Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Citation assistance

Hi,

I'm wondering if you can help me with some trouble that I'm having with a citation in the article Heavy Metal Umlaut.

In that article there is currently the following statement:

"Although spellings such as reënact and coöperate have largely fallen into disuse, this use of the diaersis mark, or trema, is still used in some English-language publications."

To me, "some English-language publications" is vague, and I would like to change it to something like:

"Although spellings such as reënact and coöperate have largely fallen into disuse, this use of the diaersis mark, or trema, is current in many prominent English-language publications such as The New Yorker and and MIT's Technology Review "

However, one of the editors is insisting on a citation for this. I noticed that he had earlier rejected a citation that referenced another Wikipedia article, so I tried citing the journals themselves and providing examples. But he rejected this on the grounds that it constituted "original research".

Can you please help?

Thanks!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which editor rejected your citations? With such claims, yeah, you'd need citations. Wikipedia is generally not acceptable as a source. I don't see how providing a reference is OR, though. I'll have to contact the editor directly to see what's going on. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! To all interested editors, the discussion is found here. It appears that you didn't cite a source, rather just stated that the New Yorker uses it. That is OR. I suggest finding a reliable source discussing the use of the diaereses in modern english, rather than just finding an instance of it. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermmm... I'm not sure where to find a reliable source that will confirm that a certain publication spells a specific word a certain way. Any suggestions? Any idea why it is OK for the Wikipedia article on diaeresis to make the same statement without complaint? I'm kind of stumped!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the source should confirm that the New Yorker or MIT's Technology Review uses it, just maybe the article should discuss the general usage of the diaereses in today's grammar, and perhaps it should mention that modern publications also use the mark. Just a suggestion. And it should be cited on the Diaereses page, but for some reason it isn't. Also, it's less of a problem because it doesn't limit itself to its usage in Heavy Metal contexts. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is, what little I have learned about diaeresis usage I have learned from the Wikipedia article, and from my own personal observations. I really don't know where to go to find a reliable source. Do you have any suggestions where to start? I'm new to the research game!

Is it really worse to state that The New Yorker and Technology Review use the diaeresis (which anyone can easily verify for him- or herself simply by reading the publications in question) than to say "some English-language publications"? Statements like that raise the question "Which English-language publications? My nephew's 'zine? The monthly newsletter of the National Association for the Advancement of Bushisms?" To me, mentioning these publications is the lesser of two weasels. What are your thoughts?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To show that a particular periodical, such as The New Yorker usees diaeresis, all you really should have to do is provide a few examples, such as this one, where this is the case. You don't need to show they use it on every single occasion (that would clearly be impossible, unless you get ahold of the manual of style used by their copyeditors), or for every single possible time it might have been used, simply that, contrary to current general journalistic practice, they use it where others don't. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists page - criticism section

Stale

 – editor has not been on-wiki for 3 weeks. Pastordavid (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

There's an ongoing dispute regarding the criticism section of the Union of Concerned Scientists page that I don't think can be resolved by the three people paying attention to the page. Please see the latest entry in the discussion page - "Falwell" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#Falwell.

Of chief concern is whether or not the article should include instances of people referring to the organization as "scientists" given criticisms cataloged in the article that the name of the organization is misleading. If someone knows if there is a Wikipedia policy on this sort of criticism, it would be helpful. Additional perspectives would be good even if there is no particular policy in this regard.

Thanks, (LabcoatJesus (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by LabcoatJesus (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith, Interior Designer - Deletion Review

Hello and Happy New Year!

I submitted an entry for Will Smith, a finalist for HGTV Design Star Season 2, and it was deleted. I am not sure as to why. He is listed as a contestant ont he HGTV Design Star entry. He was a fan favorite, which is well documented on the HGTV website, through blogs and fan voting. As a matter of fact, he was predicted to win the show, with the viewers voting him the best room on all projects put to a vote. Unfortuately, he was voted off by the judges before it reached the decision was to be made by the viewing public.

I made edits to the entry the was filled with facts only, based on an interview directly with him and information from HGTV. With this being said, can you please tell me why his entry was declined and what can be done to get it back and linked to the HGTV Design Star page? Thank you in advance for your response.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonita Perry (talk • contribs)

First, it would help greatly if you would sign your talk page comments using four tildes (like this: ~~~~). I will be happy to ask other editors to review the deletion, as I think it probably should not have been speedily deleted. However, it will most likely then go to an extended deletion discussion, and the end result will most likely be the same. The reason is that, at least in previous cases that I have seen, being a contestant, even a runner-up, on a reality show is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If he then went on to get his own show ... start his own notable company ... etc, he would then be notable.

As I said, I will be happy to help you to pursue this, but don't expect the end result to be much different. Leave a note here letting me know how you would like to handle this. Pastordavid (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time making an entry into the Wiki system. There is a lot to learn in terms of characters and symbols being used to communicate. At any rate, thank you so much for helping me with getting Will's entry as part of the Wikipedia system. I know it seems that he is not as notible because he did not win, but you should see the response he is getting. Kind of like, the Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard win. At one point, you would have thought Clay won. Thank you again for your help, and your patience while I learn proper wiki communication. <Tonita Perry>Tonita Perry (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)</Tonita Perry>

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Your statement above that "the entry the was filled with facts only, based on an interview directly with him" is not relevant. The issue is whether the facts were verifiable. So whatever you do with the Will Smith article or future articles, please be sure to include verifiable references to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone over the article you created (Will Smith (Interior Designer)) and made some style changes to bring it in line with the style more commonly used on wikipedia. it is much more nuetral this time. HOwever, notability is still marginal at best. I will leave it be for a few days, and then nominate it at articles for deletion to see what the community thinks. Pastordavid (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Listed for a deletion discussion. Please comment there. Please don't archive until AFD closes. Thanks Pastordavid (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (Conflict of interest and criticism)

Please explore and provide feedback into the discussion open regarding the CRSQA, Glenn Hagele, and the biased nature of the current article. Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele. I am suggesting user Ghagele be prevented from editing the article further due to this obvious COI (for which he has received two warnings) and that more information is added towards the criticism of the association. --SirDecius (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there are a couple of good editors watching that page. My advice, revert if he comes back. If he violates the 3RR, file a report (WP:AN/3R). You can also file a request for check user, if it becomes a real problem. This will out all the sock-puppets. Pastordavid (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nax Box design

Stale

 – Pastordavid (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:American Civil War Menu

Just read the page history... Foofighter20x (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. What do you need help with? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war going on...Malinaccier (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps eight edits in less than four hours (when the page has barely 100 edits in its almost two years) seems like an edit war. Speaking as a long-time editor of the page, there's no there there. User made three changes on the menu. Talk consensus approved two, but disapproved flag icon changes. User then submitted another flag-bearing draft, which wasn't approved. Immediately thereafter, user began methodically applying flag icons to many ACW battle infoboxes. User then placed large flag icons inside the template which I reverted. When I commented on the mass flag insertion, user left heated response on template talk, and posted here for assistance. Foofighter20x, who has five of the eight template edits which constitute the "war", is not in violation of 3RR; I've got two, and User:Hlj has one. And the current version is the one User:Foofighter20x left! (I did restore a previously used base template.) An edit war, what a hoot! BusterD (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've answered the questions raised here and here. Another established editor has tried to compromise with user here. Not sure how much more deference user requires. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom (standard) JamesMSnell

Help

If you take a look at the editing history for Atom (standard) you'll see that JamesMSnell reverts every edit, no matter what...I simply fixed the Disamb links and he reverted, fixed them again and left him a note on his userpage and he reverted again....I am confused as to what to do from here...it looks like he wrote the initial article and treats it as his own? I don't know...help? Legotech (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked as well. I'm really not sure why the reverts were done, it's possible they were in error. I saw nothing wrong with the disambig repairs upon looking at them. Still, I would give him some time to explain why he objects before going back to it, no good ever comes of edit wars. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it's generally helpful to provide links to pages in question. The article in question here is Atom (standard), and the user is JamesMSnell. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I forgot to make them links...I'm relatively new to the editing game...I wasn't really paying attention when I redid the dabs, I use wikipedia cleaner and only realized after I hit send that the page was way out of order (WC alphabetizes the pages that need help) Comet (programming) is another one where someone seems to have 'adopted' the page and I noticed before I re-edited that one. Thanks again for the help...Wikipedia can be a scary place to go alone ;) Legotech (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars: unsure how to proceed

I've had some back and forth on the article's talk page with some wikipedians with far more experience, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere (read: they refuse to agree with me :)) I am a Classics PhD and can state with absolute confidence that the term (Greco-)Persian Wars as used by every reputable, published historian refers to the Persian invasions of Greece in 490 and 480-479 BC. Period. The intro of the article seems to acknowledge this, but then states that the war began in 499 and lasted until 449. This is inaccurate. The seeds for the Persian Wars were sown in 499, and hostilities continued until 449 (and beyond), but scholars do not include these events under the rubric of the "Persian Wars" proper. I suggested that (e.g.) the aside about Macedonian unification was off-topic, and apparently offended a rather ardent nationalist, among others.

Look, I am a man of peace. And it is not my intention to turn every classics-related article into my own personal fiefdom. But the historical convention that the Persian Wars = 490-479 has a long pedigree. I tried to point this out, and Wetman accused me of an "artificially atomized" view on the matter. This is absurd. Others have complained that the article is too long (what are the guidelines, btw?), and narrowing the scope of the article to its proper focus would help immensely.

I foolishly went in guns blazing on the Pandora article a while back (newbie enthusiasm), and don't want to cause more trouble than necessary. But the thing is, I'm right. Ask Victor Davis Hanson. Ask Thomas Martin. Ask Peter Green.

Any thoughts? Please visit my talk page. Thanks! Ifnkovhg (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

help with biased contributer

hi, I've made some edits to the Michael Jackson page (for style, not content), and found that there is a contributer (User:Realist2) who's only wiki edits seem to be Jackson-related and who seems to be, in my opinion, overly-controlling with regards to those pages. This person reverted my edits, after which I left him a note User_talk:Realist2#Do_not_revert. So far, so good. However I noticed on her/his talk page that many other editors have had similar experiences with Michael Jackson pages, and so I would like to ask someone with more experience if there is some way of dealing with editors who have taken control of a page. In fact just right now, I've noticed that the last time I made a contribution to this page (months ago) this user also undid my edits.

p.s. I don't actually care about Michael Jackson, but I do find it annoying that my edits were undone, and I feel that Wikipedia's purpose is being subverted when someone through sheer persistence (some of us have jobs!) takes over a page.

p.p.s. looking back on his/her other contributions I found other questionable behaviour, such as [1].

Thanks in advance. DiggyG (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is much that we can do. One suggestion would be that, if you feel this editors style is disruptive, you can file a request for comment on the editor in question, to get input from the community. Other than that, just deal with each situation as it comes up, I am afraid. Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Republican Presidential Race Is Being Fraudulently Portrayed

Resolved

 – moved to article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help! This is time sensitive and should be deleted or corrected STAT!

At Republican Candidates for 2008, there is a Straw Poll map, and figures, that create an ENTIRELY FALSE PICTURE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

1) BOGUS numbers have been posted (ALL favor Ron Paul and portray him on the top, yet, in reality, he is on the bottom!!!!).

2) The BOGUS map could influence the elections and should be DELETED IMMEDIATELY.

3) The caucuses that began in Iowa, are continuing in the coming days, with most culminating on February 5 (Super-Duper Tuesday). This web site map and incorrect figures is a blatant attempt to influence the caucus votes in favor of ONE candidate, Ron Paul, by portraying him AS THE FRONT RUNNER, WHEN, IN REALITY, HE IS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PACK!!!!!

4) Because it is so very time sensitive, this map should be deleted immediately OR CHANGED TO THE OFFICIAL FIGURES, and the numbers should be corrected to the OFFICIAL VERSION.

5) Official numbers are easily available from the GOP headquarters in every state!! For example, the author of this BOGUS MAP has Washington State marked for Ron Paul, yet I have the "official results" for Washington State in front of me (they were sent to all PCO's from the GOP HQ in Seattle) and I can clearly see that Ron Paul is in the BOTTOM TIER. (Thompson and McCain are in the middle tier, with Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani in the top tier.)

6) There are also a number of additional links (that look like source information for all the candidates), yet, when you click on the link, you are lead directly to Ron Paul sites. Some ask for a donation. Some ask you to join their organization. Some describe how wonderful Ron Paul is and why he should be president. Also, none of these "source" links go to any other campaigns, only the Ron Paul campaign. No IMPARTIAL poster would do anything this biased.]

There is no way to change the colors on the map, so there is no to correct the map, so, it should be removed.

Ron Paul is at the bottom of the pack, and remains there. [Proof: Look at the Iowa results and the New Hampshire results.]

I have never seen anything this blatant on Wikipedia, or anywhere. Someone is "using" this site to promote a man who polls at the very bottom of all the Republican candidates, yet, by looking at the map, and the numbers behind their names, it is clear that someone is "in the tank" for Ron Paul. This is not the type of behavior that one associates with a free democracy, but rather, looks like a rigged "banana-republic" that would call for Jimmy Carter to oversee. I am stunned that this is actually on the Republican web site.

To say this bogus spot is not up to Wikipedia standards is an understatement.

I have followed the results of numerous polls for over a year, and I find that the results follow a pattern. I have also participated in Republican straw polls in my own area (Washington State) and Ron Paul has never come in higher than 7% in any poll that I am aware of in this state. He came in at 3 % in my county. Every straw poll in Washington State has had Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee coming in top with Thompson and McCain in the middle category. IN EVERY POLL, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul have been in the bottom. I have noticed Ron Paul coming in anywhere from 0 % to 7 % with his average at about 3 %.

Any headline that puts him in the TOP is completely disingenuous and can only be meant to influence and mislead the public, and particularly the Republican voters.

Someone has added a clever qualifier, that calls for the "latest poll," which allows them to disregard the OFFICIAL poll (which would be done with thousands of Republican voters so that they can, instead, post the results of any obscure group that (amazing coincidence) always happens to support Ron Paul. This means that any group of six supporters can call a "poll" and all vote for Ron Paul and then call the entire state for Ron Paul. [Notice that they have even listed a "family picnic" as a poll.]

It is easy to create situations in which Ron Paul supporters can prevail, and Wikipedia is putting false numbers before the voters (especially when voters are going to the polls in the next few days (Feb 5 is Super-Duper Tuesday) and by then it will be too late). Ron Paul supporters can "call for a poll" (in a phone booth, or over the Internet) and then use that "poll" as the "proof" that Ron Paul is really popular. Anyone can schedule a meeting, and then call for a poll, and if there are two people there, and they both vote for Ron Paul, that "poll" will be called at 100 % for Ron Paul, and then posted on the map as a yellow state. That is completely fraudulent. ALL STATES WILL SUPPLY THE RESULTS OF THEIR STRAW POLL AND THOSE OFFICIAL NUMBERS SHOULD BE USED. In fact, I have the straw poll results for Washington State and I know exactly where Ron Paul is, and he is on the bottom portion of the list, with Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson all above him. It is completely BOGUS for this map to be maintained in such a fraudulent manner.

If the author of the map insists on using the "latest" excuse for a meeting between half a dozen people, to mark an entire state, and, in essence, invalidate the prior votes of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS, then those six people should be marked as a pinpoint of yellow for the state among THOUSANDS OF PINPOINTS IN OTHER COLORS THAT WOULD ACCURATELY MARK THE STATE. There is no way in the world that a "poll" of half a dozen invalidates the votes of tens of thousands!!!

If the author of the map is not interested in validity, then why are they posting?

Please help! This is simply awful. I just found it tonight because I was writing an article on Ron Paul polling so low, and I found this.

... added by User:Suttonplacesouth

You don't clearly say where this terrible map appears. You seem to be implying that it's in United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008, but that article has no map. So just what are you talking about? (Please go easy on the capitals, bolding and exclamation points.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the relevant article is Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008‎. My suggest for User:Suttonplacesouth is to be bold and make any changes you think are appropriate. You can also discuss this on the article talk page. Barrylb (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah.

Absurdity 1: The source cited for these figures was [fanfare] Ron Paul's website. (Hello? Unbiased sources, anyone?)

Absurdity 2: That Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008‎ would be regarded as an encyclopedic matter right now. (Hello? Anyone heard of "Wikinews"?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This article says more about the absurdity of straw polls than about biased editing. I glanced through the cited sources for several polls and the article accurately reflects the poll results. The simple fact is that straw polls are not representative samples of the voting population and the results do not reflect anything useful. The editors appear to have tried to be neutral in so far as they had images of many different candidates. I'd say the editors did the best they could with the bad material they had to work with. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Straw Poll was won by Duncan Hunter who consistently polls at 1%. I am the author of the map and I did it so that the information could be easliy presented. I am not a Ron Paul supporter but a Rudy Giuliani supporter. Basically what this article represents is the grassroots support for a candidate. Opinion polling by state has its own article, Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Also, for editors who have a problem with election-related articles please visit WP:USPE and look at the progress we've made. Stop trying to run away good editors to inferior projects.--STX 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is over the colors of the map. They reflect a bogus picture. Elections are about voting and about majority numbers. This map looks like a "tool" for Ron Paul. It is supposed to be representative of grass roots support and yet entire states are being "assigned" to folks who do not poll out of single digits. It looks as though Ron Paul is leading in many states, yet he is consistently in single digits. This misleads the readers. There is only ONE conclusion to be drawn when one looks at the map. How can you call anything "representative" when it causes folks to draw a completely different picture. What is the "Texas Straw Poll" and when was it conducted and how many people were involved? And, how can it be MORE representative than all the other polls in the entire state? IOW, how can you "call" for Duncan Hunter or for Ron Paul when the aggregate tells an entirely different story? That is deceptive and no one benefits when there is a deceptive map on the screen. The point is that folks who poll in the low single digits cannot win a state and it is deceptive to color an entire state for someone who polls in the single digits. How can a single poll (like the "Texas Poll") be more representative than all of the other polls conducted all over the state? How can you, with a straight face, take a single poll (which only represents a single segment on a single day) and disregard hundreds of other polls in favor of the one? If you are going to do that, then you need to change each map as you get differing information, and that would be an awesome task. In fact, straw polls do vary, I have been at one where Rudy was the winner and another when Romney was the winner and another when McCain was the winner. However, in every straw poll I have attended (and in every result that was has been either mailed or emailed to me, there is one certainty and that is that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are at the bottom. They are always in single digits. They have never even gotten "out of the cellar" in any poll. There used to be four on the bottom, but Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback have both dropped out so that leaves Hunter and Paul. The official figures are available from the RNC or any of the State or County offices. Why are you not using official figures since they more accurately reflect what is going on in the country. What is the point of reporting little pockets of support if they are not reflective of the majority. That is what polls and elections are about. They are about the majority. If honesty is your goal, then why not put all the colors that won in a state. In Washington State, that would mean Giuliani and Romney at this time. Why are you so eager to color for Ron Paul? Why do the colors not change? And, why do so many of the "source" addresses go straight to the Ron Paul site? That sure does look like this site is eager for Ron Paul. At any rate, this is not a fair site because it does not reflect the actual elections in the state by those who will be delegates, and those are the only ones who matter at this point. To take numbers by high school students, or at a picnic, or at some sort of community event is not representative of the race. This is a case where only Republicans are allowed to vote, so why are non-voters being reflected? This truly makes no sense. The map is not accurate for the coming caucuses. It is not accurate for Republican voters. So, what is the point of the map? Who is it supposed to inform? Who is it supposed to influence? Suttonplacesouth (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the more measured tone. The place to post an objection such as this is the article's talk page; if after having posted it you still think that the article is effectively controlled by some person or interest group that is misusing it to express a certain point of view, then you should ask here a second time. But the main discussion should talk place there rather than here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revising Snowball (Animal Farm)

The article, "Snowball (Animal Farm)," contains an irrelevant paragraph in the section, "Exile." The paragraph follows a description of parallels between Snowball and Trotsky. It compares several other characters (in a sentence or so per character) to specific people involved in Stalin's administration, etc. The paragraph is irrelevant because it contains these off-topic comparisons without relating them to Snowball in some way. For this reason I suggest that this passage be moved to another article or simply deleted. However, this seems to be too large an edit for me to partake of without having the support of others. I would like to know if you find the passage relevant and act accordingly. Jean Girard (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations, seems to be the same person

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

copyvios posted to article Guillain-Barré syndrome. A short history of these is on the article's talk page here. What should be the next step? User has been warned and must be well aware of the disruption caused. --CliffC (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It has only happened a few times and you only warned them once. Also, it was by an editor that, sadly, is on an unregistered IP which is changing due to their ISP. What I'm saying is that there is a very high chance that the user didn't see your only warning. This time, tag their page with {{subst:nothanks}} or {{subst:uw-copyright}}. Consider checking out the user template messages page for more information. "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." If it happens a third time (which it probably won't), then you can consider {{subst:uw-v3}} or {{subst:uw-v4}} (because persistent copyright violations are vandalism). Make sure to use an appropriate edit summary when tagging their user page with the warning. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no way he is not aware of all this because of all the hullabaloo on the article's talk page after he dumped scores if not hundreds of copyvios into that article and other medical articles over a three-month period last year until he got caught. His mess ended up causing everyone's contributions over those three months to be purged; that's all on the talk page if you'd care to look at it; also there are lots of warnings on the talk page of the first IP mentioned in the link above. I do not agree that his IP changes because of his ISP; his IP stays stable until he's caught, sorry if I sound angry but he needs to be found and banned. I disagree that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously, based on what I have seen so far with the person in question. I know this is all the same person, so I don't see much point in starting a new progression of warnings; however I have done as you advise and posted the warnings. Thanks for the reply. --CliffC (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any time! I'm glad I could help. "I disagree that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously" In this case, "Wikipedia" means you, me, and everybody else; we take copyright violations seriously. Ah, I never saw .186, I only looked at .108 and .27. I also didn't notice that you were adding warnings to the "User" page instead of the "User talk" page. Usually warnings go on the "User talk" page. I've moved the warnings you added. I hope you don't mind. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

problems with Veloce Publishing entry

Resolved

 – article speedy deleted after no improvement. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me. What do I need to do bring the 'Veloce Publishing' entry up to scratch?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by SIWKI (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the article reads like a catalogue of all the published works. Read these suggestions for your first article (click this link), there's some great tips in there. In short, the article needs to tell the reader why the company is notable (why it's in an encyclopedia), and needs to provide proof of that notability by using sources that come from a source other than the company (ideally, newspaper, television, books from other publishers, etc). As the article currently stands, it could be deleted because it does not tell the reader why the company is important/notable. Also, the list of books published is a bad idea, summarize the types of books published instead. I hope the information here, as well as the information on the pages linked to in this note, will help you. One last thing that may be helpful for you is Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest. Best of luck, and happy editing. Pastordavid (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With no improvement to the article in 10 days, I have nominated for speedy deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to avert edit war

I've continually added sourced information to the article Military history of African Americans‎, specifically in the section concerning Black Confederate soldiers. This information is continually being deleted by one or two other users who in my opinion are demonstrating a clear bias that they do not want this information written. I've attempted to discuss the situation on the talk page, but have gotten no where. Could an administrator and/or any other possibly interested parties please tkae a look at the situation. Could the page maybe be put on lock down to avert an edit war? If I'm wrong I'll back off, but I think the sourced & referenced information I've added in no way detracts from the article. Sf46 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help setting up auto-archival of my talkpage.

I'd like to set up auto-archival of my talk page. I saw on Help:Archiving a talk page that there's three main bots used to do this, but I don't know which one is best and I'm slightly worried about screwing up. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One way to go about it is to just archive by hand. That is, start the page User talk:Zenwhat/Archive 1, and manually cut and paste items onto that page. I can't say I know much about the bots, as I manually archive (and we do on this page as well). Pastordavid (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is too tedious. Letting bots do the work for me is so much easier. I guess I'll just send a message to each bot-owner. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do it for you. Marlith ^T/C 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for rename

Stale

 – Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to rename: "Novo Nordisk Engineering" (danish company)as the companys correct name is now: "NNE Pharmaplan". I have no account. I have just become aware of the problem. Is it possible, you could do it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.73.54.255 (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not possible. The article on Novo Nordisk Engineering has been deleted, as it is an article about a company that does not assert notability. That is, make a claim as to what makes it worthy of an encyclopedia entry, and did not back up such a claim with sources other than from the company itself (say, newpaper, magazine, etc). Pastordavid (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

hi

im srry to disturb you but how do you talk to other people on here because i want to ask questions to people but i dont know how to pleaze can u help me !!! spanx!!!--mahanoor (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, every user has a user talk page, so if you want to ask them anything, just go there. Anything I can help with? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on 'ADHD', and an attempt to insert a prominent mention of controversy about this diagnosis

For some time I have been seeking to insert in this article a clear statement that the diagnosis of ADHD is a contentious one. I freely admit that I broke the four reverts rule at the start of this dispute, when another editor repeatedly removed my edits. I regret this, and I shall not repeat this. Since then, ( see ADHD Talk page ) I and others (users Miamomimi and NuclearWinner, one of whom(Miamomimi)is known to me and one of whom is not, neither of whom, so far as I know, has any personal interest in this matter) have sought to reach a compromise. NuclearWinner has sought recently to insert changes to the text, which have been removed almost immediately. Our efforts to do so, and the response of the entry's defenders, can be found on the 'ADHD' talk page.

The dispute is not about whether 'ADHD' is a genuine diagnosis (my personal view, as I freely admit, is that it isn't, and that objective scientific evidence for its existence is lacking but I know you can't prove a negative). It is over whether it is controversial. Since there exists a Wikipedia article entitled 'Controversy about ADHD' you might have thought this fact wasn't too difficult to establish. But editors who seem to regard themselves as guardians of this entry have acted to prevent and oppose any prominent mention of this controversy on the entry. Their reasons for doing so include what I regard as ad hominem attacks on one of the sources I adduce, and claims that other sources (against whom such attacks would be extremely difficult) don't make statements sufficiently sceptical of ADHD to count as evidence of controversy. This appears circular to me. They have also argued that statements made in the British House of Lords, or peer-reviewed research suggesting that a major treatment for ADHD is unsatisfactory (thus implying faults in the diagnosis), are not admissible as evidence of controversy. I agree that a statement in a legislative chamber cannot be submitted as evidence of scientific truth, and wouldn't do so, but surely it is self-evident evidence of controversy?

I and the others have tried repeatedly, using facts and logic, to persuade these editors to give way and allow this mention. It is clear that any attempts by us or others to change the text in this direction will be instantly reverted, leaving me and the others with the choice between giving up, embarking on an edit war - or turning elsewhere for help. They have repeatedly declined to shift their position, using arguments which I regard as illegitimate, and I think the moment has come to seek disinterested outside assistance. I have deployed every argument and fact that I can, without effect. My main concern is that a non-scientific reader without computer skills, perhaps a parent of a child said to suffer from 'ADHD', will turn to this article and remain in ignorance of an important fact. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC) .

I've attempted to help this user follow Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sourcing and what can be used from sources, and he's been singularly resistant. There *is* controversy, and there is no doubt about that. The question is balance, and, consistently, this user (Peter Hitchens) has attempted to put *unsourced* claims in the article, or very weakly sourced claims that are interpretations of the source, implications derived from it. This can be seen in his description of the problem. It would indeed be useful if someone who knows policy and practice would help him. I've tried, but he clearly doesn't trust me and imagines I am part of a cabal out to censor him, even though, before today, I didn't take out one single edit of his, and today I think I took out one or two unsourced pieces. The article in question, by the way, is Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.--Abd (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I refute the claims of Abd above in that whilst he may have meant to be helpful: "that's why I'm letting him ... come up with proposed edits. I would personally then consider them and if there is anything usable there, help integrate it into the article", he did not support a simple inclusion of the fact that ADHD is a controversial diagnosis and a link to the wiki article detailing this. And when, in answer to the edit war, Clockback displayed proposed edits on the talk page (which were moved to a seperate page by an admin), he supplied no material help, rubbished the efforts and focused on Clockbacks "incompetence", which is hardly helpful. Abd has indeed written huge tracts of instructions and whilst I am sure the detail of his diagnosis of ADHD, and his family, and 'Robert's rules' and 'parliamentary procedure' and a general chat about the diagnosis may be of interest in a forum, it does not help insert in this article a clear statement that the diagnosis of ADHD is a contentious one. Clockback's comment is correct. Miamomimi (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With as many {{fact}} tags as I already see in the article, I can understand reluctance to allow any more unsourced information. The best way to bulletproof an edit remains to source it to a highly reputable and reliable source, and to make sure that it closely mirrors what the source says rather than infers conclusions the source doesn't explicitly state. If there are disputes over the reliability over of a source, the way material from it is presented, or how much weight to give it, and a compromise cannot be found by discussion, an article request for comment to solicit opinions from uninvolved editors can help. If there are problems with tempers heating up, informal mediation or formal mediation can help cool things down. Dispute resolution really does help, if everyone involved gives it a chance. As to entirely unsourced information, it can be challenged and removed by anyone, and the burden is on the person who wishes to retain it to source it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editiorial request

As you know, this is your policy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."

This policy has been repeatedly violated on my biographical entry.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheri_Yecke. An editing war took place this summer, and I was ill so I stayed out of it. Now all I am asking for is neutrality and fairness. I do not wnat to make an edit myself or the editing war will start again.

The first sentence in my Wiki bio (1) is not similar to those of other conservatives, and (2) gives an inaccurate description of me. (See below for comparisons with Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Bill Bennett.)

Issues to be resolved:

1. I am not defined by my stand on creationism anymore than Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, and yet this is in the first sentence of my bio. All I am asking is for a fair description.

2. Mike Huckabee is running for President and yet he is not described as a politician – but I am. Rick Santorum is a former Congressman – but is not called a politician – but I am. Again – all I want is fairness.

3. Anytime I have tried to edit in the past, my edits have been redone almost immediately. For fairness, please see suggested edits for sentence A below, in sentence B:

How can these edits be made without an editing war erupting? Thank you for your consideration.

A – Needs editing - Cheri Pierson Yecke is a (delete the rest of the sentence) conservative politician who has been involved in attempts to have creationism taught in science classes.

B – Suggested edits - Cheri Pierson Yecke is a (new, neutral text) conservative educator and author who has served as the chief K-12 school officer in Virginia, Minnesota, and Florida.

Examples of other, similar people -

Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee (born August 24, 1955) was the governor of the U.S. state of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007.[2] He officially announced his candidacy for the 2008 United States presidential election on January 28, 2007. Huckabee is the author of several books, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a public speaker, and a musician, playing bass guitar in his rock band, Capitol Offense. He is well known for having lost 110 pounds (50 kg) in a very short time and then advocating a healthy lifestyle.[3] He and his wife, Janet, have three grown children: John Mark, David, and Sarah.

Richard John Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a member of the Republican Party and was the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the number-three job in the party leadership of the Senate.

William John Bennett (born July 31, 1943) is a American conservative pundit and politician. He served as United States Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988. He also held the post of Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (or "Drug Czar") under George H. W. Bush.

Thank you for your consideration. ```` Integrity II (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrity II (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the lead sentence to more accurately reflect your wishes. Is there something else we can help with? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great God in a bottle, that article's got a ... lively history. User:Integrity II, can I suggest that if you have further concerns, that you bring them up on the talk page? It looks like there's a pretty good cadre of editors who watch the article, I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that this article has been attacked by sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Larry Fafarman (and who has recruited meatpuppets on his blog to help "defend" this article), that there were reliable sources used to confirm what was written, and there has been a number of reliable and experienced editors helping with this article. Why would an encyclopedia accept the statements of the subject of the article as the "truth". OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? All I asked for was that the tone be in keeping with that of others who hold similar beliefs, and fortunately the first responder to this post "got it" and made the change. But then someone started yet another editing war to make the entry biased and non-neutral, in conflict with Wikipedia policy. How in the world can this be resolved? Integrity II (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that your article looks different that the ones for Huckabee and Santorum because .... you are not Huckabee or Santorum. The opening sentence of Santorum's article mentions that he is a senator, because that is what makes him notable enough for an entry on wikipedia. Huckabee's mentions his office as governor and his candidacy for the presidency for the same reason. Your article mentions your role in the creationism debate for the same reason - it is the thing that makes you a notable person. As I read the article right now, it all appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources -- that is, factual. If you find, however, there are concerns about non-factual information being written about you, there is information about how to contact wikipedia with your concerns here and here. Pastordavid (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This shows how little some people know about the facts. The "creationism" issue took place during the revision of the Minnesota Sciecne Standards when there was an attempt by committee members NOT to "add creationism," but to allow debate about evolution. I was fine with this - I still am. It is an issue of tolerance of others' opinions.

But to look at a 25-year career in education, two books, multiple articles, service to five Governors in three states, and distill my career down to one issue (which lasted about 30 days) is unfair, unjust, biased, and at odds with the Wikipedia policy which states: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."

Again - is there some way to bring balance to this entry without the start of another editing war? Integrity II (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

North American currency Union

My site, http://www.amerocurrency.com , has been deleted from the "external links" section of the "North American currency union" page. The link was there for months. It was there legitimately, because my site is, arguably, the most informative site on the web, regarding the topic. The link was removed a month or so ago, I don't know why--my guess is someone who considered them self a "competitor" removed it (oddly laughable, considering the theme). I re-inserted the link. It went away again. I contacted the editor who removed my link the second time, pointed out a disparity in policy, then re-inserted my link. Subsequently, he removed my link, sent me a smart-assed reply and "locked" the topic due to "vandalism."

Last quarter I took on advertising. This is the only reason I can imagine I could be--semi-legitimately--unqualified as a source. Does my site being a profit center disqualify me as being a resource? I think not. Indeed, I would expect Wikipedia would encourage web growth.

I believe the editor in question, "Kralizec!," has too much editing time on his hands, but hasn't spent enough of that time reviewing the source he so readily deletes. My legitimate edit he declared "vandalism," locked the page, and has, in my estimation, an itchy trigger finger looking for a target.

If my site is not a legitimate resource, due to the advent of advertising, I will hasten to inform merriam-webster.com, and similar sites, they are no longer eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. If my site is not a legitimate source due to my editorial position--I don't know how any other site, of any type, remains linked.

I am so offended and outraged, I cannot relate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman4570 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC) --Sandman4570 (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for editing Wikipedia. The rule that is most relevant to this situation is: conflict of interest. Because you own the site you don't have the neutrality to determine if it's a valid link or not. Among more important altruistic reasons, you also want the site to be linked because it garners more interest to your site. Instead of linking to your site, allow other unconnected parties to decide if it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. You're free, however, to bring up the suggestion on the talk page for the article here. A side note: you are still allowed to edit the article. It was protected for an unrelated reason. What you are doing is not vandalism though it could potentially thought of as spamming if you do it in such a way that violates this guideline or this guideline. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. As arachnid, please read our relevant guideline on external links. Each article ought to have very few links, ideally. Note that wikipedia uses "no follow" tags, which means that links on wikipedia do not help your google or alexa rank. Pastordavid (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

why am i being blocked from linking

I am trying to put some links to my website Helping Addicts on the pages that are relevant, such as heroin, addict, etc. But I have been blocked and am now on my last warning!

Why cant I link my site, it is relevant to the subject.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownaddictuk (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your addition of the links appears to be spam, which is against our guidelines. You are encouraged to improve articles rather than linking to other sites. Barrylb (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see our policies on external links. Note also that wikipedia uses "no-follow" tags, which means that links on wikipedia do not help your google or alexa ranks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Environnement2100 and issues with "Civility/disruption/reasonableness"

Note: last month the editor assistance request was discussed here: editor abuse. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the past month Environnement2100 has escalated what began as a content dispute to what now boarders on wikistalking and harrassment. He has called my editting vandalism (probably in retaliation to edits I made after he repeadedly blanked sourced information while ignoring attempts to discuss and resolve the issues). His request for editor assistance about me did not back him up, and apparently as a result he now goes to other pages bringing up old disputes.

This editor has a recent history of poor and disruptive editing, even though having been a Wikipedia member for at least a year [2]

From the first three weeks of December 07:

• [3] [4] removing information discussed at length in talk page (a discussion s/he avoided) with no explanation
• [5] removing information without discussion or reason (I've heard the info he removed discussed as an issue on NPR), replace with unsourced claim, edit summery disguises removal as addition of "link to main Oil spill"
• [6] completely changing meaning of passage without discussion, replacing with claim using wikipedia as source, adding a non-sequitor, edit summery non-descriptive
• [7] changing meaning of passage without discussion and citing unknown source "(USA, 2007)", edit summery is "links"
• [8] removing information without discussion or source (simply called this guy "wrong")
• [9] example of same type of actions on French Wikipedia (use "? Différence précédente" to see whole sequence)
• [10] redirect page without merging (loosing information)
• [11] inserting unsourced POV editorializing
• [12] inserting non-sequitor sentence which disrupts the lead of this article

Please advise on how to handle the latest and any future attacks by this editor. NJGW (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. All of the links above are regarding old edits that mostly happened before your last request. How has the situation changed since January 1st? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Jan. 1st, Environnement2100 has been much more active on the French site (which I haven't looked at in depth since December) and much less active on the en.wiki site.

On Jan. 7 I asked him to clear up what I consider wp:or here, and asked ~a (user • talk) for comment. Environnement2100 derided me for that request.

On Jan. 9 he made several good points on this talk page, with which I tried to make peace by saying I thought so on his talk page.

On Jan. 12 he started a discussion reviving an issue which I had considered resolved from a month before. I have repeatedly asked for sources which represent the conclusions Envi. draws, but am only told that my sourced statements are "false".

On Jan. 18 and 19, Envi. posted these two statements, which I feel are intentionally misrepresentative and meant to somehow discredit me or intimidate me. The sentence in question seems fairly meaningless and I considered removing it all together. My intent was to update a two year old prediction, but I missed a strong statement made near the end of the source for which Environnement2100 has pounced on me. NJGW (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I applaud you for your message on his user talk page. I also responded to one of the borderline-attacks you referred to above. I'll try to monitor the situation as it unfolds. I suggest that you try to keep most of the controversial edits regarding oil and land models to the talk page where consensus can be reached between you and the community. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance in Iranian folklore

In the page Iranian folklore,Agha Nader,insists on his view that various types of performing a religious ceremony can't be considered "folkloric". He is so insistent that he is using an improper language[13].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I merely insist that only sourced material be included and that the synthesis OR be left out. I believe the so-called "improper language" Alborz Fallah is referring to is my characterization of this material in the article: "Churchill used for any mischievous person [as an example of 'folklore Heroes']" as ridiculous. Please see [14]. Cheers.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Alborz Fallah should have read the first sentence on this page: "The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral." --Agha Nader (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm mentioning this quote of Agha Nader "This is ridiculous. The editors who add unsourced material like that do not belong at Wikipedia" and his insisting in that he has the right to address the editors instead of the editions Section "Merging with Iranian folklore?".--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I stand with the support of most Wikipedians when I say that people who violate policy do not belong here. Alborz Fallah routinely adds original research. Finally, I am appalled at his misrepresentation of the issue. His statement: "[he] insist[s] in that he has the right to address the editors insted [sic] of the editions" is maliciously incorrect. In fact, I did the opposite: I commented on content. Of course, this has been explained to Alborz Fallah. I wrote "By the way, if someone makes a ridiculous edit, I am going to call it ridiculous. That is very different than calling an editor ridiculous. The former comments on content, the latter comments on the editor and is a PA. --Agha Nader (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)" However he has chosen to ignore the truth and slander me. Perhaps actions, such as blocks, ought to be levied against him. These actions would be educational and not punitive. --Agha Nader (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think his sentence "I think I stand with the support of most Wikipedians when I say that people who violate policy do not belong here" , shows all the problem . Indeed , I want to explain for him that his judgment about the (peoples - and not the texts- who violate the policies) is not needed.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you cannot go around violating Wikipedia policy (such as WP:V and WP:NOR) and expect other editors to not remind you that we have policies for a reason. Would not you prefer to be made aware of such pressing issues? I would.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well,I asked for editor assistance here to find out what's the opinions of editors.You have expressed your opinion and thanks for it ,what do others think?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute in an American History article

I would like help from an editor who has a background in U.S. legal history, particularly about federal Congressional matters. I made edits to the article, "Treaty of Tripoli," which I expected would be controversial (indeed, the Treaty of Tripoli is itself a controversial subject). Another editor reverted all of my contribution with a single comment that the revision would be in place until certain problems were cleared up. On my talk page, the other editor claims to be defending the position that the Founding Fathers were not strictly orthodox, Bible-adhering Christians (I never claimed they all were). I restored my edits, and asked the other editor not to revert edits for which I had provided citations, and to provide his own citations. He reverted my edits again, and replied that his position is "extremely well-known and well-established," but he did not provide any citations, again. I asked him not to remove all my edits when he only objects to certain limited statements in my edits. He has made no reply to my request. I am up against 3RR.

I am well-aware of the controversies regarding the Treaty of Tripoli. I have argued about them for several years. Frankly, I expect that what I have to say would be a minority position on Wikipedia. However, I have provided citations to substantiate what I have written. In fact, I also wrote a term paper for my college class on government that addresses this subject (for which I received a good grade and compliments from various people). So, even though I doubt that very many Wikipedia editors would agree with my statements, I am certain that my statements are valid, correct and substantiated. I certainly have no problem quoting from established history authorities to substantiate my statements. Pooua (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is really not the place for your hypothesis from your latest term paper. What you seem to be espousing is a minority position on this particular subject. As such, if it is covered in the article at all, it will be in a minor way. I would suggest asking for a third opinion, asking for help at the reference desk. Personally, I don't have access to the proper secondary sources to weigh in on this one. Pastordavid (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Buffalo wings article

Resolved

 – For the time being. Pastordavid (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just need a fresh set of eyes on this article. It has been targeted by major changes by users over the last day or so. I added an addition, with references, and it was removed in a very short period of time. Thanks Shinerunner (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears you have taken a good approach, providing references and discussing it on the talk page. I have watchlisted the article, and will help to keep an eye on it. Pastordavid (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the matter. I know it seems like a little thing, but the tone and actions caught me off guard. Thanks again Shinerunner (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

concrete pumping article

I recently added a site that was helpful to me, and I posted it next to concretepumping.com. Now that I notice it was deleted. Why? I am going to put it back on, and I would like to challenge the actions of this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.64.152 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link, along with two other external links in the article. I removed your link and the link to concretepumping.com because they are forum sites, which are not considered reliable sources. I removed the reedpumps.com link because the site appears to only sell concrete pumps rather than giving information on them. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, nor is it a place to advertise a company, product, or website. For more information on external links, see Wikipedia:External links. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Har Homa

There is a problem regarding the Page about Har Homa.

i whould like some help (editor assistance), it seems we have an editor war there, i try to edit while some other party revert it a few hours after. theire claims is that my languaqe is partial and partisan, while i argue for calling an shovel a shovel.. i think my langue is neutral but no mather how neutral it is, it will never feel very nice to the thief caught with the fingers in the cookie jar.

best regards.. 88.89.23.249 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, looks like quite a problematic edit war there. I'll request that the page be protected, and I'll notify everyone involved to discuss it on the talk page. Remember that Wikipedia's most important policy is that it is written from a neutral point of view, and that in situations where the facts are disputed, all sides should be given fair and balanced weight in the article based on the notability of each position. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested full protection for the page, and since it seems everyone's already started discussion on the talk page, there's no need to notify anyone. The only thing left to do at this point is to work everything out on the talk page. My advise is to be willing to compromise; there may be parts of your addition that would improve the article and other parts that are non-neutral and need to be removed.

If, after a good deal of discussion, everyone has made a serious attempt to work out this issue and you are still unable to come to a consensus, you can try going to the next step in the dispute resolution process. However, this is to be avoided through discussion if at all possible. Ideally, everyone will be able to come to a consensus and agree on what to add or remove in the article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi Article

Hi. I'm having problems with an editor who continues to add non-biographical content to the Sonia Gandhi article. Most of his additions are political criticism like "her vote catching abilities are in serious doubt", or insignificant details like "notice by the election commission of india" and how it was a "big blow to her" due to her "family's dignity". The editor (User:Inder315) was recently banned for operating three other puppet accounts on the Sonia Gandhi page, but has resumed edit warring after his block expired. I've tried to reason with him on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page but to no avail. Right now the article has his rambling criticisms and commentry and noone is fixing it. Can someone offer me some advice on how to handle this, I'm at my wits end. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for coming here for help. "In fact I demand an apology" I wouldn't "demand" an apology because you're very unlikely to get one. Just remind the other editor that you don't have any affiliation with Sonia Gandhi and assuming as such without evidence isn't logical. With regards to the reverting, I politely suggest that you don't revert edits that you know Inder315 would disagree with. Come to a compromise on the talk page before editing the main-space. Is there anything in particular you find problematic with the sources that Inder315 is providing? I for one don't understand some of the text in question, but I'm hoping that better understanding your issues with the sources will help me come to a better suggestion for a compromise. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for responding to my plea. Actually the material he is adding is totally unencyclopaedic and should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. But he just won't listen. The references he provides don't back up the content he adds. For instance the reference given for the line "all wins are due to Sonia, all losses due to local factors" does not attribute that statement to a congress spokesperson like he claims; it's the article writers own observation. The problem area is the second half of the Criticism section (starting "Questions are being asked now...") and the section "Notice by Election Commission of India". I would request you to kindly read those portions yourself and guide me on what to do about it. Once again, thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Wikipedia:Search engine test

Hello, I am involved in an Wikipedia:Search engine test with Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. Just check the page history and you'll see what's going on. I have requested the change be discussed on the article talk page (twice), and posted that request to the user's talk page. The user has not responded, but keeps reinserting the change with the same edit summary. The information appears to be total OR - the only source is a link to the user's own webpage. He appears to be an experienced editor, so I don't know what's going on here. I can't really send a WP:3RR warning since the edits are spaced out, and I don't want to just keep re-reverting. Torc2 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for coming here for help. I've replied to the talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

my mother, charlotte fisk

what is your problem here???????? That is my mother and these things I said are facts people, are you scared of something???? I want an answer WITHIN 24 hours to my email address. You can not contest facts people, check out what I said before you demand it be removed or I will SUE YOU and whomsoever complained about it as IT is MY family, not for others to tell ME what to say on here or again you might GET sued along with any one who wants to complain about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria astor (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat? Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. So warned. Feel free to follow up in any other way you might feel would be helpful - I'm headed off-line. Pastordavid (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT and Notability. Marlith ^T/C 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the complaint is about, her mother's article has been deleted. And by the way, there are rules governing what we can and can't say here. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I trust someone will delete these edits as unencyclopedic (and perhaps as a bit of advance book advertising). --CliffC (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Been done. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pest, but this edit by an IP user was the first one of that string. Based on its edit summary, likely all the same user. This was the one I was most concerned about, but it's still in the article. --CliffC (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pastordavid (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New article 'Frank McCarthy (disc jockey)'

Resolved

I've just added the article mentioned above. There's already a feature about the film producer Frank McCarthy - could someone please be so kind and create a redirection-page (...or whatsoever; a site where you can choose between the film producer and the disc jockey)? Although I've written some articles for German Wiki I'm not that experienced when it comes to 'technical' affairs. Thanks!--Rob501125 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A disambiguation page has been made at Frank McCarthy! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--Rob501125 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Crane aka Young Maestro - dispute on this page

Hi,

There seems to be a problem or dispute of some kind on my page and I do not understand it. Please could you resolve it for me without losing my page or tell me how to do it.

Here is the link:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Crane

Thank you for your help.

Best Wishes,

Matthew Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largehairy (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. There seems to be two issues with that article. The first issue is vandalism. An editor added some obviously untrue information to the article and I'll try to keep that under control. The second issue are the messages (tags) at the top of the page. If you have any specific questions, the user who added the tags was AnemoneProjectors (I've linked his talk page). In my opinion, the main issue is that the article doesn't have any links to reliable sources to back up the information there. You need to find links to reliable, third-party, published sources (more info). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Welshleprechaun

The user insists on tendentiously adding spurious references to such things as Cardiff being the capital of Wales, there being 22 stations within the county boundary, comparisons of other locations to it, etc. to articles where the information is either not significant or not relevant. In further supporting their local peacockery, the user also insists on removing significant information relating to the lack of scheduled air travel in the country from Transport in Wales, based on the idea that they do not belong as they are not "in Wales" (ignoring the fact that this exceptional state of affairs was the reason they were included in the first place). The user has a history of poor, almost-abusive editing and abuse of process.

Having attempted to explain precisely why their edits are poor, they reject it out of hand, because "I am right, and you have anti-Cardiff POV" (para.). Some assistance in dealing with this user is sought. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor Issues Changing Factual Information

Hello..

I am having an issue with other editors removing pertinent, accurate information from a Wiki-page. They have created a 'third-party' website so they can refer to that website to outline controversy that they have created. I have not removed their information because, no matter how dubious, they cited it and that would be wrong of me. However, they are always deleting my additions stating that because they come from a primary source, they are not valid. Even additions with more than one citation have been removed malicious. Our page has already been shut down once because of a revert war and I fear that if I continue to place factual information on the Wiki page, they will continue to remove that information and a war will ensue. The other editors seem to be conspiring to keep the page minimal, inaccurate and controversal. I want to report vandalism, but it does not rise to Wiki Vandalism standards.

I just need to understand how I can get factual information to stick? Obscuredata (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

heya, what is the page concerned? Seddon69 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is still Oxford Round Table‎, where there has been an edit war for a while now. Pastordavid (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Your comment about "pertinent, accurate information" is almost irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts are referenced and verifiable through reliable sources. (Note that primary sources are not considered reliable.) If you add information without any reliable sources then your edits likely will be removed. If someone else adds information that you know is inaccurate, but is supported by references to reliable sources, then you cannot delete it. So go find reliable sources for all of your edits and add them as references. And check out the other editors' sources to see if they qualify as reliable. If their sources are not reliable, then you can so tag their edits and then delete the inaccurate information. (I hope I am not contributing to an edit war, but if the result is that all information is referenced to reliable sources, then that probably will be good.) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been other problems with Obscuredata's edits to this page - WP:copyvio, WP:notability, and WP:listcruft, for example. A couple of us have tried to suggest that Obscuredata would benefit from learning more about the relevant policies and guidelines, but he/she seems to be stuck on a simplistic notion of "factual information" and doesn't seem terribly interested in the suggestions offered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have verified all of the information I have posted and it continues to be removed. What now? Obscuredata (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I was editing the article on Dana Jacobson, and it looks like I deleted all the references. First of all, I apologize if that is the case. What can I do? TomHennesst (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello: Tom.. I don't know what you're referring to . We're talking about the ORT. Obscuredata (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawat e Islami

I request here regarding Dawat-e-IslamiPage in Which certain editors are inserting their POV.They are Unnecessary relating it to tablighi Jamat to show it in Bad light .It has no links with [Tablighi Jamat] and there are also no Sources that either its founder or it was related with Tablighi jamat .It is peaceful Movement of Islam . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msoamu (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)