Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

Mitt Romney talk page

Stale

– Inactive editor. --00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually asking this request as a reader more than an editor, but it has a lot to do with Wikipedia policies. I'm highly concerned about the article on Mitt Romney. I was just reading it today and noticed that there is no section on any of the controversies involving Mitt. I noticed on the talk page that in the "To-Do" list that #3 is "Remove any text that is unflattering or critical of Mitt." and is listed as "Done" as of Apr 9 2007. This seems to be a blatent violation of NPOV and makes the article read like a campaign advertisement for Mitt. Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm a little intimidated about trying to edit if any information I post is deemed 'unflattering' or 'critical' might be removed. Petros63 09:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points. My suggestion would be for you to at least raise the issue with the editor responsible for the post in question. --Aarktica 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fashionable Nonsense edit war

Resolved

– --Aarktica 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like a third opinion/help with Talk:Fashionable Nonsense and Phil Sandifer. I'm fairly new to the controversial stuff and I admit I have been a bit passionate about some of my views. I've been criticised by Luluofthelotuseaters and taken his criticism on board. (See my talk page: User:MarkAnthonyBoyle). I'm engaged with editing (writing) Fashionable Nonsense and I am feeling harrassed by another editor. We are in something of an edit war, but I feel that he is being incivil (personal attacks) and Wikilawyering. Maybe I'm being oversensitive? Maybe I've got a reasonable case? Can someone please advise me? see below:

Phil Sandifer used to go by the name of user:Snowspinner. You can see his comments further up the talk page Talk:Fashionable Nonsense#References to Fashionable Nonsense in other articles. It is quite clear that he has a strong POV. That is not the problem. It was quite obvious from the off that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and I were on opposite sides of the fence on Lacan. We managed to put aside our differences and worked together really well. I think that article really benefitted from our work together. With Phil Sandifer, however, I feel harrassed. MarkAnthonyBoyle 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may very well be aware of, EA exists to provide information to help editors on learning how to work with the community's standards, norms, and policies to achieve consensus. Seeing that you have described this as an edit war, I would invite you to step through the dispute resolution process. To that end, I believe seeking a third opinion would be in order at this point. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem to have calmed down now. If things get heated again I certainly will do that. Thanks, MarkAnthonyBoyle 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing the right thing, what would be my next step if I am

Resolved

– No further action necessary; parties arrived at compromise. --Aarktica 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am in the middle of a dispute on the Open_xml page. I made a referenced edit. There has been an edit war. User User:HAl has in my opinion violated the 3 revert rule, used a sock puppet, and is now making personal attacks. I have filed a 3 revert rule violation in that he repeatedly removes my edit. I have filed a Suspected sockpuppet and reported the personal attack Though Hal has made other personal attacks since then. It appears that hAl thinks he is in charge of the Open_xml page. That he can remove anything he personally doesn't agree with. Even if something is referenced. He is making bias edits, especialy in anything that may be a criticism. The Talk:Office_Open_XML page is full of evidence of this behavior as well as hAl s own talk page. What I would like is someone to take a look at this who isnt involved. To make sure I am seeing this correctly. Secondly, if I did the right thing in reporting what I believe to be violations. Third, exactly what can I do to solve the bias'd editing problem and personal attacks. Thanks Kilz 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take this over to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are too many editors involved in the talk page debate now. We are strict about the two-party rule at 3O. It really should go to RFC instead. Adrian M. H. 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Southwestern Company's Profile

Hello,

I am looking for assistance. I work for the Southwestern Company and I want our profile to be a bit more evenly balanced. We had a pretty decent profile for a while, but it was accused of being an advertisement and changed very quickly after that. We tried to make it factualy accurate and link to ours and external websites. A lot of that was deleted.

I understand that many people have different views regarding the Southwestern experience, but I feel the current article has a lot of personal opinion included. Especially in the Discussion page (which shouldn't be there from my understanding). The article has been changed to a negative viewpoint and referenced to a negative website. How is that different than what we did originally that was considered an ad?

Can someone coach me to change the current article? Nobody here wants to misrepresent anything or hide anything. We would just like a balanced and accurate article. Please help. Thanks.

206.107.215.5 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read that article but I'll make a few comments about how to proceed.

For anything you add, provide a citation to a reliable source. Uncited material can and often should be deleted.
Insist on citations for statements in the article from other editors.
On Talk:Southwestern Company make specific suggestions for changes to the article. Try to keep your suggestions concise. In general, add a separate Talk section for each suggested change. Numerous short suggestions are easier to discuss than a single, very lengthy suggestion.
Remind editors that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, NOT for talking about the company.
Consider writing on a subpage of your user page a replacement article, then invite discussion about your replacement.
Consider creating an account, instead of remaining a user who is known only as 206.107.215.5.
If the above steps don't lead toward a consensus, then ask here again.

Sbowers3 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines disputes

I formally request that I be made moderator of the afforementioned page due to several disputes that have been going on regarding the unofficial patches.

Royal Ambassador to Tessmage.com 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how things work in Wikipedia. Editors are not "made moderators" and they are certainly not appointed guardians of specific articles. (WP:OWN?) If you want to deal with disputes, you should read WP:DR. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

australian comics query/ dispute... a tad late, however...

Resolved

– Thanks, Ariel. Adrian M. H. 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - despite the 10 month delay - i have a kwik query regarding my original posts... 1 - defamatory against Tony Newton (which is me) & personal attack on Nathan Soehardi (my fellow in foolproof comics) - the original posts i put up for these were 2-fold... 1st was an actual bio on us, 2nd was a parody bio our editor jason wrote about us all. As these were actually sanctioned by us - fair enough they were not real, but labelling me as someone who was logging a personal attack (esp on myself) seems harsh. can i get these 2 removed from my profile please? 2 - fictionym write up. i originally just posted a media release that seems to have read like an ad - sorry folks, just seemed a quick answer to adding info about my comic stuff. dont mind if that one stays on there - so what guidelines are there for these things... i am a part of a bigger indy comics group now & would like to update the system without being bumped off for advertising... ta! Tnewton69 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Can i get these 2 removed from my profile please?"? Short answer: No. However, you could choose to select a new username, and start your editing history over with a blank slate. If you choose to do this, I would like to point you to the conflict of interest guideline, which would strongly discourage you from editing articles about you, your friends, family, company, or products you are associated, as it tends to be difficult to remain neutral, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Instead, what might be a better course of action, would be to post items you'd like to see included (or removed) from articles you're closely associated with, onto their respective talk page, and allow neutral editors to review and add/remove them as appropriate. Another thing you may wish to review is the biography of living persons policy, which is something Wikipedia takes quite seriously. This would be why a seeming "attack" on someone (even if it was you, posting a funny thing about yourself) would be seen as improper humor. Your contribution to the general comics area could be of great use, of course, but you'd need to be sure to not promote any products or companies during the course of editing. If you'd like any more assistance, there is also the very large help section which covers all major areas. I hope this was somewhat helpful, cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for dealing with a potentially delicate neutrality situation

I am in need of some mentoring by a Wikipedian more experienced than myself on issues of neutrality and systemic bias. I would prefer, if possible, if the help could come via email conversations. I feel the situation is delicate and would appreciate guidance and a sounding board for my concerns before I make public responses to some of the parties involved. (And anything on a user talk page is public). Many thanks in advance, Egfrank 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, that counts me out. I believe in the principal of keeping WP conversation on WP and I don't receive e-mail via the toolbox link. I would be willing to advise you, but it would be here at EA or on a talk page. Adrian M. H. 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo Adrian's sentiment. Generally speaking, Wikipedia-related items should be here, as the global, and open nature of Wikipedia is to be freely viewable by all. Certainly, there would be some situations that may be taken to email (such as illness that an editor does not wish public, but may wish to explain to another editor so the editor via email so that editor can let others know that the person may be unavailable, etc.) I will tell you that normally, adoption is between the parties involved, and others do not normally join in, although there may be times that others are invited to participate or contribute to the process of teaching, and indeed, is often welcomed. However, Wikipedia has set down guidelines and policies for neutrality and bias issues, and they are easy to read and understand, so if your question is simply relating to those areas in an effort to more fully understand them, you can review the neutrality policy and its FAQ, as well as the verifiability policy, and the no original research policy. All of these put together should give you a quite thorough overview of the area, including links to other pages that may also be of interest. I hope that is of some help to you! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your lack of response indicates that you don't want to discuss it here. Adrian M. H. 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Braxton discography- Singles Chart

Hi! I have worked very hard on putting together a detailed chart of Toni Braxton's singles charting but one person keeps changing what I set up. I revert his changes but he just comes back and changes it agian. Ive tried to contact him to no avail. I think its important to know how she faired on US charts like dance, R&b and Adult contemporary. I just dont know what to do about him changing it all the time. maybe you can help me? his user name is Malcolmo - User:Afprep2498

After glancing at it quickly, I don't agree with Malcolmo's edit summary that your edits are "vandalism", but you are removing information, namely the links that cite the relevant items, such as the links to the chart data. Granted, those should be put into references, instead of being naked URLs in the article, but they are still being removed by your edits. I suggest that you make a post on the article's talk page explaining your changes, and why you did them, and then drop a note on Malcolmo's talk page to ask them to review your comments on the article's talk page, and the two of you can work together to create a better table. I'm sure if you post a clear explanation about what you've changed, and why, it will make sense. I hope that helps! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the article's talk page there seems to be an element of Afprep2498 suffering from a case of WP:OWN, especially as he/she attempts, on the talk page, to warn off any other editors from editing the article. ---- WebHamster 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I didn't check the talk page. Well, my suggestions stand, work out the issues with the other editors. Wikipedia is a community, and articles are a giant collaboration, so this one is no different. Good luck! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access to flickr

Mam,Sir: My user name is Atkins_1957. I am developing an article in which I attempted to link out to the class of 1957 photo album which is hosted by flickr, but this was removed by a bot. How can this linkage be achieved? I can receive e-mail on <removed> (otherwise I'm not sure how to get back to this discussion since I followed a long trail of links to get here! I'll make a favorite on my web browser.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkins 1957 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept external images. If you want to use an image in an article, you'll have to upload it. Make sure you follow the guidelines, though. By the way, your email has been removed for your safety. Since you have a registered account, you can keep track of this page by clicking the "watch" tab at the top to add it to your watchlist. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After digging through your contribs, I found Atkins High School. Is that what you are referring to? To read about the bot, click here. By the way: you should add this help page to your Watchlist. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that there was no edit conflict there! Adrian M. H. 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be uploading images, please review the image use policy, as well as the copyright policy and fair use policy. Images that are copyrighted by someone else, or whose copyright status is unknown (such as often happens on flickr and sites like that) should generally not be uploaded unless you can be sure there is no copyright on the image. The image needs to have the proper copyright/license tag as well, or it risks being deleted. If you review the pages linked here, it will give you a much better idea of how to go about uploading images and assuring that they won't have problems. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to the article about Atkins High School. I am not interested in uploading images from flickr, rather, I want to direct readers to information about the class of 1957. In this case the information is pictures on flickr. You can see something similar in the article on Richard J. Reynolds High School. Under External Links you can see Class of 58 Reunion Site (and several others). Although this does not go to flickr, it does go to an outside site, which in turn links to their photographs. At this point we do not have a site with all the features that they have, but we do have photographs. Is this how I sign? Atkins 1957 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Atkins_1957[reply]

You will want to review the external links policy. Normally links to Flickr, You Tube, Photobucket, etc are not valid external links. External links should be placed to provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it were in a completed form, while being relevant to the content and context. To refer to an outside site simply to show a "yearbook" of sorts, I'm not sure would really be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a rudimentary cleanup on this article, dispensing with one link that just went to the school's own wiki and gave no more info than in the article itself. It was being used as a reference but as it wasn't a WP:RS... ---- WebHamster 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up with a very thorough cleaning, including moving a rather lengthy commentary/opinion section on the principal to the article's talk page, and I've linked the school's site in external links, and put the naked URLs into ref templates for the notable alumni section. The article now conforms to WP:MOS standards, with wiki links and sections, but it could still use some good reliable sources for the history section. Hope that helps explain things. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the people who actually experienced principal Carter would say that he was a collosal figure and that the school had a strong stamp of his personality on it for the 28 years he was there. I think his history definitely belongs. I will endeavor to find and cite the source of the Carter material. Relative to the photo link, I have only been told "no" so far without any positive suggestions. As I mentioned previously, the Richard J. Reynolds High School article has several reunion sites listed as external links (some of which are not current). In their class of 1979 link, the path to photos is quite short. The Chapel Hill High School (North Carolina) article has a link to an alumni website. What I am attempting to do is similar to these except that we have no site of our own at this point. In our case the school no longer exists so there is no official site. Atkins 1957 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Atkins_1957[reply]

Have you tried linking to a page of thumbnails for the group, rather than directly to a specific image? e.g. Paul Manship (I did search for "atkins high school" on Flickr but it didn't come up with anything. ---- WebHamster 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidelines/policies do not permit a specific addition, then there may well not be any alternative to suggest; if an EL is not suitable – and I am not passing judgment on this particular link – then it is not suitable. You will certainly need to provide citations to reliable independent sources that cover any material that you choose to add; to do otherwise is essentially to add original research and/or unverified claims. Both of those are policies and are essential reading for all editors. There is a certain degree of leeway with them, as with others, but it is (quite rightly) limited. Avoid using other articles as a benchmark, unless you know that they are the benchmark; that kind of assessment becomes a lot easier with the experience of a lot of editing and reading. I indented your comment for you, by the way. Adrian M. H. 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Resolved

– Adrian M. H. 13:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "Editor Richard" is hiding from me somewhere. He wrote as follows, and I replied.

Received from Wikipedia 10 7 7 Su [edit] Inserting your opinions into articles You additions to death have all been reverted - they are poorly written, inappropriate in tone, weasel worded and clearly your own opinions. Wikipedia does not accept such material and never will. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:TONE if you wish to contribute here. Richard001 23:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And I replied... If this be your "standard of excellence," I'd can't imagine what you would consider "neutral language," that is, unopinionated. Wikipedia is virutally a solid mass of opinion, mostly dishonestly masquerading as neutral language. Still I enjoy the sides taken, for it all is exceptionable.

There is no "neutral language," especially in an age when adversarial rhetoric dominates and where "balanced discourse" does not exist. But you, secretly, know that. And if "in pubic" you insist on your opinions as truth, I wish you happiness in your illusions. Escapisms do salve the conscience temporarily.

This tends to put Wikipedia in a very different light from what at first I had thought of it. Perhaps Richard would like to define "weasel words." Does he understand what he is saying?

Headsmith 05:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Jay Dalsnathe <headsmith.comm@yahoo.com>[reply]

I can do it on his behalf if you wish? WP:WEASEL. ---- WebHamster 10:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to the above, here are additional pages to review: words to avoid, neutral point of view, no original research, and Information style and tone in articles. While poor writing alone is not a reason to revert, when it is combined with issues that directly go against guideline and policy (and please note that the neutrality policy is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia), then there is a very good, and valid reason to remove those edits. Here are some more links to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, and help improve writing style: Cite your sources, Manual of style, Layout guide, First article, Article development. Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 10:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read your edits I'd say that Richard001 was bang on the money in regard to the comment he left. Your edits were indeed mostly POV, OR and contained several examples of weasel words. There also seemed to be a liberal portion of WP:SOAP too. This 'complaint' seems similarly afflicted. ---- WebHamster 11:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance With Best American Poetry Series

We have a user, WaverlyR, who has been repeatedly eliminating any negative criticism of the The Best American Poetry series from the page of that name. This user has been warned repeatedly to desist, both on her talk page and on the edits page, and will not. The links WaverlyR seeks to vandalize (i.e. remove) are representative of a groundswell of criticism in the blogosphere over flaws in the methodology of the The Best American Poetry series, as well as the cronyism which has overtaken the series. Several of the links take data directly from the pages of the series' entries themselves to substantiate the allegation of cronyism. WaverlyR is insisting on "verifiability" for any *opinion* of the series (in the "Critical Reception" portion of the article), and is deleting any link to data analysis of the series because, presumably, if that analysis appears on a high-traffic blog rather than from a media outlet, it is "unverifiable." This user--me--owns all 21 editions of The Best American Poetry series and the data at the links being destroyed by WaverlyR is indeed accurate.Burks88 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just an FYI, attempting to 'out' another editor is a big no-no on Wikipedia. ---- WebHamster 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Webhamster, I didn't realize, and I'm sorry for that. It will not happen again. [And I have deleted the offending material].Burks88 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:V, especially WP:SPS. Blogs are usually not acceptable as sources. WaverlyR appears to be doing the right thing. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--J-stan, thank you. I will include the specific data taken from the source material itself, and then link to the page for the source material (the BAP main page). I am trying to avoid a situation where information that comes from source material is not "citeable" because it has only been duplicated on a blog. But as I can confirm the accuracy of the information, because I own the source material, I will put the data directly on the entry and site the source material. Thank you.Burks88 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the policy about blogs as sources. I'm hopeful that Burks88 will make the necessary changes. WaverlyR 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--UPDATE: In the interest of decorum I have relented, though I was not in error. The entry has been amended to a) remove all references to bloggers, b) remove all citations to bloggers, c) include only critical reviews from literary journals (with proper citation), and d) recite statistics taken directly from the source material, with a link to the BAP series page, which includes Tables of Contents. If any editor believes the data is incorrect, he or she should explain how, as any editor could go through 20 years' worth of BAPs (1988 through 2007) and confirm that (as indicated at the link WaverlyR protested) 12 of 29 individuals termed "assistants" by Lehman were also published in the series (that his wife appears in the series need only be confirmed by looking in the table of contents for the 2006 issue, for which a link is provided). If it is necessary to post the entire list of assistants in the entry, and which ones were selected via the Lehman-to-Guest Editor process for inclusion in the series, that can be added, but it seems unnecessary. Further: The entry, e), no longer makes any allegation as to the significance of the data provided except to note its existence, and in fact, f) I have included (though in my opinion it was not necessary) a reiteration by David Lehman that the only criteria for admission to the series is "excellence." If--having met every single demand made by WaverlyR--he or she continues to vandalize this page and remove content he or she deems "negative" (under, let us recall, a section entitled "Critical Reception of the Series" [bad reviews happen!]), under some new, as yet unstated premise, I will once again report WaverlyR for vandalism of the entry. If WaverlyR wants to add "positive" reviews of the anthology he or she is free to do that, as the proper way to balance a section called "Critical Reception of the Series" is not to eliminate reviews but to add more in order to balance the entry. I have been reminded of this fact by Wikipedia editors in the past and would remind WaverlyR of it now. Burks88 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burks88 continues to level serious charges about the Best American Poetry series without support. He or she is continuing to reference bloggers and his links do not support his claims. Please advise. WaverlyR 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start off with a 3O request as there are only two editors involved. See also WP:DR for the overview of the options after that. Adrian M. H. 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These allegations are baffling. The data which has been put in the entry is taken directly from the text of the source material. WaverlyR continues to refer to as "allegations" statistics about the said source material he/she does not want aired. WaverlyR seems to believe that by keeping editors from citing sources that have compiled the data that is in the source material--i.e. blogs--he/she will have made the data itself impossible to include in the entry. The problem is that the only way to cite the source material is by pointing to the website for the series, as it would be a copyright violation to post the acknowledgements page on Wikipedia (from whence the data comes). This effort to make certain information about the series--which forms the basis of "critical reception" of the series--absolutely impervious to public recitation in a Wikipedia entry is so transparent I cannot believe it has not yet been seen as such. As near as I can tell this user has done *nothing* on Wikipedia except police the entry for the Best American Poetry series to ensure that no information about it which could carry negative connotations is ever admitted to the entry. Another user, Shoshauna, attempted the very same tactic on the very same entry and, as the history of the article showed, was warned. WaverlyR attempted to include a fawning quote about the series from the makers of the series themselves--(!)--in the section called "critical reception of the series," and is now concerned about whether the information contained in that section, which is factual (and merely references the fact that many have drawn inferences from that information--which not coincidentally would have been shown with the very same citations WaverlyR campaigned against) ought to be permitted. This is absurd and I would indeed like to know what will/can be done about it. Burks88 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat the earlier recommendation that I made to WaverlyR; request a 3O. You will both benefit from it. Please use indents, by the way. Adrian M. H. 08:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian--I think (I hope) the issue has been resolved, per my note above, which begins "update" but I realize is a little buried in the text there. Having met all of the "demands" being made by this other editor, I can't see that there is (or could be) any remaining problem. Thanks for your help.Burks88 08:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. You should post chronologically on talk pages. Adrian M. H. 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burks88 has violated the Wikipedia policy about no original research: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies" I removed the offending section.WaverlyR 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any need to quote policy here. Adrian M. H. 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've asked for a 3O. Thanks. WaverlyR 14:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist organizations

List of atheist organizations is a new article that, in my opinion, suffers from poorly defined inclusion criteria. To try to address this problem, I recently deleted several local organizations from the list, since they were not notable enough for their own articles. My edit was promptly reverted, labeled "vandalism," and I was told on the talk page to consult with the article's creators before deleting anything. I would like to have some other pairs of eyes take a look at the list and see what they think about how encyclopedic it is, and what could be done to improve it. Without progress toward stricter inclusion criteria, I fear this article will be an easy target for AfD. Nick Graves 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a degree of WP:OWN settling in there. Although discussion is always good it's not incumbent on an editor to request permission from an article's creator before editing an article. ---- WebHamster 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In parts, it is one of the better lists that I have seen. Then again, I used to frequent AFD a lot, so I have seen some very poor lists. The notes masquerading as references is a problem; notes should be described clearly as such and if they have to merged with refs, they should have a Notes and References heading for clarity. Given the subject matter, through footnoting is required, I think. Lists tend to be afflicted by the erroneous notion that they do not have to be referenced as thoroughly as articles, if at all. The messy use of external links does not really cut it in that respect. Adrian M. H. 13:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Report Deletion

I need to know what I did wrong here. I want that page deleted, if possible.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/parasitedb.com

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/parasitedb.com Chiazwhiz 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Adrian M. H. 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gives people a (false!) impression that the site has to rely on spamming Wikipedia, which is of course not the case... Chiazwhiz 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really a valid reason to delete that page. Might I suggest that if you have some connection with the website in question, you should not have added the link in the first place? Have you read the EL guidelines? Adrian M. H. 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am new to Wikipedia and have not read that page. I thought the site offered some informative content that would help the reader. But if an editor found the sites to be unrelated to the topic at hand, shouldn't it be deleted? Chiazwhiz 07:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've already commented on the talkpage of the report. It was generated by an automated Wikipedia script that edits like a human with human help, which sometimes makes mistakes. I'm not saying that was the case for you, but you should probably take it up on the bot's talkpage. A real human (probably more than one) monitors the page, and will reply to your concerns. But if the accusation of spamming is considered justified by the COI editors, you may not have any recourse. Good luck! Anchoress 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article on Graham Ward

I would like to create a new article on a theologian, whose name is the same as that of a footballer: Graham Ward. I don't know how to create this new article that fits in the Encyclopedia. The article I would like to write is like this:

Graham Ward is Professor of Contextual Theology and Ethics at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. He engages in different fields, such as Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Theologies; Patristic, Medieval and Post/modern Theologies; French Philosophy; and Queer Theory. He has written on the theology of language, postmodernism, cultural analysis and christology. His contemporary research focuses on Christian social ethics, political theory and cultural hermeneutics. He is editor of three book series: Radical Orthodoxy (Routledge), Christian Theology in Context (OUP) and Illuminations: Religion & Theory (Blackwell).

Books Barth, Derrida and the language of theology (Cambridge University Press, 1995) Theology and Contemporary Critical Theory (Macmillan, 1996, 2nd edition 2000) (Edited) The Postmodern God: a Theological Reader (Blackwell, 1997) (Edited) The Certeau Reader (2000) (Edited, with John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock) Radical Orthodoxy: a New Theology (Routledge, 1998) Cities of God (Routledge, 2000) True Religion (Blackwell, 2002) (Edited) The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology (Blackwell, 2004) Cultural Transformation and Religious Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2004) Christ and Culture (Blackwell, 2005) (Edited, with Michael Hoelzl) Religion and Political Thought (Continuum, 2006)

Marcoderks 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)marcoderks[reply]

The links that will be on your talk page in a minute or so will tell you what you need to know about notability and verifiability, which always have to considered before creating any article. The name is not an issue: see WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. There is a third page about that, I think, but I can't recall its location. Adrian M. H. 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, sort of)For people that have the same name, just add something notable about that person to the title of the article. You should probably use something like Graham Ward (theologian). Once you've done that, please leave a note here so that someone can place a note on the Graham Ward page for people looking for your article. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]