Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Request to post a wikipedia content in my website

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I created a new website. This is the link. http://www.classicaloceanliner.webs.com I made a new page and copied and pasted a wikipedia article to that page. here is the link to that page. http://classicaloceanliner.webs.com/titanic.htm At the bottom I put the link of the article and i thanked your website. Is it alright to do it again? I will add the link and thanks at the bottom.

Please email me a reply to <e-mail redacted>

-Akanksha Perera- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.97.168 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't even have to tank us (though it's appreciated, and you're welcome). Wikipedia's content is free; just say it's from here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you follow the guidance at WP:REUSE, all will be well. I have redacted your e-mail address from your post above - we cannot provide replies by e-mail. Also this is a highly visible site and leaving your e-mail address here is inviting spambots to bombard you. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links to Russian Airplay Chart

Russian Airplay Chart was deleted. Could someone please go through Special:WhatLinksHere/Russian_Airplay_Chart and remove all the references to that chart in those articles? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could Twinkle's unlink backlinks feature do that? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I had never used that, but I think it is now done. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That removed the links. The request was to remove the references. If the links are removed without removing the references, how can anyone find the references to remove them? I'm restoring the links for now.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh! These are not references in the sense of citations. Ten pound was obviously referring to wiki-links, which need to be removed so that people don't keep trying to recreate the article Russian Airplay Chart (as has already happened) !!!!! It is up to individual editors to determine whether the chart is a good reference for their artciles, but as the Russian Airplay Chart article has been deleted twice, it is a good idea to remove red-links. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since TenPoundHammer also listed the chart on WP:BADCHARTS (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28record_charts%29&diff=381617767&oldid=378455142), the intent was to remove all references to the chart. Removing wikilinks to a bad chart just makes it more difficult to remove the references. I have gone through your edits and completed the job (about 70 articles), and only reverted about four of your edits to keep the wikilink intact so that someone can finish those four.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

^Comment: Perhaps it would have been better if User:TenPoundHammer had sorted this out themselves. This page is for editors who are requesting help with editing, not a dumping ground for cleanup requests that others can't be bothered to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hell (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Xero is making a number of edits that appear to be made in good faith but made in violation of WP:OR and WP:Manual of style (writing about fiction). I haven't yet checked his new citations, although his earlier ones do not make the points that he was claiming that they did. He makes claims stating that issues he apparently has not read show things that they do not show, even when informmed. I asked him to show me scans of the pages where these things occurred, but knowing that he could not, he refused, but he keeps reverting my correct statements. First he asserted that The Demon (vol. 1) #1 shows Lucifer, Hell, and the Silver City, when none are mentioned. The only time Hell appears in that series is in a dream sequence in the 14th issue. He insists that it appears by implication and credits Kirby erroneously with their initial presentation in the DC Universe, which is why I bring up OR and in-universe, but he keeps changing them. Etrigan was much later established as being from Hell, but comic books have a long history, particularly in the 1970s, when the character was introduced of showing characters they call demons that are explictly not from Hell, even if they have claimed to be at one time or another.

He then conflated my mentions of the appearances of Lucifer in earlier DC Comics, claiming that he appeared in a dream sequence in DC Special Series #8. This is a clearer case of vandalism, conflating what I wrote about that issue with what I wrote about Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen #65, which did indeed show Lucifer in a dream sequence.

I have asked him to stop this, but he keeps threatening me with the WP:3RR. It is clear that he has not read the issues in question or he would not be insisting on his false assertions.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert on comics. You are discussing on teh article talk page which is good. Perhaps you should ask for comments from members of the comics project? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Cross posting a similar comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics #Hell (DC Comics) )

As a member of the Project in question, and having been asked for a 3rd party look, I've got real concerns about what is happening with this article. Mainly, as far as Wikipedia practices go, that the use of the talk page seems more lip service in this case. Bluntly, the content dispute should be hashed out on the talk page without the involved editors continuing to edit the content. That may be a bitter pill, but you don't get to "protect" your changes while they are a source of contention. - J Greb (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

request review of my article called "The current immigration (in-out) crisis of NYC"

Dear sirs: I request a review of my article called "The current immigration (in-out) crisis of NYC". It is found under the code name Jack Armstrong II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Armstrong II (talk • contribs) 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend checking out WP:YFA, which will give you some guidance for writing your first article. You might also like to pick an article on a similar subject, and use that as a template on which to build your draft. I had a brief look at the draft, but unfortunately it'll need a major clean-up before it's ready to be moved into mainspace. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the "in-out immigration" is incorrect; I believe you mean migration. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a non-neutral point of view essay based on original research and synthesis. Not at all encyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There is no substance to that "article": merely polemic and political assertions with a strong racist underpinning. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tense in character bios for reality shows

I'm wondering what tense would be best to use in character bios in reality television shows, such as The Real Housewives of Orange County. If one looked at the situation from a biographical perspective, past tense would be appropriate. But if one looked at it from a writing-about-television perspective, logic dictates that one should use present tense. Right now, the article in question uses both tenses in the character bios. I plan on rewriting the character bios so they all use the same tense, but I can't figure out whether to use past or present tense. Any help appreciated --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reality TV" is not necessarily orthogonal to fiction, so present tense should be used for plot descriptions. For events which happen outside the camera's eye past tense is appropriate as it would be for other TV shows. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute of NAMBLA info on Ginsberg page

There is a dispute on the Allen Ginsberg page which has been filling up the talkpage for (it seems like) years now. The simple version of the argument is this: Ginsberg briefly became a member of NAMBLA and said he did this as a free speech issue. But this was very brief and hardly qualifies as an important issue in his life. Anti-Ginsberg activists tend to blow it out of proportion. I (and several others) have been arguing its irrelevance for a long time; those who support its presence on the page claim that deleting NAMBLA info is whitewashing Ginsberg's life. There are very few reliable sources out there supporting the concept that NAMBLA had any importance to Ginsberg: there's a brief article in Deliberate Prose (Ginsberg's book of essays) and not much else -- very few reliable neutral sources even bring it up. Eventually, I gave up and decided to ignore it, but lately the issue has flared up again -- editors going back and forth deleting and reposting the info. I'm afraid this will never be resolved without a third party. I'm really not sure how these disputes work, but please help us settle this in a mature and reasonable way. Thank you.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC might be a path to a solution. WP:UNDUE and WP:RS would be the relevant foundations most likely. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

how can I make this article acceptable?

I am a member of the Golden Crown Literary Society (www.goldencrown.org)and I'm working on getting some of our authors on Wikipedia, but when I tried to post this (below) it was deleted because, I was told, Mikaya Heart is not important enough. But she received a GCLS award. Is there anything I can do to make the article more acceptable? Thanks.

Mikaya Heart (née Ann Brander) was born in 1952 in Scotland. In 1982 she immigrated to northern California. She is the author of several books: The Straight Woman’s Guide to Lesbianism (ISBN 978-096151294)and Lesbian Adventure Stories, Wildheart Books,1994, (ISBN 978-0961512934); When the Earth Moves: Women and Orgasm, Celestial Arts, 1998 (ISBN 978-0890878750); With the Sun in My Eyes: the true story of Char Sundust, shamanic practitioner and psychic reader, I-universe, 2008, (ISBN 978-0595512034); and My Sweet Wild Dance, Dog Ear Publishing, 2009, (ISBN 978-1608440702). The latter won a 2010 Golden Crown Literary Award (www.goldencrown.org) [www.mikayaheart.org Author site] Everseek (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Everseek, thank you for coming here to get some help. In general, in order to have an article at Wikipedia, a person must meet certain criteria to be judged notable enough for an entry. Mikaya Heart, as an author, would need to meet the criteria laid out in WP:AUTHOR. For ease of discussion, this states:

• Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

She may perhaps qualify under criteria #4, for "significant critical attention," although I must confess I don't know how significant an award from the Golden Crown Literary Society is. Has this award or any of her works been covered in any reliable third-party news outlets or sources? — e. ripley\^talk 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The baseline for articles to appear in Wikipedia is that the subject of the article has recieved "significant coverage in reliable third party sources." Providing links within the article to show that the subject meets that criteria will be required. Also the content must be presented in a neutral point of view and not as an advertisement for the authors. See also the potential conflict of interest and note that each individual editor must have their own account. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the society itself is not notable, the odds that winning an award from your society would make an author notable are pretty much nil. I suggest you work on more notable authors (such as the many winners of the Naoki Prize who currently do not have articles about them here) first, so as to get a feel for what is needed in an author article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahin Tahsin

Mahin Tahsin is a inspiring girl who grew up in Dhaka, Bangladesh. She is very talented and has a lot planned for her future. Being a little kid she performed. She started performing since she was 3yrs old in her school. Every year she has attended school concerts and is still continueong to do so. She has quite some experiece in Sports as well. In her young years she has played both basketball and handball. Mahin Tahsin also was an straight A student throughout her life. Many say she has talent and some say she is a GIFT. She plans on proceeding with life in an amazing way and hopes to become one to remember and look up to one day. Mahin Tahsin said " One day I want to make the world a better place to be in". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojum (talk • contribs) 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the question is: Does she meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia? Answer: Sorry, no she does not at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

JAY JACOBS, Talent Agent William Morris Agency

Resolved

 – article deleted Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear editor, I wrote the following biography and can send you links to verify who I am. Will that be okay? Here are my references... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jacobs_(talent_agent) http://www.classicbands.com/JayJacobsInterview.html TalentAgentAdvisor.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jay-jacobs/11/293/30 http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=97&articleId=23207

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6ht0GmBQC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Jay+Jacobs+William+Morris&source=bl&ots=r6ERWI1Spj&sig=xC32LmSXGQKoJqWFSORg6RVeizo&hl=en&ei=Dyd8TOesMo6asAOH3OCCBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Jay%20Jacobs%20William%20Morris&f=false

http://www.nationalpublicist.com/id2.html

Jay Jacobs - Born 1942, Philadelphia, Pa. Talent agent and Vice President, William Morris Agency, Inc. in New York 1961 until 1979 and 1979 - 2001 in Beverly Hills office. Represented music artists, i.e. The Beach Boys, Simon & Garfunkel, Al Jarreau, George Benson, Teddy Pendergrass, Ashford & Simpson, Melissa Manchester, Michael Feinstein, The Lettermen, The Association, Todd Rundgren, David Sanborn, Joe Sample, Jackson Browne, Van Morrison, Albert Brooks, Dory Previn, Thelma Houston, Melba Moore, The Temptations, Dionne Warwick, Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, etc. Retired after three years as VP at International Creative Management in Beverly Hills, 1991-1994.

www.talentagentadvisor.com

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Jacobs_(talent_agent)"

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP. JAY JACOBS ... <redact email addresses>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.88.187 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010

Well, the article has been tagged for deletion as an unreferenced BLP created since March 2010. It would appear that it does not satisfy the guidelines for notability and you also obviously have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is a not a trade directory, it is an encyclopaedia of notable people, events and subjects. I have redacted your email addresses as this is a highly visible site. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Article has now been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Well I would most respectfully disagree. The link to my website was ONLY included so as to offer additional PROOF that I am who I said I am. That can be easily remedied by removing the link. In actual fact, I am not interested in promoting my web business or anyone else's web site. I am only interested in having my name and profession listed on WIKIPEDIA just as so many other talent agent associates do. There is a long list of talent agents on your website and I do not see why I am being discriminated against if it is only with respect to the website. Mentioning the names of the artists I represented over my 35 years in the entertainment industry is in keeping with other like agents listed on your site. Thank you and I trust this resolves the matter ammicably and on my behalf. One might argue the point that listing the employer of any agent is promoting themselves and their employer. I am not doing that once the link to my website is removed. To reiterate, it was ONLY included to offer additional background information that was missing that you requested in order to satisfy certain administrative requirements. Moreover, with respect to "guidlines for notability", I feel justified that my career and the caliber of artists I represented exclusively fall within those guidelines, just as many, many other talent agents listed on your websit do. Kindly re address this situation at your earliest convenience. THANK YOU! Jay Jacobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konaface (talk • contribs) 05:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Tax Increment Financing graph removed

I posted a graph that I made a few months back onto the Tax Increment Financing page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_increment_financing

It had a small graph to click at the top of the front page, to go to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TIF_graph.pdf&page=1

The front page graph and link is now gone.

Now I am very experienced in this arena of Tax Increment Financing and how municipalities use it.

I would like to know why the graph was removed and who did the removing or who demanded it be removed.

I perfected that graph with help from many people including lawyers with expertise in TIF. It was 100% accurate.

Steve S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.233.117 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 August 2010

Right you added the graph with this edit[1], logged in as User:Graphman. And it was removed in this edit[2] by User:Doc Quintana. This is all evident from the edit history which you can see by clicking on history at the top of the page. You should ask about this on the artcile talk page and contact the editor who removed it directly on their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit by Doc Quintana. The best course of action is to ask Doc Quintana why they removed it. Also you can discuss it on the talk page of Tax increment financing. If you need anything else come back and ask. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete account

Please delete my account David Thunder Cummings it keeps getting hikacked with misinformation. <redact email> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundercummings (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't delete an account as such, see Wikipedia:Delete account#Deleting an account. You could change your password if it has been compromised and use the secure server to sign in, see Wikipedia:Security. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the poster may be referring to the article David Cummings (martial artist) - I cleaned it up a little and removed some vandalism. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled.

I probably should have made this post here but I didn't. I made it at the Content Noticeboard but its attracted no attention as of yet. So the jist of the issue is that artist Kelly Rowland confirmed her album to be self-titled. Now she has said she's undecided over the title. Please head over to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled. and comment what should be done next. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if you have reliable sources for the original statement and then her revision you can put that in the article. Otherwise just put it on the article talk page until something is confirmed by reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Article, Philip Lombardo

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip Lombardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Using the sir name Sclimenti makes this article inacurate. Someone is using Wikipedia to slander the sir name Sclimenti.

Jsclimenti (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about this article please report them at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Material about Sclimenti has been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sudhirneuro.org

We could use some more eyes/opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sudhirneuro.org if anyone has time to kill, thanks in advance. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Objections...

Hi,

Need your help with a certain article which is full of crap and without citations History of Kashmir. Please look at the part which talks about Hari Singh... I've written the following in the discussion forum of the article:

1)

I object to the following lines about Hari Singh

--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Maharajah Hari Singh never represented the will of his subjects, creating tension between the Hindu rulers and the Muslim population of Kashmir. Muslims in Kashmir detested him, as they were heavily taxed and had grown tired of his insensitivity to their religious concerns. The Dogra rule (the name of the municipal governments) had excluded Muslims from the civil service and the armed services. Islamic religious ceremonies were taxed. Historically, Muslims were banned from organizing politically, which would only be tolerated beginning in the 1930s. In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive.

Excuse me! How can you write such things about the former head of a state without any citation? I think and am convinced that this section has been written by an radical person with mere colloquial knowledge about the subject! I this matter needs to be escalated with immediate effect. I shall also remove that part of it! --Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2)

Why not forced conversation of Hindus? --Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I draw the attention of the Mods and Admins to the following article: Persecution of Hindus ... It's a well written article and has has citations in proper places. That passage needs to be re-established. I shall escalated this matter to the Mods immediately but not edit it yet!

--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to intervene immediately and rectify those errors! I'll scan through the entire site (whenever I've the time)to try and bring such issues to your...

Regards,... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 201

Well, you are an editor, so you could clean this article up yourself. I would suggest that you first start a discussion on the article talk page, listing in detail the faults that you have found. then invite other editors to the discussion. There are no moderators here and admins are editors with access to sysop tools to perform maintenance task and act on vandalism, etc. If you look at the article history you can see those who have been actively editing the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Publishing an Article

Dear Administrator,

I have been working on publishing an article for an assignment given to me. I am totally confused as to how to get confirmed so that I might be able to contribute this article. I know that I need to either be auto-confirmed by wikepdia or send a request to move the article into the mainspace. As of right, my article exists only as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wadhat/Enter_your_new_article_name_here and I am not sure how to either change the title or publish the article. I desperately need help and do not want to fail at this assignment. I have been searching and searching on your help pages and seem to be going in circles. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

-Will (Wadhat) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadhat (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct - in order to move the draft it must be moved and you must be autoconfirmed to be able to move articles. I can move it for you, but at the moment, it would probably be swiftly tagged for deletion as it does not sufficiently indicate, with references to reliable sources how or why the subject is notable per WP:NMUSIC. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter to Wikipedia.

Is need information in Wikiepedia about Perfect Bible - Najnowsze Pismo Święte publik in www.unibook.com in polish language [polski język]. Internet page www.bible.info.pl, www.święte.pl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.142.3 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot understand your question, but I am guessing that you want an article in Polish about a certain subject. Please request it at the Polish Wikipedia, this way. We do not provide answers by email, so to protect you from spamming I have removed your email address. Thank you. sonia♫ 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking if we want an article on [Perfect Bible. To which the reply is yes, so long as it comes with notability. SpinningSpark 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Regulate (song)" has been turned into a parody article

Regulate (song) has been turned into a joke article, featuring a long, "synopsis" of the story being told by the song and or video...basically as if a college English professor were describing a rap video about a couple of guys out to get laid. This "synopsis" has been deleted several times but is consistently replaced, and (based on reading the "discussion" page) it has a huge fan base that thinks it's hilarious..."just perfect for Wikipedia"...and must be preserved. There are also many comments to the effect that the comedy angle is appropriate because it's a rap song...anything goes in rap, and it's all about slang, so therefore it should be anything goes in the wikipedia article. And of course there are comments about disliking the page as-is or wanting to change it is racist, that it shows no respect to African-American culture, etc. I've been a proud Wikipedian for years and don't want to see people turning certain sections into parody sites. Thanks for any advice.PurpleChez (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting the whole section, which is turning the whole thing into an unproductive edit war, why don't you instead edit down the synopsis, a piece at a time, into something more acceptable. I would also suggest that the talk page discussion be kept calm: using terms lime "pathetic" and "it's all BS" is inflamatory and is unlikey to provoke a collegial discussion arriving at a consensus; more likely to get the opposition to simply dig in their heels. Keep the discussion focused on policy, and by that I don't mean just bandying around policy links - explain in detail why a specific sentence is against a specific policy line. Administrative action can be taken against those who repeatedly breach policies and guidelines, but administrators first need to be sure that the editor fully understands what they are doing and are being deliberately disruptive. First try working with the other editors. SpinningSpark 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Spinningspark is 100% technically correct; that is how WP is set up to deal with "editing disputes". However, this is very close to the Peloponnesian skeletons parable; Wikipedia is currently set up so you are expected to expend tremendous time and energy calmly and politely quoting, and explaining (in as much detail as the other party wants to force you to go into), a policy reason to remove every sentence you think doesn't belong, to people who ultimately don't care about policy because they think something is funny, who are willing to outnumber and outlast you, have access to the undo button and dynamic IP addresses, and who will probably soon start complaining about incivility if you call the synopsis "BS".

Look at the edit history of Emu War and its talk page if you want to see an example of how much time and energy can be expended on removing jokes from an article.

This state of affairs is not even really anyone's fault; in a semi-pseudo-anarchy intentionally set up so "everyone can edit" (on the assumption that the positives in this approach outweigh the negatives), there really isn't a better way to deal with people, especially a group of people, who are willing to spend more energy than you to get their way. Happens in real life too, but by it's very nature Wikipedia will always be this way.

My advice: of course it's BS, of course it's ridiculous, but unless you're really into the artists in question, just leave it alone, because it isn't worth your time and aggravation to battle with a group of Randys in Boise. You'll end up pissed off, demoralized, and your desire for quality will be rewarded with incivility templates showing up on your talk page. All over one backwater article out of 6,876,043. Your life is relatively short; make sure you're spending time fighting for things worth fighting for. Regulate (song) probably isn't it. If it is, then you're doing this right; your best hope is coming here, recruiting others to go to the talk page and tag-team revert the article, outvoting them (this is called "consensus building"), and after months of back and forth discussion, the article will eventually be semi-protected, most likely in your favor. But you won't have enjoyed the experience, and meanwhile there are thousands of similar articles out there you just haven't found yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would question the description of even "technically" correct. It is completely 100% the reponsibility of the people who want "funny" or any other content in the article to actually supply the reliable sources that support the content and claims. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All very helpful comments. I heard about this article because Facebook friends were posting links about the hilarious Wikipedia article someone had found. I love using and helping in my own small way to build Wikipedia, and I really, really hate the idea of people forwarding links to hilarious wikipedia articles.PurpleChez (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely the short and curly answer is that the spoof text is vandalism. You can remove it, people who keep adding it can be blocked by admins like Floquenbeam (if they could stop wringing their hands long enough to find the block button). Simples. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I notice that the article has both been subject to pending changes, and is currently semi-protected to prevent vandalism. That would have been a far more helpful answer than any of the ones that the OP received (other than from Active Banana - who may indeed be the one who added the semi-protection). Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Many edits in one or several sections?

I want to add many change reguests to a talk/discussion page. Do I add all my comments in one section or do I split them up in several sections?

kofod (talk)

How about one section with subsections, using level 2 and level 3 headings? – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good solution. I'm just afraid it will be very messy if each subsection gets a lot of comments? kofod (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But at least it will have some semblance of organisation. Until we get liquid threads implemented it's the best we can do. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jane Pitfield

Jane Pitfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On Jane Pitfield's Wiki, there's an article that's not quite correct. Jane Pitfield has repeatedly and clearly said that she did not support incineration - however, there is a reference to an incorrect news report that someone's using to back up an incorrect claim to the contrary.

My problem is that the report - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Pitfield#cite_note-8 - is cut and pasted. It is NOT an official news article, and it is appearing in support of a multiple re-edit that claims Pitfield supports incineration, when she does NOT.

Please help us resolve this - the person editing Jane's wiki is not only mistaken, but obviously trying to make some political gains by smearing Pitfield's image.

Markdewdney (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are suggesting that CTV News Channel (Canada) is not a reliable source. Can you provide WP:RS that demonstrate this, or that demonstrate that the artcile subject actually said something different? If so, then place them on the article talk page and start a discussion there. I see nothing to suggest that this is not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also note that there is no such object (as far as we are aware) as "Jane Pitfield's Wiki". This discussion is about the Wikipedia article about Jane Pitfield, which is not hers: (nobody owns an article in Wikipedia, least of all the subject thereof). A wiki is a website using software such as that which powers Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Query

In the article Munich (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

there is the following sentence : "Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents" . My objection against this is that this movie is not judging what happened from a single point of view, it is about making the two sides morally equivalent because they both killed people. So putting the serious word terrorists before Palestinians does not go with the whole point of view of the movie at all and makes it an opinion of the writer which violates NPOV. In the talk page myself and another wiki user agreed on that this word should be replaced by something that fits the filmmaker neutral point of view. When I made a change to this word after discussing that in the talk the coordinator (Dinkytown) use all what he had in power to change it back to he likes it to be and what reflects his point of view and that is clear in his discussion in the talk page. I am a new wiki user by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaboha (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is unlikely that any articles related to the Palestinian / Israel conflict will dever be free of bias, POV pushing, etc. That is a sad fact of life, these articles tend to attract people with strong opinions and biases. Keep talking, raise requests for comment if that seems appropriate, work to achive consensus on the talk page. It may take a long time and a lot of effort. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Our Product removed, others left up, no reason given as to why

Hi,

I recently received a note that our product, Safe Eyes, was removed from the Accountability Software page by Falcon8765 and he gave the reason that links to products and advertising are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I then visited the page and found that there are several products listed at the end of the article.

I feel that if any products are included all products should be included, and our is widely used and recommended by several accountability ministries.

Here is a link to the talk page where I outlined the basis of my disagreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Falcon8765#Hi.2C_wondering_about_why_my_product_was_singled_out

Thanks, Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.118.50 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldnt be creating or editing an article about "our product". See our conflict of interest guidelines: WP:COI Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Falcon8765 can explain to you why they reverted your edit. The usual story in these cases is that an addition to an article is noticed because the article is on the editor's watchlist. The watchlist is only triggered when a change is made to an article, so anything that was there before tends not to get noticed. It is a waste of effort complaining that other stuff exists, this is not accepted as a valid argument on Wikipedia for the simple reason that with millions of articles and tens of thousands of edits every day it is a near certainty that one will be able to find numerous examples of any particular editing sin that can be thought of. It is impossible for all of this to be fixed at once - but someone will get around to it eventually. External links to products are generally not acceptable. The main exception here is a link to the official site in an article about that product. See the external links guideline for more details. SpinningSpark 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's even easier than that: you added an external link, whereas the existing ones are to wikipedia articles. That's a world of difference! See WP:NLIST. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This. I removed the link because it was commercial, whereas the others are notable enough to have their own article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010: inclusion of candidate images

There is a dispute as to whether or not to include the photo of ballot-qualified candidate Tom Clements in the infobox for the article United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010.

Comments by the editor Toa Nidhiki05 have been argumentative, impolite, and seem to presume bad faith on the part of editors seeking inclusion of Clements in the infobox. It also appears from discussions below that some editors are presuming a 5% polling threshold for inclusion in infoboxes, when no such rule has been formally codified. So I'm requesting mediation to determine whether or not the photograph of Clements should be included in the infobox.

Editor Jerzeykydd has posited a rule in at least 5 election pages setting a 5% polling threshold for candidates to appear in the election page's info box. The rule is formulated as follows, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jerzeykydd#Infobox:

• The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. The point of the infobox is summerize the results of the article. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). I'm a veteran editor.

Toa Nidhiki05 appears to reference this rule, or some similar formulation, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina,_2010#Cowards quoted below.

• I demand consensus because you have none to change it. Consensus is that a candidate must reach 5% to be added; currently, he has not. You cannot demand me get consensus to revert consunsus-violating material; that is a fallacy. I have direct knowledge of it, because I live in it's border state, North Carolina; I'm about two and a half counties above the border, and they report S.C. news quite frequently on local news. I don't rule this page; consensus and wiki policy does. Toa Nidhiki05

When I restored the photo to the infobox, I referenced my arguments in support of inclusion on the Talk page for the article, found here [3].

Editor Toa Nidhiki05 reverted my changes without discussion, marking the edit "I have read them, and they are wrong. You can't add a candidate until he reaches 5%; also, I never credited Jersykidd for anything.)" see [4]. In doing so Toa Nidhiki05 also deleted referenced material on Democratic Party support for the Tom Clements, material which would tend to support the argument that he is a significant candidate.

The proposal of a 5% threshold has been picked up in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. These discussion are preliminary and no consensus has emerged.

I'm seeking help in mediating a resolution to the dispute of whether adopting a 5% should be avoided both generally and particularly in the case of case. My arguments for inclusion are as follows.

Generally:

• Setting a 5% polling threshold for ballot qualified candidates is arbitrary.
• A 5% polling threshold for inclusion in an infobox would be a higher threshold than the ballot qualifications of any state except Oklahoma. See Ballot Access.
• Polling agencies routinely exclude Independent and minor party candidates from polling, making the question of any polling threshold moot.
• Infoboxes for parliamentary elections in Canada the EU and elsewhere routinely contain three or more candidates without complaint. See: Canadian federal election, 2008

Specifically to Talk:United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010:

• There are only three ballot qualified candidates. There is no crowding, which is the primary objection given in the formulation of the rule.
• Rasmussen, which is the only poll we have references for, generally only includes Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates in its polling, even when Independents or other party candidates are ballot qualified.
• Rasmussen does include an option to prefer "Some Other Candidate" in its poll question, which is 8% in the poll released August 28.
• Despite the exclusion of Clements by name from the polling, the volunteered "other candidate" response is high and consistently above 5%.
• The Clements campaign has garnered the support of organizations like the Columbia AFL-CIO and several Democratic Party organizations, such as the Irmo Democratic Club (representing a large suburb of Columbia) have invited Clements to speak.
• The Clements campaign may have raised more money than the Greene campaign and is arguably better organized. [5].
• South Carolina media and the Associated Press are giving the Clements campaign significant coverage. Clements has been interviewed by The State, the Charleston Post & Courier, the Aiken Standard, the Florence Morning news, WIS, WLOS and SCETV Radio, among others. AP routinely mentions him in their stories on the race. [6],[7],[8], [9], [10]. SCETV Radio interview: [11] (opens audio).

Notwithstanding Rasmussen's refusal to include Clements in its polling, Clements' picture should appear on the Wikipedia page for this race. DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of aviation

Hi. At Talk:Timeline of aviation, a new editor has inquired about repercussions/sanctions for insults/libelous comments, amongst other queries. I'm not sure how the WP:NPA rules are applied to comments on talkpages, about non-contributors. (WP:NPA seems to be entirely focused on comments about editors). Please advise, or assist. Much thanks. (Possibly an admin/editor from WP:AVIATION would be best pulled in to this, I'll leave a note at the wikiproject page, pointing here. Admin User:Rmhermen was active at the timeline, but hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, otherwise I'd just ask hir). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA very much applies to talk pages, this is specifically stated at WP:TALK. If Peter Jakab is still alive, this is also a breach of WP:BLP. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (original emphasis). Personal attacks can, and should, be removed from talk pages. SpinningSpark 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replaced a few sentences there with {{RPA}}, and replied to the thread there, explaining my actions. Hopefully that is all correctly done. (please confirm, then mark resolved)

I just noticed there is a lot more argument at Talk:Gustave Whitehead, which I have no background expertise in, hence will stay out of altogether. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish actors

Why is Jeff Chandler not mentioned in your new listing? Harvey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.18.18 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you haven't put him in yet? SpinningSpark 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. You see something lacking, WP:SOFIXIT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I need some advice

Jan Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not taking this to ANI since it's not really an admin-issue (yet). RealNaturopath (talk · contribs) has been at it since May trying to get some information about Jan Brewer's husband into her bio. He posted once, was reverted, and now keeps posting long rant-like quotes onto the corresponding talkpage. No-one answers, it gets archived (bot), and he re-posts ("If you remove these articles every 30 days because they offend your political sensibilities, I'll just repost them."). It's getting tedious. Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume you've tried politely explaining the reason that the user's edits are being reverted? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've left the user a message; I'll take a look at the edits in question and see if I can clarify it for the user a bit more. It's often more helpful to the user if you explain why their specific edits were not constructive, rather than simply directing them to read policy pages. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually see any article edits from this user, only talk page edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RealNaturopath's very first edit was to the article. My summary of the history of this (correct me if I have got it wrong) RealNaturopath was initially reverted on the grounds that the edit was unsourced. Since then they have presented sources on the talk the page several times (I have no comment on whether or not these sources are acceptable - didn't check) but no one has entered into a dialogue. I would think that would be the first thing to do rather than come here. The second thing to do would be to let RealNaturopath know whether their suggestions are now acceptable and if not, why not. I will also alert RealNaturopath to this existence of this thread. SpinningSpark 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have done both. As I said, this isn't ANI, this isn't a "coplaint", I was seeking advice, because I am at a loss. Here's why: Maybe the claims are true, maybe they aren't, I don't know. What seems true is that the way he goes about it ("I will copy-pasting this stuff") probably won't get him very far. Most people don't have the time to read through 80+ pages of linked PDF-files. So it'll get archived again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The user's approach certainly isn't appropriate, but the best thing to do is to explain why and work with him/her to improve the article, if possible. The best advice we can give you is to get a dialog going and see if the changes the user is trying to make can be appropriately sourced are would be appropriate for the article. It is very possible that the user is making a good-faith attempt to improve the article but doesn't understand our policies; it's often more helpful to explain the issue directly rather than pointing the user to the policy pages for them to read. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's give it one more try. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jan Brewer - Are the articles from the Arizona Republic not good enough? Where else is 3rd party proof supposed to come from? The link to the Az Auditor's Report is not hundreds of pages of PDFs. It clearly shows in the first several pages that John L Brewer NMD is the Executive Director of NPBOMEX and the information regarding his activities as Executive Director is easy to find although couched in careful language due to his wife's position at the time. Steven Bennett briefly mentions the issue on his site Quackwatch.com but I thought Az Rep is a better source. From other wiki pages I have seen this is being held to a higher standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a page specifically for checking on the reliability of sources, the reliable sources noticeboard. But before going there I suggest that you discuss the issues with the other editors, it is not at all clear to me that their problem is solely the reliability of your sources. By discussion, I mean talking to them in short sentences, not posting long diatribes on the talk page, the response you are getting is too long; didn't read. Alternatively, it would appear that your initial contribution to the article was reverted for being inadequately sourced; you could try editing again with a well-sourced, neutrally toned addition and see if it sticks this time. SpinningSpark 08:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - So the Az Rep has archived the 2 articles pertaining to John Brewer getting fired etc and you have to purchase them to see the full text. Because they regard the spouse of a current gov they should be available to source directly but I don't own Az Rep so I can't do anything about it. I will go back and find page numbers from the Az Auditors Report to reference but the articles need to stand in whole. I made a suggestion based on the artcles to correct the "Early Life". Can't someone with experience read the text of the articles and help with the wording. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I did not edit the actual article - Everything has been done on the discussion page.

German Jews

Hi: Wikipedia has a website called List of German Jews. I am a Jew who was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1928, of Polish parents. I left in 1933, came to the US in 1934, and became one of the founders of the second wave of the women's movement in 1966 and thereafter. My website is at http://www.erraticimpact.com/fuentes Perhaps I could be included on this website.

My e-mail address is <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.10.209 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to make the suggestion on the article's talk page and let editors there decide whether to include you. SpinningSpark 22:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA

HI, HOW DO I GET AN E-MAIL ADRESS FOR PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA TO WRITE HIM A LETTER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy1221 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 September 2010

I would imagine that a search of the South African government web site would give you the answer you require. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute deletion of famous journalism textbook "The Media Monopoly"

Not long ago, I searched and found a wiki article for "The Media Monopoly." This is a standard textbook for many journalism classes. This book is VERY famous. It's been in print since the 80's. I found the wiki article to be very informative and helpful. I just went back to "The Media Monopoly" wiki article, and found that it was deleted. One reason listed by an editor was that it was "nonsense" and another said "talks about encounters with gay sex." these are complete lies. It appears that two right-wing people have censored wikipedia for political reasons. It is not "nonsense," as Rush Limbough would say, and it has nothing to do with gay anything. I would suggest that the person who said it was "nonsense" edited it to include something about gay sex, and had a right-wing buddy report it. This is wrong! Please review this listing.

Amazon states that this book is referenced in 19 books. It's a popular journalism text book. It's had several editions printed.

This is the link to the author of "the media monopoly," ben bagdikian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bagdikian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancin dan (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The page has been deleted twice. The first page was unfathomable nonsense, the second page had "talks about encounters with gay sex" as the entire content. I am not sure which of those you found "very informative and helpful", but neither seems to be about the book you describe. There were no previous versions. I don't know whether this book deserves an article, but I am pretty sure that this is not the article that it deserves. Are you sure you read the article on Wikipedia and not somewhere else? SpinningSpark 20:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means create an encyclopaedic article about the book, and keep an eye on it so that you can be aware when it is vandalized, which is probably what happened and it went un-noticed, degenerating into a joke. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No it didn't. There was never, at any stage, a meaningful article at that page. The person who deleted the page quite correctly deleted it as nonsense. The implications that s/he did not check properly, or worse, deliberately inserted lies into the article in order to get it deleted is untrue, unfair to the deleting admin, and a gross breach of our WP:AGF guideline. SpinningSpark 20:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wooh! Hold on! You are reading all sorts of stuff into an innocent comment. Implications are in your mind, not mine. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I? Dancin dan said "I would suggest that the person who said it was "nonsense" edited it to include something about gay sex, and had a right-wing buddy report it", a clear accusation of underhand actions against the deleting admin. You said "...when it is vandalized, which is probably what happened and it went un-noticed" which at the very least must mean that the deleting admin had not checked to see if there was a previous unvandalised version, and by the way, that I did not check either before I made the reply to the OP. That is a failure of AGF against me as well. SpinningSpark 21:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if your sensibilities were offended. That was not my intent. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that User:Dancin dan meant to post this here, but he instead created a new section on this page. Dan -- please refrain from creating entirely new sections on this same topic and instead keep it all here. Here is your post from below. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone put "gay sex" in the article, or made up that offensive material was in the article, so it was vandalized. No doubt about it. The fact that someone called the college text "nonsense" shows that they personally did not agree with the content. Did this person have a "nonsense meter" from the Bureau of Truth and Censorship? The book is used in college journalism classes. The book does not mention sex, much less gs. I'm sure the original story was fair, accurate, and not out-of-bounds. I read it. Clearly, someone added irrelevant and offensive material. This is a very important text that has been in print since the 80's. I can not believe that someone would manipulate wiki for political reasons, and/or to keep the truth from people. How would I go about making a request to undelete the original story? Dancin dan (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the place to get deletions reviewed. But you would be wasting your time (and theirs), I am telling you the truth about the content of the original article. SpinningSpark 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As SpinningSpark notes, there are a total of three edits that have been made at The Media Monopoly; one is a SubGenius-esque block of nonsense, followed by a quite correct deletion request, and the other is the aforementioned gay sex statement. Is it possible that the article was under another name? Because it wasn't at the correct name. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Dan: other than the gibberish and the sex nonsense, there has never been another article under this name, under The New Media Monopoly, or under Media Monopoly without the 'The'. There is no "original story" to undelete!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Upload

File:Algieres old quarter.jpg

Hello:

Today, Sept 6, 2010, at about 2:20 PM, I uploaded an image to the page titled Casbah about Algiers. I do not see it. Does uploading or editing a page take time?

PS Wikipedia is so convoluted, that if you or anyone else responds to me, I cannot find the responses. Perhaps in time, I shall learn where the responses are.

Adelaide Eldridge 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Adelaide Eldridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdelaideEldridge (talk • contribs)

You have not uploaded anything to Wikipeda, but you have uploaded the picture opposite to Commons. To put it in the article you need to write [[File:Algieres old quarter.jpg|thumb|insert caption here]] at the place you want the picture to appear in the article. SpinningSpark 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On finding responses again, Watchlist is your friend. SpinningSpark 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Asylum (Disturbed album)

Asylum (Disturbed album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User refuses to agree with consensus. Template:Infobox album/doc indicates that "only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified". I have found that to be August 27, 2010 for Asylum (Disturbed album) source. Jimv1983 (talk · contribs) has changed it back to August 30, because that is the date indicated by the official website and by the American Warner Music [website http://store.warnerbrosrecordsstore.com/prod.aspx?pfid=1995506&sid=F75A7685DF29493491223523ED970163]. The editor has done this 1 2 3 times in the last 50 edits on the page, and seems to have some WP:OWNing issues with the genre as well. I have talked to the editor on his talk and on his ips talk, I have requested help from the project talk page but have received help from one other editor IllaZilla. The editor has tried to get the policy changed on Template talk:Infobox album but that has been shot by three editors (including me). BOVINEBOY2008 05:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:InaMaka

I'm having trouble having a productive, civil conversation with InaMaka (talk) and I was hoping an experienced editor could weigh in. While we are all obviously going to disagree, a long string of hostile edits and unwillingness to WP:assume good faith on the part of other editors is continuing to escalate. Please see examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

Again, I don't expect that everyone will agree with me -- or even *like* me -- but I think we should all be able to expect a certain level of respect that User:InaMaka is consistently failing to provide. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out to whomever decides to assist Arbor832466 that she called one of my edits vandalism when it was not vandalism. She has done this twice. She "cries vandalism" when someone makes an edit that she does not like. I simply told her over and over again that she cannot do that. Now, she wants to get involved in each and every conflict that I have had with other editors on Wikipedia. She does not know the background of those discussions, but she wants to talk about those. She should be talking about and discussing the fact that she called one of my edits to the Kristi Noem article "vandalism" when it clearly was not vandalism. I was engaged (and I am still engaged) in a discussion about whether it is appropriate to place in the Kristi Noem article a long list of Noem's traffic violations (which have become the topic of the 2010 SD Congressional election debate) when the corresponding traffic violations of Noem's opponents chief of staff is left out. If you review that particular article you will see that Arbor832466 has not been discussing on that article's talk page, but she has been reverting my edits and then calling my edits vandalism. I told her to stop doing that AND I showed her the template that points out that she should not do that. I also pointed that I reviewed her edits to see if there is a pattern of crying vandalism exists. Now, none of the things I have just described violate any rules of Wikipedia. As I pointed out to Arbor832466, she might not like the edit that I made to Noem's article. She might not like the Wikipedia rules against crying vandalism0 but that does not give her the right to revert my edits and then go to my talk page and post a big, huge warning template there that I vandalized the Noem article because I didn't. All I did was make an edit with which she disagrees. I also have a right to review her edits. People review my edits all of the time. She might not like that fact, but it is what it is. Happy Assisting!--InaMaka (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is "coming for you," InaMaka. Of course you have the right to review edits; no one is challenging that. Things have gotten a little heated, and I was hoping some cooler heads could weigh in. Really, that's all. Also, I'm a "she" :). Arbor832466 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't coming for me. But I know how Wikipedia works. Once the mob is formed then someone is going to get it. That's just the nature of mobs. Please see: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. If you aren't putting together a mob then why are you on this particular page here. This is the town center where the crowd gathers. If you really want to discuss my edit and your edits then you should go to either the talk page of the article, Kristi Noem--that you claim I vandalized--or go to my talk page, which I KNOW you know how to find--considering all of the scary warning tags that you have placed upon it. Also, if you are truly interested in coming to a rational, sane conclusion concerning our disagreement then why are bringing up discussions that I have had with other editors. These are all discussions with which you are truly not aware of the whole set of circumstances. Also, your characterization of my comments leads me to believe that enlightenment about my edits or your edits is not really what you are looking to obtain. What can digging up my conflicts with other editors assist you in coming to a rational, sane conclusion about our conflict? My answer is nothing. Now, I am MORE than willing to go through and explain in great detail how I believe that ALL of my responses to the other editors that you named were justifiable, but why do I need to explain all of the background to you. I don't mean any disrespect but you have only made 45 edits to Wikipedia and you were not part of those discussions. Why do you want to break open previous discussions that I have had with other editors and begin these discussions again unless you have a motive that is way beyond working things out between you and me? I don't know your motivations. You may have the best of intentions, but I do know that you have not given me the benefit of the doubt--please review all of the misused scary warning templates placed on my talk page. And please review your comment that I have been judging motivations. This is simply not true. I have been commenting on edits. For example, you reverted one of my edits and then you placed on my talk page a scary warning template that I engaged in vandalism. I have criticized your actions that I just described harshly. I did not comment on your motivation. And I will point out once again that it is not appropriate to label each and every edit with which you disagree as vandalism. It is called "crying vandalism" and I have asked you stop doing it. Throwing around the word vandalism is inappropriate. That is not a commentary on your motivation; however, it is a commentary that applies to two specific edits by you--edits, not motivations. Now, you might like the fact that you should not throw the word indiscriminately, but it is inappropriate nonetheless. Have a good day! P.S. I edited the comments above to indicate that you are a “she” and not a “he” :)--InaMaka (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 New Brunswick general election

New Brunswick general election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm having trouble with an IP user on New Brunswick general election, 2010 in regards to the leader's infobox. There has been a discussion about who should be included/excluded on the talk page, and it has reached the point of an edit war. I've tried to explain through edit summaries that the user should reference the talk page, but it is not working, and it is just leading to more reverts. Not sure if this is better served on the Edit warring noticeboard or here. Please help. Bkissin (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ani_phyo

I am a part of Ani Phyo's management team. We would like to update Ani Phyo's Wikipedia page with new information as she has published another book and has new media appearances we'd like to list. Unfortunately, each time I submit the updated information to her entry, my changes are reverted back to the old ones. What am I doing wrong? I would like to have this information updated as soon as possible. Please help. AniPhyoRawFood (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ani Phyo, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Your account has been blocked as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)