Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

POV/NPOV Dispute, Not Sure How to Proceed

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been some disagreement concerning whether a certain statement on the Hamas article is POV or not. The dispute existed before I became active there. I thought that it had been resolved and the article itself returned to NPOV after having been tagged for POV. However, I recently found the statement returned along with the POV tag; and the argument has begun again. I really do not know what to do at this point. PinkWorld (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink
I may have jumped the gun here: it could be that a simple revert edit might have switched back to a statement ("best known for suicide attacks") that I had tagged as pov-statement and later dropped. It is hard for me to tell, though, because I am really inexperienced at editing actual articles. The earlier debate on whether or not to include that statement was [here]. PinkWorld (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

I see that no one has respondedand I see that there is a lot of history attached to this. If you cannot resolve it on the article talk page you could take it to WP:Mediation cabal, perhaps. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Basal Metabolic Rate

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been contributing to the article Basal Metabolic Rate, but a user named "WhatamIdoing" has been erasing my postings and my attemtpts to answer Wikipedia suggestions for improvement to make the article better. The thrust of the dispute seems to be the relevance of monitoring heart rate using gas analysis versus going to a gym and working out with weights to maintain a higher BMR through increased skeletal muscle accumulation. This is based on two references and the provider of that suggestion does not state his point of view (i.e. does he work at a health club.) I have been consistently answering questions with references and have stated my point of view. So I am curious why the current editors are blocking my contributions. I have tried communicating but they have erased my most recent contributions without explaining why I was censored. I was wondering what the process of mediation entails? I have looked up the two references that are used in the first paragraph by "Arcadian" in the talk page for the feedback and supported by "whatIamdoing", and the references do not establish the kind of precedent that is implied by this new addition. There are hundreds of articles that posit the opposite point of view, namely that aerobic exercise monitored by accurate technology corresponds to gas analysis. Weight training is helpful in some ways, but BMR is an aggregate measurement that measures organ efficiency, not muscle efficiency. So the addition of the quote in the lead paragraph denying the importance of aerobic measurement and training for BMR understanding is inconsistent with the principles of Exercise Physiology. In the classic text by McArdle, BMR is clearly explained as being predominatly influenced by the liver not the muscle tissue. As we age sarcopenia reduces muscle tissue mass and fat tissue mass (adipocytes) take/s on a more significant or greater role in determining BMR. This gives women an advantage in the aging process as I explain in the talk section. Thus women live 7 years longer than men across the lifespan in every culture predominantly because of the hormone differences that do not predispose them to muscle mass advantages. The two Journals that are quoted in the first paragraph fail to explain that phenomenon, and indeed most of the articles reviewed by American Clinical Journal of Nutrition and the Applied Physiology Journal speak of the importance of walking as a way to manage BMR and this is advocated by the Surgeon General, the American College of Sports Medicine, the CDC, Kaiser Permanente, American College of Cardiologists, the American Physical Therapy Association, the American Diabetes Association and several more. Weight training has a role, but it is not predeterminate for BMR management as is currently implied by the recent edit which failed to explain the purpose of the additon to the main paragraph and it seems to deny the principle thesis that BMR is a measurement of oxygen utilization which can be approximated by heart rate monitoring.

Muscle tissue emphasis actually raises blood pressure and recent research that I would be willing to post, posits that endocrinal imbalances frustrate type two tissue training for diabetic persons who wish to manage their glucose utilization more efficiently.

The reference for Exercise Physiology was listed previously in the Biochemistry section of the article but it seems that "Arcadian" and "whatamidoing" injected their sources from Clin Nut and Joural of Applied Physiology in the section that lists the order of importance of organs for BMR (pg 134 in McArdle's text on Exercise Physiology.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and if I can be assisted with the matter of why "WhatIamdoing" is erasing and blocking my ideas and references for support I will continue to contribute.

Sincerely,

<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRileyPTA (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You should try and resolved this on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OBTS: Teaching Society for Management Educators

I am a member of the Board of OBTS and the Communications chair. As part of my duties, I was directed by the Society's President to create a Wikipedia entry about the Society. I created a new entry as no entry existed, using wording from our official website since that wording best describes who we are and what we do. I received a notification that the entry was tagged for speedy deletion. How can this be resolved easily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Coombs (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Several points: First, you should not be writing articles about subjects with which you are closely associated because of conflict of interest concerns. Second, copyrighted material can be made available for use on Wikipedia if the copyright owner follows the process set out as WP:IOWN. Third, any material from the subject's website is likely to be promotional in tone and an article based on it will probably be speedily deleted as spam. Fourth, any article about his subject will have to demonstrate its notability by reference to reliable sources. Bottom line, if this organisation really is notable, someone else will write an article about it in due course. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, put it on the board of requested articles. (no idea what it's called though, can someone else lend a hand?) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:REQUEST? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

Hi,

I am concerned regarding the article List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population.

I was initially involved in corrected what appeared to me to be a factual inaccuracy only to be reverted on the basis of lack of reference which strikes me as fair enough. However even after providing official references my corrections were reverted again without justification. Since I wanted to avoid an unproductive revert war I went on the talk page only to realise that the very fact I wanted to correct was already subject of a discussion with a clear consensus in favour of the correction.

Furthermore the validity of the main source has been abundantly contested by many contributors.

After a few month and several unanswered discussions, modifications are still arbitrarily reverted to data generally considered as inaccurate.

To be honest I am a bit lost and confused regarding the situation. Ghaag (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you be more specific as to which facts you corrected and which sources and discussions exactly you are referring to. There are a lot of statistics and a lot of discussions so it is important to be clear. Mfield (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, specifically I was trying to modify the entry regarding the so-called Manchester-Liverpool area by referring to the British office of national statistics. The talk page discusses this specific topic multiple times in "#9 UK figures" & "#18 Manchester". Ghaag (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As the main source of these articles appears to be publications of a one man band, namely Wendell Cox, allegedly a an opponent of public transport, it would seem that articles based solely on his data are unlikely to be encyclopaedic and should probably be deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of users have expressed similar concerns regarding the validity of the source on the article's talk page (#2, #9, #14,

#24, #26, #27) as well as many many more.

However I only tried to flag some specific data as dubious and the article as "disputed" which I hope is a reasonable and productive position given the context. I am also trying to engage the contributors into discussion rather than unilateral revert but to no avail so far.

Ghaag (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction to above - one other source is a one man band Stefan Helders and it appears that the Wiki pages are being owned by User:Polaron. Looks like a serious rethink of the purpose and need for these lists is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, In accordance with WP:AD I tried to had a {{disputed}} and a {{dubious}} warnings pointing to the relevant section in the talk page in an attempt to draw more people in the discussion. Only to see it reverted without any input in the dicussions nor answer on the user talk page.

• My question is should at least the warning be maintained on the page ?

Ghaag (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the disputed tag. I see you have requested help from the Mediation Cabal. I hope all goes well. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez

This author became involved in a highly contentious dispute with the website AfterEllen.com, a highly respected and award winning RS site. The author's dispute (which proved to be fabrication on her part and not that of AfterEllen) is of great interest to her LGBTQ readership -- to whom she herself has reached out.

Her own justification for falsely accusing this site of misquoting her, as explained in the reference, is related to struggles with her sexuality. Alison (talk · contribs) has argued that this is "not true". But by the authors own admission, it is.

The details of this dispute have constantly been removed by the editor Alison, arguing that it does not meet BLP standards. As this is backed up by sources from a respected and verifiable site, this is simply not the case. This dispute is part of the story of this figure (who has positioned herself as an LGBTQ advocate) and should be public knowledge.

While I am willing to, grudgingly, remove the reference to struggles with her sexuality (although this was given as her justification for threatening and offensive comments about the lesbian community), the details of the dispute should be in the public domain?

Jsrchicago (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we have a very high burden of proof for information included on Biographies of Living Persons. Anything that is in any way controversial or potentially libellous must be reliably sourced to a primary THIRD PARTY source. AfterEllen.com are not and can never be an independent reliable source for information on a dispute they were involved in. If there were some coverage of the issue by a truly independent source then the matter could be discussed for inclusion. Until that point it is an absolute no no. Please also be aware of 3RR, which prohibits editors from more that 3 additions or reversions of the same content in a 24 hour period. It is in place to prevent the kind of edit warring which has been taking place on the article in question. Mfield (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mfield. That's exactly where I stand on the matter. It's already been discussed off-wiki in a number of places and frankly, the BLP subject must come first here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal agendas, especially not at the expense of a BLP subject - Alison ^❤ 06:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding, from an admin on this board, is that Wikipedia's stance on editing is as follows:

"There is no tampering going on, anyone and everyone can edit wikipedia, that is one of the guiding principles of :::the project. What the subject would like to see in a biographical article about themselves is irrelevant and POV, :::providing the facts in question are notable, verifiable and do not infringe the subject's privacy."

The dispute with AfterEllen would constitute "notable, verifiable and do not infringe on the subject's privacy". The :::point of contention, being her sexuality. Given that the subject herself brought her struggles with her sexuality :::into the public domain this is worthy of note and no infringement on privacy.

So, if a third party source can be found (http://guanabee.com/2009/02/alisa-valdes-rodriguez-lesbians), then this is :::a legitimate edit? user:jsrchicago:jsrchicago

That blog is not a reliable source - see also verifiability/self published sources. Mfield (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this one, then? http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/books-art/interview-alisa-valdes-rodriguez-on-bisexuality-and-the-haters/ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.234.235 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The link above leads to an online magazine with an interview with the subject about the controversy. Surely this should be considered a reliable third party source?Owomnyc (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that is a WP:Reliable source either. The only references to it that I can find are self-references or blogs. No statement of editorial policy or ownership appears on the website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoping that someone could give 5 minutes to address some concerns we have at Kripalu Center, particularly whether or not the entire economics section is encyclopedic. This is also discussed at the talk page. The entire article could some degree of attention. Thanks! --ThujaSol∆ 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that article could do with attention. The whole economics section should be removed. I am not very sure that this meets notability guidelines. There is only one reliable source that I see. There must be hundreds of yoga centres and other cult places in the US. I don't think that they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Section removal from Right to keep and bear arms

I think it would be helpful, to understand this issue better, to read the text below on face value without following all the lnks I have given in the first instance. The references can of course be followed thru later at leisure.

BACKGROUND On 14 Feb I added a section to the article entitled "Correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths" which was effectively drawing the link between the actions of campaigners who wish to restrict the Right to keep and bear arms who often point to the correlations discovered by researchers between the high level of gun ownership and the high level of deaths from guns and correspondingly the low levels of gun violence in countries with low levels of gun ownership. The intial edit is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=270583927&oldid=270565333 (added for completeness only.. this is not the edit that got deleted. That is referenced a little further down).

The initial edit was a first attempt and did not contain too many references. The section was deleted several times and reinstated several times, and at one point (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=271201858&oldid=270583927) the section got renamed as "Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms".

The section has been controversial and several editors have sought to delete it. One editor User;Yaf actually deleted it in breach of 3RR but I generously did not report him (although he tried to blank references to this at some place(s). The final version which was deleted (and should be the main focus of attention) is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&diff=next&oldid=272894916. It was deleted by an editor not logged in but deleted the edit within minutes of User;Yaf deleting it and me reinstating it.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES Editors have claimed the section is either POV pushing, not conforming with NPOV, WP:OR or else WP:SYN. The most serious focus of attack has been the claim that it comprises WP:SYN.

Most of the discussions about this have been discussed in the the talk page in the sections here and here.

I would like to use WP:EA to review this deletion and determine whether its deletion was justified.

(P.S. I see some editors are continuing to argue about this edit, which I personally view as pointless until we get an independent review. The issue is a simple one to review. Either the edit was WP:SYN or it wasn't. Either it was WP:POV or it wasn't. And WP:OR or not. A simple assessment on the right and wrong interpretation is all that we need to make collective progress. The issue has not gone stale just because I am not contributing to that ongoing discussion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

The discussion on the talk page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#This_deletion_.5B.5B3.5D.5D_has_not_been_properly_discussed and some have continued elements of the discussion in later sections. However, my main argument is laid out clearly there.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ADVICE IS SOUGHT FROM NON-U.S. BASED EDITORS ONLY

I know how controversial this article and its content is in the United States. I therefore would like assistance from an editor who is not in the United States so that this can focus purely on WP policies and not be infuenced by their own personal opinions. Because I have been accused (falsely in my opinion) of canvassing (see next section), the person providing assistance should not be User:HowardBerry.

you're making the broad assumption that merely being a citizen of the US predisposes editors to being biased, and that editors outside the US are not predisposed to being biased. that's overtly contra to WP:AGF. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For information (not really relevent to the main issue but added for completeness)

Before making this request I used a proxy account to raise this matter with User:HowardBerry, a contributor in the UK who is listed in the Editor Assistance page as someone who can help in disputes. I did so because I wanted to discuss the issue in general terms to know how to proceed, especially as I have some particular concerns about the editors at the article and the possible presence of persons in an advisory or administrative capacity who allow personal prejudices to sway their response (whether knowingly or otherwise). I have too much experience of editing controversial articles in areas covered by powerful and well funded lobby groups to know that this kind of thing goes on. I happened to make a single edit in the wrong account and my silent approach to this person involved in WP:EA became exposed. I have since been accused of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, canvassing, and heaven knows what else, but in my opinion, my actions were perfectly reasonable and well within the rules. You can see the consequences here , here and here

Hauskalainen (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

using a "proxy account" to raise the matter is the very definition of sockpuppetry. this requires sanctions. Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

also, you contradict yourself blatantly above. you claim that you raised the matter with howardberry using a proxy account "because i wanted to discuss the issue in general terms [etc]". then you claim "I happened to make a single edit in the wrong account and my silent approach to this person involved in WP:EA became exposed.". so, you admit doing it purposefully, then claim you did it accidentally. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why my own neutrality has been brought into this discussion? I have found several comments in different wikipedia pages relating to me and this issue, with the moniker "meatpuppet" banded about quite a lot. Firstly, I would state that I have not been swayed by any supposed canvassing; secondly, I informed the user in question to go through WP:EAR and then I would look into it; and thirdly, I have not engaged myself in editing or becoming involved with the editing of any of the articles in question, nor have I contacted any of the users in question regarding the comments left on my talk page. I have totally kept out of the debate. Now I see it is being stated that I am not allowed to be involved. I see nothing wrong in my actions that merit such a statement and it seems as if I am being accused of being impartial or as having been solicited as a "meatpuppet" when my actions prove otherwise. I would hope for an explanation and an apology. Howie ☎ 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Howie. It's because these people are desperate to throw dirt, that they don't really care who gets hit in the process. The key things for anyone reading this to know is that

(a) Under WP:EA, approaching an editor directly IS ALLOWED (it says to do via the assister's talk page, which is what I did),

(b) my using an alternate account was because I wanted to get the advice in private

(c) I was not hiding my real identity from you. I made it easy for you to work out who I am. SO I am not a sockpuppet.

(d) I made it clear that I did not want you to edit the article (so soliciting a meat puppet is also clearly a false accusation)

(e) It was me who suggested that you now don't get involved (only because I want to protect you from such accusations as meat-puppetry, but as you see, I am already too late). But if you are prepared to put up with an assault on your reputation, you are welcome to try! Personally I'd sugggest you don't.

I agree wholeheartedly that you deserve an apology from the people who have made accusations against you. Funnily enough I think I need some apologies too from much the same people (but somehow I do not think that they will be forthcoming). I for one certainly apologise to you for the consequences of my approach to you (even though I acted with honour throughout and I have not been the issuer of any of the false acusations made against you). I am especially aggrieved by the statements of Edit Centric made towards me. I have come across such editors in the past in articles of a contentious nature, Their actions are ugly and they and their friends are such they always want to have the last word on the matter. See if I am right.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the whole article is unbalanced with large sections on UK and US law and little on elsewhere. The artcile title is questionable. It would be more accurate if it were called gun legislation or similar. hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really helpful because it does not address the issues of alleged OR/POV/synthesis. I do think the article rather over plays the issue of the "right" because almost no country allows an unfettered right to bear arms. Most countries control the right to have a firearm for instance (see http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/6comm/4e.pdf). The right to bear arms is no more significant than the right to drink alcohol or the right to drive a motor car or the right to take a life-saving controlled medicine, ot a thousand and one other things that are regulated. Firearms control is, however, antithetical to the unfettered right to bear arms. Firearm controls are introduced by legislators in civilized societies for the purpose of reducing death and injury. I know of no other reasons why firearms use is regulated. Attempting to say that there is no connection between (a) the right to bear arms and (b) the deaths from gun violence (whether deliberate or accidental), as the people who want the section out of the article argue, is just plain nonsense. If there were no deaths from the use of firearms there would be no need to regulate them. The statistics may or may not prove the issue, (and I doubt that they do totally), but they are totally relevant to the topic of the article, whether they do or do not. Other people have made the connection and that makes the deleted section neither WP:OR or WP:SYN. I also believe that it fairly represented the evidence so it is not WP:POV either. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue is still active. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

regardless, the proper venue is the original research noticeboard, where i have opened an incident. resolution is unlikely to be found here, considering all of the above issues unrelated to the original issue. Anastrophe (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "considering all of the above issues unrelated to the original issue"? Why is it unlikely to be found here? The issue you have raised is identical to the one I have asked for comment above. Does the independent research on gun ownership rates and gun violence have a bearing on the right to bear arms. I have given ample evidence that other people have made that connection. That the references do not use the exact words "right to keep and bear arms" is of no significance. The right to bear arms is regulated in almost every country. That regulation only occurs to stem the risk of gun violence (whether deliberate or accidental).It is oxymoronic to claim that statistics on gun deaths have no connection to the right to bear arms because if there were no gun deaths there would be no need for restrictions on the right to bear arms.--Hauskalainen (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite best efforts and much dispute, this is still an unresolved issue.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, and that's when a topic is normally marked as 'stale' by the editors who mind this list. unfortunately, you've been artificially "bumping" this section by repeatedly stating that it is 'active', when apparently there isn't interest by the editors here to resolve it. likewise, my request at the original research noticeboard is moribund, so i suggest it's time we took this matter to mediation, or whatever the next formal step is. Anastrophe (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Language issues and references

What's the general policy or guideline for using references that are published in a different language than the main article? My current prediciment involves another user who added some really dubious information to an English-language page, but the reference he cited was in Ukrainian, and I can't find an easy way to translate it. I'm wondering that, if anyone else is reading the article in English, how will they be able to use or judge the reference themselves? What's the point of it then? Shouldn't it belong on the Ukrainian version of the page? -LogisticEarth (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The standard is reliable sources, without regard to language (or being online, or cost). This does make it difficult sometimes; while a lot of Wikipedia is based on free web resources in English, there's no such requirement. Studerby (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there some pool of translators or something like that that I could get to look over the page, translate it, or judge it's veracity? -LogisticEarth (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider calling the article and edit to general attention here, so that others could perhaps ponder the likely reliability of the article, source, and edit? Xenophon777 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is in this section of the Honey wikipedia article:Honey#Preservation The paragraph in question is:

"Heating up to 37°С causes loss of nearly 200 components, part of which are antibacterial. Heating up to 40°С destroys invertase, and important enzyme. Heating up to 50°С turns the honey into caramel (the most valuable honey sugars become analogous to sugar). Generally any larger temperature fluctuation (10°С is ideal for preservation of ripe honey) causes decay."

The referenced web article for this info is here: [ http://www.kontrakty.com.ua/ukr/gc/nomer/2003/20/29.html] Thanks in advance for any help/insight -LogisticEarth (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You could ask at Wikipedia:Translation for the Ukranian version of this artcile tio be translate which migh help. Ukrainan bversion at: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4 Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Gharjamai

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Xghostfacexx insists on adding obscene language and superflous text to the page claiming he is the original writer. Keeps reverting cleanup edits calling them vandalism, even after User:Alansohn reviewed and declared the edits to be otherwise. Links provided in article do not match up to the information they are linked to. User has been warned twice, he removed vandalism warnings from his talk page. Request third party opinion. I've kept the page as it is after his latest revert, my version was this Anish7 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have taken this to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_41#Gharjamai and have been advised to go to WP:AIV with any further incidents. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User SamJohnson posting false accusations of sockpuppetry

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SamJohnston has accused me of being a sockpuppet on multiple occasions. His accusations are unfounded. When asked for proof, he claims to be "workign on it", but repeatedly adds the sockpuppet banner to my user talk page. I would like him to stop these actions. Quite frankly, I have no idea where he got the idea from, except for the fact that I had an old account without unification (just fixed that) and I have commented a few times recently (as a relative noob) with out logging in and also without signing my comments properly. Thanks you Memsom (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear - one account - but it said it was "old style" without unification. When it ran the unification process, it only found one user, which was this one I use now. Memsom (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the accusations were genuine and an investigation was filed with evidence (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Memsom) but closed after User:Memsom explained himself (above and on talk pages). -- samj _in^out 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Having read the case, I can see where Sam was coming from - it did look dodgy to me too, until you realise that the IP address that cause the most suspect edit - indeed the one that caused an admin to reopen the case and ask for more details, was nothing to do with me. As far as I'm concerned, SamJ and I have put aside any personal issues we have and agreed not to put ourselves in to a conflict situation again. For my part, I have made a conscious decision not to get involved with any of SamJ's edits or pages SamJ has a strong presence on (he lists a number on his user page). Memsom (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe people won't suspect that you are a sock if you don't give them reason to LetsdrinkTea 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cape Cod Community College

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a long time reader of wikipedia, but just started contributing. A few months ago, while reading the article on Cape Cod Community College, I noticed that the entry listed "Harvard of the Middle Cape" as a nickname for the school. That seemed odd, so I decided to add a citation. I googled the phrase, and was unable to find any reference to this other than the various sites that copy wikipedia entries verbatim. I put in a citation needed, and nothing much happened. I then removed the nickname, and asked in the edit history that anybody who put it back please put a citation as well. It got added back by an anonymous IP. I fixed it again, referencing Wikipedia:Citing, asking that anybody who put it back please include a citation. It got added back *again* yesterday, with nothing in the edit history other than, "tru cape coders know this name is real." It's obviously unproductive to keep up an edit war, and the person who keeps doing this doesn't have an account I can send a message to for resolution purposes. So what do I do next? Downfall2209 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Simple fact is that things need to be backed up by citations; I've removed the nickname, as per your comment here that you couldn't find any references for it. I see the IPs have said it's "common knowledge" - well, common knowledge means not much in terms of WP:RS. I'll keep an eye on the article and deal with it if necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, considering it is the only institute of post-secondary education in the Middle Cape area (a small area indeed), it seems a dubious distinction at best... It's sort of like being the Wayne Gretzky of your local rec hockey league... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

would like to request articles?

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

any help? --Dairywebz (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

you are a registered editor you can create articles yourself. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a system for requesting articles, but it relies on someone else caring enough to make the article for you, which is pretty unlikely. In case you don't know how to make articles for yourself, here's a standard message:

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 02:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oddball article

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulic hooklift hoist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I spotted hydraulic hooklift hoist some time ago. As it's written, it to pretty seriously go against the MOS. It's a neat-sounding topic, but really I have no clue about this and no idea where to even begin fixing it up. I posted this to WT:TRUCKS a couple days ago as well, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the right WikiProject for this topic. Considering the aritcle's over 2 years old, I figured it'd be better to list it here than just leave it for longer since it's IMO a pretty badly messed up and neglected article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've put some tags on, which is good. I see taht the major author seems to be an IP address, so there is not much hope in contating the. I would suggest leaving it as is for a couple of weeks and if no-one improves it move for AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Smells like a copyvio to me, but I can't find it. It's definitely a marketing piece, though; a hooklift hoist is just a multi-hinged boom usually attached to a truck for picking up small loads and placing them on the truck. The whole theory of hydraulics is definitely not necessary for explaining that. I'd be willing to bet that a manufacturer's rep built this article at some point. It could possibly stand on its own with a massive rebuild... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User following my edits

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Chrisieboy has been following me on EVERY single edit I make and changing them. He is basically following me and making my wiki-life a living hell. He reverses edits from an article to which I have more of a profession than him...

I was just wondering If I could make my contributions private, I don't want to be followed by this user GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If by private, you mean making edits without attributing them to you, then no you cannot, it is a legal requirement of the GFDL that all edits are attributable. In any case it is patently untrue that Chrisieboy has changed all your edits since the two you made immediately before this post have not been reverted. Of the ones I looked at he gave apparently valid reasons for reverting. You will need to provide diffs showing unwarranted changes if this complaint is truly a serious one. SpinningSpark 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gerald N. Epstein Revision Looking for Comments

I have entered a revision of an entry on Gerald N. Epstein and would appreciate comments. Many thanks. David Hollidays (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised page in userspace at User:David Hollidays/Gerald Epstein. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Gerald_Epstein Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kimkins diet plan

The information about the Kimkins diet plan is incorrect and nothing but speculation. The allegations against the diet and the founder are not only incorrect but unfounded. Yes there is a lawsuit pertaining to fraud, but the case has not even gone to trial yet. Kimkins is an excellent low carb diet not unlike many others online. We have over 40,000 current members that are very satisfied and because of the actions of a handful of trouble makers we are suffering sales. Wikipedia is the primary online source for facts on any subject and for the editors to keep the one sided views posted without opposition is not only unfair but wrong. We have tried to correct the description of Kimkins only to be edited by these "haters" with nothing better to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.75.17 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The record of contributions for that particular IP address shows that somebody at that address blanked the page - that's not really going to be considered constructive. Since you sclaim to represent the manufacturer, the best thing would be for you to read our conflict of interest policy and then make suggestions at the article's talk page rather than editing directly. If that doesn't work then please come back here, say so, and somebody will be able to help you. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deleting of a Company's Page and References

First, the editor deleted the company page citing blatant advertising (/adenin before it went to Adenine). Then the editor proceeded to remove the company from all pages where it's mentioned (not merely removing its internal link, but deleting them entirely even though competitors appear on the same lists with links to their own internal pages).

As for the company's page -- it listed the facts (who, what, where, etc.) and backed up these facts with footnotes. This posting involved studying Wikipedia's posting guidelines as well as company entries (competitors, too) that remain posted.

So I ask -- what is acceptable for a company page and mentions in related pages? If the company's pages weren't acceptable, then many others need deleting which had the same facts and more.

I've left a message on the editor's Talk page and still wait for a response. Thank you for your help. Wikipedia is a valuable resource and I'm doing my best to follow its standards.

Merylk (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Merylk

Perhaps a good approach would be to create a new page in your userspace, say at User:Merylk/Adenin, and then come back here and ask for some help in making sure it meets standards? No doubt there are other borderline, or even blatantly deletable, entries here, but that's not an argument to allow more such pages. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article as deleted last (it was also deleted twice previously, including once at AFD was still promotional. It listed out the product modules, customizable apps, clients, included a section on "solutions" that read like marketspeak, and lacked outside reliable sources. I've just searched Google News and find a lot of PR Newswire (and boy does THAT article need to be beaten into shape!) references, but not much outside of that. User:Merylk: as suggested above, you should work on an article in your own space, seek out outside, neutral references, and build the article in a factual manner without going into the details of the great things the company offers. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Google versus Wiki

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rlathe (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)The entry for myself was flagged recently with "orphan status" This is highly understandable. In a google search the No. 3 item concerns a blogspot item issuing allegations of inappropriate behavior. As Wiki properly notes, these are unsubstantiated. Blogspot is wholly owned by google. A search on Clusty, for instance, does not highlight any blogspot item on the same search parameters in at least the first 100 items. This is a clear instance where google policy is unjust and prejudicial. Google has a different agenda to Wikipedia: this has an inappropriately large influence on Wikipedia listings. Kind regards Richard LatheRlathe (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you need help? I'm afraid I'm not sure what you would like to request. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as well, could you please clarify Rlathe? -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My best take: Rlathe is concerned about the tag stating the article is orphaned, but seems to think it's something to do with off-Wiki search rankings or something. Rlathe: the "orphaned" tag means that your article isn't linked to by other Wikipedia articles. It has nothing to do with anything occurring off-Wiki. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

David Van Day, Dollar (band) and Thereza Bazar webpages on your website

There is a guy that keeps putting two websites (Dollar - Shooting Stars and the David Van Day Online website)are official on the webpages on David Van Day and Dollar (band),and the Thereza Bazar one on your website on the External Links category on those webpages on your website. The reason this guy gives (on his contributions category on his userpage)is that David Van Day supposed to have said on a statement on one of the websites mentioned called Dollar - Shooting Stars that they are both official. Well, they are not official. This guy is accusing me of vandalising (on his contributions category on his userpage)the webpages on David Van Day and Dollar (band), and the Thereza Bazar one on your website.

Well, David Van Day told my husband on the phone (my husband phoned him) that both those websites are unofficial. I have contacted several organisations and associations which are United Kingdom government run(Information Commissioner's Office, Consumer Direct, Nominet, Citizen's Advice Bureau, Amber-Light)and they have told me by email or on their websites or by letter, phonecall both websites Dollar - Shooting Stars and David Van Day Online are unofficial. These organisations/associations also told me that it is misrepresentation to put a website is official when it isn't and they also told me that the Dollar - Shooting Stars website and the David Van Day Online one are both run by a uk individual, also they said an official website has to be run by a company anyway. Even one of David Van Day's cousins told me on the phone a couple of months ago that David Van Day hasn't told my husband lies about those two websites being unofficial. Please could you do something about this because this guy is accusing me of vandalism of the webpage about David Van Day and Dollar (band), and the Thereza Bazar one? This guy (who i have mentioned has accused me of vandalism) has cyberbullied me before on other websites(i have print-outs to prove it).--Righteoussister (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does WP:EL rule against the addition of links to these particular sites? -- Hoary (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That guy has also not been putting sometimes whether those websites are official or unofficial, is that allowed (e.g. Dollar - Shooting Stars Website)?--Righteoussister (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard about about any need to specify whether a website is or isn't official. And indeed I cannot think of a single article that has a set of external links, each labeled either "official" or "unofficial". One of Wikipedia's most carefully guarded articles is Barack Obama, and in its current state it has a set of external links of which just one is labeled "official" and none is labeled "unofficial". -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The official site of the subject of an article is exempted from other WP:EL requirements. SpinningSpark 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your activities on David Van Day and Dollar (band) are bordering on edit warring and you should desist. Why have you come straight here instead of discussing your concerns with the other editors on the talk page? The websites proclaim themselves to be official and there are statements from David Van Day supporting that. If you believe the websites are fraudulent you should provide us with links to reliable sources which verify that claim. A link to the actual official site might do it; an alleged phone call which is entirely unverifiable just doesn't cut it. Sorry. SpinningSpark 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Products

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Do products such as Speedlite 580EX II, Speedlite Transmitter ST-E2 and Speedlite 580EX really deserve their own articles. They're products by a well-known and notable company (Canon), but do WP guidelines really state that every product produced by a notable company is inherently notable ? Where's the dividing line between that and WP becoming a consumer catalogue for company products ? Personally, I'd have though these should be merged into some article about the Canon flash range, but would prefer some feedback before I get trampled on :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, refer to WP:N. If the individual products have reviews in reliable sources, then they may merit their own article. Also, there are some stylistic concerns; even having relevent source material does not mean that a subject needs its own article, there may be compelling reasons to merge these into a single article, for example, on the product line, especially where the individual cameras (in this case) may be doomed to "permastub" status. However, this discussion should best occur on the talk page of one of these article. Start a merge discussion, and link to it from the other affected articles so interested parties can comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, as both an editor and a canon photographer, I would think that the Speedlites would be better merged into an Canon_EOS_flash_system. These are widespread devices but they are designed and marketted as an ETTL flash system and would be better discussed as a whole from an enc point of view. Mfield (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So am I, and I second that. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added the 430EX,430EX II and 550EX to the merge proposal. Mfield (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle Colonies disinformation

Please straighten this out. There are some ludicrous assertions and throwing the book around to cover them up. Check the talk page for the lack of progress. I have been nothing but rational and my patience is at its end. Too many situations like this. Perhaps somebody can take over for me. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page and your talk pages it seems to me that progress is being made, albeit slowly. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't create a nonexistent page

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to create a page for Smithsonian Institution Libraries, which does not exist. Such a page used to exist until 2006, per Smithsonian Institution discussion page. I created a page under Smithsonian Libraries, instead. But I want it to be under the correct heading, Smithsonian Institution Libraries. Thank you.Meaningofitall (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)meaningofitall

It does exist, as a redirect - Smithsonian Institution Libraries - to Smithsonian Institution. You can edit the redirect if your content is well-sourced. You might want to include a reference/link to the main article. Then you should replace your existing article with a redirect to the new one. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved it in for you. Mfield (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! All I know about Wikipedia contributing, I learned a few hours ago. Much more to still learn. Meaningofitall (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to come back here if you have other questions. And don't be surprised if/when other people come along and edit the page; on thw whole they'll help to improve it, even if it's not quite what you might have expected. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

moving user page to main region

Resolved

 – for this page's purposes. Article is in userspace and is discussed at editor's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to move my user page to the main region. Please advise or move the page for me. Thank you,

Nhbaldwin (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You'll be able to move it once you're auto-confirmed, after 4 days and 10 edits. However, I'm not sure it's quite ready to move yet. It would be much more likely to survive if you could show notability of the company; it needs to meet the standards at WP:CORP. I'll put some links to other useful info on your talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I've moved it to a sandbox, User:Nhbaldwin/Apollo Systems, since it was a draft article, not a proper userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added relevance based on history and ties to larger conglomerates as well as technologies in use by the US government. Is that enough to warrant moving the page to the encyclopedia, and can someone move it for me? Thanks much,

Nhbaldwin (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. There needs to be independent 3rd party coverage of the firm in order to establish its notability, and that needs to be shown in the page. The links given for notability and for WP:CORP spell that out in more detail, should that be helpful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone focus on fulfilling "Copy to Wikisource"?

I found that in Constitution of Sri Lanka, the bulk of the text was the constitution of Sri Lanka itself, which suggested that the text of the constitution may be a candidate for copying to Wikisource instead. I added a {{Copy section to Wikisource}} template to the appropriate place on the page. However, I found that this adds the page to Category:Copy to Wikisource, a category where pages appear to remain for long periods of time. The first two pages I looked at in the category had been tagged for copying to Wikisource for nearly a year or longer.

Is there a WikiProject, task force or other community within Wikipedia that takes a particular interest in transwikiing content to Wikisource? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest posting at Wikisource:Scriptorium. SpinningSpark 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OR, Plot Descriptions, and Dispute

I'm currently in a dispute with User:Dragonfiend over whether descriptive plot and cast descriptions of a fictional work (in this case, a webcomic called Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy) can be used without secondary citations. I made an argument that descriptions are fine given Wikipedia policies and cited the relevant text on the article's talk page [1]. Her response was to accuse me of COI and using multiple accounts (neither is true) and revert my edits to the article (she's reverted me several times if you look at the article history). I was hoping to work to consensus, but that seems less and less likely. I don't think I've posted anything that would warrant such a terse response, but I'd like someone to look at how I handled it and provide advice on what I could have done better and what I might do to to proceed. I've tried to compromise by shortening the plot, shortening the cast list, and letting her keep the COI tag (even though she and I are currently the only two main contributors), but none of this has worked. I also tried to use the talk page to work at consensus by explaining why I was editing as I was, but she hasn't really reciprocated unless I revert her edit and ask her to use the talk page (I fear this might be what angered her). I'd also like someone to make sure I'm reading WP:OR, WP:NOTOR, and WP:WAF right and correct me if I'm not. Thanks! Ancemy (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that using a primary source for cast lists, synopsis, etc is fine. That is not OR. I have commented to that effect on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am 2 days old here and already in trouble :)

It seems I am engaged in an 'edit war' and have been subjected to 3RR warnings, I would like someone to assist me finding out how to resolve this constructively and amicably. Thank you.

The dispute in question can be seen at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy

Unomi (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear a bit heated and certainly at least one editor is not particularly interested in debate, merely contemptuous responses. Might I suggest referring this to WP:Wikiquette alerts Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Unomi is being treated with less than model courtesy. However, I do not think that is the root of the problem. There are several established editors opposing Unomi and the reason is clearly stated higher up the talk page - that Unomi's sources are from the political world and are not suitable reliable sources for a medical article. Unomi, you have made many arguments to your opponents but you have not addressed the claim that your sources are counter to WP:MEDRS. I note that immediately after making a post here you returned to the article and made another contentious edit. You need to slow down - there is little point asking for advice if you are not going to stop long enough to listen to it. The first thing you need to do is read the guideline indicated and digest it. If you agree that your edits are counter to it, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to try to insert material in the article. It is possible to change guidelines, but the article is not the right place to do that (try here). On the other hand, if you think you do have solid medical references, then explain on the article talk page. Likewise if you think source guidelines other than WP:MEDRS apply then you should state them and make your case on the talk page. There is possibly some debate here: Aspartame is clearly a chemical/medical article and should rely on good quality scientific sources; Aspartame controversy goes beyond the sphere of science, but the article still needs to be factual and it is wrong to blindly quote unfounded opinions from unqualified sources, even if they have been published. SpinningSpark 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you censoring Obama's entry

Why are you censoring Obama's entry? Is this the proper role for a nonprofit 501c3. It seems this type of editing is more political speech that would be more of a 501c4.

Here is a recent article on the bias you are showing.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.125.95 (talk) (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 March 2009

Might I suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:reliable sources Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified Deletions to "Gideon Koren" Page - Help Sought

I am concerned and frustrated at what has happened to the entry for Gideon Koren. I added to this entry for a living person, which read like a PR piece, a reference to the fact that the man has been censured by two professional bodies for writing anonymous hate mail.

After I was challenged about my addition, I had my content significantly altered and then deleted. Under the associated Talk page I entered a detailed account of my motives for my interest and actions (I don’t know the guy, live in a different country, have a professional interest in anonymous letters, and feel the proven and admitted unethical behaviour is pertinent to individuals considering consulting or employing Dr Koren). I made known my name, unlike most other contributors, who for all the public know could include Dr Koren or his friends.

I also asked anyone altering or deleting my copy to explain their reasons. Today, I again find the section I entered has been deleted but without any justification posted. While not a technophobe (I have created websites with FrontPage), I don’t find editing Wikipedia easy and have limited time to learn. I would appreciate help in restoring the content I added under the heading “Controversial Behaviour”. This was kindly tidied up by another contributor. PB (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It took me some time to figure out that PB is in fact User:Wendwell. Not sure how that helps your case. The last edit made by User:Wendwell was on 27 January. Since then it has been copy-edited by numerous editors, but the essence remains. I see no deletion. Pruning perhaps. Others have added citations properly formatted and I see no problem. There is copious discussion on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

my edits are being ruthlessy deleted out by a user

ALR user is purposely deleing my edits to Wiki site information on RAF Rudloe Manor Wiki page.

First user deleted my further reading references, which makes no sense. Next user deleted my information relating to letters I had received from Ministry of Defence on stated facilities having moved to a new location in section UFO conspiracies, all my information relating to UFO sightings tracked by military on Radar, information for this is available for public scrutiny at the Public Records Office at Kew Gradens London. The user ALR deleted this information.

I think user ALR is a UFO information hater hence their deletion of material concerning this subject matter.

I think they are absuing the Wiki facility badly by taking away relevant factual information for their own personal reasons, and not in line with allowing adding of factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseekers666 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You should discuss these changes with the user in question on the article's talk page. Algebraist 14:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:Fringe, WP:OR and probably WP:COI

ALR (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note the links in the welcome message from User:ALR on your talk page. Material you add to a page needs to be verifiable and to have reliable sources. So, for example, quoting correspondence received isn't good practice because it's not verifiable by other editors. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

edit <> view

User_talk:Erik9bot#Baronets_2. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I might understand your request. You're looking for the <nowiki> tag. Wrap everything in your message with <nowiki>...</nowiki>. If this does not make sense, let me know. If you want me to make the change for you (so you can see what I mean), let me know. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kittybrewster ☎ 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Politically motivated attacks on Obama's web page.

It has lately become some sort of political debate about what to include on the American President's wikipedia article. Most of the controversy seems to center around some sort of citizenship claim. Now, I don't know much about politics, or whether this is some sort of last-ditch republican effort or if it is a real concern. I don't know much about politics, or really care much about politics. What I care about are facts. And if some sort of pro-obama club is stopping all mention of this dispute, that is just as much of a concern to me as some sort of anti-obama club making the dispute the centerfold to the American president's Wikipedia page. Now, as much as I hate politics, I've done some fact checking, and it looks like a lot of people, either rightly or wrongly, are concerned about this. (see http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 )

Now, I don't want wikipedia to become a political battleground. If a major dispute exists, we should not blacklist it. We should show both sides of it. We need, as an objective, fact based web site, to allow properly cited posts so long as they are devoid of bias. I think perhaps we should charge a pro-obama member with writing something acknowledging this dispute... something that basically says a lot of people are concerned, and here's why they claim to be concerned, and that many people think this is a political ploy, although those who claim to be concerned say it is a legitimate concern. ... or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.140.10 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, wnd.com is not a neutral or reliable source. Further, there is a page for these contentions, at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias in article on Obama - (which there is not in article on Bush) !!

You have a huge problem of bias in the article on Obama. The fact that his place of birth is an issue (hundreds of thousands have signed a petition to see the actual birth certificate which he can not produce), and he has only produced a cert that anyone can get in Hawaii. His family says he was born in Africa. Some of your "volunteers" keep deleting that info, and I'm just about to sue Wikipedia and involve Alan Dershowitz or another top lawyer in it. Get back to me on why you are allowing this. And when people tried to ask you why, you had no answer on why they kept the controversial issues that happened during Bush's presidency, but keep scrubbing O-Bomb-Us. Give me an answer and it better not be a canned email.70.172.205.97 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) And what's with the 4 tildas???????????? 70.172.205.97 (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the other posts along similar lines, a little further up the page. If you then have questions about process, please come back here. IF you'd like to discuss the contents of a page, then click on the discussion tab at the top of that page and discuss it there; that's what that discussion tab is for. The tildes are simply a shorthand to create a signature that allows the software we use to show who posted (or your IP address, if you're not using an account) and when. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New Editor Asking For Help

Hi, I am a relatively new editor here at Wikipedia. I have been having some issues with User:Tennis expert, though I will attempt to keep my complaints strictly related to the article at hand. I have attempted to approach changes I believe work with what I have learned of WP:BRD, WP:Consensus and "Good Faith". This user has 'followed' my edits and has routinely 'blind reverted' them. I started an article (Williams Sisters rivalry) which he (seemingly in bad faith) nominated for deletion without discussion. The article was, except for the aforementioned user, unanimously voted to 'Keep'. He has now repeatedly edited and changed the Williams Sisters rivalry article, in the process (to me at least) ignoring any notion of 'Consensus' or WP:BRD. I would ask for a review of the article I have linked to, or at least a brief message on my talk page explaining how I can proceed with a user who I believe to be working not in good faith and solely to 'punish'. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a third opinion? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have tried '3O' in the past, but the user has said 'Three doesn't make a consensus' (more or less). Being new, I just want to make sure also that I am understanding 'BRD' and how compromise works here. Alonsornunez (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps WP:RFC might be the next step, or you could ask for other interested editors at WP:TENNIS. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism#Didache_and_immersion

A sentence in this section reads 'It indicates a preference for baptizing'. The English word 'baptizing' here is ambiguous. I found four reliable sources which said that the 'baptizing' referred to here in the Didache is specifically 'immersion'. I amended the text to reflect this, and quoted the sources. Two other editors disagreed, and have refused to allow the text to be changed or to have the reliable sources quoted in the article. I have met their successive requests for additional reliable sources relevant to the subject, and have now provided over a dozen. They still insist these sources should not be used, and the text should be unaltered. The discussion starts here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

unintended edit war on the Bushmaster M17S page

I have been trying to add some content to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M17S

When I first added it, Nukes4Tots removed it with a terse comment indicating it was wrong. I corrected what was wrong, then he again removed saying it was original research. I then undid his change, and added a reference link. Then, he removed it a third time, threatening to turn me in as a 3RR violator.

So far, I've undone his edit, and he's removed my edits three times now, even when there are factual references.

As the edit finally sits, I think it is both factual, and backed up by a reference. However, this person continues to blankly remove the content.

What am I doing wrong here, or how should I resolve this? My inclination is to revert his again, but I'm coming here for help instead.

Lagaman (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)