Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

User Subpage Move

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm a new wikipedia user and have been having some trouble with the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. page. It has been re-written three times and nominated for several speedy deletions. However, today the speedy deletion tag was removed by an admin. This admin said that while the copy could use some editing, it did not need to be deleted. Another admin didn't seem to agree and subsequently moved the page to my user subpage User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.. I would greatly appreciate any editing assistance so this page can be moved back to the main namespace. I have also written another section "Notable Cases" that gives more detailed information on the cases listed in the current History section but was hesitant to post it because of the speedy deletion tag. I will post this new section for editing assistance upon request.

Thanks so much, Steph0513 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• LOL  : I think I either commented or intended to comment on this when it came up. Maybe I mentioned MCO and puffery IIRC. If you are the shareholder litigators, I think I suggested removing any puffery and finding notable cases. Some admins seem to think CNN is the only secondary source of relevance but I think you can make a case for unrelated mention in other sources- law reviews, industry rags depending on details, etc. If you really have ( ??? windoze just popped up some junk, not sure about edit now... ) "made the news" for your case work that should establish notability. Even having particularly annoying ads reviewed by a reliable source for a "slip and fall" group could establish (unfavorable) notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did comment, and I took your comments into consideration when writing the current version. Since the page does have a Recognition section, should this constitute notability? - this is partially why I'm confused, if an organization has been recognized it is probably a notable organization, right? I did find more info on notable cases, the cases listed in the history section, but didn't want to post anything new until the existing page showed it had some staying power. Thanks! Steph0513 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For notability as defined for Wikipedia purposes in this context, please see WP:CORP. Also the draft reads like an advertisement, along the lines of a press release or a marketing brochure, in violation of WP:SPAM. Much of the puffery will have to be excised if it is to survive as an article in mainspace: for example, the list of settlements serves no encyclopedic purpose, neither does the firm methodology stuff. Similarly much of the stuff in the history section reads like a "This his how great we are" and is encyclopedic. In addition, if you are connected with the firm, your COI will mean that the article will be heavily scrutinised for non-neutral material. The inability to maintain a neutral POV is the main reason why editors are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles where they have a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Counterpoints/Mitigating  : I haven't read the article but some considerations that help include secondary source coverage. If you can cite popular press or legal journals or maybe other sources independent of your self that could mean that your "this is how great we are" is actually encyclopedic- historic victories and various sports figures "go down in history" just for having a factual record of accomplishment but it needs independent notice exclosive of wiki and yourself. The fact that you authored the account yourself doesn't change the facts but it is easy to believe that you have added extraneous adjectives and puffery. Business methodologies would have to at least be obviously related to your notability- if your litigations are included in legal text books or journals that may help. Indeed, a novel business method would seem to be non-trivial and encyclopedic as much as mass production or interchangeable parts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I believe that the page in question does cite popular and reputable sources. The article has 60 references, approximately 5 of those 60 are the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. official website. Most of them are news sources (i.e. The New York Times, USA Today, The Seattle Times, The Boston Globe) and legal resources (Chambers and Partners, RiskMetrics, Stanford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse). There isn't a single assertion made within the article that is not cited. This is why I'm unsure of where I went wrong with the page. Is it possible for you to review the page and let me know what you think? Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anybody here is going to plough through 60 refs in search of one that isn't either a press release or a tangential mention. There needs to be a story in a mainstream reliable source about the law firm, not simply mentioning that the firm acted for one of the parties in a case. Can you point to any such source, please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Q can you point to the specific guidance here? This came up in regards to software which may be mentioned in a scientific paper in only a few lines. Many such passing references would indicate that many authors have noted the software. Having clients may not be notable but a major participant in notable events such as litigation seems encyclopedic esp with even minor articles about the firm.

I guess everyone would be happy if you could single out one article about the firm rather than a case. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you posing that question to me? If so, then yes, it's at WP:CORP. "... major participant in notable events ..." is not sufficient here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I guess. Here is a quote from your citation,

"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Keep in mind that the source- news, review, journal, etc, may only mention the lawyers once but fully all of the case details rely on this participant- the strategy, the filings, the testimony- is all elicited from one of the litigating attornies. You can't cover a case without covering the firm presenting a case. And, ok, if they happen to get one or two notable cases, you may be able to argue "notability doesn't diffuse" but a long string of notable cases does suggest something about their business methods etc. I would argue this would be similar to a string of scientific articles that all use the same software for data analysis- the software may only get passing mention in most articles, there may or may not be any articles about the software although there may be some "how to guides" or articles about the algorithm it implements or maybe blog posts from scientific authors on how great it is, but AFAIK it could still make notability based on this. It isn't like they need to have a front page article on the firm to make it notable. I guess you could literally interpret the above quote taking "subject of" to mean that an article must be essentially about the firm, but by detailing their actions in the context of a legal action then articles about the litigation are about the firm as far as notability goes ( no?). It hardly seems necessary for their to be specific articles on the company although you would think that with enough notable cases, there would be relevant reliable coverage of the firm. Part of notability is almost tautological with being able to write a good article- if the firm fails notability criteria, you are left with puffery, gossip, ads, blog posts, stuff you made up, and trivial details. If reliable sources contain sufficient information to make a good article for the intended audience, it seems a reasonable interpretation of the above citation is as I have outlined. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All references used in the Recognition section specifically pertain to Grant & Eisenhofer or one of their attorneys. I have listed them below. However, I agree that passing references should still be considered notable. After all, the publication could have chosen not to make any mention at all. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202424985891&slreturn=1 You can see that Grant & Eisenhofer was listed in the Plaintiffs' Firms Hot List Hall of Fame but you'll need a subscription to see the actual article.

http://www.riskmetrics.com/issgovernance/scas/scas50_2007.html

http://www.riskmetrics.com/white_papers/scas50_2008

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/03/25/the-scas-50-for-2008-top-plaintiffs-firms-for-securities-class-actions/

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/editorial.aspx?ssid=33451#

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/personprofile.aspx?cpk=173260&ssid=33451

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/personprofile.aspx?cpk=195681&ssid=33451

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/personprofile.aspx?cpk=195681&ssid=33451

http://www.delawaretoday.com/Delaware-Today/November-2004/November-2004-Table-of-Contents/ You will need a subscription to view this article as well.

http://www.treasuryandrisk.com/Issues/2005/June%202005/Pages/100-Most-Influential-People-In-Finance.aspx?PrintPreview

http://www.directorship.com/the-2008-list-of-influentials-on-the-directorship-100/

http://www.boardmember.com/Legal-Briefs.aspx This features a few law firms, Grant & Eisenhofer being one of them.

No, no, no, no! The key is substantial coverage of the firm itself, as opposed to cases it is working on, etc. Notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" it by representing a famous client or selling to a famous company, any more than software becomes notable by being used (or even mentioned favorably in passing) by a notable scientist. Passing mentions are not substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

* See Above : I used the term "diffusion of notability" but pointed out that covering a case IS covering the firm. That is, everytime the article says "plaintiff" it means "the firm" even if their name is only mentioned once. A study of the case is essentially a study of the firm, unless of course it is an isolated case where the facts are all that matter. In this case, a string of cases where the argumentation makes the case notable implies that the article is about the argumentation of the firm. Surely you can't argue over nouns- if the article repeatedly refers to plaintiff rather than firm, you can't reasonably claim the firm is irrelevant. A string of notable cases would seem to make the firm notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise this is a bit of a tangent, but you can't be serious, surely? A study of the case is a study of the firm? I suppose an entirely mundane case, interesting only for the quality of the arguments, might perhaps make that last true, but otherwise that's far too much of a stretch. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, it depends. I guess I would restate my other comment that secondary source coverage has to be non-trivial enough to write a good article (duh). That is, it is essentially moot to argue if an article is about a case or a firm, but if in the act of describing the case, they produce enough information about the firm to write an article, then who cares ( what wiki policy states) that the secondary source has to have the firm's name in the title and launch into a story about the firm in detail? Granted, one case may make the case notable, probably not the firm. But, if the story mentions the firm in passing and then goes on and on, "plaintiffs argued that defendants wre idiots, in a style they have used before" that would suggest the article describes the firm in enough detail to allow one to write an article about firm's "idiot namecalling strategy." I would concede of course that many cases have the paricipants as robots, and in fact you would be right that there would be no requirement for case coverage to make the firms notable. I guess it depends. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any source ought to be judged on its merits. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

* Clarify: I guess I would also consider the other point above and I guess it is possible that argumentation is directed by actual plaintiff and not the lawyers. But, often you have a person who just feels cheated and then the lawyers make the case notable. So, I don't think you have to distort the wiki policies or guidelines to accept that a source that provides enough information to write an article is "about the firm" to the extent required to make it notable. Obviously, "reliability" would depend on this not being self-aggrandizement from the firm website etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the links I posted above? Grant & Eisenhofer obviously does have substantial coverage and rankings. This law firm does not represent famous clients, it represents pension funds and other institutional investors (as noted on the wikipedia page) - hardly considered famous by anyone's standards. I'm not saying notability is contagious. I'm saying that some factor makes these cases worth noting in major publications. This factor is obviously not the plaintiff. It is typically the settlement size and scope of the case - the factor behind this is the law firm and the work it has performed. If a law firm can settle a case for billions of dollars through litigation, the case is notable as well as the law firm. I'm not proposing cause and effect here, I'm merely saying that when it comes to corporate law firms, they are recognized for their settlements and casework. The references I provided prove that this particular law firm has indeed been noted for these reasons. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability issue is not the only problem. As I said above, it reads like a marketing tool -- I see enough glossies from law firms in my day job to know one when I see one. Even if the notability issue can be addressed, the tone issue still remains. Also, I don't think you have answered my question as to whether you work for the firm or have some other conflict of interest. If you do, that may be clouding your approach to the article, as I described above. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c):I looked at some of them and saw press releases. Did you read WP:CORP?

You mentioned Skadden in your original post; articles such as [this] establish notability. Please indicate similar sources for your proposed page.

Steph has already said s/he's an intern at the law firms, so we know COI is a risk here.

--AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I stated that I have an internship which entails spending one week at various law firms. Grant & Eisenhofer was one of those firms. I noticed they did not have a wikipedia page during my time there so I independently started to create one. I no longer work there nor are they aware that I am writing this page. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, and other editors have already agreed on that. Other editors also questioned the reasoning behind the notability warning tag because it was clear to them that this law firm is notable based on rankings and casework.

I did read the wikipedia company notability page and still think this firm is notable. One source is a press release, only because I couldn't find that particular piece of information elsewhere. I'm not saying a press release is the best source of information, but it is certainly reliable enough to take facts from.

Au contraire, there's few things less a reliable source than a press release. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Skadden because they state that they are "prominent" in the first sentence of their page. This isn't neutral language. Notability can be established through rankings. Grant & Eisenhofer has been ranked by organizations who do just that - rank law firms (Chambers and Partners, RiskMetrics). Please don't try to persuade me that these rankings are meaningless. This law firm has been featured in various publications - Delaware Today, Directorship Magazine, Pensions & Investments Magazine, and Treasury & Risk magazine. Most law firms with wikipedia pages haven't been featured in Forbes magazine, this does not take away from their notability or accomplishments. Cozen O'Connor does not mention any feature articles in their References section but I don't doubt that they are notable. If the tone in the Grant & Eisenhofer page needs to be addressed, another editor should step up and work on that. An admin moved the article to my user page so others could edit it, so far no one has done that. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, your user subspace is that - yours. It would be impolite for other editors to intervene there. However, I will look at it after I have got home and had my tea, OK? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Sorry, I did not know other editors weren't supposed to look over things there, since an admin told me that is why s/he moved the article there from the main namespace. Steph0513 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We can look but editing a user's sub page might be considered a breach of Wikitette. I have left some notes on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have read through your edits and will definitely make the changes. Steph0513 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Steph, when you say "Notability can be established through rankings" I think that's mistaken. Did you find that in a policy or guideline, or are you asserting that based on your interpretation of notability? I realise this might seem a little tiresome to you, but unless you address this the article will not last in mainspace. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations and companies, I just don't see how rankings are excluded. I'm not trying to be confrontational and I'm sure you have read through this page extensively but I've copied the first paragraph of the page below and want to specifically discuss each part.
An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.

• Being ranked by such organizations as Chambers and Partners and RiskMetrics constitutes "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," I believe. Since the wikipedia notability guidelines do not mention rankings, I don't see how organizations which rank companies should be excluded from "reliable, independent secondary sources."
• Chambers and Partners ranks law firms and lawyers worldwide. Their guides are a commonly used resource in the legal community. To be ranked in Chambers and Partners is notable. I've copied the overview of their selection process:

Since 1999, we have been researching the US legal profession, identifying the leading lawyers and law firms through interviews with thousands of lawyers and their clients. Our reputation is based on the independence and objectivity of our research.

In addition to the ‘state’ listings, certain practice areas, such as antitrust and capital markets, have ‘nationwide’ listings which include those firms and lawyers with national practices.

To see how we assess and rank lawyers, please click on the ‘Explanation of Rankings’ link in the left-hand bar. http://www.chambersandpartners.com/AboutUs.aspx?pt=rankingsexplained

• RiskMetrics is also a reliable source. It has ranked Grant & Eisenhofer as the number one law firm for average settlements and has credited this firm for its casework. Surely you can agree that being ranked number one in your field contributes to notability.
• The various publications I referenced are also categorized as "reliable, independent secondary sources." Delaware Today published a feature on the two founding partners of Grant & Eisenhofer. Directorship Magazine named one of the founding partners as one of the 100 Most Influential People on Corporate Governance. Others on that list include Ben Bernanke, Warren Buffet, and Senator Chris Dodd. Treasury & Risk ranked the same founding partner as one of the 100 most influential people on finance. These are obviously notable accomplishments for the founding partner and the law firm.
• None of the references I've just discussed can be considered "trivial or incidental coverage." In each reference, either an attorney with Grant & Eisenhofer or the law firm itself has been ranked or featured.
• All of the references are "verifiable," as everything I've cited has been published by a reliable source. None of these rankings or features came from Grant & Eisenhofer. The firm was evaluated by the same standards as every other law firm.
• It seems clear that I think rankings should be considered, and you do not. However, there is no clear answer to this since wikipedia: notability does not mention rankings. I would argue that the sources of these rankings are undoubtedly reliable, secondary sources and that Grant & Eisenhofer being ranked or featured in any of the publications I've listed constitutes "significant coverage." Therefore, Grant & Eisenhofer has the significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources needed to meet the guidelines for notability. Steph0513 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente article reverted

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The Gerald Celente article was in poor shape, with unsubstantiated references and claims, with a NPOV flag (the article was practically an advertising piece for Celente). I spent a day thoroughly researching Celente, checking facts & sources, reading articles from reputable sources. I did an extensive edit. My revised version was solid, clear, well written, NPOV. I found differing points of view and included them with a reference after each line.

Yet another user reverted it so it's back to unsubstantiated advertising junk. Not sure what to do. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Hi, It appears you've started using the talk page at the article, so that's good. I think the other editor was concerned about your use of blogs as sources; that's not allowed. You can read WP:RS for more on that topic. And in general, it's best to avoid disparaging the other versions too much; focus on why yours is better, y'know? It wouldn't be bad to make smaller, incremental changes. Have fun editing, and do come back here if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IronKey article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Endareth/IronKey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) After my initial attempt at a very basic IronKey article was deleted (fully justified, I really didn't do a good job on it before finalising it), I've put together another which is currently sitting in my user page. I'd really appreciate some reviewing by an experienced editor before I move it live. I'm concerned that it may come across as advertising (that's why my first attempt was deleted), and I'm also aware that it contains various primary source references which I think should probably come out before I put it live. FIWI, I'm not in any way personally affiliated with IronKey, just a user of their products. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 05:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Just skimming it, I guess I would mention that you want to generally remember this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-guide, not a catalog, and certainly not an ad or copy of a company website appearing to be independent. I don't know general attitude but personally these industry awards ( see the Simpons episode where Homer wins the "1st Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Oustanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence") which seem to be the bulk of the citations, are often invented trivial expressions from mutual admiration societies. While they may meet wiki criteria as being more reviewed than blog content, I'm not sure what they establish. If larger groups often cite awards, it really doesn't matter what they are based on ( see comments related to various industry metrics in other recent articles marked for deletion) as they are notable expressions of opinion. If you have other coverage of susbstance that would probably make a better article. In short, why does this software have any attributes of archival value or why would someone using google searching for unrelated terms need a web page on wiki for this software, other than advertising and promotional purposes? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Largely I think that NSB is right here. Nevertheless your re-write asserts notability and there are a couple of suitable references. Additionally you'd do well to lose the forums links and the like. Also pare the text back. There's a fair bit of fluff in there. This article is a stub at best. Crafty (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:Also, what you have under Company should be your lead and stand at the beginning of the article. Awards, if mentioned at all, are best at the bottom/end. A total red flag are the links to Twitter and Linked. I would have a copy-edit look at it, but since it's still on your user page, I won't mess with it. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORP, the notability guideline for companies. It hasn't been met here, and the article doesn't stand a chance unless it can be met. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the comments, and I can generally understand what's needed. I've updated the article, removing most of the "fluff" and content I haven't been able to find reliable references for. I've also re-read the notability guidelines, and added in more information and references for the link between the US Department of Homeland Security and IronKey (I'll also try to expand this further), which I feel increases the notability of IronKey. Any more help on this would be appreciated, especially as regards how to better improve notability content. Please feel free to make any edits that you feel would help/explain what's needed. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

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

I have been part of an ongoing discussion about the lack of sources for very intricate detailed information. The following is the unsourced statement:

There is a 66-game disparity between the show numbers assigned to first-run Jeopardy! episodes and the actual number of Trebek-era games played...However, all 65 reruns in Season 1 (1984-1985) were given new show numbers despite not being new games.

I have repeatedly asked for a source regarding this statement.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Each time a reference is requested, Robert K S provides a similar argument that "Season 1 began on September 10, 1984 and ran for 195 episodes (see Richmond). Season 2 began on September 9, 1985 with show #261. 260 - 195 = 65," usually stressing the arithmetic function that results in "65." However, no source for the episode number of the Season 2 premiere or the episode number of a repeat showing the disparity has been provided.

My original argument was that this information is not encyclopedic and more along the lines of minutiae/trivia. Because the user insists upon including the information, I've tried to determine if there is an actual source for this or if this is merely a testament by an individual based on their own assumption or unverifiable research, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempt.

Can you please provide insight? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you clarify your request to the other editor and answer their questions at the talk page, rather than forum shopping. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've posted on the talk site. Perhaps a second editor making your point will help. I have a feeling he doesn't know about WP:VERIFY, which is why you're talking at cross-purposes. He thinks he's being truthful (and he may be perfectly right), but you - I think - are being correct in wanting things verifiable.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, VsevolodKrolikov, and your addition to the talk page on the article. I agree that Robert K S is likely correct—I am simply requesting a source for the second variable in the arithmetic equasion.

However, I do not agree with the statement from Jezhotwells that I am forum shopping, as I have answered the user's question as to exactly what type of source I am looking for here ("Do you have a screencap of the slate for the Season 2 premiere that shows the episode number?") and here ("[Provide] an episode number for a repeat that does not match the original airing, the episode numbers/slates for the final Season 1 and first Season 2 episodes, etc."). I requested editor assistance on this page in order to find an administrator that can further articulate that I am not disputing that 260 - 195 = 65 and that I am requesting a source that 260 is in fact the correct episode number for the episode aired September 9, 1985. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think "forum shopping" wasn't a correct attribution. It appears from your contributions list you have not appealed to more than one dispute page in order to get the answer you want. So rest easy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An additional response has been provided by Robert K S, however this again results in a circular argument and lack of verifiable source. This validity of this information has been in question for over ninety days with multiple and sufficient requests for a verifiable source. Can this information be removed and the article protected until such verifiable sources are found? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want admin help to protect the page, then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the appropriate place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

StarForce

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I need some guidance on how to deal with 207.161.70.152 on StarForce. Should I do anything different? --HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you're handling appropriately to me. If the IP continues then take them to WP:AIV. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WHY DOES IT TELL ME TALK

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

DID I DO SOMETHING WRONG? ON MY LAST ENTRY OF ROSIE LOPEZ SCHLERETH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlerethhi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK first please do not type in all CAPS, it is considered the equivalent of shouting. Second, your edits were reverted for several reasons: there were unsourced, in all caps and in an unencyclopedic format. I suspect from your user name that you are, or are connected with, Ms Schlereth, and you therefore have a conflict of interest. Please comment on the article's user page if you think this material should be added and please support it with reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well - for a start turn off the Caps Lock on your keyboard. Your additions to the article Emigdio Vasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were all in capitals, also in the wrong place. You have a list of links on your welcome message on your talk page. read those and they will tell you how to go about editing artcicles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Strange Redirect

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently came across the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009, which is a redirect to the page Timeline of the Gaza War. I found it very strange that List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 is a redirect to this page since there is a different page namely List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War that contains much more completely what any wikipedia viewer would want had they typed 'list of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel 2009' into the search. I went to change this thinking it was just a mistake when I found the page was protected for some reason. And so I was wondering if any administrator can correct this obvious blunder? I don't think the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 should be deleted, but rather that it should be changed so that the redirect is removed and the contents of the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War be placed within List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009. The page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War could then be deleted. The reason why I think this should be done this way is because there is already the lengthy page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. It makes sense to stick with the same naming convention instead of adding the extraneous addition 'following the Gaza War'. I wasn't sure if this was the right place to post this or if I was supposed to post it on the deletion request page.Chhe (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable change, and it's something you can do yourself. If you want to be extra cautious, I'd suggest you post an note on the talk page of the redirect you plan to change with your plan and see if anyone notices within a day or so - but in this case I don't think anyone will mind (or notice).    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that redirect is protected, meaning that only an admin can change it. I suspect there's some edit-warring or an AfD in its history. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and sorry I missed that in Chhe's request. Then I think there are two approaches: 1) Request page unprotection at WP:RPP (and risk the problems Andrew mentioned above) or 2) Place the suggestion of the move onto the talk page (as mentioned above) and after an appropriate time (a few days?) notify and admin at WP:Requested moves that there are no objections to the move and ask them to move it. Any other thoughts?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:7's suggestions are correct, I think. I found this AfD which seems to explain why there's a redirect; it looks like it then got caught up in some other redirecting problems. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

American (word) content dispute

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello. Another editor and I have had some content disagreements on American (word), and he started reversing all my edits to advance his own point of view. We had a little undo battle (a few times each), and started having a heated exchange on the talk page. I put a neutrality template on the page because of the bias that seemed to be happening there, and asked for administrator intervention. One admin suggested that I do dispute resolution, and that's why I am here, asking for your help. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the talk:American (word) page, I'd appreciate your comments, whether you agree or disagree. The relevant discussion takes place at the bottom of the talk page. Cheers, --MoebiusFlip (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"America" and "American", by themselves with no qualifiers, conventionally refer to the USA. What's the issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Only in the United States, Bugs. Outside the U.S., and especially south of our border, the use of "American" to mean "U.S." is a hot-button issue, and often considered incorrect and/or impolite. From their POV, "South Americans" and "Central Americans" are just as American as "North Americans". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You'd be best off going to WP:Dispute resolution. They are the professionals! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Remove Links Flag

Resolved

 – tag removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Black

Hello. I need help removing a flag on my wiki page. It says that I do not have enough links, but the more links I add, the more my page looks like a link farm. I have gone through the "suggested links" wizard multiple times. How can I meet the article quality standards faster? I do not want to have a link farm. Gcornelius (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikilinks tag does not get removed automatically - I have removed it and made some edits to make the article more compliant with the Manual of Style. For future reference, a linkfarm is a collection of external links, for internal links, please see WP:OVERLINK. – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Steinway Model D

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Steinway Model D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There're multiple issues and problems (talk--> please read my comments at the end of the talk) with an editor who has taken ownership of the article, has removed tags without making improvements and keeps reverting changes. Please help us to make a better article! Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you copuld try asking for a third opinion or open a request for comment on the other editor's behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

Resolved

 – socks blocked Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, recently I began to edit on the article Rodolfo Valentin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and upon finding the article Sofia's Hair 4 Health, a charity founded by Valentin, I proposed a merger on the basis the charity is not notable enough, (is also well covered enough in Valentin artilce under Philanthrophy), and is both poorly referenced and contains some POV. However I soon encountered resistance from three users in particular, Rodoval, Susy parker and Nicole reutman on these two talk pages on the merger. (It's my first time proposing a merger and made the mistake of creating two seperate talk pages, here and here - has since been rectified).

All three users have the same argument against the merger, they also seem to write in a similiar manner. However the user accounts Susy parker and Nicole reutman both have very alike user pages and were created within seven minutes of each other, their first actions in particular were to quickly oppose the deletion of the Rodolfo Valentin in support of Rodoval (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodolfo Valentin), who I believe is the controller account. Yet again these same users, along with an anonymous IP user (who also just edits on Rodolfo Valentin's and Sofia's Hair 4 health article and writes in a similiar manner), have joined forces to oppose the merger.

Another thing which may or may not be connected is the user justice all the way, who was previously investigated for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justice all the way). I hold the suspicion that justice all the way is in fact Rodoval, or in some way working with him/her (Both were opposed to Rodolfo Valentin article deletion, and both have edited on same pages). justice also had two other accounts, Pampita and Ralicia for support, aka Susy parker and Nicole reutman (All four have similiar user pages). Of note is the connection made between Rodoval and justice in the investigation too. Both Rodoval and justice were also connected on the Rodolfo Valentin article, even now where justice's attempts to change the page have stopped, Rodoval has picked up.

I had discussed this issue with user Whpq (who is also involved with articles mentioned and has dealt previously with users involved) on his talk page as I was going to instigate an investigation, however on his advice I have come here first for help.

Would appreciated some help and direction on a course of action here.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It can be very difficult to prove sock-puppetry. However the only way to get it checked out is to collect diffs of all edits which seem to indicate sock-puppetry and ask for investigation following the guidance at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Presenting a case. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I had filed a sockpuppet report in 2008 on users probably connected to these newer accounts, I've submitted a new CheckUser/Sockpuppet report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodoval. I think the evidence is fairly clear but I'd like CU to confirm the !votestacking on the AfD for Rudolfo Valentin. I'll be surprised if they aren't linked. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon page

Resolved

 – discussion at article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am being accused by user: Radiopathy of being in an "edit war" by reverting edits three times on the John Lennon page -- however, it was he who started the editing and the information in his edit is incorrect. He also asked for a "citation" for something and I provided TWO references, then he slapped me with a warning.

I tried to reason with him, even email him, which he ignored, so I ask for help in this matter. I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" and we're just trying to keep it good and factual. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Right - you should be discussing this on the article talk page - that is what it is there for. Discussions scattered over user talk pages and emails are impossible to follow coherently. Discussions on the article talk page enable consensus to emerge. Neither yourself or the other editor are providing edit summaries to clarify what you are doing. If another editor reverts sourced material then you may want to consider action such as going to WP:3RR.

The dispute seems to centre on the year that Lennon "retired". Can you source that? If so, put it in with the source and perhaps come back here if it gets reverted again. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" - can you cite that, too?!? This sounds like a slight case of article ownership; I think the user needs to step back a bit and realise that it's a collaborative effort. Radiopathy •talk• 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Beatles fan (though by no means an expert), I see the question to be thus: Did John Lennon that he perform live or release anything new during 1976? Since his last concert was in 1975, according to the article, it is a question of releases. The last album he released before Double Fantasy was Shaved Fish in 1975, and I am unable to find any 1976 singles. Therefore, I think he retired in 1975. Dendodge _T\^C 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to the article talk page for this. Radiopathy •talk• 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

request to create page integrated system of medicine

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

respected sir, i hereby request you to create page titled 'integrated system of medicine' integrated system of medicine is of india. integration concept covers wisdom from traditional ayurveda & modern medicine. integration is important for humanity as a whole

with regards dr yogiraj vinayak deshmukh bams,pgcems main road pathardi tal-pathardi dist-ahmednagar pin-414102 Maharashtra,India phone(02428)222254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.105.56 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi - you could ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine or you could create an account for yourself and start a page in your sandbox and ask others to look over it and help making it into an article that meets Wikipedia criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

zombie building

Request unclear

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The commercial real estate business has begun refering to some office buildings as "Zombie Buildings".These are buildings that the owner can not fund new tenant improvements, they have lost all their equity, and they can not obtain financing. Recent article http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/16/story2.html The term was also used by Dan Neidich at the Sam Zell sponsered Marshall Bennett Conference 6/22/09. NickRavino (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And your question is . . . .? Jezhotwells (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Save6 : Some related thoughts. I'm not sure how much of it would be encyclopedic but real estate has created a whole list of neologisms that at least taken together may be notable. This isn't the first time that a boom has gone bust and maybe a larger article of list of historical terms would make sense. "Liar loans" may in fact be fairly new as a term and entity, the "trash out" AFAIK is pretty new and comes up quite often on google news alerts on "foreclosure." Certainly "ghost towns" are known from history and entire empty subdivisions have come to be. I guess you could put them all together into a "RE neologs" page with some non-OR glue text to make it more than a list or dictionary. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Is there a policy regarding red links to names of people who do not have articles? For details please see my edit history. 173.170.157.188 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is, at WP:REDLINK. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate that for me? Does it say we should have these links, or not? 173.170.157.188 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REDLINK#When to create red links is pretty clear. – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all of us are fluent in Wikipedia-speak... 173.170.157.188 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It says we should have them, in articles, when there's a reasonable chance that an article could exist at the linked title; otherwise, not. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, editors don't always agree on this, but the general guidelines mentioned above state that yes, red links should exist, when they point to articles that are likely to be created at some point. If the subject fails to meet notability guidelines, and is unlikely ever to have an article, then it shouldn't have a link. Hope this helps, --BelovedFreak 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Word for word text copying not a copyright violation?

Marguerite Ross Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On July 30, the editor Racepacket made an edit to the article Marguerite Ross Barnett in which he/she added what appeared to be copyrighted text which was a word-for-word duplication of text published in the article's lone reference which can be viewed here. The actual edit can be viewed here. As a response, I removed the copyrighted text, and left a message on the user's talk page as a notification. I then received a message on my talk page regarding this here. It appeared to be somewhat uncivil. The conversation ensued.

If read, it can be seen that the editor claims the text is in fact not copyrighted because it is not literary expression. What plan of action should I take? I've tried to somewhat reword the text on the article page since, but was I wrong to believe this was a copyright violation to begin with?

Thanks for your help.

--Brian Reading (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the prudent course of action upon encountering an edit that tracks, word-for-word, material from a source such as the New York Times, would be either to remove it (as you did in the first instance) or reword it (as you did subsequently). I think, conversely, that it is imprudent to add copied-and-pasted material to Wikipedia even if the text is so - well, prosaic, that one might contend that there can be no copyright violation because it's "just facts". (I'm skeptical of that assertion - "facts" can't be copyrighted, but way in which they're presented certainly can be; and this is prose. But then, I'm not a copyright lawyer.) I would have done what you did and relied upon the good faith and intentions of the other editor to fix what is at least a glaringly *apparent* copyright problem. JohnInDC (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia's policies on this are quite clear. I note that the other editor has a bit of history judging by the talk page. Further instances should be reported to admins. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your help. Brian Reading (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment, I would distinguish copyright vio from plagirism. Sometimes we get into arguments over fair use and even appropriateness of quotes for an encyclopedia. Personally, I wouldn't sit around trying to change someone's words to get by on plagairism or copyvio. If the words are important, quote and attribute up to fair use limits or get permission. If not important, make up your own words without adding ideas. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Brian Reading never bother to identify the source which was the basis of his concern in his first message. If a person believes there is a possible copyright violation, always state the source that gives rise to the concern. The next step is to determine whether the source is copyrighted. Then, go to a "fair use" analysis. It is prudent to remove the material out of caution while the problem is being studied, but if the first editor rephrases the material, deleting (here) the rephrased material is not warranted on copyright grounds. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else it may permit, fair use doesn't permit the use of copyrighted material without attribution (as was the case here). In this case, fair use analysis is beside the point. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Unacceptable_use. JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

66.173.140.100, you may want to re-read what I initially wrote. I clearly included the source the material was ripped from. Brian Reading (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First, Template:uw-copyright does not provide the source, nor was it in your July 31 edit summary. Second, it should be noted that you deleted subsequent rephrasings that were not "word-for-word" on August 2 claiming that they were copyright violations without giving a source for them either. I don't see the basis for your claim "It wasn't even very good information, as it even simply repeated some of the same facts." It appears that the edit caught and corrected an incorrect birthdate and included for the first time an academic career at a number of important colleges. Summarily deleting different phrasings of a set of facts over time because they are all "copyright violations" is different from deleting just the first edit. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

66.173.140.100, At this point you should probably point out that you are in fact Racepacket, as what you're doing at the moment appears to be sockpuppetry. This is something that you have been confirmed to be doing in the past, so I recommend that you don't mislead again. As far as not providing the source for copyright violation, I think it was pretty clear. If you had a question, it probably would've been better to ask before adding it again. I'm not just going to remove something and claim it was a copyright violation if I didn't see it in a copyrighted text to begin with. Otherwise, it would easily be refutable. Why are you so set on the practice of word-for-word ripping for use on Wikipedia? Are you just trolling? Brian Reading (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, the question has been answered. If you want to make a sockpuppet report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance will explain the process. If you want report copyright violations then Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place. If you want to hurl accusations about then WP:Editor assistance/Requests IS NOT the place for it. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• To restate the question, if a copyrighted source states:

Dr. Barnett was born in Charlottesville, Va., on May 21, 1942. She graduated from Antioch College in 1964 and received her master of science and doctoral degrees in political science from the University of Chicago. She taught at the University of Chicago and at Princeton, Howard and Columbia universities before turning to university administration.

Should you summarily delete as copyright infringement:

Barnett was born in Charlottesville, Virginia., on May 21, 1942. She grew up in Buffalo, New York, and graduated from Bennett High School in 1959.[2] After graduating from Antioch College in 1964, she earned a master of science and doctoral degrees in political science from the University of Chicago. Before turning to university administration, Barnett taught at the University of Chicago and at Princeton, Howard and Columbia universities.

I don't think so. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would reiterate Jezhotwells's comment that the matter has been resolved and doesn't need any further hashing out here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Zeno's Paradoxes dispute

Answered

 – Mediation requested at WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-09/ Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The generally accepted "solutions" to Zeno's Paradoxes are in conflict with quantum theory, which requires different solutions. My edits and content pointing this out have been deleted by others who oppose these corrections.

Request for mediation or initial review of the arguments and guidance for contributors.

Links: Zeno's Paradoxes and the associated Talk:Zeno's paradoxes

Looking forward to your input.

Best regards, Steaphen (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you might get good guidance by asking at WP:WikiProject Mathematics Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The central argument is simple: It is the inapplicability of using any mathematics that is reliant on continuity to solve Zeno's Paradoxes. If such were the case we could dispense with quantum theory and simply use algebra to predict the movement of quantum stuff (and ipso facto, the movement of hares, runners et al). It is the use of mathematics based on continuity (e.g. infinite series) that is the issue.Steaphen (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In view of the style of response given above, and that they will likely echo the talk page responses, I'll close this section, and bump to informal mediation.Steaphen (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Precognition

The article in question is Precognition I have recently overhauled it in order to provide more objective and representative information on the topic as it is presently scientifically investigated, and has been traditionally conceived. Perhaps my overhaul was too radical, all at once, but this does not seem to have concerned other editors. Instead, contention is almost singularly expressed as to my dissociation of this article from those articles on the subject of the "paranormal" - which, on WP's pages, comprises the likes of Atlantis, Big Foot, Elvis-as-a-cucumber-in-Arkansas, the Yeti, etc. I have tried to communicate the following reason for this: essentially, the concept of precognition, since the 1970s (at least) no longer needs to reference the "paranormal"; theories of its occurrence - as an ostensible or veridical fact - have been given in classical psychological and physical terms, in peer-reviewed forums; and I have provided dot-pointed and, I trust, well referenced information on this in the article, with more elaborate slices thereof in discussion. Perhaps there is a precedent here being feared - that if precognition falls outside WP's weird family of the paranormal, then other parapsychological constructs will do the same. That might well have to happen; the discipline grows; the understandings advance; and, accordingly, the encyclopedia must go through its editions. But a non-partisan approach to representing this information is called for. I recognize that WP must not promote "fringe" theories, and that it obliges itself to give the edge to the consensus, but in this domain of enquiry, the edges are presently not so simply drawn, and I have hoped to represent what is at least consistent with the present literature on this topic. In any case, the disputant of my approach has been silent for about a week, and I wonder when or if it is time to remediate the dispute, in terms of the content of the article. Rodgarton 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

• Comment : Generally "fringe" is as much an issue of popularity as rigour. Wiki is not a soap box or place for OR. A new hypothesis is still "fringe" as would have been newtonian mechanics at one time. The interest is in documenting the state of knowledge, not adding new stuff. Taxonomy is always political, but off hand I would think paranormal is an issue of rigour- if you have "normal" science on the topic it probably isn't paranormal or supernatural. Some similar arguable prejudices came up on EM theories of consciousness articles- these theories don't exclude ghosts or the supernatural and to date AFAIK all proven consciosness is dependent on a brain. Calling them fringe or not seems to be an open issue but IIRC the involvement of folks like Penrose/Hammerhoff with "logical" suggestive arguments and lack of better alternatives made these ok. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Having read the discussion on the talk page, I feel that you are POV pushing. You don't want precognition associated with "paranormal" - fine, that's a fight for the real world, not for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability with privilege given to dominant scholarly views. As was pointed out to you on the talk page, wikipedia may not be cited as a reliable source. It has no authority. To get the dominant view changed requires a lot more work than editing here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: - A different approach. Having read the above, and skimmed the talk page I am wondering what all the fuss is about.

Quantum theory quite successfully envelopes precognitive processes ("thinking" requires collapsing wave-functions -- otherwise your thinking would be rather fuzzy to say the least, opening up a whole new meaning for "fuzzy logic"). Physicists have known for, what, around 80 years? that the wave-functions of matter (e.g. of neurons) express pre-physical possibilities - "everything that has already happened is particles, everything in the future is waves, Sir Lawrence Bragg). And how long has he been dead ... And not to mention, of course, delayed-choice experiments which throw a rather large spanner in Newtonian clockwork-universe theories.

In a quite literal sense to think requires precognition of the possibilities. Precognition (or possibility-awareness) is as natural as breathing, and just as necessary to life.

It seems to me that those who shout "POV" or "OR" are pushing their own particular world-views. It's all quite disingenuous, and good folk know that you know it is.

btw, I've enjoyed the following quotes from Jane Roberts books that were published by Prentice-Hall (the original text of which is archived in the Yale University Library).

"The fetus grows into the adult, not because it is programmed from the past, but because it is to some extent precognitively aware of its probabilities, and from the "future" then imprints this information into the past structure." {Source: Roberts, Jane (1977). The "Unknown" Reality Vol 1. Prentice-Hall" original text of which is archived in the Yale University Library}

"It is the body's own precognition that allows the child to develop, to speak and walk and grow." {Roberts, The Unknown Reality}

"Your precognitive awareness of your own possibilities from the future helps to form the present that will then make that probable future your reality." {Roberts, The Unknown Reality}

None of the above quotes should surprise. Recall Einstein's comment, that the ""The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." To believe that we only operate in a very narrow range of time is a quaint idea, no less quaint than "flat-earth" beliefs.

btw (again), I particularly enjoyed the candid admission that "Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability with privilege given to dominant scholarly views." Priceless.

Ciao

Steaphen (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"those who shout "POV" or "OR" are pushing their own particular world-views." Of course they are. NPOV does not mean no point of view; it means neutral point of view, where 'neutral' means something roughly like 'weighted according to the views of experts as published in reliable sources'. The view that quantum mechanics allows for precognition in the sense that the word usually means in English and the view that it does not are both 'world views'; the latter is the view overwhelmingly taken by professional physicists publishing in respectable journals and therefore Wikipedia adopts that view.

If Wikipedia were not about "verifiability with privilege given to dominant scholarly views" what would we be about? The Truth as determined by the most recent editor to work on a given article? Or the majority of editors? I don't see a viable alternative. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral? The majority held view by physicists (according to one survey of the acknowledged top 20 physicists that I read), is the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory. In that conceptual framework, what does "neutral" mean? To which world-reality are you referring - presumably the one in which your 'neutral' views are "right"?

The official verdicts of the Salem witch trials that saw 18 people executed for having practised "witchcraft", were likewise "peer (court) reviewed" judgements (and that's official!).

Not to mention any number of other atrocities, and ... shh, let's not say anything about Galileo (who happened to go against the official "peer (church) reviewed" dogmas of his time).

There is one particularly delicious quote by Seth that I thought summed it up: ""The universe is — and you can pick your terms — a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation. There is presently no science, religion, or psychology that comes close to even approaching a conceptual framework that could explain, or even indirectly describe, the dimensions of that kind of universe."

And this one as well: "Atoms can move in more than one direction at once. You only perceive scientifically the probable motion you are interested in."

Placing your faith in the Gospels of science is really no different to putting your faith in the Gospels of religion. What would navigate us out of the ruff, so to speak, is asking questions of the evidence. For example, look at the debacle over on the Talk:Zeno's paradoxes pages that I've had to sort out. The superstition that movement is "perfectly continuous" and that infinite-series solve the paradoxes is serious witch-burning territory.

So, in regards to your "I don't see a viable alternative," try seeing one. Begin with the end in play, imagine a reality in which we've moved beyond the Gospels of deterministic science, and have entered an era in which we seek answers not based on the majority (crowd) opinion, but on good old-fashioned wisdom - timeless principles that will stand the test of time. What is a timeless principle? Ask the question, see what answers you get.

Asking questions is highly recommended! And might I add, increasingly necessary if we're to create a saner, more equitable and sustainable world. From personal experience, I can attest that creativity is very very deeply reliant on precognitive processes. When we shout down the idea of precognitive processes, we clamp down our potential to engage a process that is natural, highly effective and crucial to wellbeing.

Steaphen (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, your statement that "quantum mechanics allows for precognition" (...is not one that is) "overwhelmingly taken by professional physicists publishing in respectable journal" is questionable (again, depending upon which questions are asked)... which crowd of "professional physicists"? We should trust them, like professional church folk (of Galileo's time), or professional lawyers (of Salem witch trials era)? In any event, would Professor R.C.Henry of The John Hopkins University be rated as "professional" who writes that "There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze. The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."

In that reality, in which "nothing exists but observations" and that "The universe is ... mental and spiritual" one would necessarily be precognitively aware of, and helping to "coagulate" pre-physicality into the resulting physical reality (if you don't see why this is necessary, try asking some questions, based on that world-view).

There are plethora of other professional, highly regarded physicists who voice similar beliefs.

Not being one who slows down at road accidents in order to gawk, I shall be on my way. :)

Steaphen (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Shorebazaar....

Resolved

 – article speedy deleted Jezhotwells (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone able to verify the notability of this store (Shorebazaar)? Cause I picked it up on newpages patrol, and while I can't verify its notability or not, the author has avoided making untenable claims on the page, so it doesn't fall under advert. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been deleted so no need to worry about it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors on the Stoern Page

To save time I have cut and pasted my comments from the edit war issues. I have come to this page on advice from S Marshall.

Mr. McGeddon creatively edits the Stoern page by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first part of the article. In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury. Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim ("Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study." THIS STATEMENT HAS NO EFFECT--WHAT SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM CAN BE MADE BY STEORN. Without any reason behind Stoern statement to doubt the jury's finding, Stoern is rebutted the jury's finding or at least left doubt in the readers mind. This is a misdirection of the truth.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source. I accept McGeddon's edits if it is applied equally to all contributors. However, he is selective in his edits.

Furthermore, I doubt the legitimacy of McGeddon as a person without an interest in Stoern. Reviewing his editing over the YEARS of Stoern, he has made changes at all times, shortly after others have made editing changes. This appears to be a company hire to protect the editing of the Stoern Wikipedia page or Stoern itself then an altruistic in Wikipedia. (p)Evidence of Year of Editing and editing within shortly after other's editing (cur) (prev) 14:29, 26 July 2009 McGeddon (talk | contribs) m (19,037 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 68.126.61.224; Rv placeholder (?). using TW) (cur) (prev) 14:25, 26 July 2009 68.126.61.224 (talk) (19,104 bytes) (→Jury) a matter of minutes.

(cur) (prev) 11:15, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (not in source.) (cur) (prev) 11:11, 6 July 2007 Boldra (talk | contribs) (33,418 bytes) (→Demonstration (July 2007)) (cur) (prev) 10:07, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (→Arguments against: use better source) Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors should read this first before responding to this request. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No forum shopping, thank you. This is being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Irrito so is irrelevant here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I was told to enter my concerns on this page by S Marshall--as noted above. I am not sure what the scope of review will be at the other page. If the scope of review is different here I would like to continue review.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

This isn't a page for reviewing articles, neither is WP:ANI. If you want a review, try WP:Peer review or nominate at WP:GAN, but neither will be any good until disputes on the talk page are sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK or not OK to remove or restore MfD template while discussion is active?

User:Deepmath and User talk:Deepmath are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. Deepmath removed the templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at Deepmath but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages. Sjö (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the MfD template says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion., which I would say is clear cut. I think you should discuss the removal and restoration at the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion which would seem to be the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with Jezhotwells, it's probably not a big deal because the pages in question currently link directly to the MFD subpage. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

14th Military Police Brigade

Can anyone tell me the proper way to rename this article I caught on new page patrol? The naming seems so generic that I feel its highly likely that it conflicts with something similarly named be it from a previous time, fiction, or country. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem. If someone creates or tries to create another article with the same title then they will get a notice telling tem it already exists. If that happens a disambiguation page can be created. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the other brigades listed at Military Police Corps (United States Army) have similar names. I'd suggest any renaming plan should go through the military history WikiProject. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical Cannabis article, problems with references

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

Hello there,

We have some edit warring going on at the Medical cannabis page. Would you care to take a look? One editor is changing references from articles to abstracts of scientific papers. Could you give us advise on how to come to an agreement about what type of references will work? On the discussion page, I have outlined these problems (very bottom of page). This page was locked for the past day, but once it was unlocked this editor went at it again and does not respond to discussion page. Thank you very much. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as has been suggested, you can raise a request for mediation or just a request for comment. You mention that the the page was locked for a day. Perhaps you could inform the admin who did that what is going on. Check out dispute resolution for other options. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a misquotation

My Technical Director has found that he has been mis-quoted in a recent article. What steps should he take to correct the mis-quotation?

Thank You LindaDRI (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, factual matters should admit editing by anyone, even COI editors. That is, if the quote is documented in a reliable source it shouldn't be too controversial for anyone to fix it as per the source. Now, if the cited source doesn't agree with the speaker, preference has to be given to the verifiable source. Bio of living people tends to have asymmetry in regards to positive information ( kind of like securities valuations LOL where positive information is generally accepted more willingly than derogatory stuff ) so if the original quote is taken from a source which can be made to appear unreliable and is not flattering to the author, there is a good chance it can be removed. Unverifiable "corrections" however may not be possible. If you believe that wiki has accurately quoted some other source, you first need to get that source ( or even some other reliable source) to publish an indication that your director disputes the quotation. At that point, the controversy could be documented in wiki. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I understand. I will forward this information on to him. He has also asked if there is any way possible (other than following the directions indicated on the Wikipedia Help area) that he would be able to keep or "lock" the correct quote so that it cannot be editted or change to prevent the mis-quotation again. Thanks again. LindaDRI (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What page are you talking about? Locks are available but usually only due to obvious vandalism. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help for New Article

Trying to create an article for Canadian landscaping company. Looking for help for what info I need before it can be made public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmyrland/Sunshine_Grounds_Care Fmyrland (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks factual and devoid of a lot of puffery but you still need notability established by unrelated reliable sources with significant coverage. My own opinion on significant being that there has to be enough content on which to base an article. Has the company been covered in more-than-local news,business, or trade journals? Normally directory listings don't qualify- all that allows you to write in any case is something like "listed in yellow pages" which is probably not encyclopedic. If they were noted for some specific attributes, it would help to highlight these. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that it appears that this is a completely non-notable company. Please read WP:CORP which is the guideline on notablity for companies. Wikipedia is not a trade directory, it is an encyclopaedia. So, I think there is little point in continuing unless there is something specifically notable about this landscape gardening franchise that is different from other such companies. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an international company that has been the front page feature in a respected magazine. Where is the line for notability? Fmyrland (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As Jezhotwells suggests, go have a look at WP:Corp. That should help give you an idea. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read it and my understanding is that notability is established by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I have a link from the page to an article on the company from a reputable, independant magazine but what does "significant coverage" mean? Can it be quantified? Fmyrland (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about having been the cover story in Franchise Canada Magazine, which is linked in the article you've drafted. My personal sense is one-time or occasional coverage by a trade organization's bi-monthly publication does not qualify as "significant coverage" for purposes of Wikipedia notability. Coverage by a greater variety of publications - ones of more general interest, perhaps - would present a more compelling case. That's just my personal point of view, though. Others may have something different to say. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have to look at the context and AFAIK wiki doesn't limit much beyond being non-local coverage. One-time may be arguable but AFAIK there is nothing wrong with erring on side of inclusion as we don't have to fit in a bookshelf or kill a tree. I haven't looked at the claims in this case beyond above comments but, ok, if the coverage is just that "the place exists" then you would have a hard time writing an article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found more sources, including another magazine article and reference to an award given to the company by the city of Toronto. Fmyrland (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

dispute with User:NEV1 (I'm sorry I didn't know who else to turn to!)

Hi!

I apologize to Nev1 for inserting a weblink into the web page entitled "Darwen" but there was no need to delete other content that I had added in the article!

I found the deletion rather agressive as I do hail from Darwen originally and perhaps know a wee thing or two more than he does!

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.92.87 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can contact Nev1 on the user talk page at User talk:Nev1. User talk pages are often linked next to the username. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

why give a new writer, age 62, a hard time

I am Irene Brodsky, age 62, and was recently added to Wikipedia by one of my readers in India. And i tried to add as much as I could to the article he set up for me. Much of this was removed by someone I did not know., And much said about me was not true. I also did not get any advice how to fix up my page Only criticisms and none of these people told me their credentials. but they were certainly trying to down-size my credentials. Please advise how I can get my article back and tell me how to fix it and I will do so.

irene brodsky Socrates 1x2 Facebook.com/irene_brodsky Chayarochel@aol.com