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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

"KCBS-TV"

Stale

– JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like anyone's help or advice in this matter. I, User: Lantana11, made a factual, documentable, and good-faith edit of article KCBS-TV on 11 June 2008 which was within an hour deleted by User: Rollosmokes in a summary fashion and without discussion (it was dismissed as "unnecessary"; all relevant information is contained in the article's archives). In fact the editor which made this deletion is one which I had been in contention with on similar subjects before; we had gone back and forth regarding another article until I gave up all efforts to reach consensus with him. This had never happened to me before, and I was so frustrated that I resorted to "sock puppetry" (a violation that at the time I did not know existed). My subsequent attempt to apologize to this editor for harsh words and to achieve friendly relations was brusquely rebuffed. As far as the edits to article "KCBS-TV" are concerned, I really have no need to promote the rightness of my information--I peruse Wikipedia merely for enjoyment--but I am beginning to feel uneasy about editing when I know there is another editor who awaits the chance to "put me in my place." Any further argument or "edit war" is not to my taste; I seek guidance or, if warranted, arbitration. Thank you in advance. Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what outcome you're looking for here. According to the history of KCBS-TV, you made 4 edits with UTC timestamps on 11 June; the 4th reverted the sum of the first 3, leaving the article unchanged. There are a further 6 with UTC stamps on 12 June which would have been on 11 June in any US timezone; the net effect of those 6 was reverted by Rollosmokes, about 2 1/2 hours after your last. Those are all the edits I see under your username; Rollosmokes has been editing that article since 9 May, if not earlier. There's no evidence that Rollosmokes followed you to that article; and his/her last revert isn't unreasonable either.

If you have other concerns then please bring them up here, or on my talk page if you prefer, but I don't see that there's a problem to solve here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking specifically at Rollosmokes' edit, I think your first paragraph was easier to read, but the second had a great deal of original research; be sure to take a look at WP:V and WP:RS. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be looking at WP:OWN, as the current situation in WikiProject Television Stations is veering dangerously toward one in which one individual (with occasional assistance of an accomplice or two) is systematically removing many contributions from outsiders as "irrelevant", "vandal", "non-consensus", "trivial", "sock puppet" or worse while forcing their own agenda on the series of articles. While some legitimate reversion of vandalism is occurring, massive reverts of valid edits are sadly routine over there. The project is not a small one (1800 US full-power stations, plus non-US stations and low-power TV) and there is much information which needs to be added, but more effort seems to be expended on revert wars than meaningful content. Not sure what to do about this. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute or Behaviour Problem

Would some new eyes have a look at The Incredible Hulk (soundtrack)‎. I placed a {{merge| Incredible Hulk (film)}} with a rationale that the soundtrack on its own probably doesn't meet notability criteria and invited discussion. Another user refuses to discuss and simply removed the merge proposal. This is not the first time. I'd appreciate some neutral eyes. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see they've removed a notability tag as well. I'm neutral to both, but discussion should still occur. A tag removal warning might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a polite note saying that discussion would be more helpful, and have pointed them to this discussion. Kevin (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Jasynnash2 who is having behavior problem not me. All iam trying to do is creating a page for soundtracks and expanding this. The movie is notable so do soundtrack. I don't like the idea of soundtrack being merge. They deserve to have a separate page. Iam not just talking about The Incredible Hulk soundtrack but for all movies and games soundtrack. They deserve to have a separate page. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question in that case would be why not simply discuss on the article's talkpage instead of just removing the merge proposal tag? How is following the process of placing the tag and inviting discussion a behaviour issue? BTW if we are going to get into detail should we be discussing elsewhere? At the article or somewhere else? Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to merge the page because it is not notable. Listen there is enough of the links in the main page to prove the soundtrack existence. It is pretty hard to find notable links for soundtracks. So tell me expert do you know where to get notable links to make the article to be valid?. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that existence doesn't equal notability (I'm pretty sure we have policies that discuss what is or isn't notable). I think the reference/external links originally provided were to places to buy the album and not to anything that contributed to notability or verifiability. I think you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions. I also think this is better discussed in a mature and adult manner at a different section as I'm pretty sure this isn't what Editor Assistance is actually for. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine. Where do you want to talk?. Do you want to email?. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article talkpage would be appropriate to discuss this album or if there is a discussion underway about Albums in general and when they are/become notable we can discuss there. Or your talk page if you want to address the "behaviour" side of things (yours and mine). I'm not sure of the most appropriate place in all honesty. I think maybe a suggestion on where from a 3rd party may be appropriate if you are okay with that (I'm happy to have either of the above two contributors as an unofficial mediator if need be). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?

Resolved

– 3O was used; edit wars have ceased. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not once, not twice, not three times but four times, the user Arcayne has persisted to remove sourced continuity points from this article. This follows lengthy discussion in Talk:Silence in the Library (sections 21-25), where consensus hugely overwhelmed his views. He has suggested continuity sections are removed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, which of course he has every right to do. But even though consesnsus appears to be going against him here also, he adamantly believes that his controversial viewpoint should stand while the discussion is ongoing, rather than the current legislation as outlined in the WikiProject. Despite my numerous requests on both his and my talk pages, he completely ignores my request that he leaves things as they are for now, instead choosing to level minor personal attacks on me (I find his claims of ownership behaviour particularly hypocritical). As I am rather dissapointed to receive my first warning for this, and do not wish to be caught in an edit war or be blocked, I have not reverted his removals again but have come here instead. Please can someone help common sense to pervail here? U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Said user has now removed a comment I left on his talk page with a rather rude edit summary. What he's trying to acheive here I don't know, but it's getting way out of hand. He seems to generally assume superiority over all other editors in pretty much every edit he makes. Needless to say I'm not prepared to communicate with him further under the current circumstances. All the evidence has been presented here. U-Mos (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, are users permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages? U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users can remove warnings from their talk pages apart from those concerning unblock requests I believe, it is considered evidence that it has been read and understood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Considering that the diffs you point out were countered by you each time (1, 2, 3), I think the appropriate response would be something along the lines of 'hello pot, meet kettle'. I would advise you to more closely examine your edits (or rather edit-warring reverts) and look at the bits you keep editing in. I've pointed out numerous times (your discussion page immediately comes to mind) about how you should more closely examine your edits before reverting them, which rather fell on deaf ears. Look at the continuity points you keep insisting should be there. Use the discussion page to bring them up and - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - actually discuss them outside of a terse edit summary.

It also bears mentioning that your approach to any discussion is confrontational and somewhat uncivil and attack-y; you have also been asked to curb that behavior. It became such that you had to be asked to abstain from posting to me on my user talk page on at least one occasion.

I am willing to accept my own culpability in the downwards descent of your behavior, but quite frankly, it takes two to tango. This consensus you claim to have in every article we are both involved in is both incorrect, and a pretty sad excuse for personal attacks and incivility. Maybe you and I should just stay away from responding to each others' posts.

(ec)I would also point out that the removal of the warning (with the edit summary of "got it, only newbies and trolls need template warnings") was largely unnecessary, as I wasn't really edit-warring, but instead following BRD. U-Mos' dogged determination to ensure that his (contended) version of the section remain in place was rather an ownership issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And dismissed at that venue with suggestions to head on over to WP:3O. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give an outside opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Planecrash111 vandal to page Jeff Gordon.

User Planecrash111 is continually vandalizing the Page Jeff Gordon as well as my talk page. I have asked this person to stop and provided all necessary references to support my claim. I have tried to reason with the user but they just don't want to be reasonable. Thank you for any help in this matter.--Vertigo315 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it. I'll keep you appraised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, the biggest issue is changing official referenced stats to unofficial unreferenced stats in the 2008 table. --Vertigo315 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo315 continuously vandalized Jeff Gordon for many weeks and removed content without specifying why in the edit summary. He did only a couple of times. He specified a link that said Gordon qualified 28th at Richmond, but before the race he changed engines and I changed the position from 28th to 43rd and gave a link to show Vertigo315 that this is not vandalism. Vertigo315 being the coward that he is removed it anyway and said some bogus statement that made no sense.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I warned him on his talk page and he kept on removing the warnings saying it was "page cleanup" which however it was really a cover up of evidence. Vertigo315 did the same thing on my talk page and it is still there. For some reason Vertigo315 doesn't understand the reality of reaction force which in other words is retaliation. Its like saying you threw a rock at me and I throw a concrete block back. Fair enough.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vertigo315 seems to think that all Wikipedians are stupid enough to believe that he has been on for 3 or more years when actually he hasn't been on for 1. I'm sick and tired of Vertigo315 that I just wish that editing wasn't allowed on this website any longer due to the fact that Vertigo has started 3 of the 5 edit wars this week alone. Vertigo315 game me outdated sources and I gave him up to date references which he simply ignored.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't want to see Vertigo get blocked, but I would want him to show more respect, use good faith, don't use my age as a personal attack, and just go on with his life.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, having taken a good look at the article and both of the user talk pages (and past contributions), I am arriving at pretty much the same advice I was going to offer at the beginning. I feel kinda goofy giving it because I am not always that good at following it myself. I will offer them point by point, so that if you decide I and my advice totally sucks, you can rip into me number by number:

. Calm down - You guys need to calm the heck down. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. You are not getting paid or officially recognized for any of the work you are doing here, so why in the Holy Name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are you essentially taking part in a Monty Python sketch?
. Put yourself in the other guy's shoes - Both of you are currently engaging in activity that is not going to convince the other person of how terribly wrong they are. They are not going to join a monastery and give you all their possessions, and go forth in a hair shirt, telling people how wonderfully intelligent you are. One of the most difficult facts to accept when editing in Wikipedia is that you (in the infinitive sense of the word) are not the smartest person in the room. Ever. The snide comments and not-so-subtle attacks on each other doesn't make either of you want to suddenly up and say, 'omigod, he's right - even if he is. By cutting them down, you've effectively removed their ability to backtrack on an incorrect statement. Be gracious; you will all too often need this same sort of retreat path yourself.
. Be nice - Let's face it, it's always best to be nicer to the noobs and boobs (new folk and idiots) because even a broken clock is right twice a day. By being nice and not sniping away at them isn't going to give them the best impression of Wikipedia and how this can actually be a pretty cool place to waste a few hours. Some of those noobs and boobs will be admins and bureaucrats someday (trust me on this), so if you cannot find any charity in your heart, consider the Machiavellian downside of burning your bridges. And stuff that crap about being anonymous. Your edits will come back to haunt you at the least opportune time. I've got an editor who still uses my arguments from over a year ago to claim I am but the Anti-Christ writ small and wiki-like. Grudges last a long, long time. Being nice makes it easier for yourself in the long run. Consider it karma.
. See rule number three again, in the off-chance you missed it.
. Be willing to find a solution that works for both of you - Unless one of you is the sort to be interested in annexing the Sudetenland, you are probably fairly reasonable people in real life. Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate, and it is not because a crack team of fact-checking eggheads is stowed away in the Wikimedia equivalent of the Batcave, checking the minutiae of the Wiki-en. It is pretty accurate because regular folk like you or I use what knowledge we have to help keep things accurate and cited. I haven't read every book in the friggin' world, and neither have either of you, but collectively we've read a bunch of books, so we all bring something to the table. Working together is what makes it all work. If there is no compromise, then only one side is getting their say in an article, and that skews the neutrality. That sort of problem is what brings the article dispute-locking tools out of the admin;s toolbox, and people start getting blocked left and right. It's not a pretty sight. Seek a compromise/consensus whenever possible.
. You are not always going to win - This is arguably the hardest lesson to learn, because we are all in thrall to the idea that the internet doesn't have to suck in the ways that the real world does. However, we are working with other real people, and their views are valid too. A more extreme way of saying this is that sometimes, you are the the dog, and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. Your view might be a minority opinion in the mainstream without you even knowing it. You might be a little wrong, or the kind of wrong that requires two whole syllables to describe (wrooo-oong!) Some chucklebutt hermit on a mountaintop says that recognizing you are wrong is the first step to learning how to be right. I say that Wikipedia is full of ways to get a larger opinion on a particular problem (Mediation, MedCab, DR, AN/I, ArbCom), and all are available to you. But sometimes you are going to lose, and lose big. Sometimes you don't have the citation you need, or you just don't want the other guy to win because they are moronic ass-clown. When you find yourself feeling that way, step away from the keyboard and go away or a bit. It stings that your version isn't in place, and the wrong one is, but that's life. You can always approach the situation again when someone notable produces a citation that you need to make your point. Don't expend too much frustration on it, or you will burn out.
. Time is on your side - It really is, as articles are essentially a revolving door for editors who come and go, your consensus can change along with the new editorship. It doesn't matter what last-years' consensus was, you can seek a new one (usually, the unofficial length an older consensus is considered valid is about 3-5 months, after which someone questions the whole thing ,and the process starts anew). So, it isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Ever. However, if you get blocked or banned for being an edit-warring, uncivil ass-clown, your chances of having any effect on that consensus drop considerably.

Okay, I am tapped out and tired. I hope some of it sank in. It wasn't my wittiest (that was here, and it was totally ignored, boo-hoo),but I don't think it was the worst advice I've ever offered, either. Have a pleasant evening. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In respone to planecrash111 alegations, first of all I am not trying to hide evidence as you claim, I am cleaning up my page of the garbage you posted on it trying to pretend you are an admin or something, second, I have NEVER been accused of vandalism on here and have a long list of page contributions. I do not vandalize pages. Period. And for the last time, the point of contention is the fact that you are changing referenced statistics on a page with unreferenced material. Nascar car's official statistics for starting position are where they qualified, this is in the Nascar rules and regulations. It is a fact. Nearly every race is influenced by changing in starting position at the beggining of the race for nearly every driver, many times at the last moment, making it diffucult to track. I have tried to keep a cool head over this but I have for a long time taken great pride in helping keep the stats on this page and other pages very accurate to the standards that have been set. --Vertigo315 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not pretending to be an admin. Posting vandalism warnings is not a sign of pretending to be an admin. If i posted a block notice, then I WOULD BE, but was I? NO!! You have been accused of vandalism, but you foolishly removed the warnings to cover up the evidence. You claim to be a Wikipedian for more than 3 years when an investigation by me claims that you have been on for only 8 months. Here is a hint. There is only 12 months in year. I posted the references and you removed the references on PURPOSE!!!! After qualifying ended Gordon was 28th and you posted a reference that he started 28th, but before the race started Gordon changed engines which caused him to start 43rd and I provided a link to support my edit, but as i said before you removed the reference. You no nothing about NASCAR because in the end of the race on the website it says Gordon start 43rd Finish 9th. You have made mistakes and you have never admitted your mistakes. I wish you would because if you don't it shows how bad of a sport you are. You may have cleaned up your page, but you removed evidence of your vandalism which I think is wrong.(Planecrash111 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Er, did you guys not bother to read that fairly long post above? I know attention spans are pretty short (apparently amongst admins they are fairly miniscule ;) ), but I rather thought it was worht reading. The fact that I had to indent both of your replies tells me you folks are each trying to have the last word. That isn't how it works here, though some folks always try. Take the time to remove the recrimination and aggro from your posts and actually take the time to listen to the other person. It might make things easier if each of your posts aren't full of accusations and name-calling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading up on the background to this, and just going on what's been said here, I must say that Planecrash needs to pay careful attention to both Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Those are the behavioural standards here, and I've seen multiple violations of them, just on this page. I'm not interested in how rude the other guy was; you need to clean up your own act.

On a more general note, it seems to me that you two both want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of NASCAR. Since you're on the same side, maybe the two of you should make an effort to work together. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREEP. Fleetflame 03:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Kansas banner templates

Resolved

– editor directed to relevant Wikiproject and Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Beloved Freak 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced over at WikiProject Kansas and noticed they have a mess on their hands with their banner template: they have 3 of them. Two of them must be from the early days of WikiProjects because they seem to be just banners without assessment capabilities: Template:Project Kansas and Template:WikiProject Kansas. The third template is the one linked to the project's assessment stats and is capitalized incorrectly compared to other WikiProjects: Template:Wikiproject Kansas. Obviously, there is no need for all 3 templates to exist. I tried doing simple redirects of the first two templates to the third, but the formatting broke on many article talk pages. Basically, I would like assistance merging 3 templates into 1. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is something you should bring up at that WikiProject too. There was some discussion of templates a while back, but it wasn't clearly resolved. Right now, Template:Project Kansas is transcluded onto 1700+ talkpages, Template:WikiProject Kansas appears on another 600 or so, and Template:Wikiproject Kansas is on less than 200. Seems like a bot would be useful to do the replacements. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could post the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests; there's one for the Chicago project that is somewhat similar. I strongly recommend getting consensus among anyone active at WikiProject Kansas first, though. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, somehow I never found that Bot requests page. I guess I was just impatient, trying to be bold, to get the templates working like they should and at first glance, WikiProject Kansas looked inactive. I'll go through the channels you recommended to get the mess straightened out. Thanks. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Project looks a bit under-staffed. I was going to recommend copying the good template over the other 2, but the summary matrix for the Project probably wouldn't work correctly. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture for Article

Stale

– Advice given, no further response from editor. --Beloved Freak 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My grandfather, Thomas Gibbons, is referenced in a Wikipedia article in the same name (He was a past police commissioner in Philadelphia). I have a photograph of him that I would like to post, however, I do not have permission to do so. I am honestly not interested in becoming a regular editor/poster, but I though the picture would be added content for the page. The photograph was taken by his sister, who is now deceased -- it now belongs to my father. If there is any way to get it posted, please let me know. Thanks so much! Carey Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careygroberts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Upload describes how to upload images. You'll need to show that you own the image and that you grant the appropriate licence to Wikipedia to use it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams Article

Stale

– No comments in the past week. --Beloved Freak 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the article on this playmate and you will see that numerous users (Wandering Canadian in particular) have been vandalizing the article's "playmate stats" as well as removing important information from it. It's almost as if they have some sort of personal conflict with the individual in the article and this is not a place to indirectly rant about celebrities. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have offered to discuss this issue numerous times on the article's discussion page to help resolve this difference of opinion. There are a number of anonymous and very new accounts being used to revert edits made on the page. The user above has also vandalized my user page. Help would be appreciated. Wandering canadian (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was not vandalized. You vandalized the article mentioned above and was politely warned to stop doing so. All playmate statistics are contained in article on playmates and should not keep being removed. Not only are there editors who agree, but Wikipedia agrees, simply because they continue to keep info boxes with playmate information. Removing one is considered vandalism because it destroys the consistency of the playmate articles. 66.108.3.221 (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist bio.

Stale

– JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble psoting the article I pasted in and even editing. Can't really understand what is needed to uplead the article with the sources. Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be glad to help. I saw your draft at User:Mikusart. Would you like to move that into article-space, or are you asking for help in adding references first? I'd recommend the latter. Perhaps you can identify some of your sources, either at the bottom of the page or on the discussion tab, and I'll add some of them to the article. Then you can follow those examples. Would that work? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Couillard article links to wrong article

Stale

– JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this happened or if there is some reasoning that I don't understand behind this but an article on Julie Couillard has been linked to this page, Maxime Bernier.

The two individuals are connected but Bernier is not Couillaird. They are separate individuals and should have separate articles IMO. Is it possible for an editor to de-link Julie Couillard from the Maxime Bernier article. DSatYVR (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this appears to be intentional and in line with normal practice. Our policy on biographies of living persons indicates, among other things, that we should be cautious with such articles, and generally should not present an article as a "biography" when really all it covers is a person's involvement in a single event or scandal. Normally, in that case, if the event, scandal, or person with whom they were involved is notable, we will redirect the non-notable person's name to the name of the event or another appropriate article. Hope that clears things up! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one de-link the article? Couillard has now been linked to another Conservative senior aide, Bernard Cote, and has connections with a real estate company that sought Canadian Federal Government contracts. Also some Opposition party concerns that organized crime allegedly may seek to influence politicians thru individuals such has Couillard who has past links to the Hells Angels. If you want all this in the Maxime Bernier article thats fine but I really do think it belongs in a separate article. DSatYVR (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comes down to notability. There is no entry for Bernard Cote; a google search makes it look like Cote wouldn't pass notability- for example, this link describes him as a "senior staffer". That means that Couillard's only claim to notability is still through Bernier, and since Couillard wouldn't pass notability on her own, proper practice would be to keep the redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the best way to handle this is to create a Julie Couillard section within the Maxime Bernier article and if it overwhelms the original article it will eventually get split off. It that how it works at wikipedia? DSatYVR (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete user sub pages

Resolved

– Fleetflame 03:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to go another direction and let Mizabot handle archiving my talk page. Can someone delete this subpage for me? User:Samuel Pepys/talk & User talk:Samuel Pepys/talk --Samuel Pepys (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the second as it should be kept as an archive of previous conversation. I'd move it to something like Archive 1? I'll take care of the first page in a moment. Seraphim♥Whipp 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little overlap. I just deleted the first one, noted your decline of the speedy on the second. I agree with Seraphim Whipp, just move it to User talk:Samuel Pepus/Archive 1. Pastordavid (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to retain the /talk item, especially as it contains some of the complaints about that user messing with other user's workpages, about which there is a WP:ANI thread. The user has somehow got the notion that workpages are the same things as articles, and that he has a right to mess with them as he sees fit. He doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that discussion (it led me here), which was why I declined the 2nd speedy. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. One thread often leads to another. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Dgtsyb persists in editing war even after a second third opinion is given

As can be seen here Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion and here Talk:Signaling_System_7#Moving_Forwards user Dgtsyb persists in undoing changes made by user LeeDryburgh and does not stop creating allegations against the user, all of which so far have been deemed to be false. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2 has provided a resolution that both you and Dgtsyb have agreed upon, but you still haven't provided your material in PDF format for the website you are linking to, or to the very least, you aren't linking directly to the PDF as opposed to the website as per the resolution. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read back thru the saga at Talk:Signaling System 7 you can see that a PDF is not legally possible and this was stated many times. There is nothing that says something has to be PDF over HTML! Leedryburgh (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with dispute Comet (programming)

Unresolved

– RfC is active on the article's talk. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are removing the informative and helpful content of the article [1] and replacing it with fluff: [2]. Further they are accusing people who do a revert to then original article as vandalism. BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming here fore help. You can discuss your issues on the talk page for the article. There you can propose your definition of "fluff" and "helpful content". If you want my advice, I highly suggest you start small. I've read through the diffs you provided and it's hard to sort through the huge number of changes that were made to the article. Starting small on the talk page will help you come to an agreement with the other editors that are changing the page. Once you come to an agreement on something small, moving forward will be easier. Come back here if using the talk page doesn't work. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of this ANI thread. As far as I know, the article has now been fully protected. A Request for Comment is the next step in resolving this content dispute. Thanks for coming here for help! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Fargoal

Resolved

– JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have of question of how to resolve some direct misinformation on wikipedia. the page is "Sword of Fargoal". My name is Scott Corsaire and I wrote the machine language programs that made the game playable. This was the heart of the video game and the author is removing credit to me to suit his ego. I'd like to know how to resolve this...He also claims he hired me for some minor routines. That is false. He came to me on a friday night begging me in tears that the company was going to refuse publishing it the way he did it and I had until 72 hours later to rewrite it. He never intended to pay me at all. In fact he said he thought I did it for the experience and he took the more than 50,000 dollars he made and went off to europe.

The money is not the issue, but the false information IS. It is insulting and inaccurate grossly.

Thank You,

Scott Corsaire (wiki Usr name: bion2u2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bion2u2 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. Thank you for your concern. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability, in that everything we say must be backed by a reliable source. While I have no doubt your allegations are true, do you have a reliable source we could cite to support what you say? In the absence of this, there is not much we can do.

I will take a look at the article. Even if you do not have verifiable proof of what you allege, it is possible that the misleading information is also unsupported by sources, so we could at least remove that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything in the "History" section is completely unverifiable. I trimmed it back to just a couple of sentences that are actually supported by reliable sources. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice about types of disruption

Hello world, I refer you to my current discussion at Talk:Sahaja_Yoga - see the Nirmala Srivastava section. The page in question is currently frozen due to edit wars. I have found an error in this section and have proposed re-wording it using a new source. However, there is one tendentious editor who is resisting the introduction of this new reference using multiple spurious arguments. Due to the fact that this page is frozen and conveys his POV, it seems to be in his interest to disrupt all proposed changes. What do I do - request mediation or seek to unfreeze the article? Are you able to take a look? Best regards, Freelion (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral." If you go for mediation, you should make it easy for your counterpart to be constructive by avoiding blaming, accusing, criticising and diagnosing.--Simon D M (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive, tendentious editor who is resisting the introduction of this new reference has just identified himself above. Freelion (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has indeed. --Simon D M (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touché Freelion (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Angelripper

Hi. Could someone please review the album articles associated with this artist ?

Since they mostly comprise nothing but a track listing and a cover image (which I believe aren't licensed anyway), I've been changing the album articles to redirects to the Tom Angelripper article as per (my interpretation of) WP:MUSIC. However, two users - Scanion and 189.61.21.255 (which may or may not be the same person) have been either undoing the redirects, or adding new articles with (basically) the same name. I've dropped a message onto both talk pages saying why I've been redirecting, and suggesting a compromise (creating a discography article, merging all the albums into the discography, and redirecting the albums to the discography article - which I believe WP:MUSIC permits). I can't keep on reverting the articles, or I'm going to fall foul of 3RR, so what I'd like is an indication of:

Whether my interpretation of the WP:MUSIC guideline is correct, or at least reasonable in this case - if not, then I don't need to go any further
If correct/reasonable, what can be done (if anything) to prevent, or at least discourage, the recreation of the individual articles.

I should say that I don't expect an answer to my talk page messages yet, as I only put my message there within the last few hours, so have no idea if they'll accept the discography article idea, but I'd like some experienced advice on whether I should even proceed any further, and if so, how. Cheers. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Ignore this - ignore this please - Scanion is in the process of creating a discography article... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Although Scanion has created a discography article, the original articles still remain, with a link to the discography. So, unfortunately, my original questions still stand. CultureDrone (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could well be right. I think AfD is the place that will most likely resolve this, if you don't get a constructive response on the talk pages. The discography has some unusual formatting too. Not ugly or anything, but certainly non-standard. btw, it's User:Scaion, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi, I need help learning how to learn to use Wikipedia so I can edit and create articles, and work on images. I will have more free time since school is out and would like to volunteer some time. Tia--Catagraph (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your interest. the best place to get started is the editing tutorial, where you can learn how to contribute and test making edits in the sandbox. Here is a cheatsheet for wiki markup, and some links to get you started. Once you have a feel for editing, be bold and start editing! Feel free to ask any questions that arise on my talk page. Boccobrock•T 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copts Article Page Fraught with bias and error, moderators biased refuse to allow clarifying statements

Hi,

The Copts article has a flag adorning its website, and a worldmap with the same symbol. The problem is that this article discusses an ethnic group encompassing millions of people globally. A few years ago a small activist group came up with their version of a "coptic flag". In the past, many fringe groups have come up with their own flags (Source: www.thecopticflag.com) and same with this new one, the Coptic Church never recognizes any flag and Copts not affiliated with the creating organization have no idea about any flag. Unfortunately, the latest flag has adorned the Copts wikipedia article as the de facto symbol of Copts in a number of places (template, map). The source of this version is a website that has not been updates in 3 years. I tried to amend the page many times. The first few times I admit I didnt understand the nuances of Wikipedia editing. But now, whenever I write something pertaining that this is not an accepted by mainstream Copts, two moderators (mostly Troy and sometimes Lanternix) remove my edit with the excuse "Where is your source that it is not accepted?". This is ludicrous since the burden of proof had to be on the creator of the symbol to show that it IS accepted as a symbol of Coptic Identity and can be used as a de facto worldwide accepted symbol. How can you prove a negative? Ironically, in the discussion page when I discussed this Troy responded with the preposterous statement: "There doesn't need to be a reliable source that says that it's "world-recognized"". So technically, I can come up with my own design for a flag to represent an ethnic group that lacks a flag and plaster it over the main article describing them??!! According to Troy, that would be sufficient??

Additionally, as evidence that Troy and LAnternix are being completely obtuse, they summarily reject my edits when I add the statement that other groups in the past have created coptic flags, and I listed the source (www.thecopticflag.com).

I urge the editors to look into this to attempt to create an ACCURATE article rather than one that is at odds with reality.

Thanks

129.85.55.205 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for clarification sake could you confirm that you are George and simply forgot to long in. I want to look into the whole thing before I comment and would appreciate being able to look at it from a fully informed starting point. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.55.205 (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Self Promotion

I think I've found a case of an editor using Wikipedia for self-promotion, but I'm not certain of the appropriate course of action. Can someone help with the exact procedure of how this should be dealt with? Do I post it somewhere? Do I just revert the articles? Should a warning be sent to the editor in question? etc.

The editor in question is Worldstorey. On June 9, the user has edited pages for International Business and Global Strategy and have add a sentence mentioning the name of Dr. Rajesh K Pillania. I am in the field and have never heard of him, so I searched for him on Google Scholar and he essentially has written a handful of articles in mediocre journals. So, definitely not a leading author on the topic worth mentioning on those pages.

His name is also mentioned on the Emerging Markets article as well as on List of Jats and Strategy. I assume he has added at some point in time, perhaps under another username or as a guest since his username doesn't appear on those pages. But, they all feel out of place, talking about him with great praise while mentioning his contributions.

In fact, I don't think he is a significant enough researcher to have his own personal page ( Rajesh K Pillania ) on Wikipedia.

However, I am not an experienced editor to be able to completely track his movements and conclusively determine if this is indeed a case of self-promotion. I also don't know the appropriate procedures to reverse all the damage and more importantly prevent him from doing so in the future.

Can someone help?

Thanks,

Tkiyak (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Also note that the following users appear to be the same person: Greatlife999 (talk · contribs), Davidman21 (talk · contribs), Intellect12345 (talk · contribs), Globallight (talk · contribs), FreeSpirit111 (talk · contribs), Davidfisherman (talk · contribs), Globalacumen (talk · contribs), Globaljoy (talk · contribs), 123bluesky (talk · contribs) and Worldstorey (talk · contribs).

I have nominated Rajesh K Pillania for deletion. If any of the other accounts starts editing disruptively, I will report it to Suspected Sockpuppets.

Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Freeko

I put up some information about a CD released in March 2008. There was no Wiki info for it. It is not there today. Says there are some problems about it. Please explain and how to put this article.

Eco Freeko is my creation. I could not open an account with my name TONES which I have as a trademark. To make this page I had to create Tonesee as a user name. Ialso can not put a page called Tones here for Wiki info because it says there is another page that is that. There is not a TONES page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonesee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! It appears Eco freeko was originally deleted because it was deemed to lack notability in the context of an encyclopedia. Please see the Wikipedia policies on notability for further information. You may have a similar problem with your idea for a "TONES" page. You may also wish to review WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please have a look over Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is generally discouraged at Wikipedia to create articles on yourself or subjects you are personally connected to. You should also be careful when editing articles that already exist if you are connected to their subject. As for your problems creating that username, please also read the Username policy which states that you are not allowed to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and that using a name that is the same as your company or group is not recommended. It may be better to try editing articles that you are interested in, but not connected to, and thereby become more familiar with our policies and guidelines. Hope this helps, --Beloved Freak 11:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Article was deleted.

Resolved

– Original poster appears satisfied with explanations and advice.--Beloved Freak 11:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article about Bruno Covington and someone deleted it. I knew it met all the standerds nothing was wrong with it. But someone deleted it. I dont know who did it. Is there a way I can get it back? I worked for a long time on that page. It has been deleted before that was becuse it didnt meet the standards but this time I made sure it did. Paraparanormal (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't establish notability - who is he? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a musician who is nkown for his saxophone playing. Paraparanormal (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't no everyone on the world or everone who's famous. Therefor someone should not have the right to delete an article just beacuse THEY don't know who it is and the article would allow people unfamilar with said person to learn about them. And you still did'nt answer my question. Can I get it back? Paraparanormal (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:MUSIC. That will tell you what criteria are used to determine whether a musician is "notable" by Wikipedia standards and therefore whether they qualify for an article. Just as an aside, I'd say that Bruno Covington is not likely to pass the test - a Google search on "Bruno Covington saxophone" produces precisely three hits, two of which appear to relate to the deleted article. JohnInDC (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the criteria and Bruno Covington won the JFJ Foundation Saxophone Contest in 1996. So he does qualify. Paraparanormal (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not confirm the existence of either the JFJ Foundation or its saxophone contest in a quick Google search. That suggests - but of course does not prove - that it is not a major music competition as specified in WP:Music. If the deleted article lacked reliable sources that would establish the importance of the competition, as well as Covington's having won it in 1996, then the article would certainly be at risk for speedy deletion (which appears to be what happened). JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As other user's have said, it is difficult for us to see notability. This may be because the subject is not notable, or it may just be due to ignorance on our part. If you can find reliable sources to back up your claims of notability, the article could be kept. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching all over the web last night and a found a website. JFJ Foundation Paraparanormal (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am afraid, though, that the link does nothing to establish the notability of the competition. The decision to delete the Bruno Covington page appears to have been a sound one. JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it was deleted the first time was beacuse I just wrote "Bruno Covington" to save the page then I was going to come back and add everthing. And on the Notablity subject, like I said before having an article on him would give people a chance to learn about someone new who they didn't know about before. Isn't that what this website all about? Learing new things and getting more informed about things you already were fimilar with. Paraparanormal (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you need to establish the notablity of the competition? Paraparanormal (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is certainly true that Wikipedia is a great place to learn things that one didn't know before, that doesn't imply the converse - namely, that someone should be in Wikipedia by reason of the fact that no one has heard of them. Take a look at "what Wikipedia is not" and the notability requirements to get a sense of the kinds of articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia.

As for showing that a competition is notable - I paraphrased a bit loosely there. The actual criterion in WP:MUSIC is that the artist have won or placed in a "major music competition". It is pretty clear from the link you supplied that the JFJ Foundation Saxophone Contest, with its 12 entrants, open entry policy, 10 lay and semi-lay judges and $50 entry fee (or none, depending on which page you read) is by no stretch a "major" competition. I hope this helps. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this helps. Hopefully he will be able to have an article sometime. He is a real musician. I have one of his abums. I could upload it. Paraparanormal (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best not. WP:COPY will keep you out of trouble! JohnInDC (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Advertising | No References | Misleading Information | Blatant Abuse of Policies

Resolved

– Original poster seems happy with response. --Beloved Freak 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been struggling with an article (see User_talk:GaryECampbell and User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox. I am working with Wikipedians to ensure the article is notable, citable, referenced, NPOV and not blatant advertising. Although I've found the process frustrating at times, I understand why policies must be enforced. But I am also a bit confused why I have been hammered so hard, yet many other articles seem to be under the radar.

Here's my specific complaint.

The Web Conferencing article once listed vendors (see history), it is now replaced by a biased matrix comparison (see: Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software). Although the concept of a maxtrix comparison is good, the article does not list other major vendors such as GoTo or LiveMeeting (or WebTrain), it is written from a PictureTalk perspective and facts are unreferenced. Many PRIMARY features common to all major web conferencing products are missing, so it's pretty much useless. Such an undertaking requires months of research. My perception is that they created a comparison of what they have to show their checkmarks to advertise how good they are. As well, I see some of the checkmarks for features for WebEx are incorrect. Finally, the matrix was created with their points, to disclude others while omiting what other vendors provide that they do not. No single vendor should be allowed to do this, it is blatant abuse. Finally, I beleive Wikipedia was never meant for vendor comparison matrix articles, the article should be deleted and the web conferencing article reverted to a previous version.

PictureTalk has also added non-referenced facts to the Web Conferencing article. Same as their article. Perhaps the web conferencing article should just redirect to PictureTalk and disclude every company that has helped advance the technology (sarcasm).

In regards to the PictureTalk article, it reads like "Hey, here's my features". AS I previously stated, my article User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox got hammered really hard, yet PictureTalk, Glance, WebHuddle etc seem to slip under the radar. Even Adobe Connect does not include references, at best, their references are their own.

Perhaps no one is aware of these discrepancies. Can someone please determine the proper course of action for the Web Conferencing, PictureTalk, Glance, WebHuddle and the abuse of policies? Perhaps some Wikipedian editor with the appropriate rights can address the issues relating to the articles mentioned. Thank you. GaryECampbell (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the time (or expertise in the subject area) to properly look at the articles you are speakng of but I can address the inconsistent enforcement aspect of your question. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not and many others are in a bad state that haven't yet been tagged for cleanup that should be. There is no central authority that cleans up articles. Rather we're all individual editors and because of the huge number of articles that are created every day (thousands), many slip through the cracks upon creation and may sit around for a very long time without anyone looking at them, tagging them, nominating them for deletion, etc. So generalizing from any article's existence or state to conclude something about other articles is a logic that doesn't work well here. A page that is relevant by analogy here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. So it is not at all uncommon that one crapfest article never gets tagged, and a better but still problematic article is created within moments that two experienced editors land on simultaneously. In the end, though, which do you think will result in a better article? Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I report the above issues to be tagged as such ? (No references, blatant advertising, conflict of interest, unnotable, inaprorpriate content (competitive matrix comparison) and speedy delete). Links to examples would be nice (I'm still a newbie). Am I in conflict of interest since these organizations are competitors? Does everyone have rights to mark articles as such? GaryECampbell (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact of the matter is this is how things work. Wikipedia has no center. Some things fall through the radar, some things don't. Your article is already shaping up to be something good; no need to worry about these other things. Our culture changes quite a bit over time... it's possible, for instance, that some of those articles were created long before the current culture that doesn't want your article in mainspace ever existed (featured article review would kill me for that sentence).

Please just focus on your article, and any others that interest you. Someone may find these complaints legitimate and funnel them through the proper channels (articles for deletion, prod, speedy, whatever). Someone might funnel them through those channels in 2015, if said channels were to still exist. Some others might build on those article to be as high a quality as yours is shaping up to be. With all this said, it's obvious you're working in good faith, and I applaud you for that; it doesn't happen too often with COIs. But pushing at this may soon look tendentious, even though your worries are in good faith (of that I have no doubt).

Wikipedia is such a strange beast. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Will do. GaryECampbell (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Widzer

Apparently

Resolved

– Fleetflame 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone look at the dispute regarding the deletion of the Joel Widzer page? I think a hot headed edit war pursue and the result was deletion of the page. The past history should support that the page editors have tried to adhere to proper guidelines-thank you reagan (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been restored now (IMO, deleting it G11 was a bit trigger happy after the AfD). The concern was a conflict of interest; it's been cut down quite a bit, just needs further cleanup. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links for other languages

Hi. A quick question on piped links....

An article I'm cleaning up relates to various places in Ireland. The text, as written, has the place names in Irish, but articles exist about the places using the English versions of the place names. So what's the policy on creating links ? Do I pipe the link to the English article, create a redirect for the Irish name to the English named article (I've checked that they don't currently exist), or change the text to the English name, with the Irish name in parentheses ? Cheers :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All legitimate alternate names of topics should have redirects. Where English language articles on places use anglified name, creating redirects to the native names is de rigueur so I'd go ahead and do that. For the balance please see the MoS at Wikipedia:Proper names#Place names (the answer there is that it depends on context, which you know better than I do).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to the Topic: Snail Shell Cave (Tennesssee)

Yesterday, June 19, 2008, I made significant additions to this topic.

Everything that I added has been deleted, and the comment was that I was quoting Copyright Material.

If that person had bothered to email me first, they could have found out that all the quoted material is in the Public Domain, and in fact, was never Copyright. The material quoted (and it was clearly in quotation marks) was from the book "Caves of Tennessee" (1961) which is Bulletin 64 of the Tennessee Division of Geology.

I used to work for the Tennessee Divison of Geology (in fact, I am the author of their Bulletin 69) so I know what I am talking about. However, if someone had bothered to contact me, I could have given them the telephone number of the Tennessee Division of Geology, which is: (615) 532-1500. The State Geologist is Ron Zurawski, who is a personal friend of mine. In fact, we went to college together. Check it out, if you have any questions.

Equally disturbing, the non-Copyright portion of my additions was deleted, too. I have been exploring Snail Shell Cave since 1963 and had much original material to contribute.

I would like to have this material restored. I certainly don't want to spend a lot of time adding it, again, only to have it deleted for no good reason.

Next time, be polite. Ask questions first.

Larry E. Matthews (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, and the material you quoted is in the public domain as a US Govt publication, then you should be able to include it in the relevant article. However, from the edit summary of the edit that hid your text, the other editor felt that your addition looked like a mass copy-and-paste from the textbook. I'm glad to see that you started a polite discussion at Talk:Snail Shell Cave - that's the best way to reach a consensus about how to include this material. If the other editor doesn't respond, you might make a short post on their User Talk page. If you decide to re-introduce any material that's been removed by another editor, make sure your edit summary includes "please discuss on Talk" or similar text. Hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually published by the State of Tennessee, not the U.S. - if state-published materials are not presumptively in the public domain then I think we need a citation to a reliable and verifiable source to show that this material has been in fact released to the public domain. JohnInDC (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we need to be careful about this. From WP:Public domain#U.S. government works: State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain. (emph. in original) Ideally, we would just paraphrase the material to avoid any difficulty.

Larry E. Matthews, I am sorry you feel like your hard work was erased. For what it's worth, if the material is deemed appropriate it is very easy to go back in the page history and re-add it. I can help you with that if consensus is to include material. For now, though, I would recommend you continue the discussion on the talk page as SheffieldSteel recommends. If the consensus is to include the material, let me know and I will help you restore it very quickly. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who edited out Larry E. Matthews' additions. Having provided most of the content previously in the article (to help save it from possible deletion), I was delighted to see additions to the article, but perceived that the additions as provided were clear violations of Wikipedia policy (note that the 8-paragraph quotation was referenced to a "book," not even to a state publication). To make it easier for the contributor, I did not actually delete the content but simply converted it to invisible comments, and left the following explanation on the user's talk page:

Thank you for your extensive additions to Snail Shell Cave. Unfortunately, long quotations such as the one that added are generally considered to violate copyright. Accordingly, I "hid" the section you added. Would it be possible to extract key items of information from that passage and add them in your own words?

Also, I hid the unreferenced advice about safety in this cave. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Is there a source you can cite as saying something like the following?

"The Southeastern Cave Conservancy, Inc., which manages the cave, describes the cave as 'extremely dangerous' due to deep water and flooding conditions. The organization permits only highly-skilled cave explorers to visit, and at least one member of any group entering the cave be either an SCCi or an NSS (National Speleological Society) member."

--Orlady (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Larry E. Matthews will follow through and convert this material to a form more suitable to this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's one way that you're going about re-adding this, Mr. Matthews. Having a big chunk of text pasted in is a nightmare to work with- it would need massively wikified. It would be much better to paraphrase it; you'll bypass the copyright concerns, and it will be more manageable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: editing

I wrote a new article titled 'Licensing parents'. I now find that there are notices to correct grammar, correct spelling and there was a lack of references. But the editor didn't tell me where the problems were--and I can't find any. As a retired professor who has published over 40 books with top publishers and has taught college English and doctoral level research writing--I need some direction. Coachoconnorucla (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Basically, it looks like the article Licensing parents has been tagged because it's currently a single solid block of text. The page WP:YFA will give you a ton of information on how to create and edit articles using wikimarkup - the formatting mechanisms editors use to improve article layout. You can also find a stack of information on our manual of style at WP:MOS. You can also find a guide to citing references at WP:CITE. I'll add some further links to your talk page to help guide you further, but feel free to ask me more questions if you have them! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for contributing! The tags added are, I'm afraid, rather general-purpose and I hope they won't scare you off. I think the first one wasn't complaining about grammar so much as the style or tone. Your article is basically one huge chunk of text, and it would benefit from being broken down into sections, beginning with a brief introduction. There's lots of helpful information about article layout at Wikipedia:Manual of Style but perhaps Wikipedia:Your first article would be a better start. The notice about citations is just to let you know that the article doesn't use our approved format (defined in Wikipedia:CITE). Give me a few minutes to work on the citations, and once the basic structure is in place you should be able to add more quite easily. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs protection

Take a look at this article: Revision history of Peregrine Cavendish, 12th Duke of Devonshire

I have personal knowledge that a stalker of the family keeps changing this article and myself and other wiki users have to fix it daily. I really think this article should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geno2008 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. The proper place for requesting page protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, since this appears to be repeated vandalism from named users, rather than a content dispute, full page protection may not be appropriate. I have warned the most recent users inserting the information into the article and they can be blocked if they continue to vandalise. It also seems likely that there are sockpuppets operating here.--Beloved Freak 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Suspected Sockpuppet report here. --Beloved Freak 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Resolved

– Editor feels situation is resolved --Beloved Freak 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I recently had a bit of an issue over the Audrey Hepburn article. I added a note about Bunny Mellon in the "Death" section. Rightly, someone named "wikidon" told me to add a reference, but instead of waiting for me to do so, deleted my edit.

So I re-added it with the appropriate reference.

Today, I got a sockpuppet telling me that I am edit warring and giving me a warning about blocking me.

I hardly think this minor episode amounts to warring, and I'd like to know who posted it and what can be done about this behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the WikiDon accused you of being a sockpuppet of User:Reyn116 per this diff The user WikiDon has since withdrawn this allegation per this diff. Your editing regarding the death section of Audrey Hepburn per this diff is still in the article. Nk.sheridan Talk 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOCK for more info as regards sockpuppets. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 01:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Wikidon didn't remove your edit, Antique Rose did. Also, if you check the history of your talk page, Wikidon accused you of being a sockpuppet of Reyn116. He later rescinded that accusation, and the 3RR template was accidentally left behind on your user talk page. I've removed it. Fleetflame 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realized the edit was not taken out, but I was shocked at the accusation.....I appreciate all the help and am happy that the situation has been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pakistan World

There are two subjects that were deleted.,

Miss Pakistan WOrld and Sonia Ahmed

I think that this was not a fair delete.

I have tried contcting some people... but obviously, dont know much about Wikipedia rules.. I would like am Editor to look into these two articles and correct them. But the pages have to be restored as they are important pages for history in PAkistan. --Sonisona (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pakistan World and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Ahmed. I didn't way in on the second, but I specifically remember that on the first, there were few or no sources that we could find to establish notability. If you really think there was foul play, you can request an overturn at Deletion Review, but I don't think these would be overturned. There were also COI concerns with these articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Cygnus Business Media page

I would like some third party assistance, please. Over the past several months, I have been trying to provide facts on Wikipedia's Cygnus Business Media page. One former employee - Rich Handley - continues to add commentary and misrepresent facts. There is also a person called "The Truth Please" that you'll note has ONLY edited the Cygnus Business Media page and consistently adds editorial. In this:

“

In 1997, Cygnus (then called PTN Publishing) was acquired for about $100 million by a group lead (I've changed this to led and Rich changed it back to lead) ...or a reported $275 million. Paul Mackler, President of Commerce Connect, was installed as CEO.

”

This was a private sale and ONLY the principals know the exact price. I edited out the amount and now it continues to show up. It is not fact and I wrote that in the comment section.

This is misrepresented and is inflammatory:

“

In 2006, a few months after Standard and Poor's warned that levels of financial risk were "very high" at Cygnus, Mackler and Cygnus President Richard Reiff resigned. Carr Davis and Anthony O'Brien replaced Mackler as co-CEOs while ABRY denied reports that Cygnus was up for sale.[1][2][3][4]

”

Paul and Rich did not leave because of the Standard and Poor's report which looks at debt and other things when it makes its reports. It has nothing to do with operations.

Artichoker keeps deleting and undoing my contribution to a article

I have tried to contribute to the Kanto (Pokémon) article over and over. Artichoker keep undoing my contribution calling it speculation and non notable when I have provided proof on the matter.

The dispute is over a small easter egg or feature in the Pokémon Games where in Vermilion City has a Truck located in the port. Though it has had many false rumors about the truck, the truck is real and is one of the only vehicles I know of in the Pokemon games except for the moving van in Sapphire, Rubby, and Emerald.

The user has continued to say the information is speculation despite the many references i have posted, even putting a picture of the truck up [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]

Not only has the user undone my contirbutions but it seems they are personally attacking me in the discussion of the article.Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)

I think the Truck information adds to the article, if it doesn't then the information on the Pokémon fan club being in Vermilion City is no more notable then the truck. Yami (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need reliable sources. eeggs.com is not reliable, as it accepts user content, but the second link is probably all right. I think it's fine as it currently is. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jonathan pollard

i just received a message from rami deleting all my factual information i have been writing for almost four hours. the information is not opinion, since i have it in front of me from pollard's father, an eminent professor emeritus from university of notre dame.

i will not continue to write if someone is going to delete my corrections to ron olive who obviously wrote most of the article.

kindly inform me what you are deleting before you do, or you can find someone else to work for free to maintain your "book of cultural literacy". i will not waste my time. no wonder the facts have not been corrected---you continue to delete them!

20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this relates to this diff from the Jonathan Pollard article. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it would probably be more productive to debate this with the other contributing editors at the associated talkpage Talk:Jonathan Pollard. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, discussion is definitely needed there; the edits by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) do contain substantial POV issues but also include some sources that could be made use of. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ViewPoint Media Player

Hi,

I've noticed that a user with only an IP (maybe working for ViewPoint?), keeps removing the adware/malware concerns section from the ViewPoint media player section. I originally edited the page as it was rather biased against the program, but recently added a balanced version of some of the malware information to the page as it had all been removed (I think some of it is valid).

Anyway, whoever it is keeps removing the info. I don't want to get into an "edit war", should I revert it? Could the page be protected?

Cheers, SmackEater

First, remove the comparison ("Flash and Java don't have these issues"), since that might be the reason they're being removed; it might look like a coatrack section.

"It is commonly installed with the AOL Instant Messenger without the explicit consent of the user, as it is a required package." needs a reference.

Take the discussion to talk instead of revert warring, if you can. If that fails, semi-prot might help. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the deletion without discussion plus that IP's statements on the talk sure look like a COI. I think that it is a valid section, but also agree with Xavexgoem about the last sentence and the AIM citation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also put some {{unsigned}} on the talk. There's a lot of stuff there that looks like it was posted by Viewpoint (there's one that's not an IP; google the name and you'll see the same name posting pro-VMP comments on blogs complaining about it). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batteries used in aircraft

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir or madam

I had written 6 weeks ago about listing of SAFT and Marathon as suppliers of aircraft batteries in below link.

Nickel-cadmium battery vented cell type

I had asked that our company name could also be included as we are manufacturer and export of batteries just like SAFT / Marathon.

I was informed that it is against your policy to include company names and same have been removed. However, I found now that again these company names are listed?

Can this issue be resolved.

Thank you,

Prabhaker Nittla Global Account Manager HBL Power Systems Ltd.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.249.226 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for bringing this up here. I just checked the article and those manufacturers are no longer shown in the article; I believe that's appropriate. This is an encyclopaedia, not a web directory. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BridgesTV

I am totally lost and overwhelmed. The directions for creating a wikipedia page are convoluted and I cannot tell when I hit save whether that means the page I created was saved in my account "bridgestv" or went onto Wikipedia for editing or deletion. When I finished making the page I hit save and then preview and then save again. At the top of the page was a warning about speedy deletion but I cannot tell what I could have done wrong. I made sure that the post was NOT an advertisement. It simply states information about the company- when founded, who the founder is, where to find it on the web, its mission.

I read all of your how tos and warnings and guides etc. Can I talk to someone or can someone assist me. It isnt fair to have an encyclopedia that the public can contribute to if no one is available to help the luddites out there that struggle to set up a page.

Thank you gratefully for your time and assistance. Very truly yours, christina winters

user/login name bridgestv attempted new article/ wiki page Bridges TV

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgestv (talk • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgestv (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like you've heard from a couple of other editors at your talk page. I think notability is the first thing to address - why would Bridges TV be sufficiently noteworthy to be included here? We usually look for multiple sources of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources - if you can find and cite such coverage, then everything else should be fairly smooth. Feel free to post here again, or at my talk page, if I can help further. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some related links- was declined at Articles for Creation; was speedy deleted as spam in 2007; was moved to userspace and the redirect deleted just recently. Current userspace version is here. As AndrewHowse said, the notability needs to be established. As others have told you, there's a serious COI concern as well. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Editor Assistance in Dispute Resolution

I have tried to add content to the Nietzsche article and it has been removed for reasons that I feel are contrived and unjustifiable. I wonder if anyone can take a look at "Stirner, again" discussion on the talk page, as well as the relevant material that was included in the article (before being excised). I should warn anyone willing to take a look that the discussion is rather long, but reading it seems necessary in order to understand the context. I'm wondering if there is a way to solve this without dispute resolution, and if not, how I should proceed with the dispute resolution process. --Picatrix (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Van Resistance

I wanted to improve the article Van Resistance. This article has been WP:OWN by couple authors. They constantly revert and claim to continue to revert any edits , even if accompanied with the credible sources. The administrator User:Khoikhoi locked the page for edit. We exchanged User_talk:Khoikhoi#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and User_talk:Seemsclose#Re:_Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance which he advised to to negotiate with these editors. Currently there are two major issues. Third_opinion:_The_infobox_is_inaccurate and Third opinion: The LEAD section is inaccurate. I tried to present my position using credible sources. The discussion turn into a personal attack. There is no single reference presented against my position, presented arguments are based on personal taste, and not based on cited information. They even extend to my language skills. A non sided, WP:Third opinion was asked to look at the sources presented by both sides. After 10 days, there is no resolution and the third person User:HelloAnnyong, asked to be excused. In the current position, they continue to reject any resolution, and I reject their idea of a short is better than a sound WP:LEAD. During this time, as the article is write protected, I continue to develop the article in my own work space. My improvements on the article can be reached at User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎. I provide full citations according to WP:CITE, and use WP:style guide to help other editors to reach the sources. The page is protected 4ever, and my edits are favored over a person who keeps the article as it is. I do not see how to break this lock.
(A) The current version of article [[3]] is clearly objectionable from Neutral point of view and Verifiability perspectives.
(B) Also content does not presented with an encyclopedic quality and sounds like it was copied from a discussion form. It includes words that does not fit to Wikipedia.

I do not how to solve this problem with users who WP:OWN and do not negotiate on the WP:Verifiability, as I already asked help from admins, and third persons... --Seemsclose (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

When describing the beliefs of a particular religious group, is it acceptable to use the group's website as a source, and list the website as such? In this case there is little published material to use. Rev107 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally doubt it, but you can ask here where the assistants have more experience determining this sort of thing. Fleetflame 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game Revolution deletion.

I have a very strict rule that no employee of mine is allowed to edit the Wikipedia entry (sort of a scientific experiment), however it may have backfired. There were certaily innacuacies in our entry, but I felt that was part of the wiki process. My own name (Duke Ferris) over the years has been changed to "James Bond" and "David Snakes" on occasion. I always left it alone, and withing a couple of days, the entry was fixed by others.

Founded in 1996 by Net Revolution, Inc., Game Revolution is the oldest continuosly operating video game site on the internet. We are a multi-million user site and we have been profitable since 1997. We have gone through two corporate buyouts for amounts I am not allowed to contractually disclose. We have more readers than other gaming sites you maintain (like gameinformer.com and gamespy.com), so I am not sure why our entry was deleted.

We are a serious, 12 year old, profitable, growing, popular, media company.

This is my first ever wikipedia submission, so thank you for your help. I hope I did it right.

Thanks,

Duke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.10.222 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that needs making

I just finished watching a wonderful documentary movie called "Heavy Load"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926200/

I think it should be in Wikipedia, but I'm not a registered user... any chance you, or one of your friends, might want to make an article for it?

Thanks!!