accurately on primary sources. In this case, the reliability of the secondary source would seem to relate to how well it represents the primary sources. At issue here is a single factual matter- does the LS exist and could it be reasonably related to the prior few sentences in the same paragraph. I would think that if you can find a Creation site that makes this point, what grounds would you have for determining their opinion to be less credible than the NCSE on this issue, given that you consider a movie review to be a reliable source about Darwin's mental state? If this debate, trying to read Darwin's mind , is somehow central to the movie it still just needs to be documented, not resolved and a list of citations that discuss the topic further, even if not in the context of the movie, would seem worth mentioning at least in passing. Also note that this is not about evolution versus creation, this seems to relate to a debate about Darwin- would he have supported eugenics, trans fats for minors, or inter-racial sex? Personally, I'm always concerned when there are efforts to repaint historical figures into today's perceptions of goodness, especially after just celebrating the genocide of the American Indian. If you believe in scholarship and science, you probably believe that deception does not contribute to human advancement and cultivating an honest explicit and stark attitude towards all aspects of Nature is quite difficult. I would just be careful not to romanticize historical figures. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this up another level, then.

• As regarding this Wiki article and my request, the character, opinions, or mental state of Darwin when he wrote The Descent of Man have absolutely no bearing or relevance and I have not once introduced them. All I care about is what he actually wrote. Furthermore, I do not attribute those ideas to present-day evolutionists, nor speculate on whether Darwin would believe differently were he alive today. One beautiful thing about science is that it, well, evolves, if I may, as new discoveries are made and insights gained.

• "The film is a propaganda movie promoting intelligent design pseudoscience,..."

It is undeniably a propaganda movie. What is promotes, however, in not intelligent design pseudoscience, but the idea that those who promote or even suggest there might be some credibility in intelligent design pseudoscience are ridiculed, discounted, harassed, or removed from their professional positions. I believe this is true, though it's not worth it to me to argue the point. Anybody who wants to pursue the truth may read a letter to Richard Sternberg from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel which declares, "...our preliminary investigation supports your complaint....Nevertheless, the current investigative file reflects support for your allegations....Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI." Etc. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488

But I'm not introducing this issue into the Wiki article about the movie since I now understand, as Dave puts it so forthrightly, only mainstream thinking is allowed. It is not worth my time and trouble, nor yours, to open debate on a propaganda piece--the Wiki article--about a propaganda piece--the movie.

• Background: I watched this movie with my husband three nights ago, and as is my habit after watching almost any movie, came to Wiki for its take on it. (Sometimes we agree, sometimes disagree; I usually pick up some interesting trivia. In my other life, I do trivia.  :) Maybe that's what I'm doing now...) Initially I believed Wiki's account, and informed my husband of the movie's errors and deceptions. Further investigation proved that although the movie does indeed contain errors and the producer deceived several prominent scientists about its title and its premise, Wiki's report is not altogether true and honest, either. It's the typical clash between creationists and evolutionists that I find so unworthy of both sides. Creationists don't grasp the fact that a belief, however pervasive and however long entrenched in the popular psyche, is not empirical science.

Disappointingly, evolutionists fall into the same trap: their personal worldviews and philosophies of life are not empirical science merely because they are believed by empirical scientists. This doesn't discount the volumes of solid science evolutionists process. Their beliefs, however, particularly in presentations for the layman, frequently find a voice. I refer to TV series and books by Asimov, Sagan, Attenborough, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, as well an, notoriously, National Geographic and even Scientific American. (Their review of Expelled... does bear their cachet.) And all this runs together to form the "mainstream." Again, just because philosophical views are widely held by the intelligentsia and their followers doesn't make them true. I'm not saying they're false, just that they're not science.

So, the next step is for me to figure out how to appeal to the next level of Wiki hierarchy. Thanks to all for your input. My respectful disagreement on the issue diminishes in nothing my regard for you as individuals. 209.161.180.190 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird--I did sign that post with the four tildes. I'll try again--could be because I included a URL. I was required to type in some words to make sure I wasn't an automatic spammer. 209.161.180.190 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, rats--I opened Wiki in another window and that signed me out.  :( Yopienso (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To Conclude: If you care about provoking the Nazi issue, then it seems you would look at quotes or things they did- they they cite the part the movie did, irrespective of it accurately reflecting the politically correct Darwin? The only reason for caring what Darwin said is to substantiate some claim about him which may have little to do with the movie or what the Nazi's perceived or desired to promote. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Need a technical review

List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article needs a technical review. The ranking of this page has several problems and doesn't make sense. It was built with possible bias, and with serious methodological erros. I already had discussions with some users on the talkpage, but some users are retired or were blocked to editing on Wikipedia. I also posted some sources to support my view. How do I get an expert review of this article? Thank you very much.--Italodal (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT, assuming good faith is a fundamental principle in Wikipedia, otherwise you have reverted the article too many times because your arguments, also the article has been protected it two times or moved because of it and you have received some warnings because your behavior [1],[2],[3]. Users have explained you in differents ways about this technical review and everything is right. --Prodigynet (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All users, or all of yours accounts? Prodigynet, TownDown, Jesusmariajalisco maybe be all the same user. Or all friends. All of you are mexicans and made changes almost in the same time! Anyway I think the best way to solve this is ask to editors a technical assistance to evaluate the article. I didn't have bad behavior, not disrespect anyone or threatened to block anyone. I think that article is simply supported by personal opinion and bias without any source. I posted the source speaking why we can't compare the provinces between countries.--Italodal (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"All of you are mexicans"? That's a personal attack, something we do not permit around here. Criticize the edits, not the editor(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Trouble with "expert review" is, Wikipedia is anti-expert. In other words, your credentials are irrelevant to Wikipedia.

  The theory is—you can decide for yourself whether you agree with this—the theory is that all editors need to do is quote sources. In other words, if there's a source that says "Black is white", that can appear in Wikipedia. (This is why we have an article about, say, "Bigfoot". Because what's said here doesn't have to be true, it just has to be sourced.)

  If someone's saying things that are wrong, the best answer is to quote a different source that says why they're wrong. If your source is more reliable than their source, then your source will be given more weight.

  So you can end up with an article that says: "Professor White (1993) said X. Professor Green (1997) disagreed, saying instead Y. Doctor Blue's study (2003) disagreed with both, taking the view that Z."

  So I'm afraid your question has no answer: there is no mechanism for a "technical review by experts".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But note also WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are relevant - we should not give undue weight to minority views. So if there was some support in reliable sources for the position that "black is white" it may be given passing mention in the relevant article as a minority theory. If, however, it was a single whacko blogger positing such a theory, it should not be mentioned at all. – ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I alredy post a source, the same source that the user used to built the article, the source is in Spanish: ¿Se puede comparar el IDHP entre diferentes países?A diferencia del IDH, el IDHP sólo se elaboró para estimar discrepancias regionales en nuestro país. Distintos países han construidos distintas versiones del IDH, adaptándolas a las peculiaridades de los distintos contextos. http://www.undp.org.ar/desarrollohumano/preguntas_frecuentes.html. In English : Can you compare different of IDHP between countries? Unlike the HDI, the IDHP was only developed to estimate regional discrepancies in our country. Different countries have different versions of the HDI constructed, adapted to the peculiarities of different contexts. The article has sources for all the reports and all sources and reports are OK, but we doesn't have ANY source that support that we can built this list between countries. In the opposite, we have a source that says we CAN'T make a list to compare differets countries. Further explanations you can find in the article talk page.--Italodal (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I'm bilingual and would like to offer my own translation of the Spanish text above.

"Can the Provincial Human Development Index (PHDI) be compared between countries? Unlike the Human Development Index (HDI), the PHDI was created only to estimate regional discrepancies within our country. Different countries have created different versions of the HDI, adapting them to the peculiarities of the various contexts." Yopienso (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank`s for your help Yopienso. So if we have a source against this list, we should remove the data? All the countries reports are OK, but it`s wrong to make a list with differents methodological reports as the source above says. The editors should give a help.--Italodal (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sixtoo biography does not cite references

Resolved

 – For now. Although, if citations are not forthcoming, the info should be removed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sixtoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the biography on living DJ Sixtoo does not cite any references for the content contained. was wondering if it were possible to obtain / request this from the original author, or delete page altogether seeing as it does not adhere to the guidelines for articles on living persons. Joejacksonsalute (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)joejacksonsalute

I have tagged it for references. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance on disputed positioning of material

The dispute concerns the Wikipedia entry about me, Peter Hitchens. I make no secret of the fact that I edit this site (though I did not originate it, and try to limit my interventions to correcting factual errors or inserting missing facts). For some years the introductory paragraph mentioned that I had worked for many years for 'The Daily Express'. Earlier this year, I removed this from the introductory paragraph(for reasons I explained on the Talk page). The fact is clearly stated in the body of the article. It is its prominence, not its presence, that I think misjudged. One editor. Philip Cross, initially objected but then seemed to have accepted my argument. Now another anonymous editor has taken to re-inserting the material. When I removed it and explained why, this anonymous editor simply re-insterted it without comment. I have objected to this on the talk page, amd explained my actions. But he or she persists in doing this. I would prefer to avoid a tedious edit war. Can anyone help? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've watchlisted the page and will keep an eye out for recurrences. Whatever the content should be is a matter to hash out on the talk page as you are trying to do, and the other editor involved appears to be refusing to participate in that discussion, which is not appropriate and represents a potential conduct issue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to S. Marshall. Since I posted this the same anonymous contributor has made several other contentious ( and in my view hostile) additions to the entry, which have been deleted by another editor unknown to me. There is no sign of any attempt to explain this behaviour on the Talk Page. This may betoken more and worse problems to come. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalism/contentious editing persists it will be dealt with accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

History Wars (again)

History wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page on history wars had a lengthy debate (about 450K) about the genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines. This debate was never settled, but an editor took the step of archiving the discussion. I requested that at least the last 200K of the discussion (from june 09) be kept for future reference. I am hoping someone could please help put that page right once and for all. It is not acceptable to have fringe historical positions like that of Keith Windschuttle be presented without counterweight, as is happening there.Likebox (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that the current version of the article is OK. I would like assistence here to make sure that the talk page is not archived.Likebox (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you have been politely informed of how to go about linking to archive sections, etc. So there really isn't a problem is there? Archiving is neccessary to keep talk pages manageable. You could add a search box to the archives if you wanted. See Template:Archive box. There is little point in maintaining length discussions on talk pages as it deters editors from adding new points or contributing to existing discussion. See WP:TLDR. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a clear issue of undue weight--- the opinions of certain Australian figures are given much more weight than their minority status in the literature deserves. The problem was never fixed, and the debate was longwinded. It seems silly to keep repeating it, since the positions are always the same.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, as discussed above, link to the archived debates. That's really easy. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Green Festival Article The_green_festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Festival. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Green Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi,

I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki, and need some help. I posted an article on the Green Festival and it is flagged for deletion as non-significant event. I was going to add pictures, links to acts performing such as Lennie Gallant, etc. But there is no point if the article is going to be deleted.

If there is a space issue on Wiki, or if there is a problem with the content, then I would agree. As neither applies then I do not understand why a significant event such as this, promoting such good principles, would want to be deleted.

Other events in the local area are listed, and have been for some time, that were established in the same way. As the names 'grow' that perform at the festival, the links will also grow and we would look to do our best in keeping the details factual and linked.

As I am unskilled in Wiki then I need help to apply the correct process to resolve this.

Thanks,

67.201.144.51 (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You were not logged in when you posted your message but I assume you are User:Pgajames and the article is Green Festival? The article has a couple of major problems. First it reads like an advertisement for the event and that runs afoul of our prohibition on promotional material; second, it has few references to support the notability of the subject (and the ones it has appear to be general and not in-line with the text, see WP:CITE) - notability is our key inclusion criterion and if an article cannot demonstrate the subject's notability, it will be deleted. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment : I would point out that some members or some catagories, like radio stations, are presumed notable even if unknown outside of their immediate area. Also, a fact based resource like an encyclopedia tries to remain free of advocacy no matter how appealing the current crusade may seem. I'm not making any comment on your "principles" but it is a constant temptation to moralize and promote in this forum but the objective is to document, as if describing a crime scene or autopsy. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added one cite and moved the website link to ELs as a start for the article creator, who I note has a WP:COI as one of the event's directors [4]. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Advised to post here:

Keith Henson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Jehochman suggested that I post here about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Henson He says I should ask for "an uninvolved editor to make these edits." (Nothing controversial, just requested cites.) There is some new stuff as well http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485 if anyone wants to add it.

I won't post my email address, but it has been here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hkhenson for years if anyone needs it. Keith Henson (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, please clarify exactly what it is that you want doing? You posted a link to the talk page. Please just specify the cites which need looking at. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's explained there, but I'm on it. I'm not entirely sure that I'm "uninvolved," for I knew Henson in the L-5 Society days, but I'm not pushing anything, just adding sources that are reasonable for information that should be noncontroversial. Note that there were some concerns about BLP requiring strong sources, but I'll confirm that User:Hkhenson is the subject of the article, I've independently verified this, and certainly he consents to the use of the sources he provided, which are reasonably strong so far as I've checked, some quite strong and usable even if he were to object! --Abd (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

my articles....

Hello. My name is Arkon Basse. I was assigned to create an article for my employers , clyde vanbarrel and kyle vanbarrel, but the articles were added to the speedy deletion log, which i do not understand. There can be no logical explanation for deleting these articles other than sheer descrimination and unfair judgement on your part. I would like to recreate them, and for them to remain there. can you point out to me what exactly is wrong with these articles so that I can make whatever changes are necessary. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkonian (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Clyde vanbarrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyle VanBarrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. My name is Arkon Basse. I am creating 2 separate articles for my employers, clyde vanbarrel and kyle vanbarrel, which you keep adding to your speedy deletion log. I cannot understand why, and would like to know what irequired of me for my articles to remain in the wikipedia system.

Thank you.

Arkon Basse

OK. This is an encyclopaedia - not a directory. It appears that you have a conflict of interest with respect to your subjects. Encyclopaedia articles have to have a neutal point of view, avoid a promotional point of view and demonstrate the subjects notability. It would appear that your articles fail these criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: if you look at the top of the Clyde vanbarrel article you'll see that some helpful editor has already pointed out the key issues:

1. The article doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline. Has your employer done anything meaningful/interesting/controverial apart from just making money and hiring you?
2. If so, can you find reliable sources to say so? Typically these would be news reports or analyses by significant publishers. Fyi, none of the sites returned by a Google search for "Clyde Van Barrel" is notable.
3. Once you have the first two points covered, you have to overcome the conflict of interest between your natural desire to please your employer and Wikipedia's need to ensure a neutral point of view. This won't be a problem if you can find a source for everything you say, because other editors can then check your sources. But bear in mind that once an individual has a page on Wikipedia it can include negative as well as positive coverage. For example, the first search I did was "Clyde Van Barrel" fraud to see whether anything came up (it didn't). You have to accept that you won't own the article and that other editors can change it at any time (an "editor" is anyone in the world with an Internet connection). Is your employer happy with that?

I hope this helps. In general, I'd recommend trying to contribute to articles where you have no bias for a few weeks before starting to create new articles where you might have a conflict of interest. This should help develop your instinct for what works best, and would probably save time and frustration in the long term. - Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• When Worlds Collide - LOL, you see a lot of these that basically are taken as, " I'm trying do the opposite of all your objectives, what is wrong and who do I sue?" Generally the Wiki reader is trying to learn something- if you do have a successful unique business model that was formed by your employer, highlight the business model along with various weaknesses and problems. Write something that would save you time if you were doing due diligence on yourself- you certainly wouldn't want to read puffery and you would want to know about substantial weaknesses or failures relevant to your employer. This also serves to deflate detractors if there are any. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO Nerdseeksblonde is right, Arkonian: this is a common situation and you'd do best to start from a neutral mind-set. Sometimes it is difficult for an employer to understand this, but posting on Wikipedia is nothing like a normal press release or blog, because anything you write will be scrutinised by hundreds or thousands of experienced Wikipedia contributors and you would have to stay awake 24x7 to prevent unfavorable changes. - Pointillist (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My page was deleted/replaced/hijacked by another user

Warrant (of Payment) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I created a new page called "Warrant (of Payment)" and another editor deleted my page then created a page with the same name and included my content. As a result of this he is the original author and my original creation of the page has been deleted and does not appear in the page history.

I have three questions:

(1) how can I get access to my original page, the one he deleted?

(2) how can I see a log of his deletion, ie, when and who deleted it?

(3) how can I get my original authorship of the page restored?

Thanks for any assistance, user name: John Chamberlain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.11.158 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put a convenience link above. Click on the history and you will see what has happened, every edit. If you click on the date of any edit you will see the page as it was, if you click on the radio buttons in two different edits you will see what the changes are. You can use the article talk page to discuss with the other editor(s). And don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like the other editor has communicated on your talk page and is expanding by adding details of Us practice which is different to that in the UK. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On authorship, you are there as the original creator. That doesn't give you any special rights. Perhaps you have seen the notice that appears below the edit box: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. That's what it says on the box! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've looked over the history, and no significant part of the original content has ever been deleted since the last edit by User:John Chamberlain, which I assume from the signature above is the same user that made the original request here. John, you are in the history as the creator of the article here. This is how Wikipedia works. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is my mistake, sorry about that. I was looking at the discussion history, not the page history. My mistake. I wanted to make sure I was the original editor for two reasons: personal credit, and establishing the article as an American article. If there is a language dispute over use of American/British English then the deciding factor is the original authorship of the article.

My first two questions still remain unanswered, by the way. How can I view a deleted page or see a log of deleted pages? One of the reasons I ask this is because sometimes if there is a page similar to another one an editor will make a redirect and then delete the smaller article. How do you see the article they deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.11.158 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that admins can see deleted pages. Only admins can delete pages, more information here. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

However, a redirect is simply a tag in the article itself, not something special. If (again) the "deletion" was simply an editorial process (edit the article, highlight the content, press the delete key, type the tag for redirect) rather than the administrative "delete" function, the previous content is still visible in the history of the redirect page. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Only admins can delete pages and only admins can see deleted edits and deleted pages. See more at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? On contributions pages, admins also have a link to show deleted contributions by that user. I'm an admin and the only edit by User:John Chamberlain to a deleted page is File:Alfred Otto Carl Nier.png. As DMacks says, replacing an article with a redirect doesn't delete the article from the page history. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Navigating redirects for how to access the page where you can click history to find the former content. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Palin notable in Letterman articles?

Answered

 – Extensive discussion on article talk (among other places). Take the conversation there. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for this and if it's not I heartily apologize. I and a few others have been trying to come to some kind of agreement to add reference to the Palin Letterman spat in the Letterman article and/or Late Show with David Letterman article. Others feel that it it is to flavor of the month and tinged with pop culture to be worthy of inclusion. What do you guys think?Datacharge (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to help get consensus on a content issue like that...makes it seem like you're trying to evade the ongoing discussion at Talk:Late Show with David Letterman. WP:Dispute resolution has advice on how to proceed. DMacks (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your views DMacks, but I would like to see what others think who are not already involved in this debate.Datacharge (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to slug it out on the talk page and try to reach consensus. If that doesn't work then don't add it. You could try WP:Mediation cabal if you don't reach agreement, but as has been pointed out above this is not the place for content disputes. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess thats where this is headed. Thanks.Datacharge (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Madame du Barry editing article problem

I am having a problem with editing the name of the personage regarding article Madame_du_Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is about Madame du Barry. I have edited her name from 'Jeanne' to 'Marie-Jeanne/Jeanette', which I know is correct and have found concrete proof of which I included in my references, but someone literally deletes both the full name AND the reference I put, which I find egotistical and unfair! I am continually putting in new information on her since I have many biographies, and am trying to give as much information as I can, but someone seems to keep falsifying it or taking it off! I know I should expect it since it is a voluntarily-based encyclopedia, but why do so if I am giving proof of what I include? It's unreasonable!

How may I tackle this problem WITHOUT having to re-put her name and other info over and over and over again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanblueeyes (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you haven't tried discussing this on the article talk page you should start there, IMHO. Put a polite note on the talk page expressing your concerns and perhaps alert the other editor with a message on their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, this *mini edit war* on Mme du Barry began last June, and Oceanblueeyes & myself have already corresponded on the subject,

On 6 thru 11 June, on Oceanblueeyes talk page & on mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska#Response_on_Madame_du_Barry_editing,

On 6 June, on Mme du Barry talk page at section Treatment of Mme du Barry in article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Treatment_of_Mme_du_Barry_in_article.

On 8 July, the latest duel started again with my removal of non official first names from lead of Mme du Barry's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madame_du_Barry&diff=next&oldid=300805750, which has been going on ever since.

My reason for removing the extra *Marie* and *Jeannette* from Jeanne Bécu's first sentence in the article is that the lead of an article should have only the official first names & surname, not nicknames, reason I gave for change.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madame_du_Barry&diff=301691906&oldid=301681212

On 12 July, as proof that her name is Jeanne Bécu, and not *Marie-Jeanne* or *Jeannette* (if these names were used by others during her lifetime, they should appear later in the text, not in the lead), I gave the best reference that exists, which is translation of her baptism registration. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madame_du_Barry&diff=301712858&oldid=301691906.

On 12 July, I also left comments on Mme du Barry talk page, in section Baptism registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Baptism_registration, explaining why her name should be given in the lead as Jeanne Bécu & not *Marie-Jeanne (or Jeannette)* by giving the best document that be, which is the translated text of her baptism registration.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madame_du_Barry&diff=301712858&oldid=301691906

On 13 July, I also left a comment in new section Sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Sources, questioning if apocryphal texts have the same status as reliable sources.

Please note that all my comments & explanations are unceremoniously being ignored, leaving me no choice but again & again reverting names given in the article lead.

If you do not mind reviewing my work for the past two years, please note that I always leave a reason for the changes I bring to articles. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just did not see a discussion on the article talk page. If you have reached an impasse, go to WP:DR or perhaps try WP:Mediation cabal. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no discussions, but rather monologues, on the article talk page because no one seems to take notice of my comments, including Oceanblueeyes, who can take his/her complaint to WP:DR. I have courteously given him/her all leads to material to read on Mme du Barry, so this individual's claim to having a problem with editing the name of the personage regarding article is ridiculous. Right now, I have more important things to do than get trapped in this person's childish games and idée fixe. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, the edit of July 12th by Frania there was NO reference listed for Marie-Jeanne. Whereas Frania added a reference;

Translation of Jeanne Bécu's baptism registration: Jeanne Bécu, natural daughter of Anne Bécu, surnamed Quantigny, was born on the nineteenth of August, seventeen-hundred-and-forty-three, and was baptised the same day, having for godfather Joseph Demange and for godmother Jeanne Birabin, who have signed with us. (signed by) L. Gahon, curate of Vaucouleurs. Joseph Demange, Jeanne Birabin., in A King's favourite, Madame du Barry, and her times from hitherto unpublished documents by Claude Saint-André with an introduction by Pierre de Nolhac and 17 illustrations, New York, Mc Bride, Nast & Company, 1915, p. 3 (a translation from the French publication by Tallandier, Paris, 1909.)

The Rv by Oceanblueeyes, results in this;

Marie-Jeanne (or Jeanette)

with these "references", The name Marie is found included on the entry found in the back-cover to Memoirs of the Comtesse du Barry... by Baron Etienne Leon Lamother-Langon. The slight change of Jeanette is found on pg. 1 in the Memoirs of the Comtesse du Barry... by Baron Etienne Leon Lamother-Langon.

Of which reside with one reference that apparently uses Marie once.

All else fails, the referencing of a primary source of Madame du Barry's baptismal wins out. It would be prudent for Oceanblueeyes to check in Memoirs of the Comtesse du Barry for primary sources that could back the claim of Marie-Jeanne. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noted a lot of people who just go around deleting things for whatever reason, sometimes valid sometimes not. Often, they don't know the material and can't pick among the references to check it or won't look for a few sentences and assume it is not sourced. Common knowledge also varies by level knowledge of topic. Sometimes, you get people with the opposite attitude and know the material and delete the obvious or irrelevant. Personally, it seems a better strategy, rather than just deleting out of ignorance if you are too lazy to try to find a source, is just put the material into comments and then discuss it on the talk page. Unless the material is patently frivolous or the deletor knows the material and has positive knowledge the contribution is wrong or improperly stated, I am not sure why people delete some things. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

I had contacted Ms. Frania Wisniewska directly and thought matters between us had taken a positive turn, but apparently now just because I include as much information on the personage as I can, WITH PROOF of being correct, seems to be a childish game. This seems no longer an encyclopedia for users to give as much information on the subject, but this particular article has become somewhat of a silly competition which I no longer care for. You want it to be Jeanne, then keep it that way. I just wished to show the world she had more to her name than just 'Jeanne'- with factual proof may I include once again, although that was the most commonly used. I too have her baptismal scripture in biographies, I even own a book of the whole court case she went through up 'till her way to the guillotine- so one definately cannot say I have insuffiecient, false or restricted knowledge of her. Many sentences I included had citations included: I fulfilled the reference to each one from material which I have and not material given to me by anybody else, so none of what I included, as was referred to initially, is wrong and false! I just know what I know and believe it to be right, not because I just decided to do so or hard-headedly, but because the material I have, which I believe is just as good as anyone else's, proves so. I only wanted it to be a pleasure to read by giving it a personal, factual and unbiased touch for readers to enjoy and understand...but whatever happens to the article is no longer a concern of mine. You may change whatever information you like, but I'll keep what I know to myself- not out of spite- but for not being understood. Good luck to whomsoever wants more info on this subject! Oceanblueeyes

Reversion - Editing Questions - Year One (Film)

As part of WP:Cleanup_volunteers, I edited the Year_One_(film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Box Office section by replacing opening weekend results with up to date box office info. However, an anonymous ip reverted those changes without citing an active and credible reference. The reference previously cited for the opening weekend results points to a page with this weekends statistics and, thus, is unable to validate this films original week one ranking.

Two questions:

If an anonymous ip address makes the changes, do I use the talk page to ask for claification and wait for a reply?

Since the ref is unable to validate the claim, should I find a good ref to validate it, or leave it on the talk page and let those interested in the article determine its fate?

I have left a message on the articles talk page, however, I am interested in the views of a seasoned editor.Bobinit (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would have reverted using Twinkle or similar to place a warning about unsourced edits and lack of editing summary on the IP talk page. I took it upon myself to revert and place a note/warning on the iP talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jez, Thanks for taking the time to provide me with feedback on the Year One (film) reversions...and also for taking action on that article. I now understand what you did and how you did it, but am not terribly comfortable taking such proactive measures against other editors at this point. I am sure my confidence will build after being in the trenches for a while. Thanks again!Bobinit (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007–2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Farcaster has created a several articles off of the Subprime mortgage crisis main article. I've found multiple errors involving neutrality, tone (ambiguity in the leads) and original research and tagged both of these articles, with detailed comments on the talk page. He's removed one tag, claiming mediocre edits as resolving major problems.

As an example, he's using a excerpts of a Bush speech to explain the causes of the subprime crisis. Edits that are POV and ridiculously void of factual content. How do I deal with something this large if the guy is unwilling to cooperate? Scribner (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, see my comments on Angelo talk page... Politicians say all kinds of things, normally it would seem reasonable, " analyses differ. W charactersied causes as follow, ' ...".

Rationalized cause and effect seems like a natural in this area but you see it in biotech too which is why they develop drugs to treat irrelevant symptons and then never get FDA approval etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Does anyone have any meaningful advice in this case? Scribner (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at the talk page and see if there are objections beyond quoting W but I would suggest adding descriptions of additional POV's if you believe he has picked one to promote. I'm probably not going to have much to offer here since the "mainstream" theories are all (IMO) frivolous rationalizations to support desired outcomes ( try toning that down for an encyclopedia LOL). I could probably help find sources but I think the most I can add is to strongly suggest keeping the relevant pages and contributions. As I pointed out before, the reason you have a "crisis" is to correct an unjust credit euphoria of the past- inefficient markets come from ignorance and I would attribute this to the obvious ( no OR) result of statements in primary sources. In short, I will recuse myself on this since there are no secondary sources I consider to be worth citing... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

National Holiday (Quebec) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a question regarding censoreship on Wikipedia. There is a section on the St Jean festival in Quebec which is HIGHLY contentious. I have added to it citing facts, with references. There is a mafia on here that is taking off my postings constantly. Can something be done about this? I think in the case where there is disagreement, it is enough that this is placed in a section (where it is currently) about contentious issues. I have reposted and hope it does not get wiped off again, but there is a clear agenda to protect certain "bleached" histories that do not at all reflect the facts.

Thanks Disfasia (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) disfasia

• above query moved from WT:EAR to WP:EAR by Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that some of your citations were to blogs and one to Wikipedia itself. Please read up on reliable sources. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Assistants, please see this archived thread for more background and info. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you have not yet attempted to use the article talk page to sort any of this out. Might I suggest attempting to open a dialogue there with other involved editors? Post your questions / concerns in a neutral manner, and begin talking with other editors about it. If you do so, please remember to assume the best intentions of the editors involved. We all have the same goal, a quality encyclopedia. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not one of censorship, but of respect for Wikipedia's principles and guidelines. So that other admins are informed, FisherQueen and myself have tried to explain the nature of the problem with this new user's posts on his talk page, but to no avail. Some of the references he has added in support of his essay are not even connected with the subject. He disappeared after June 24, and just reappeared today on July 14. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Disappeared"? What tendentious if not conspiratorial language. People do have lives. Regardless, this does not excuse your removing material here. There are no blogs posted--books and articles that fairly evaluate the situation. The fact remains that there is censureship on this subject occurring and I would like for it to stop immediately. There are so many questionable sources already on this posting from the Quebec government which is its own "blog", not outside sources. A government "statement" is no more valid than any other organisational statement. So the whole idea of what are verifiable sources is already tainted. Government publications might set up public rhetoric, but the articles and books I have listed get to the heart of the matter as they are more scientific in research (many of them) and involve local representations of this holiday since a good half of the city of Montreal does not at all feel this holiday includes them. Obviously there is discord. I think these two editors are trying to eliminate discord in trying to get consensus and that is simply not going to happen. There are quite simply too many inhabitiants who have been affected by the xenophobia that this holiday promotes as witnessed by the recent fiasco with English language being temporarily banned from the festival's celebrations. And when I checked what I had added, the information was removed. This is censoreship and it must stop immediately. Disfasia (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC) disfasia

Interesting. Could someone check out JamesLavoie (talk · contribs), a new account that immediately (it seems to me) began stalking Jimmy Lavoie (talk · contribs). I am heading afk right now, and don't have a moment to post this elsewhere (found it while looking through histories for this request for assistance). Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave the account an indefinite block - clear case of hounding, well spotted. Perhaps now we need to see if we can figure out whose sock it was. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been extremely busy with work, but once again the paragraph I have added under the political nature of the holiday section (with a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" note to boot) has been removed. The inforamtion I give is well-documented, journalistically fair in its language and gives another dimension to this holiday as described by both scientific research articles and a recent critique of the holiday by a francophone Quebec commentator who put into question the very necessity of a holiday which underscores what he deemed to be the trenchant racism in the province. This paragraph is both legitimate in its facts and fair in its reporting. I know the people removing it are not neutral parties in this debate and I hope Wikipedia would allow that dialogue take place rather than rogue censoreship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that editorial ping-pong is going to lead to resolution of this dispute. I second the suggestion that this be taken up on the article's talk page. I found the discussion on Disfasia's talk page to be very hard to follow, and the discussion might profit by the parties *succinctly* trying to lay out their concerns in a new round in the appropriate place. JohnInDC (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I fear that Disfasia thinks bring the dispute here will lead to resolution. It won't. We can suggest courses of action. If you can't agree on the talk page, you could take a wiki break. If you look up dispute resolution there ae other courses of action, but if you can't establish consensus, it is best to walk away. There are lots of other artciles to improve. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Disfasia keeps re-posting the same paragraph for which the references are not connected with the statements or even the subject. Administrator FisherQueen has already pointed out the nature of the problem with both the form and contents of his post on his talk page. I have reverted his July 14 re-posting at National Holiday (Quebec) and he has re-posted it again on July 17. This can only lead to a revert war so I would like an admin (whoever) to take care of the case. Thanks. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well you will need to report that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, now it's done. -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ford FE engine

Ford FE engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scheinwerfermann continues to abusively edit/complain/denigrate the Ford FE engine article without ever being satisfied. He has actively damaged the article by adding short hidden sections whose headers in bright green cut through images.

This is a continuing issue. He has archived past discussion pages complaining about his actions and continues to sully this article with nitpicking complaints. He complains, without specifics. It is far beyond abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.231 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article improvement tags are the specifics. Specifically, he appears to be saying that the article, in particular the sections with the tags, need additional citations, and without the citations they seem to represent either original research or unverifiable claims. Please engage in discussion on the article talk page, and explain why you feel that the citations requested are unnecessary. Thank you. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WE HAVE DISCUSSED this on the discussion pages. This goes back literally YEARS. He refuses to be satisfied. I don't mind citation requests. But he doesn't say what exactly is needed. We add citation after citation after citation and yet he is still not satisfied. Put a CITATION tag in the text and we'll add it. Just willy-nilly flagging an article 'just because' is abusive. Did YOU even do anything more than give a cursory look at things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.231 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we complain about bureaucratic spiteful and lazy editors, not only editor Scheinwerfermann who will not allow himself to be satisfied and continues to beat up on other contributors, but now also apparently editor Athanasius1 who only has one stock answer for all problems..."discuss on the article's discussion page". Examining the article in question's discussion page's archives going back years is seemingly too much effort.

This Scheinwerfermann once upon a time had multitudes of citation requests buried in the body of the article. Those citation requests were provided. Because he apparently has a grudge against the article he now is asking for "citations" in general??? He refuses to be satisfied. More, he has screwed up the formatting of the article. Pretty sweet bureaucratic gig being able to pass sentences without ever saying why.

Just where do we complain about THIS kind of stuff?? Obviously not here; someplace buried deep in the bowels of Wikipedia where only the most bureaucratic of editors can dig to?

I am NOT satisfied with these "results"/"answers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.241.87 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

12.73.241.87, I have no grudge against you, nor any intent to make your life difficult or unpleasant. I also have no interest or intent to get in a quarrel with you. If you feel my behaviour is disruptive or otherwise problematic, you may want to open a Wikiquette alert or a Request For Comment/User.

My goal is the improvement of articles on Wikipedia. The templates keep getting restored because the problem they indicate still exists, not because anyone (or everyone) is against you. Please try to assume good faith. As has been explained to you, the templates in question point out areas of the article in need of additional citations. By doing so, they accelerate and focus the improvement of the article. From your comments here and elsewhere, it's clear you accurately perceive that once a citation is provided the tag announcing its absence is no longer required. That's a large part of what I referred to in my talk page comments about the good improvements to the article. There used to be numerous citation-needed tags, but those have mostly been satisfied and now there are only two templated sections. Those sections contain questionable assertions not yet supported with references to reliable sources. When such support is provided, the templates won't be necessary any more. As for formatting preferences, there's nothing and nobody stopping you or anyone else making improvements to the article format and content — as is evident from the steady progress this article has been making since its creation. IIRC the article was semi-protected for a time because of persistent vandalism, but that is not presently the case.

You're being asked to discuss the matter on the talk page because that's the appropriate thing to do, and there's already a discussion underway there. Thanks for editing coöperatively and discussing politely. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What a two-faced liar. Here you're all obsequious and officious, in private messages you're all 'what a jerk'. AND, you still won't discuss this article on the article's discussion page. Obsequious, officious and obstructionist, reminds me of a line from 'Animal House', Dean to Bluto.

I don't want to discuss this with you any further. You ignore discussions that don't go your way. You bury them in archives hoping other lazy editors won't take the time to disinter them. You are NOT the editor I want to talk to. I want one of these so-called "help with problem editors" to actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOU. You're like an assassin sitting as judge and jury as to whether you should be hung or not. Get out of this courtroom and let a real disinterested judge rule.

...and don't think I haven't noticed that you STILL haven't made your wants with regards to that article clear. What exactly will it take to make you happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.148 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

false edits

I have not edited any articles on Wikipedia. Yet I have received warnings about inappropriate comments on articles listing that it had been done by my IP address. How do I go about resolving this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.194.126 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You need do nothing. Any messages not intended for you can be ignored. Creating an account will stop you receiving them at all. Algebraist 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Austria Mikrosystems versus austriamicrosystems

Austriamicrosystems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The name Austria Mikrosystems is not used since years. The company name is austriamicrosystems I changed in Text and Links, but I´m not able to change in Headline! I´m asking for your assistance here, because I could not find out how to change the Headline! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.112.250 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at WP:Naming conventions, and Google turns up only mentions in lower-case so I have fixed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NB it shows up OK on the page but is capitalized above in the convenience link, see WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Newbie

Hello,

I added some content that I thought was notable to United States Military Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It was deleted by another user as "not notable" Since he is more experienced than I, I avoided my instinct to undo the change. I reviewed the guidlines on notable and I think that my additions met that criteria and added to the article.

Can you take a look and let me know if this is just a matter of opinion or did I do something wrong?

Eurbani (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong (except putting a reference in a heading, that's a no-no). The first place to go to discuss your changes is the article's talk/discussion page, so I suggest you open a discussion there if you want to pursue it. – ukexpat (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where would the reference go since it applies to the whole section. I'm assuming at the end? Eurbani (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As BQZip01 said some of this is already covered elsewhere in the article. Also lists are generally not used in good articles. But as ukexpat says try discussing on the artcile talk page - thta is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over (likely intentional) miscalculation

In the palestinian people article, the population is (likely intentionally) being inflated by double counting the territories. I corrected it, only to have it reverted back to its inflated figure. I don't want to get into an edit war, how else can these inflated figures be corrected? 76.69.249.32 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The first place to try to resolve this is the article's talk page. Please open a discussion there. If that fails to reach consensus, then come back to WP:EAR. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Document, dont resolve  : ( making this a more general issue for the audience here ) Generally you give weight related to credibility. If you both have non-frivolous sources, I would think you could cite both with text explaining the differences. If you need "A Number" you may be able to fit in a range etc. Complete exclusion AFAIK is only based on perceived unreliability of the source. Even here, a notable source may make a mention as being biased, " The CIA says X, the PLO says Y, and Israel says Z" and the rest of the article would probably make the "metodologies" clear to the reader. If you are doing a trivial calculation and there is no source that publishes the result, a footnote may do but normally you want to find the answer not derive it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Hi, I would like to say that the user Wiki libs is reverting my edits with at least say why.

Sacred Reich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to ask a administrator to say him to stop with it, please.

Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoaquimMetalhead (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to try asking him/her about it before seeking alternatives - it doesn't appear you've engaged with Wiki libs at all on this. Please try asking at User talk:Wiki libs - I'd be willing to bet you get an explanation. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You have also reverted another edit made by Wiki libs without explanation. Discuss on the talk page - that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Help on a Talk Page that is violating WP:TPG

I'm requesting assistance in removing the following discussion on the talk page of the Peer39 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, wherein someone personally attacked me. The issue was resolved within Editor Assistance (see here), and I don't want to have to cut and paste my response to the Peer39 talk page, as it would be even further off-topic and in violation of talk page guidelines. Before removing the section myself, I figured I would ask here for further assistance.

Thank you. --FeldBum (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

H'mm. I'm not seeing a personal attack, per se, in the linked discussion. I am seeing another editor (OtreblaiD (talk · contribs) accusing you, in so many words, of COI violations. Specifically, that editor accuses you of editing Peer39 and other articles in a manner intended to promote companies in which you have an interest. I don't see evidence to support that accusation in your contrib history; it appears you spend most of your time improving articles with respect to WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS, nuking spam and vandalism, culling long-tagged unsupported assertions, and otherwise cleaning things up. The Peer39 article is inappropriately promotional in tone and content, but it's flagged as such with the appropriate template and I see no evidence to suggest you've been involved with the introduction or persistent retention of biased material, or other shenanigans. OtreblaiD is a very new editor with all of 26 edits to his name. You (FeldBum), on the other hand, are a much more experienced editor.

It seems to me some coaching of OtreblaiD is warranted. S/he doesn't seem to understand the principle or practice of WP:AGF, nor to understand that throwing around accusations is not a productive discussion tactic. I'll volunteer to do the coaching, but would like to have some other voices chime in here, first. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to save many articles by saving one

Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [5] So far "merge" seems to be winning but the article will still disappear and seem to set a precedent for hundreds more articles of peeresses to be merged as well. I am not too wiki experienced but the template {{Ireland-peer-stub}} implies notability just because she is noble. Anyway how can I find wikipedians sympathetic to my cause without being accused of "canvassing" I don't even know if I am allowed to add anything more to the discussion. Daytrivia (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is difficult to answer. Articles should be judged case by case. I think it would be alright to place a neutral message on the talk pages of relevant projects, but that is about all. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Daytrivia, I think you might be overly worried over something that's not likely to happen. If (as presently seems likely) an article merger takes place, then appropriate redirects will be put up so that anyone searching on Florinda Handcock (or any reasonable variant of that name and/or her title) will be shown the article into which the information has been merged. "Saving an article" isn't necessarily a good focus for your time and effort, if the subject matter of the article is determined by consensus not to meet notability and/or verifiability requirements. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia knows no precedents since every case or article is judged by its own (there are of course exceptions - especially at obivous vandalism). There will be scattered instances over the course of time, however no generalisation. Albeit this, you should, as I had mentionted at my talkpage, nevertheless be more cautiously, when creating new articles about peeresses - except perhaps those who held titles in their own right. May I furthermore add that presumably very user at Wikipedia has "lost" some articles in his editing life, including me ([6] or [7]) :-). By the way stub-templates are used to categorise articles with very little content. They neither preserve before deletion, redirection or merge, nor indicate any automatical notability. You might wish to read also Wikipedia:Stub.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki editor seeks assistance of third party to resolve/stop/improve situation.

Resolved

 – Already being discussed at WP:ANI, please continue the discussion there. – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Norcalal (talk) requests a disinterested editor with no connection to Nytend or Carlossuarez46 to look into the matter and provide me with helpful feedback as to how to end the matter. Specifically, if the IP related to Highspeed continues to be thought of as a rogue, why is it that these admins are continually considering me an accomplice. I have made no vandalism of any kind and yet this continues. I am at a loss and would appreciate the benefit of the doubt if someone could look at all this. I really just want to improve (if my schedule ever gives me time) the articles in my area of interest... Thanks Norcalal (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) :So what article is this about? You may well be best to request a third opinion at WP:3RD. Read the instructions there and list it. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read your talk page I see that this is under discussion at WP:ANI so there is no point in bringing it here. That is forum shopping. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historcal documents

There is a serious lack of documents on women, but still there are some. Such issues regard Homosexuality - almost nothing is included about female homosexuality and the Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride even proposed for deletion while it is the only well known document on women's life in 19th century - which was pretty much the familty life at that time. I need assistance in expert historians, and voters for the Instructions, also Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism lacks faminist historian to writa about it. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If articles meet the inclusion criteria they stay, if the don't they get deleted. With any subject we have to be careful to maintain a neutral point view and with some subjects that's harder than with others. Your comment: Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism lacks faminist [sic] historian to writa [sic] about it is not as easy as it sounds. We are creating an encyclopedia, not publishing research papers. If you can add to this, or any other, article in a way that maintains a neutral point of view, and cites reliable sources please go ahead. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have access to a library you should be able to find scholarly artciles fairly easily via archives such as JSTOR. But as ukexpat says we must mainatain a neutral point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Picasso

Picasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I could not find an edit this page button on on the page responding to "Picaaso" search entry I assumed that it is because Wikipedia need to protect themselves from vandalism. In the section Political view Picasso is reported to be suspected by some of cowardly ignored the necessity to take real political position during the world wars. It appear to me and probably to some other that, though this criticism should be reported, it should also be balance by facts that contradict it. In the 1930, 1940, 1950 Picasso has been reported as taking clear "pacifist" stand. More specifically in his work as an artist he clearly addressed the theme " Make love ! Dont' make war" He did so decade in advance on the popularity of this label. It is also politically remarkable that in the 1960 Picasso migrated to a new theme: The artist isolated in a narcissistic contemplation of himself. Taking into account that Picasso was a painter, a sculptor, a draftsman but not a writer, not a politician, not really a philosopher The testimony of these theme show that his concerns about Violence, poverty and freedom are not hypocritical stand hiding cowardice. It is also a fact that Picasso has shown a great deal of interest with Bull fight. which is in its core addressing the subject of physical courage. I believe that reporting on these aspect of Picasso's life deserve to be mention for the sake of a more neutral approach. I also believe that they would also contribute to the interest of many reader and that it would probably insult none. Most probably the best way to create the changes I intended is now for some editor to make them to his best which is probably better then i was able to.

My name is Pierre Cornu. and you have my email herewith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.13.99 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The place to post this is at the article talk page for discussion amongst editors there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And it is best not to post your name certainly not your email address. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Posting links

Doug Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I should like to appeal a ruling made by one of your editors concerning links added to an entry. If I'm not doing this right, please explain to me how to do it properly.

"Hu12 (talk)" informed one of several editors of The Internet Review of Books today that several links we have added to entries are spam, according to Wikipedia policy, and deleted those links.

In each case, the links targeted a book review in the IRB that was germane to the entry. For example, a few days ago I posted on the "Doug Stanton" page a link to a review of his book "Horse Soldiers" that I wrote. Certainly I am closely involved with the review, and with the publication. I am not, however, in any way involved with Stanton.

I'd argue that such a link is legitimate. Like Wikipedia, The Internet Review of Books delivers information to people interested in the things it discusses. The IRB makes no profit, though it carries a few ads, and none of the editors are paid. Our costs are borne by contributions. Five of us founded the publication to replace the rapidly disappearing review sections in major newspapers. The LA Times and the Chicago Tribune, for example, have discontinued their review sections; so have other papers, and so will many more, for obvious reasons. They are sorely missed, and we are trying to remedy a genuine lack.

The IRB is not just some blog with a single person sharing notions about a book. It is a professional publication. I and one of our other editors are members of the National Book Critics Circle, which restricts its membership to professionals. Nearly all our reviewers are published authors, some of them well known.

Readers of Wikipedia--not many, but several--have clicked on those links since they were added. They clearly want more information on the author's book. We had intended to put links from all our reviews (about twenty a month) wherever appropriate--on author pages, or on pages devoted to some subject the author covers, and would like to be permitted to continue that project.

We have no axe to grind, except our desire to be read. Of course our reviewers have opinions, but so do reviewers for the NYTimes. Those opinions are offered by knowledgeable people. We think readers of Wikipedia might be aided in their search for knowledge. Few authors would object to this.

Thus I'd like to ask that you make whatever exception to the rules is necessary to let us continue.

Thank you for hearing me.

Carter Jefferson, editor The Internet Review of Books <redacted address> Carterj98 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All of you at the IRB have a conflict of interest (you most of all), and should not be adding these links. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also: please explain the contradiction between "none of the editors are paid" and "It is a professional publication"? Do I really need to quote Dr. Sam. Johnson here? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Jefferson (Carterj98 (talk · contribs). I've taken a look at the article and the link you—or another TIRB staffer under the user name of GolfinBadger (talk · contribs)—added. A few things occur to me. Firstly, your site doesn't appear to be a personal blog of the "Heh, lol, I had scrambled eggs for breakfast today, OMG, here's a pic of them I took with my phone" type, but it does appear to be a blog. Please take some time to read through WP:EL to familiarise yourself with external-links policies and community expectations. You'll see that a professional book review is listed as a type of link to be considered (WP:ELMAYBE), but blogs are listed as a type of link normally to be avoided (WP:ELMAYBE). I hope you will take no offence at our working definition of recognised authority—no slight is intended against your experience or expertise—but per WP:SPS, self-published sources are usually not appropriate for inclusion. Of greater concern is that by linking to reviews on your own site, you may be running afoul of WP:COI (Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy) and WP:SOAP (Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own website, forum, blog, product, or service). Do you know who this GolfinBadger user is? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of a blog is, but the IRB is a Website. We also have a blog, for which there is a link on our index page. It seems likely that you looked at the blog but not the Website. The NYTimes has a lot of blogs attached to it, but it's a Website. So is ours.

I am aware of your policy concerning self-promotion, and I think it's a good policy. I think, however, that your policy of linking to professional reviews should override that in this case. All we get from posting those links is an occasional hit. They won't make much difference to us in the long run. We think we're giving Wikipedia gifts, not the other way around.

As for professionalism, you *must* be aware that hundreds, if not thousands,of people have begun newspapers, magazines, and all sorts of publications without paying themselves. If and when we make money, we'll pay all our reviewers, and pay ourselves last. Right now, for example, a crew of laid-off reporters is running a publication called newjerseynewsroom.com, hoping that someday they'll make enough from ads to get paid. Virtually all academics, including me, have written reviews and articles for scholarly journals and got no pay at all for them. They're all professionals. The New York Review of Books was started by writers while the NYTimes was on strike; if they got any pay, it wasn't much. A professional is defined by college degrees and experience. I got paid when I reviewed for the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, but they were making good money at the time. One of my editors has published a memoir (U. of Iowa Press). Others have had essays published in print and Web venues, and been paid for them. The Rutgers University Press published a biography I wrote. Many of our reviewers, who work for free, have published novels, essays, and non-fiction books with reputable publishers.

As it happens, four of our editors are retired and can afford to work free for a while. Two are still employed at other jobs and choose to spend scarce free time working with us.

I have asked my editors if any of them signed their work "GolfinBadger." Three of us definitely did not; when I hear from the others, I'll let you know.

Carter Jefferson

141.157.189.73 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the same article in more than one place in a wiki

I'd like to cite an article in several different places in my wiki. Instead of appearing once in the references, it appears as many times as there are citations to it.

This is the code I've been using first reference: "<"ref name="four">" enter reference "<"/ref">" Second reference: body text."<"ref name="four"/">"

Next to the second reference, the references section at the bottom says "Cite Error: Invalid "<"ref">" tag; no text was provided for refs named four. "

Can you please point me to instructions on how to reference the same article more than once?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxynix (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, Can you say which article you are talking about? Excuse me for changing your formatting but the way you put refs in was messing up the format of this page. It looks like what you are doing is right, but I would be able to help better if you posted a link to the article in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)