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

Help with Zachman Framework-related articles

A number of new editors, some with declared WP:COI, would like assistance with a number of concerns. There are spam issues here (spam report), which I think are taking a back seat now that the editors have joined in the discussions. The articles are (mostly) Enterprise architect, Enterprise architecture, John Zachman, and Zachman framework. The other editors are User:Lockezachman, User:Metaframe, and User:Phogg2. I've been trying, not very successfully, to get them to discuss the issues on article talk pages rather than my personal talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metaframe hasn't been editing since Feb 04, User:Lockezachman not since Feb 06. However, in the recent days, User:Phogg2 has extensively edited Zachman framework. Imho, it reads like even more of an advertisement now than it did before. User:Dorftrottel 15:03, February 12, 2008

Can someone look at this situation again, starting with Lockezachman's Feb 17 edits? --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lockezachman is now edit-warring, and a new user has joined in: User:Len Morrow --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:COI/N request has been filed. (permlink dating from 14:46, 22 February 2008) User:Dorftroffel 17:16, February 22, 2008

Are these original research? Do they quote reliable sources?

I wonder if someone could look at the material added today to the "Sources and research" section of Payday loan with this edit. The article draws a lot of spam and self-serving edits from the Payday Loan industry; to me this looks like more of the same, and not just because the IP submitter parked his material right at the top of the section. For starters, the edit summary says "added new independent research". The first PDF linked, "PAYDAY LENDERS: HEROES OR VILLAINS?" is headed "Draft January, 2007 Preliminary and Incomplete". To me it looks like WP:OR, just one professor's opinion.

The second document, "Payday Holiday: How Households Fare after Payday Credit Bans: is a "Staff Report" from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, bearing the caveat

This paper presents preliminary findings and is being distributed to economists and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit comments. The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily reflective of views at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

The third, "An Experimental Analysis of the Demand for Payday Loans" comes from the Social Science Research Network. The link has been retitled (deceptively, IMO) by the IP as "Restrictions on Payday Loans Do More Harm Than Good". This seems an exaggeration of the study's Summary and Conclusions section, which says in part "While some subjects’ financial survival was adversely affected by their use of payday loans, we found that the majority of subjects in our experiment benefited from the existence of and their subsequent use of payday loans."

As you can tell, I don't think references to these documents belong in the article. I'd like a fresh set of eyes to take a look. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly checking out these sources. Let me add a quick note here on something I've found so far. I used Google Scholar to find all the published papers that cited the Morse (2006) paper. There were three papers that cited the Morse paper (each of which were also cited by a number of papers). In the academic world, I've been told that being cited by lots of papers (who are also cited by lots of papers) is a big deal. In other words, I think the first link is valid. I'll fix the wiki markup since in my opinion it's a valid link. I'll also relocate them to the end of the list. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do about an editor who keeps accusing me of plagiarism?

There is a Wikipedia editor that persists with an accusation that I am a plagiarist. This is an extremely harsh allegation, not to mention reputation ruining. I have reviewed the editor's complaint and found it absurd right on the face. I have explained to this editor why his allegation is false. I have asked this editor to cease. Finally I warned him on talk pages that if he persisted my hand would be forced to have something done about his actions. He persists. I do not tend to make use of complaint departments (here or elsewhere). Hence I am completely unfamiliar with how to report this vicious behavior and ask for something to be done about it. I would appreciate some guidance on how to proceed? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in part it depends on whether this is an editor that you need to continue to interact with for other purposes. If so, then an WP:RFC on the situation might be a good way to get it all out in the air, and get input on the situation from other editors. If this is an editor that you do not need to continue to interact with, then ceasing to interact with them at all might be the best course of action. I had a similar situation last year. An editor who I can only guess was upset at my deletion of one of their articles, started laying out nasty accusations against me of racism, accusing me of specifically hunting down and deleting pages created by minority editors. Ignoring any responses about how it is generally impossible to know the race of most editors, this accuser continued to make the accusations. No supporting evidence was ever provided, despite the accuser being asked by a number of editors and admins to back up their accusations. After several weeks of trying to reason with the guy, I finally said enough is enough, and stopped feeding the troll. After that point, any time he smeared my talk page with his crap, I simply hit the revert button and moved on. The troll still smears my talk page once a month or so, but he mostly leaves me alone these days, as he no longer gets any direct reaction/response from me.

So the ultimate point is that, if you do not need to work with your own accuser any more, ceasing all interaction with them to deny them the pleasure of your reactions is one way to handle things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid: I appreciate you taking time to offer your recommendation, and I agree with you. Unfortunately the likelihood is high that this other editor and I will frequently find ourselves editing the same pages. Thanks again.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito responds

Regarding this matter, I have documented this matter.on the two talk pages. Editor Shilmer refused to comment on an editorial issue I opened for discussion, and after a week of silence from all editors on the matter I acted as I had recommended. Within minutes, literally, Shilmer reversed the edits and quickly labeled my work as vandalism (he is prone to so accuse with other editors too). This went on three times inside of a few hours, and the third time he essentially reverted the edit in a way just skirting the WP:3RR rules. Later when the matter was pushed to mediation at my request, Shilmer claimed that the original edit was his work. I detailed the edit history and relevant quotes on he appropriate talk pages. No one, except Shilmer, has ever complained. I also asked arbitrators to look into this matter and invited him to do the same. As a broader matter, I had been recommending certain changes to the article in question on its main talk page forum. Shilmer created a sandbox version of the article (which had been locked over the core dispute) and invited other editors to move the discussion there, despite the mediator doing the same. Shilmer then began publishing on the talk page that I was not worth conversing with and that his sandbox article was progressing despite the actual article being "held hostage." In that sandbox article he used many of my suggestions and presented these as his own innovations. It is understandable why he feels that he should be the Chief Editor -- he claims an academic background (though never really gives his credentials), often loses his temper and demands that people respond to whatever it is he is off about (and berates them if they don't follow him on the asides), and has even proclaimed that his 'methods are infallible.' I am neither the first editor he has berated, nor will I be the last. I have received private thanks for finally stepping up and challenging his perceived hegemony. Interestingly, no one that has ever been a part of an editorial discussion with me has ever accused me of being a troll, but others have identified Shilmer as a troll in a direct exchange that was also leading nowhere. Equally funny that the longest argument with Shilmer on his arrogance and obstinance on his talk page was with another editor entirely, and that editor engaged Shilmer more than once on different incidences and not always about himself. I have merely posted defenses to Shilmer's accusations he made of me on his Talk page. -- cfrito (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: I appreciate you taking time to speak on behalf of yourself. I had left your name out of the situation in this request too minimize the risk of escalating tension.

I believe the thing making you charge me as a plagiarist is a misunderstanding. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this thing (accusation of plagiarism) began when you read a comment I made to Seddon69 where I said, “The reason I moved the information you cite from the criticism section and placed it in the history section is precisely for the reasons you cite.”

My response to Seddon69—that you assert as plagiarism—was in response to Seddon69’s recommendation that the information about the NWT’s Editor and translators deserved its own section, and that he recommended the same information be removed from the Criticism Section. I responded that I agreed, and then cited an edit I had made demonstrating my agreement. That is, on my own volition, and prior to Seddon69’s comments, I had already concluded as had he. This was not any taking of credit away from you, or from Seddon69 for recommending as he did or as you did. I was only expressing agreement and showing a manifestation of that agreement. Furthermore, my remark to Seddon69 had to do with the NWT’s Editor and the translators. When you removed “the information” from the Criticism Section and placed it into the History Section, you deleted “the information” about the translators and only inserted into the History Section the information about the NWT’s Editor. However, when I moved information into the History Section I included “the information” of the NWT’s Editor and the translators. Hence, my remark to Seddon69 was not to take credit for your editing move. Rather, my remark stood to 1) demonstrate an agreement with Seddon69 and 2) to reflect a move to the History Section of information of the NWT’s Editor and translators.

To this day I have no idea why or how you think I tried to take credit for anything you have done, or said. But you do think this, and you have repeated it several times. Because I see no plagiarism on my part, and because I see no place where you have depicted plagiarism, then I am left to conclude you misunderstand what I wrote and why I wrote it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shilmer: Must you always have the last word? -- cfrito (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Shilmer, I'll reiterate TexasAndroid's two suggestions. I suggest you either start an RFC or cease interaction. "Just ignore it. ... Go about your business and do not worry about it; you are not required to respond." That being said, repeated abuses need to be resolved but that line of discussion is usually reserved for one of the dispute resolution venues (like RFC). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denplan

Denplan has a section [1] that is a copy-paste from here [2]. I tagged the section as a copy violation but the author removed my tag. What is the next step for a copy violation of a section? And the rest of the article seems to me not encyclopedic, maybe a little POV. Comments? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author's lack of response is deafening. I think putting the tag back would be correct, or simply removing the section altogether. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web site as a Wikipedia Subject

Dear Editors,

I understand that personal websites are not meant to be the subject of topics on this site. The company I want to add an entry for, however, is also a web name: CreditCards.com. I think the Online credit cards offer websites are a trend offering card searches great information all in one place. A switch from all of the credit card snail mail that we all recieve and generally throw away. I've tried to submit an entry, and it hasn't gone well. Can you give me some advice on how to get my entry approved?

Thank you. Jodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannjodik (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:WEB for the notability requirements for web sites, and WP:CORP for the same for company requirements. If your site meets the requirements for either of those, you can likely get a page made that will not be deleted. If not, then you you may be fighting a losing battle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very bizarre first two edits

This may be nothing, but this and this seem like a very unusual first two edits. I've warned user normally, but does this bear any further investigation? BusterD (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume good faith because it could be a newcomer's mistake - perhaps he/she has edited anonymously before? Unusual yes but nothing the template warnings can't solve. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Offending Team Glossary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veraguinne

Deb deleted my article on 30th without explanation to a newbie. Other Admins tried to help. I tried to make the necessary clarifications. Deb's final word was she was too busy with her own articles, and I was too thick to understand her explanations. I'm afraid I don't think this is appropriaite behaviour.--SJB (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I also asked Deb if she could clarify why my Feb 8th additions were not displayed. She claimed "I have no idea what "additions" you are referring to. Deb (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)" Deb's revision history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&action=history appears to show that she deleted them without explantion. --SJB (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, glossaries are not encyclopedic. It may be possible to present them as a list but not a glossary in itself, unless the glossary itself is notable, which means it is covered by multiple veriable reliable sources. She did not say you were too thick, she said she could not help if you did not understand. Perhaps the concept is useful and perhaps it can be included somewhere. What I think is being objected to is the information being presented in its own article. Because if it does, it needs to be notable as stated above. I would think that User:Deb has acted as she should. The result of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary was delete and I think you should read the comments of the other users so as to understand why it was deleted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edward r murrow

Hey, your entry on Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, N.Y., says CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow is buried there. But your entry on Murrow says he was cremated and his ashes spread at his upstate New York home. Is one story wrong? Were his ashes divided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasdave (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a NY Times article mentioning his grave in Green-Wood Cemetery, so I added it as a reference to the cemetery's article. I removed the unsourced claim about his cremation and scattering from the Edward R. Murrow article. See also a mention on Green-Wood's own website. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Officers in an organization

Please look to United Isshin-ryū Karate Association. What is the best way to list the officers in the organization. I do wish to add some basic information about each of the people listed, so a layout that includes the ability to add a line or two would be best. Thanks. Noxia (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on officers should probably be deleted from the article. These officers don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles, and people outside your group are not likely to have heard of them. So, knowing their names does not help our readers. The article currently includes the name of the director, Harold Mitchum, and that ought to be sufficient. If your group has been written about in newspapers or magazines it would be helpful to add pointers to that coverage. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belize area

I spend a lot of time in Belize. belizesearch.com is the best tool i have when there. best website on belize out there. and you won't link to it. STOOPID. I've tried adding several excellent links here over the years and you always erase them IMMEDIATELY. thats why i rarely even come to wiki. if you are so dadgum provincial in this area, you probably are in other areas, unless this carl bunderson guy is just a jerk.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.21.135 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 10: Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. In general, Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and external links should always direct to specific content, relevant to better understanding of the article. User:Dorftrottel 10:26, February 12, 2008

Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning editing difference

Please provide mediation assistance with the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning article.

Two editors have opposing views on this article and can not reach consensus. Mutually exclusive edits are merely erasing each others edits and making no progress towards a resolution. Possibly one of these editors has an agenda to portray a viewpoint and is deleting anything contradictory to this view. There is also a fundamental difference in cultural background on the topic resulting in a fundamental difference in opinion. The view differ that 3D work is low-status "untouchable" work or is traditional blue-collar living wage work. This difference is unlikely to be resolved with out help.

Both views are valid and should be represented.

The Portal:Organized Labour should be involved in this dispute since most of the deleted material relates to the labor movements representation of 3D occupations e.g. electricians, steel workers, and miners. The workers in these occupations were the first to organize and should be represented in the article. These occupations still are the foundation of the labor movement since these workers need representation the most. A joke is that you do not see a union for "rich old men" who sit in board rooms sipping tea.

Please provide a return to the last page version before the deletion of half the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented over at Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Key point is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Sbowers3 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Bruce apparent error

Spouse Honey Harlow (June 15, 1951 - January 21, 1957); 1 child

THIS ~~INFERS~~implies THAT HIS WIFE WAS 6 YEARS OLD WHEN SHE DIED. SOMTHING IS WRONG. 204.116.139.64 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it says is that they were married in 1951 and divorced in 1957. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the source appears to be a website, for the 1951 marriage and the 1957 divorce, or one of the sources used in the compilation of that site. However, I agree that the exact dates are a bit confusing at first glance. But as long as there's a reliable source for that, why not be precise? The guy who set that website up seems to be very much into Lenny Bruce and I can't imagine he would include wrong dates... User:Dorftrottel 15:19, February 12, 2008

Dorftrottel, I would question whether the website in question is a reliable source for information. It appears to be a personal website. Pastordavid (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors having difficulties

Pvsamrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ankur0412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These editors appear to be having difficulties, and were accused of sock puppetry. On the assumption that they are two newbies with similar interests who are just having difficulties, is there a volunteer who could offer to help them a bit? Let me know if you see any evidence of sock puppetry or disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

having trouble with an article

I cannot see any reason, other than unfair bias against the author of the cartoon why this is not allowed. The article in the sandbox perfectly follows the accepted style at Wikipedia. It is unbiased, informative, and includes references (including IMDB). This is a recognized, professional film production. What is wrong at Wikipedia that this is not allowed? It seems crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.74.219 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing this article as a favor for a friend. No money is involved. User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

Despite repeated attempts, the only comments, from a few editors, have been negative--sometimes verging on hostile. Admittedly this page was banned long ago. It has been shortened, cleaned up, made neutral, and I have added whatever references are available. Yet people continue to naysay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_11 Please note the deletion endorsements--the article has been heavily edited throughout this. I feel the references are valid, yet all I ever get back is negativism.

Please, I am attempting to do this in good faith, I am not interested in (and do not have time for) edit war. Nor is this an attempt to advertise Mr. Lovelace or his cartoons. What do you recommend to improve it? You can leave comments on my personal talk page. Many thanks. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been posting this message all over Wikipedia. It has even been under deletion review. Please stop forum shopping. IrishGuy ^talk 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. I'm only asking for help. Why so hostile? Eric Barbour (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand that the community generally doesn't take kindly to attempts at Canvassing via Forum shopping and Excessive cross-posting. If Consensus goes against your idea/wishes, you nevertheless have to accept it at one point, better sooner than later. Rejecting community input and continuing to aggressively solicit further discussion when consensus has been achieved by and large is often viewed as a form of Disruption, or even an attempt at Gaming the system. User:Dorftrottel 11:13, February 13, 2008

Could I get a couple more voices?

At User talk:Pkapsales#Atlantic Baseball Confederation: My response to comments - User claims a deleted article does have multiple sources and/or is notable, and someone who knows deletion better would be appreciated. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel de Allende (SMA)

An external link to the web forum and blog (www.fallininlovewithsanmiguel.com) has been frequently removed. The external link in English and there is a dearth of English language on line information on SMA as most of it is in Spanish. The book On Mexican Time has also been removed and it is a national best seller. The bilingual newspaper -- a commercial enterprise as well as the film Lost and Found in Mexico. All of this external give those interested in San Miguel -- whether residents or those interested in retirement. Falling in Love with San Miguel is also a book. SMA while a tourist destination is also a retirement haven and represents a significant life style change for folks in the Americas. Falling in Love with San Miguel gives day to day hints and information for expats as does Atencion. The film also examines the reasons why people retire to Mexico. All give more to understanding San Miguel. Because the authors are gay they have been subjected to cyber stalking and have had their site hacked and comments on Amazon (where the book is for sale) that were unsavory. I hold no connection with the site or book other than I have a home in San Miguel and base my comments as a retired newspaper editor with more than 40 years experience in publishing and public and government relations. Overzealous editing is as bad as no editing. External links should allow the reader to find out more information about the Wiki article. One page of how to order a book should not deprive readers -- its readers and information that is important and not how one uses the editor's axe -- of useful information. If one goes beyond a cursory look of the forum you find many useful hints of how to live in a foreign culture.--Bill Wilson (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely is your request? User:Dorftrottel 22:08, February 13, 2008

Improper reverts + cantankerous behavior by TJ Spyke

TJ Spyke, who appears to have a history of improper and obnoxious editing, keeps undoing my edits to Survivor Series (1991). He/she recently posted the following personal attack on my talk page:

THE

What is your malfunction? You continue to change it to the grammatically incorrect version, provide no explanation for your changes, and act like I am wrong? Not only is leaving out "the" wrong, but it sounds wonky too. Stop removing "the" from it. TJ Spyke 03:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the story here? I do not wish to engage in a flame war nor an edit war. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Stusutcliffe (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for coming here for help. Although his reply seems rather harsh, I wouldn't jump directly to labeling TJ Spyke's reply a "personal attack". I would just label it unnecessarily harsh. You're right that engaging in an edit war is not the proper course of action. You should bring your dispute to the talk page (as TJ Spyke already has). I request that you ignore the "bullheaded editor" remark and move forward from there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to post product marketing information?

I noticed that there is a whole page dedicated to the IBM WebSphere product, including software release numbers and dates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_WebSphere. Is this acceptable? If so, then I will add a page for each one of my companies' products. I thought this forum was to be essentially an on-line enclyclopedia, not a catalog listing of vendor products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nec100 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It depends on the product and how much press there is in reliable third party independent publications. What is the product in question? Chances are, unless it's an extremely popular and well documented software suite, it's going to fail verifiability policies and notability guidelines. Marketing materials are also biased by definition. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gric ownership issues.

A few days ago I added a review of the artist Peter Gric, and removed what seemed to be primarily a commercial link in Mr. Gric's external links section. Leo_Plaw quickly reverted my edit, citing the review's "unauthorized" status. I tried the add and removal separately, and they were reverted by either Leo or an anonymous user 84.114.145.127. Each time I applied my edits, I added more explicit reasons in my edit and on the talk page. The anonymous user appears to be someone related to the subject (Peter Gric), or perhaps the subject himself. Regardless, they won't engage, and seem to be working together to maintain "ownership" of the entry. I feel like I should move on, but I hate being bullied. Advice anyone? - JeffJonez (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff. I placed a note on the talk page in question. Please try to avoid an edit war by discussing the situation there instead of reverting. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has just undid the wp:cite tag I placed on the article without comment, and has yet to provide any rationale for his/her constant revisions of my seemingly obvious reasons for each. I'll it back until the issues or fixed, short of wp:3rr - JeffJonez (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a copyright violation?

Does Denplan#About_Denplan

... charge their patients a fixed monthly fee, based on the condition of their teeth and gums, which provides them with regular examinations and treatment. The stable income that this system provides means that dentists can focus on quality of care rather than the quantity of patients they see. Dentists can practise at the highest standards, whilst retaining independence and control of their business.

...

Denplan emphasises the importance of preventive dentistry, with the objective of maintaining healthy teeth and gums for life. Patients know exactly what their care will cost and the treatment it will cover, thus avoiding unexpected large bills and enabling them to plan and budget ahead for their care.

violate copyright of this[3]?

... charging patients a fixed monthly fee based on the condition of their teeth and gums, which covered the costs of regular examinations and routine treatment. The stable income that this system would provide meant that dentists could focus on quality of care rather than the quantity of patients they saw. Dentists would be able to practice at the standard that they wanted to, while retaining independence and control of their business.

...
Denplan emphasises the importance of preventive dentistry rather than repair, with the objective of maintaining healthy teeth and gums for life. Patients know exactly what their care will cost and the treatment their payments will cover, thus avoiding unexpected large bills and enabling them to plan ahead and budget for their care.

It was a word-for-word copy. I tagged the section as copyright violation, then an editor changed a few words. Has it been changed enough to not infringe? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I share your scepticism. I looked at it and the rewriting efforts seem to be specifically aimed at preventing tagging or removal of the section. Not too good at any rate. User:Dorftrottel 21:49, February 14, 2008

Note other section #Denplan also. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a Tag

(moved from Talk page.)

Hello, I was advised by an editor to check here to see if it is OK to remove a tag from an article I wrote (good to have another party make the decision!). The editor seemed to think it was ok to remove, but wanted another opinion, thus I am checking here. Backgroud is on my talk page. If additional work is needed, I would really appreciate an example of a good, solid company article that I can look at (I've looked at a lot of company articles that really aren't very good - no citations, not well written, etc. I've tried to work on this article to make it objective but let me know if it still needs improvement). Thanks! Llcavall (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally not acceptable to remove a tag you wrote just because you don't think it needs it. In this case, there was adequate discussion, plus a second opinion. If others agree that the problem brought up by the tag have been addressed, you can remove a tag. Side point: for future notice, please use the project page, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This page is for discussing improvements we can make with regards to that page, not for addressing the actual assistance requests. But we're glad to help wherever :) Justin^(c)_(u) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the user is asking (at my suggestion) for an opinion as to whether in SVM (company) the {{advert}} tag still applies. He (and I) are hoping someone else will look at the article and give suggestions for improving it - or whether it is okay as is and the tag can be improved. Sbowers3 (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the boss of that company and someone wrote an advertisement like that, I would fire them on the spot. Seriously, I would exchange {{advert}} with {{prose}}. Also, per the included sources, I'm not convinced the requirements of WP:COMPANY are met. User:Dorftrottel 21:06, February 15, 2008

New to Wikipedia

I'm new to Wikipedia. A Wikipedia editor named DIEZ provided negative feedback on my amendments to an article called "Foreign Objects (band)" and has since deleted my amendments. I am trying to contact DIEZ to respond to his comments and to get his guidance on what I need to do in order to achieve an entry in Wikipedia. Please advise. Thanks, John Brobst —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.brobst (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question on the technical matter, you should pick a title that does not conflict with Foreign Objects (band)‎ article. Maybe the title Foreign Objects (Massachusetts band)? I'm not sure. However, you must find some better reliable/reputable independent/third-party sources before trying to add your article or it will be deleted again. I've looked at the content you tried to add and your references don't appear to be independent. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikipedia articles are written about a specific topic. Rewriting, as you did, an article to cover two distinct things is not what we usually do. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and MOS:DAB.

I recommend creating an article about the Massachusetts band at Foreign Objects (Massachusetts band). However, before creating the article, please make sure the band meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music).

The article Foreign Objects should then be moved to Foreign Objects (TV series) and redirected to a disambiguation page at Foreign Objects (disambiguation) which lists the different articles. The current Foreign Objects (band) should be moved to Foreign Objects (Pennsylvania band). If you're having difficulties with these steps, feel free to post here again or contact me at my talk page. User:Dorftrottel 20:57, February 18, 2008

Are live feeds of a television program considered verifiable sources?

I have been trying to get the "Big Brother 9" page more accurate, as it seems that there is a rash of unverifiable information being shown. While I understand that Wikipedia is supposed to be a constantly changing and evolving encyclopedia, what is happening is allowing for content that is not verified by anyone on the article.

The problem is that the show also has a LIVE FEED that someone can subscribe to. When someone sees something on these live feeds they then place it on the page. The problem I see is that this information, while true, is NOT verifiable. However because the Big Brother articles have been maintained for years by the same people (Alucard and rjd) they are bent on disagreeing with me and use consensus to overrule the fact that these are unverifiable sources.

I am looking for a third party to look at this and explain why the article should contain this information. My original argument was that the live feed should have its own page, because the article is about the TV SHOW, and only information that has been broadcast and verifiable on various websites should be allowed, but that was shot down. Then I suggested at least putting the unaired information onto the bottom of the page, leaving the top to be free of unverifiable information and adding a tag to the unverified info that it may change by the air date, but again... shot down.

Can anyone help me? Am I dead wrong that these feeds should be allowed?

As an example, recently on the show one of the contestants left, but there was no explanation as to why. On the page, people put that he "walked" but there is not information saying that, and in fact he may have been kicked from the show, or removed for some other reason... but yet this misinformation is placed on Wikipedia as fact.

Thank you.

RMThompson (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a horribly unencyclopedic way of writing and verifying an article. OTOH, we're talking about Big Brother... Pop culture articles like that are condemned to be owned by fans who are more interested in keeping the article up-to-date and less concerned about proper sourcing, and particularly the proper use of reliable, third-party secondary sources. Moreover, only secondary sources can help with assessing the due weight to be assigned to each of the various aspects and bits of information in the article. That said, it's not worth the effort of arguing about it imho. User:Dorftrottel 19:03, February 18, 2008

In the past, I've run into trouble trying to argue that videos should not be used as a source. Now that I think back, I believe that videos can be used as a source (with lots of exceptions). Exceptions: References that violate WP:EL (content that costs money to download, illegal copyright infringement like youtube), references to videos without timestamps, references that try to back up complex conclusions, references that backup trivial/non-notable statements should not remain. Like Dorftrottel, I'm mostly just spouting my opinion, I can't recall any relevant sections of policy/guidelines that help you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is that they arent even videos you can view again, its LIVE FEEDS of whats going on inside the house. RMThompson (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that live feeds can in no way be used as sources for anything on Wikipedia. Let me take another look, maybe I'll compose a posting to the article talk page about the issue. User:Dorftrottel 21:44, February 18, 2008

Please keep the discussion centralized: Talk:Big Brother 9 (U.S.)#Supplying reliable sources with feed information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I firmly believe that requesting assistance with content discussions is perfectly valid and within the scope of this page. It does not imho (and certainly not in this instance) automatically constitute Forum shopping or Asking the other parent. User:Dorftroffel 17:11, February 22, 2008

I would just like to say RMThompson that I am not bent on disagreeing with you and if you remember correctly in one on one discussions we came up with the compromise of "putting the unaired information onto the bottom of the page, leaving the top to be free of unverifiable information and adding a tag to the unverified info that it may change by the air date." I simply said that the compromise should be posted on the talk page so there can be a discussion. I wasn't against the compromise. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST TO REMOVE PICS

HI THIS IS MY REQUEST TO ALL THE EDITORS ADMINISTRATORS AND ALL OF THE WIKIPEDIA'S OWNERS TO REMOVE ALL THE PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD(PEACE BE UPON HIM) FROM ALL OF THE WIKIPEDIA PAGES WHERE IT HAS DISPLAYED. WE THE MUSLIMS RESPECT OTHER RELIGIONS AND ALL THE PROPHETS SO OTHERS SHOULD ALSO GIVE RESPECT TO OURS ITS NOT ONLY ME BUT ALL THE MUSLIMS WANT WIKIPEDIA TO REMOVE THE PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPO HIM) WE ARE SIGNING THE PETITION ASWELL for eg. http://the-petition.blogspot.com/ www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia etc. etc. I MAKE AN APPEAL AGAIN TO REMOVE THESE PICTURES FROM ALL THE PLACES WE WILL BE VERY THANKFUL TO YOU. YOURS SINCERELY KASHIF KAYANI (UK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzkayani (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Talk:Muhammad/images. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

I have published a book on Lulu, currently being picked up by online booksellers. I have set up an alert to be advised of these. Recently I visited a site which had a link to the author name on Wikipedia, but on clicking on it, Wikipedia returned a 'not found', so I thought I would rectify this, but on checking Wikipedia guidelines it says no advertising, and no original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athene43 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? You want to restore an article about yourself, an author? What's the name of the article? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not submitted the article because, as I read it, it is againt policy, but, as I said, I have found a link stating 'more information on Wikipedia' (I have since found another such link)and I wondered if, in the interests of Wikipedia's reputation, it would bhe betteer if there was such an article at the end of the link, rather than 'not found'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athene43 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, by and large, Wikipedia's reputation is best served by clear and well-heeded guidelines concerning the kind of information that can be added to it. I also think, by and large, that when a web site offers a link to a page that does not exist, it says more about the linking site than the linked one. JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athene43: Thanks for the further information. In order to discern whether or not an article would be appropriate, we need to first know the name of the subject. Could you provide that information, and if possible a link to the page you referred to on Lulu? Thanks. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 19:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb & TV.com

This is a two-parter question. First, are external links for IMDb & TV.com still allowed on articles for television shows (not used as references, just as external links for the series)? Another editor removed them from an article stating that Wiki does not cite IMDb and TV.com as external links. Is this a new policy or a mistake on the editor's part? Second, the same editor removed a list of episodes that was on the original article (the series only ran for two seasons) into a whole new article basically making the old version a stub. I've seen quite a few articles for short tv series that were set up the way I originally edited the page so I see the addition of a new article page just for 44 episodes a bit odd. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do cite IMDb and TV.com as external links, or even references where appropriate. We even have a multitude of templates to format those links (Category:Television templates). As to the article split: I merged the episode info (good work, btw) back into the article. There's no need to split that off right now. User:Dorftrottel 13:04, February 19, 2008

For other assistants: The account who made those edits is User:Overjoyed. May be worth keeping an eye on. User:Dorftrottel 13:05, February 19, 2008

Thanks so much. I thought there was some new rule I was missing or something. Thanks for merging the pages back together as well. Pinkadelica (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help re a conflict of interest

Myself and another user independently noticed that the page James Fox (singer) was probably being edited by someone connected with the artist - user:Jasperxp. I flagged the page with a COI tag and comments were put on the user's page. The other editor and I both extensively edited the page to remove or flag unsubstantiated material and peacock terms, promotional language etc. References for the page included the artists myspace and also links to copywritten material on youtube (which I flagged up on the page).

Subsequently a new user has begun editing the page - user:Bouncer23. The user has added info about the artists early childhood for instance (without citations). Most of the edits are in good faith, attempting to improve the article, however I am under the impression that the COI still exists. As a result I posted a load of policy/guideline snippets on the talk page in the hope that they might encourage the user not to edit the article directly. Bouncer23 has since posted a message on my talk page saying he is not Jasperxp and is not connected with him. However he then stated that he knew that Jasperxp was currently indisposed (suggesting to me that Bouncer23 is actually connected with him).

I hope that made sense! Basically I need a bit of help tackling this as I'm really not sure what the best course of action is. Please read the convo on my talk page regarding James Fox. I know wp:auto is just a guideline, but its a widely accepted one and it quite possibl is being broken here. Is there anything that can be done that can solve this smoothly? Many thanks Sassf (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Bouncer23 keeps making good faith edits and the article does not turn into blatant advertising, I would just let him continue, but I would keep a careful eye on the article. If there are any nagging concerns or things go downhill, report him. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DISCOVERY CHANNEL BATTLESHIP....10 GREATEST BATTLESHIPS

BATTLE SHIP X WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED LATE IN THE WAR AS THE USS SOUTH DAKOTA, WAS A MEMBER OF THE IOWA CLASS SHIPS WHICH WAS IGNORE IN THE LISTING OF IOWA CLASS SHIPS,,SEE USS SOUTH DAKOTA,,,ITS WEB SITE AND THE ARTICLES ABOUT ADMIRL 'BULL' HALSEYS FLAG SHIP,,,I CANT RE THE NAME OF 1ST COMMANDER ,,, CAPT THOMAS GLATCH AFTER VISITING WEBSITE

DISCOVERY CHANNEL DOES A DISERVICE TO THIS VENERABLE OLD BATTLE TEST SHIP AND HER CREW,,WHICH SLUGGED IT OUT IN WW2 WITH THE JAPENESE,, WHICH WAS RIGHT THERE IN TOKOYO BAY WITH THE MISSOURI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.226.152 (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a request for assistance somewhere within that? If so, please re-express it, mostly in lowercase. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor repeatedly misrepresents content of source on BLP

I presented the following as an ANI but got no apparent admin response. Since then 3 admins and another editor have all categorized it as a "content dispute". And suggest RfC or Mediation. I can't see how to frame it as anything other than "disruptive editing" without ignoring WP:VER and WP:BLP. I am seeking input in what to actually present in a RfC or Mediation request

(very substantially re-edited from ANI version)

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists a series of specific allegations and accusations against David Hicks; "The US also alleged Hicks trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods." (article: US charges David Hicks)

Prester John repeatedly edited to present the allegations as facts/admissions.

My first edit summ read "(..."allegedly" as this is what source cited (SMH) says - it presents allegations by US - find other source before presenting this as fact)"

User:PresterJohn then set up a strawman implying that I was arguing that Hicks had never trained with Al Queda. :Edit summ from[[4]] 00:10, 12 January 2008 Prester John (Talk | contribs) (66,379 bytes) (he writes home about it. No one disputes it)

My second edit summ read "(the refrernce cited is for allegations - pls find another reference or discuss on talk page why you think we should put these allegations forward as being proved unsourced)"

Starting a new section on his user page I wrote "...The source cited for the material is http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html "The US charges David Hicks" SMH. The first five paragraphs contain the phrases "has been charged", "Hicks is accused", "The US also alleged", "the US alleged." and "Hicks was also allegedly". It is not open to editors under WP:BLP to include serious statements beyond what we can source. By presenting this material about Hicks as facts rather than allegations we fail to follow WP:BLP. If you can find and cite a reliable sources for this material being fact I will support its inclusion in the article....[[5]]"

PresterJohn then supplied another source. This new source did not contain the specific accusations but only presented generalised "Al Qaeda training" as a fact.

Edit summ from [[6]] 01:59, 13 January 2008 Prester John (Talk | contribs) (66,860 bytes) (There is your alternate source as requested)

Discusion continued at here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations with less and less success.

PresterJohn repeatedly attacked the above mentioned strawman and invoked WP:WEIGHT as the reason why his edits were OK. He was strongly supported in this line of "reasoning" by User:Skyring/Pete.

I submit that;

PresterJohn repeatedly edited to include material that was not sourced and while knowing that the material had been challenged. This violates WP:VER. He continued this edit knowing it had been challenged without resolving any dispute over the challenge.

The material presented by PresterJohn fell within the 3 categories listed on WP:BLP as requiring immediate removal. He repeatedly inserted this material knowing that it had been identified as such by a active editor without resolving any dispute before re-inserting.

PresterJohn either has great challenge in understanding WP policies or was editing disruptively. At other times he edits effectively. He seems to have a disturbing understanding of editing. User:Agha Nader at [|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)] wrote "In his sandbox [1], he has a user box "This user is Satan." If you click on "Satan" it links to [2]. It states "One technique for managing conflict in groups is to set up one person in your faction to be a LightningRod, which is like a more intense, ongoing ScapeGoat. Their purpose is to attract all the hate and bile and frustration which arises, and to shrug it off. In the process, careful thinkers are not slandered, leaders are not distracted, topics aren't changed, and all that." Prester John implies that he is this Lightning Rod (what you and me would call a troll). We ought to see through this crap."

Users PresterJohn and Skyring promoted highly disruptive and destructive interpretations of many WP policies at here on the article talkpage

Diffs of misrepresenting edits performed by PresterJohn

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008. (ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)

I had thought anyone reading the discusions I had on this with PresterJohn and Skyring would immediately see "disruption". I was wrong. Whats a good way to present this stuff? SmithBlue (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present I would like suggestions as to how I can present this as a RfC or as a Mediation request. But I have no confidence in my presentation ability - and dont want to waste more time on ineffective approaches. Input please. SmithBlue (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Massacre

The articles in Wikipedia are very informative, however, it is sad to see so many forms of media playing into the hands of those who deserve NO ATTENTION AT ALL!!!! The picture of the individual who caused so much pain and suffering SHOULD NOT be shown ANYWHERE. By doing this, he got what he wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.212.198 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your argument. Can you please explain (without using all capital letters) what's wrong with having Cho's picture? Also, make sure your argument is consistent with the pictures found here: Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Charlie Manson. All notable biographical articles have photographs except where one could not be located. Before you call me insensitive, I am also a recent Virginia Tech Alumni (as well as you). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what 70.172.212.198 is trying to say is that the gunman wanted notoriety, and that is exactly what the news media have given him by placing his picture on television networks, in newspapers, etc. I personally do not agree with his implied request to remove the pictures, I am just trying to interpret his comments. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, I understand that part of the argument. I'm trying to understand why we would remove the photographs of Cho. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CLS Plasticard

I would like to know why this post was considered advertisment. I believe that it was simply an overview of the company to date and is no where as detailed as a post such as IBM. Please let me know what needs to be done in order to have it reposted. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardjett (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was considered advertisement because it was advertisement. It might have been an overview of the company, but whether the company was notable was of concern. If you would like to rewrite the post, please do so in your sandbox. Please make it neutral, and back it up with Reliable sources. It might be able to make it. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Rummermail

I am requesting a review of the AN/PVS-22 listing Optical Systems Technology as the designer and manufacturer of the AN/PVS-22. Knight's Armament is the listed manufacturer of the AN/PVS-22 in the Govt JEDAS (joint electronics type designation automated system).Knight's Armament also owns the registered trademark of the UNS®. I originally posted this information first on the sight and it keeps getting changed. I would like to present my info so that this can be fixed once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rummermail (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'you have a source for that? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a review of the AN/PVS-22 listing Optical Systems Technology as the designer and manufacturer of the AN/PVS-22. Knight's Armament is the listed manufacturer of the AN/PVS-22 in the Govt JEDAS (joint electronics type designation automated system).Knight's Armament also owns the registered trademark of the UNS®. I originally posted this information first on the sight and it keeps getting changed. I would like to present my info so that this can be fixed once and for all. Shane Robinson <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rummermail (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we got that. Do you have a source? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requester: See WP:RS or WP:V for hints of the kinds of sources being asked for. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Editor Insists That I Use Peer-Reviewed Sources for Citations

Relata refero has repeatedly deleted my edits to the article on the Treaty of Tripoli for several weeks. Most recently, he is removing my statement that says that Thomas Jefferson ignored the increased tribute demands from the Pasha of Tripoli, even though I have cited 3 sources to back up my statement. He dismisses my sources by saying that 1 is a polemic by Christopher Hitchens, and another is not a peer-reviewed source. He has previously made this complaint about my not using a peer-reviewed source. Apparently, he does not consider articles in "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" as peer-reviewed or authoritative. I have itemized on his Talk page and on the "Treaty of Tripoli" discussion page other examples of bad editing by him. Pooua (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything with the Treaty of Tripoli page. Every time that I add material to it, Relata refero guts it. His excuse is that my sources--"Time," "Washington Post," "Archiving Early America"--are polemical, not peer-reviewed sources. He even deleted my quote from "The American Journal of International Law," claiming that by using its general statement on treaties in the specific case of the Treaty of Tripoli amounts to WP:SYNTH. He is demanding that I find a published statement by "The American Journal of International Law" that specifically uses the statement in discussing the Treaty of Tripoli. All he does is delete material--apparently, just the material that I add, no one else's. He does not make any effort to provide any sourced material of his own. Pooua (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pooua. There are several options you can undertake, especially since you have engaged with this editor in discussion already. I suggest you ask for editor input in one or all of the following areas: 1) 3rd Opinion, a place where editors can ask for feedback from new eyes, 2) WP:RfC, Request for Comment, a similar, but more formally-structured system, or 3) one of the four WikiProjects the article is recognised by at the top of the article's talkpage (post to the talkpages of the project pages). Hope that helps! Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 09:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

westminster committee on iran

Dear Wikipedia / Mediators

An Editor, Lara Love, deleted the page for the Westminster Committee on Iran yesterday. The Committee is not an official parliamentary body nor a campaigning group but aims to fill the gap in between.

I request that the page for The Westminster Committee on Iran be unblocked. It is a well recognised organisation and has had much recent coverage from the Economist to the LA Times as well as being involved in international TV news debates, most recently this week (please do a Google search to reveal some of the recent coverage).

It has support from a number of British and international parliamentarians including the Interparliamentary Union in Geneva. ("the objectives of the Westminster Committee on Iran coincide with those of the IPU, which promotes dialogue to foster understanding and avoid conflict." Anders B. Johnsson (IPU).

It is acting within the stated rules of Wikipedia

I am unfamiliar with the disputes system and would request a referal to the Arbitration committee if this is not resolved.

Kind Regards

Convenor - Westminster Committee, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.163.194 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is referring to User talk:The Westminster Committee on Iran. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been blocked because the account name is the same as the name of an organisation. This is not allowed in Wikipedia policy, see WP:UN. The options open to you are explained on the account talk page here [7]. The easiest option is to just open a new account with a more acceptable name. If you were trying to create an article for your organisation rather than open an account, please be aware that we advise that articles for organisations are not written by persons associated with that organisation, see WP:COI. SpinningSpark 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with harassment

Resolved

_{Enthusiastic new member got a little bit bitten BpEps - t@lk 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I feel that another editor is harrassing me on my talk page. He (I don't know if it is a he, but for the sake of this email I'll call him a he) has repeatedly left comments that are personal in nature, and accuses me of every wiki violation in the book... nothing he posts on my talkpage is related to the page which we are both editing. Each time I try to redirect back to the article, he sends another personal "attack" (that may be too severe a word in this case)... I have asked him to stop. I have asked him to back up his accusations/allegations. He cannot. I accused him of getting personal and not sticking to editing the page, and provided examples of what he had said to back up my accusation, which he promptly deleted off my talk page. He has contacted me at my personal email outside of wiki, under the guise of "checking to be sure it was really me and not an impostor"....It feels like stalking to me. He has had another page I wrote deleted off wiki under COI claims, which I disagreed with... but it's gone anyway. He has threatened to get me banned from wiki. He accuses me over and over of being in violation of wiki policy, but can't provide any examples. He accused me of having a commercial link on my userpage and threatened to have me kicked off wiki. Two outside editors agreed my userpage is not in violation of wiki policy (I have a link to my home page, a blog, at the bottom). I thought that would be the end of it, but he won't let it go. Is there any way to get him to stop harassing me on my talk page? I'm just trying to edit here, but his constant badgering is disruptive, and, I feel, against wiki etiquette. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks very much, Aeron Hynes AeronM (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AeronM, you quote other editors' contributions, or selected fragments thereof, where you should be using a "diff" (like this). Please provide diffs here, showing what you are concerned about. --Una Smith (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be a reasonable request cygnis insignis 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is referring to me, and not the legion of other editors who have addressed this issue, I am happy to help bring about a resolution. Shame about my RTD, but I should have renamed my email account. cygnis insignis 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AeronM is a very new editor here and almost immediately ran afoul of Montanabw, who has been recruiting other editors to keep AeronM in check. I feel some sympathy for AeronM.--Una Smith (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here they all are! Is it possible to get a neutral editor who is not a part of this issue involved please? It seems a bit pointless that the very editors I am having problems with are the ones addressing my post here. Also, (directed at outside/neutral editors), is it considered vandalism to make edits to my own talk page? An editor keeps accusing me of this, and i can't find anything on it in wiki...

Also, I believe it is considered against wiki policy to keep putting all sorts of warning (and other) tags on my user talk page for the purpose of harassing me. Is this the case? Thank you. AeronM (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, it is very hard for outsiders to understand your complaint if you do not provide diffs. Click the page history tab, find the edit in question in the list, click on (last), check that is indeed the edit in question (if not click newer edit or older edit as appropriate), copy and paste the url in your browser address bar here, placing it between square brackets. SpinningSpark 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is ongoing and spans many talk pages. To provide diffs on all references would take weeks, and make this page a mile long. In an effort to consolidate the relevant information, I put all the appropriate quotes, with appropriate attributions, on my own user talk page. That only sparked a new controversy where I have now been accused of refactoring other's comments. I will simplify my question: In general, is there a way to prevent someone from harassing you on Wikipedia?" --AeronM (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provide example diffs as requested and report them at WP:AN/I. SpinningSpark 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the attacks have subsided and tones appear to be more civil of late, so I think the issue is resolved. Thanks for help one and all. --AeronM (talk) 20:18, 28 2008 (UTC)

And this is Montanabw, who just found out about all this today. And yes, I asked someone else to initially take a look at an early version of bitless bridle which did in fact contain a significant number of violations of wikipedia guidelines, because I had other fish to fry at the time. That person made some good faith, sourced edits that were promptly reverted by Aeron, and we were off to the races, so to speak. Aeron did in fact have a lack of knowledge of wikipedia guidelines, and while I think she is getting better, she still doesn't seem to understand [{WP:NOT]] nor WP:AGF. Others tried to explain, I tried to explain, I am now exhausted, and have simply given up in sheer despair. I agree with Aeron to the extent that supplying all diffs, especially with some of the odd edits and possible reverting that went on would be extraordinarily difficult, and because of assorting editing glitches,the whole history would be very hard to unscramble. I think when one reviews Talk:Bitless bridle as it sits today, you get the general gist, particularly if you look at the history of the talk page. I certainly admit to getting a little tired, crabby and snarky at times, but frankly it was dished back to me double in the form of veiled insults, reverts of my (sourced) contributions, and a general unwillingness by both Aeron and Una to recognize that I am perfectly willing to go above and beyond sourcing when asked in good faith. I have been able to source many things they have called me on, and anything still unsourced is simply because Aeron has slapped fact tags all over the place and it will take me weeks to source everything, given that I have a real life that I must deal with, a real life that sometimes takes me off wiki for more than 24 hours at a stretch. I am sick of this whole situation, feel like I have been beating my head against a wall for days and just want it all done, but I will not be painted into the villain here so felt I must respond. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal compression puppet war

I am involved in an edit war with someone/thing at Fractal compression. He calls my reverts vandalism while acting like a puppet and spamming. I wrote a substantial part of this article a long time ago and was careful to keep it NPOV, now trying to keep it that way I am going to hit 3RR. I am an expert in this field (fractals and computer graphics). The offending user/s is/art Editor5435 and Technodo. Thank you for your attention. Spot (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at WP:DR which lists the options open to you. However, your best option is always to try to collaborate rather than confront. Rather than just wholesale reverting of the whole article to the version you last edited (I think thats what I get from the page history) which just provokes a counter reversion, try concentrating on the edits/facts you really cannot live with, giving reasoned arguments. It may be much easier to come to a consensus if you concentrate on one point at a time.

If you really still get nowhere, then is the time to start a more formal process of Mediation or finally Arbitration.

On the sockpuppet issue, it is not allowed to use socks to avoid policy eg 3RR. If you wanted, you could make a report at WP:SSP. However, this is a tedious process, you will be expected to provide diffs demonstrating that the edits of the two are similar enough to make them likely the same person (not just two people with the same views). As I say, better to communicate than revert war.

SpinningSpark 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you spark, I have tried to focus on the "uprezzing" issue first, starting yesterday, but so far without success. Part of the problem is I feel a sense of urgency. The initial smell of something fishy is being born out by further research. I now rather strongly suspect this page is being used as part of a stock pump and dump fraud going on right now. See [8] and [9]. The company that this wikipedia page is now pimping has a history of stock fraud. I think something more expedient is called for than me trying to reason with them. Is there at least some kind of warning we can put up? Spot (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it is going outside the expertise or power of Wikipedia to deal with. Maybe you should be thinking of alerting the relevant authorities. However, as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, unsourced material may be removed by any editor WP:V. Fraudulent material should be removed immediately without discussion. I know of no specific policy on that, but I don't think any Administrator would have an argument as long as you can back up your claim. SpinningSpark 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right well I am not suggesting the wikipedia deal with anything except protecting itself from these folks. And I think we have to do that on our own rather than relying on any authorities. I have another editor (Erik Reckase) now helping me keep the page straight but honestly my time to pursue this is limited. Spot (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article to focus the editing, cleaned up the talk page so others can follow it, and started some discussions on problem areas of the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Malicious Edit on WyvernRail plc Article

I would appreciate advice and assistance with an article I have edited.

I created an entry for “WyvernRail plc” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WyvernRail_plc) back in June last year and last night updated the page with a reference and a company logo. This evening, I saw that the logo had been deleted and the page marked for deletion with the following comment:

“Probably the wrong template, but I don't see WyvernRail being a very notable company. It's only a stub article, and has been written entirely for publicity by nferguso wyvern (talk • contribs), the companie's publicity manager.”

I placed a ‘holdon’ tag on the page and placed a reasoned argument on the discussion page but then noticed that the page has now been marked as for deletion with a different message.

I have examined the edit history for the page and note that the principal instigator of the deletions is a user called Bluegoblin7. Having checked Bluegoblin7’s profile, I am greater than 95% confident that I know who this person is and have reason to believe that his actions are less then scrupulous. I can explain more if you require but would prefer if you could examine my contribution and comments on the discussion page and then advise whether I have followed correct procedure.

I must declare an interest in being a director of WyvernRail plc but have attempted to write an article that is both informative and unbiased.

Nferguso wyvern (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Neil Ferguson-Lee[reply]

Whether or not the nomination for deletion is malicious, or who did it, is a bit beside the point. The principle on wikipedia is to asume good faith until the editor actually does something openly malicious. See WP:FAITH. The speedy deletion was indeed unreasonable (it is for worthless articles that an admin can delete without discussion) and you quite rightly challenged it. However, it is still open for any editor to nominate an article for deletion (AfD) whereupon there will be a proper discussion. I urge you to follow the link in the template to the AfD discussion page for the article and put your views. The consensus among editors there at the moment is to merge the article with Ecclesbourne Valley Railway.

On the face of it, I have to say I agree with the consensus to merge, especially as you admit to conflict of interest. While not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged for you to write articles on your own company, see WP:COI. Does your company do anything else besides run this railway? However, some suggestions you might want to look at to improve the article:

- Assert notability: other than for running the railway that the AfD wants to merge anyway
- Better references: Inline references to establish each fact is always good.
- Provide pictures or graphics

Saying you are doing all or some of that at the AfD should help enormously. SpinningSpark 14:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply which was very much appreciated; I am going to follow your advice. Regarding merging, I think I can justify WyvernRail remaining as a separate topic, but do appreciate the arguments put forward.

Nferguso wyvern (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JUSTIFY?!?! HOW?. There is consensus among editors to merge it, and therefore wikiquette suggests that it is a good idea to merge them. Also, as you are the press officer, I still don't think you should be allowed to edit the article, except for typos, factual errors etc. Have you read WP:OWN, WP:COI etc? I presume not. And, by the way, I don't know why you say you know who I am as I have never been to the EVR, and do not know who you are. i found out your role on the website http://www.e-v-r.com. I don't see why you're making a fuss - you are a new editor to WP, editing only Wyvern related articles, and therefore it tells me you know nothing about WP policies and guidlines. Do your homework, and then if you still think i am being malicious and not acting in good faith and for the benefit of Wikipedia, then tell me.

I have been contacted by User:Shanner191 to say that I was being blamed for these edits, and that I would be banned from the railway and my parents would be rung. Erm... well, check your blinking facts mate! Shanner191 has also asked me to say that although he shares my Username on other sites, swtrain:, scoutwiki: and wikia: to name a few, and that he has written about the EVR there. His only activities on WP so far are to speak to me and to upload an image of Southampton 45 at the National Tramway Museum.

End of speech. Please reconsider your very stupid actions - if you get blocked/banned, DON'T BLAME ME!!!

BG 7 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor who disagrees with the rules

There is a dispute going on in Self-replicating machine where one of the editors (also the inventor of the device in question) disagrees with wikipedia's rules on citing sources and verifiability. The whole section on F-Units is sourced with self published articles on geocities and a patent filing. Any attempts to point out these issues have been met with extremely verbose responses (and reverts) arguing that the rules themselves are wrong and thus do not apply. Please see the bottom half of the talk page. The user is named "Charles Michael Collins" or Fraberj.

What is the best way to resolve this without bringing it to arbitration or is requesting arbitration the best option.

Until yesterday I had never read this article nor have I ever interacted with any of the other editors so I consider myself a rather neutral third party, but I fear this dispute will not resolve itself easily.

I am maily asking this for advice from a more senior editor because I wish to become a better wikipedia editor myself and dealing with disputes like this seems to be one of the more important tasks on the site. I believe one of wikipedia's greatest strengths lies in the fact that most of the information on the site is referenced very well.

Thanks,

 Bobprime (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a senior editor or anything, but one thing I noticed is that the F-units section of this article unbalances it and makes it look unencyclopaedic. At a minimum, the F-units section should be summarized in Self-replicating machine, and moved to an independant article. Of course, the question of verifiability would still need to be addressed.

Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were my two main complaints, that is why I added the templates. If Fraberj is unable to address the verifiability issues I am not sure what to do. From his user page and the history on his talk page it sounds like he has previously had problems with wikipedia policy. Should he not wish to abide by wikipedia policy what would be the next step?

Bobprime (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The various escalating options are at WP:DR. Citing sources is pretty fundamental to Wikipedia and is heavily emphasised in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. The options I would recommend you try;

- - get an uninvolved editor (but ideally subject knowledgeable editor) to review the page. If the page belongs to a project that would be the ideal place to go. Otherwise, ask for someone here to do it -sorry, not me, don't have the time at the moment.
  - Formal or Informal Mediation (although the other editor will need to agree to be bound by the results for this to work).
  - Formal Arbitration

SpinningSpark 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think we have got this resolved and your suggestion to look for an expert on the project page will probably be my next option should the current resolution not hold. You can mark this as resolved now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobprime (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

james ellison motorcycle racer

Someone has made false allegations on the article of James Ellison Motorcycle racer It says that his website was shut down because of Harpies and Rabid fans. This is liabelous and I want to know who made this statement. The reason it was sut down was because the person running it suffered a bereavment in his family and can presently not be contacted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.159.42 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation was removed. Please note that any negative or controversial content (especially in an article on a living person, as this article is) must be sourced using high quality references, and must be written with a care not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. Furthermore, without those high quality sources, such negative content must be removed with prejudice, the burden for sourcing it is on the person wishing to add it, and removing it is not subject to the three revert rule as once disputed, re-adding it is vandalism. Thus, you may remove such material if it is unsourced immediately and with prejudice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manga images discussion

Help resolving is requested in a debate on the use of manga covers in articles at Talk:List of Hunter × Hunter chapters#Use of Images. Tintor2 (talk) tagged the page as having excessive images, which seemed incorrect to me, so I attempted to start a multi-person discussion on the matter to reach a consciouses. However, User:Sephiroth BCR (User talk:Sephiroth BCR) took matters completely in their own hands and deleted all the images from the page, threatening to label me as a vandal if I replaced them. I'd like help keeping this from becoming more of an edit war, and work to establish conscious on the situation. Thank you! Shimawa zen (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with Sterling Jewelers Inc. page

Help! I've never been in an editing war before, but this may turn into one. The page is for Sterling Jewelers Inc., and it is getting tiring trying to deal with this brand new user. The User:Biodole keeps adding in a "litigation" section to this article. The section he adds is on one superfluous lawsuit that has absolutely no bearing to the article itself (a history and description of the company). He/She is not using the Discussion page, but I am. The user has never edited any pages besides this, so it definitely looks like complaining or just spreading negativity. Please help me! Malachite84 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible breach of WP:LINKS

Some of the recent edits by 76.90.75.42 appear to be there solely to promote California Cryobank, thus possibly breaching WP:NPOV and WP:LINKS. I know there's a fine line between what's relevant and acceptable, and what is spamming, but this appears to cross that line, especially by placing their link above others. There are several other sperm banks that could also be linked. Request assistance.

Ml66uk2 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the contribution page of the IP in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.90.75.42. (Is there a cleaner way to make that link?)

They look like commercial links to me and if they showed up in a page that I watch and edit I'd probably just revert them. There are *lots* of sperm banks in the country and I can't think of a decent encyclopedic reason why Wikipedia should be linking to one or two or some other tiny subset of them. JohnInDC (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and removed those and some other links. It looks like someone already did that a month or two ago, but some reappeared. Ml66uk2 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuku article

Hello,

I have experience from running message boards on Yuku/ezboard the last eight years. I was thinking I could contribute to the article about Yuku, since it is a relatively new application. After a while I have found out why it seems impossible to get anything done on that article. Anything I do is criticized and corrected, in my opinion without reason. At least not with very constructive criticism. I admit I have been really provoked and said a lot of stupid things on the talk page, and I'm sorry about that.

However, today I finally understood why I have this problem with the other editor. He has been globally banned from the Yuku system. Banned He is however, very good at balancing on the wiki guidelines. But, he makes it terribly difficult to edit the article if the contribution is positive or is making less of his negative points.

I cannot understand how it is possible to continue edit that article together with a banned member. On the other hand, the article should be improved!

Any advise would be appreciated! Please see his profile: User:RichardHMorris User:Askeladden2006 --{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for coming here for help. You understand that he has not been banned on Wikipedia, right? The fact that he was banned on a different web-page is irrelevant, try to focus on the actions of users on Wikipedia, not their actions off Wikipedia. The content you're trying to add is unsourced. In other words, since you haven't verified the information, anybody can remove it since the burden is on you to verify the information. If you wish for your edits to stick around, try to find links to reliable/reputable sources and add those links as citations to the article. It's best that you continue to discuss these conflicts of opinion on the talk page and I congratulate you for using the talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course I understand that. What I don't understand is how we are supposed just to sit down watching him using his hatred to write articles at wiki. Nothing personal from my end.

Yuku has deliberately made extensive use of CSS so that people can customise their boards and profiles using it. It's perfectly legitimate. CSS is pure design. And CSS is designed to give far more power over far more aspects of design than plain html. I don't understand why it is necessary to have any source confirming that ? It is plain knowledge about what CSS really is about. Yuku encourage users to customize their CSS. That is why the have two separate forums to help them customize the CSS coding. Skin CSS customisingI forgot to sign and say thank you! :-)--{{subst:Babel-7|en-3|no|nn-2|sv-2|da-2|de-1|fr-1}} (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

repeated removal of content on "St. Thomas More Collegiate"

Good day,

The point: an anon users continues to remove referenced content.

Background: I created this page (St. Thomas More Collegiate) some time ago. The school had a difficult period in the 1990s (al;legations of sexual abuse threatened to close the school). This content has been repeatedly been removed by the same anon user (216.232.59.112). I tried to resolve the issue by asking for a discussion on the discussion page and (when that invitation failed) also posted my argument on the discussion page. The user has done this at least 3 times. I don't want to enter an edit/ revert war. Perhaps providing semi-protection for the article would help? Please help. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kukishin Ryu Article Assistance

Hi! I am having problems / a dispute with one of the other users "Derala" over the content of the Kukishin-ryū article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kukishin-ry%C5%AB&action=history). I've tried to reason with them, but they are not reasonable ( please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derala for more details ). I would like to request a lockdown of the article temporarily...or something of that nature.

Thanks!

Mekugi (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language links

What is the right way to treat references or external links to pages written in a non-English language? In Diskin Orphanage there is an http link to a Hebrew Wikipedia article. (The same article is listed as both an EL and a source.) Should it have an English translation of its title? Should it be an interwiki link such as he:בית היתומים דיסקין? Should it be preceded with a language icon: Template:He icon? Sbowers3 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion but I would use both, without refering to the interwiki as a source. For example you could give the hebrew name in the opening (Beit HaYatomim Diskin and interwiki link it) and give the usual interwiki link at the bottom of the page. I hope that makes sense BpEps - t@lk 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Changes on Resurrection

Taking a breath here.

INFURIATED.

DJClayworth has massacred--that is the only word for it--many of my comments from the entry on Resurrection, claiming that they are not "neutral"; but I have been able to find at least a DOZEN statements in that article that are not neutral at all. Yet they have been accepted.

It took me probably an hour to write those comments; and, within the space of maybe 1 or 2 minutes, all of my work was wiped out. No questions asked. No suggestions. No warning. Nothing.

Just wiped out.

I really need to know very quickly whether the information I am posting will NEVER be allowed to be posted; or whether certain words can be added in order to satisfy the 'neutral' perspective.

What is most infuriating is that Clayworth has absolutely NO understanding of what he is attempting to edit. He has not studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Codices for some 30 years, as I have, but he assumes that he knows enough to exterminate my writings.

It would be like me going through a book on the mathematics of relativity theory or quantum theory and willy nilly deleting shapes that I do not particularly appreciate.

Of course, in the final analysis, it is probably too late now to prevent the full-scale war between Judaeo-Christian civilization and Islamic civilization which originates in the LIES told about the Doctrine of "resurrection".

But I have an ethical responsibility to try.

Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated.

Michael J. Cecil (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are others who can comment in greater detail on this but a quick look at the page suggests that the subject matter is a sensitive one and that material edits should be therefore be added incrementally, and only after discussion with other editors of the page. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia operates on the principle of consensus, it is easy to see how wholesale edits such as yours would not go down easily. In addition, you may have run afoul of the general prohibition on entries based on one's own original research - see WP:OR. And while I am not qualified to comment on whether your edits were or were not neutral, you should take a look at the Wikipedia policy on neutral points of view WP:NPOV for guidance.

My suggestion would be to return to the Talk page and try to engage the other editors in a dialogue (multilogue?) concerning the edits you'd like to make. (Also if it is any comfort, your typing efforts have not vanished into nothingness. They are there under the History tab of the page and can easily be extracted for reintroduction if and when consensus is reached.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As JohnInDC said, your edits have not been lost - they are still available through the History tab. Some additional comments:

You apparently typed ~~~~ after your edits. You don't do that in articles; that is done only on Talk pages.
With one exception, you edits cited no references. It's always important to provide sources. The more controversial the article or the edits to an article, the more necessary it is to cite your sources.
The one reference you added was apparently written by you, which shows a possible conflict of interest. More importantly, you did not include the publisher, ISBN number, or some way for other editors to find the reference. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complete the story here, the theory that Michael J. Cecil added to the article (describing it as a fact) is a fringe theory that he himself has proposed in a recent self-published book. See [10] DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Mess- Can't verify facts, bad links

I can't seem to remember how I came across this article on Dennis Galer Goodwin, (maybe because it's tagged for orphan?) but the external links are bad, I can't find anything to verify the facts (other than a casual mention in a BBC and CNN article, but who knows, they didn't cite their sources either, maybe they were referencing Wikipedia!) I tagged the article with whatever templates I could find that seemed appropriate, but I don't know what to do next. Should I remove the external links? Any suggestions/help would be great! Elliott Shultz (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to bring it to WP:AFD. Follow the instructions there. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresposible editing Al Munkar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munkar I undid the edit Im sure it will be changed back. the information is easily verified KAOSKTRL:KAOSKTRL (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've removed the passage from Talk:Munkar too, but for quite reasonable grounds - WP:COPY - Don't copy large sections of any copyrighted text. Just use short passages to explain a point. Hope you understand. BpEps - t@lk 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Balboa Park.jpg usage cleanup

When editing an article associated with Balboa Park, I noticed Image:Balboa Park.jpg has restrictive licensing which is being violated. It would be nice to keep the image. I tagged it for deletion so someone could tidy it up. But the uploading editor isn't currently active, and I now would rather not do the cleanup myself. I have stumbled upon a similar historical image and both images might be interesting together, but I now have a little conflict of interest so shouldn't clean it up myself. Could someone follow the license restrictions and save the image? My image will in a few minutes be in the Balboa Park article in case it is useful in one of the forbidden articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is certainly not correctly licenced and I doubt that the copyright holder would want to as they are selling the picture on their site. take a look at Commons Bilboa Park there must be some thing you can use there. BpEps - t@lk 11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're selling a higher resolution picture. The Image page's Fair use section specifies two pages where we can use it. Currently more than two pages use it. -- SEWilco (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember the present system for acquiring photographs is to have them under a CC-sa-3.0 or GFDL licence. Only in exceptional circumstances are we supposed to use copyrighted images as WP:FU. Looking at commons earlier, there were quite a few pictures licenced freely, so I can't see the rationale for keeping the picture anyway. BpEps - t@lk 13:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone with a good camera and weather could create a new photo. The Balboa Park article needs work and that will draw some editor's attention sooner or later, and the location of the camera is both obvious and popular. Someone will probably make a replacement. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article Christel Wegner

Hi, we need some help in a dispute on the Christel Wegner article between me and Redhill54 on the one hand and user Basil Tyco on the other. We tried to reference everything fro the original, but Basil Tyco reverts to his version again and again. Redhill54 and I have been communicating, but we don't know the Wikipedia-system well enough to ask for a ban of user Basil Tyco. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 05:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanneswilm (talk • contribs)

I had a look at the article and did some basic formatting on the page. Otherwise your text seems a Neutral Point of View. From the talk page there seems to be some debate whether other editors have a Conflict of Interest. It doesn't appear to me like that just a matter of what information the article should contain.

Revert Warring is a different matter, If an editor reverts (goes back to a former version of an article more than a couple of times in a day because of a content dispute then you can be Blocked from editing for a few hours by an administrator. If you have problems with Page reverting you can go to WP:AN3 and give the details to an admin. Good luck with the article, it was nice and sucinct about a very ugly and foolish statement. BpEps - t@lk 09:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now user Basil Tyco has served me a final warning before blocking my username for vandalizing the article, again completely without discussing the unsubstantiated changes he has made. I have changed most of it again and added references, but I tried to keep Basil Tyco's sentence structure in place, which means that the description of the conflict appears twice in the article. I guess that that is common in Wikipedia articles? http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanneswilm (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure why Basil has done that. Very bizarre because he doesn't explain the vandalism. I personally would ask him to remove it or properly annote the warning defining what he sees as vandalism. As far as the first section of the article, the manual of style says that "You provide an accessible overview" (see also WP:STYLE) of the entire article. Thereby yes, you always repeat yourself on Wikipedia. Otherwise now, I can't see what further assistance anybody can give you here. You can always contact me on my Talk page and maybe help to mediate before you tag each others pages to choking point. Kind regards, BpEps - t@lk 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user reverting content to old version with unsourced paragraph

What can be done about an anonymous user repeated (a dozen times over many months) reverting an article to an old copy of an article where he/she inserted information about a school kid project?

See: Special:Contributions/71.60.211.222

I put up a talk section, but no reply: Talk:Rhombicosidodecahedron.

Is this grounds for blocking, or should we just keep reverting forever?

Tom Ruen (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, It is annonying for sure - I have actually found the link http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04063/280160-55.stm - The Pittsburgh Post Gazette copy reads a lot better than Kids at St. Germaine School in..... Indeed such persistence is disruptive.

The easiest solution, other than waste time reverting edits all evening is to request a block now and again at Administrator Intervention against Vandalism, after a couple of blocks such persistence may wane (or collapse like said St Germaine's school rhombicosidodecahedron). Kind regards, -- BpEps - t@lk 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive behavior by User:JuJube

Resolved

_{abtuse request about a highly monitored/editor page BpEps - t@lk 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

This editor (User:JuJube) has used abusive language towards me. Additionally, this editor continues to remove my edits to the Zangief page.

I have provided a valid reference for my edit, although this doesn't seem to concern this user.

Here's an example of what constitutes "talk" for this user.

You want to get blocked for the same crap you got blocked for before? Discuss it on the talk page, but it's pretty much certain you'll never get The Later Years on the page. User:JuJube (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way to begin a discussion with another Wikipedia editor.

Tdws4050 (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) # Tdws4050[reply]

WP:CIVIL doesn't really apply here, all though in an ideal Wikipedia everbody would be full of love and collaborate and listen to every argument. I don't think that collegehumor.com is an ideal source (it appears just once as an outside link External Links. Wikipedia is strict on the sites we use as source see Reliable sources -- BpEps - t@lk 12:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to losing my patience with this guy when he first came, and even apologized for it (as a look at his user talk's history will testify), but another editor agreed that his addition was not a valid one, and Tdws got blocked for 3RR. And his first edit after coming off the unblock was to make the same change again. No discussion on Talk:Zangief, just continues the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I think this complaint is spurious. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lupica deletions

To whom it may concern, I am one of two editors who have been disagreeing about a section of peer criticism on the Mike Lupica page; WKnight94 is the other. A record of the dispute can be found on the article's talk page and edit history, as well as two separate discussions that occurred on the WP:BLPN page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=183164546#Mike_Lupica and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Mike_Lupica

A series of changes and reductions to the material were made, many in precise accordance with Wknight94's stated editing preferences. At the conclusion of this latest process, WKnight94 deleted all the relevant material anyway, and announced he was "just about done discussing" the matter. Thank you for any oversight and advice you can provide. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary here says it all. 208.120.225.14 is under the mistaken impression that this has become Wikiquote - and also that adding only quotes slamming a living person is acceptable under WP:BLP. They make no point that isn't already represented and are intended solely for inflammatory purposes. 208.120.225.14 misrepresents the accordance with my "preference" (which is actually WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:NOT#DIR policy) and also misrepresents consensus above as at least three other people wrote in to WP:BLPN agreeing in principle with me - and the one person he claims as agreeing with him is apathetic at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that in his/her edit summary for deleting the material, WKnight94 is currently claiming to be following the suggestion of User:Xymmax, who had only just posted on the Mike Lupica talk page 12 hours earlier, "I really have no objection to [the quotes] in their current form," while simultaneously signalling his/her intention to expand the text for additional context, not to delete it.

The editors who WKnight94 claims "agree in principle" with him/herself have written (in part-- see above referenced discussions), "While the sections shouldn't be removed completely, they could certainly be slimmed down," "I agree that some criticism is appropriate, but probably a few sentences would be enough. Can there be a compromise on a shorter version, one that includes no blog references?", "Perhaps the section could be edited down to one paragraph?" and "If there is carping about the relative length of the criticism section, to me it's preferable to lengthen the positive and neutral POVs than to truncate the valid assertions (which despite claims to the contrary are not only blogged)." No editor other than WKnight94 has supported deletion. The only consensus was for a reduction in size. In direct response to that advice, the section is now less than a third of its original length.

A few further items. WKnight94 now appears to suggest that Wikiquote is where external critiques and observations about a person and their actions are supposed to go. WKnight94's assessment of what constitutes "inflammatory" material has expanded beyond the disputed text to include a New York Times book review. Furthermore, specific passages and instructions from WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:BLP and so on have been cited in support of the disputed material's relevance, but to no effect. One of WKnight94's evolving arguments was that sportswriters are unreliable sources regarding their fellow sportswriters, which would be a new relevance standard for Wikipedia.

His/her series of rationales for opposing the material may be reviewed and judged on the 3 relevant threads. Ignoring this one dispute, his/her edit history otherwise seems very diligent, thoughtful and disciplined to me, and I have been perplexed and exhausted by this process. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement is blatantly false. Read my quote removal edit summary again please - no mention of Xymmax. Your citing of specific passages in WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, and WP:BLP have been nothing more than blatant Wikilawyering - missing the point of the spirit of the policies and guidelines and twisting them in some way that supports your flawed argument. The book review you mention is a perfect example of the inflammatory nature of the quotes - a quote where a backhanded compliment is followed by a nasty attack, and the whole quote is masked as a benign example of a book review. POV pushing at its finest. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WKnight94, February 29, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Lupica&diff=194878627&oldid=194878058: "Trim Whitlock drama to exactly what was proposed by User:Xymmax at WP:BLPN."

User:WKnight94 is well aware of Xymmax's subsequent talk page comments (i.e. "Overall, I don't think there should be a problem harmonizing the rest of the article to accomodate this." (Feb. 27); then, "I really have no objection to [the quotes] in their current form" (Feb. 28)). WKnight94 even responded directly, and negatively, to the most recent of Xymmax's posts. Then, WKnight94 cited a February 21 comment as his/her justification for deleting the material anyway.

Various edits, deletions and reductions have already been made in response to the advice of editors Xymmax and WKnight94 (as well as others). Only one of them is completely dissatisfied with the result. Apologies to Xymmax for the necessity of quoting his/her posts. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, look how muddy the waters are here now! Just like every other venue. Mixing and matching edit summaries... First you say that I used Xymmax's name as I was "deleting the material" but now you're pointing to an edit where I didn't delete material - you're pointing to an edit where I moved material to a more appropriate place on the page and changed it to be exactly what Xymmax suggested. Hence my statement that I'm not discussing this for much longer - this issue has gone in circles for far too long and the words from me and other people and Wikipedia policies are being twisted into pretzels all for the sake of POV pushing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Wits End

Hi.

I need assistance from an editor with expertise in music theory and notation.

I have useful credentials in music and journalism; in a "past life" I have played French horn, guitar, keyboards, etc., majored in advanced music theory at a leading conservatory where I taught theory, sight-singing, and dictation as a graduate assistant, had private students, and became a fairly well-published music critic (articles, interviews, record reviews) specializing in 20th-Century classical music.

Browsing Wikipedia in the summer of 2006, I happened upon the article on "A Hard Day's Night (song)." Under the heading "Music and lyrics," I saw a lead sheet image of the first verse, with guitar chord notations correctly in the key of G but notes transposed to the key of C. The lead sheet accompanied an analysis, properly referenced to a published source, that is expressed in the key of C and that references the notes of the lead sheet rather than the notes of the copyrighted recording and printed music, which are in the key of G. The lead sentence under the heading itself states, correctly, that "The song is composed in the key of G major ...". Not being familiar with Wikipedia policies and procedures, I added a paragraph to the main article to clarify that the lead sheet and analysis were in the key of C while the chord notations were in the key of G. Editor Hyacinth moved my comment to the talk page under the heading "Image," and left a boilerplate welcome to Wikipedia on my talk page. I welcomed the opportunity to make my point in an appropriate forum, so I started on the talk page, on which several other people noted the same problem and got responses from Hyacinth that indicated that he wasn't getting the point. Getting no response from Hyacinth or anybody else, I left a respectful note on Hyacinth's talk page, which is to this day unanswered.

At that time, the article had Featured Article status and was under FARC review; I read the FARC discussions and another person had said the same thing I (and others) did. I chimed in with my agreement that this was a serious problem in the article.

In addition to its problem with the key of the song and the note names, the analysis is, I believe, a minority viewpoint, uses some terminology whose explanations in Wikipedia are referenced primarily to the author of the analysis (ladder of thirds), and has one very serious glaring error in obvious contradiction to the Wikipedia (and all other sources') explanation of the term (passing tone ... the author asserts that the note he is using as the tonic is a passing tone, when said note is approached through a direct fifth in the context of a tonic chord). Of course, A Hard Day's Night is not exactly the kind of material that academic music theorists publish anything about, so there is no alternative and more reasonable analysis to be cited, but I know that if you asked the opinion of three or four academic music theorists, none of them would come up with anything as convoluted, and none of them would call the tonic note played against a tonic chord a leading tone. When somebody turns to Wikipedia for information about the song, they will either 1) not know how to read music or follow an analysis, and not care, 2) know a bit about music but not enough to evaluate the problems in the article, and again not care, 3) know a bit about music and take the analysis as proof of the song's "depth" ("Hey man, it's got a ladder of thirds and even a passing tone! Pass the joint ..."), 4) see the problems with the analysis and figure the author is entitled to his opinion, but notice that the lead sheet is in the key of C, 5) see the problems with the analysis and have enough expertise to recognize that the analysis is not in the mainstream and wonder why it is included at all. Readers in the last two categories may also conclude that Wikipedia is not a good source of reliable information. I think the analysis, as an oddball viewpoint, would be appropriate in an article about its author but not in an article about the song.

Near the end of my talk page discussions, I made three suggestions for improving the article while retaining both a lead sheet and the analysis (minus a few words). Hyacinth's response was still unsatisfactory, and a bit insulting to me or anybody else who can see clearly and self-evidently that the notation of the lead sheet is transposed to C. He has recently modified the lead sheet so that the chord notations do not appear, which I proposed as an option in my first suggestion, but did not label the new lead sheet as being in the key of C, did not state that the analysis is in the key of C and corresponds to the transposed lead sheet, and did not ellipsize the leading tone assertion. He did add more quoted text from the analysis, containing a term that is defined nowhere in Wikipedia or any other source I have ever seen.

I am unwilling to become a Wikipedia editor. I do not wish to make either the changes I would do if I were being paid to edit the article (which would be to scrap both the lead sheet and the analysis as inappropriate to the article's purpose), or the changes I suggested, only to have them reverted by somebody who has demonstrated in his responses to my concerns and elsewhere on the same talk page in response to others that he cannot ascertain certain self-evident facts, and then get into an editing war, and then go for arbitration, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I am mindful of the community nature of Wikipedia and the possibility that, absent any talk-page debate involving more than just Hyacinth and me, the article will stand as it is. If that is the case, too bad for Wikipedia that nobody with the competence and time to make a simple improvement cares enough about such a relatively trivial point to see it through, because it implies that there are many such relatively trivial points that are misleading people who seek reliable information from Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve the article short of editing it myself, but my hope is that a competent editor will take this up.

Thanks ...

AlanH212 (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

I suspect a lot of the sources violate WP:SPS and WP:COI in the reference section but when actually looking at the article they do seem to be reasonable, albeit turning the article a bit biased as it covers one side of the story too much. Can someone have a look at the situation and see what is the appropriate action here? Thanks. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. Use the talk page at Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident if you have concerns and discuss it directly there. This is not the place. discuss there first. BpEps - t@lk 01:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been there you would have known that I am already in active discussion, except it's only between me and a FLG-activist that is going nowhere. I have raised the concerns there as well but I am merely asking if this is indeed in violation of WP:SPS, as a lot of the sources are from FLG-run websites. Is this too much to ask for? --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with dispute resolution

There has been an editor (Electron9) who is posting unsubstantiated derogatory comments about one product on the Wikipedia page for a company (Silicon Image). This seems to violate several Wikipedia principals: neutrality, verifiability, and non-soapbox. I also question whether an individual's problems with a product line is notable enough for inclusion.

In any case, I placed a mark on the Silicon Image page flagging that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the claims were disputed, and put information in the talk page on why I disputed it. Electron9 unilaterally removed my disputation flag without any discussion.

It seems that Electron9 may have a personal axe to grind of some sort. However, as I understand it, that sort of thing doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

How can this be resolved?

UsersManual (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]