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 24 days may be automatically archived by .

Dawnspire the Prelude need help creating.

Hi,

Looking for assistance for a page I wish to create pertaining to an old PC game I used to play. I have created a rough, currently residing within my contribution page. I have written the main body of the text and tried to include as much information and relevant links as I could. Any help would be great. Thanks Persus (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to your draft article. You can request feeback at requests for feedback. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean User:Persus/Dawnspire. Why don't you check out WP:Good Articles on computer games such as those listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Everyday_life under video games to see what you should be aiming at. I would suggest you need to write in an encyclopaedic style, use better referencing and follow the Manual of Style. Read up on policies and guidelines using the links that have been oplaced on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

regular editors at FoxNews are ignoring past consensus (FAQ) and outside editors

Stuck

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small group of regular editors at the article for Fox News Channel seem dedicated to keeping the lede free of criticism and controversy. As it stands now the lead inadequately summarizes notable controversies and criticism. From the third paragraph:

~~Many~~Some observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Fox News Channel denies any bias in its news reporting and maintains that its political commentary and news reporting operate independently of each other. ^{[4] [5] [6]}

(Additional sources to add/replace: Report on American Journalism and conservative Jonah Goldberg writing for the LA times).

Past consensus is summarized in the talkpage FAQ:
-- per WP:Lead - Appropriate to overview the controversies / allegations of bias.
-- in re "Many observers" - Critics are sufficiently numerous that elevating a single critic or source gives it undue weight and is in compliance with the accepted exceptions to WP:weasel.
-- The lead should only briefly summarize the notable controversies. (See the FAQ for more info, in particular on alleged bias and related archives.)

Attempt to discuss on talkpage - several other regular editors there agree with me, but they are drowned out by the vocal pro-FNC editors who seem to ignore or dismiss past consensus. One (User:Arzel) says the lead is the result of past compromise. Yet I contend that it does not reflect the FAQ points. Based on text that was already in the Criticism and controversies section, I made the following change (shown in bold) [7]:

Many observers have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions at the expense of neutrality.

(And it could still be improved with a summary of other criticism from the Obama administration, Bush talking points, poor fact-checking and mixing commentary with reporting.) But it was quickly reverted by Arzel. [8]

Attempt to resolve on WP:POV/N where three outside editors agreed that the lede should better reflect Fox News bias and controversy. (In the meantime, another editor changed the wording from "Many observers" to "Some observers" [9] again despite the FAQ quoted above (also the body text was changed recently in an unrelated edit [10]) With the additional support from other editors at the talkpage and at POV/N, I thought it would be appropriate make the first change again. [11] But Arzel again reverted the change [12] and made what seems like a contentious remark on the talkpage, "Let them come here and discuss it." Should I take this to AN/I or arbitration? I know it boils down to a content dispute but the editors in question are not making any concessions at all. -PrBeacon (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider changing "some observers" to simply "critics". "Some" can be vague and as pointed out listing who would give undue weight to certain individuals. Some sort of mention is appropriate. The conservative slant is well known and reported. The denial line clearly says that Fox is attempting to keep it to their commentary and not news. They might fail at it sometimes but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PrBeacon, if you are going to attack me on these pages I would prefer if you let me know about it. Arzel (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the personal attack? Npa: "..referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." -PrBeacon (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the notion of common courtesy, I will extend that to you when you stop assuming bad faith. Dismissive and patronizing replies don't help any discussion intended to further the collaborative project. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrinkOrDie

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same text at Federation Against Software Theft and decided to remove both, citing WP:LIBEL and Defamation. I'd still like to know what the policy is, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry John, I was unable to find anything out either, though I did look. Perhaps inquire at wp:Village pump (policy)? --Diannaa ^TALK 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. In the mean time I'll just keep both pages on my watchlist. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin mobbing - help needed!

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some assistance with a Wiki-admin, User:JzG, who is obviously out to get both me and my articles, even though I haven't done anything to the guy. First he blocked me indefinately on completely made-up claims of me being a sock puppet (without ANY evidence) by User Jaes (see my userpage), and that same day he also speedily deleted one of my articles, 1541 Ultimate on claims of advertising -- even though it had undergone a previous deletion discussion and had been online for 2 years. Now I got the article restored after a 5:0 vote on undeleting it, I even removed the passage that could be interpreted as advertising (even though it only was the truth), and right away, he adds it for deletion - again! It is fairly obvious he is pissed off about me being able to reverse both his blocks and deletions, and I fear he will continue to abuse his admin powers. Looking around on his userpage it seems I'm not the only victim of this guy. Oh, btw: He refuses to answer to emails, talking to him was the very first thing I tried! -- DeeKay64 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked, obviuosly. If you wish to complain about such actions try WP:Administrators' noticeboard. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attenda

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I need some assistance in an article I was writing following post research for my dissertation. I entered an article with regards to a company called Attenda, which I came across during the time I researched into cloud virtualisation and its impact on the environment. I believe someone had tried to submit an article before me and it had been deleted. I also wrote a small excerpt and mine was deleted as well. I am somewhat confused as I believe other cloud vendors are on wikipedia and I think my article, although small, was neutral. I felt it had a place on wikipedia and shouldnt have been deleted. I was directed by the admins to submit a sub-page perhaps and I have no idea how to do this. Any help would be great as to how I can get started.

Thanks Kernowgal10 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you need is at Starting an article. If you use the Article wizard to create your article, there is an option to create the sub-page that the administrator suggested. Good luck! --Diannaa ^TALK 05:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swann v. Board of Education

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire last section of this article is political commentary with little fact in support. For example, it makes the statement of wishful thinking "Twenty years ago, Charlotte was a success in school integration; other successful schools included Marie G. Davis Middle School and West Charlotte High School." with no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.23.29 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is poorly sourced and I have added a {{refimprove}} template to the article. Thank you for pointing this out; hopefully someone will be able to improve the article soon.--Diannaa ^TALK 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Henney

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mageclansoftheeast is removing what seems to be referenced material and free images without using the talk page. 200.123.147.57 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not repeated behaviour of removal, and anyway in an earlier removal the editor did provide a relevant edit summary: "Image is not about the actor but rather an image of the product Cyon phones".

The images "free usage" is contested see [[13]], and the uploader is blocked as a sockpuppet.

Finally, if you have a problem why not take it to the article talk yourself. I think it is not a big problem that needs outside help. Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility process

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking for some feedback on **MY** actions here. I try generally not to get into editorial disputes so I am not well skilled at these but looking at this discussion disturbed me and I reacted with this edit. I thought about putting my comments on the user's talk page but there is more than one user in the mix and the "ownership by misconception" issue needs to be viewed by both sides of the table for clarity. I would welcome learning if there is a better way I could have handled this particular issue. 66.102.198.220 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. The user's comment about waiting till 2011 seems to be quoting information they thought they saw on the pages of WP:WikiProject Star Trek and another user feels that information is incorrect; the changes have been agreed upon but no one has actually done them yet. But it is not a lack of effort per se that keeps things from getting done on the encyclopedia. It is more the sheer monumental size of the task. Someone recently said that there are 3,329,067 articles on Wikipedia and 3,329,067 of them need improving. Editors are all volunteers who do the work as a hobby. As such, they will tend to gravitate towards the tasks they find interesting or fun. So I think the phrase "lack of effort" just means that people's efforts were directed elsewhere. --Diannaa ^TALK 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page. Blood ban in UK for CFS/ME patients not CFS patients. CFS/ME is the official term used by UK Government & NHS.

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added a line to say that the UK has banned patients with a current diagnosis of CFS/ME from donating blood.

Another member 'Sciencewatcher' keeps changing the name from CFS/ME to CFS. The official term in the UK for the disease is CFS/ME, and those are the patients that have been banned.

I have provided a source for the blood ban. ^[1]UK Parliament, 10 Mar 2010. "Ann Keen: People with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), are not able to donate blood until they have fully recovered. The reasons for this are: first, blood donors need to be in good health, and people with ME/CFS often experience a range of symptoms which could be made worse by donating blood; and second, as the causes of ME/CFS are not currently fully understood, people with the condition are deferred from donating blood as a precautionary measure to protect the safety of the blood supply for patients."

I have provided a source for the official term. ^[2]'Inquiry into the status of CFS / M.E. and research into causes and treatment' 2006. pg5. "The Group feels the condition deserves a name that reflects its pathology but in view of the contentions surrounding it, it is probably wise not to be over restrictive hence we have used the term CFS/ME. We have used this term as it is the recognised term in the UK. It does not reflect the groups’ opinion on what the name should be."

I have also provided numerous source that show the UK uses the official term CFS/ME. (The MRC expert group on CFS/ME, the NICE guidelines for CFS/ME, the NHS CFS/ME clinics.)

'Sciencewatcher' believes that I am trying to push my own POV. He agues that the Parliamentary source use the term CFS or ME, but they also use ME/CFS, and at no time state which of the three is the official term. I therefore provided the Parliamentary Inquiry 2006 to show the official term is CFS/ME. He has also presented the CMO report from 2002, to say the official term is not CFS/ME, clearly this is out of date and the source I provided is from the UK Parliament 2006.

I would very much appreciate some assistance in resolving this matter. I only wish for the line about the blood ban to be accurate.

Many thanks. UYBSUYBS (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This name seems to be only prevalent in the UK. The Mayo Clinic website and the World Health Organisation use CFS. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Aymatth2 removal of edit

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an edit to the article about the Sexual Revolution.

I said that the possibility that the Aids virus was a biological weapon designed and deployed in the conflict between free love advocates and sexually repressive power structures has not yet been appropriately examined in public.

I think this is true. I do not believe that the political ramifications of the question outweigh the truth of the statement. I understand and respect the possibility that Wikipedia is unable or unwilling to state such a reality, but I do not wish to be labeled as "political"; what I said is something that I believe to be the truth.

My educational background on both the undergraduate and graduate levels supports the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.216.41 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2 used Huggle, a software tool generally used for removing vandalism. However, he explains his reasons for reverting your edit on his user page. Remember that 'The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth.' (WP:V) This disallows any claims that might represent what you believe to be true. You would need to prove '...has not yet been appropriately examined in public,' and that might be a lot more difficult than proving something that has been done. Don't take the revert personally, and take some solace in the fact that the article appears to have several unsourced claims and pieces of information. --Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Surname meanings

I'm new to the Editor assistance page, so excuse me if I'm posting this out of place. I feel that surname page should have a reliable source. I have gladly added surname meanings to certain pages. I have discussed the reliability of Ancestry.com amongst others. They feel that because Ancestry.com apparently allows users to submit entries, it shouldn't be a reliable source. Butthere are hardly many credible websites to cite. The only solution is books, but my question is....How do we cite books to where someone doesn't wonder "How do I really know that's the correct book I can find that in?" FYI, this is something that's been on my mind for awhile, and I just decided to try and see what others think. I welcome any views on this, SwisterTwister (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing books is perfectly legitimate, there is even a template for doing it. This should help: Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Books. You can also check out WP:CITE and WP:V., they should give you all you need to know. Hope this helps.--Kudpung (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{cite book}} to cite books. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the class of article, the higher the class, the more likely the sources have been checked out to verify the contents are actually present in the citation. To reach good article or especially feature article status, the sources are thoroughly vetted by experts in the topic. I also discovered there is a WikiProject Fact and Reference Check dedicated to checking and verifying sources. --Diannaa ^TALK 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, Ancestry.com is not a reliable source because anyone can add information, it is in effect a kind of wiki, so not RS. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nibiru

I keep adding a link relevent to the Nibiru/Planet X theory, which keeps getting deleted.

Please prevent the editor from removing this relevent link:

Nibiru, Niobe, Niobium, Rubidium, Rothschild, Tantalus, Stargate Universe, The Matrix, 2001 Space Odyssey

Thanks

David Senouf 82.239.102.131 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.102.131 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the Nibiru theory. "Nibiru" is a word in Akkadian that means "crossing"; it is not and has never been an acronym. Please do not add this again. Serendi ^podous 08:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is article does not put into question the etymological orign or meaning of the word nibiru, but the usage of the name 'Nibiru' in multiple sources from youtube videos to websites regarding the Nibiru theory. See Youtube entries on Nibiru. Please do not remove this again. Senouf (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this link has nothing to do with Nibiru. It's just some guy noticing that the acronym for Niobium/Rubidium is the same as the name for the object. It's like putting the Laffer curve into the article on laughter. Serendi ^podous 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you take the time to read through the entire article I quote, I suggest you refrain from judging its' content or relevance. As such, if you do remove the link again, I will ask you to be removed from wikipedia entries. Senouf (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't about anything; it's just a random list of free associations. And why is this guy so notable that he deserves a link? Who is he, exactly? Serendi ^podous 08:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My real name is David Senouf. Do you care to provide yours ? Senouf (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article. Per your note above, I suppose that allows me to judge its content and relevance. Simply put, it appears to have none with respect to the article, but instead is simply an essay composed of speculative thoughts and conspiracy/disaster theories. I'd also note that you are repeatedly restoring a link that you appear to have a direct conflict of interest with, despite its failure to meet the requirements of the external link guideline.--Ckatz^chat_spy 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article about Nibiru / Planet X collision is about a conspiracy /disaster based on false scientific pseudo-science that a twelfth planet will come close to earth in 2012 and create massive destruction, then this is indeed exactly what the article I link to is about. It argues for the dispelling of the Nibiru Hoax, whatever Nibiru's etymological origin, but validating the objective of eradicating a greater part of humanity, based on scientific technology such as Electromagnetic and Gravitational theory, in the form of the HAARP project and usage of gravitational force fields. Unless you are an astrophysicist able to contradict / invalidate Extended Heim theory, although not accepted at large as the Unification of all fields of Physics, then you are in no position to judge the relevance of this part. Even if you are an astrophysicist, you are unable to disprove Extended Heim Theory, although you may have an opinion it.

Before answering further, please tell us who you are, provide us your scientific pedigree. I have a PhD in Mathematics from UCLA in 1994, and I have written four articles in scientific journals.

Please stop hiding behind anonymity and provide us with that information before babbling any further. Senouf (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific article that you are trying to get linked, has it been published in a scientific journal? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References taken from http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/

The various scientific journals or conferences appear within each article:

Emerging Physics for Novel Field Propulsion
Gravitational Field Propulsion
Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion
Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts
HQT: Notation, Glossary and Mathematical Definitions

Most of Extended Heim Theory has yet to be accepted in mainstream academia as the Unified Field Theory of Physics, but many articles have been published and used at conference presentations. Although no Physicist will stand behind it today for fear of being ostracized, none of them can disprove it, nor will they attempt to do it. As such, whether it is yet accepted by a larger community of scientists, does not discredit it, as much as it does not provide it with mainstream endorsement. If any of the people that wish to discredit this theory are able to bring a theoretical physicist that will prove any mistakes within this theory, let them come forward. Their may not be enough details in the work available yet on EHT, however none of it can be shown to be inconsistent. Claiming that too little mathematical formalism is provided to judge the relevance of such a revolutionary theory is shortsightedness, and is in no way a refutation of a novel theory.

Senouf (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a post on a blog from someone with a conflict of interest. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia so far as I can see. I don't care if the author has a PhD or not. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog are not reliable sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance requested to help resolve a situation

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request concerns Ironholds (talk · contribs) and my (mistaken) actions at Andrew Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). While patrolling new pages and recent changes I came across a user who apparently appeared to be Andrew Dobson himself removing content that criticised him from his own article. I reverted the removal of content, twice, without really reading it, and I am aware that I was wrong. I made a mistake, and I am prepared to apologise for that.

Ironholds, from the first time he contacted me about this incident, has been accusatory, authoritarian, and I have found his messages to be offensive. He/she does not appear to appreciate that I made a mistake, and even though I have apologised for the mistake I made, he/she has continued to ask scrutinising questions over why I did what I did. In the last message that Ironholds left for me (which you can see in full at my talk page) I was being accused of "Multiple insertions of libelous material", which was blatantly not my intention.

If I have handled anything badly then I'll admit to that. I just need someone else to step in and help resolve this before it escalates. -- role^player 10:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplayer, you've made a mistake, admitted it and explained how/why you did it. I've suggested to Ironholds that the issue is now quietly dropped and all return to improving the wiki. That way, further drama can be avoided. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- role^player 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil Afterlife

I write to you because I would like to change the zombies to puppies. Director Paul W. S. Anderson, has done more harm by making movies of the classic video game resident evil, than George Lucas and Steven Spielberg redoing all their classic movies combined. It is obvious that the problem is Milla Jovovich. The director is married to Milla Jovovich and she is the main character in all four resident evil movies, but she plays a character that was never created by Capcom, the makers of resident evil, and gives her super powers. I am not talking about super powers like the Flash being super fast she can see someone who is looking at her from a camera screen and then make security man's eyes start pouring bleed which I'm no doctor but shouldn't bleed that much in the first place. That only happened at the end of the second movie. Have you seen the third one??? They start cloning Milla Jovovich and have an infinite army of super hero who can destroy a satellite that isn't even in geosynchronous orbit, but can't save an actual character who is supposed to live in the game. The director kills the biggest character of the game Leon Scott Kennedy. Leon saves The President of the United States daughter from crazy Eastern Europeans people with monsters in them. The director even stole those guys in Resident Evil 4 to put them in his new movie and a crazy African with a giant ax from Resident Evil 5. God almighty, this director has to steal the plot line from a video game and put his hot wife and fucks up the story. Then he has to steal Resident Evil 5 plot with a complete different story and ruin that. He has to make it in 3D so the any fans of the Resident Evil movie can't watch it on illegal sites without looking any worse than it already is. If you see the trailer, it looks exact copy of the matrix but she has even more powers than Neo. All I ask for is to change the word zombies to puppies so people might actually want to see it. I mean puppies. What is more perfect than puppies besides maybe a box full of kittens. This man has already ruined the Alien VS. Predator movies and luckily the makers noticed how bad he is and fired him and found someone else. If they didn't Milla, would be the one killing the Alien and Predator with a toothpick.

Please Please help me stop this director or at least allow the word puppies in the article Resident Evil Afterlife. I will take kittens if you would prefer.

1residentevilfan, please take a minute to read the warnings about vandalism that have been posted on your Talk page. Regards, --Diannaa ^TALK 04:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Content

I recently added information to the page for actress Charisma Carpenter. I simply took biographical information found at the website www.imdb.com and added it to her page to present readers with more information about her, and yet three times this content has been removed because supposedly it cannot be verified. Its pretty sad when truthful information that is easily verified keeps getting removed from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.36.166 (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, I haven't looked at what you were specifically adding, but IMDB isn't seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Since anyone can add to it and there's not much administrative control, there's no guarantee what appears there is verifiable. Dayewalker (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of IMDB is one thing and copying and pasting from them is another. It's called a copyright violation and will always be removed no matter what site it's taken from. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

User:Pete Fenelon

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an administrator block that user indefinitely? That user passed away in October 2008. /Hey Mid (contributions) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-posted this at WP:ANI as I don't think any admins are currently patrolling this board. Thanks for reporting this. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Issue .... total wiki newb here but facts are facts

Before I get to the issue of dispute ..... I would like to say I am posting here because after reading and rereading the dispute help section I continued to get lost, follow the wrong links (I guess?), and was unable to find the help I was seeking .....

My name is Dave and I am the creator, composer and copyright holder for Discordian Society. Discordian Society is a band formed in 2000, has been around for 10 years, holds an EP and 2 full length CD's under it's belt. I have posted the bands general info to "wikipedia.com -> discordianism -> discordian inspired works" dozens of times over the past 3 years only to find it missing again when I would point someone to the link. So recently I became a registered user, validated my email address, and have been posting my info sometimes up to 3 TIMES A DAY ..... and yet miraculously it seems to disappear every time.

Here is a copy of my posting .... since I own the copy rights to the name and the albums there under I know the facts below are 100% verifiable.

discordianism->discordian inspired works

Band - Discordian Society was formed in 2000 by bassist/composer David "Davz Not Here" Annarelli. Inspired by the writings of Robert Anton Wilson, Dave aspired to create music that incorporated the ideas of change, humor and weirdness put forth in books such as the Illuminatus Trilogy, Principia Discordia, etc.

Discorgraphy:

EP - Figments 2003
CD - Rise of Molecule 2005
CD - Primordial Soup 2010

I'm not the most computer savvy person but I do know when something is being deliberately removed for no legitimate reason. I can not seem to find the moderators name on the site for emailing to resolve this issue ..... anyone who knows more about getting things done on wiki, your help would receive my gratitude ..... should I just contact our lawyer ? or is there another way to resolve this ?

Dave Annarelli <redacted for poster's protection> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discordiansociety (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That aside: for a band to have an article here, it must not only show that the band exists, but also satisfy our standards of notability for bands. So far, none of the attempts to insert the band have met that requirement. If the band is notable, somebody without your obvious conflict of interest will write an article about it that passes muster. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk:World Wrestling Entertainment#Recent edit warring

Hi! My name is Screwball23. I have added material to the World Wrestling Entertainment page, and it has been deleted by editors Justa_Punk and 3Bulletproof16 repeatedly. The discussion on this has been unproductive, and the two have a personal issue with me based on a previous edit war I had with them, one where I finally got to add my material.

If you are familiar with wrestling or not, don't worry. I still would value your opinion. Please read the disputed section and see the ongoing dispute between myself and these editors. If anyone familiar with dispute resolution here on WP has the time, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about how to resolve this issue so this continued edit war can finally be settled.

Thank you!! :-) --Screwball23 talk 22:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have read through the talk page and suggest the WP:RFC would be the way to go. It's simple to file the request and it would attract interested and knowledgeable editors to comment on the discussion. Good luck. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPERATION DAWN PATROL

I was stationed on the U.S.S. Independence during a 1977 operation named by NATO 'Dawn Patrol'. The wikipedia article states that the operation took place in 1973. Were there two seperate operations under the same name?

<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.247.158 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. Message left on Talk:Operation Dawn Patrol. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the poster's e-mail address from this very public board. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

caterpillars

I have been accused of add inappropriate external links to the entry for caterpillars. The caterpillar entry on Wikipedia contains a reference to the arctic woolly bear caterpillar and I provided a link to a site with extensive scienctific information on Gynaephora groenlandica. I fail to see where providing an external link from Caterpillars to arcticCaterpillars.org is spaming or that the link is in appropriate. ArcticCaterpillars.org is a not for profit site that contains information on the behavior, life cycle, parasitoids, and environment of the arctic woolly bear caterpillar Gynaephora groenlandica, you might check the content of a site before you acuse someone of spamming. ArcticCaterpillars.org contains no advertising and offers no products for sale and unlike Wikipedia it do not solicit funding from others. -Thomas Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallenkukal (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably removed because you have a conflict of interest, since this is your own web site, judging by your user name. Sorry. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link is most likely too specific in a general article. It is, however, useful for the entry on Gynaephora groenlandica where it is already given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I removed was that added to Ellesmere Island because the Gynaephora groenlandica is not restricted to that island and articles would become overwhelmed if all wildlife was given an external link. I then removed them from the other articles because it seemed to me that it conflicted with Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #1 and #4, and Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. When I looked your site, which I did before I removed the links, I realised that there was no adverts or direct selling of anything, but at the same time there appeared to be nothing there that would "... provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 04:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for editors who can understand Bulgarian

Recently another editor created the page Andrea Teodora, about a Bulgarian singer (and, I believe model). The original article was a Copy-vio, which we fixed, but the problem is that it currently lacks references, and, as such, is up for deletion based upon WP:BLP policy. Looking around the internet, it seems to me to be fairly certain that this person meets Notability, as she has several recordings and, more importantly, has appeared on the cover of several magazines (according to her "official website," at least). The problem is that all of these magazines and the like are in what I assume is Bulgarian, so it seems nearly impossible for those currently working on the article to find and cite the relevant sources. So I'm wondering if any speakers of Bulgarian could give us a hand. On the talk page, someone has recommended searching for her by her stage name, which is "Андреа." Warning, though: Part of this author's notability seems to arise from pictures of an adult nature (i.e., one of the magazine covers she was on is a European edition of Playboy). Thus, if you are searching for information about her, a fair amount of it is going to is definitely NSFW, so please don't undertake this if that's not your thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent has done extensive work on the article and has removed the PROD tag. Bulgarian sources are not an obstacle as Google Translate can tell us what they say. I added an info box. The article looks great! Now if we only had a photo :-)) ----Diannaa ^TALK 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Images

I have uploaded a Copyrighted image with explict permission from the owner of the image in order to enhance a Wikipedia (MBF Bioscience) article. How do I make sure that the image maintains its Copyrighted integrity? I've seen other Copyrighted images used on Wikipedia, but I am unable to get my image File:Color-logo-small-TM.jpg to have the proper licensing to show below the image. How do I acquire the proper licensing on Wikipedia (I have explict permission from the owner)?

Thexman20 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The owner would have to give permission; we can't take your word for it. However: once permission is granted, I'm not sure that we can guarantee to "maintain its copyrighted integrity"; since the license is pretty broad. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the images were uploaded to commons not wikipedia. Not sure what the commons equivalent of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That logo (File:Color-logo-small-TM.jpg) is too simple to be eligible for copyright, and you have already properly tagged it as such. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Individual Editors for Assistance

I originally came to this page because of a problem I had with a more experienced editor. I decided that before I posted a "public" request, I'd try contacting another editor directly for some feedback, so I followed the instructions to do that. The first editor I contacted never responded. I later realized that the editor probably was no longer active on WP, so I tried a second editor. After over 10 days of no response, I removed my request from that editor's talk page. In the interim, although the original problem had not been resolved to my complete satisfaction, I felt I'd made some progress resolving the situation on my own, and I was willing to let it go.

Then, the second editor I contacted put back the request I had deleted from their talk page and said: "WP:EAR is the place for this. And don't edit other editor's talk pages." I responded that they had put their name on the list and I was only following instructions. I also suggested they remove their name from the list.

I initially took the approach of contacting editors directly because I thought it would be less confrontational than doing it here. Unfortunately, the whole experience has left a really bad taste in my mouth. I just wish people would be nicer. Some editors apparently don't realize the effects their electronic terseness has on newer editors. I try very hard to edit in good faith and to follow WP's many policies and instructions (not easy although I'm getting better). I'm not sure what I expect from posting these comments here except to inform the Wiki community of my experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like the board where you were drawing names from is woefully out of date. The only really recent volunteer is Kudpung, who added his name a few days ago. Sorry you had a bad experience.

A discussion has been opened on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance#Inactive?. If you or anyone monitoring this board would like to take a look at the matter and post an opinion, please do so, and we will try to get this fixed. --Diannaa ^TALK 00:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Alpha Upsilon Fraternity/Tau Lambda Upsilon Sorority(Alpha Chapter)Philippines Central Luzon State University Established 1971

How can I include our fraternity/sorority in the list of fraternities and sororities in the philippines.? Founded by Mr.Felesen Liberato Saplaco Sr.,native of Munoz Science City Nueva Ecija Philippines.This is a nonprofitable organization in Universities and Colleges as well as on the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.87 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unforunately, the way that you added Tau Lambda broke the table when it was output and I have reverted it. Tau Lambda and Upsilon Lambda should have separate entries that give each other as the related organization. These should be in alphabetical order with the remainder of the fraternities and sororities. I'll try to take the information that you have given in your edit and create proper rows in the table sometime this weekend. You can respond with any questions here, at my talk page or at the talk page for the article.Naraht (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with editing. Newby.

I would like to edit the Wikipedia article on Stamps.com to reflect criminal charges against the company.

This material should be in the Consumer Concerns section.

The company settled a class action suit against it in LA Superior (http://www.dmaclassaction.com/Active/Stamps.com/NOTICE%20OF%20CLASS%20ACTION%20SETTLEMENT-For%20Website%20.pdf). I want to add this information, reference and a link.

The well-known blogger, Seth Godin, on 25 June 2010, devoted an entire post to the company's deceptive practices and related his own experience. (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/06/a-bias-for-scamminess.html) I want to add this information, reference and a link.

I am a newby and couldn't get it to work.

I am also concerned that the company, which has provided most of the material for the page, will remove what I have added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volapuk49 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and agree it reads like an advertisement to the company. But that is something different from what you are asking about.

In principle, deletion of reliably sourced information WP:RELIABLE should be done with caution. I can tell you already that blogs are not considered reliable sources in almost all cases, so your second source (Seth Godin) would probably be deleted following Wiki policies on source reliability.

If you encounter opposition from people wanting to have a positive image of the company there are several ways to respond (in this case you might have a look at WP:COI, where we ask people not to edit topics they are closely involved with. However you should assume good faith WP:AGF, the other editors may actually agree with your edit. Arnoutf (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting image

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone revert the page File:GAME.jpg? The description matches the old picture. – GeMet [gemet|ʇǝɯǝƃ] 15:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no reason was given for replacing album cover with a screenshot from a random computer game. No articles linked to the image besides the article on the album. Arnoutf (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, "game.jpg" is a pretty non-descriptive generic filename so it is easy to see how someone could mistakenly upload another image over the orginal one. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie

I noted a mistake in the Agatha Christie page. Under the "Marriage and later life" paragraph

Wikipedia writes "Abney became Agatha's greatest inspiration for country-house life, with all the servants and grandeur which have been woven into her plots. The descriptions of the fictional Styles, Chimneys, Stoneygates and the other houses in her stories are mostly Abney in various forms."[16]

The mention of Styles as fictional in that list is completely incorrect.

1. Styles is not a fictional place. It is an actual place where she lived in Sunningdale Berkshire on Charters Road. The house still stands. I know, I grew up in Sunningdale and walked past the house every day to school.

2. It is stated that Abney was owned by her brother in law. She didn't marry Max Mallowan until 1930. Her novel "The Mysterious Affair at Styles was written in 1924 while she was still living at Styles with her first husband Archie Christie. So she could never have visited Abney before she met Max Mallowan.

3. In the proceeding paragraph wikipeida says "In late 1926, Agatha's husband Archie revealed that he was in love with another woman, Nancy Neele, and wanted a divorce. On 8 December 1926, the couple quarrelled, and Archie Christie left their house in Sunningdale, Berkshire, to spend the weekend with his mistress at Godalming, Surrey." That was Styles.

Please! Styles is a living breathing wonderful place. Can you please correct this. Take out styles from the list of fictional places in paragraph 16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.18.204 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your concern about the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. What you have said here are exactly the kind of comments that article talk pages are for. If you repost your message at Talk:Agatha Christie, I'm sure other editors who have contributed to the article will review the points in question. If you are able to find suitable sources (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE), in support of your message, there is of course nothnig to stop you being WP:BOLD and making the changes yourself.--Kudpung (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are being deleted

I posted several factual items regarding DLR Group. They were both deleted by flatlanderks. In addition, Flatlanderks in one case scrubbed plumbing issues from another site (see his/her history). Flatlander is an employee at DLR Group and is attempting to remove all critism from their wikipedia page and use it as a marketing tool.

It appears there are some other experienced Wikipedia editors working on the article regarding balance at the moment, so that should be well under control. The edits you've made regarding layoffs are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article; they were unreferenced and did not appear to meet the neutral point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

donny long wiki page

Resolved

– article is being reviewed

I HAVE EMAILED WIKI COUNTLESS TIMES FOR THE LAST WEEK AND MANY MANY ADMINS AND POSTED HERE AND ON THE TALK PAGE AND GOT NO RESPONSE!!! HOW DO I GET THIS LIBEL REMOVED FROM MY PAGE? IF YOU KEEP BANNING MY IPS I WILL MAKE A BOT TO RUN AND ROTATE IPS TILL YOU GUYS GO NUTS. I AM NOT FUCKING AROUND! AGAIN THIS IS MY PAGE AND MY EMAIL IS <redacted>

What is it with you fuck heads huuu???? you remove my email address and put <redacted> and dont fix my page or email me?

HERE IS MY EMAIL AGAIN SO MAYBE SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN CAN EMAIL ME AND FIX MY PAGE <redacted again>

Please remember that Wikipedia is 99.99% run by volunteers. Each volunteer does what he or she is best at. I know that contributers should not post email addresses, and remove them quickly. This makes it less difficult for the admins to clean them up properly afterwards - see WP:REVDEL. Other editors will be watching this page too, and will be able to respond more fully. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW someone replied after 30 posts a week later. please tell me how to just have my wiki deleted? I have a link on my home page to my wiki and had sent a lot of traffic to the page for my fans but this bullshit and time is not worth it. WIKI SUCKS! HOW DO I HAVE THE PAGE DELETED SINCE NO ONE WILL FIX IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.230.125 (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO YOU SAY NOT TO POST MY EMAIL BUT I WANT TO DO THIS ON EMAIL AND NOT IN THE PUBLIC BUT I HAVE EMAILED EVER WIKI EMAIL 30 TIMES I COULD FIND AND NO ONE DOES THERE JOB SO HOW DO I GET SOMEONE TO EMAIL ME BACK IF YOU WONT LET ME POST MY EMAIL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.230.125 (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First - don't threaten to make a bot and vandalize. Second - please create an account so that you can edit the page yourself (after reading WP:COI). Lastly, if there is something that you specifically feel is libel or a violation of our BLP policies then please enter a protected edit request with the details you think need to be changed and sources for the changes and we can make them for you. Regards. 7 10:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now user is IP hopping and vandalizing. Hope they check back here because apparently they aren't going to get the reply that I wasted time leaving for them on an earlier IP. 7 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages won't be deleted. Stop typing in capitals. Stop being abusive. If you have specific concerns about the validity of information on the page, list your specific concerns or provide reliable sources. Don't try to circumvent the system to your own ends, and don't bend the rules. Wikipedia will not give you special attention. I will prune the article of any unsourced content, but you will play by the rules. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ THE TALK PAGE OF DONNY LONG AND FIX THE ARTICLE OR DELETE IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.151.20 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant you just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donny_Long and fix the article? a week of waisting my time with wiki and i want it fixed or deleted at this point. If no one at wiki can run wiki.com then why is it here? I have posted facts and i am the owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.230.191 (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been given very clear instructions on how to edit this page by creating your own account, and you have been warned repeatedly regarding your behaviour, and several IP addresses blocked. I suggest you learn to follow wikipedia policy, as we will not listen to threats or disruption, and we will not be bullied into deleting an article against wikipedia policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is locked and can not be edited so making a account wont help I already wasted my time and tried that. I posted the facts on the talk page but no one here works for wiki i guess so no one fixes it. so now what?

The article is semi-protected (at this point I think it's safe to guess that this is due to your persistent vandalism), and may only be edited by autoconfirmed users, which are users with accounts which are a certain age and have made a certain number of constructive edits (I don't remember the numbers here but I'm sure someone else can advise). In the meantime, you may request that a specific edit be made, with justification, by leaving a request on the talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is the forth time in the last 3 or 4 years the pages was unlocked and then relocked with vandalism and libel and i have had to go through this. The last 3 times wiki replied by email but this time nothing. Last i was told by wiki in a email that the page was locked forever and this wouldn't happen again but it has. I am tired of wasting my time with this and just want it fixed or deleted.

The page is now only Wikipedia:Semiprotection#Semi-protection which means anyone who is wikipedia:autoconfirmed can edit it, although I suggest you don't edit it as the will likely cause more trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off what do you mean dont edit it? If i dont edit it how do i get the libel down? Second your wrong because i made a account and it said i had to have 10 post and a 4 day old account to edit it. Third the page is suppose to be locked anyways. So again how do i get this page fixed and the libel removed and it locked again? This is why the last 3 times a admin edited for me and locked it so why cant someone this time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.230.207 (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that work has been done on the article today. Can you look it over in its current state and see if your concerns have been addressed. If there are still things in the article that concern you can you explain which pices of information concern so those specific concerns can be addressed. Thanks. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer your question, the primary reason why this has not yet been resolved is because you have been consistently shouting, vandalising, making threats, and violating other wikipedia policies. I have yet to see any comments which have either 1) been civil, or 2) actually asked for a specific edit to be done to remove what you feel is libel. If you specifically state what the issue is, and can justify why the material is inappropriate or libellous, then it will be removed by any autoconfirmed editor. Demanding that we make changes or delete the article per policy and threatening to "drive us nuts" isn't going to get you anywhere, as I think it has become fairly clear that we're much more patient than you are and we're not going to be pushed around. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No its still all false bullshit rumors. Here I just put this up for wiki. http://donnylong.com/blog/ please read it and respond accordingly. I would rather have the page deleted if possible after all this but i am not willing to do any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.230.207 (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to change the wikipedia article to match your personal blog. "All false bullshit rumours" doesn't help us; to which statements are you specifically referring, and can you provide sources to verify that they are incorrect? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. A wiki is a type of website. This website is the English language Wikipedia.

2. Typing in all-caps is considered the online equivalent of yelling at people; not productive.

3. Calling people names seldom improves their opinion of your.

4. Your impatience does not constitute our emergency.

5. If you want something done, explain clearly and calmly exactly what you need. We have over 3 million articles here to maintain, many of which do not involve vague demands from abusive and angry people shouting impatiently at us because we expect them to act like normal civil human beings. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to help if you can explain here what specifically is wrong. I have no desire to read your blog and won't go to it. If you are not willing to explain here or on the talk page of the article what you feel is wrong with it I can't help. Sorry. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can but as i said from the start A. I dont want to do this in the public and want to do this on email. B. if you read my post and compare it to whats up there you can see it. First off there is stuff and people mentioned that have nothing to do with me or my wiki or business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.230.207 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) if you restate "I am not willing to do any more" again, then we're done here. I am amazed at how many patient, well-meaning people you've managed to piss of in less than an hour. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to do it in public here but you can post to a blog which is public. Not much difference between the two. I guess since you won't help the process I guess I can't help you. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

since your not willing to goto the horses mouths site then here it is. I have spent a week trying to calmly and nicely deal with this through email with wiki and on the talk page of donny long and here and no one replied till i started to get loud and attack the site. BIG SURPRISE! like I said I was told on email the page was locked forever after the last 3 times it was vandalized but i was lied to. http://donnylong.com/blog/wiki-and-the-bullshit/ Wiki and the bullshit June 28th, 2010 · No Comments

Wiki is a nightmare to deal with and they dont respond and fix things for shit. I have a bunch of false rumors and libel lies up on my pages and after a week of fighting with them its still not removed. I have had this happen 4 times in the past 3 years and the last 3 times through email wiki fixed it and locked the page. They promised the last time that the page was locked forever and that this wouldn’t happen again but guess what they lied.

Whats more sad about this is i have a link on many of my websites to my wiki page and drive them a lot of free traffic and for what? For them to treat me like this and make me waist my time and countless hours fighting with them. Its all because of a couple stupid xtper loser haters from message boards and blogs but you would think wiki would be better than that and remove the bullshit and libel.

This is what the page should read and all the libel and its history should be deleted and the page should be locked if someone at wiki with a brain can do this it would be much appreciated. What would be even better is if the page would just be deleted since now i hate wiki for making me waist my time doing all this bullshit.

Donny Long (born February 15, 1980 in Miami, Florida) is a former American pornographic actor and producer. He began his career as an adult actor and has worked in over 1000 DVD and internet websites movies before retiring in 2010. Here is a list of proof for you guys, of the first 419 scenes performed in less than 2 years into his career http://www.donnylongproductions.com/resume.html Long was born in Miami and moved the Florida Keys at age 18. He dropped out of high school by the ninth grade and became a head mechanic for a shop in miami making more more than his teacher. At the age of 18, Long repaired boats and had a mobile marine service for 6 years. eventually he opened a boat dealership that received good business its first year until 4 hurricanes hit the florida keys and he had to close due to lack of business. Long then entered the adult industry in 2005 working for Florida-based companies such as Bangbros. He moved to Los Angeles and worked as an actor for two years before starting his own production company and studio. He he shot over 500 scenes in one year and then built the second largest porn studio in Los Angeles. He sold his studio to porn.com which currently owns and runs it in Chatsworth Ca. He had an infamous blowup on his set with Chasey Lain, <redacted>

In 2008, he started a portal for people in the adult industry to network and find jobs. Long used his many contacts in the business and mixed them with the public on his site. New talent gets work everyday connecting with real and famous directors such as bobby manila, Shilar from vivid, Wiked Pictures and about every porn internet and DVD company you can think of. The site has 23000 pages indexed in google and has become a well known site of the adult industry even putting many agencies out of business Long now is retired and runs his many websites.

As I have previously stated, we are not going to use your blog to "fix" the wikipedia article. Tells us what your specific concerns are and we will see if they are justified and update the article if appropriate. If you will not tell us your specific concerns, there is nothing we can or will do. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply anything that is mentioned in the current article that references some blog post or message board that is false that is not in my version above. ALSO like i asked 50 times in the last week on email and on this site can someone contact me through email to resolve this? or through the contact us page on my site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.230.207 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few will solve this via email. The text you are suggesting is unacceptable, esp. since it contains libel against another person, the exact stuff you seem to be complaining about. Apart from that, everyone has by now understood what you're trying to say. Do you have anything to add? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry the article as you written it will never get posted. You say you are concerned about libelous information about yourself. Your post above has libelous information about aother people. I removed one sentence above because of concerns. Once again please explain your concerns about specific sentences so they can be addressed. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of superficial changes to the article and User:Off2riorob appears to be making a major overhaul; it seems that one way or another the article is going to be brought up to standard and checked that it meets policy, and since that's the only real issue we should be concerned with here, I would suggest closing this discussion and ignoring any further disruption caused by the complaining user unless they are willing to politely discuss specific concerns with the article's content. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not resolved and there is still false libel on my page and i am documenting all of this including every time you delete my response and not reply. I will not stop like i said until this wiki page is fixed and the libel is removed! Anyone else want to fix my wiki or delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.145.118 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What specific false information is still in the article? As a side note your response this time shouldn't get removed since you didn't call anyone any names. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to check a dictionary and look up "libel". I fail to see anything that would meet the definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that was just put up on the page again today. What is going to take for this libel to stop? Yesterday you had actually fixed it from the info i provided. I see its up for deletion which is good but if it gets deleted cant someone just put it up or a different one again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.230.168 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:BIOSELF. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone again please removed all the libel off my page!

Useless versions of Ktrass.png in Commons displaying just ugly

I'd tried numerous times to establish a version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ktrass.png which displays as I want it as the current one. However, it failed in the way that once it had become the current version it looked as ugly as before. I.e. when I tried to make the version 09:15, 28 June 2010 (299×183) the current one, it became a differrent image though with the same dimension. I would be very pleased if this problem can be sorted out. In fact, no other versio but the one from 09:15, 28 June 2010 (299×183) is required. Warbe (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a question to be asked on Commons at {http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk}. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous and questionable information continuously added to Cambridge High School (Jordan)

Resolved

– Article speedily deleted as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Cambridge High School (Jordan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anonymous editor continues to post libelous and questionable information concerning Cambridge High School (Jordan) and its staff. A source is cited, but it appears to be self-created and contains no valid data to back up the claims. A request for more clarification/details on the talk page has been ignored. The anonymous user continues to revert the page despite several attempts by users to purge the information. - Cybjorg (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also now watching the article, but drop me a line (or pop over to WP:RFPP) if it continues and we'll get the page semi-protected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article text is copied from the school's website, back to very early versions. Versions earlier than that were copied from elsewhere. I've speedied the article under G12. Shimeru 20:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with Peabody, Kansas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please help me! I am trying my hardest to upate "Peabody, Kansas" for my SMALL home town, but people are doing GROSS undo's to me. Instead of removing whatever offending small thing, they just remove everything, including the valid information that I added. Now I FINALLY understand why some people in blogs complain about wasting their time editing Wikipedia and having others undo it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmeirow (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing the edits before you do them on the talk page - or talk to whoever is reverting, they may be able to help you - they are not just reverting for no reason. As for the "gross" undos - that's the software, one "bad" edit (I'm not saying if they are bad or not), and we have to go back to the last good editor. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth locking the page below as it is being used to try to forward the individual's own gains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Hashemi_Rafsanjani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.34.143 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been appropriately tagged for cleanup. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with image licensing/copyright, please!

This is a repost of a message that was placed on my talk page by User:Mmschettler (talk) about a month ago; since I was/am wikibreaking, I didn't get to it until now,unfortunately. I don't know whether this user has found the answer to their question since then. If someone who knows copyright rules can stop by their talk page and see if they still need help, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! User:CordeliaNaismith 04:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
"Hi, thank you for noticing my trouble with image licensing. I am working to create a page for a well-respected, recently-deceased illustrator. Her daughter has provided me with some images to use on her page, but I am not sure how to go about properly tagging and uploading them. Can you please help me figure out the process? Thanks! Mmschettler (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk • contribs)

[1] ttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100310/text/100310w0012.htm#10031086001767

[2] ttp://www.erythos.com/gibsonenquiry/Report.html

[1]

[2]