Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:25, 14 April 2010

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by .

Texas county histories

Need guidance before putting out more effort. My goal is to help elevate Wikipedia to the global encyclopedia it wants to be.

In particular, I have noticed a lot of Wikipedia is somebody copying and pasting from other sources, sometime in entirety, without checking a secondary source. Frequently, the copied source is not cited.

Wikipedia could do better.

I am inputting Timeline History for Texas counties, one by one. Before I started this, almost all the 254 Texas counties had no history at all on their Wiki pages.

Therein, I intertwine the county's history with basic Texas history. i.e., the basic Six Flags info and relevant history, plus the Civil War. From a scholarly point of view, this gives a researcher a more efficient and clearer concept of all the pieces that came together to create the individual county.

In a place like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_County,_Texas the history of Texas evolved in the locale. In other counties, it's more basic info as a foundation for the county.

Today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_County,_Texas Somebody just deleted all Texas history - within 10 minutes of my having posted it. I reverted to my original edit of the county.

My question: Is my concept of intertwining Texas history into county history an appropriate format? It takes considerable time to do the research via various sources, and input the information. To have another editor delete a major portion of it within minutes of my posting it, and without discussing it, is frustrating.

I need to know if what I'm doing is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Maile66 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you go to the Talk Section of Hamilton County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamilton_County,_Texas, you will see the person who did that, Loadmaster, feels I have violated Wikipedia policies. Of course, just whacking out a hunk of someone's work without discussing it first, is OK with him. Need to know how Wikipedia views my timeline format idea.Maile66 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the best place to thrash this out is at the Texas WikiProject talk pages, I would think. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a more general principle, and should be addressed here.

It's grossly redundant. The joy of a hyperlinked document is that if I want a general overview of Texas history, I just need to click the blue link. If you add similar material to 254 articles, with the best of intentions you're instead contributing to the bloat and the load on all the servers of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Oscar67 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing question need to be asked confidentially

I have emailed a couple of editors but they have not responded.

I have a concern that needs to be addressed by an editor in private.

How do I make contact?

Thank you.

Agentkelton (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As posted to you before --> :See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Any email sent to oversighters will be kept private.Moxy (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore deleted article SQL Server Full Text Search

The article SQL Server Full Text Search was deleted for "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". As a contributor to this article (I competely rewrote it from a stub, adding technical implementation and architectural details), I disagree with the summary judgment of the deleter. Can someone please restore this article? If there are actual issues with the article or its content, it would be great to have an opportunity to discuss and possibly make necessary changes to it before a summary deletion penalty is imposed. SqlPac (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious; I don't see what made Orangemike deleted that as G11. I see you left this same request on his talk page, and that's the right first step. If he doesn't respond in a day or two, I might undeleted it. Alternatively, I'd be happy to restore it immediately into your userspace. I don't think it's advertising, but what it really needs is work on its notability. Currently, no sources are cited that are not from Microsoft. It needs sources from third-parties, or it may simply get deleted at AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of preparing to edit the article and add sources to it when Mr. Orange decided to delete it. At least at AFD I might get a chance to discuss the deletion before it took place, and possibly even modify the article. Can't really modify an article if it's not there. SqlPac (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only "source" is the manufacturer of that product, and the entire article consists of worshipful listings of features, descriptions of how the way this product works is better than other products, and a how-to guide, that to me qualifies as a clear G11. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike's response on his talk page is that the article was an "advertisement" since it's specifically about a set of software features produced by one company and all the references at the time he deleted the article were to that company's official documentation. "Worshipful" is a nice little adjective, but it doesn't mean a lot. I don't believe anything I added was "worshipful"; although I can't speak for what the rest of the world added/edited.

I was revising the article when Orangemike decided to delete it. If you looked at the history you would see it was a Stub article which I expanded with technical descriptions of architecture, technical features, etc. Since it is a Microsoft product, I added references to their official documentation (there were absolutely no references in the original stub article). I was in the process of expanding the article over time, and was actually visiting the article to expand references (I had additional references to add at this point) and clean it up a bit when I saw that Orangemike decided to hit the DELETE button. As I pointed out to Mr. Orange, there are several other technical articles that meet his interpretation of the "unambiguous advertising" deletion criteria (see Oracle Enterprise Manager, Oracle Developer Suite, JDeveloper as examples -- and there are plenty more examples available). To take this to its logical conclusion, does it make sense to make the rounds applying Orangemike's interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria (as he describes it) to the dozens of technical articles that currently meet that standard, summarily deleting articles along the way? I just want to understand the rules and how they can be uniformly applied here. SqlPac (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan River Parkway suggestions

I want to clean up the Jordan River Parkway article as the information is out of date and the format is awful. I've cleaned the primary section and started on a history section, but I haven't a clue about the trail sections. Any suggestions on how to format the trail sections would greatly be appreciated.Bgwhite (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by looking at other articles about parks. I just did, and agree the one you are working on needs help! Most of our parks articles do not have so much detail but try more to present a general overview. A point format is OK: many articles use it. I think what needs to happen is only including the most salient points and omitting the less interesting or unique. A short paragraph on each section of the park might make a more interesting article Diannaa ^TALK 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help Editing A Page for Acclaimed Musician Ronnie Vannucci Jr

Hi, I am looking for assistance in preparing an article worthy for posting on Wikipedia for Ronnie Vannucci Jr. I have opened the draft page on my talk page. Will you please show me how to have this ready for posting? Ronnie Vannucci is an accredited drummer and has been integral in developing a signature style as a drummer. He currently boasts more than 5 major drum making company sponsorships (I can give the refs), has been featured on the cover of at least 3 major drum magazines (I can give the refs), has been voted a winner on the modern drummers readers polls at least twice (I can give the refs), and has helped launch another major label band, Neon Trees from oblivion to a number 1 chart position on the new music alternative charts and a #29 position on the billboard alternative charts (this month).

You can see the draft page for Ronnie Vannucci Jr (famed drummer) on my talk page. Will you please look over the page and help me determine how I can get it ready to post on wikipedia. I am very interested in getting this posted. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.--Waytagojoe (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed you to Wikipedia:Notability (music) before:

Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. The draft should be in your user space not on your talk page. lose the fan from the picture, take out the WP:weasel words and establish some notability outside of the the band. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And drop all the peacock words like "acclaimed" and "famed" and "accredited" (meaningless in this context) and "boasts" and "major"! They make you sound like a drooling fan (or at best a copywriter), not an encyclopedia editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing things correctly...

I am trying to work on 2010 earthquakes. I have deleted information that I felt was overwhelming as well as not being notable. I also added information that I'm unsure if it qualifies as original research. Basically I found a list of earthquakes and then counted the number of occurrences of a particular strength and added them up. Wikipedia's policies on both Notability and Original Research tend to give me headaches and I could use a little help. Thanks --Tmckeage (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since your totalling of the information is not used to advance a position or argue a point I do not think it could be construed as original research. Your deletions of minor earthquakes fits in OK with the way the 2009 article was done. 2008 does not seem to have an article so go ahead and set the trend!! Diannaa ^TALK 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In need of a template fixer...

Done

Collapsing to aid page readability pending archiving - thanks for the help!

Shameless forum shopping - also posted at the Help Desk. Folks, I am looking for a more expert template fixer than I to turn Template:Table of Canon SLR into a properly formatted navbox template. Any volunteers, please? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a bit beyond me, I am sorry. The only such templates I have done have been shameless copying of another existing template. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my usual modus operandi too. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this application you need a "Navbox" template with child subgroups. Example:

Diannaa ^TALK 02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a simpler example: (This is not an active template but a project from my sandbox)

Diannaa ^TALK 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that you could take a look at it and fix? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh very well but you owe me some cookies. Diannaa ^TALK 04:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you so much! – ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information for "Pigging"

There has been work done in the past that used capacitive sensor technology to detect defects in polyethylene pipes for natural gas that can be added and should help the article more. Most of the topics talks about magnetic flux which is more for metal pipe, but very little in the article talks about any plastic pipeline. This test was conducted by NETL a DOE entity.

Website containing the article.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/td/dtrs56-benchmark_report_final.pdf

Pages in reference are C35 (PDF Page starting at 185)

Thanks,

Guilio 2008 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Travis[reply]

You need to post this at Talk:Pigging, the discussion page for that article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wykked Wytch

Wykked Wytch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The AfD for this article garnered only one comment, was relisted twice, and was then subjected to a non-admin closure "with leave to speedy renominate". I have never heard of speedy renomination before and am unsure how to go about it. What is entailed in speedily renominating an article for deletion? Neelix (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a Wikipedia term of art, I think it just means renominating at Afd soon after the closing of the previous one. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong CAS Registry Number

The CAS Registry Number for Nimotuzumab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimotuzumab) is incorrect. The correct number is 282933-51-3 per PubChem (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?sid=85154543&loc=es_rss). Please advise how to fix this.

Thank you.

--Kjymus (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Karen Jones YM BioSciences Inc.[reply]

Well, you could edit the page yourself. I see that some useful links, which explain the editing process and other things, have been placed on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Standard Version of Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Standard_Version

Mark Strauss, reference #10, is invalid.

Who would be the best resource to fix this since I'm not an expert?

Rossidor (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the place to discuss this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Maryland Terrapin Men's Basketball Articles e.g. 2009–10 Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team

2009–10 Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have replaced, for the second time, a graphic on the page 2009–10 Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team with Media:Maryland_Terrapins_Basketball_Logo.png, and have done so for the pages of earlier seasons in the past. The graphic I have replaced, Media:Maryland_Terps_logo.png, is only used by Maryland Athletics for the Football team. I am unsure of who is changing the logo each time I correct the problem, but I figured an editor could help resolve the issue. Willicaptain (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all editors here. If you click on the history tab of the article you can see a log of every edit. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put some useful links on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hp quality center - external link.

Hi

I have added a external link to the wiki topic "Hp quality center". It was removed and so I replied to the remover and added it back.

The remover, Dirk, again removed it and sent me a long mail saying that in his opinion the external link is spam.

I have replied in this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deansmithok#your_edits

the external link is not spam - it related to a tool that can only with quality center. It reports off quality center. There is a marriage relationship. The reporting tool does not work with any other product, just cant.

It seems Dirk, the remover, needs this to be explained to him as he has not understood me and I would like the link put back.

QC Reporting is a web based reporting tool that reports off the database used by the test tools HP Quality Center and HP Test Director. Reporting media is PDF, Excel, Screen Table and Adobe Flash graph.

Regards

 Deansmithok (Dean)

Deansmithok (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also answered on your talkpage. I was not the first to remove the link, more editors disagree with its place on that page. The link violates our 'what wikipedia is not' policy, we are not linking to all products that are related to the product discussed (however close the subject), we are writing about the product (if notable enough). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs of Kosovo article

I try to reason with them again and again to hear they arguments i am trying to find a solution that is accepltable for both side, to find a compromise. I am willing to delete parts of articles they find it unreliable but they are deleting all of my edits. I have a feeling that i am speaking to a wall.

I think that they are biased towards subjects regarding Serbs in Kosovo and trying to impose some sort of censorship on matters not in their political agenda. I can not find any other reason for such behaviour.

I am retiring from Wikipedia starting right now because i am regarding this as harrasement and i do not need this level of stress in my life. Good bye Wikipedia! Shanticm (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user after breaching 3RR was warned by an admin not to engage in an edit-warring[1]. And instead of following the policy he made a personal attack against the admin and starting insulting all users in general.[2][3]. Personally, I don't intend to engage in any kind of personal agruments with him. For the record both Shanticm and kedadi were warned not to engage in edit-warring and while kedadi stopped, Shanticm continued. As you see there are no 5-6 reverts as the user is claiming.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CIO Association of Canada article deleted without explanation

Resolved

– for now at least, username spamblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article was deleted April 1st by Bearcat - "not suitable as written". On March 21st after two previous submission attempts, the article had been successfully posted. There is no record in the deletion log as of today April 9th.

As we believe we complied with all the criteria, we need to know why our article was deleted so that we can make appropriate corrections.

Thank-you for your help.

CIOCAN (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the article, so I can't give you a specific answer. One clear problem here is that you shouldn't really be creating articles about yourself, your company, group, association etc. This is a serious conflict of interest and strongly discouraged. When writing about something you are so closely connected to, it's very hard to abide by other policies, such as remaining neutral. Another issue may have been notability. Is there evidence that your association meets out notability guidelines? Has it had significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Another big problem is your username. It goes against out username policy as it appears to represent a group of people and it is promotional.

Bearing all these things in mind, please take a look at our policies and guidelines before proceeding any further. Please change your username to something that is more appropriate (though remember that you still shouldn't be creating articles about your association). And finally, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising, a directory or anything else. For specifics on the article, you can contact Bearcat at his talkpage.--Beloved Freak 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greensboro

Under currently living / from Greensboro article, I noticed that for Joey Cheek, Brandon Haywood, Marques Douglas you stated that they attended James B. Dudley High School when in fact these persons GRADUATED from James B. Dudley High School. Please make the correction.

Carol Martin <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.156.19.210 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you mean the Greensboro, North Carolina article? As far as I can see, it says that Joey Cheek was born in Greensboro, but doesn't mention his schooling. Brandon Haywood doesn't seem to be mentioned, so maybe you mean a different article? It would be helpful if you could be more specific. Regardless, please feel free to make any necessary changes yourself. That's how Wikipedia works, everything is done by ordinary people just like you. I'm 100% sure what is wrong with saying they attended a certain high school anyway.--Beloved Freak 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New query

To whom it may concern:

I have made numerous attempts to correct the user page to comply with Wikipedia policy.I am not a writer.Just want to get the information out in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez

It is true that I have made attempts to connect this user essay to the Wikipedia Young Lords article.That is only because I am the founder of this group and because everyone else of importance to the group already has their links connected.My only concern is to give the public more information about the Young Lords origins.Can you assist me.This information is very important for the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.111.142.254 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted links about Wikipedia policies on your talk page. It seems that you need to read up on these before trying to create an article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I came across Young Lords with a link to User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez, making out that user is the person in question, which they may or may not be. The userpage was previously an article about said Jose, which I recently deleted in the hope it would prevent it being linked to, as you can see from the history of Young Lords, various different IP's having been adding the link for weeks--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat posting

I do not know how to sign nor don't know how to log into my account.I apologize for that.However an important article was deleted En.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez

Can you help us as it contains pertinent information concerning Latinos in Chicago who were displaced.Several professors have already used the information in their classrooms.The information is part of a research project at De Paul university and interviews related to the subject matter are currently being archived at De Paul University's Richardson Library.The Chicago History Museum currently has an exhibition on display related to this subject matter(individual and Community of Lincoln Park).Their are several books,newspaper,radio and television articles including several Youtube Videos related to the same subject matter.Several of the members are on speaking tours at various universities.We have even recruited a couple of students to edit the information and for the last several months I have put many hours to try to comply with your policies.We are trying our best but just have not been able to convert it into an article.Please forgive us for being novices. We do appreciate that you have allowed the information for more than a year.But we do not understand why it is being deleted right now when there is more interest in the contents.

Requesting your assistance. Thank you, Jose Jimenez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.115.229.73 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well, it looks like you are trying to spam link from various IP addresses, which is why your user page was deleted. Please take a look at the links on User talk:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez to get some clues. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding UNIVERSES (Poetic Musical Theater Ensemble) to Wikipedia

I added a page in my contributions to wikipedia and would like to request that it be reviewed and added to the encyclopedia. How can I get this done? Please Help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mredruiz (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess User:Mredruiz/UNIVERSES (Poetic Musical Theater Ensemble) is the page you mean. It is always helpful to post a link, if you expect to get responses. Ok, I took a quick look, if you want something more detailed try Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. Now your article doesn't follow the Wikipedia:Manual of style, which lays doen standards for article layout. Please read that guidleine to see how to improve it. You have refernces, which is good, but they aren't really laid out well. Wikipedia:Citing sources has more on this. There is defineitely the beginnings of an interesting artcile thre. Keep at it. I am going to place some useful links about editing and other matters on your talk page. I should warn you taht as you appear to be creating an artcile about a subject with which uou are closely involved, you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This means that you must work very hard to write with a neutral point of view. At the moment, the article errs somehwat on the promotional side. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular feedbacker at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback I completely agree with Jezhotwells' comments. – ukexpat (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:Griefing at Peter Bethune article

Other editors have removed or tried to remove photos, references from reliable sources and article material from the Peter James Bethune article. It appears to me that they are not acting in good faith and have a POV to defend, because the subject of this biography is involved in a controversial issue.

Here are diffs of the deletions:

Here is an example of a sourced point that has been deleted: "Mr Bethune is being held in a maximum security prison in Japan." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863365.htm

Note that a New York Times news article was deleted as a reference and replaced with another reference, presumably because the NYT article was not considered NPOV enough.

Please also see the edit history and discussion regarding the subject's photo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PeterBethune_with_Earthrace.JPG

The editors in question have made minimal contributions to the article.

The article's talk page is the place to try to resolve this - you have opened a discussion there already so no need for dispute resolution unless you reach an impasse there. – ukexpat (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid an edit war. I'm not getting any response on the talk page, but I'd like to revert these questionable edits. I've left an invitation on this particular editor's talk page:Terrillja _talk Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Peter Bethune article is a new article, but this has been going on for some time at the Ady Gil article, and experience with these editors leads me to believe that there is nothing I can say or do to stop them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of them [just] actually made a valuable contribution to the article, but then inserted a questionable quote into the subject's early life section that I've tried to convince them is inappropriate. Another just deleted an entire section on whaling for no specific reason. They are obviously hostile to the subject and I'm hopelessly outnumbered. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We did get the references back in though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried to out-argue every other editor and argued your position for so long that no one is willing to work with you anymore. If you tried to actually compromise, you might get somewhere, but instead you have decided to argue endlessly and are only polarizing the debate rather than making an ho nest attempt at forming consensus. Sometimes there is a reason no one else agrees with you. Because it just doesn't make sense.--Terrillja _talk 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostofnemo said "(The other editors) are obviously hostile to the subject". Do you really believe this or were you just being dramatic? Pirate^Argh!!1! 00:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at the current article and recent edits. Once again relevant, reliable-sourced, NPOV material is being deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355357792&oldid=355356806
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355471787&oldid=355469872 (poster explicitly states on user page that all videos posted are in compliance with copyright laws)

And they're adding derogatory, POV information about the subject of the article, who is, by the way, a living person:

"I'm a raper and pillager of the seabed and if it's out there to hunt or shoot, I'm into it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355306434&oldid=355290444 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After touring ports around the globe, the Earthrace was put on sale for $2.6 million and Bethune considered using it to "hassle Japanese whalers"." Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some comments from the article talk page when I protested the removal of the background information on whaling:

Repeating weak or bogus reasons for deletion does not strengthen the case for deletion. Why shouldn't this be included? Is it false? Is it POV? Is it misleading? Is it irrelevant? No. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAMETYPE#7.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With a dose of WP:DEADHORSE--Terrillja talk 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why constructive dialog is not possible: Removal of background information on whaling I certainly have tried. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoN has bee disruptive over three articles the last few months. Nothing left to say really.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for page on "photorepair" or "photo-repair"

Hello, In mid- to late January I used a wiki page on "photorepair" (or "photo-repair") as a background information, and now the page has disappeared. Any chance of recovering it? I would be very, very grateful. Many thanks.

Sincerely, Julie 70.56.55.93 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the Graphic Lab? How about Film preservation? Diannaa ^TALK 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything using a google wikipedia search.[4] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Identity

I opened a page recently and was surprised to see the ‘You have new messages’ box appear at the top of the page. I opened the message and was somewhat taken aback to see a message from one ‘Piano non troppo’ asking me not to introduce incorrect information into the page for Uri Geller. This surprised me as I, nor anyone using this computer, have ever visited, let alone edited, his page. I would like to know how to clear up this case of mistaken identity and clear the blemish off my IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.192 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just checked, and someone on that IP address did indeed edit the Uri Geller article, back in September 2009 - see [5]. However, as IP addresses are frequently re-assigned, that would have been a different person using a different computer, and it was that person who was being warned at the time, not you (you can see that the warning dates from September too). The warning casts no aspersions at all on any current or future users of that IP address. However, as the warning is clearly now stale, you're welcome to remove it yourself if you are now using that address. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of creating an account (see Why create an account?) is that other people's edits won't be connected to you in any way.--Beloved Freak 13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Katsumi Yamada page

Hello. I am usure of how to contact Atama, the person who deleted the Katsumi Yamada page so I am writing this request. Is there any way to find out why the page was deleted and to bring it back?

Thank you, Cordawg1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordawg1 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk page is at User talk:Atama. I am sure they will be happy to inform you why the page was deleted. Diannaa ^TALK 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log says: Deleted "Katsumi Yamada" ‎ (PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Not sure about notability, but more problematically, I can't verify this from reliable sourced beyond his existence. Lots of blog stuff but nothing meeting WP:RS) - meaning that there were insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Whoever proposed the article for deletion really should have (but were not obliged to) notified you on your talk page. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Really just a quick question regarding any standing policies on someone including links to a file-sharing site on a Wikipedia page. The specific page in question is Tales_from_the_Crypt_(TV_series), where someone has twice posted a file-sharing URL to a copy of the TV show's theme song. I'm fairly certain this is a violation of one or more WP policies, but I'm not certain which. Snarky Boy (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYLINK is the guideline that you are looking for.--Terrillja _talk 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wind mobile

I'm getting into a revert war with Jæs over a criticism section I added to Wind Mobile. In it, I cited a law blog from a leading academic and user forums. Jæs says that they do not meet the WP:RS guidelines and instead of discussing it, just reverts out my changes. I'm willing to concede that the forums do not meet requirements (but surely registered customer opinions must be worth something) but Jæs, in my opinion, is taking too literal an interpretation of WP:RS and not giving the community an opportunity to investigate my argument. How should I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenRhodes (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could start a discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get input from other editors about whether the source is reliable. Blogs are Not considered a reliable source as per WP:RS so I fear you will not win this debate. Diannaa ^TALK 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. My original contribution was: Wind drew criticism for port blocking which prevented users of their advertised "unlimited" data plans from using services on the Internet[16]. Wind responded by unblocking a number of services but others, particularly P2P, remain blocked. Other customers have complained of unreliable coverage, leading to a disproportionately high number of dropped calls[17][18], telephone number porting delays, and representatives not following up on client issues as promised[19][20].

What I think is relevant is that I mention that there is criticism and that customers are complaining. In other words, the statements are qualified. BordenRhodes (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally think, if you have an argument, you should let it stand on its own two legs. Inaccurately saying I reverted you wholesale without discussion is not going to help further your argument. I directed you to our policy, and you apparently agreed that at least part of your content was unreliable (since you only decided to revert to restore half of it). I suspect the other part is just as unreliable and will be removed again, since it doesn't actually meet our requirements for self-published sources and simply is not encyclopedic. We are not Consumer Reports or Howard Forums. jæs (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior

User:OregonWrestling has been edit warring, but using misleading edit summaries to hide it.

For example, he cut out large sections of an article here, but labeled it as "(Changed wording from "he" to subject surname "Thomas")".

So far I've been discussing it at Talk:Andrew_Thomas_(prosecutor) and Talk:Joe_Arpaio. I've asked him to enumerate his particular concerns with the articles, but he's not yet responded.

I suspect he's just going to continue what he's been doing -- accusing other editors of political motivations, while axing large sections of articles (or reverting edits that conform to WP:BLP, but that he doesn't like.) While I'd like to assume good faith on his part, he's really starting to look like a meatpuppet.

What's the best path forward on this, to get it under control? (Yes, I'm familiar with WP:Dispute Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... given no response from the admins here (hey, I was just looking for a little guidance), I'll just muddle along as best as I can. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an admins' noticeboard, although admins do respond here from time to time. If the editor in question is failing to engage in communication and continues to make edits that violate WP:BLP or are otherwise disruptive, you should bring it to the attention of the admins at WP:ANI. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They say its spam

hello maybe you can help me. I thought I was contributing to Wikipedia by adding my websites to the links on the appropriate subjects as the websites were exactly what the acticle was refering to. example. Directv and dish network and human saftey in security. I know that I am an affiliate but they are upto date sites exactly on the subjects. I was not trying to spam, now I fear my websites are in jepordy because you labled them spam. I thought I was helping. Can you help, please. I don't know what sign your pst with Greatread (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC) means. thank you Greatread[reply]

Thank you. [1] [2] [3] [4] MER-C 09:22, 12

Please read the notice that has been posted on your talk page, also WP:Five pillars, WP:SPAM and WP:External links. It is important to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil and strongly biased editor

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Discussion continues at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pope Benedict XVI

User:Jeannedeba on article Pope_Benedict_XVI and the talk page.

The user has shown an obvious bias to the point I believe it's being disruptive to the process or writing the article. When another user posted comments regarding this Jeannedeba claimed it was a personal attack and deleted the comment. I responded without naming Jeannedeba and it appears they think I'm a sock puppet (an admin can easily check my IP) and is making a pointless threat about a 'last warning'.

I don't believe I can make any response without crossing a line I don't want to cross and I believe that a senior editor or administrator needs to come in and possibly ban that user from contributing to Catholic articles for a few weeks or give them a strong warning to improve their behaviour (the talk history speaks volumes). I'm not sure exactly where to start and I do think that user can contribute to that page but not in their current state of mind. I think putting their name on a noticeboard will only have a negative effect on that user so if it can be resolved by someone without resorting to that I'd be grateful.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

RutgerH (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user RutgerH has been involved in disruptive POV pushing on the article Pope Benedict XVI, and repeatedly violated the policy on biographies of living persons. (He wants to add some obscure fringe theory about the pope getting "arrested", although he has failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that this is a credible theory). He has been told by several editors including administrators that the material he wants to include is inappropriate and a violation of the BLP policy (see Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI#Consensus). Yet he continues his disruptive POV pushing. Some IP also posts disruptive personal attacks[6] on the talk page, attacking me for allegedly being Catholic, which I consider totally unacceptable (see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F). If RutgerH continues his disruption and BLP violations, something needs to be done to stop his activities. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is actually plenty of evidence to support the claim that there is a plan to try to get the Pope arrested in the UK. There's an article in the Sunday Times (London) here, though it seems as if it exaggerates Dawkins' role, judging by his response here - and there are other news sources easily found by Google. So while a suggestion that the Pope will actually be arrested is silly, the campaign to have him arrested clearly exists and is documented in notable sources - but I'll leave it to others to decide if it is of encyclopedic importance -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no plans by the British government to get the Pope arrested. Some British newspapers have reported that a private individual, a book author, wanted to "arrest the Pope", although the person in question later denied this. This is an excellent example of a fringe theory that doesn't belong in a concise summary of the most important aspects of this case in the biography of one of the world's most important living individuals. As has been pointed out by several users: If the British government had done anything to arrest the Pope, it would be relevant. The fact that a private individual has a silly idea is not relevant in the Pope's biography - lots of people have silly ideas about leading public figures all the time. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh indeed, no, there are no plans by the British government to arrest the Pope - but I didn't suggest there were. And what Dawkins has denied is not the plan itself, just that he instigated it personally - in fact, he confirms that the private plan exists. My view is yes, that the whole idea is silly, but I'm not taking sides. As I said, I'll leave it to others to decide if it is of encyclopedic value - I'm just offering links to help others to decide, and actually supporting you against this one-sided complaint. (Oh, and nobody has explained anything to me several times - this is the first time I've even looked at this) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread that, that comment was intended for RutgerH. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no prob :-) Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, I forgot to add - I've had a look over the Talk page, and there is clearly some strong disagreement there, but I wouldn't say Jeannedeba has done anything to warrant a one-sided complaint here. There seem to be two extremes - one that no mention of sexual abuse should be included in articles about the Pope and the Catholic Church, and one that the articles should focus on sexual abuse almost exclusively. I think both are wrong (and most participants don't actually ascribe to either extreme) - the former is censorship and the latter is excessive recentism. Somewhere in between is surely the Wikipedia way. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone who think the abuse cases should not be mentioned in one form or another. Personally, I strive to maintain encyclopedic standards and neutrality in the coverage of these issues. Certainly the Pope's response to these issues should be dealt with in the article. The problem is that some users use the article to promote fringe theories or excessive coverage of issues only tangentially relevant to the Pope's biography, which is very problematic in a biography on a living person. Some users also have accused him of "paedophilia complicity", a very grave BLP violation. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I thought I was posting a form for a private request, my mistake. Zebedee you really should read it more if you can't find the very obvious bias. The claim of violating WP:BLP and POV pushing above is a farce and is an example of this users attitude. That section was formely named "British nutjob requesting the Pope's arrest" by the above user who claims neutrality on this topic. WP:RECENT is the exact reason I agreed it should not be included at this stage after taking note of the comments of another user though Jeannedeba didn't seem to have noticed or acknowledged that and wanted to claim other incorrect reasons it should not be included. RutgerH (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see anybody saying that nothing shouldn't be said. Rutger has a hard time understanding that fringe theories that haven't amounted to anything do not belong in an encyclopedic article. He is also having a hard time understanding his own bias, as he believes that any newspaper/magazine/etc which has the word "Catholic" in the title is by default biased and not reliable---and has unilaterally threatened to remove them as sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You thought a request on a public page for editor assistance was private? And I didn't say there was no bias - I opined that there was strong bias on both sides, and that a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified. My suggestion would be to try to achieve consensus on the Talk page - I know it's hard with religion-based topics, but it does seem to slowly get there. And if this new story is indeed considered encyclopedic, then there's no rush to decide - Wikipedia is not a news source -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah when I clicked the link in the blue box on this page it brought up a nice little box (not the whole page) and I didn't notice the 'new section' line up the top. RutgerH (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards issues

I'm in a dispute over this article with the editor who has wrote and maintained the article. It's currently protected, and the administrator told us to come to a consensus on changes, which is problematic, because the other editor wrote everything, and hence finds the article perfect. I pointed out a sentence on the talk page that was miscited, and his response was "Sorry. This is POV pushing.". I don't know what to do here, besides completely abandoning the page to someone who thinks the movie and directory are beyond criticism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have already had a 3rd opinion. Perhaps you should go for a WP:RfC if you feel strongly about it. Though that can have unpredcited results. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is protected until April 16 you might think about getting interested in editing elsewhere, at least for a while. Life is too short to not have fun doing your hobby, after all. Diannaa ^TALK 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(TV_series)

Someone other than myself has started a page about the television show "Gravity". There was some misinformation that i corrected, one which I am having a problem with which is the original working title of the show "Suicide for Dummies". The person that started this page keeps editing my change, and is now requesting verification. I have no idea how to do this. I have perused the forms, and I am totally lost. I need help. I know that the information that I am supplying regarding the original title is correct because my sister (Jill Franklyn) is the creator of the show! Whatever is needed to supply verification I am certain that I can get. I just do not know what to do. I would contact the person that started the page, but that is not possible, so I am at a dead end. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the problem information:

Gravity (Originally titled Suicide for Dummies[verification needed]) is an American comedy-drama television series[1] created by Jill Franklyn in 2007 during the writers guild strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 April 2010

Hi, we usually consider a fact verified when it is cited by a reliable source. Basically, you need to find a mention of this original title in a document that is known to be accurate (not, for example, a blog posting or a post in an online forum) and then you can write this information into the article and cite the document you found it in as a source. See our pages on verifiability, reliable sources, and citing sources for the fine print. When a fact such as this is verified in a reliable source it shouldn't be contested. I hope this helps. Them From Space 05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to echo what is said above, that fact that you know that your information is correct is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which requires verifiable, reliable sourcing for articles. As readers can't very well ring up your sister and ask her about this, the information is not verfiable. If, howver, she is interviewed by a magazine and they publish an article containing the information about the working title, then this is a verifiable, reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not subjective "truth". –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the only thing that i can obtain right now is a cancelled check that is made out to "client - suicide for dummies, AKA failure to fly". this check is from STARZ, the network that bought the show. does this help? I can delete all of the unnecessary information from the check, i.e, account number, address,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs)

I am sorry but that just doesn't meet the criteria of the guidelines to which you have been pointed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that mentioning the working title of the show in the first sentence gives undue importance to that information anyway. This isn't a case where the show title changed after it was already on the air and thus the audience came to know the show under both titles. It's more like All in the Family, which had working titles of Justice for All and Those Were the Days -- which are mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but not until the 42nd paragraph. In any event, though, the source currently cited identifies the working title for Gravity as Failure to Fly, not Suicide for Dummies. If Suicide for Dummies was yet another working title for the show, it needs to have been mentioned in a reliable source before it can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. but the information that is not of importance is the "Formally known as Failure to Fly". I believe that was not the only working title, and I can't even imagine where this person is getting their information. I felt that it was more important to have the title that it was originally created under, which was done solely by Jill Franklyn. There is an article referencing that in the New York Times when she originally sold the show which we are trying to track down. Until then, I guess it is under the control of the person that started this page. This is like watching Fox news creating their own facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs) 06:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. A source being required is the exact opposite. Regardless, I don't understand how the working title is relevant to the article if no one has ever heard of or written about it? Pirate^Argh!!1! 08:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Link under NMEA 2000

I would like to add a new link to the NMEA 2000 page that goes to an open source project (http://www.openskipper.com) I am running that allows users to process NMEA 2000 messages. This is the first such project, and thus an important source of information on NMEA 2000 message decoding. (Alternative approaches involve paying money to the NMEA association.) Is adding this link appropriate? Openskipper (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Andy[reply]

To increase the wekipedia about AJAY DEVGAN

Please add some more about AJAY DEVGAN

@@ Line 497: / Line 497: @@
 I would like to add a new link to the NMEA 2000 page that goes to an open source project (http://www.openskipper.com) I am running that allows users to process NMEA 2000 messages. This is the first such project, and thus an important source of information on NMEA 2000 message decoding. (Alternative approaches involve paying money to the NMEA association.) Is adding this link appropriate? [[User:Openskipper|Openskipper]] ([[User talk:Openskipper|talk]]) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Andy
+== To increase the wekipedia about AJAY DEVGAN ==
+Please add some more about AJAY DEVGAN