Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

International space station

International Space Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does anyone like space ? the ISS is an international program, and I've been trying to improve the articles neutrality, and improve it overall, with varying success, some people will talk on the talk page, some just use the edit summary, after undoing everything. It's frustrating. I could use some help, OR if I'm the problem, feel free to say so ! Plenty of my edits are left as is, and polished up by editors, but fixing the opening paragraph is a challenge as it's the first thing some people come to, not the talk page, they see a difference and don't seem to give it a chance, and revert to factually incorrect and in my opinion, biased versions..This page is a featured article.Penyulap (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I must warn you, I waffle on a lot on the talkpage. talk far too much I'm sure.(then again, a lot of the time, nobody uses the talk page at all, which is the problem)Penyulap (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You could try asking at WikiProject Spaceflight. Do realize that International Space Station is a featured article, so it's considered very high quality. You may want to contact the main writers of the article to ask their advice before making any radical changes. --Danger (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantum and Cosmological Issues

I am interested in following discussions concerning physics issues, such as: universe models; ie atomist fixed frames versus Leibnizian relational entangled particles. Entry into the physics portal hasn't solved finding an overview on what's active and what's dormant for now. Assistance in my search is appreciated. As a retired electrical engineer and a enthusiastic student of the above issues; I would like to contribute. Feel it wise however to discover what areas related to the above are being developed, and wish to make appropriate contributions. Cooperative enterprizes are a key to human survival, hence my support of Wikipedia. Idealist707 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Try WikiProject Physics. The editors and pages there should provide some useful information. --Danger (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser, Malaysian Fashion Designer

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

Hello everyone! Could you please take some time off to check out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ser

It is about Edmund Ser, a Malaysian Fashion Designer whom have contributed to the Malaysian Fashion Scene most notably in the 80s-90s. This article is about his early life, how he achieved his success as well as his life.

Thank you so much. Asiareports (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The tone is rather promotional, perhaps the article could benefit from a WP:Peer review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

MARY KENDALL WIKIPEDIA PAGE

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, Some years ago, I googled your page on Mary Kendall (Westminster Abbey Mary Kendall). Your article was very interesting, and I was looking for it again, but it appears to have gone. Can you please help? Cheers, Anna Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.183.67 (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikipedia has ever had a page on this person. There's a page at the Westminster Abbey website - is that any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

repeated deletion on discuss page, non polite edit summs, no discussion.

OPV_AIDS_hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am trying to address the short comings of this article. But, with edit summs that seem to fail a politeness test, and no discussion entered into, my posts on the discussion page are being repeatedly deleted. I have offered to discuss and expressed a willingness to continue assuming good faith despite the edit summs. But with no positive result to date. 122.151.80.62 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of your deleted talk page comments, because I can't find any. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about deletion of article

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Twice my article was deleted and both times there was no viable reason, only two users agreed that it should be deleted. Also This article was in for mediation before it was put up for deletion. I find that administrators or who ever these "Hackers" are have to much power and are abusing that privilege. What stops a "mob" of people that don't like something placed in Wikipedia to gather there friends to help delete an article by posting bogus discussions into the "article's talk page", just to show a consensus?

Djdubuque (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QSLogBook. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was actually created in April by Lngwth (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it as it should not be recreated just after an AfD unless the problems that led to its deletion were resolved. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the way to appeal an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please - Need further opinions

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor has removed a link to: [1] citing: "I've undone your edit. The Global Post article is sourced from (and apparently only from) SSP's own press release. (Every single link in the Global Post article is back to the Satellite Sentinel web page.)"

I disagree: When four experts issue statements in a press release, that is by definition a primary source document, no matter whose name is on it.

This editor, I feel, is being extremely unreasonable. --Jespah (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The (brief) discussion of this matter on the article's Talk page can be found here. For the broader context surrounding the immediate editing issue, interested editors may wish to review this COI Noticeboard discussion and this related subject Talk page, where persistent POV, WP:Advocacy and sourcing issues on edits by the OP in this subject area are discussed at length. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced Global Post link above with http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/decapua-abyei-war-crimes-2jun11-123024863.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

The OP has located a reliable and independent secondary source for this information and I have no objection to the revised content. JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very disturbed about something that has happened on Wiki. One of the footnotes, a pdf from the Government, has been removed by someone. A few days ago.

History: A poster on a forum used a Wiki article to prove a false point about Katrina. On May 29 or so, I used that same article and cited one of the footnotes (which he'd overlooked and which disproved his argument), which was a pdf of the first letter written by Governor Blanco in which she HAD named definite counties she wanted help with "evacuation". That was the issue being discussed. To hold Blanco responsible, or not.

Blanco then wrote another letter the next day, but dated it to appear as if written the same day as the first letter. Anyone who followed the news around that time, including me, was fully aware of the two letters. Of course, the skuttlebutt was that it was to cover her youknowwhat. None of us thought it would work. But,since that time, that first letter has disappeared for the most part to enable the re-writing of history to favor Blanco for political reasons. With the second letter being used as evidence. I've seen both letters myself.

Wiki still had a copy of it. It had not been scrubbed. It is now gone and when I looked, the edit date was the same date as I had used it to prove a point on the forum

The problem: I've been trying to get evidence of the existence of these two letters into this Wiki article, but another editor, Escape Orbit, keeps erasing my changes saying that I can't remove "reliable" sources and substitute "unreliable" sources. [Conversely, someone HAS definitely removed a reliable source to skew this article (the Govt' pdf)] Along with putting in some very slanted remarks. One "footnote" didn't even have anything to do with the slanted remark I was checking, so I removed the footnote and put in one that was reliable that was completely opposite of the remark that had been posted.

Two concerns: A reliable source (Gov't pdf) has been erased, and an another editor is trying to keep any evidence to prove the point of the ""reliable source" from being put back in. Someone had to remove that pdf the last of May. What is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Donald (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Sam Donald (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Don

Please continue to discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who - The Doctor's Wife

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

'TreasuryTag' has reverted my edits in violation of the three revert policy. He refuses to allow my content on the topic page and believes they are wrong. Please see the 'Corsair' argument in the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctor%27s_Wife_%28Doctor_Who%29.

Thanks. 81.157.230.175 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's because it is wrong, and it was previously discussed on the article talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And that was only 2 reverts, so the 3RR policy doesn't apply. WP:BOOMERANG, on the other hand... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Deliberate vandalism is exempted from the 3RR, not that I think I actually did revert three times. Cut it out. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Krzysztof Zanussi

You have missed a very important Zanussi's film from 1979 "Wege in der Nacht" or "Ways in the Night". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.13.5 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. This is the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit; if you are interested in a topic and see that an article needs expanding, then feel free to start editing. This tutorial may help. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamal Taslaq

Jamal Taslaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, behind the picture File:jamal taslaq.jpg you can see in the article, there is an inscription that should not be there, but I don't succeed removing it. Any suggestion? Thank you very much. Aster dani (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected your article link; article names here are case-sensitive except for the initial letter. And I have fixed your problem. The proper syntax for that article's information box is described at {{Infobox fashion designer}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Listia neutrality

The "Features" section entry for Listia uses a non neutral voice, ie. "we", and the entire entry appears to be purely promotional in nature. I like Listia, but see no value in "promotional entries" in the wikipedia format.

JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.33 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone copied their FAQ and put it in the article - I'll undo that. --Six words (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

rooster saddle feathers

I know next to nothing about fashion and about fly fishing, but according to an article in Yahoo (http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/high-fashion-or-bait-fly-ties-now-hair-extensions-2492725/), the former is putting a crimp on the latter. When I went to Wik to get some background on it, I could not find the term cited above. It seems there might be a need for such an article in Wik.Kdammers (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you could write such an article if you have some [[WP:RS|reliable sources][]. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance understanding scientific vs. fringe claims and how to deal with them

Discussion moved

 – WP:FTN#Alchemy#Alchemy_as_a_Protoscience Danger (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm confused as to how the Wikipedia policy applies in this case Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor (you have to read the whole section). I'm trying to provide academic peer-reviewed sources but am constantly contradicted by another user who supports a fringe theory, with older or non-academic sources, and I'm having to continuously object to bold edits making absolute statements (non-neutral) about how alchemy is spiritual. No one else seems to care, so I appear to be fighting this battle myself. Advice please. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just skimmed through the talk page and the article, so I apologize in advance for not having fully learned and analyzed the situation. My first thought is that I can't understand your main statements in the context of the article. The topic of the article itself is unscientific and so you seem to be arguing that the coverage of an unscientific topic is unscientific? ! ? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the popular public view of alchemy is unscientific. The academic view is scientific to an extent, and largely historical. So does that mean that the academic view doesn't matter since the public consider it not serious? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I went back and read that whole section of the talk page, but there's still more to it that I haven't read. Pretty big to try to wade into. Seems to me that Alchemy was defined by the eyes of the practicioners. So it's agreed that one group of them approached and defined it as a science. Was there another significant group that defined / approached it as mystical? If so, while the mystical viewpoint itself might be fringe, reporting that people had that view is not and should be in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I never objected to such statements. I only objected to non-neutral statements made that alchemy is that, alchemy is that, etc. I am the editor who keeps changing the wording to say "proponents of this theory say this", instead of "alchemy is this". Actually this point is being discussed on fringe noticeboard now, so no need to discuss it here. My point of posting here is to ask for advice on regarding the reliability of statements in times where they contradict each other. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking

I generally have little success with this kind of question, but I'll try anyway. In the interest of full disclosure, one of my pet peeves in articles is overlinking. I often remove wikilinks for common words, cities, countries, etc. More often than not, those edits go off without a hitch, but every once in a while, I'm challenged. The latest challenge is a little more interesting, and it has to do with the Hugh Jackman article and where he was born. In both the infobox and the first non-lead section of the article, it sys he was born in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia - all wikilinked. I removed New South Wales completely (from both places), and I unlinked Sydney and Australia. An editor reverted here. The quote in the edit summary comes from the introduction to what should not be linked in the WP:OVERLINK guideline. Putting aside whether New South Wales needs to be in the article at all, if you carry this editor's interpretation of the guideline to its logical extreme, all birth places in biographical articles would be wikilinked, even in places as well-known as Sydney and Australia. I think it's silly and kind of turns the guideline on its head, but honestly, I don't really know how to apply the quoted qualifier from the guideline.

Now before I get an outpouring of responses (I'll probably get none), I should say that one editor/admin, in an unrelated wikilinking dispute I had with an IP, essentially told me to get a life (he did it nicely). But I've always felt that small things (let's not forget the many, wonderful wikignomes) are important, not just at Wikipedia, so it's kind of part of my temperament.

Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I think fine polishing of detail is good. Having the details right shows that folks are paying attention, and more likely to have gotten the big things right. At the same time, I also take exception to the trivial, pedantic linking of definitions of words, every instance of a place name, etc. But in this instance I am inclined to think the first-instance of a birthplace ought to be linked. A reader might want to check out someone's birthplace, and even if it is "well-known" why should that bar a link? That is the whole point of hypertext, that one can simply click on the term without having to enter it into a search box or such. Which is not to say that every instance of a place name should be linked, but I would generally go with the first instance. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps link Sydney but not New South Wales or Australia - since both of those are linked from the opening words of Sydney. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two comments. First, using Jackman as an example, why would a reader want to get more information on Sydney or Australia just because Jackman was born there? Doesn't seem intuitive to me, particularly when one considers the kind of information Wikipedia has in place articles. Second, what about the guideline qualifier itself? That's a much broader issue and the basis for the editor wanting to keep the wikilinks in. I think the qualifier is problematic, not just in this instance, but in others as well, and don't quite understand how we apply it. Because I think it's ambiguous, I also think it's likely to cause disputes - like here. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

John's suggestion is a thoughtful compromise. I kinda like bright-line rules myself, but I acknowledge that compromises are often more palatable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Altynay Sapargalieva

Hi,

Am new to posting at Wikipedia. How do I get the warnings at the top of the page (mentioned in the Subject line) removed from the page? Some references were added (and more will be), and there is a "Neutrality" notice as well.

Fisherking3k (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't unless the article meets the demands of the warnings. It looks like the article has no reliable sources to support it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

About quality of information concerning Patti LaBelle assault accusation incident

Patti_LaBelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like some guy from Houston (173.45.200.129) is giving a rather biased story about the incident. Too many quotes and claims of media are used. This is a controversial story and the information is quite misleading and subjective. In March 2011 Patti LaBelle and her entourage were reportedly involved in an assault and battery incident against a West Point college student at a Houston Airport. According to ABC News and the Houston Chronicle, [11] one of Labelle's bodyguards pushed the student, the student pushed back and the 3 bodyguards proceeded to beat him up in LaBelle's presence (some allege "at her direction"). Labelle's bodyguards claimed that King was standing too close to Labelle's luggage. Later LaBelle posed for a photo with fans only a few feet away from where King's blood was still visible on the ground. [12]. Richard King, the man who was attacked, is suing LaBelle, the bodyguards and the airport for damages. Zuri Edwards, LaBelle's son and limo driver reported that King attacked him and was verbally harassing LaBelle and her entourage. But the 3:42 minute video footage (without sound and taped by the airport), now on YouTube and local Houston news sites, shows that King had been on the cell phone during most of the time and immediately before the incident. In the YouTube video, a LaBelle bodyguard clearly initiates contact by pushing King; King brushes him back with his arm, and then three of Labelle's bodyguards rush to assault him and knock him against a pillar, causing a concussion. According to the Chronicle report, Dana King, a former airport operations security officer who was on duty at the airport -- and no relation to the victim, said he witnessed the incident. "This kid was not a threat to anyone... The guy was there with a cellphone to his ear. LaBelle's bunch was up there, standing at the rear of the limo," he said. "... Her window came down, and this guy comes over to elbow-shove him. His head hit that concrete, and after that he was basically a zombie." A police report that was filed after the incident stated the police officers could smell alcohol from King and believed he was intoxicated. King admitted on an interview that he had been consuming alcohol at the plane, but that he was not intoxicated. King also told an ABC interviewer that "I've never been in a fight in my life."

I am pointing this out because I believe his edits are more about claims and speculations rather than the the true facts about the incidents. I agree quotations should be used but not to the extent where the whole description sounds like a trashy gossip article.

The article talk page is the best place to discuss this, please remember to sign your posts using four {~} tildes. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Vaughn article help!

Article which was previously written from Chris Vaughn (Jerseyboy Hero, Stiletto Film, New Jersey Recording Artist) and correctly referenced was stolen by "another" unreferenced artist with the same name Chris Vaughn. The Previous artist already had published articles that had been "received" and I wasn't aware that that could even happen. Can the former article be restored? Do administrators have back up files? Do I have to start from scratch? Please help resolve! Thanks Creditcamp (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I've got this right: there are two musicians named Chris Vaughn. One of them also calls himself Danger Silent (or has a solo project called Danger Silent, or whatever) and the other doesn't. And the article title Chris Vaughn was originally about the one who isn't Danger Silent, but was rewritten to be about the one who is Danger Silent. (Meanwhile, there is also an article Danger Silent, which is basically a bio of Chris Vaughn (the one who is Danger Silent, I assume and hope). Is this correct? So what we need to do is something like this:

• Restore Chris Vaughn to be about the one who isn't Danger Silent.
• Create a new article about the Chris Vaughn who is Danger Silent, taking material from the Danger Silent article and also the current configuration of Chris Vaughn.
• Rename Chris Vaughn, and title new article about the other Chris Vaughn, so that they have unique titles, using... I don't know, their birth years or whatever the rule is. So we will end up with two article named something like "Chris Vaughn (born 1985)" and "Chris Vaughn (born 1987)", or "Chris Vaughn (bass player)" and "Chris Vaughn (piano player)" or whatever (these are just examples, I don't actually know when they were born or what instruments they play).
• Make the article titled just plain "Chris Vaughn" into a disambiguation page.
• Deal withe Danger Silent article, probably by making it into a redirect (after its material has been merged in the appropriate article). We probably don't need an article about Danger Silent and a separate article about the Chris Vaughn who is Danger Silent, I wouldn't think.

I believe this is what needs to be done. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually what we need to do is determine if either actually meets the WP:N criteria. The sources in the "original" version were things like angelfire blogs. Active Banana (^bananaphone 06:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for contacting me. This is really not a complex issue. Herostratus set out the appropriate steps above. User:Tocastaway aka Chris Vaughn "Danger Silent" has a new album coming out and wanted to create an article about himself. He found that there was already an article by that name, so he absconded the article title, blanked the Chris Vaughn (New Jersey) content and replaced it with his own. This disruption is a separate issue from notability. After receiving a request for assistance, I addressed this issue by restoring the initial article and placed a 3rd level warning on the User:Tocastaway talk page following two other warnings placed by other editors.
  
  Now that the disruption has been addressed, we can address any concerns there may be about reliable sources and notability. This can be done directly on the article rather than in this review forum. If and/or when User:Tocastaway creates another article in the appropriate manner, reliability of sources and notability can be addressed there. At that time, we can also create a disambiguation page, Chris Vaughn (disambiguation) and list the two articles. Cind.amuse 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Kendall - buried in Westminster Abbey

Dear Editor, Thank you for your previous response. There was a previous Wikipedia page on Mary Kendall (UK), specifically. I have seen the James/Mary Kendall page by The Abbey, but it wasn't that one. Has the Wikipedia Mary Kendall page been deleted? It was very good, I remember. Anna, Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.215.141 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I also can find no record of Wikipedia ever having had an article by that name; this includes the article having been deleted. --Danger (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Red Factions Origins

Help I want to know if i helped?

Alex 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilego (talk • contribs)

I'm unsure exactly what you need assistance with. Are you asking whether this edit was helpful? I've left a message with some (hopefully) useful introductory information about Wikipedia on your talk page. --Danger (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No What I want help with is I added the Unknown enemy's name and next time i check it ground zero remove's it and on the source thing on the bottom i think i am number 1 and it is in red so did i help with the name or no?

Alex 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilego (talk • contribs)

Glenn Danzig page

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

Hello.

I have update the Glenn Danzig page to include the following:

- - Danzig appears as himself, though fictionalized, in Ted Neely's Henry and Glenn Forever, in which Danzig and Henry Rollins are imagined to be lovers, living next door to satanists Daryl (Hall) and John (Oates). Danzig expressed his displeasure at the comic , which Neely lampooned in a subsequent one-page splash tellingly entitled The Final Blow.

After posting it, it was removed (by Danzig666 I think). I undid the edit. It was deleted again.

I don't understand Wiki very much, or the process, or the talk page, etc; I haven't contributed much to Wiki. But this is silly. Ted Neely's comic is an important contribution to the comics field, and the entry I put up is complete and objective and factual. I suspect that Danzig666 is Glenn Danzig and he doesn't want the comic listed, for some unspecified reason.

Is there a way to stop this nonsense? Or is Wiki as arbitrary as people say it is?

Some guidance please.

Thank you. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvintoronto (talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 June 2011

I believe your first step should be to go to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. Just adding and undoing with or without edit summaries does not work. The process I have seen work best is BOLD, Revert, Discuss. The two of you haven't gotten past the revert point. You were bold and inserted new material into the article, DANZIG666 reverted your addition, now is the time to discuss the changes and maybe the two of you can agree on something. I have no prior involvement with the article or either of you, I will watch the page and if assistance is needed I will try to help. GB fan (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

please review my first contribution

I'm new at this, but feel like I'm getting close to getting the hang of it.

Please review the references error I'm getting.

Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Attitor34 (talk • contribs)

You need to find and cite reliable sources that demonstrate how or why this product is notable. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be another name for an attrition mill or Ball mill (have not read it), the challenge might be more in demonstrating the notability of the inventor or company you write about. --CliffC (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Abusive moderator/editor

Article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence_%28Musician%29

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

I recently attempted to update an article as a class assignment. Despite that my post was legitimate and completely withing Wiki policies of appropriateness, anther user/moderator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thecheesykid) continues to delete my post and send threatening messages.

Why does this individual have the ability to improperly regulate content and abuse other editors in a supposedly heterarchical forum such as Wiki?

I chose to update the website of a noted artist. All of the content I posted is factual and substantiated by the sources I also attempted to post. If the problem was that I originally used sources such as Amazon, this was not done as a promotion, but rather to prove a discrepancy in claimed release dates for a particular song, which was later released on a followup album.

Please advise me as to how to remedy this problem and hold accountable the individual who is clearly abusing his Wiki editorial privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheleam (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I've responded to you on the thread on my talk page and have explained why your content was removed, I have also apologized if I had caused any offence by the removal of your edits and have sent you warning templates (not threats) concerning the introduction of spammy links into articles (also explained on my talk page). I also hardly feel as if I have abused you. Thank you. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 04:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious question marks and a claim (Ryu Murakami)

Articles in question: 69_(novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ryū_Murakami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Before I could clear up this entry and add some relevant details, I would appreciate an explanation what those question marks represent, as seen in this Releases section: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69_(novel)#Release_details). I checked Wiki guides quite a bit and there isn't any I could find. My best guess is, possibly, each question refers to a Japanese title that the editor couldn't locate? It's odd if that's the case because the title in both Japanese and romaji are already listed in the introduction at the top. So, those question marks must mean something else. Does anyone know?

I do realise this next thing is for the Talk page of the entry, but -- there is this statement found in Ryū_Murakami's biography that says "He is colloquially referred to as the "Maradona of Japanese literature"," and this has been quoted all over the English-language internet in Murakami-related articles, citing Wikipedia as a source (and, from what I see, the only source).

I hadn't heard of him referred this way, and there is no citation. To be sure, I checked all possible avenues for a link between Maradona (マラドーナ) and Murakami (村上龍之助) in Japanese. There isn't any that backs this claim up. It's not even mentioned in the Japanese edition of Murakami's Wikipedia entry: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%91%E4%B8%8A%E9%BE%8D and Murkami's own site. I think the claim should be removed, but since it's cited all over the net, would removing it cause problems? Advice, please? Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Help! Advice in a conflict of interest dispute.

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

I'm trying to act as a 3rd party between two groups that have a COI. I need help to see if I'm handling this OK, if something else should be mentioned or another party should take over.

Article is about an actor named Zack Heart. Krystic1 created the page, but they work for Zack Heart. A month ago I stumbled on the page and advised them of COI among other things. here is the thread.

Another user, UrbanTerrorist, has showed up and added negative info about Zack Heart to the article. UrbanTerrorist has some valid and invalid points. I've tried to addressed his points. Oh... UrbanTerrorist had legal threats brought against him by Zach Hart's people and blogged about other legal action of Zack Heart. So, naturally, he is not entirely in a neutral view frame of mind.

He has recently stated to me how famous, experienced and popular blogger he is. He has buds at #Anonymous and Tor. His followers and anti-Zack Heart followers are watching and are not happy with me. From his blog, he is going to eventually post an entry exposing the not so nice doings of Wikipedia.

So, this is rapidly going above my Wikipedia pay grade and I need help. Talk:Zack Heart and User talk:Krystic1 contain the relevant discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the BLP noticeboard would be the best place for this to be resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat, was it a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation?

I'd be grateful of some assistance with a small dispute at Schrödinger's cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A2326xyz (talk · contribs) wants to make an change to the opening section saying that "contrary to popular belief it does not show that there is a fundamental flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation"

I however feel that showing a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation was exactly what Schrödinger's was trying to do with the thought experiment, this is strongly affirmed at Copenhagen interpretation#Consequences, I have tried to explain this on the talk page, but A2326xyz doesn't want to talk and simply reverts my revert stating "information that was deleted is correct"

Free Bear (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  What you feel about the matter isn't really significant; it's what the sources show. User:A2326xyz has explained at Talk:Schrödinger's_cat#Critique of of the Copenhagen interpretation? that he thinks his version is "more precise and historically accurate". If you do not understand his position, ask to him to show his sources. If you disagree about that interpretation then you should cite sources (not blogs! nor other WP articles) supporting your interpretation. All this is best done on the article's talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Air Mobility Command article

Several years ago (Oct 2008 to June 2009) the Air Mobility Command Museum tried to set up a Wiki page much like the National Museum of the United States. There is a short paragraph on the museum on the Dover Air Force Base / Museum page with a link to our web page, but the museum wanted a more comprehensive description in Wikipedia - like the National Museum. Editors at the time seemed to think our description was too long and/or didn't have enough "third party sources"?. The article disappeared. How can we get it reestablished and updated. Was it a misunderstanding that got it taken off or were we counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia? I cannot even find the revision history of the Air Mobility Command Museum. It existed on 18 May 2011 - can someone help?--AMCMPilot (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Be aware of conflict of interest. Members of AMCM, particularly when acting under official capacity should not be creating or direcly editing articles related to AMCM. Secondly I would guide you to the requirements for a stand alone article. Essentially, the topic of the article must have been the direct subject of significant commentary by some third party, published in a reliable source in order to qualify as the subject of a stand alone article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend gathering some third party sources and leaving your request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. EDIT TO ADD: books.google.com and news.google.com are generaly good search tools to find reliable online sources (if you ignore the blogs and books published by Icon which is merely a Wikipedia mirror) Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

deleted article

Hi - I see that Greg Saunier was deleted because of an expired PROD. Is there any way I can get at the article? He's definitely notable enough now to have his own article. PermanentVacay (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ease up on deleting pages

The entirety of the Human Rights Impact Assessment page was deleted because a single file, created by Nomogaia, is seen as copyright infringed. The document, A Methodology for Human Rights Impact Assessment, is not copyrighted, so there should have been no deletion. As executive director of Nomogaia, and as the author of the Methodology, I'd like to see the page reinstated. I'm happy to take any necessary steps to prove that no copyright infringements occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksalcito (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the document has a copyright notice prominently on the bottom left of the front cover. It is possible to release the for use on Wikipedia by following the procedure described here. However, I am concerned that, since you excerpted part of one document that you might have done the same with others that you have written. (For example, your first sentence of Nomogaia is lifted directly from the Nomogaia welcome page. The lead paragraph of Human Rights Impact Assessment is lifted directly from the website as well.) Every document that you excerpted would have to be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia for the article; it may be much easier simply to rewrite the article without using excerpts. Because the article uses copyrighted text (we presume that it is copyrighted, since we don't have proof that you are the owner of the text), it will be deleted until that text is released under a compatible license. (We save everything on Wikipedia; if the license turns out to be acceptable we can restore the article. Please do not restore the text as is yourself.)

I notice that you have been editing the article Nomogaia. As an affiliated person, I encourage you to review our guidelines on conflicts of interest. In particular, while you are not prohibited from editing the article, you are strongly encouraged to propose additions on the talk page rather than make them directly. --Danger (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article, with (at least some) duplicated text, has been recreated at NomoGaia. I would add that, in addition to the COI problem identified above, it's a bad idea to re-use text from publications of the subject of an article - even with all appropriate permissions - because it's highly unlikely that the text is going to be written from a neutral point of view. The article is, I think, likely to be deleted again very quickly without proper licensing (or a rewrite) and rather than re-creating it again it is probably a better idea to resolve these underlying issues. JohnInDC (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Discussion moved

 – WP:HELPDESK#Unexplained reverts. Danger (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why where this and this reverts made, apart for being rude. This is not a comercial but rather a caltural reference, translated from here, and the only explanation I have for the reverts are caltural bias. Deror (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You might have first looked at WP:ADVERT and at WP:UNDUE and at WP:IINFO before jumping to conclusions about an editors intentions. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully stand by my reverts. Wikipedia is becoming the new Craig's list where everyone and his brother mentions a new CD, some band they have formed in a garage, etc. and spam it. And there is always a hook for listing some new CD somewhere. Does Britannica mention the CDs by various artists? No, not at all. The no spam policy must be followed everywhere. And FYI Dror similar sentiments were expressed here before then by myself and others (search for Craigslist). So no need to reach for the "cultural bias" panic button, just because it is there. Spam is a totally cross-cultural phenomenon, and must stop. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossposted to WP:HELPDESK#Unexplained reverts - please continue the discussion there if necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Current Harassment

I hope this is the right place to report a harassment incident. I've got user 58.110.240.225 nipping at my heels, pestering me, continuous lack of post signatures and making my talk page untidy. However eager the user to is to expect more from me, deter and take care of the user in any way fit if you please. Deltasim (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone made a funny on the Nero page.

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

On the "Nero" page, the caption under John William Waterhouse's painting reads "That Was a Dick Move, Nero." The painting is actually called "The Remorse of the Emperor Nero after the Murder of his Mother."

64.8.1.2 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)