Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Person keeps reverting edits, removing negative facts and represents company and products overly positive

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PocketBook_eReader&oldid=433282186#Brainsteinko

The user keeps reverting most edits, all his involvement to this date seems to be PocketBook related.

After some digging I noticed other users before me have had the same problem and even tagged the article as advertisement as well.

Furthermore Brainstenko also lives in Kiev where the HQ of Pocketbook is located and works as freelance writer and translator. I think he is somehow involved with Pocketbook because he is always painting a overly good marketing picture.

He quotes references that do not back up his claims, he uses phrases like "fastest page turns" and then adds "arguably" because he thinks then he does not have to use a real backup for his claims. Or adds "It is a long-standing leader as comes to the amount of supported text formats" even tho other readers support at least the same amount of file formats.

The other source I removed even had SPONSORED in the url and did not back up a single one of the numbers he added to the article and claimed the article as source.

Comment - about two-thirds of that article seems to violate WP:NOTCATALOG. --CliffC (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks almost like a G11 speedy to me. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE ADVICE

Person has again undone my changes and reverted not only mine but other people changes as well. Advertisement links removed by Ronz have been readded and all the negative info removed.

But I have been warned by an admin for undo war even tho what I did last time was restoring my changes he wiped. Please advice, not using undo at this time. Curious why he hasn't been warned at the same time.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=433625523&oldid=433508947

BottomDog (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up some of the most promotional language and have watchlisted it. Instead of just accusing people. please discuss the article and what changes you would like to see made to the article on the talk page. Lets see what happens. GB fan (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

TV episodes being tagged for "notability" (and other things)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A user,  _Xeworlebi ^(talk), has suddenly gone through a bunch of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes and tagged them for "notability" issues, with no explanation. Three of us have been asking and or arguing with him about this, as it is a convention that, on these shows at least, each episode has it's own page (see rʨanaɢ (talk)) . On this page: Anne and on the talk page Talk:Anne (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode) I disagreed with this tag. On his talk page and on others, we have been trying to understand the reason (and getting a bit testy, I admit) and can't get anywhere. We need someone to give us some more authoritative feedback. My question is simply this: if it's been consensus for some time that each episode gets it's own page, do we suddenly have to satisfy one user's demand that it meet some abstract definition of "notable" that only he gets to pass as acceptable? Since he won't explain his criteria, no one can meet it, and since he won't explain his reasons, we wouldn't even know how to begin meeting them. Additionally, he has tagged many episode pages that, so far, are plot only, or mostly plot summaries, he's demanding references, when according to what I've read re WP:plot guidelines, the episode itself is the reference. They should have tags re being plot only, in need of expansion, but the lack of references isn't relevant yet. When someone fills out the page and fails to put in references, then tag it, of course. In looking back over his edits, they consist almost entirely of reverts and tags, which seems to me as though this is his definition of editing, but it's not very helpful, it just drives others nuts and doesn't improve the pages. And those who disagree with him get rudeness--he reverts any comments on his talk page from people who disagree with him and then insults them. What can we do to resolve the "notability" issue? Can one user just suddenly do this to a whole bunch of established pages? It seems more like vandalism than editing. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thank you.--TEHodson 09:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC) A quick additional note: part of the discussion was on his talk page, but as I said, he reverted someone who disagreed with him, so you'd have to go back a couple of edits on that page to find an opinion that was, I think, useful, but dismissed and hidden so no one else can see it and comment on it.--TEHodson 10:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi TEHodson. If you have a look at the guidance on television episodes, you'll see that each episode should independently meet the notability guidelines, with significant coverage independent of the subject. For articles which are only a summary of the plot, this is an issue, and the editor would be right to tag it for notability. Whilst mass tagging can be difficult, it is certainly not vandalism - Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia. My advice would be to work on the articles to establish notability, rather than complaining about the tagging. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I should also point out that I've seen editors mass redirect to "list of" articles or nominate for deletion en masse too, and Xeworlebi's tagging is much more collaborative than that, as it gives you much more time to fix. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What about episodes that are not merely plot summaries (he's tagged those, too)? I understand the expansion part, and there's another tag for that, which is specific to the lack of other material. Isn't the notability tag redundant if the article is already tagged with the plot only tag? Re expansion, some of the episode pages have Production sections if there's information available about those details. (I am not personally qualified to expand to such sections.) If there is no production info available, should the page be deleted rather than just sit there with a notability tag on it that no one can do anything about? I think one problem with the notability tag is that is so vague. What makes one episode "notable" and another not, and who decides? (And perhaps vandalism is too strong a word, but it is an irritation when it's done en masse by one person who does nothing else; maybe "nuisance" is a better word.) --TEHodson 10:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But "notability" isn't vague. It's clear from the general notability guidelines that a topic is notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The plot only tag does imply lack of notability, true, but there are certainly hypothetical situations (1 line about an award won, the rest of the article being plot) which does not. If Xeworlebi has tagged articles which are not plot only, which have sourced independent information regarding the production or reception sections, then do mention them. I mean, have a look at a good TV episode article, like The Impossible Astronaut. 38 references, sections on production, reception, images, and so on.

Just because you are not qualified to expand a production section doesn't mean no one is. I'd be surprised if there was no production information available, DVD features, companion books, news articles for some episodes... there should be stuff out there, it'll just require a little work. Remember, there's no deadline, chip away, bit by bit. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, the criteria are clearly established at WP:GNG. There's also no such consensus that each episode can have an article, such believe is wrong, as previously established at for example the Pokemon articles (See WP:POKEMON) and WP:NOTINHERITED. Although there are plenty of fans out there who believe just existing means that it can have its own article, which is also not true (See WP:EVERYTHING).

I removed the comment from the German IP, because he's an unconstructive IP hopper, who has now found it a good idea to annoy me on my talk page with plainly inaccurate statements and requests that go against the normal process for these pages. I have the right to remove any comments I wish from my talk page. For the record, the claim that I have insulted anyone is entirely made up.

It is frowned upon to list episode articles at AfD, instead WP:TVEP lines out how to deal with problem articles. There used to be a television article review process, but that kinda died out long ago, and there hasn't been a proper substitute of really dealing with articles besides tagging them since. The biggest issue being the fan-base who want to keep episode articles no matter what and not caring for policy or guidelines, even if they clearly do not meet WP:GNG or plainly violate WP:PLOT. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

unconstructive IP hopper -- Mate, the one who is as incompetent as he is aggressively uncivil is you. Also, could you finally explain what you are trying to say with "IP hopper"? I regard that as a clearcut attempt to insult and bait me into a personal attack. It is offensive. Please stop it immediately.

the claim that I have insulted anyone is entirely made up -- I don't forgive, go annoy someone else

plainly inaccurate statements -- Good thing you're conveniently not quoting them here where everybody could see them. Let me correct your rampant intellectual dishonesty by quoting myself here: Articles which clearly fail the GNG should be deleted, not tagged (except with a deletion template of course). Template:Notability is for cases where the tagging user is not sure whether or not the article subject meets the GNG ("may not meet the general notability guideline"). -- This is what Xeworlebi calls "plainly inaccurate statements", without of course over explaining why he thinks they are inaccurate, instead he resorts to his usual insulting tone and refuses to engage in meaningful discussion.

A good thing, too, that you don't care whether or not your edits are correct or not.

To everyone else: Xeworlebi needs to be banned, the sooner the better. Not only is he unwilling/uncapable of maintaining minimum decorum or at least the appearance of trying to be actually civil (not just following the letter of e.g. WP:TPG), he is also completely incompetent and does not enage in any discussion that challenges any of his MoS- and policy-violating edits. He engages in edit wars and he is clearly a net-detriment for the project. --87.79.213.156 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

IP hopping means a dynamic IP, which changes despite being the same userWorm^TT · (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm... yes, I know what DHCP is... The thing is that Xeworlebi keeps insulting me as "that IP hopper", clearly insinuating other things. I resent that because it is a clearcut personal attack against me. No, really. He is trying to undermine my arguments by slandering me with insinuations. Textbook case of argumentum ad hominem. That is what he is doing when he calls me "IP hopper". And he should stop it, or face a block. --87.79.213.156 (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm, for all that. I know that others are qualified to expand, that's why the plot only tag is useful, as it'll inspire them to work on it. Truthfully, hardly any TV show episodes are even remotely "notable" by that standard, especially in a 7-season series (it's an exceptional TV episode that can carry enough information to warrant 38 references!) but they have become a convention on WP. I can think of only two Buffy episodes that reach such a high standard--rarely are individual episodes of a TV show "significantly covered" anywhere; maybe that's a reason to eliminate them, or to make the standard less exacting for TV show eps. I think the reason this got a couple of us irritated is that it was done en masse by someone who is very generous with the criticism, not so much with the hard work. I only once tagged an article in all my time here, and asked an editor whose work is first class for guideline help before doing it (it was for an article that was written as a personal analysis, with no objectivity), and I was told to be conservative and certain of my issues first, to start a conversation on the Talk page well before tagging, to explain exactly what my problem with the article was and to give others a chance to comment and repair, and that the attitude of the best WP editors re tags is to use them as a last resort because once they're on an article, it can be difficult to get them off, as the tagger usually has trouble accepting that the problem is really resolved. Giving an article four tags with no Talk page discussion at all is really off-putting. Is it your opinion, then, that even if the plot only tag is on the article, the notability tag should stay, too?

Xeworlebi, if there's no consensus that every episode should have an article, then why does every episode of Buffy have an article? If you think there shouldn't be an article for every episode, I'd absolutely agree. As I said above, I can only think of two episodes that are really notable (The Body and Hush, though I could make a case for a few others). A list would be good enough for me. My problem with you is that you've assumed a traffic cop role, and are not discussing the issues, just mass tagging. That doesn't help. At least I've started a discussion that could lead to making a better decision about how to handle the surfeit of information which you call a fan-base problem, which I agree is real. But you seem to only be able to talk at us, not with us. --TEHodson 11:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

that other crappy articleshexist and have not yet been brought into copliance with wikipedia policies is a horrible baisis for an arguement to let additional incompliant articles stay that way. Active Banana (^bananaphone 11:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

re "plot tag being useful" - can you show me any examples of when a plot tag alone has actually had edtiors come in and bring in sourced non-plot material? Active Banana (^bananaphone 11:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the "notability" tag is probably the most important of all the tags on the page. I also believe that 4 tags is not excessive, as long as they cover seperate issues, and the multiple issues tag was created for exactly that purpose. I see the tagging as sign of good faith by Xeworlebi that he thinks the episodes are notable, but they are not currently establishing the notability. 87.79.213.156, this would explain why they are not being put up for deletion, but rather tagged.

As for whether specific shows are notable, well, as I mentioned, there's likely information in the DVD commentary, in any companion guides, in books like [1] or "Buffy the vampire slayer:the watcher's guide 2". I'm not keen on eliminating the episode articles, but they do require work.

I do agree that discussions would be helpful, it's never good for a user to feel railroaded. Hopefully you and Xeworlebi can come to some agreement, I'll be happy to offer any mediation/3O at a mutually convenient venue. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, multiple times now, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:POKEMON, and mainly because there are those not familiar with the policies and guidelines and create articles just for the sake of it. I already did the 'large' discussions, problem is, for every new show there's another person who wants another big discussion like you, there are to many problem articles to go trough every talk page starting hundreds of discussions and often there's a horde of fans who want to keep the articles just because, ignoring everything. There probably should be something new made like a PROR (proposed redirect), but that doesn't exists at this point, and there's currently no good way to deal with these articles, so tagging them is the only thing that can be done at this point short from redirecting them, which will bring out another class of fans. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This needs to stop. EAR and this thread is not the place. If you want to continue this, take it to ANI or take Worm up on his offer of mediation. Danger (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You change IP's multiple times a day, that's called IP hopping, probably to avoid people from seeing your edit history as a whole as it's mostly disruptive, calling people incompetent and the likes, the frequentness of your IP address changes is suspicious at best. How was that an insult? On the other hand, calling me incompetent is clearly a personal attack. You clearly haven't read the guidelines how to deal with problematic television episode article, you statement that they should immediately be brought to AfD is clearly against the normal. You already tried to get me banned and you majorly failed in it and were pretty much laughed out of the room. Anyway, attacking me at every turn, just because you can, and insulting are not helpful to this discussion at all. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC) probably to avoid people from seeing your edit history as a whole -- Please assume good faith. My ISP simply assigns new addresses quite frequently. Also, my flatmate downloads porn by the truckload and often disconnects and reconnects. He is a filthy pig, but I love the guy. What can I say? Oh, yeah, right: Please assume good faith. as it's mostly disruptive -- Please refrain from any further personal attacks against me. Also, you might want to back your allegations up with diffs. Otherwise, it may appear that you're simply pissed off at me because I've now schooled you three times: #1 when you didn't know that captions which are not grammatically complete sentences, but extended noun phrase, have no final period. #2 Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes, where everybody agrees with my arguments and you once more made yourself look as incompetent as you truly are. #3 with my above cited comment that articles that clearly do not meet the GNG should not be tagged as "maybe not meeting the GNG", and instead should be deleted (which you aggressively dismissed, like all other valid input). calling me incompetent is clearly a personal attack -- No, that is a matter-of-factly statement, supported by a lot of evidence. you statement that they should immediately be brought to AfD is clearly against the normal -- At least my English isn't as subpar as yours. Or are you just getting nervous because the community is finally getting wise to you? You already tried to get me banned -- You mean that WQA I filed to which you didn't respond and which was completely disrupted by another user? Nah, there were several people agreeing with me that your behavior was way out of line -- and that on top of the fact that the situation which started it all was your above-cited complete ignorance of WP:CAPTION. Like I said, ridding Wikipedia of negative forces like you is just about the most valuable thing anyone can do around here. Sadly, you will probably outlast any of the sensible people whose work you destroy out of your ignorance. --87.79.213.156 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC) You opened a second WQA? Because I responded to the one you informed me of, or did you just made that up as well? And please read the guidelines on how to deal with problematic television episode articles, it says to avoid nominate them at AfD and instead tag them with {{Notability}}. If you have nothing to say on the matter and your only goal here is to attack me then don't say anything. So we can have an actual discussion on the actual issue here. You're just being uncivil, disruptive and handing out personal attacks like candy to kids. It's not helpful at all. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC) It's not helpful at all -- You are actively harming the project with your incompetence. That said, I'll ignore you from now on, unless you keep doing edits that violate the MoS and policy. In such cases, I'll keep schooling you. --87.79.213.156 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

With regard to notability, many more episodes than that are probably notable, especially given the amount of academic attention that Buffy has received. "Once More With Feeling" and "The Body" are Featured Articles; you can probably use many of the sources from those articles to prove notability for other episodes. I imagine that, for example, "Innocence" and "Seeing Red" also have received sufficient coverage to pass gng. On the other hand, even the biggest fan must admit that there are episodes that no one really notes, but that's not really the point. The point is that notability can't be assumed for every episode and the references have to be provided to prove notability, just like for any other topic. The fact that these articles exist now doesn't mean that they conform to policy. But the GNG isn't a particularly high bar and it's not unreasonable to expect that every Wikipedia article meet it.

Everyone, let's calm down with the personal remarks. Comment on the issue at hand, not the editors involved. --Danger (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in a bit: as I have told the people who brought this up at my talk page, I haven't seen any problems with Xeworlebi's behavior and I don't think discussing Xeworlebi's behavior is relevant or helpful here. The IP's behavior, however, is becoming quite uncivil.

As for the actual content issues, I haven't yet made up my mind what my opinion is so I have refrained from commenting so far. I think Danger's suggestion for going forward is a good one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Worm has answered the original question to my satisfaction, and I now understand the issues better. I'm not a full-time dedicatd WP editor like some are, but I do what I can when I come across a page that's in trouble. There are a few things I'm very good at so I contribute as I can, and am not attached to any particular page or having things "my way." I do think, however, that if  _Xeworlebi ^(talk) (or anyone else) is going to tag an article that he can see someone just spent a great deal of time on and did improve, it would be nice if he could spend two minutes on the Talk page saying something, "I see you've been working on this and it's better, but it still has issues so I'm going to tag it to inspire others to help" or explaining himself when questioned. It's the difference between thinking of those who edit WP as being mere ciphers (which is a real problem here) and recognizing them as live human beings. It's decent and courteous, and would avoid a lot of bad feeling. A self-appointed expert who chastises others is hard to take in any context. Here Worm has agreed with him and instructed me, but managed to do it in a helpful and friendly way, without the condescension and stubborn insistence that I just take his word for it--in other words, without the attitude. It makes all the difference in the world. And he (Xe) states that since, in the past, he did "discuss" this issue he sees no reason to do it again, but since WP is a living place to whom new people come every day, obviously there will be a need to do so, at least in a brief and reasonable way, and spending those couple of minutes doing it would self-evidently save time in the long run. Thanks to all who helped answer the question.--TEHodson 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

re: "take his word for it..." I am seeing links mulitple times to the appropriate policy and guideline pages - all you had to do was click and read to see that he wasnt "just making things up to cause you grief". Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, Active Banana (^bananaphone, I was in need of further clarification, but thank you for continuing to demonstrate that arguing for its own sake and talking down to others is something that people here really enjoy.--TEHodson 01:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I linked and said basically everything Worm said on the talk page of "Anne", I've tried to get you to click on WP:GNG by clearly linking to it, so you would see what the 'requirements' are for notability, yet you keep saying that I have given no such information to you here, the "Anne" talk page and here as well. I saw you remove valid tags with the edit summary "Rmvd tags. Issues resolved." while they were not resolved at all. I wasn't aware you just spend three hours working on the page, nor do I think that to be actually relevant to the tags, I said I appreciated what you did but that the issues were still present, but if you're looking for personal validation then you're in the wrong place [the internet]. I haven't said I don't want to discuss this, (I have clearly just done so) I said I already did it, and probably will again, and it's a lot of work, work you have to start over every time you come across a new editor, it's tiresome, especially if they just ignore what you say, say that you have to contribute in other ways before you can add valid tags to an article, say you haven't answered there questions when you have, etc. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 05:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote (above) about the differences between the way each of you dealt with me, and the issue? Even now, you just keep arguing and asserting your rightness, when I've already said I'm satisfied and now understand the issue. "Personal validation" and common courtesy are not the same thing. I don't require the first, but when the second is offered, things generally go better for everyone. --TEHodson 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

shall we chalk this down to a simple difference in styles of communication? As far as I can tell, the query has been resolved, there's no need to go over who said what and how ad infinitum. Now, off you go, build an encyclopedia ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sarmatism - issue on discussion page relating to Sarmatism, (doesn't need expert)

Hello, on the talk page for Sarmatism I am in a discussion with a couple of editors regarding an edit I made to the main article, this is all in the section 'I'm sorry, BUT...'. If another editor could give their opinion, preferably a native English speaker, that would be much appreciated. Just to give you a brief summary the original text was: "In its early, ideal form sarmatism looked like a good cultural movement: it supported religious belief, honesty, national pride, courage, equality and freedom. However as any doctrine that put some social class above others it became perverted in time. Late sarmatism transformed belief into intolerance and fanaticism (but compared to countries like Sweden, Germany, Russia, France, Spain, England and others freedom and tolerance were much more common), honesty into political naivety, pride into arrogance, courage into stubbornness, quality and freedom of szlachta into nihilism." which I changed to "It has been alleged that while sarmatism initially supported religious belief, national pride, equality and freedom, that over time this was perverted into a form of beliefs conducive to intolerance and fanaticism." and I detailed my reasoning on the talk page. Reichsfürst (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page discussion seems to be making progress. However, you must all be very careful to phrase any edits for neutrality, as it appears you have don in your version above. Nevertheless, you must either find sources for 'it has been alledged', or leave the claim out of the article. See WP:WEASEL for more information. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Randy Altsculer

Hey. I'm new to wiki. I wanted to add some updates to the Randy Altschuler page but to make sure i didn't mess up I posted them on the discussion section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Randy_Altschuler

please assist me by adding the relevant info and source links on the article page.

Long island bob (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you figured everything out. I'm going to leave a message on your talk page with some (hopefully) links with more information about Wikipedia. A lot of it you've probably seen, but I think it's nice to have them handy. Danger (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested editorship

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

I have been repeatedly engaged in bitter discussions over the content and tone of this article with another editor, and I would like very much to have a third-part editor who could act as referee in order to settle ongoing controversies about how the "established" article should look likeCerme (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Try requesting a third opinion or informal mediation if it's as much a personality dispute as a content matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That article needs some serious help - the vast majority of it is enormously POV and makes very little sense. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird redirects, maybe a bug?

How come this shows Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/d as redirecting to Dealey Plaza? Normally, if I see a redirect that unbelievably stupid, I just STFU and fix it, but when I go to that page, it turns out it really redirects to Wikipedia:Link rot which is not unbelievably stupid. Is this some sort of bug? 99.164.32.24 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a bug that is what was decided her, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dead external links/300. GB fan (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, but why does it show up as an incoming link to Dealey Plaza? 99.164.32.24 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well disregard what I said, I misunderstood your question, I don't know why that is like that. GB fan (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The page used to link to Dealey Plaza until this 26 May edit, so perhaps a background process isn't updating the "what links here" info fast enough. I've purged the redirect page - maybe that will fix it? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I done goofed... edit incorrectly marked as vandalism

I was clicking the "undo" link when the Twinkle "vandal revert" button showed up right where undo was, resulting in this revert being marked as vandalism when it isn't. I don't want my mistake to reflect poorly on an editor... can the edit summary somehow be changed or removed? I didn't think this was nearly serious enough for WP:RFO. XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary can not be changed, but you can make a null edit and make a new edit summary. GB fan (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. I wasn't sure null edits were still kosher. XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I use the script Advisor.js when I need to make null edits. It suggests (generally) extremely minor formatting fixes, but at least the edit is mildly useful. --Danger (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just added an extra space at the end of a sentence before a linebreak. :) XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture removed

I - author of the article, of which copied the picture. Article is open access. Nevertheless picture removed. What else is needed to confirm the rights? Thank.--Solikkh (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Computer for operations with functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You would have to ask the copyright-holder to give up some or all of their rights in the pictures. They would have to send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation as described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I can't see the deleted pictures, but, for example, if they were part of the first reference document then they would be covered by the copyright notice "(с) Б.Н. Малиновский, 1995" on the first page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for technical input about RfC

Answered

 – at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#"jurisdictional" gap? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#"jurisdictional" gap? about how to correctly categorize an RfC I'd like to start.

Unfortunately the RfC talk page doesn't get a whole lot of traffic, so I was hoping to find knowledgeable editors here who could help me determine how best to proceed. --87.78.55.2 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

School Science and Mathematics Association (SSMA)

• School Science and Mathematics Association (SSMA) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am President of SSMA.

In May, we produced an article on SSMA following the format for NCTM and NSTA.

For some reason, "editor" Jac16888 deleted the entry under SPEEDY DELETION. G11 Now, only the SSMA logo appears on the site.

Please consider reinstating the article.

Dr. Don S. BalkaP— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donbalka (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted article, so can't comment on it in detail. But the FAQ page for organisations may help you to understand the reasons for the deletion; and this other page may help you decide what to do next. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You should also read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Based on what you have said above you havea conflict of interes. GB fan (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And also this page about "we" accounts. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of these points are covered in the FAQ page for organisations -- John of Reading (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The deleted article read like a blatant promotion for the organisation, including the huge logo. All the references were to primary sources. All regular editors may tag an article for deletion. The physical deletion may only be done by an administrator on review of the article tagged for speedy deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems creating new article

Resolved

 – per User talk:Kudpung#Take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

:

I am unable to access Ben Ripley. Clicking on the red link doesn't allow editors to create a new article, but rather links to deleted versions. The editor/admin responsible for these deletions is User:PMDrive1061 but he no longer active and his talk page is disabled. I created the article (rough) in my userpage which can be found here. How might I get around this mess? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have moved the draft in your userspace over the protected page myself (any admin can do this), but I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. If you have sources that provide significant coverage of Ripley instead of short mentions, please do add them. Note also that IMDB is not a reliable source, and movieslug doesn't appear to be either. When you clean up the article, you can ask any admin to move it on their talk page. --Danger (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is supported by three reliable sources. Author wrote Source Code. Easily meets minimum requirements for notability. I'm curious how the admin/editor made it impossible for editors to create a Ben Ripley article. I've never seen this before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The title was protected after a vandalism page was created there several times. See WP:SALT for more details. --Danger (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All right. Where do I petition an end to this protection? The admin responsible is no longer active. The guy wrote Source Code, a major hollywood picture. I don't understand the problem here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The original Ben Ripley article cannot be restored. It contained no useful information that could be used for an article on Ben Ripley the movie director/screenwriter. As Danger suggests, you can consider creating a new article in your user space at Wikifan12345/Ben Ripley (draft) (click the red link to start the page), and when you have fulfilled all the requirements for notability and truly reliable sources, you can ask Danger, me, or another admin to review your draft, unlock the page name, and move it to main space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One good thought experiment for notability is "What is possible to write about this subject that could be sourced to independent, reliable sources?" If the answer is is less than a couple of paragraphs, then the subject is probably not notable. Of course, there are many disagreements over what the minimum bar for notability is, so if you ask enough parents admins, you may find one who will say yes. Danger (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to allow this as a stub per the discussion on my talk page, but with the proviso that patrollers might still tag it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirection problem with NMIMS University article.

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

I am a student of NMIMS University also known as Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies University. Intitially, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies was just a management institute (business school). However, now it is a deemed university and is officially known as NMIMS University.

Recently, the NMIMS University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has been redirected to Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, which is incorrect. Ideally, it should have been exactly the opposite.

NMIMS University now has an engineering institute, a pharmaceutical college etc but the Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article only covers the old entity which was only a business school. The NMIMS University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article had all the relevant details which are now lost and I don't know how to regain them.

I request you to restore the NMIMS University page and redirect the Narsee Monjeee Institute of Management Studies page instead at the earliest OR provide the contents of NMIMS University page in Narsee Monjeee Institute of Management Studies page.

Refer to the official website of the University http://www.nmims.edu for details.

Salilpawar1 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Salil Pawar (salilpawar1),

Salil Pawar Mumbai, India.

It appears to me that the name of the instition is actually Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, as evidenced by the institution's own website. It is not actually called NMIMS University so it appears that the page naming is right. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an internal problem with the article titles called a "double redirect" that might have been causing problems for you, but I've fixed it. I agree with Jez that the official title of the University seems to be "Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies", and thus the current name is appropriate. Even if people usually call it NMIMS University we would probably use the official name. Compare with University of California, Los Angeles, a school I've never heard referred to as anything but "UCLA". We still avoid the acronym.

Query to more savvy editors: Can anyone figure out why the software didn't pick up the double redirect? --Danger (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Franco-crosti boilered 9F BR locos

BR Standard Class 9F 92020-9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Sir or Madam,

There is a contradiction concerning locomotives 92020-9 which were built orginally at Crewe Works with Franco-Crsoti boliers. These boilers were not successful and all these locos were rebuilt with conventional boilers but retaining the smaller pre-heat boiler but this was blanked off. On the page dealing with these 10 locos there is a photo of 92022 [taken in 1964]and the page comment is that although the special chimney (on the fireman's side - that is on the opposite side to the side shown in that photo)cannot be seen, there is steam coming from it. When that photo was taken 92022 had been converted to a normal loco two year EARLIER (see your notes) and the steam is actually coming from the safety valves of 92022; also one can see exhaust coming from the chimney at the from of the loco. Again your notes indicate that when 92020-9 were originally built, the place where a normal chimney was placed on a normal 9F locomotive in the case of 92020-9 it was ONLY used for lighting-up purposes. On the Franco-Crosti locomtovies this was shut off when the locos were ready for use.

If you check your notes on the articles dealing with Franco-Crosti boilered Standard 9Fs on British Railways some 45 years ago, you will find that there is this ocntradiction. However,your Wikipedia provides some very intersting insights into various subjects.

Thanking you,

Ken J. Mumford <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.130.199 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Mumford! I've redacted your email address; this is a highly visible site. Thank you for letting us know about this. Wikipedia, though, is the encyclopedia that you can edit, so I encourage you to be bold and fix the mistake yourself, making sure to cite reliable sources (like books or magazine articles). I will, however, leave a message on the talk page of WikiProject Trains so that someone with some interest in the topic can take a look. --Danger (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done I have amended the relevant page. Please note that if you are unwilling to make the amendment yourself, the best place for noting errors and discrepancies is on the discussion page of the article concerned, i.e. in this case it would be at Talk:BR Standard Class 9F 92020-9. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

editor review process

I'm seeking guidance on an editor review for the two articles listed below. I've posted a comment in the "talk" area after making edits to the first article in response to guideline concerns, but it appears that the user who originally flagged the article is no longer an active user. I do not see any comments entered since I made the edits in late May and invited feedback in response to criticism of the earlier version. I welcome feedback and input for the articles. Jeffbean 92128 (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Jeffbean92128

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridology Faridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)faridasharanFaridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Hello,

This page is factually inaccurate and written by someone who is seriously biased. I tried to correct inaccuracies on the page (I have been an Iridologist for more than 25 years and have studied with many of the pioneers of Iridology including Dr. Christopher, Dr. Jensen, Dorothy Hall, Farida Sharan, Denny Johnson and Willy Hauser) and 'joshua' one of your editors deleted seven hours of my work because my username faridasharan matched the name of Farida Sharan, a leading pioneer in Iridology and author of the primary textbook of Iridology. No Wikipedia page on Iridology could possibly be complete WITHOUT mentioning her for a great number of reasons. Joshua then went on to show extreme prejudice towards me and my efforts to correct the page, and ultimately stopped responding to my efforts to resolve the situation. Joshua knows nothing about Iridology and to automatically delete seven hours of work like that and refuse to engage in a meaningful legitimate conversation about it is abusive. I feel it is an abuse of power and profoundly unkind. I would like assistance in correcting the Iridology page which is currently being used as a form of abuse for an entire profession. It is factually inaccurate. Would you please help me with this matter. Thank you.

(talk) Faridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)(talk)Faridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple question. Are you Farida Sharan? If you are then you have a WP:COI in making any edits which promote your work, and if you aren't, your username may fall foul of Wikipedia:Username policy, in that it might be considered impersonation. It might be as well to clarify this now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseusosciences are a delicate subject and it is often not easy for contributing editors to remain objective both in support of, and in denial of the science. An editor with no subject knowledge is often best placed to evaluate an article for neutrality, accurate fact reporting, and for balance of well sourced research and opinion, and should assume good faith all round. Nevertheless, edit warring is not an acceptable solution and breaches of the strongly enforced WP:3rr rule rapidly meet with edit blocking of all involved parties who have overreached the limit of reverts. In my opinion, it appears to be a reasonable assumption that User:Faridasharan is indeed the iridologist Farida Sharan, and author of the cited work. In this case, although the work may be a relevant source to be cited as a reference , there is a clear conflict of interest - please see the Wikipedia sub section on 'self-cite' policy. If talk page discussion cannot resolve the issue, in order to avoid continued disruptive editing the matter should perhaps be taken by either party for community discussion and clarification at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump - No I'm not Farida Sharan. I don't like to put my real name on something like this, much like yourself. If I need to change my name let me know. As for Iridology being a pseudoscience, just because someone comes online, who is not an Iridologist, and cites two studies, one with three Iridologists participating and one with five Iridologists participating in a study that seeks to find out if Iridologists can diagnose disease, when no trained Iridologist would ever say that is what Iridology tries to do in the first place, doesn't not mean that person is a qualified person to have that opinion. Iridology has been labeled as a profession to be 'pseudoscience' by someone not qualified to label it and who is making statements that are factually incorrect and whose clear goal in coming online and discussing Iridology is to discredit it. Can you see, by reading the article, any other reason for what is posted there? Do you see any information there that is of value regarding the work itself, or its history, that isn't biased towards discrediting the profession? What you have here is a page that abuses an entire profession with dramatic statements NOT backed up by facts, and wikipedia is fighting to keep this page. I don't understand the hostility of the editor Joshua. It was absurb how rude and unwilling to talk normally he was. Why? This is my first foray into Wikipedia and I am honestly appalled at how I have been treated. The Iridology page is abusive. It shouldn't be up like that. So what next. It is morally wrong to allow that page to stay as it is. Something has to be done about it. Faridasharan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Hello AndyTheGrump - one last thing - I read your conflict of interest page - this is my point. The person who wrote that page has a personal axe to grind. The wikipedia page that is there IS personal interest personified. The author has a personal anti-Iridology agenda and it is not acceptable and not based on facts. At the very least the page should say what Iridology is. Currently it doesn't. It is describing what the author wanted you to think about it. No trained Iridologist would agree with even the basics of that presentation - as evidenced by the fact the the author attempts to discredit Iridology by says it fails to succeed in an area that Iridology does not claim to succeed. This is wrong and you are supporting someone who is abusing Wikipedia for personal interest by keeping that page up. You may wonder who would have personal interest in discrediting Iridology - in the field of natural medicine this is common. There are companies that PAY people to do this. Please help Faridasharan (talk)

Dispute about Succession Boxes

I am having a dispute with an editor and would like to have a third party editor look into it if possible please. I keep having a Succession Box deleted from Kristine W's "Fade", even though it states there is no consensus on the use of these boxes here. I would like it reinstated as it does lend itself to the article without having to undo it and have my account revoked for doing this. It is used as a navigation resource for these songs hitting #1 on the US Billboard Charts. If it would be preferred to only use one, the one being deleted would be the best choice in this case! Thank you! IndyLogan (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The place to begin to resolve this dispute is at Talk:Fade (Kristine W song). The talk page has never been used yet, I suggest you mention your concern there. You may consider putting a talkback notice on the talk pages of the concerned editor(s), linking to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of fair-use images from WDTN by user "Delta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%94

I have placed a number of non-free fair-use images in this article. User "Delta" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%94 keeps removing these images for some vague "overuse" policy and warns blocking me for "mis-use of non-free images" and for edit-warring -- but aren't Delta's edits reverts themselves?? I also notice that Delta has been blocked (although later unblocked) for incivility in the past. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3 requires as little non-free content as possible be used, and that it pass specific standards for inclusion (see WP:NFCC#8) In this case it does not meet either requirement. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved my responses to Talk:WDTN. Since this involves use of logo images in a television article, could an editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations please get involved? Thank you. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The place to ask that would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make a request there. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)