Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Gun_politics_in_Australia, rewrite for accurate neutral view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
as i'm new to wiki and to have some arbitration with the finished product, i wish to request assistance in rewriting this page to present a balanced position, while working with 3 or 4 people
i think someone with writing skills and who is able to perceive australian gun politics though australian or european general gun culture would be needed,
thank you Jack v1 (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has attempted to kick-start discussion at WikiProject Firearms about this, and it also looks like there's a bit of discussion at Talk:Gun politics in Australia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor who is reverting Jack v1. I agree with him that the article has tended to have NPOV problems, but that is only because the pro-control partisans tend to be drive-by editors. The specific reverts that bothered him were because his edit removed the point of the sentence.

Jack v1 asked if the 'government position' should be regarded as the neutral ground; it is a major stakeholder and actor on one side of the politics, and NPOV is better handled via neutral and fact-based language than adopting one party's line. Happy to have all assistance in improving the article, especially if editors are willing to actually cite better sources which we need. The talk page at Gun_politics_in_Australia is active, please visit.ChrisPer (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Still hoping for editors to drop by at Gun_politics_in_Australia and help with NPOV. The editor Jack v1 who initiated this request has not been around for a little while, but I would be glad of your help. ChrisPer (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like some help in removing banner at top of my Wikipedia biography

Resolved

 – tag is appropriate --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TWIMC: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laquidara (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Charles Laquidara has a {{coi}} tag at the top of it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which would appear to be appropriate from looking at the edit history. – ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the article seems barely notable to me. But obviously COI applies. Proxy User (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

link misdirected

Resolved

 – issue for armenian wiki --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello at the bottom of the following article in armenian, the link to change/complete the article redirects to a different page! So I do not know how to contribute and complete the article, because that link is not working and redirects me to some Christian propaganda.

http://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%8E%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%B6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sndik16 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is the English Wikipedia. If there is a problem with a bad link in a template being used on the Armenian Wikipedia, it needs to be fixed by the editors of the Armenian Wikipedia. Most of the editors here in the English Wikipedia can't read Armenian so we can't resolve the problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive insertion of unreliable sources

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you guys help me out with the astrology signs' articles? There is a user that insists on inserting material with sources that violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I have already raised the issue on the reliable sources noticeboard and my position seems to be inline with consensus (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Issues with astrology "reliable sources"). The main issue is with the Libra (astrology), Scorpio (astrology) and Aquarius (astrology) articles. I have also attempted to clarify the point for the editors on the articles' talk page, to no avail. Thanks for having a look, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the next step is to try to discuss this with the other editor on their talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He has already addressed me in my talk page and made some pretty disturbing allegations. I think he has it in for me. Maybe a third party can do a better job at it at this point. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Twinzor for trying to mediate. I am reediting the trait section on these articles trying to get it to work in better coordination with WP:NPOV. I am always glad to hear other people's opinions :-) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Listing

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We were sent the below link from a customer (college) who was going to use us until they read the information listed on the link below.

This link implies we are somehow operating illegally which we are NOT. There is a minimum of two years where you must do the work and then and ONLY then can you ask for a review of The US Gov. or CHEA of your work to become recognized. I am told by The Department of Education most take 2-4 years to get that. We like a lot of others are in that window period. Your listing implies we are somehow doing illegal accreditation work, which we are not!

We set the standards for education and accreditation in this country and have for 140 years, (1870). We are a non-profit organization with NO payroll and only good works and we do not want our name tainted by a listing like yours. Please remove said listing or tell us how to remove it as we would like to do this without litagation, Thank you Dr. Brday, VP AAHEA

List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAHEA20006 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting here. Which institution are you suggesting should be removed? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the poster means List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, which contains a redlinked and uncited entry for AAHEA. Given that many of the other entries in the list have citations for why they are on the list, I think there is good reason for removing the AAHEA entry (and any other uncited entry) --TimTay (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Brday says that this list "implies we are somehow operating illegally", but it does nothing of the sort. The list accurately states the status of the AAHEA, it is a factual listing. Dr. Brday in understandably unhappy about this, but the list is factual and unbiased. Proxy User (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

correction to Info. on Domingo Tibaduiza

The Info. on myself is wrong and I want to make it right by editing the content. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtibaduiza (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of your conflict of interest please discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you think should be made. Please make sure that you have reliable sources to support your proposed edits. Hope this helps.  – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt at editing your article got reverted by user:Darius Dhlomo because the edit you made had indadvertently messed up the wikicode. I have put back in for you the information on your Summer Olympics history. I did not quite understand what you were trying to add in the infobox. As Ukexpat said above, the best way is for you to ask someone else to put the information in, either on the article talk page or here. If you were trying to add more medals, you will need to to tell us a source that confirms the information, The Pan American Sports Organization results page does not seem to work. It is a rule at Wikipedia that all facts on articles of living persons must be referenced, so we need a source before we can put it in. The same goes for personal information, it needs to be confirmed before it can be added. SpinningSpark 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

movie reviews

Hello I seek your assistance in how I can publish movie reviews please. I attempted to place External Links to a couple fo movies, yet I had a massges stating that they had been removed for some reason. Can you explain? thanks hymie8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymie8 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider reading MOS:FILM#Critical recpetion and WP:ALBUM#Review sites to understand what sort of reviews are acceptable. ^LeaveSleaves 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

commercial links

What is the ethical position of referencing an article with links that require you to sign up for a membership, with a fee, before being able to access the information? Rev107 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean. If you mean something like, using a newspaper article as a ref, but it's only available online if you pay the publisher or subscribe to some database for access, I'd just leave the weblink out and cite the newspaper as an off-line resource. As to material that's only available to subscribers... it's questionable in my opinion exactly how verifiable such information would even be. I guess it depends on what the material is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you cite a newspaper as an offline source if the source can not be verified because of registration restrictions? Maybe it's a good source, maybe not. If the only source is inaccessible and the information unavailable elsewhere, it's probably not information and should not be used. Proxy User (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We assume good faith on the part of the person providing the citation to a non-online source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Most peer-reviewed journal articles are also behind subscrition walls if you are not in an academic institution. Newspapers are acceptable offline sources because they can be checked in libraries, online or in microfilm if the worst comes to the worst.ChrisPer (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gonzales Weekly Citizen article

"Gonzales Weekly Citizen" has been flagged. I would appreciate any help on getting it improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtortorich (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the good news is that Gonzales Weekly Citizen has not been nominated for deletion, it is tagged for lack of notability. You can find the notability guidelines at WP:NOTE. We do not have specific guidelines for newspapers, but I suggest you read the guidelines for websites and books which will give you an idea of what's required. Fundamentally, you need to find reliable sources that are independant of your newspaper with significant non-trivial coverage. Involvement in notable historical events will help, as will any significant independant awards. SpinningSpark 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it to The Gonzales Weekly Citizen per naming conventions. I have also removed the present and past staff lists as I don't think they are encyclopedic. The article is not out of the woods -- it will need further references in case it is proposed for deletion or taken to an AFD discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

edits in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield

hi

sorry to bother someone with this but i feel i am getting a bit of harsh treatment

i made an edit to the plot synopsis section to try and make clear that the end scenes of the film are in fact much earlier, thus giving a time reference for the "object falling..." as being much earlier than the body of the film from the party onwards

this was edited out, and so i posted this on the discussions page :-

synopsis

Knulclunk removed this :-

(This is, however, many days before the start of the film and shows the two main characters on Coney island before they meet again at the start of the party).

his reason was "i dont think this is right"

well it is right so i have put it back

opening sequence dated "APR 27 6:41AM" (1min30secs into film) shopping before party dated "MAY 22 6:43PM" (3min58sec) party scene start dated "MAY 22 7:20PM" (5min16sec) end seq (fairground) "APR 27 6:17PM" (1hr13min14sec)

and don't edit this out again thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

for this reason i reposted the comment back into the synopsis as being correct and yet again knulclunk took it out, this time as he considers it "not needed"

i have added it again with slightly different context and am looking for a way to keep this in without someone editing the page as their personal opinion is "its not correct" when my evidence shows that it is indeed correct .

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is always difficult for uninvolved parties to decide who is right and who is wrong in a factual dispute. The solution on Wikipedia is to provide references - the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. This may sound strange if this is the first time you have heard this, but that is how it has to work here, other editors have to have a means of checking the facts that you insert. Any statement that is not referenced can be deleted by an editor if they do not think it is right. Before you put it back, the onus is on you to cite your sources. SpinningSpark 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

many thanks for your prompt reply

i understand the need for references and of verifiability, i too am a person that believes that truth oftentimes has to be evidenced as fact by reliable reference.

the main problem is that in 50 lines of text of this synopsis there are only two references, the rest of the material is un-referenced and it is unlikely that i would be able to find a reference to that one particular point.

however i do not wish to cause any problems over this small issue, it just seems strange that an editor would do that without any reference to dispute resolution, i do not know whether he read my comment on the talk page, but after finding the edit back in he did not respond to my comments with a discussion nor helpful hint. I would have perhaps accepted a comment [citation needed] and him explaining the reasons for his actions.

it would be a shame if one had to accept that editors can choose to ignore simple discussion and reasoning and can just take out someones contribution with the reason "i don't think this is true" and when they find it back in they simply remove it again

anyway i have taken up enough time and consideration on both your and my behalf on this now lol

thanks again for taking the time to reply

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. happy landings !

To SpinningSpark; your reasoning confuses me. I just got finished watching the movie myself. It is done as if it is filmed on a hight-tech video camera. As such, many of the scenes have a date stamp right on them. As such, we know that the Coney Island scenes happened well before the 'main' events of the movie. Lots42 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request assistance in edit war

I have made a number of contibutions to the BLP page "Donald Luskin". Someone with the user name "Gamaliel," who I believe is some kind of "administrator" at Wiki, keeps re-editing the page in a way that disparages the BLP subject Mr. Luskin by (a) adding emphasis to negative elements about him, (b) removing positive elements, (c) putting "fact" tags on sky-is-blue statements that make the whole page look unreliable. This is an attack on Mr. Luskin's reputation, and I have reason to believe it is politically motivated. Mr. Luskin is a high-profile conservative, and judging by the picture of Barack Obama on "Gamaliels" page, he must be a liberal. Wiki is not about politics. It is about facts. "Gamaliel" is abusing his position as an "administrator" or whatever he is by using Wiki to disparage Mr. Luskin's reputation in a manifestly unfair way.

I am not a Wiki power user -- I barely know how to use it. "Gamaliel" appears to have all the power, and he's not afraid to use it to get his way. I would like to pursue some kind of mediation in order to make him stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscod (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this user has been previously blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry. He has refused talk page discussion and has been consistently rude and insulting. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There'll be some talk page discussion here shortly, because I'm going to full-protect for a week and demand that there be discussion before any further changes are made. That's an egregious edit-war, with a total lack of willingness to discuss from one side. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a second set of eyes

I have been having issues with a user, and it came to the point I requested mediation, which he refused. I want a second opinion on how I could have handled the situation better. I honestly didn't want it to come to that level, and thought I was doing it right, but obviously I wasn't. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted entry: Socioblogging

Hello,

I and other publishers added content to a new entry entitled "socioblogging". The entry included internal and external links as well as a robust description of the concept. As it is a relatively new concept in cyber space, there are limited references in which to point to. I appreciate this article being undeleted or if there is specific further information you need, please let me know. I imagine this concept will be defined much further over time.

Thanks and best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.117.197 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the article was deleted because it was not supported by reliable sources. You are of course free to recreate the article once the concept is in wider use and can be cited from reliable sources. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to ask User:SchuminWeb, the admin who deleted the article, if they would undelete it to a user subpage so you can work on it.Strike that per Tony Fox's message below. Keep it deleted.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, as this was deleted by a proposed deletion, an editor could challenge that PROD and have the article restored to go through an AFD. I'm hesitant to do so, however, since looking at the deleted revisions, it was edited exclusively by three single-purpose accounts, and featured prominent mentions of a certain "socioblogging" site that shares a name with the article creator. Looks like it was a neologism set up to provide some promo for that site, at my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

I'm an editor on the E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) article. I frequently ask people to discuss changes and not to add unimportant/trivial info. Still some people edit sections and only cite unreliable sources. On the discussion page of the article (Talk:E=MC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)#Concerns) I created a section dealing with the problems some users obviously have with this article. Some of them responded, others kept reverting/editing without arguing or giving any reason. So I warned them/invited them to discuss it, but still no response, some of them just blanking their user talk pages. (e.g.: User_talk:JuStar#E.3DMC.C2.B3, User talk:89.214.232.135, User talk:88.203.66.194) So I tried to revert their edits and got banned (3RR) although it says here:

What is not vandalism: Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing

My question is: What can I do to make people talk about their edits or accept it when they're wrong? One administrator said I should read this: Dispute resolution, but I can't see how this should help me. Reidlos (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You should ask for outside help. If there are several uninvolved editors who have commented on a situation, it gives weight to a consensus version of an article, and users who repeatedly refuse to abide by consensus can be blocked for disruption. However, as long as it is a two-person back-and-forth, its simply an edit war, and both sides may be blocked for perpetuating it. The dispute resolution page contains several options for seeking help in stopping an edit war; you may want to try WP:3O or WP:RFC or in the worst cases WP:MEDCAB may help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lily Kempson

An article I researched, wrote, and contributed (about 2 years ago) has been deleted. Its title was "Lily Kempson". By whom? On what grounds? Why was I not notified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkbakayaro (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by Renata3 (talk · contribs) per CSD A7 (article doesn't assert notability of the subject). You can contact the deleting admin on his/her talk page and then ask for a deletion review if necessary. –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nearing edit war on Stephen Gostkowski article

An anonymous editor (from 83.31.*), a few days ago, decided to add this note to Stephen Gostkowski article immediately after the pronunciation: "however, in Polish, this pronunciation is improper." Attempts to remove this have resulted in reverts; with the claim that "this is important." Given how unusual it is for an article to state how a name "should" be pronounced, I've asked the editor to explain why such information justifies such prominent placement, to no avail; moreover, the editor has said "don't reply on my talk page." Samer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if he refuses to communicate then I guess WP:3RRN is the way to go. –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I struggle to see what your problem is. The IP editor is from Poland, this is a Polish surname and it would be pronounced with a "K" in the original language like "(pronounced "gost kov ski" in Polish) then by compromising in this way a) you add value to the article and b) you get rid of the edit war. Speaking of which I'd say you are just as guilty of 3RR as the IP editor. --TimTay (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The IP editor is not adding the actual Polish pronunciation to the article, just the phrase "however, in Polish, this pronunciation is improper" in reference to the English pronunciation. [1] Even if the original Polish pronunciation of the name were relevant to the article, which I don't think it is because the subject was born in the United States and has spent his entire career here, that's not useful information. The IP editor would arguably have been helping if they had added a sentence stating what the original pronunciation of the name was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Author Biographies

On behalf of authors of Oxford Children's Books, I'd like to start new articles containing their biographies, bibliographies and some images. However, I am not sure how to achieve this without infringing verfication or original research policies, as the information that I have is straight from the authors. How would I reference the information for these pages?

Also, I would like to link each author page to our Oxford Children's Book website, but am unsure whether this would fall under conflict of interests - please advise.

Oxford Children's Books (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that another editor has already noted on your user talk page that your username appears to be problematic, so won't get too deep into that. However, as you do work for the company in question, your creating articles and editing the ones already in place that represent authors under that impression is very much against our conflict of interest guidelines. Generally, an author who is notable enough for inclusion will have an article created by a person independent of the company. I suggest that you first consider a username change or start a new account under a new name, then consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature and offering suggestions there - I'm sure the editors participating in that project would be happy to discuss your suggested additions. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue against the username change, solely for the fact that you are advising companies to sign up as a "un-affiliated user" when they really are, still confused about policies, and editing as if they were. This makes identification of such users harder. I'm more of an advocate of "have a editor guide said company/person in determining notability, and through wikipedia policies on a few articles, lessening the learning curve, and then, they hopefully will become a beneficial contributor to the project. I endorse going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be at odds with WP:SPA which argues against single purpose accounts and clearly contrary to WP:UN. – ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not contrary to WP:UN. Company names are not forbidden, it is a problem if it is being used for promotion (url of a website for instance) but is not specifically against policy. I am with Noian, it is better to have peoples affiliations out in the open. It is quite against Wikipedias' interests to have them forced to hide them. SpinningSpark 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd debate the point, but it's moot, as another admin has blocked the account and requested a username change. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Living Person Biographical Information re Ken McCarthy

Current dispute over inclusion of material on biography of living person, Ken McCarthy. Thanks! Jettparmer (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page of the article, but can you be a little more specific on what you are requesting? SpinningSpark 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am concerned about escalation to an edit war, particularly lately. It seems like some edits are purposely attempting to exclude relevant material about BLP. I appreciate your thoughts.Jettparmer (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I too would like the perspective of editors coming to this without a personal viewpoint - I recently made a request on the BLP noticeboard. I might as well declare my interest at this point, since the matter is bound to arise at some point. My only contact with Mr McCarthy is as an attendee at several of his 'System Seminar' events over the past few years and a fairly regular listener to his podcasts of interviews with entrepreneurs and internet strategists. The impression I formed of him is of someone who is intelligent, thoughtful, level-headed and possessing a high level of personal integrity. It is easily verified that he is widely known and respected for his activities as a business educator, and somewhat well-known for his social activism and commentary. There is no perceptible public conversation characterising him as a 'conspiracy theorist', and the attempt to pin such a label on him seems to me clearly defamatory. I came across this article by accident while browsing wikipedia to see what it says about individuals that I happen to know, and started editing here in an effort to correct what seemed to me to be several clear violations of wikipedia policy directed at undermining the subject's reputation. DaveApter (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fasting

Resolved

Not a major issue, but the medical fasting has basically been turned into an infomrical for some Joel Fuhrman (apparently he's a big fasting proponent). Any attempt to clean it up is immediately reversed.

A third opinion would be most welcome! LSD (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Blatant advertisement material, other editors should consider keeping this issue open for at least 2 more days, under impression one revert by outsider will not result in the end of the issue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he put it back again... I'm really trying with the guy, but I don't think I'm getting through. :( LSD (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it out again and left a message asking him to discuss on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How should citation format be done for foreign language citations?

I'm helping work on an article on userspace for reintroduction into mainspace, and whilst there are >9 english citations, ~50% of the remaining ones are in Chinese. I'm considering changing the citation style to something like this:

• "中華文化與西方的文化交流的許多重大事件，最早發生在馬六甲，而不是在中國土地上". (Google Translate)

What exactly should the formatting style be? The manual of style doesn't really provide a clear position on this, only stating "shouldn't be used as only sources", and "needs translation".

Thanks for the help!. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Erk... I initially completely misread what you were looking for. My best suggestion would be that you should translate the quotes and maybe use a direct quote in the article instead of just referencing the site. I'm sadly not sure how to translate this though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to provide an English translation in the references section, in a standard format of some kind or other. I don't think it would hurt to provide a foreign-language reference after the English one (on the same line). Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So would that mean switching the order around in the example citation? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DAVID DOMANICH

ON THE LIST OF PEOPLE HE PRODUCED / WORKED WITH, A VERY IMPORTANT ARTIST, FREDDIE FRY IS DELETED,, DAVID DOMANICH, PRODUCED " RESONATOR" BY FREDDIE FRY HE ALSO PLAYED DRUMS, MELLOTRON,, AND DID BACKGROUND VOCALS ON THAT EXCELLENT CD , WHICH FEATURES MIKE DALY , FROM WHISKEYTOWN ONE OF RYAN ADAMS' LAST BANDS BEFORE GOING SOLO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.135.187 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm.....content dispute? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell what article this is in reference to. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has never had an article titled David Domanich, so I don't know what we are supposed to do about this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a request to create David Domanich or add his name to other articles? Hard to tell over the SHOUTING! – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's "Stranger in Moscow" and Sega's "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" ending credits theme

I'd like to have some advice on how to best incorporate the "fact" that Sonic the Hedgehog 3 featured a version of the song Stranger in Moscow two years prior to it's official release on Michael Jackson's HIStory album. This is pretty much straight forward and can be concluded with a quick search on youtube.

See Stranger in Moscow and my Edit, which got undone. I provided a source which proves the claim but it has been tagged as an unreliable source. The Sonic the Hedgehog 3 article on wikipedia mentions this fact.

PabloGS (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; a fansite is generally not considered an "exceptional source". If it's a credible claim rather than a fringe theory it seems likely that mainstream gaming and music publications would have carried it by now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sonicretro.org is a very well reputated Sonic related site on the net. If that is not reliable enough, take a look at the Sonic 3 ending credits which lists Brad Buxer, Bobby Brooks, Darryl Ross, Geoff Grace and Doug Grigsby which all also worked on HIStory. Also, a quick look at http://www.musicpowers.com/cirocco.html would reveal, that composer Cirocco was working with Michael Jackson on the Sonic soundtrack. A quick search on youtube would also reveal that the songs are technically the same just at different pace and pitch. And I believe this deserves attention and is noteworthy since Mainstream media like YouTube or AOL video cover a broad variety of subjects regarding Michael Jackson's involvement in Sonic 3. PabloGS (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't use any of that technical evidence; it's original research. As to the musicpowers source, I'm not sure. You might want to ask the people at the reliable sources noticeboard, or maybe at the fringe theories noticeboard; the people there are more experienced with these sorts of cases. I may not be a specialist, but it genuinely doesn't look like the Sonicretro website qualifies as a reliable source for this sort of claim. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the talk to the Talk:Stranger_in_Moscow page. It is more appropriate there for future reference. Thanks for the Info! PabloGS (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing‎ and Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing‎

Background

In WP:TE, editor Colonel Warden made a revert (18:36, 13 January 2009), undoing my own edit 04:21, 10 January 2009 and a new shortcut added by Inclusionist. Colonel Warden's edit summary indicated he objected to the new shortcut.

I reverted Colonel Warden's edit 19:00, 13 January 2009 , requesing that he join the discussions on the talk page.

His response was to start a new discussion 20:12, 13 January 2009 without addressing the actual discussion on the edits he was reverting here or the related discussion here.

I found his response to be a personal attack that did not actually address the merits of the information he restored, so removed the attack and left an uw-npa1 note on his talk page 20:30, 13 January 2009 .

At issue

Since then, two WP:SPA ip's have begun editing Wikipedia. Their sole edits to date are identical other than the edit summaries, and consist of restoring Colonel Warden's edits to both the article and the talk page. I've reverted these edits, and warned both ip's about our WP:NPA policy.

Request for assistance/advice

At this point, I'd like some advise on what to do if this continues. I'm going to avoid reverting, of course. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like WP:ANI is the correct place for this. – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IS there seriously tendentious editing going on at WP:Tendentious Editing. I don't know whether to rofl or cry... Surely this is WP:LAME-worthy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When "reliable sources" aren't: proof that FactCheck is lying deleted from Obama talk page

I added a section to the Barack Obama talk page that you can see here. It was quickly deleted by SHEFFIELDSTEEL; see the note here. I'd like to know which rules my comment broke, and, if it did break any rules, how to bring it into a form where it can be kept on the talk page for further discussion designed to improve the Barack Obama article.

I realize this is a very contentious issue and many people are unable to accept that FactCheck would lie. And, unfortunately, many people have been more or less trained to discount any discussion of Obama's birth certificate. However, if you review my comment with an open mind you'll see that I'm correct.

What this boils down to is the FactCheck statement that The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. However, if you review the statement from that director (PDF link at hawaii.gov, cached here) you'll see that she did not confirm where he was born. Then, take a look at the Hawaii state law that allows those born outside that state to get valid Hawaii birth certificates (link at hawaii.gov). That law - established in 1982 - means that FactCheck is making an assumption that - per Hawaii state law - might be false. That doesn't mean that Obama was born outside Hawaii. However, it does mean that those who definitively state that the HI DOH statement shows he was born in Hawaii are lying.

It's difficult to find what Wikipedia considers a "reliable source" to point that out, since many "reliable sources" other than FactCheck have been lying about this issue. See the full discussion and a list of the "reliable sources" that have lied here. LonewackoDotCom (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a review of WP:OR is all that's needed here, though WP:BLP applies as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm no expert but that explanation looks like original research (synthesis-wise) Untwirl (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the FactCheck page misstates the Hawaii release, I think one would need to evaluate the page as a whole to ascertain whether its conclusions are still viable. And even if they aren't, what reliable source is there for the (loaded) assertion, as fact, that FactCheck "lied"? Unsourced; POV; OR. JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted this request, my username (LonewackoDotCom) was blocked due to an apparent violation of naming rules; it was suggested I choose a new name, which I did. For proof it's me, see lonewacko.com/zxy4931-my-new-wikipedia-username.

As for my assertion that FactCheck is lying, I haven't yet mentioned that in December 2008 I emailed FactCheck and asked them for a correction. I later verified over the phone with Jess Henig from FactCheck that their editor, Brooks Jackson had received my email. She told me he would contact me, but he never did. So, I personally have absolutely no qualms about saying that FactCheck is lying, but Wikipedia can feel free not to go that far.

While the fact that FactCheck is clearly at the least misstating Hawaii's position and has no interest in correcting the matter doesn't necessarily negate everything else on that page, it certainly doesn't boost the credibility of what else is on that page.

And, the bottom line is that the Barack Obama article is relying on a FactCheck page that contains what any objective person would consider a false statement. Which is more important, a strict adherence to WP:OR, or keeping Wikipedia from spreading disinformation?

Please tell me exactly what I need to do to get the truth about this matter into either the Barack Obama article itself, or at least the talk page. ZXY4931 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Since you seem to be the one proposing an idea that is not supported by any reliable mainstream source on this, perhaps you should be finding source that positively confirm your interpretation of events. Merely having a source which you choose to read in a very specific way different from someone else does not mean that the people you disagree with are lying. Obama's citizenship is no more in question than any of his predecessors in the Office of President, and any claims to the contrary simply do not have any positive evidence to support them. If there were such evidence, it would be more than a statement by the Hawaii register of deeds refusing to release private medical records... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my argument. This has nothing to do with the "Hawaii register of deeds", and I never mentioned them. Further, I haven't argued whether or not Obama is a citizen; my argument is as stated above. Nor am I making an "extraordinary claim". Please read my argument thoroughly, read the links at hawaii.gov, and endeavor to understand my argument. It really isn't that difficult at all: FactCheck is misrepresenting what the state of Hawaii said. As for those "reliable mainstream sources", I already provided a list of some of those who've lied about this issue in my first posting here.

So far, it looks like all of Wikipedia's rules are stacked against my attempts to make sure that the Barack Obama entry is not relying on a "reliable source" that's spreading a false statement. And, Wikipedia is enabling them to spread that false statement.

Hopefully an editor who cares about Wikipedia's credibility will tell me what my options are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZXY4931 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is that your concerns seem to be shifting. This section, which you created, complains that an editor removed your commentary concerning "proof" that FactCheck had "lied". You had, of course, provided nothing of the kind - and what you had written was OR to boot. As the discussion has progressed, your concern has narrowed - it's no longer about FactCheck actually lying, or whether Barack Obama is a citizen (if that's not the concern then why all the fuss about this birth certificate?), or whether the FactCheck site still can reasonably be said to establish the thing it's cited for, this inaccuracy notwithstanding - but simply that Wikipedia has cited to a link with a factual error in it, and thereby is "spreading disinformation". If that is where you now in fact find yourself, I would start by figuring out what your actual point is, and then making it dispassionately and credibly on the Talk page of the article in question. You may have a bit of repair work to do in that regard - I hope you can appreciate how most editors would react with skepticism when evaluating your initial effort, which was after all a pretty obvious OR, POV and FRINGE complaint from someone with the user name "LoneWacko.com". JohnInDC (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid wasting everyone's time, please do your best to understand my argument. My argument has not "shifted". I say that FactCheck is lying based on them refusing to print a correction to a false statement. Anyone who examines the issue in an objective fashion will be able to see that they aren't telling the truth. How exactly Wikipedia wants to phrase that is part of the consensus I'm trying to reach; Wikipedia can say they're lying or simply that they aren't telling the truth or whatever.

As for the supposed "narrowing" of my argument concerning "whether Barack Obama is a citizen", please re-read what I wrote. You won't find me arguing for or against that or even mentioning whether he's a citizen or not.

As for your issue with my former domain name and username, I'm sure everyone recognizes that for a childish ad hominem.

Let me try this again: Wikipedia's entry about Barack Obama is prominently linking to (fourth footnote) and based in part on a page from FactCheck that contains a blatantly false statement. Whatever rules Wikipedia has, Wikipedia is enabling FactCheck to mislead people.

In order to improve the Barack Obama article and keep it from being used to mislead people, how do I change my original comment on the talk page into a format that's compatible with Wikipedia's rules? Surely, if Wikipedia wants to avoid helping mislead people, that must be possible, right? ZXY4931 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statements that FactCheck are your opinion only, unless you have reliable sources that have covered the similar statements. Your opinion is not enough to get the article changed. It's got to be something that has been covered in a notable, reliable outside source - a third-party reference. Unless you have that, and can prove unequivocally that there is an issue, then there's not really much that can be done. Verifiability is the key. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea references

An editor User:Inwind and I have been helping to improve North Sea. Inwind has removed some references from a section I had worked on (see diff), saying that he had moved the references to another page and a wikilink to that page was sufficient (User_talk:Inwind#North_Sea_3). I disagree and feel that those references are critical to establishing and verifying that there are potential ecological and wildlife effects from the use of wind power in the North Sea. I don't read anywhere on Wikipedia:Citing sources that references should be removed from one page if that information might be in another. That means a reader would have to know exactly which link to click (in this case Environmental effects of wind power) and have to search for that or similar information just to find the reference for material they read on the North Sea article. I believe articles should be able to stand alone in terms of verifiability. Is this correct? --Jh12 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you are looking for is Wikipedia:Summary style#References, citations and external links. Where there is a more detailed main article on a sub-topic, the section of the more general article should be a summary of the sub-article and there is no need to repeat all its references except where a specific fact in the summary needs to be supported. I have to say, you have one impressive list of references in that article - 215 currently, and that's after a swathe have just been deleted. The specific sentence you are referring to had two references, are you sure you need them both for just for a summary? Can I also offer the advice that the article is a bit too long, it takes ages to load and could do with breaking up into smaller articles. SpinningSpark 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are absolutely needed because the environmental impact (particularly for migratory birds) of wind power is extensively documented in news and reports, but it is cited nowhere else on the North Sea article. The environmental impact on wildlife ecology is summarized in only one sentence on this article and referenced with one citation for above and below the water, respectively. It says at Wikipedia:Summary_style#References.2C_citations_and_external_links that "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." It does not say there is no need to repeat any references and I also believe the sentence is on a specific point that should always be referenced per Wikipedia:Verifiability policy --Jh12 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_18#What_if_you_used_Wikipedia.3F --Jh12 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not the issue here, it is not about using other Wiki pages as a reference. SpinningSpark 00:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is the issue. Every claim of every sentence I have worked on is supposed to be verifiable to a reliable source. If it is not written in another source, I do not include the material or I add a fact tag. Simply stating that there is an "environmental impact of windturbines" requires a reference. If the statement in question is excessive information, then I have no problems with removing it. But as written, it is an insufficiently referenced sentence. The archive link I provided by User:Blueboar says "Each article should stand on its own, and things said in each article should be verifiable to sources outside of Wikipedia." --Jh12 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spinningspark, it's a case of too much info can spoil a page. Many times it is better to try and add a simple sentence, such as "The environmental impact of windturbines is discussed here (and then put a link/links to the pages) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jh12 is right, a summmary article must contain citations for all non-trivial statements, even even if they are expanded in other articles that contain relevant citations.

There are a few things wrong with ""The environmental impact of windturbines is discussed here (and then put a link/links to the pages)":

• "Each article should stand on its own, and things said in each article should be verifiable to sources outside of Wikipedia." (cited above)
• It implies that there significant of worrying environmental impacts, and that needs at least 1 citation.
• For about the same number of words the article could say, e.g. "The use of wind turbines round the North Sea has aroused ecological and wildlife concerns", which is much more informative - but requires citations. --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Berger - football player

Mitch is an old friend of mine, I played minor league baseball with him and graduated in the same class. His dad coached baseball with my father. I used to work where his mother worked. So when I went to his page and saw that it said he attended Tyler Junior College, I edited the page stating that he had graduated from Colorado University. My edit was erased. Please research it before you just dismiss it. He may have transfered from Junior College but he graduated from Colorado. Want proof - check any of his football bios. I remember his mom had a University of Colorado bumper sticker on her car. This is not very vital - I realize, but I am disappointed with how I thought this site worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.6.149 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Berger did attend Tyler Junior College as well. I'll check his page. Thanks for letting us know! Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban Request - 172.162.29.86

172.162.29.86 - This IP has been seen consistently vandalizing pages.

For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pay_It_Forward&curid=577152&oldid=264567046

They just blanked this page (which was restored by a bot). Check their contributions page for more info.

--Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They've only vandalized one page since 2007, and have been warned for that. Behavior should be watched, but if it progresses beyond a final warning, WP:AIV is the proper venue to report the IP's vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

also, contribs link: contributions —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in results for the marathon results for the Guam team at the Seoul Olympics

I was a member of the Guam team at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. I ran the marathon in a time of 3:25:32 finishing in 63rd place. Mariana Ysrael of the Guam team finished 64th in a time of 3:42.23. Other information is shown on your

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics

Can this be corrected?

Thanks,

Lourdes Klitzkie

(redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.220.35 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.

The reference (Official report) backs up what you claim so I have amended the article. --TimTay (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

I've encountered multiple problems in dealing with User:Hrafn in connection with the Chuck Missler article. I told Hrafn that if the problem persisted I would take it to WP:AN/I, but because I'm not requesting a block, that forum may be inappropriate, so I decided to try posting here.

The underlying issue is a dispute about whether Missler is notable enough for an article. That dispute, of course, is properly raised at WP:AfD, not here. My concern here is with unilateral actions by Hrafn based on his personal view of notability, and his removal of talk-page comments expressing disagreement with him. For convenience, I'll create a subsection for each issue, so that editors can comment on them separately. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn's disregard of WP:AfD

In brief: The Chuck Missler article was twice nominated for AfD, based on the nominator's assertion that Missler was nonnotable, and it twice survived (i.e., was not deleted). Hrafn, considering Missler to be nonnotable and hence disagreeing with the result that Wikipedia should have a standalone article about Missler, blanked the content and substituted a redirect to a one-line entry in a listing, and disparaged the AfD's. His position seems to be that a lone editor who considers an article subject nonnotable may act on that belief regardless of what anyone else says. This would be a very bad precedent and should be rejected.

Background: An editor who considered Missler to be nonnotable nominated the article for deletion in January 2006. The result of this first AfD was "no consensus", so the article was kept. Another editor who considered the subject nonnotable nominated it again in August 2006. The result of this second AfD was "speedy keep", with five editors responding, four of whom favored keeping the article, all four of whom affirmed Missler's notability, and one of whom added that the nomination was by a banned user.

In February 2008, Hrafn made this edit, blanking the entire content of the article and substituting a redirect to a one-line mention in List of evangelical Christians#Authors. When Hrafn was reverted a month later, he promptly re-reverted, stating in his ES, "Rvt: unexplained revert of redirect of article on non-notable topic". This month, I reinstated the article, noting in my ES, "redirecting as nn is improper when the article has survived AfD". Hrafn by this edit again removed all the content and substituted a redirect, stating "Restore redirect: per WP:ONEEVENT and per WP:AFD's EXPLICIT disavowal of control over redirects".

If an editor believes that the subject of an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the appropriate action is to list it for speedy deletion, citing an appropriate WP:CSD criterion, or to nominate it at AfD. In this instance, the article has been nominated twice. On each occasion, several Wikipedians gave their opinions that the subject was notable. On each occasion, the result was that the article was kept. Nevertheless, Hrafn has now unilaterally decided that these other Wikipedians are wrong, that Missler is nonnotable, and that Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about him. Hrafn has implemented that result without using CSD or AfD, and without using WP:DRV.

You can read the ensuing discussion between Hrafn and me at this former version of Talk:Chuck Missler. In sum, Hrafn made two major points. First, he quoted this passage from the AfD policy: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." He apparently interpreted this as meaning that substituting a redirect never requires an AfD and can always be done by a lone editor. My response is that some problems don't require deletion, but some do, and nonnotability is in the latter category. For example, if someone were to create a new page at Charles Missler and write a couple sentences of bio, the correct response would be to remove all the content and substitute a redirect to the Chuck Missler article. No one would contend that the Charles Missler article would have to be nominated at AfD. The difference is that, in that instance, Wikipedia would still have an article about the subject. Duplicate pages is an example of a problem that can be handled by a redirect, without an AfD. Nonnotability, however, is not such a problem. Nonnotability is the single most common basis for AfD. For example, by Hrafn's reasoning, this recent AfD was unnecessary, as the nominator could instead have unilaterally removed all the content at Bizz buzz and substituted a redirect to Drinking game. The same could be said of practically any current AfD. The use of AfD to resolve notability disputes can't be circumvented by twisting the redirect policy. That would be true even if the article had never been nominated, but the violation is especially clear where, as here, the article has twice survived AfD.

Hrafn's other principal argument has been to disparage the prior AfD's. He apparently feels free to ignore the first AfD because the result was "no consensus". He described the second AfD as "ludicrously superficial", a conclusion he justified by expressing his !vote-by-!vote reasons for disagreeing with the 80% of the responding editors who favored keeping the article. He also concluded that the reason for the "speedy keep" in the second AfD was that the nomination was from a banned user. My response is that, if he thinks a "no-consensus" result might now be changed, or if he wants a non-superficial discussion, he should start a third AfD, a course I specifically suggested to him. Alternatively, I also pointed out that , if he thinks either AfD was closed improperly, he could raise the matter at WP:DRV. He did neither.

Relief requested: I suggest that an uninvolved editor revert the article to this version, the one immediately before Hrafn's most recent substitution of a redirect, without prejudice to the restoration of material previously removed by Hrafn (some of which I think was properly encyclopedic), and without prejudice to Hrafn's resort to DRV or AfD in pursuit of his goal. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane's disregard of WP:AFD

Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.

— WP:AFD

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn's disruption of a talk page by suppressing another editor's comments

In brief: Hrafn has removed from the article talk page two threads in which I expressed my reasons for disagreeing with his actions. He has left behind, in their stead, only a summary of his position.

The dispute in the foregoing subsection was pursued in two threads at Talk:Chuck Missler between Hrafn and myself. By this edit, Hrafn put the second thread in an archive box, with the "reason" on the template being a statement of his position. I didn't accept this preferential presentation of his views. I corrected this bias and began a discussion on Hrafn's talk page, but Hrafn responded by removing both threads and placing them on my user talk page, again leaving only a summary of his point of view. He gave the explanation, "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article".

This is another reflection of Hrafn's unilateralist approach. He decided that my comments were mistaken, so he removed them from the page. (He also removed his own extensive comments but left in the gist of what he had argued.) In this, as in his disregard of the prior AfD's, he seems unable to deal with the concept of a good-faith disagreement. My comment was that the article should be restored to the form -- a full article instead of a redirect -- that it was in from its creation in 2005 until Hrafn's edit almost three years later. That was the form in which it survived two AfD's. Hrafn is certainly entitled to disagree, but it's preposterous to claim that expressing a preference for that form is "not relevant to improving the article".

Relief requested: I suggest that an uninvolved editor examine this edit and restore the userfied threads to the Talk:Chuck Missler page. A simple "undo" won't work because another editor, BlueMoonlet, has since engaged in a discussion with me. You could go back to this version, copy the last two threads, and paste them into Talk:Chuck Missler. A few polite words to Hrafn about the general tone of his comments might also be a good idea. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted conversations but put them in a {{hidden}} template. I wouldn't strongly object if they were taken out of the template. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that the action I just described was only on Talk:Chuck Missler. I am not touching Hrafn's talk page, per WP:Talk#User talk pages and WP:DRRC --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane's disruption of a talk page by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

In spite of first pointing JamesMLane to the box of advice at the top of WP:AFD that states "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately", and then to the more explicit passage quoted above, this editor insisted on continuing to debate the point, argumentum ad nauseam. I therefore archived (and later userfied) this thread per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" and left as a summary this explicit WP:AFD passage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting through all this

• In terms of Hrafn's redirecting the article, it was done in Feb 2008, 18 months after the previous AfD was closed. Furthermore, the previous AfD was speedy closed as a bad-faith nomination by an impersonation account/AOL proxy IP, not necessarily because the article should have been kept. While it might appropriate for Hrafn to start a 3rd AfD, he BOLDly redirected it, and this remained unopposed until just now. At this point, perhaps a discussion at WP:PM would be appropriate if he still feels a M&R is necessary.
• Regarding the archiving of comments, I think it's rather inappropriate for Hrafn to have done that himself since it was an argument in which he was involved. It's fine for him to propose it be archived and waits for someone else to come along, or waits for JML to agree to it. I think it was fine for BlueMoonlet to restore and collapse it.
• Regarding JamesMLane and WP:IDHT, I'm not sure. To me, it's pretty clearly to BOLDly redirect an article that only has a no-consensus and a "reject due to bad faith nomination" under its belt. Now that JML has opposed the redir, it should be reasonably discussed per WP:BRD. I'm not sure if that's happening, but I do consider the overall tone of this thread and the discussion at Talk:Chuck Missler to be generally assumptive of "poor faith" at this point. That is to say, you guys are focusing on each other when you should be focusing on the article.

In the end, you both need a little WP:TEA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, I've put some obvious advice on the article talk page and on JamesMLane's talk page on getting on with improving the article instead of fighting to keep an inadequate stub in place. Since it's a redirect rather than a deleted article, the previous versions are readily available to reduce re-typing, but the sorely lacking reliable sources must come first. . dave souza, talk 09:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss the issue of the topic's notability, and new sources that might establish this. I would agree that such (should it eventuate) would be a productive use of the article's talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Until somebody can move JamesMLane off the AfD issue, I will however (do my best to) stay well clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated in response to dave souza at Talk:Chuck Missler#Report of editor assistance request concerning Hrafn, I care more about clarifying our general process than about the fate of this particular article. The policy is that if an editor believes that an article topic is nonnotable, he or she is certainly welcome to begin a discussion on the talk page, but where there's disagreement about notability, the appropriate forum for resolving it is WP:AfD.

What's important is that the dispute be resolved by consensus rather than unilaterally. I suppose that, in this case, that goal could be accomplished at WP:PM, but it's certainly not a typical merger. Hrafn merged very little information into List of evangelical Christians#Authors, omitting even the titles of Missler's non-self-published works. Hrafn made explicit that his real basis was alleged nonnotability of Missler. Notability disputes are the bread and butter of WP:AfD and that's where editors expect to find them. That's also where dave souza should bring his contention that the standalone Missler article was "an inadequate stub". JamesMLane t c 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorter JamesMLane: "I want an AfD, I won't change my mind and I won't change the subject" (to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill). As nobody else seems to think you should have one, nobody else seems particularly interested in further discussing the subject of whether you should have one, and there seems to be a WP:CONSENSUS for a redirect on Talk:Chuck Missler (with JamesMLane's 'no redirect without AfD' being the lone dissent), I don't really think there's anything more to be said. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I told James at my user talk, I believe his concern is one that goes farther than this article, and may be a problem with the AfD process in general. I believe in his eyes, there should be an AfD to attempt to include more opinions from uninvolved parties, as frequently happens at AfD. However, the problem is that AfDs with a stated goal of redirection are generally frowned upon and may be speedily kept. As you aren't interested in deletion, Hrafn, you aren't going to go to AfD. But James won't AfD it either because it would likely be speedy kept as a POINTy nomination, and that would still say nothing about redirection. I think James' concern is warranted, but probably should be discussed where it will get a wider audience, such as WT:AFD or WP:VPP/WP:VPR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I appreciate your recognition of the broader issue. I feel some frustration that no one seems willing to think beyond the question of what Wikipedia should say about one nutjob anti-evolutionist. For example, no one has given an opinion on the Bizz buzz hypothetical that I presented above. It may well be that only in one of the policy forums you mention will editors think about that kind of question. JamesMLane t c 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane: from my viewpoint your "frustration" is mostly self-inflicted. Talk:Chuck Missler is purely for discussing "the question of what Wikipedia should say about one nutjob anti-evolutionist" (see WP:TALK) within existing procedures (which tend to 'speedy keep' AfDs nominated for redirection) and policy (which explicitly disavows AfD jurisdiction). If you want to discuss changing policy or procedures, the appropriate forum would be WT:AFD (as has already been pointed out to you). I don't know if you'd win support there (I suspect many consider AfDs to be purely for decisions that potentially require Admin action to implement and/or reverse, and that opening them up to purely non-Admin action decisions would result in a loss of focus, and be too difficult to enforce), but they'd at least listen to you because that is the right forum for discussing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, do you have an answer to my question about Bizz buzz? Just curious -- I'm trying to understand your position. JamesMLane t c 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

JamesMLane: I WP:TLDNR it. Having now read it, the answer is yes, any editor could have redirected it instead of taking it to an AfD. But then, any editor could have reverted it. This being so, it is only a WP:CONSENSUS that can enforce a redirect, irrespective of whether this consensus comes from article talk or AfD. So in principle it is better not to clutter up WP:AFD with it (a principle that AfD regulars are willing to speedy-keep to enforce) -- particularly as it would be article regulars not AfD regulars who would have to enforce it. This is however all I have to say on this matter here as this is not the forum for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Kim Tags

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

I am writing to request assistance in removing tags on this entry. Substantial changes were made to the article nearly six months ago which resulted in agreement by editors to keep the article. In the meantime, several others including myself have added additional references as they became known. A Wikipedia editor swept the article to Wikify it some months ago. I think the tags may now be irrelevant given the changes and addition of new content. Seireeni (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A more basic question - is the article supposed to be about the individual or her company? The body of the article is about the individual yet it has a company infobox with the name of her company and company details. – ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the focus of the article is definitely wrong, it is supposed to be a BLP per the AfD discussion but it concentrates on stores and products which are the domain of an article on the company. This article needs to be cleaned up to focus on the subject and if a second article on the company is appropriate then that information should be split out. In the mean time I have changed the infobox for the appropriate one. Mfield (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Aidan Kelly and the NROOGD

Please note that I've added comments and new text for the following two articles.

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

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

I cannot cope with formatting, and I will leave it to someone else's editorial judgment about how to deal with the added text and the issues I've raised, but both of these now need cleaning up whenever someone can get around to it. Thanks.

Aidan A. Kelly, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AidanAKellyPhD (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your edit to Aidan Kelly - as you appear to be the subject of this article you have a conflict of interest and should discuss on the article's talk page any changes that you think ought to be made. I looked at the edit history of New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn and do not see any edits by you to that article. Please note however, Wikipedia is concerned with what is verifiable by reliable sources which may not be the "truth". – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I now see your edit on Talk:New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn which is the appropriate place to discuss it. – ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quarrelsome behavior on astrology articles

There are some individuals on the signs' articles that insist on going against Wikipedia consensus and I have a difficult time dealing with. The decision on the reliable sources noticeboard has been that just random internet sites do not constitute reliable sources ([2]), but these individuals insist on undoing my removal of these sources (especially Elore.com). Their "frontline" seems to be on Scorpio (astrology) and Aquarius (astrology).

Am I right to remove these sources? I don't want to be seen as edit-warring. These guys have already attacked me in every venue possible here, and keep threatning editors in their edit summaries. Thanks for having a look, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Someone963852 is now misusing warning templates on my talk page as a response to my reverting of his unsourced material in the signs' articles. Please help. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael: you should name the other editors and invite them to join this discussion. The thread you linked to at WP:RS/N doesn't sound terribly conclusive. There might be ways that you could get a discussion started with other people who care about astrology. If all else fails, and there are still only two people disagreeing, you could try WP:Third opinion. In a dispute with more than two people, you could open a WP:Request for comment. If you can show that www.elore.com is spam, there is always WT:WPSPAM for reporting it, but I'm not convinced yet. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is mainly that if editors start adding traits to these articles sourced to every which site, these articles will quickly become one big mess. Every other day someone comes up with a new "trait" for the signs from some source. Opinions about the signs are a dime a dozen. This kind of mess can at least be avoided if sources are kept to the more authoritative sources, beside this clearly being more inline with WP:ASF and WP:RELIABLE.

Besides User:Someone963852, User:SotosfromGreece has also been assuming bad faith on my part despite all my efforts to explain my points and reasons, and has been disparaging my name on Talk:Scorpio (astrology) and making completely unfounded allegations. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael, I still don't see you notifying those two editors and inviting them to participate in this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now invited them. Hopefully it can stay civil this time. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

Mr. Nathanael, stop trying to sound all innocent. Also, quit trying to act like you're the judge on all the astro. articles. How do you know if those are so-called "spam" sites are not reliable ones?

Recently, it looks like you've shown alot of biasness towards the signs. There might be some traits added by other users saying that Aquarius are stunning and Scorpios are sexy (with sources of course) and you (Nathanael) with remove them stating that it's against the neutral point of view.

Really? If that is so, then why don't you remove all the non-sense from Taurus saying that they're the most beautiful astro sign and extremely graceful in their movements. (There are many more at the article and I can't list them all.) Wait, you can't because you are a Taurus and you favor that.

Hmm, doesn't that go more against the Neutral POV? "Oh oh, but it's from a reliable source!" you might say? Oh really, it sounds like you got it off from someone saying that it is [3]. So you're telling me to read the Neutral Point of View when you're the one that should.

Well, yeah, I guess those are some of that reason why people might disagree with Nathanael and that he is trying so hard to be innocent. Thanks for reading and I hope that you could be my side! --kashimjamed (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC) - Someone963852

P.S.

...."on my part despite all my efforts to explain my points and reasons...." -Nathanael

Are you serious? You NEVER TRIED to reason "with all your efforts", instead, you give warnings..

I don't give a damn what it says, I just care that it is attributed to somebody who's opinion matters, and not some website you find on Google. Jeanne has attributed her claims to published astrologers I have actually heard of before. Frankly, I personally don't believe at all that the signs have attributable physical characteristics. If it was really up to me, these entire sections could go, but I respect Wikipedia's guidelines. As for the warnings I gave you, that is because you keep inserting unsourced material, and that is widely discouraged on Wikipedia. I have explained my reverting on your talk page and on the talk page of the articles in question. I don't see how I could have made it any clearer. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical Appearance comes from your parents' genes, not what your astro. sign is. kashimjamed (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, now we think alike. That still doesn't give anybody the right to remove that material just because one doesn't agree with it. These are just the opinions of some well-known astrologers.

That said, there is still an issue of sources, and it is a critical one for these articles. I don't see elore.com as spam, just that it is very irrelevant in the wider field of astrology. I believe that the articles should contain more material from these guys: Category:20th century astrologers, Category:21st century astrologers. Their opinions should be "notable" if their status in the astrological community has been demonstrated in their Wikipedia articles. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get what you mean. But your opinion, my opinion, the astrologer's opinion, it doesn't matter. It's suppose to be a fact. kashimjamed (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Kellyplummer44 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)My article got the following response and I don't know what it means. Can you help me: Or, where do I get help??

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: WP:N

I am not sure exactly which page you are referring to, your userpage was deleted for blatant advertising ("Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.")

If you had created another page that was deleted for WP:N, that is notability, in short the subject of the article was not deemed notable enough, as confirmed by Reliable sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mfield (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help with edit war

I would really appreciate some further input on Talk:Children of alcoholics#List of people. There are two editors (quite possibly one and a WP:SOCK) who insist on deleting parts of an article without any policy justification. I am open to discussion of the material and would like to build a consensus, but they repeatedly redo their edits, saying "we don't need a policy reason." I don't know where to turn, please help! --Elplatt (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus looks to be against your addition, with yourself being the only editor to support your position. I appreciate that you think consensus hasn't been reached, but experienced Wikipedians tend to describe this sort of situation as "one editor going against consensus".
• Don't accuse other editors of being sockpuppets, unless you are sure enough of your case that you're ready to post at our sock-puppet investigation page. In content disputes of this kind, it's generally best to avoid any accusation that other editors are acting in bad faith without solid evidence.
• Policy states that Biographies of Living Persons must not contain any information about living people that's unsourced. Adding contentious information, or information that could be seen as defamatory, to any article or page is particularly likely to result in your edits being reverted, and possibly more serious sanctions. This applies to all articles and other pages at wikipedia. Of course, saying someone is a child of alcoholics potentially harms not only the named person but also their parents.
• Edit warring is disruptive, so don't do it, even if you're right.

I hope this information is helpful. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Translating articles from other language versions of Wikipedia

Dear Friends, My question concerns the applicable formula of giving credit to the original creator of the Wikipedia entry in a language different than my target language. How is it done? Yours, Paweł Jędrzejko Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{Translated page}} template can be added to the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you :-) Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

how to handle slander in article

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, There is an editor who is inserting libelous(we believe) content into the article "Xenos Christian Fellowship". I've read the section on handling vandalism, but slander doesn't seem to fall under that category. I'm looking for direction on how to get this person to stop adding malicious content to the article. My name is Jay Reilly. I'm a member of Xenos and I work on the staff. The editor I'm referring to is zanzibelle. I'd really appreciate any direction you could give.

Thanks!

Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayreilly (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP - such material, if unsourced, can and should be deleted promptly pending discussion on the article's talk page. Also be careful when throwing around terms like "libellous", lest you fall foul of our policy prohibiting legal threats. – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I read the article you referenced and it was helpful. I didn't mean to imply any kind of legal threat - it just seemed like the apt word for very negative, untrue, accusations being added to the article. I've politely asked the contributor in question to stop making these additions. I'm a complete newbie to wiki editing by the way although I use it frequently as a resource. Thanks again for your quick help. Jayreilly (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Marking as resolved. If the other editor persists please report it to WP:BLPN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate/an interesting problem

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friends, It is a most educational experience to read through the posts of this forum - especially in the context of the edit wars and reasons beyond them. Clearly, if we disregard the obvious factor of emotions, which inevitably intervene when one learns that one's article has been marked for deletion after one has invested plenty of time and energy in writing it, other issues gain prominence. To me, the most important ones the following:

1) It if obvious why the policy of Wikipedia requires references to support information provided by individual Wikipedians: quality of information is of paramount importance. Yet, as opposed to many "traditional" sources of information, Wikipedia has the potential to open up space to publish information verifiable by participation in cultural practice, but not yet addressed by the academic community. An example of my own work is a good one, but before I present it, I wish to make it very clear that I do not mind if the article is deleted: indeed, it includes original research and there are no reliable references in published sources with which to support the claims made in the text and that I hold no grudge whatsoever.

The article I wrote addresses the typological debate concerning sea-songs in the Polish cultural space. The term I introduced to Wikipedia is that of neo-shanty-which is a compromise concept to designate modern, contemporary songs written, composed and arranged today, yet following the structural and poetic principles of the working songs of old. In the context of the huge popularity of sea-shanties in Poland, the emergence of the term helped the "traditionalists" and the "progressivists" work out a platform, upon which a more or less uniform typology of the songs functioning in the Polish space could be agreed upon. Yet for this purpose, the Polish version of the article would, in all probability, suffice. I decided to translate it into English as well because whenever I present my own group to festival organizers outside of Poland by telling them that we sing sea-shanties in modern arrangements, they expect something very different from what they get. Of course, the moment I supply samples - things become clear. Yet, the Polish-coined term of neo-shanties, defined as I did define it in the article, not only adequately describes what we do, but, more importantly, when the definition is translated into English and made available in the English version of Wikipedia, I would be able to use the term in communications without fear of misunderstandings. This also concerns a number of other Polish groups, and - as I suspect - international groups as well, even though I have not yet come across a performer representing this particular style outside of Poland.

Long story short: the term exists, yet its usage can only be documented by reference to internet forums or web-based articles. In all probability, there will come a moment when someone decides to dedicate time and energy to the academic study of the problem thus legitimizing the usage of the term. Should we exclude such an article and wait till academic references appear in print? After all, in my particular case, in all probability it will be me to write this much-needed, refereed academic text. Will then the article in Wikipedia be legitimate?

2) The permanent doubt that haunts me is whether or not to encourage my students to contribute to Wikipedia and whether I myself am not better off writing for scholarly journals only: in contexts such as that described above, it seems more economical to leave the development of Wiki to those who... read my academic, refereed, texts.

3) The third issue is that of the dangers of being accused of vanity self-promotion: bearing in mind that Wikipedia serves the purpose of the dissipation of knowledge, it is clear that - morally - one should be expected to share the knowledge they possess. If one creates an article concerning his own field of immediate experience - for instance, by writing a text about an artist to whom he or she dedicated half a life - and supports the information with references to his own academic work, he runs the risk of being accused of self-promotion. What if nobody else wrote anything of substance on that particular artist, and the academic-Wikimedian indeed wishes to dissipate the knowledge? What if someone writes my own biogram in a given language and I see its inadequacies? Do I have the right to set things straight? Do I have the right to translate it into other languages I speak? After all, I am the greatest expert on myself...

Please, let me know what you think!

Yours,

Paweł Jędrzejko Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As Neo-shanty is the subject of an Afd discussion, this should be discussed there rather than discussion being duplicated here, unless there are broader issues. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, of course, let us not talk about Neo-shanty here; this is a separate matter; I am more interesting in the type of the problem: what if a phenomenon exists, yet has not been addressed by academic community, or the only experts in the field are non-academic. Accept, reject, or wait? Paweł Jędrzejko 89.74.33.168 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The basic guideline applies -- it has to be notable as verified by reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This, definitely, is safer in the large scale :-) Thank you very much for your time! Pawel Jedrzejko (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Zeumer - need help from a Germanophone editor, if possible

Resolved

 – Discussion can be continued in WP:Articles for deletion/Thomas Zeumer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this guy may actually be notable (to people who care about supermodels, anyway), but there's been a lot of edit warring between IPs on it, from a vanispamcruftisement version to alleged BLP violations. One IP even put a bogus protection notice up. Sourcing is horrible. Could somebody (preferably somebody who reads German) take a look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot of work to make this into a real article. The version from 15 January reads like a press release from the subject. The current greatly-reduced version is so sketchy that the subject does not appear notable. (Ref. 5 of the earlier version is to a book by Zeumer that seems to never have been published). It is already worrisome that the top Google hit for Thomas Zeumer is this Wikipedia article. The first reference in the current article (in German) is a blog article describing a party that Zeumer helped to organize in Venice. The blog article, perhaps not a reliable source anyway, doesn't give us any useful info about him. Unless someone has time to to a lot of digging for sources I'd suggest this article may be an AfD candidate. One comment on a web forum asserts that

Most important is to remember that Metropolitan Germany is unrelated to Michel Levaton's legit agency in Paris (and don't get fooled by the German website which is a plagiat of the legit website, even the logo is imitated to fool people).

The same forum poster says there are 'complicated stories' about Thomas Zeumer. We have no idea if Zeumer's 'Metropolitan Models' is the real Paris agency that discovered Claudia Schiffer. Ref. 2 of our article doesn't give any evidence that this *American* Metropolitan Models is the same as either of the European ones. All it shows is that Zeumer was an executive of a New-York based modelling agency of that name. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this is but this article: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/410/ripoff0410675.htm has information suggesting he may be using several aliases. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

POV/NPOV Dispute, Not Sure How to Proceed

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

energy economics

Hi,

Here's the situation.

I've been working in the field of energy economics for some 20 years now. I've a PhD in economics. I've been a professor of economics since 2000. I've been an editor of Energy Economics, one of the three journals in the field, since 2003. I'm a member of the International Association of Energy Economists. And so on.

I think I can claim that I know the field of energy economics. It is an eclectic field, in which a variety of people from a range of disciplinary backgrounds use all sort of methods -- but all aimed at improving the understanding of energy prices, market, use, and production.

There are scholars who believe that one can model the economy as a thermodynamic system. This approach is commonly known as thermoeconomics, and the Wikipedia page is fine. Thermoeconomics is clearly identified as a heterodox school of economics. Energy economists are by and large orthodox economists, but most would be rather pragmatic when dealing with the fine print of economic dogma.

Over the last two weeks, a user by the name of Skipsievert has been inserting material that belongs to thermoeconomics into the page of energy economics. I've shifted the material to where it belongs (in my view), but he keeps putting it back.

Thanks for your help. Sorry if this request came a number of times; my internet connection is doing strange things.

Richard Tol Richard Tol 21:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtol (talk • contribs)

This is a content dispute and so you should attempt to reach consensus with the other editors on the article's talk page. Having some reliable sources at hand wouldn't hurt either. – ukexpat (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by User:Skipsievert to look at the situation and I noticed this. Assuming good faith, Rtol is running into a common problem with experts, who are accustomed to writing about their own field based on their own knowledge. But Wikipedia has editorial standards for reliable sourcing, etc., and an expert in the field of an article may not be familiar with these, or may assert rights as an expert over other editors. I'll be looking at the history and seeing if I can advise the involved editors as to how to avoid conflict and edit warring, while at the same time preserving what could be valuable comment from an expert. --Abd (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Submarine

Hi I have been trying to add aditional inforamtion on the early history of submarines. The information is consistantly removed but is valid. In fact a later paragraph allueds to the origianl creator "Holland" I just dont understand. Is the inforamtion decided upon on writing style or something im not getting?If this is meant to be a place for information then please!! have the editors do the research before deleting valid inforamation for a topic. There is no point in me posting something to have it deleted within a minute. These editors cannot have checked the information by then. This is my first experience of wiki posting and i must say I am stratiing to douby much of the information here, maybe its time to return to the good old encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.114.141 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there's a couple of pages you should read up on. WP:V and WP:RS. The information you are adding needs to be sourced correctly to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. WP:CITE will tell you more about how to cite the information, you can use a tool like this one to generate the relevant cite code. Also, to avoid instant reversions by the vandal patrol you need to remember to use edit summaries with every edit so people can see what you were doing with your edit. You can also start a discussion on the article talk page to let people know if your edits could be considered controversial in any way. Mfield (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

External links on Dust collector

I believe the editor for this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_collector is unfarely disallowing my link to a helpful maitenance checklist

baghouse.com/Periodic-Dust-Collector-Inspection-Recommendations.php Dust Collector Maintenance Checklist

while he is allowing2 of my competitors to list no perticural artical just their websites [1] USAirfiltration.com has a large resource area for terminology, links to helpful sites, and detailed drawings and information about baghouse / dust collector issues. Cyclone Dust Collector Research Do it yourself Dust Collection for the home to small scale shop written by a lung-damaged engineer.

please help

<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.206.174 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the USAirfiltration.com link as spam, so I think that should do it. – ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Help is needed to establish a dialog

I encounter a problem with the WP user who does not accept logical arguments and behaves as an article's owner. The most recent example is here. I would like to avoid an edit war. What should I do first to resolve a problem?
Best regards
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the other editor has engaged in debate and is arguing from the sources, although you were not specific on what exactly you have taken exception to. You have been asked several times during the discussion to provide sources backing up your case. Concentrate on doing that, rather than the tone of other editors, and see if there is still a problem after you have done that. SpinningSpark 12:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. I always provide sources (mostly, from scholarly journals (jstor.org)). I always try to present my rationale on the talk page, and try to achieve a consensus. In contrast, the other editor prefer to do direct changes of the article. Sometimes, I am able to convince him to accept my POV, or to consider it seriously, but it demands enormous efforts. I never had such problems with other editros before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just ran across this. A few reality notes you can pick up with even a cursory examination of the Talk Page:

(1) Spinningspark is correct -- I've stuck to the sources entirely. In fact, as an aside, I've probably added well over 60% of the sources in this article now (which used to have massive completely unsourced sections). I could be off, but I haven't checked.
(2) In addition to that, I've probably myself made 20+ edits based on this editor's (Paul Siebert) complaints on the Talk Page alone (including hunting down sources to try to support individual points), many of which I didn't even want, just to attempt to prevent some mass disruption of the article.
(3) This editor also wants to take a large section of the historical page out chronological order based on a notion not only not supported by a majority of historians, but as far as I can tell, is supported by zero historians. His own fringe theory. I won't bore you with it, but you can read the discussion for yourself on the talk page.
(4) There's an obvious reason he's doing it (reading numerous comments on various Talk Pages) that I won't bore you with. He himself said above "Sometimes, I am able to convince him to accept my POV," which is not exactly the attitude one should have on Wikipedia.
(5) I received zero courtesy notices on my Talk Page about this section being started about me. In fact, I was actually spending a considerable amount of time going through and discussing his various theories with him, while even adding sources where a fact was thrown out, as this was on this board.
(6) He just attempted to take a section out of Chron order, delete several facts in it, and then won't allow any edits of it, claiming "let's discuss this first" -- on his changed section. I wish I weren't kidding, but just have a look at the history page.
(7) I'm pretty close to going to ANI with this editor. I've bent over backwards to work with him. Repeatedly. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Orthogons & Design Article

It's very possible that the article was deleted by editors who believe they are familiar with the content but may in fact be coming from an entirely different perspective. The concern was raised that only one source was available for use of the term Orthogon in the context of the article (art). The main problem with the source is that it is in German and the text technical and cumbersome to translate. Other sources are available but not via the internet at this time. Instructions and information on how to apply these 12 dynamic (harmonic) rectangles, termed "orthogons", to art is currently being taught at the university level in the US as well as Europe. Their use in art is the point of the article. So far, no one has disputed the reference nor have they disputed use of the term in this context or the use of these structures by artists and designers (which is completely abundant on the internet). Editors who are artists/architects/designers should make the decision to delete or keep the article, rather than mathematicians/scientists/researchers. I would make pages from the book available in the article but the book was printed in 1956 and copyright issues are still a concern. Artists do not make a practice of publishing their most valuable information--they'll teach it at the university level but not generally in published form. To quote Kimberly Elam in her book, Geometry of Design, pp. 101: "In many schools of art and design the study of geometric organization begins and ends with a discussion of the golden section relationship to the Parthenon and an art history course. This is due in part to the separation of information that is a part of education. Biology, geometry, and art are taught as separate subjects. The content area of each that is congruent to the other is often neglected and the student is left to make the connections on their own. in addition, art and design are commonly viewed as intuitive endeavors and expressions of personal inspiration. Unfortunately, few educators will bring biology or geometry into the studio or art and design into the science or math classroom." I agree with Ms. Elam that the congruencies should be given air time--I don't like having to "make the connections" on my own and believe others deserve the same enlightenment. Unless someone can verify that this set of 12 "dynamic rectangles" have not been called "orthogons" for a very long time and the term not used in relation to art, the article should be kept. The entries were not unanimous that the article be deleted. Your assistance in what is of vital importance to artists and designers is much appreciated. Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The deletion debate for the article is here. During the course of the deletion debate the article Dynamic rectangle was created with what those participating believed to be the verifiable information from the german source cited in the deleted Orthogons and design. The point I think you are missing is that on Wikipedia the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Things you know personally, but are not published, are not suitable for inclusion. The concept also has to be notable, meaning it is discussed in reliable independant published works. Have you looked at the dynamic rectangle article and does that satisfy your complaint? If not, one of your options is to start a deletion review. Another option is to ask the deleting admin (who was User:Lankiveil) to userfy the article so that you can improve it before reposting it to mainspace. There is no rule (in general) against creating an article that has previously been deleted. However, before doing so you would be expected to address the issues of concern raised in the original deletion debate. I would strongly recommend that you create any new article in your userspace and then ask other editors to review it before moving it to mainspace. Merely recreating exactly the same material not acceptable behaviour and will attract admin action. SpinningSpark 11:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your clarifications and direction. The information in Dynamic rectangle is great and works well from the standpoint of math. However, this articles does not explain how anyone interested in design can actually use the orthogons to create a work of art, architecture, calligraphy, etc. It's not clear from the article how the orthogons relate to each other, which is vital to the discussion from the viewpoint of design. The technicality (and lack of practical application) of books on this subject (Jay Hambidge included), turns artists away. Orthogons need to be presented as a unit that can be applied (and understood) by artists, architects, etc. Even though it's written in German, Wersin's book has very informative images that an artist/architect can follow. I'm hesitant to post images from his book but will do so if that is advisable. Designers would use the Dynamic rectangle article for verification but would not wade through all the math. The Dynamic rectangle article could be a great reference for an article about how to practically apply the orthogons. Kimberly Elam explains, "[Artists] that have been involved in education such as Le Corbusier, Josef Muller-Brockmann and Max Bill considered geometric organization and planning essential and fundamental to the design process." Just wish more published information on HOW this is done was available in English!Valriejensen1 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably cannot use images from Wersin's book on Wikipedia, it will still be in copyright and very unlikey that the images are available under a free licence. Using the book as a reference is ok though, we have plenty of German speakers here to check the refs. If the images in question are just diagrams (rather than works of art) we can create our own here on Wikipedia, drop a note on my talk page if you want help with something like that. As for the application of the mathematical figures to art, I thought use of the golden ratio, at least, was well known and references should not be hard to find. Take a look at this Google book search, it comes up with lots of relevant books, many of them with parts viewable online. Using refs like that in an article makes it much less likely to be deleted. SpinningSpark 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance on using Wersin's images, your help in making these available would be very much appreciated. The books you reference are great examples of how the golden section has been applied. The rectangle is super-imposed over the work of art and that's basically it. "Extensions" in these books refers to math rather than instructions on how to begin and follow through creating a design using the relative measurements of the golden section. The work of Giorgio Morandi is a perfect example of how the measurements from an orthogon can be applied in any direction. The additional orthogons are useful because the golden section is somewhat unwieldy (long) and difficult to manage in a design. Books are available that detail in depth how artworks fit orthogons but finding material (outside of a university classroom) explaining how it's done is the trick. The orthogon and design article does that. I'll get the Wersin material to you pronto. Many thanks Valriejensen1 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another concern with the [Dynamic rectangle] article, several of the terms for individual orthogons have been translated into English. Much like standard music notations are in Italian, keeping the terms in one language (with translations in quotes) keeps them more recognizable to researchers. Valriejensen1 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Karen Weldin Stewart

I was Karen Weldin Stewart's campaign manager. What is posted on your site about her is dishonest in the extreme in that it cherry picks what it wants your readers to believe defines Ms. Stewart and even some of the information listed is inaccurate. Two items come to mind. First, she is no longer the Commissioner-Elect, she is the Commissioner. Second, in connection with her credit card issues, she had an American Express card, charged and paid in full and on time close to two hundred thousand dollars over two years while using the card for her business expenses. There was a ten thousand dollar dispute that was eventually settled. The earlier postings on her were so slanderous and libelous that they were radically changed owing to an attorney I had never met or talked to until he contacted me. I, Ms. Stewart and our staffs do not have the time to read every day to see if someone has tried to edit what is already there with the kind of lies, attacks etc. that were their at the beginning. As Mark Twain said, "A lie goes around the world before truth puts its boot on." Wikipedia mentions that they are interested in verification not truth. But once a slanderous posting is made, how many readers see it before it is corrected. The early posts had no verification. Having said all of this, I would like to have her name and all information about her erased from Wikipedia. How do I go about doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorttoille (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the Commissioner-Elect to Commissioner as that is clearly stale information. Clearly the article has simply been allowed to get out of date. I'm having a bit of a problem seeing how you can describe that as dishonest in the extreme in that it cherry picks what it wants your readers to believe. The credit card issue was raised during the election campaign and is reasonable to have in the article if done in a balanced way. However, it is referenced to The Delaware Talk Radio blog site. As a blog, that cannot be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and I have therefore removed it from the article. There is no guarantee that the issue will not be re-inserted if reliable sources are found for the story. Wikipedia is entitled to have an article on any notable person, you cannot insist that we do not; unless of course, you want to make an argument that Karen Stewart is not notable. SpinningSpark 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with another editor

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a contribution into the Snakes and Ladders article was deleted due to being considered advertising. I edited and my entry and made sure it was from a neutral POV before re-adding it to the article. It was subsequently removed again, as trivia/spam. I demanded an explanation, and to be honest, I probably didn't phrase it very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snakes_and_ladders#Specific_Editions The removing editor responded in an inflammatory way and has refused to give me a detailed explanation of why he removed my entry other than "you really just aren't going to get it". I think he has lost objectivity in this case and is still responding to my original (poorly worded) response to my contribution being removed. It's possible that I'm the one who is completely off base here, and I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, but I would like another party to review this incident so that I can learn from my (or his) mistakes. Smnc (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing to advise you is to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which explains why this is considered a poor argument in discussions on removing material. Concentrate on what is wrong with the material you added, not what is wrong with everything else. What is wrong with your material is that it does not establish notability by referencing a reliable source independant of the game manufacturer/distributor. Your "reference" is to an advertisment for the game, not really a reference at all. SpinningSpark 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spinningspark for the link and the perspective. I will read the 'Other Stuff' article and concentrate on improving my material, before I pursue this any farther.

If I had a response such as yours from the beginning, I think this problem could have been resolved before it began.smnc (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar editing all model sites

Dear Editor Assistant,

My problems concerns 2 articles: Christie Brinkley and Errol Sawyer.
There is an editor that calls himself "Barnstar" who says that he guards all the model sites (as a sheriff with a star on his breast). He has been rejecting numerous times the contribution to Brinkley's article that says that the African-American photographer Errol Sawyer discovered Christie in Paris in 1973 although it stems from a book of Michael Gross, "Models: The ugly business of beautiful women book", William and Morrow and Company, Inc, New York, 1995. pp 17-19, because he only has read the New York Magazine, September 2008, in which Brinkley does not mention Sawyer. "Barnstar" says that every reference should be retracable by Internet. As I studied Art History and Architecture/Building Engineering I think this is absurd and I told him that a lot of archives are not digitized yet.

Finally "Barnstar" leaves in Brinkley's article that Errol Saywer discovered, but now he takes away all the time African- American or African in front of American. I explain him that Obama also describes himself as black or African-American but it does not help. This is a sensitive subject as Brinkley said the following in the Michael Gross book: : ”I lived in a chambre de bonne with no telephone or bathrooms. It was so charming. The toilet was two flights down; the telephone was about a block and a half away. I had a little dog, and he had distemper. So I went to the phone to call the vet, and this guy, Errol Sawyer, this kind of loud, crazy black American photographer, said: “Oh, there you are! I spotted you one day at the telephone office, and I was hoping I would see you again because I’ve got a job, and the clients are looking for a girl just like you. Would you be interested? This is my address. I don’t have a telephone but you can just drop by" — And I went by, and he said: "Can you run home and put on something nice?” So photographer Errol Sawyer made Christie’s very first model pictures and introduced her later on with his pictures to John Casablancas of Elite Model Management in Paris.

Since "Barnstar" finally left Sawyer in as the one who discovered Christie, he also suddenly introduces photographer Patrick Demarchelier who has according to "Barnstar" introduced her to Eileen Ford. Now this is maybe said by Brinkley in New York Magazine, September 2008, but not in the book of Michael Gross of 1995. There one page further in the same book "Models" Christie says: "In the meantime Mike Reinhardt went back to New York and told Eileen Ford about me."
In the late seventies Christie went actually with her husband Jean-Francois Aillaux, after he got out of the army, back to New York and joined Eileen Ford Model Agency. Sawyer and everyone who was in Paris at at hat time knows that.

So there are two notes that contradict each other: one from the book of Michael Gross and one from a gossip magazine, New York Magazine.
According to "Barnstar" the latest prevails because it is the most recent or maybe because he knows it all and is actually a "star" himself. You see how easy it is to rewrite history ...

But worse is still to come. Since one week there is an internal link from Brinkley to Sawyer's article and "Barnstar" does anything to destroy it and he writes that Sawyer should not even be there etc. Of course he continues taking African away in front of American and he put 4 tags which I ask him to explain exactly but he refuses to do so. I need help because I find it very unfair that someone like Brinkley can actualy buy herself into Wiki with a interview set up by her P.R. office and a genuine artist like Errol Sawyer should not be able to get into Wiki because he does not have the means for buying an interview. On top of that a "Barnstar" is provoking an unresolved matter and therefore disqualification of Errol Sawyer.

I did not make the article of Sawyer but Yes, I edited Sawyer's article while I am besides his wife and agent also an academic and guest professor at the Technical University Delft in Holland and I know his archive very well and otherwise a lot of information would not be there at all. But I only used published and public references. To my amazement Roy Decarava, another very good African-American photographer is not in the Wikipedia either.

I would gladly hear your advise because Errol Sawyer deserves a good article. I understand there still has to be editing done and I would appreciate exact directions,

Mathilde Fischer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathilde Fischer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am struggling to establish where all this discussion is supposed to have taken place, you have not provided any links. I suspect that there has not been any other than through edit summaries. So my first suggestion is to go back and discuss the issues properly either on the article talk pages or the user talk pages as appropriate. You may be pleasantly surprised at how collaborative people become if you approach them with a collaborative attitude. On the question of offline sources, you are right, offline sources are acceptable. Printed sources are often more reliable, and online sources can be frequently changed or disappear altogether. Many editors prefer online sources because it makes it easier for other editors to verify. However, the rule is that the source must be verifiable by others, not necessarily verifiable online or verifiable easily, and this includes visiting a library to read it. SpinningSpark 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no links provided because no links would support Fischer's slander of me. That I refer to myself as "Barnstar" or that I claim to "guard" model articles is laughable. As for the articles she mentions, I've linked-to and thoroughly explained the relevant Wiki policies behind my edits numerous times on my talk page and Brinkley's article talk page. It's up to her to read them and understand them, but unfortunately she would rather slander me instead.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for page creation.

I am requesting administrative help creating a page for the ironic shock-rock/goregrind band Abörted Hitler Cöck, the name of which of course contains blacklisted keywords which is why I am asking for admin to create the page. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmartain (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I do any such thing, how are you intending to establish notability of this band, there does not seem to be a lot out there. Before replying, please read WP:Notability (bands). SpinningSpark 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And note that the correct place to request the creation of an article is WP:AFC. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tampering with a site

Someone named Jameson L. Tai has been changing the Wikipedia site of Thom Hatch, including adding personal material that Mr. hatch does not want made public for security reasons. This Tai has no reason to be editing this site with his poor grammer and sentence structure and ruining a perfectly legitimate site, all of which can be cited if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.131 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what needs to be understood is that the article Thom Hatch is not the Wikipedia site of Thom Hatch, rather it is a community consensus edited encyclopedia article about the subject, Thom Hatch. There is no tampering going on, anyone and everyone can edit wikipedia, that is one of the guiding principles of the project. What the subject would like to see in a biographical article about themselves is irrelevant and POV, providing the facts in question are notable, verifiable and do not infringe the subject's privacy. Are you Thom Hatch? If so this is something that you should be declaring, and you should be careful when editing the article due to conflict of interest guidelines. What specifically is the personal information that you feel should not be made public? (bearing in mind that this information all has to be verifiable by sources and consequently is readily available anyway).

What is concerning right now is that the article is completely unreferenced and has no in text citations at all. It is also not written as a biographical article but more of a literary review of his works. I am going to flag it with some maintenance tags to make sure this gets addressed.

Be also aware that reverting constructive edits without engaging in discussion is considered vandalism and that editing from different IP addresses so as to obfuscate is called sockpuppetry and both are blockable offences. If you are serious about improving the article constructively then I suggest registering for a login name and learning to discuss with other editors to work towards consensus and how to use edit summaries to explain your edits. Mfield (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the 5th time in 24 hours that an IP from Broomfield, Colorado has reverted Thom Hatch to an extremely spammy version. No edit summaries were given and no explaination was left in the talk section. Messages left at first IPs talk page were ignored (they continued to revert from that IP even after messages were left). The subject of the article is from Colorado, so likely to be this IP. No idea who Jameson L. Tai is, or what info "Mr. hatch does not want made public" (information was removed from the spammy version, not added). NJGW (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the version I was viewing and talking about is actually the version that the IP was attempting to revert to. The stable version is referenced and follows guidelines. The version that the IP prefers is a liable candidate for speedy deletion by contrast. I do not see what issues there can be with the article in its stable state, the article is a BLP, not a literary review and all the information is easily available or a matter of public record. Mfield (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, thank you for notifying me regarding this discussion. I simply reverted an anon IP edit whom was earlier reverted as well by NJGW. I understand a genuine frustration if the editor was new to Wikipedia, but it does not seem so. In light of the situation, I will assume good faith and say this may not be Thom Hatch, but reviewing this made me think otherwise. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Still at it, now with a named account. I opened a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Thom_Hatch. NJGW (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

meme editing specifically deletion of mememetrics

I submitted a report of an empirical quantitative approch to research on memes which was posted on the meme site for approximately three months. My contribution describes a new science of mememetrics that differs from psychometrics. A drastic editing of the site omitted my contribution and included material that I believe has less relevance. How do I appeal to restore my contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.138.24 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which page are you concerned about? I couldn't find it, I'm afraid. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if the material you added was original research, then it would be proper to remove it. Content here needs to be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One-on-one advice needed when creating articles

Hello,

I created an article, Affiliate Window, and it was deleted due to G11. I have since reviewed the article and included a number of references to make the article "notable" as the admin who was overseeing it said it needed in order to be published. However, it was deleted again. I adhered to the admin's guidance, however, they have failed to provide me with one-on-one guidance.

I now have two articles hosted on my User page located here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeorgeGaz/Affiliate_Window
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeorgeGaz/Digital_Window_Ltd

I do not want to publish Affiliate Window without it being approved because the admin said it would be protected from being created again.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Hopefully we can work through this and get the page published.

Regards GeorgeGaz (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's deletable as it stands, but it still reads like advertising. I think it might get fairly well pruned. I also suggest you make them into one article about the holding company. You could then create redirects from the other subsidiaries. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look notable to me. Britain's 18th fastest growing technology company? Do the 17 ahead of it have their own pages? My bet is no. And if you do have a conflict of interest here (some relationship with the company) then you really shouldn't be starting pages on it. Let someone else do it. And if no one else does... well that goes back to notability. LSD (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Articles

My question is what is the criteria to dispute an article. I've noticed people just give an opinion and do not offer anything constructive. It seems to me that NPOV standards are being followed so I can't understand what the dispute is all about. My specific article was in the crime fiction area entitled "Hard Boiled". I felt that the critcism was simply for critcisms sake so there wasn't anything I could think of in order to resolve the dispute.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCamm (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are ascending levels of dispute resolution set out at WP:DR - did you try that?. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The first level of dispute resolution is to discuss the issues on the article talk page. I see no discussion there whatsoever - it's hard to give you a view on a dispute that is not being vocalised. This page should be your second port of call after first making a genuine attempt to collaborate with the other editors. SpinningSpark 14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to understand why my contribution has been rejected

Hello,

I'm new to wikipedia and willing to contribute the best I can. The first contributions I made are related to a topic I know quite well: IP softphones. Yesterday, I spent time adding an entry in the table at the link below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software I did my best to follow the wiki syntax I didn't know before and to follow the wikipedia guidelines (no external link, etc.) After publishing, I was happy and proud to see that it worked, and that my entry (details about the softphone of eyeP Media) was included in the page !

This morning (French time), I checked the page again: what a disappointment! My entry had been deleted overnight by MrOllie who didn't explain me why he did that and I don't know how to reach him. Some people may argue that I added a description of a software developed by the company I'm working for but I truly believe that my entry is very valuable for anybody consulting this comparison page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software, which is full of proprietary software developed by companies much bigger than us. Please help me to understand...

cheers,

jfhoup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfhoup (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It was probably deleted as linkspam - with a conflict of interest you should not be adding links to your business/company/employer etc. Please discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with UKexpat. I was also going to say it was likely also as the package did not meet the notability guideline, however the comparison article seems to be completely unreferenced and includes other software packages that are not notable enough to merit their own WP article (something that needs addressing anyway). Bring the matter up for discussion on article talk to avoid the COI issue as it doesn't seem, from a cursory look, that the package your company makes is any less notable than some of the others, although impartial editors more conversant with the area should be the ones to decide that. Mfield (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural episode guide

There is currently a dispute ongoing as to the format of the episode guide for supernatural the tv show. As evidenced by List of Supernatural episodes It is now getting to the point where reverts are continuing semi regularly and yet the main editor doing this reverting refuses to discuss the issue and just continues to force the format he prefers. Instead of revert waring which achieves nothing and only disrupts the wiki, I would appreciate some outside oppinions so as to draw this matter to a close. Personally I am in favour of the more in depth page as it provides all the info one needs on one page without the need for redundancy (such as the now extra 4 pages which were created that were at one point served by the one main page). Also the original style followed many formatting conventions such as seen in the episode guids of grey's anatomy, prviate practice, reaper and my name is earl. In short the original formatting was much more user friendly IMHO. However I do concede that the new format is more sparse and less word heavy being a simple list of episode titles, however I think it sacrfices too much utility in favour of minimality. -- 82.41.44.188 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Russell29 is clearly an experienced and skilled editor so it is quite baffling that he refuses to enter into debate. I can only conclude that this is deliberate rather than a newbie oversight and is really not the collaborative attitude that is expected here. On the question of who is right, that is not very clearcut. A look at the guideline WP:Television episodes#Examples of good pages shows examples of both styles so there appears to be no Wikipedia preference. You might consider starting a debate with the purpose of tightening up the guidelines in these cases. Possible venues are the Wikipedia Talk:Television episodes or Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television. However, those sort of pages are not highly frequented and it is often better to start debates at WP:VPP and move to the relevant page later. SpinningSpark 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Spark. It is much appreciated. I personally think both formats work, dependant upon which show its describing. Things such as lost which has an episode synopisis for each episode is more suited for the simple episode list, where as less popular shows like supernatural which don't have individual pages for each episode seem more fitting for the semi synopsis approach it takes. I will however continue to try and engage the editor in discourse about this issue so that we can draw it to a close amicably, however thus far he has ignored my attempts, so hopefully he will take heed at some point as multiple users continue to revert his edits. -- 139.153.13.48 (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if he is trying to single-handedly swim against the tide then one of two things will happen. He will either get the message and start discussing, or he will end up on the administrators notice board for edit warring. Looking at his edit history, he does not seem to be very big on talk pages. This is a shame, because he is clearly a prolific editor. He does engage in some discussion though, so there is still hope. SpinningSpark 17:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do if the topic for a concept in common use is "appropriated" by an academic discipline?

Sorry, but the following is quite long. I have been thinking about what to do for several days and really need some guidance.

At the top of every Talk page it says that: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". Where can I discuss whether it is OK to disambiguate a topic? And is it a "fork" if you set up a new topic for the "common usage" concept of a word, leaving the existing material (which covers a concept of the same word, as developed by an academic field) on the existing topic?

I need an article dealing with ordinary concept of Culture, to be linked to by another article I work on.

Two weeks ago checking the content of a linked topic Culture, I found what seemed to me a very mixed up and unclear article. That was OK - not unusual. What surprised me though was thatTalk:Culture was headed up with three giant Wikiproject notices saying the article was rated Good, plus two other banners to the same effect. So I initiated a reassessment of the quality of Culture. Within a couple of days at least two others had agreed the article was disorganised and unsatisfactory, then suddenly, and without discussion, another editor stripped out half the article and placed a large amount of new material dealing mainly with the history of meanings of the word in American anthropology (all in the one edit), so the article became a different "animal", and explained that he had revamped the article on the Talk page. I expressed doubts about his action, and suggested he might like to revert it, which did not happen. I then kept quiet till the review process was completed after a week (I delisted the article, and explained why).

I have not editesd the article since the review (aside from the re-rating edits) but have watched with mounting fear as more and more edits have been made by that editor, as it were hijacking the article away from dealing with the concept as in ordinary usage. Instead, the article now gives a lengthy history over the past century of how the meaning of culture (being the field of study of American anthropology) has changed, littered with the many names of people in the field who have modified the idea of culture in one way or another.

Apparently, using the American anthropology concept, the word Culture "refers to all non-genetic human phenomena" (part way through the intro. section). A wide definition indeed!

I have searched Google books etc, and the ordinary usage concept of Culture is alive and well in many fields.

So should I try to discuss the matter on the talk page (inspite of what it says at the top). Is it a "fork" to disambiguate this topic in this situation? Is it wrong to just disambiguate it without further discussion - given that I made the general point of need for wider coverage when doing the review? --AlotToLearn (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are absolutely right to discuss this issue on the talk page, that is exactly what it is for - discussion on improving the article. The injunction against discussing the topic is meant to prevent, for instance, a debate at a Star Trek article over whether phasors or light sabres are a more powerful weapon, it does nothing to improve the article. Disambiguation in Wikipedia terms usually means disambiguating between articles with similar names but different subjects or aspects of the same subject. There are two main ways of doing this; dab pages and hat notes. You can find an explanation of these and when you should them at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. SpinningSpark 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada

I have been editing the article for Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, I was removing the POV statements since this is a living persons biography, the person has come back and reverted all my edits to some that are clearly POV and the username seems to indicate someone from the same family. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, he has made legal threats in the talk page for that article which is really not conductive to a civil discourse. I don't have any stake in this article as I was just editing it because of the POV flag on it. I don't know if someone could review the article to see if I'm being to stringent in enforcing the sourcing of the article. Gordie (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree, material like that is utterly inappropriate, I have reverted it. The article is also totally devoid of meaningful references. If it were not for the fact that he is a former Attorney General, and hence automatically notable for that, I would have nominated the article for deletion. WP:BLP requires the strictest referencing of articles on living persons. Any unreferenced statements should be immediately deleted. Can you give me a diff to the legal threat, I could not find it. SpinningSpark 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Digital Library Federation article COI and citations comment

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm still getting my feet wet, and recently wrote the Digital Library Federation article. Overnight I received a COI message, and took it to be a good faith perspective, and responded with what I thought was a sound argument. The editor that posted the COI wrote back with a very uninformative response, and now I'm wondering if they're just trying to be difficult. It almost appears to be some sort of misanthropic behavior or Wikipedia spam. See the thread that's begun at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Library_Federation.

I'm not sure how to handle this situation. Also, there is a posting that I haven't cited any resource for my article. Besides the fact that I posted an under construction banner as a way to let people know I'm still working on the citations, there are in fact one external link citation and several internal link in-text citations.

Both of these issues are discouraging to me. I'd like to continue my participation in Wikipedia, but am not having a very encouraging start. Diglib (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI - if you are connected to the subject matter you are strongly discouraged from writing about it. Also, your user name is of concern because in the context of your edits, it contravenes the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Huwala

For the article Huwala, I have been bold and gone through the article and removed most of what I thought was not relevant to the subject matter, in particular, discussion of the Sunni Arabs and long lists of tribal names. Subsequently, my edits were reverted. I reverted again, asking for sources to the information (though admittedly, there are no decent sources online for this topic) but it was reverted once more.

As I am relatively new, do you have any recommendations?

Bladeofgrass (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking rather than embarking on an edit war. This is a content dispute so the next step is to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Saeed Kamali Dehghan's entry

Dear Friend, I'm new in Wikipedia and I have just contributed : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeed_Kamali_Dehghan It has some warnings, while I have provided the article with full details, could you please check if the article is ok or not? Best, Jean Lapomme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanlapomme (talk • contribs) 09:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a huge improvement. I think you can remove the cleanup templates at the top of the article now. If anyone still has issues they can tag the individual problem statements, having the whole article tagged is no longer appropriate. SpinningSpark 18:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have done little more clean up, removed the tags and added project templates to the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to American exceptionalism by User:Gregorik.

I would appreciate the help of other editors in confirming whether or not the plethora of citations recently added to American exceptionalism are or are not original research or synthesis of unpublished research. I would appreciate the assistance of other editors in verifying cited sources.

I believe that several of the sources added have been added in a deliberate attempt to push a POV and use sources that do not verify the information given.

User:Gregorik stated yesterday regarding my tagging of his assertions that they are "easily refuted; also, anon edits are not to be taken too seriously in a case like this, sorry." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_exceptionalism&diff=267363076&oldid=267362550)

I have credible reasons to edit anonymously. Since others have usernames, I would appreciate if they could potentially look into whether my tagging was valid or not.

Thanks for looking into this.