Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spoofing my ID

Hello,

Apparently, somebody is using my IP address to vandalize pages, and I'm getting the credit. I've received nasty messages threatening to block me, but I have committed no vandalism. I'm hoping perhaps someone can look into this...04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Responded, I see no vandal warnings on the account page, probably a shared IP someone else usd to vandalize. Leaving for a bit in case anyone else wants to chime in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars

Moved to user's IP Talk Page

Hi, Sorry if my english isn't perfect but I'll try to explain my problam. I'm a new user in the Israeli site of Wikepedia and I was working on 3 articles about Star Wars. A system admin has taken the articles which I wrote and changed the name in this manner: For my title: "Rebel Alliance" Changed to: "Rebel Alliance (Star Wars). "The old repbulic" Changed to: "The old republic (Star Wars)" "The new republic" Changed to: "The new republic (Star Wars)" Now what happend is that anytime someone would like to search one of this titles he would not see the articles and he would simply get to a page which says that there is no such article and ask him if he would like to write it. I have made contact with this admin and he has informed me that since there are several "new republics" and several "old republics" there is no option to have people searching for this articles and coming to a page regarding Star Wars. My suggestion was to have a page which simply tells people of the different options Just like if you type "new republic" in the search engine of the english Wikipedia. Yet he refused and said that this kind of titles should not be a part of Wikipedia since they are not really an encyclopedic article anyway. Also, he claimed that the writing wasn't good enough so really there is no place for this material. There is a very small (if any) chance that people will ever see my work, simply because one man decided to change the titles of my articles to a name no one will ever type in the search engine.

I hope you can help me and want to thank you for taking the time to read this,

Oroo

Oroo

The search tool should find them, but our guideline at WP:FICT gives the clue: we try to draw an obvious distinction between real constructs and fictional ones. Terms such as "old republic" and "rebel alliance" have more than one possible meaning, and the change of title makes it more apparent that the content is dealing with the Star Wars fictional universe. On the plus side, you're lucky to have found a Wiki where there is new work to be done on these subjects which clearly interest you - over here it is hard to find any fictional subject which rises above the level of trivia but does not have an article. Enjoy! The type of page you refer to is what we call a "disambiguation" page. Some editors are reluctant to mix fact and fiction topics even on a disambiguation, though. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with edits to tropical fruit articles

Hi,

I recently made some minor edits to several tropical fruit articles only to have them removed by another editor (with in minutes). I cannot fogure out how to reach them directly. I added some links to a page that has articles on the specific fruit (some from a S Eastern US angle. On earticle corrected a latin name and in another case a link added by another person the was also removed. I have spent over 3 decades in tropical fruit and the articles linked were cvalid and of interest to any researching the fruit. The pages linked to do not sell anything and were ewstablished to be educational. If this is the welcome I get on my first day here I may have misunderstood the purpose of wikipedia - is it not to provide information? Bob Cannon 20:51, 6 April 2007

Moreschi and I have responded to Bob. I have moved the responses to his talk page. (See diff). Although the top of this page currently recommends removing the question once we take it, I am leaving the question for a while in case anyone else wants to chime in. TheronJ 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tammy Bruce

Resolved

This is my first stop. An anon IP editor is adding information to Tammy Bruce article that, I feel, is wrong. This editor continues to add statement that say she is a conservative Republican, when in fact her web-site states that she is in fact "a liberal Democrat". Please advise. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the quick response. The last edit war I was in got me blocked and almost banned. Thought I'd try it this way for a change. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jaw jaw beats war war ewvery time :-) Guy (Help!) 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with my piece?

Why does my piece say it will be deleted? i have addded numerous references?

62.253.84.87 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

i have written a piece on Dr Sammy Lee (Dr Samm Lee) and wonder why the editors will delete it?

i have added numerous references?

Tommybucl 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on editor's talk, others may want to give some advice as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lifting Ban On Wiki Page

There is an artist named Crooked I, whose Wiki page has been locked and uneditable. I'm trying to get this removed as he is infact a real person and deserves a wiki page.

Thanks,

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xero910 (talkcontribs) 04:10, 8 April 2007

Clearly the page is a protected deleted page, which means it's been deleted and re-created multiple times in the past. What I'd suggest is that you create a subpage of your userspace (do this by editing your userspace and creating a link like [[/Crooked I]], and use that page to write up the article. Make sure that you read WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC before you write the article, and include references to independent sources (such as online reviews of his music, etc.) to back up what you're saying. Then when you're sure that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, you can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and file a request to have the deletion-protection removed. Remember though, every article you write has to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines - see WP:ATT and WP:NPOV for more info. Just because someone is a real person doesn't necessarily mean that they merit an article on Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Crest Trail external links

Hello, I added a link today for "Pacific Crest Trail" concerning documentaries about the Trail. It was taken down. Why is this the case when "Tell it on the Mountain", a link listed there also selling documentaries, is doing the same thing? Not fair.


Thanks, ScottYetifan 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia's guidelines on external links can be found at WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. According to this, you should avoid "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". I looked at the site you added (www.walkpct.com) in the article history, and it looks like it exists mainly to sell DVDs of the documentary. However, http://www.tellitonthemountain.com/ also seems to be a commercial website, and therefore should possibly be removed; I can't see that it provides much information that could be useful, and also seems to be promoting the sale of DVDs. But the fact that one commercial link exists doesn't necessarily mean you should add more. I can completely understand why you thought this was unfair, however, and I think the user who removed your link should have been more polite, and explained the reasons for it on the article talk page. But I wouldn't advise you to add the link again, as that could lead to an edit war. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Responded on editor's talk just as Walton was replying here. :) However, he's given you some very good advice as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment at my editor review.

Since I joined Wikipedia in February 2006, I have focused on writing articles, mostly on websites and Singaporean films. Unfortunately, my article writing has been hindered by the verifiability/attribution policy. Due to external systemic bias, there is a lack of available references on Singaporean topics. Furthermore, I have gotten involved in various conflicts, which I have handled poorly. Could you please give me some advice at my editor review? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Responded on ER. More comments needed. --Deryck C. 10:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Left some of my own. Some decent feedback there. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, and keep the feedback coming! I intend to create a "Response" section where I can post my responses to feedback, and seek clarification.
    P.S. I also need Wikipedians to respond to a peer review I filed for I Not Stupid, which I am aiming to improve to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Food

Dear Editor

I have a website www.indianfoodsco.com. It started of as a hobby and it has grown into a business.

I was under the impression that since I sell on my site I may not put my site on wikipedia.

Anyways I was browsing and I noticed that my competition which is ONLY a commercial site that does not have the passion or the info (I have written 600 articles on Indian food at the time when it was a hobby site) is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine.

So I listed my site as well.

I have started adding my site too but some one is taking us out.

If they are allowed to be listed I should too.

Please advise.

Thanks Kavita www.indianfoodsco.com 1-866-416-4165 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.161.130 (talkcontribs) 13:57, 10 April 2007

You were quite right. Per our restrictions on linking, commercial sites - sites that exist to promote companies/sell products - are to be avoided. I have removed both the link to your competition's website and yours. I offer my apologies for the fact that the link to your competition's website was not immediately removed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.161.130 (talkcontribs) 14:14, 10 April 2007

No problem. By the way, if wish to contribute to our encyclopedia fully, you may wish to create an account, although obviously you don't have to in order to edit. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

About St. John's University

Thank you for your help. I actually would have logged in for this, but my username, etc., is on my home computer (foolish of me, I know) so I am doing this merely from my IP address.

For the past several days, I have made minor edits to the article on St. John's University (NY) to add information I feel provides a fuller, more accurate, though I hope still objective view of the University. Specifically, the first paragraph mentions only a few of the programs the University offers -- liberal arts, business, pharmacy, law -- while the University is also well-known for its education and computer technology programs. I began several days ago editing this to include the info. However, everytime I did this, within a day the paragraph reverted to what it was.

Then, this morning, in the first paragraph, not only were my edits deleted but a new -- and I feel, unprecedented -- statement was added, wholly unlike the first paragraphs of other university articles on Wikipedia: a statement saying that St. John's is cited in Princeton Review's "Least Happy Students." Citing this high up in an article, with no countering view or information, seems strange at best, biased at worst. There is no similar information similarly placed in any other University article I've seen on Wikipedia. Also, it so happens that the actual citation refers to an often debated survey Princeton Review distributes every few years; while true, it is not viewed as remotely fair by most universities. When I changed this, I replaced the overtly negative statement with a positive one about St. John's being on a national ranking for technology excellence.

I am writing because I really am tempted to change this back to my edits, though without the "positive" statement. I almost feel that the other editor included the negative statement as a kind of punishment. (You'll note that the same editor added a prominent "recent news" section about a financial aid controversy, not included in articles about other universities also involved.) Please provide some guidance with this, because the changes to my admittedly new edits do seem a bit overbearing, as if one person owns this article, and even negative, as if punitive.

Thank you.

-- moskow11@optonline.net

Both editors involved seem to be talking to each other civilly on their talk pages: I would encourage them to keep doing that. The offending statement is still in the article, but I've moved it out of the lead, where it was a bit of a slap in the face, and have added some cleanup tags, and have left a comment on the talk to that effect. I think another Assistor - is that a word? - needs to have a look at this, as The Princeton Review does not seem to be an entirely unreliable source. Having said that, the manner in which it is being cited probably violates the external link guideline, as their website requires registration. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


A link to a St. John's school article speaks about the ranking and the 2007 princeton review book can be found at any book store. 68.175.30.133 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The statement could stay if it was really mentioned in a specific version of the Princeton Review. Nevertheless, you can revert it back to your version if you don't agree with it, then if anybody else challenges you may use talk pages to resolve the dispute. Third opinion might also be useful in this case. --Deryck C. 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Another comment to 68.175.30.133: Not all bookstores sell Princeton Reviews. Bookstores that sell Princeton Reviews are common in, say, America, but not in other parts of the world. The book shop in the mall near my apartment is the biggest in the district, yet I've never seen a single copy of Princeton Review in it. --Deryck C. 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Xandir

I am not sure if this is a dispute to place here, if not I am sorry.

For about a month, there has been an edit war on said page between myself and a few users on whether or not to label this character as "Homosexual" or "Gay". I have provided many reasons for my argument, yet each time it is reverted, either with no reason given or by repeating the statement "It is politically correct". If I am wrong on this, then thats fine, however, I would like to resolve this war as soon as possible, as it has been going on for over a month.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. DSMeatte 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Responded on editor's talk, leaving up in case anyone else wants to chime in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please consider using article talk pages to discuss edits which may be contested. Cheers. --Aarktica 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance with Dispute

Sometime last year I noticed that someone had claimed that Kanishka, a famous ancient Kushan king of northern India, and patron of Buddhism, was a Jat. Now, I have been studying the history of the Kushans since 1979 and I had never heard this claim before, or of any evidence which might support it. In fact the Kushans' origins not at all certain and remain a matter of intense scholarly debate. So I had a look at the Wikipedia Jat people page. When I did I was confronted with a rather rambling page containing a lot of legendary material presented as facts, including some clearly false assertions, and a persistent and disturbing theme of "Aryan" connections, as well as claims that many of the most famous kings in Indian history were Jats, and so on. So, I started making looking more carefully at particular claims, and checking references, and then making corrections and this immediately got me into some heated debates which may all be read on the Talk page (and the Archives).

This has become a very tedious and unhappy experience and I have received many insults and personal attacks (usually from anonymous writers), but also some very welcome support - especially from Jats who are embarrassed by the supremacist attitudes and wild claims (not to mention outright untruths) that are regularly made on the page. I have tried to keep my cool and talk things through logically and provide alternatives (like moving most of the legendary, traditional and speculative material to a separate page instead of presenting it all as "facts"). Sadly, I did lose my cool once recently - it seemed I was going around in circles having to reply again to questions I thought had been resolved - but did apologise publicly for this lapse.

I would really like to have no more part of the whole matter - but the page is at present so bad, so riddled with misinformation, false quotes and references, I don't dare leave it until some sanity is returned. I don't want to go on and on about it here now or point the finger at anyone. You can work out for yourselves what has happened if you go through the Talk page and its archives.

I really feel that the whole page needs to be redone to make it truly worth of inclusion in the Wikipedia - and all claims and references and "facts" should be carefully checked by some neutral person. And, I suggest, it probably should be partially "locked" at that point so that there is some process of review before new material is posted on it. Otherwise it will most probably be hijacked by fanatics again.

I should just add that this does not only apply to the Jat people page, but also to a number of pages connected with it - mostly on subjects relating to Jats. All these articles should, I believe, at least be factually accurate, and feature suitable qualifications if they contain contentious statements and claims.

I do hope you can find a way of helping - I am not sure what to expect as I have never been in this sort of process before.

I will be most happy to answer questions at any time, or help in any other way that I can.

Best wishes and thanks, John Hill 05:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I forgot to mention that I contacted the "Association of Members' Advocates" first and one of them, Æon, said he had posted a link on my case to your project and suggested that I contact you.
  • Since I have no knowledge of this matter, I cannot give any "professional" opinion. The only thing Wikipedia can do is to find people who agree with your view to help you edit the articles. Administratively, semi-protection can bar out anonymous editors from editing the article. It would be best if you post a {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} to tell other users not to edit, then start rewriting the article. This custom is seldom challenged until you stop editing. Then you can have a new version of the article to start with, and then you can negotiate with the editors who don't agree with you. Of course, remember WP:ATT - sourcing is the most important, not simple factual accuracy. You can also use WP:ATT as a reason for removing the other editors' misleading claims. --Deryck C. 09:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

of the list. Please note that requests will not necessarily be answered in the order they were made, assistants will take requests based on where their knowledge and experience will help the most. Once a case is complete or being discussed elsewhere, please move it to the archive.


Problems with user "SeK612"

"80.156.44.1" aka "SeK612" continues to undo and remove anything I edit on the Natalie Bassingthwaighte page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Bassingthwaighte). I have told him to stop, but he wont. Can something please be done about him. Nbwiki 08:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This is actually a 40-edit long revert war which lasted for half a day. I believe we need to take some admin action if it goes on. --Deryck C. 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

help

Could you link to any sponser or any organisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.17.19 (talkcontribs)

In most cases, Wikipedia doesn't link to anything as "sponsors". However, sometimes individual users give others "resource websites". --Deryck C. 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

help

Dear sir/madam Hi, am called Godfrey living jinja, in Uganda and am a student but am unable to continue with the books because of tuition fees, i have no body to help me yet i was aheading to the university and i was almost admitted to persue a degree course but due to the dues ceased me from proceeding with my studies.so am just requesting if you could link me to any sponser or any organisation that can help me to continue with my studies such that i can help my sisters and brothers. I look foreward to hear from you (through gf-dany@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.199.17.19 (talkcontribs)

  • (attention needed?) Generally Wikipedia does not offer monetary help... We're an intelligence entity. However, you might be able to grasp some attention if you bring this up in other pages, like, WP:VP. I hope I'm not pointing you to the wrong place. --Deryck C. 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the reference desk would be the place to go on this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Page for Sugar Blue

Stale: Inactivity for twelve days. Immediate archiving recommended. --Aarktica 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated a page on behalf of blues harmonica player Sugar Blue, with his input and full consent.

The page has recently been flagged. The documentation and instructions I weeded through were lengthy and varied, and not specific to any problem I can see in what I've posted on that page. Since I'm not clear on what the problem is or where to begin to look for it, I would appreciate your help. Please let me know specifically what you would like changed, and I'll handle it promptly.

If you just need authorization or approval from Sugar Blue himself for any of the content, please contact him through his Myspace page: www.myspace.com/sugarblueharp. He's on the road this week, but will be back by early next week.

Thanks much, Maureen Gilliland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namedujour (talkcontribs)

The article on Sugar Blue seems to contain encyclopaedic information. However, I suspect that improving the presentation of the content would go a long way in addressing the issue at hand. Please consider reviewing Help:Section for tips on how you could clean up the article. --Aarktica 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

External link abuse

Resolved: No new incidents. --Aarktica 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An unregistered user ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.11.93.5 ) keeps adding a commercial website ( www.kennebunkport.com ) to the listings for Kennebunk and Kennebunkport, Maine. Can/should they be blocked? TJ aka Teej 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Warn them on their talk page using {{uw-spam1}}, and/or explain to them that commercial links are not needed on Wikipedia. If they keep doing it after repeated warnings, then you can report them to a administrator and they may be blocked. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I have left a message on the unregistered user's talk page - we'll see if they read it and stop posting the spam link. TJ aka Teej 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The spammer is back - and has posted:

to the Kennebunkport entry.

Next step, please? TJ aka Teej 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: No further posting of spam by that user on either page as of 20 April. That user's last post was the "WHO GIVES YOU..." of 17 April. TJ aka Teej 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Hopefully that will be the last of it. In any event, this request will stay up for four more days; after that, I will mark this request as resolved — unless there are new developments. Cheers. --Aarktica 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

additional info on davey havok

Stale: Non issue. Immediate archiving recommended. --Aarktica 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Davey Havok changed his DL to New Jersey. He will soon be married. His soon to be wife is the female in his love like winter video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.89.19 (talkcontribs) 07:33 14 April 2007

Say what? --Aarktica 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing message from Wikipedian who has since been blocked from editing

Resolved: --Aarktica 19:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can help with this message, which I found on my User Talk page:

Your userpage is in Category:User templates or a related category. Please take it out of this category or find the userbox that puts your userpage in this category. If you know how to then the category in the userbox and message me afterwards so that we can see the effect on the purged category. -PatPeter 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied with the following message, which I also sent to PatPeter by e-mail:

Thank you for your message PatPeter, but I actually don't understand it. I was presented with a userpage to edit when I first signed up with Wikipedia and have done nothing to it (apart from adding information about myself and a few userboxes). You're going to have to explain. --SoniaUK 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

However, I have now discovered that this person has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a year. Was his message to me a hoax? If not, what have I done wrong and how can I resolve it? Please post a reply on my User Talk page if possible, or send to me by e-mail.

Thank you very much for your help. SoniaUK 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest ignoring the message from PatPeter; if it is indeed a problem, you will probably be prompted again about the issue in the future. I hope this helps. Cheers. --Aarktica 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: After reviewing PatPeter's user page, along with the rationale for the block, I suspect that it was indeed a hoax. --Aarktica 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aartica, your help is much appreciated. If it is a hoax, then I'm not too upset because PatPeter sounds like a very troubled individual. I hope he's getting some help. SoniaUK 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Good luck. --Aarktica 19:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint.

Stale: No new incidents. Immediate archiving recommended. --Aarktica 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take out the article about Jamie Martin and Babe Chandler from All My Children? I have noticed that you folks are deleting a lot of good articles. Not to mention that the lists have been removed from the AFI movie lists. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.21.34 (talkcontribs) 21:15, 14 April 2007

  • What do you mean? Are you sure you are complaining to the right audience? --Aarktica 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict reply) :Actually, the articles on Jamie Martin and Babe Chandler do exist. The one on Jamie Martin has been disambiguated (moved to a more specific title), which is what we do when we have more than one article on a subject with the same name. You can find the soap opera character at Jamie Martin (All My Children). This is just a standard procedure when it's necessary to have more than one article on something with the same name, nothing is deleted in the process, just moved. The Babe Chandler article has been redirected, you can find it at Babe Carey. Neither one has been deleted. I can't find the list you're talking about, but often, copying in a list verbatim from another source is a copyright violation. As to deletion, sometimes we do delete articles. Articles we have here must be sourced through third-party, independent reliable sources, and fictional subjects should be written about in an out-of-universe style, again with third-party reliable sources, and not use an editor's own interpretation of the fiction. Often, wikis do exist at Wikia which cover fictional subjects in more depth and a more in-universe style, and may allow article authors to use their own interpretation in writing. If that's what you're looking for, chances are a wiki there exists with exactly that! Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Orlando Bloom

Stale: Immediate archiving of request recommended. --Aarktica 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

i would like help ending a disagreement on list of British Jewish entertainers. can someone please come and help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linestouch (talkcontribs) 06:35, 15 April 2007

  • What you may want to do is to keep discussing the issue, and if that fails, to seek mediation, as it looks like several editors are involved. If you do believe mediation would be helpful but are unsure how to go about it, let me know and I'll help! Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Resolved: --Aarktica 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If I click "Undo" and there are later edits, will that affect those edits at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbak (talkcontribs) 20:18, 15 April 2007

  • As I understand it, the Undo function only affects one edit — the very last edit to an article before the Undo operation. Does this help? --Aarktica 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes thanks very much. Chrisbak 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. --Aarktica 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Noah

Resolved: Comprehensive response sans follow-on incidents. --Aarktica 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with a couple of Wikipedia users deleting the "Popular Culture" section of the page about "Noah". I, as well as several others see the relevance of keeping the section in the article as it add contemporary relevance and could be of assistance to researchers on the topic. I think it would be FAR more effective to discuss major changes first before unilaterlly deleting entire sections. Musicman88 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Musicman88 has had Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles explained to him more than once, and WP:3RR as well. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg is correct, generally we do try to avoid "Trivia", "In popular culture", and similar sections in articles. If something is important enough to be in an article, it's best to work it into the prose of the appropriate section. If you find it doesn't really fit anywhere, it's probably, well, too trivial. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I a Notable Barrington Resident?

Resolved: Comprehensive response sans follow-on incidents. --Aarktica 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

A Wiki user (or Editor) named MastCell just left me a message suggesting that my recent editorial addition of my name and my blog under the Notable Barrington Residents section of Wikipedia's Barrington Hall entry is, or may be, "for advertising or promotional purposes."

Certainly I welcome an open-minded inquiry - if that indeed is "MastCell's" purpose - into why I decided to add my name and my blog. Wikipedia is a great online resource which I use and link to frequently, and I can spell out in a few sentences why I believe I just enhanced it. I also welcome this as an opportunity to become more familiar and clearer about Wikipedia's policies generally (especially those relating to neutrality and conflict of interest).

Please help me to understnd the nature of the scrutiny I am now under: What, if anything, must I now do in order to remain in good standing as a Wikipedia editor and to let that recent edit stand? If it is necessary or recommended that I explain how I understand the informational (as opposed to "promotional") purpose of that edit, to whom should the explanation be directed? What form should it take? Etc. Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremayakovka (talkcontribs)

So you write a conservative blog and you used to work for Fred Newman. Certainly not your typical resume, but are you notable enough for a wikipedia article? Jeremiah Duboff, <-- currently red link, not yet, or is it under a different title? Do you think your potential article would survive in wikipedia? Why do you think no one has written one about you to date? These are issues you need to consider with respect to are you a notable resident. David D. (Talk) 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend reading WP:COI and WP:AUTO. In cases like this, wikipedia recommends proposing the addition on the article talk page - if editors agree that you are notable, they will make the addition to the article. --Minderbinder 13:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please verify my article

Resolved: Article in question deleted. --Aarktica 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam: Recently, I both created an account and authored my first page, entitled "Canadian Toilet Cartel". Immediately, it was placed into the "Patent Nonsense" category. This is a legitimate Black Market organization, which had references. It is still a work in progress, but so far the article is entirely true and supported by fact. Please assist in removing the artcle from this "Patent Nonsense" category.

Thank you, Leonisphenom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.152.73 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 16 April 2007

The article's now been removed from the Patent Nonsense category and sent to the Articles for Deletion process. You can comment on the deletion discussion here. I agree that it didn't belong under "patent nonsense", as you correctly provided references for the article. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Stale: Immediate archiving recommended. --Aarktica 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Why is it that the article on Jesus can not be edited? I have been scrolling through other historical figures and they can all be edited except for the one about Jesus. Why is this?

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.250.254 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 16 April 2007

That page is semiprotected, meaning it can only be edited by users who have logged in with a username and password, and whose user account has existed for 4 days or more. If you want to edit the page, click "Sign in/create account" in the top right-hand corner of the screen, and create an account for yourself; then wait 4 days. The reason it's semiprotected is to protect it from vandalism; as Jesus is a major religious figure, the article attracts more vandalism than most articles on historical figures. Other permanently semiprotected articles include George W. Bush. I know it's annoying, but it's also necessary to protect Wikipedia from damage. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NR Narayanmurthy

Resolved: Editor making request was blocked indefinitely for username. Please make a new request under your new username if the issue still exists.

Please revert changes to NR Narayanmurthy page. The anthem controversy should be removed from his biography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.R._Narayana_Murthy

South indians are gaandu krazy 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC) south indians are gaandu krazy

You might want to provide a link to the article, I'm honestly not sure which one you're talking about, I don't find one by the name "NR Narayanmurthy". Also, you might want to consider discussing the matter on the talk page of the article, I notice this is the only edit you've made. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That page is currently protected from editing, so if you want edits made to it, you'll have to use {{editprotected}} on the talk page of that article to ask an administrator to edit the page. However, administrators will generally not make a contentious edit to a protected article while the dispute is ongoing. Can you be more specific why you'd like the content removed? It looks pretty well-sourced to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Wilbanks: External Link Deletion

Resolved: --Seraphimblade, 05:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

I see that my addition to the External Links section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Wilbanks has now been deleted. I had posted "Censored Latino artist and collaborator critique Wilbanks-style racism" (http://billfisher.dreamhost.com/nohate.html which is my site) and someone (ip 68.164.169.94) with no connection to me or my site recently posted "Artists censored on Wilbanks story" (http://billfisher.dreamhost.com/imagery.html). Both posts have been deleted by ip 170.141.68.99. While I find the later, "Artist Censored" posted link to be redundant, and a better link would be http://billfisher.dreamhost.com/missing.html , I believe the information on these sites to be quite relevant, topical and useful for those researching subtle forms of racism and the "Damsel-in-Distress Syndrome" (Susan Smith, Miriam Kashani, et al). The fact that the artwork cited was censored from an exhibition in Wilbanks' home town makes the issue even more urgent. I am guessing the deletion was due to the link being seen as spam or self-promotion. I hope the editor may reconsider this decision, especially considering the post from ip 68.164.169.94 which has no connection to the authors of the linked site. All feedback is welcome. As I understand it, if the consensus here is that the link should be restored (or changed to http://billfisher.dreamhost.com/missing.html which is now my suggestion), then I may do so.

Thank you for your time.

Billfisher66.168.109.239 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


From the Wilbanks Talk Page:

I don't really see how this link is notable. Besides, adding links to promote your website may constitute WP:SPAM. bibliomaniac15 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Thank you, Bibliomaniac. I would like to stress that I did not add the link to promote my website. This is an issue that I feel is an important aspect of race relations in the USA, and an aspect of the Wilbanks' and other similar cases normally marginalized in mainstream media coverage. Also considering that another individual with no connection to me or the artwork cited also posted a link to the artwork would indicate there is interest in the issue. Again, my suggestion now is that the link be to http://billfisher.dreamhost.com/missing.html , not the links I or the other individual originally posted. Thank you again, Billfisher 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


After looking at the site in question, while I will presume that you were acting in good faith, I agree that the link does not meet our external link guidelines. It's only of tangential relevance to the article's subject, and I see no indication that it undergoes editorial control or otherwise qualifies as a reliable source. While it's an interesting site, I don't think it really fits an article here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Seraphimblade. Billfisher 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help with KFBK Wiki entry

Stale: No new incidents. Immediate archiving recommended. --Aarktica 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I encourage the editors to contact KFBK's programming director, Alan, at <number redacted> about the inaccuracies on the page.

Nadnerb1969 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been reverted by more than one editor, which shows that the information you are trying to add does not have consensus. Further, you appear to have a conflict of interest with this article. Let me suggest that your time would be better spent editing something that you are less closely connected to. -- Pastordavid 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Pastordavid, calm down... Newbies don't understand anything here, even those we consider the most fundamental. --Deryck C. 10:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The SCO Group

Resolved: by Seraphimblade 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

An employee of our public relations department informed me that he has tried several times to correct information regarding The SCO Group at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_SCO_Group and each time, his edits are reverted. These edits he has attempted are the removal of several old products that the company no longer offers and the additions of several new products. Also, one product has never been a product of our company but a product of a breakoff company, Caldera Inc., not Caldera Systems. In addition, he has attempted to add an updated definition of the company that includes the many new mobile offerings. Each time, his edits are removed with no explanation. Several customers have recently complained about the tone and nature of the entry in Wikipedia our company has. It is perceived as agenda-driven and an attempt to paint the company in as bad of light as possible. Most of the entry is dedicated to a controversial lawsuit v. IBM rather than an attempt to outline the company's products. I have recently been contacted by two journalists who want comments about the seemingly biased entry someone has made to our Wikipedia definition.

While I recognize that many opensource advocates have an issue with our company, it sheds poor light on Wikipedia to use this as a platform to continue the many attacks on our company. In a recent attempt to edit, for the 3rd time the valid information our PR department would like to place on our entry, the site was locked.

While I'm not a prolific user of Wikipedia I would ask guidance on this matter and how we can resolve the issue of seemingly intentional vandalism to truthful and valid information.

Sincerely, Craig Bushman Vice President, Marketing The SCO Group cbushman@sco.com -- 75.83.170.207 03:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, we recommend that those affiliated with the subject of an article discuss changes on the talk page of the article with other editors, and clearly disclose affiliations, rather than editing the article directly. (You can find the talk page at Talk:SCO Group). Unfortunately, while you seem willing to act in good faith, many editors here have had bad experiences with company representatives attempting to whitewash articles, and do get a bit jittery about it. (And it's difficult to edit neutrally on a subject one is close to!) Also, it may be helpful if you can provide confirmation of the information (for example, in the case of the products, if you can direct other editors to an updated product list, or a notice the company issued regarding discontinuing or releasing a product). Regarding the other information, while we certainly welcome your assistance and input, please do note that the SCO controversy will be discussed. However, as with all articles, we do require that the information be presented in a neutral manner and tone. If you believe that some material in the article is not presented neutrally, you are welcome to put forth your suggestions for improvements. The best way to do so is to state what you believe is wrong or biased, and how you would suggest improving it to a neutral presentation of factual and verifiable information. Also, do note that we don't consider good-faith edits, even poor ones, to be vandalism. You're probably just running into the issue I described above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice of 3 Revert Rule

Resolved: --Aarktica 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I just received a pop-up notice about a 3 revert ruling (on the entry for Robert Sungenis). I looked it up and don't think it really applies to me.

I think it happened because rather than making all my changes in one large edit, I made them in 3 or 4 so I could leave explanatory comments on the reasons for each change (not enough room in the little box to explain them all in one shot).

I don't see that I'm "warring" with the user Truth-seeker. It's not a simple reverting back and forth. There have been contructive exchanges and modifications, using the comment box under each edit to explain reasons.

What should I do? The procedures for Wikipedia aren't exactly easy to find and follow (especially finding out who actually sent the pop-up warning and for what specific reason).

Thank you. --Liam Patrick 19:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The warning has been retracted. Does this resolve the issue for you? --Aarktica 19:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Aarktica. --Liam Patrick 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. Glad to help. Cheers. --Aarktica 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vore Problems

Stale: due to Requestor's inactivity. --Aarktica 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vore

vorarephilia specifically

NeoFreak keeps removing content pertinent to the subject. No one wants a censor. And I can not see why this is occurring. Especially since the reasons are not real clear why since the citation of lack of citations is why the citations are removed.... That is just straight double talk.

As a person directly involved in this and other related subjects I think I speak with a scholarly level of understanding this and other subjects.

NeoFreak reverts without sending a message asking why I did what I did and only lately has he started sending messages, and they seem to be rather demeaning.

I think as a editor he should be removed from being allowed to touch the site. He is using Bots to alter the forum it seems. As are others.

My other contributions include in the Role-Playing community. I am a personal friend of Dave Arneson and his webmaster. I have been here since RPGing was invented by him. And I assume NeoFreak is demeaning my contributions on his work on this site by his comments on my other additions.

I wonder how many others were removed by his actions and threats. I wish to go official on my complaint on the subject. Maybe work together with others on a beta version on the article that is approved for inclusion and not censored for personal objections and is true to the subject.

Is there a part of the site where others can collaborate and finalize before posting? If censoring to LESS content because one can not BELIEVE or wants to allow, even if citation is given, then so be it. I do not get it then why you try to call yourself a source of information if your keep not allowing contributions.

(NeoFreak often has quotes on his own profile to say such or give the impression such.)

Maybe a simple page on how this works.... I am not into bombastic elongated and boreish talk. Get to the meat and bones information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValarClan (talkcontribs) 20:44, 18 April 2007

Well I think that the contents of the above comments make the problem pretty clear. The article in question is Vorarephilia. Some discussion can be found in the talk section directly above and then in the "Censorship" sub-section. There is also other material on ValarClan's talk page. My fuse is already blown but outside assistance with this new wikipedian would be helpful. NeoFreak 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What that article is most in need of is some reliable sourcing, it appears. I don't see a bit in it, mostly just webgroups and such. If none can be found, it's likely to be nominated for deletion and render the point moot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue on AN/I

Resolved: via MedCab. --Aarktica 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The poster of this thread looks like s/he could use some help getting through the mediation process. S/he looks like s/he just wants help figuring out how to provide evidence etc. Anchoress 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I specifically need help properly demonstrating that a user is WP:TE, WP:NOT, WP:SPA Lsi john 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the editor is asking for help navigating the mediation process. The issue isn't to duplicate what the mediator is doing. Sorry if I've made a mistake in interpreting this issue. It seems the editor in question (Lsi John) wants help utilising WP policies and formatting. Anchoress 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Smee and I are in mediation and she has declared that I will never be satisfied and thus her view is that the mediation is pointless which is not WP:FAITH. However, that mediation is not related to my request here. It appears that now she is seeking to derail my education on wiki.

My reason for being here is clearly stated above. I need help learning the rules and learning how to present evidence and demonstrate abuse. Lsi john 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Zanta

Stale: --Aarktica 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added to the article about Zanta recently and it has been deleted by another user. I have since re-added it but I am afraid that this person is working for the zanta character. Please stop this person from deleting my verifyable post again!

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.212.28 (talkcontribs) 02:05, 19 April 2007

It looks to me like the edit was pretty poorly done, and violated our biographies of living persons policy, which would be why it was removed immediately. I'm not sure what "blogTV" is, and can't find out (it's only available to Canadian IPs, and I don't feel like finding a Canadian proxy just for that), but it appears to be a repository for self-published information. That would be unreliable. I don't see anything in the other sources to indicate that he "may assault you", and regardless, Wikipedia is not for advice on how to handle a situation, and we don't use the second person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand...

Resolved: Addhoc 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have been told to quit vandalizing wikipedia, when in fact I have only edited one article, Rhinophyma, where I changed the part that said it was attributed to alcoholism to "it was once thought to be contributed..." Are these warnings some kind of spam? I cannot imagine why I would ever visit a site about candyland, the first crusade, or the hundred year war. I am a physics/biology teacher and have enough to learn about in my own field. In fact, I love wiki, I think it is one of the best inventions of all time (along with google), and have worked hard at my school to get other teachers to realize the value of using wikipedia as a starting point to address any and all questions. If it turns out that it really was my computer being used, it was probably done by errant students and I apologize in advance. Sincerely, JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajani57 (talkcontribs) 19:58, 21 April 2007

Me neither. I guess someone must have posted a warning on the wrong page and possibly there is a vandal out there who received a welcome note destined for you. Regardless of the mix-up, welcome to Wikipedia. Addhoc 17:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Need Help with External Links

Stale: No reply in 14 days. Probably resolved. --Deryck C. 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a journalist who has conducted many high profile interviews. I'd like to link those interviews to each person's Wikipedia page so Wiki users can find out more information about each person in the interview I did with them. My site is www.thesportsinterview.com and I am not trying to spam Wikipedia. I am just trying to share my work as reference. Any advice on how I can link my articles into Wikipedia without them being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewEra21 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 23 April 2007

Generally, we strongly discourage linking to your own website, due to the question of conflict of interest. What you can do is list the site on the article's talk page, stating why you believe it's in keeping with the external link guidelines, is a reliable source, and would generally add to the article. If other editors agree, they'll add the links. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah

Resolved: Not much to be done while the editor is blocked for legal threats. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this board, but since signing up, I have been insulted and liable has been committed against my name. My user name is the same as our family business - and I have explained all of this to a certain user, but he contends that I am (multiple) users with whom he has had difficulties. He has made horrible remarks toward me and nasty accustaions. All that I ask, is that since my user name is the same as our family busines, that this defacing remarks be removed from the website. I also request that the user be educated as to what is offensive and defacing and what is not. Had I known that this would be such a negative environment, I would not have choosen our business name. I plan to change that in order to avoid this happening in the future, but that does not change the fact that a member of this website has committed serious liable against our name. All I request is that those comments be removed.

Thank you. Mrs. Mullins

Mullins 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please note that per WP:LEGAL, this user has now been blocked pending review of legal threats they may have issued. I am in the process of contacting the company in question to verify their claims - Alison 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider also the possibility that this user has also been editing under User:207.144.59.134. Both the lab and this IP originate from the same area code, and their edits significantly overlap. If "Mrs. Mullins" wants to persue this matter, I'd be happy make an official sock check request. User:207.144.59.134 has been especially troublesome with 3RR and adding back bogus citations to the Wicked Witch of the East article. Rklawton 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Let's do that, given the nature of the threats. Do you wish to file it or shall I? - Alison 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • mememe. Rklawton 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok - off ya go :) I wasn't sure if there were more users than the four we know about. Suggest you file the CheckUser specifying legal threats so the Steward knows the background. - Alison 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started with a sock request and figured the admin sorting it out can request check user if he/she feels it necessary (and probably will). I highlighted the legal threats per your suggestion. Without that, the case looks pretty closed with three indef blocks and an IP that's on *the* list. Rklawton 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Mullins Labs Inc. have responded by saying they have not had any representative make legal threats on WP and that they are investigating the matter. Obviously, they are not too impressed over the whole matter - Alison 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I imagine it was just some idiot that ran across their website at random. (Either that, or someone deliberately -trying- to make them look bad.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't appear as random as that. Keep in mind that we've got a sock check request (see above) open for an IP that comes from the same area - an IP that was making the same edits to the same article and working in tandem with a few another newly created account. In short, it's possible that they really do have a problem. So far, though, I've seen no action on the request. Given Alison's communications with the organization involved, I'm hoping a custodian will tap check user to help us get to the bottom of the matter. Rklawton 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't want to comment any further here, but let's say that Rklawton is pretty close to the truth here. There's also the matter of two emails with forged headers that I received - Alison 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

Resolved: per requester. --Aarktica 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable about copyright issues please check out the conversation here and weigh in with some helpful advice. Much appreciated in advance. -- Pastordavid 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded at discussion page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who responded at the project talk page. It appears that the situation has been resolved. -- Pastordavid 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry on Robert Sungenis

Resolved: --Aarktica 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to help edit an entry on Robert Sungenis. The man obviously propagates seriously anti-Semitic material on his website. But an advocate of his is systematically trying to white-wash this fact. He writes under the name Catholic Apologetics International and so appropriates the name "Catholic" to help him spread his smears. His writings in this area are demonstrably NOT in line with what the Church teaches.

Someone named Otheus has stepped in on his own initiative to try to mediate. He has only recently agreed to finally allow some criticism, but it's like pulling teeth. Some of the interpretations of wiki rules seem ridiculous to me. All this worry about a man who smears Jews with no concern for Jews or the Church he uses to do his smearing. It's not right.

At this point, the way things are being interpreted, Sungenis can write whatever and however much he wants against Jews, even using Nazis and racists (which he does...a documented fact) and that is OFF LIMITS to even mention unless some third party that is seen as objective and weighty writes about it.

Only now has Otheus finally agreed to accept one source that calls Sungenis' writing anti-Semitic...and only after much belabored argument and pleading. Why is Sungenis' own writing off limits? That is the very best proof, isn't it?. No one need read the subjective opinions of others. They can read his own words and come to their own conclusions.

Also, if websites are basically off limits....then how can Wikipedia so prominently link to Sungenis' own personal website and help market his anti-Semitic ideas in the process (again, without even being able to mention the controversial things there)? The whole thing just seems irrational.

Something just isn't making sense here. If you can show me that what is happening is right and why, that would be great. But if it isn't right, I would appreciate your help.


Thank you.

Liam Patrick 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have spent quite some time over the last twenty-four hours to parse the conversations on the talk page for the subject in question. Substandard editing has made it almost impossible to determine who says what. Irregular frequency in signing of posts, improper indentation, mindreading and personal inventories have all made it rather difficult to intervene.
At this point, I think the best course of option would be to step through the dispute resolution process. This spat has been going on for the better part of a month; you may very well end up at the doorstep of WP:ARB.
In any event, I strongly urge you to consult WP:EDIT (especially the section on character formatting for tips on proper editing techniques. --Aarktica 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of 3 revert rule?

Re: Article on Sungenis

"Jewish Controversy" section.

Help request: I have repeatedly put up material that documents Robert Sungenis' sources for his Jewish articles. And an individual, Truth_Seeker, has removed it over and over without just cause. His last entry just says, "does not add to article."

If you look at the sources and what wikipedia writes about them, this is obviously not true. He sources are very noteworthy. It is very important that this man's sources be made public. If people find them praiseworthy, fine. If they don't, fine. But it is clear he is merely trying to hide facts.

Any help would be appreciated. But is this not a violation of the 3 revert rule?

Liam Patrick 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The links you are adding don't mention Sungenis at all, that I can see (and regardless, citing Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article is not sufficient sourcing). Especially with regards to the biography of a living person, you must cite reliable sources for any claims you make, which specifically state that Sungenis has done what you say he did. The removal of material from the biography of a living person which is unsourced, unreliably sourced, or unsupported by the source is not subject to the three-revert rule. (On the other hand, readding it is, and tends to be looked upon very harshly.) You must find better sourcing if you wish to add the material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I understand that the links actually need to pertain to Sungenis. The documentation that Sungenis uses them is on the talk/discussion page, replete with links and all. It's all there. But we're trying to keep the article from becoming excessively cluttered, that is why they are not in the actual article. Truth-seeker (the one who keeps removing them) does not dispute that Sungenis really did use these sources. Although today he finally allowed them to stay, so we'll see what happens.
BTW: after writing the paragraph above, I went back and took the links from the discussion page and put them in the article. We'll see if criticism is forthcoming again for following your advice. I agree your advice seems logical, but I can also see the complaint about clutter to a degree, I suppose.
Liam Patrick 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrote too soon....no sooner was the documentation up than Truth-seeker once again simply deleted the entire paragraph. I once received a warning for far less than what he has done, although it was later retracted. --Liam Patrick 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The editor "Truth-Seeker" seems to have finally become somewhat more reasonable. Although he is now talking about giving "explanations" for the sources he has used. I explained that a bibliography needs no commentary and that people can decide for themselves whether his sources are good or not. Hopefully, he will refrain and avoid a war over POV on Sungenis' sources. Thank you, though, Aarktica. --Liam Patrick 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. Glad to hear that the situation has improved. Cheers. Aarktica 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help

Resolved: Deryck C. 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I’ve tried all the resources but seems nothing is worth. An editor of name Walker42 has been for this month of April practically “killing” my article Rodolfo Valentin (on wikipedia since December 2005), and other editor of name Gwernol. I’ve asked both in a very good manners (the only way I know to talk to others), but I always got instead of a good answer “a threat” and when I make a question to them it went unanswered or with an intimidating response, (I can feel them screaming to me, at the point that now I am very confused of what I can do and what I cannot!, so I decided to do not touch my articles anymore. If you careful ready the “discussion” page in my article “Rodolfo Valentin”, or in my page (justice all the way), you will feel the mood of the way they are referring to me. They are always accusing me of trying to “advertise” Rodolfo Valentin. In reality I am just trying to do a nice article and spand it. Probably it sounds like an “advertisement”, because Rodolfo Valentin has a very reputable biography and always linked to very well known people. For example: they have completely removed the paragraph that shows:

"Some of his clientele are Claudia Cohen,Ellen Barkin, Dayle Haddon, Cathy Moriarty, Carrie Fisher, Helena Frith Powell, Nina Griscom, John Catsimatidis'wife Margo and the wife of the CEO of Hess Corporation, Susan Hess."

I don’t see anything wrong showing “why” he is “preeminent hair designer" and name just some.

Also: they have removed the link to Rodolfo Valentin “official site” which is [1]. What calls my attention is the fact that if you take a look to all the other hairdressers that have an article in wikipedia like “Frederic Fekkai” or “Oscar Blandi”, they also have listed their followers and their official site intact. I feel like a WALKER42 and GWERNOL (but specially WALKER42) has some kind of conflict of interest on it. Now, after almost one year and a half that the article is in Wikipedia,which also has been nominated as an article GRADE A, both editors came and added signs on the top, placing the article in the categories as: “Articles lacking sources from April 2007” (of course they removed most)-“All article lacking sources” and aswikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from October 2006”…( malicious). I would like those signs on the top to be removed and have the right to add back after the phrase that reads:” The press named him as a preeminent New York society hair stylist” the following text: “doing his work on actresses as Cathy Moriarty, Ellen Barkin, the model Dayle Haddon, choosen by Harper's Bazaar's as one of the "Ten Most Beautiful Women and Claudia Cohen, the American gossip columnist between others. Also: I would like to have the right as the other hairdressers have, and add back his official site in the external link. Also a picture done by myself of Rodolfo Valentin with the Princess Yasmin Aga Khan has been deleted!. Other thing that calls my attention is that “Rodolfo Valentin” is the trademark owner of the “Hair Infusion”, his exclusive hair extensions technique. On december 2005, I also made an article about the “Hair infusion”, then an editor of name BIKIABLE linked that article together to Rodolfo Valentin article ( alleging that it relates to Rodolfo and should be together in his article). I didn’t mind it, was perfectly okay to me. But again: WALKER42 came and completely deleted it from his article together with the other parts!. I’ve provided the link to the US Trademark office, and asked them to search in the database “THE HAIR INFUSION” for verification and to see that it belongs to Rodolfo Valentin, but again, I never got an answer, and the entire parragraph about this was removed.

There is a very good editor of name “Dorvaq”, that is always ready to help me. But I also need your help to investigate it. Of course, I appreciate very much anything you can do to help me. Thank you in advance.(and sorry to bother,but I am extremely frustrated!. justice all the way 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

Hello,
Allow me to point out some important factors to keep in mind when contributing to Wikipedia.
  1. WP:AGF - Assume good faith. In other words, avoid assuming that another user wants to "kill" something that belongs to you.
  2. WP:OWN - Avoid using terms like "my article"; it is usually considered inappropriate.
  3. WP:NOTE - There are guidelines to help determine if a person or subject is worth including in the encyclopaedia. Be sure to check to see if your article meets those standards.
  4. WP:PEACOCK - Avoid terms which praise or condemn the subject of the article; if it appears that you are advertising, you will likely draw fire.
  5. WP:NPOV - Consider using terms which are neutral. For example, instead of saying "X is the best thing since sliced bread", write exactly what makes X notable.
I will look into this matter to see what other assistance can be provided. --Aarktica 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

The article in question isn't up for deletion; as a matter of fact, it appears that one user in particular — Bikeable — is working to "clean up" the article.

My advice to you is this: be prepared to compromise. It is quite possible that some of the information you want to include (no matter how important you think it is) will have to be kept out. (Remember, would you rather have an article you can improve upon, or have the article deleted?)

So, I think my question for you is this: what _exactly_ would you like help with? --Aarktica 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, I did not expect it to be so soon. I will take all your pieces of advice seriously. thank you!
I forgot previously to ask you please to note, that most of the deletions were done by Walker42. That editor signed for first time in Wikipedia on April 17-2007, and the only articles he touched were the articles I did, nothing else. That is why I mentioned to you to please look into it, because it seems very suspicious.
What I wanted to help me is to add back the official site for Rodolfo Valentin it is: [2] ( as everybody else are having their official site listed in the external links), and also I wanted you help me to add the parragraph about the actresses.Can you please do it for me?

justice all the way 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way

thank you very much again! justice all the way 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way
Generally, linking to an "official site" of the subject of an article is indeed appropriate. We certainly do so for Microsoft and Ebay, so I see no reason not to do so here, so long as it's verifiable that the site in question is indeed the subject's own. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) The last edit from the user in question – Walker42 – was on 2007-04-18; unless there are new incidents, I am uncertain why this would be an issue. In any event, if you ever start edit warring, you can always go to WP:3RR.
As for the external link, I went to check the site in question. I am afraid that it might not qualify under WP:EL. Please review the guidelines for acceptable external links. --Aarktica 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Aarktica: thank you for your response. I will be adding back the official site. I hope it is okay. Please can you help me to remove the signs on top of Rodolfo Valentin article?. It was in Wikipedia since December 2005 and was nominated to be classified as a "good article", but since WALKER42 showed up 10 days ago and made a mess on the article, he made it looks like is no good anymore!. Can you please help me and remove the signs on the top?. thank you again!

You really need to be careful. You added the link back to the page in question, claiming that the link was "authorized" by the EA. I said the link was questionable, so I am uncertain how you drew that conclusion. I also told you to check with WP:EL for guidelines on acceptable links.
As such, I will remove the link from the page. Immediately. --Aarktica 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the history logs for the article, I would suggest that you be more honest about your edit summaries. Claiming that the EA "authorized" your link, accusing others of spamming when you are adding links, or alleging that Bikeable is an administrator is likely to land you in trouble.
As a reminder, please review what to expect from EA. If you are found to be disruptive, you may be refused any additional assistance. --Aarktica 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring advertisement

As a result of my own experiences,I've deleted the link to the "official website" of the hairdresser Frederic Fekkai yesterday,it is a "commercial website" showing services and contact pages. Since I understand Wikipedia cannot be used for advertisement I deleted, BUT today, another Editor REVERSED. Can you please remove that link an let that editor to stop reversing it? 151.202.70.35 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)justice all the way thank you. ( I am trying to help on keeping WP!).

It appears that you have yet to discuss this matter with the editor in question. I suggest starting a dialogue on the talk page for the article in question. If you prefer, you may contact the editor directly.
Remember: let WP:AGF be your guide. --Aarktica 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Colombia

Resolved: by reversion. --Aarktica 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please PLEASE! Fix the Colombia article on the country Colombia. I was writing a research paper, and halfway through it cut out and says nothing except "I farted and took a shit." Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.165.70 (talkcontribs)

Reverted by User:Antandrus - silly vandals! - Alison 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

USS Sable

Resolved: Deryck C. 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a picture that is Public Domain from this site: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/projects/04warbirds/media/uss_sable.html

The site with the smaller photo is here: http://www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/projects/04warbirds/welcome.html

I got my info about the photo from here: http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/backmatter/faqs.html#copyright_image

Q. May I have permission to use images, videos, text or other site information? Are your images copyrighted?

A. Unless otherwise noted (copyrighted material for example), information presented on this World Wide Web site is considered public information and may be distributed freely. If you elect to use materials from this Web offering, please cite NOAA as the source, and include the appropriate URL of the page(s) from which the materials were taken. If you reproduce text, please cite the original contributing author and their affiliation. However, selected copyrighted images have been contributed to the site. These copyrights are printed on the image or mentioned in image captions. If you would like to reproduce these images, you must contact the contributing source for approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gespalder (talkcontribs) 02:46, 26 April 2007

This is in general true by law for creative works made by employees of the US Government in the course of their duties. If you want to use any images made by NOAA, tag them {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. You'll have to do it manually, as this tag doesn't appear in the menu on the upload page. Just be sure to include a link to the source so everyone can verify that the tag is correct. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Illinois Fighting Illini

Resolved: requester satisfied with proposed solutions. --Aarktica 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for advice on how to deal with an IP editor that is not interested in building or following consensus and prevent a minor edit war from expanding. Over the last couple weeks, there has been a dispute over language used in the article and I am unsure how to proceed. -- Upholder 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • After reviewing the logs, I believe I have an idea of what is being disputed here. However, to ensure that your request is clearly understood, please state — in your own words — the specifics of this dispute. --Aarktica 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At the beginning of March, the National Championship claim was challenged. I did some basic research and provided a citation to the UIUC published Sports Media Guide and a notation "The 1915 Men's Basketball National Championship predates the NCAA tournament and was awarded by the Helms Athletic Foundation". Starting on the 21st of March, User Talk:207.114.16.210 started changing the language in the article to minimize the claims. Final Four appearances were removed, insistence upon the Helms Foundation language being more prominent, and "Co-champions" added to football claims. After a couple cross-reversions, I invited the user to discuss the language used at Talk:Illinois Fighting Illini#Championship language disputes about two weeks ago. The discussion itself was not very productive as I asked for citations to support his changes and the editor would not provide any. During those two weeks, the edit war sped up to multiple reverts per day. I asked for other editors to weigh in, and for a third opinion and the very limited consensus that was reached was to match the language used in the published Media Guide. However, the IP editor does not seem to be willing to abide by that consensus.. and posts on the talk page seem to show that he is not able to maintain an NPOV on the subject. It's not exactly vandalism, and I don't want to get into an edit war, but I also don't think it's proper to allow POV to creep into the article simply because I'm not willing to follow-up on the issue. The problem that I have is I don't know what the appropriate next step is, which is why I came here for advice in resolving the dispute. The question that I have is how do I move this toward resolution when the other party in the edit war seems to have no intent to follow wikipedia ettiqute or policies? -- Upholder 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, you are to be commended for avoiding any further escalation of this matter; that usually turns out to be counter-productive. So, thanks for actually looking for a constructive resolution to this matter.
Interestingly enough, you have (inadvertently) been taking the proper steps towards dispute resolution. Using talk pages — both to contact the other party as well as work toward consensus — is highly recommended.
The next recommended step is to simply lay off from making any further edits to the article for a while. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it appears that taking a step back and let events unfold while you work on other articles, makes a difference from time to time.
The question then becomes: "How long should I wait?" Answer: Until the editor moves on.
If that fails, you may seek that the page be protected (WP:RPP), and solicit comments (WP:RFC). This usually brings the other party to the table.
Hopefully, you will be able to find a worthwhile solution to the matter before it gets to this point. In any event, I would encourage you to read over WP:DR to become further acquainted with the dispute resolution process.
Thanks again for seeking constructive feedback as opposed to engaging in destructive actions. I hope this helps. Cheers. --Aarktica 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your advice. I am however still having issues with the editor in question (207.114.16.210 as well as 72.66.51.129 who appears to be the same editor based on editing patterns) as after I posted the request for advice, he posted a comment that shows his motivation and lack of NPOV. At that time, I looked into his editing history and it is clear that he is either a student, alumni, or fan of a rival university and his purpose is to damage the Illinois page.
I have been trying very hard to follow the dispute resolution process, but there doesn't seem to be a clear path for a case of this nature where it is not outright vandalism but is clearly an edit war and one of the parties appears to be very unlikely to submit to mediation or community consensus.
The guidelines for page protection make it very clear that it is not an appropriate process to be used to end an edit war with an IP editor. While I have been very civil during the last month, I cannot believe that the best solution to this problem is to allow the rule-ignoring IP editor to have his way. Surely there is a better option available.. but I have not been able to find one. Is there one? Can anyone point me to it? -- Upholder 06:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, another idea is to work at making the article a good article. There are a variety of tools available to aid in this effort; see WP:GOOD for more information. What I suspect will happen is that any dross in the article will be purged, and the refined product would be free of any content which violates WP:NPOV. Just a thought. --Aarktica 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with cycles related material

Resolved: No more follow up requested. --Deryck C. 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an expert in cycles related material, of the repeating phenomena kind (not bikes and the like). I was appointed to the International Advisory Board of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, run a discussion group on cycles with over 400 members and I am well known and respected by other cycles researchers. My web site [3] is substantially about cycles and is a popular and frequently linked to site. Please note that I am also the originator of the harmonics theory and that this request has nothing to do with that and certain individuals frequently make many false claims in this area.

There has been an ongoing problem of deletion of articles that I have created or contributed to and of not following due process. I previously requested assistance and was helped by User:SilkTork. His help was valuable and some progress was made, but again there were problems with people working in a knee jerk manner, which again included incorrect procedures in removal of material that was entered under SilkTork's guidance and wrongly banning of me for a short time. SilkTork has withdrawn from all activity of this type, but has stated that he was quite happy working with me. Some of the specifics follow:

  • I created a category cyles which was deleted based on a totally wrong vote count and false accusation of sock puppets. The error of this procedure is not properly recorded leading to further problems.
  • After some time I created a much narrower category cycle (without the "s"). It was deleted as being a re-creation of the original category (which it clearly was not). Unfortunately I was not around when this was done.
  • I requested assistance and was re-creating this 2nd narrower category (and another action) under SilkTork's guidance when I was banned from wikipedia temporarily. SilkTork argued that this was a wrong action and that opinion was supported by someone who came to look at it.
  • The new category was again deleted. There has never been any proper process that would lead to the deletion of these categories. The latest one deleted was the result of many hours work and was a useful resource for anyone interested in cycle studies.
  • Anything that suggests that "cycle studies" is a valid area of research or a way of organising material is deleted from wikipedia with claims that it is not a proper field. I suggest to them to put cycle studies into google and learn something [4] --> 84,000,000 articles.
  • An article was put for deletion [5] anmd the vote was to keep it. Subsequently this article was put up for merger with another article. There was no consensus for merging. The merger was done anyway and then the material was promptly deleted. This all violates wikipedia policies and voting. Subsequently some of the material was put back into the merged article Canadian_Lynx but it should still be a separate article.
  • Some time back an article about Foundation for the Study of Cycles (FSC) was merged with one about Edward R. Dewey and SilkTork recommended to me to proceed to recreate this article separately. Dewey founded FSC so there is a connection, but quite clearly the organisation and the man are separate things. FSC was criticised for being some sort of flaky organisation, so in the new article I included information about the board and advisers who included a nobel prize-winner, a US vice-president and some sirs, senior university people etc. Within a day of putting in this material the article was deleted and I was banned from wikipedia by User:Ruud_Koot. This banning was overturned after some days.
  • I am not a person who does anything other than try to make wikipedia a useful resource. I do listen to advice and try to accommodate others opinions. However I am intolerant of those who sweep into areas in which they know nothing and start hacking material out or voting for deletion of material about which they know nothing after a 1 minute investigation.

If someone takes on this job, I promise to listen carefully to what they have to say, but I do want to have a substantial change in what has been happening because wikipedia is getting itself into a terrible state by allowing the present trend. I should mention that I wrote a blog entry [6] which gives some views about all this. I would like to be able to report at some time that wikipedia is fixed. Ray Tomes 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's more than a content dispute. It's actually a dispute regarding processes. However, at the current stage, we can hardly help as there is nothing happening around. If any incidents really come out, you can post it here so that it will be subject to greater scrutiny and attention. BTW, I believe that all those dispute spawned from a misunderstanding of the term "cycle study". Few scientists become the core contributors and admins of Wikipedia - most of those are politicians which simply don't believe the presence of a term "cycle" which doesn't mean bikes. --Deryck C. 09:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both content and procedure. But nothing is happening because much of what I have done is deleted. I am waiting for someone to advise me on what is acceptable for me to put back and how to leave proper signs about where procedure has been wrong. I do not want to be banned again. So I need someone to take the case before I start acting. 121.72.10.250 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You can give us links and diffs so that we can see which are acceptable and which are not. And moreover, is "cycles" a subbranch of mathematics, operation research, engineering or what? Categories in Wikipedia are actually one-way maps which all finally leads to CAT:CAT. --Deryck C. 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)