Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 30

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

Sargasso

Stale: No further contribs from Sfcpres. -Belovedfreak 12:17, 31 July 2008

i am giving up on Wikipedia. I have tried to add articles that would be of interest to other users, but they are being deleted before I can even contest them on the talk pages. these are also being deleted.

No wonder Wikipedia is so innacurate - your 'administrators' are rubbish!!!

Sfcpres (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry you feel that way. One way of addressing your concern would be to ask an admin to move the deleted content to your sandbox, at User:Sfcpres/sandbox and work on the page there. If you decide to do that, then please come back here and let us know; we can advise you on how to meet the standards at Wikipedia. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV thing

Stale: --BelovedFreak 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know how to do it, but this article reads like a love letter to the person the article is about. Sounds like the POV of one of his staffers or something. Just wanted to bring it to attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.212.234 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention; I'll look into it, and I'm sure the others will too. In the future, you can place the {{POV_check}} template on any article (don't forget to discuss on the talk page!) and someone will check its neutrality. Fleetflame 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Branded Concept Development

Stale: --BelovedFreak 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to post an article about my company Branded Concept Development, but the past three times I've tried its been deleted. I changed a bunch of the content to make it more Wikipedia friendly; however, now its been deleted again and I can't even make the page again. What should I do?


Smr47 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Spencer

Hi, it looks like the article was deleted several times because various editors believed it was being used to advertise your company. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an advertising service. Articles need references to independent third party reliable sources. The article also needs to show how its subject is notable. I would recommend you have a good read around Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. HOWEVER, because you are trying to write an article about your company, you have a clear conflict of interest. Editors are strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves, their companies or things they are personally involved in. You should wait for someone else to decide that the company is notable enough to need an article. Why don't you look around Wikipedia and edit some other articles about things that interest you? --BelovedFreak 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Articles "Miss Pakistan World" and Sonia Ahmed

Resolved: Sonisona is working on article in user space. --BelovedFreak 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

In the past two months there has been a deletion of two articles: "Miss Pakistan World" and Sonia Ahmed Both articles were written well and with nuetraliuty but some USERS kept on refering to controversies which were not a major part of the event.

Can you please do something about these two articles.

Thanks --Sonisona (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that deletion was improper, you can appeal it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

adding external links

Resolved: Question answered, advice given.--BelovedFreak 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking for 2 wiki-answers. Yesterday i added some expertises or studies by religious scholars in PDF to a wiki-article on Dianetics, but today they weren't there anymore. Could you explain this to me?

What can i do sothat they stay?

Thx, Taodeptus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taodeptus (talkcontribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you and another editor or editors have differing opinions on this. It appears that you made some changes, the other(s) made further changes, and now you seem to have reinstated some of your earlier changes. There might be more history to it, but that seems to be the recent history. It would be better to bring this up at Talk:Dianetics and reach consensus there before making changes to the article. That usually results in an enduring improvement and avoids edit wars. Please consider that this can be a contentious topic, and that your relatively narrow editing focus will imply to some editors that you have a particular agenda. I don't suggest that you do have an agenda, only that you should tread cautiously. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting dispute

Resolved: Disneysuit blocked indef. --BelovedFreak 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - You are incorrect. You claim to uphold a neutral point of view, yet you outright celebrate and promote the artists of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride attraction, and you then celebrate and promote the Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but you refuse to follow through with the artist Royce Mathew and his lawsuit in regards to the Pirates of the Caribbean movie. A lawsuit against the Walt Disney Company was filed in United States Federal Court and it was in regards to Pirates of the Caribbean movie. This story was feature all over the world. GOOGLE it. Royce Mathew is also listed on IMDB.com website, which IMDB is listed on Wikipedia itself. The story of the lawsuit is important news and is factual. You call the additional history/facts posting to the Pirates of the Caribbean listing as "vandalism", which is completely wrong on Wikipedia part. To be neutral and present the facts surrounding Pirates of the Caribbean movie and such, you must include this important matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disneysuit (talkcontribs) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, a wikipedia policy that all articles must follow. The website www.disneylawsuit.com does not meet our standards for a reliable source, which is why your edits have been reverted. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
After less than 24 hours of edits, Disneysuit (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for disruption and threats. See this section at WP:ANI for more details. —Whoville (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards ALLEGED affair.

Resolved: Discussion continues elsewhere SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need for the wiki community to keep wild accusations from being posted on various pages that have no citations or factual basis. Due to this, I understand deletion or prohibiting an "Affair" section under John Edwards or any other politician's page.


However, the topic has been addressed by publications outside of The Enquirer and picked up by the mainstream media. There are plenty of pages with "alleged" events listed. The editing of his page should allow for "Alleged Affair" at the very least. This isn't a "Johnny's brother's girlfriend's cousin's dentist's barber" report or allegation. It's a news story that has witnesses not employed by The Enquirer, and it's been broadcast on national television as an alleged affair. Whether or not something happened in a hotel room has yet to be proven/disproven, therefore it is ALLEGED. There are citations, articles, news clips, etc., outside of the tabloid.


I'm not a fan of tabloids and could care less what a politician does with his tallywacker, but this is just ridiculous.


Locking down an article and refusing to allow addition of an event that took place, ALLEGED to be a rendezvous with a mistress, is a blatant show of personal beliefs and politics influencing admin decisions. Not only that, it's selective censorship. Either you prohibit ALL "alleged" events on a wiki page, or you allow them with citations. And you either create a list of credited or discredited citation sources. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


At which time the controversy is resolved as either proven or disproven, then the words alleged should be removed and the section changed to reflect the changing facts.


Never before have I seen something frozen in time to allow for "the story to resolve itself". Senator whoever from wherever can fart in a bathtub and the citation can be a list of telephone alleging a maid heard it, but you don't allow this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.18.5 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 29 July 2008

The above is "forum shopping", as there is already discussion at WP:ANI about this "alleged affair" and attempts to push that info into the Edwards article. The argument was made that Senator Craig was covered extensively, so why not this? Well, there is no "alleged" in Craig's case: He pleaded guilty to a crime while a sitting Senator. Edwards is not a sitting Senator, nor has he been charged with a crime. Tabloid news is not necessarily wikipedia-worthy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So you like red herring?

It's only forum shopping if you're aware that the discussion was taking place somewhere else, which I did not. But hey, maybe I can add an "alleged accusation" section to your page. And when in that argument did I mention Senator Craig?

  • moved to appropriate page*

part of article is not formatting correctly.

Resolved: SheffieldSteel 21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am writing a Wikipedia article. One of my headings is called "reviews". Every time I try to put text under this heading, a blue dashed box appears around the text. The text is not wrapped and goes way off onto the right hand side of the page. How do I fix this? I am not using any coding besides the buttons that are available above the "subject/headline" bar. Thank you! --Emma K (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't start lines with spaces like in this line. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks prime hunter. --Emma K (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sernio - should I take to AfD

Resolved: Sources point to "yes" SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some other people having a look at this article and its contents. I've been trying to find notability in general as well as reliable 3rd party sources to verify this without much success at all. I've invited the other editor(s) to help multiple times and suggested on the talkpage ways to help. Instead the various editing hasn't attempted to really fix the issues the article has and I'm thinking that AfD is the next step (I've been trying to WP:AGF so hadn't PROD'd, CSD'd, or AfD'd previously but, am thinking it may be time for this article to go. Other opinions here are much appreciated. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Please mark this as resolved as I have decided to take the article to AfD. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Caller ID

Stale: --BelovedFreak 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

it exists, the information is on my talk page.

I am fully disclaiming that i represent the entity that owns the patent.

I have posted the relevant information on my talk page.

Please add the relevant information at your discretion to the CallerId wiki page.

Thank you

MCCSteve (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. Is there anything that establishes the notability of the invention? Y'know, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Does "Hot damn, I want that" count as a notability criterion? In all seriousness, though until this gains mainstream notice I would say it at least deserves a mention at Caller ID. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Misquoting

Stale: --BelovedFreak 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has put in a couple of references, changing slightly the name of the page being linked to. It's not really a big problem where it appears (and I can tell you where this is), but my question is general. Is there a rule on Wikipedia about not changing a direct quote or the title of a linked article? One might say there shouldn't be a need for such a rule, but it would be good to be able to point to it, if it exists. Thank you. (I'll watch this page.) --Hordaland (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Could you clarify please what you're identifying? It seems that you're describing something more subtle than vandalism, but I'm not sure I understand. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. I wouldn't even call it vandalism, just a user who would prefer that the rest of the world should use terminology approved by him/her.
See: MOSMED, Talk page, discussion at allopathic. See also, if desired, more discussion on the Talk page of Comparison of MD and DO in the United States.
We figure that there must have been formulated a rule about this kind of thing?
(I'm now going to be "away from the computer" for some hours. Isn't that how one says one is going to bed? It's well past midnight here. G'nite.) --Hordaland (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Silversides SSN 679

Resolved: Question answered. --BelovedFreak 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to edit this page with factual public knowledge regauring its first trip to the North Pole in 1981 and it's participation in operation Urgent Fury the invasion of Grenada. It was promply deleted by MBK004. I can't figure out how to contact the admin that deleted it to resolve this. What exactly do you need for verification as both events are public record and documented by aquired military medals of it's crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em1ss (talkcontribs) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The user who removed your addition has left a message on your talk page User talk:Em1ss you can either reply to them on your page or talk directly to MBK004 at User talk:MBK004 or it may be more appropriate to discuss the issue at the article talk page Talk:USS Silversides (SSN-679). Your entry was deleted because you did not cite a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in Egor Lavrov article?

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for help in dispute resolution for edits pertaining to an individual's article (Egor Lavrov). Although the edits I made were to approach NPOV, it appears as though every edit has been reverted by the creator of the page. Any recommendations for negotiation to convince the individual that these are not attempts to vandalize the article would be appreciated. special4k4 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting here. It looks like User:Registrator1 has been showing some WP:OWN-ish behaviour. It also looks like the page could do with some better support for its notability. I'll drop a note on Registrator1's talk page and we'll see if that helps. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you don't remove the references, though. In this edit, you did some fact tagging and removed some external links, but I think the information needing sourced was in some of those. I changed the tag to {{nofootnotes}}. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help AndrewHowse and JeremyMcCracken. The links removed either did not provide any information (e.g., http://www.lavroff.com/), were dead links (e.g., http://rest.ee/journals/xakep_spec/039/006/1.php), links requiring registration (Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration) (e.g., http://zoek.volkskrant.nl/artikel?text=jegor%20lavrov&FDOC=0&SORT=date&PRD=10y&SEC=%2A&SO=%2A&DAT=%2A&ADOC=0), or appeared to be uncited linkspam (WP:LINKSPAM) (e.g., http://www.pravdasushi.com/, http://www.tattoolizator.com/en/index.html). Since my edits and revisions, more apparent linkspam has been added (e.g., http://elavrov.livejournal.com/ and http://tattoolizator.blogspot.com/) and a number of non-English links have been added (WP:NONENG), which I cannot verify (because I do not read the language).
The NPOV issues have not been addressed and it seems as though this may be a WP:AUTO. Any additional assistance in verifying this would be appreciated. special4k4 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of cleanup of the language and started adding footnotes. I'm really not sure how reliable some of the sources are though.--BelovedFreak 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NYU POLY Name edit

Stale: --BelovedFreak 09:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Having received direct mail July 23 from the newly named NYU-poly, and seeing that the name used by NYU-poly was not included in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytechnic_Institute_of_New_York_University#Name

I made the following edit:


Direct Mail, beginning July 2008, was mailed from:
NYU * poly
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NYU
55 Broad Street, New York, NY, 10004

and it referred to itself as NYU-POLY


It was reverted within moments.

I am an NYU grad, washington square campus, and am not trying to step on anyone's toes.

The fact is that the logo on the right side of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytechnic_Institute_of_New_York_University supports the facts I edited into the article.

To list a series of names covering over 100 years and then not include the one that the article uses for an illustration is to take away from the credibility of the editor and, by extension, of wikipedia.

Please intervene and ask the superuser/editor to included the facts I originally keyed in wherever he/she sees them as best placed. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.102.73 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the article and the institutions name is the Polytechnic Institute of NYU and NYU-POLY is just a marketing name. I would not be appropriate to add to the list of names as it is not really a change in official name. You tried to add the block of text above which was not really suitable for were you placed it and the postal address is not really relevant to an encyclopedia please note that NYU-POLY is listed in the intro as one of the titles. Suggest you bring up the matter at Talk:Polytechnic Institute of New York University and somebody may help and suggest a better place to mention it as a marketing name. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to non-relevent page

Resolved: --BelovedFreak 09:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to correct an improper link on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_named_passenger_trains_%28D-H%29

There are four links to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Express. This page is about a Detroit soccer team and has nothing to do with named passenger trains.

How can I edit the links to direct to a new page(s) for the passenger trains. These corrected links should also appear in red.

CarlFidy (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the links for you, suggest you have a look at the page to see how it was done, the links now point to Detroit Express (passenger train) a format that has been used on other named trains in that article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Usertalk, threats of banning

Stale: --BelovedFreak 09:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On July 23, 2008, user ChrisP2K5 made edits to my talk page threatening blocking if I continued to make what he believes are "disruptive edits." I left a comment on his talk page explaining the edit I made and really didn't care enough about my original edit to change back his edits or get into an edit war with him.

Anyway, over the past several days I've received more comments on my talk page from presumably other users who are goading me into reporting ChrisP2K5 for his behavior because (after reading their comments on my page and previous threads on ChrisP2K5's talk page), he is apparently under close watch by moderators. The additional comments on my page came from two I.P. addresses that have no other edits logged in through Wikipedia. (71.72.160.133 and 70.14.69.136)

To me, the original issue is just small potatoes, but I wanted to bring the additional edits and the complete situation to your attention because it appears as if I am about to be put in the middle of a feud between ChrisP2K5 and other users who want him banned. Can you offer some assistance in helping me remove myself from this larger feud? Sottolacqua (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate to link to a blog?

Stale: --BelovedFreak 09:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a teacher at a school which has an article on Wikipedia Public Academy for Performing Arts, and I find myself in an editing war with one of my students Shadowsdriftwho insists on listing a scurrilous blog on the links part of the school's wikipedia entry. The problem with the blog is that it contains information that is, on its surface, true, but when you dig deeper or check the facts, you find out that they are false or are distortions. The blog was used by a faction of disgruntled employees to get rid of our principal and to harass me. Every time I delete the link, it goes back up. I want to reason with these people, but they are really unreasonable, and this particular student is particularly maddening. He uses his sister's computer at UNM 129.24.22.99 IP 76.18.86.33 IPto do edits so that the 3RR doesn't apply. What now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.2.198 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No, as per WP:EL, it is not appropriate to link to blogs (except in limited circumstances that do not include what you have described). Second, you should avoid edit warring. Asking for help is the right step, and 3RR does apply. The link you've given though is red. Can you give the correct article title? That'll make it easier for others of us to find the article and help patrol it. Aleta Sing 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merged content per consensus. What steps now?

Resolved: PrimeHunter redirected the page. Fleetflame 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Per consensus at Talk:Mighty Avengers, the content of Mighty Avengers was absorbed into Avengers (comics).

What happens now to the blank page Mighty Avengers and to its talk page and history page? Does an admin simply delete them, or are they archived somewhere? Thanks for assistance. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected it [1] to Avengers (comics) (step 5 at Help:Merging and moving pages#Selective paste merger). The page history must not be deleted for GFDL reasons if content from it was copied to another page. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism page

Resolved: Resolved yesterday --KCMODevin (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help on the Mormonism page.

The article previously said:

Mormonism is a restorationist Christian religion.[2] [1] However, the traditional Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism have had an uneasy relationship with it.

This presents a problem. This is not a NPOV. The citation is towards the LDS.org website. The statement is that "Mormonism IS A restorationist Christian religion" Then it says: "the traditional Christian denominations ... have had an uneasy relationship with it."

However, this is not presenting the Christian point of view, only the LDS/Mormon point of view.

The traditional and mainstream view of what Christians see as defining Christianity is the Nicene Creed, formed in the 4th Century A.D. by bishops from all geographical areas of Christendom at the time. (from Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria) Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox all accept the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is traditionally the statement of faith made by Christians, and was used by Christians ever since the Fourth Century as part of the introduction of new converts. According to Christianity and Christians, rejection of the Nicene Creed is equal to heresy/blasphemy (as they see it as a confirmation of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles).

Now, I tried to edit the article to thus say:

Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion.[3] [2] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians, however this differs from the view of other Christian faiths in the world.

Mormons do not adhere to the official Christian statement of faith, the Nicene Creed formed in the 4th Century A.D. Because of this, they are considered a non-Christian faith by many Christians.

The traditional/mainstream Christian branches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism do not regard Mormonism as a Christian faith, but rather a unique faith unto it's own. However some Christians regard Mormonism as simply a restoration of ancient Christian heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism etc...

I put my additions in bold. I thought it is unfair to the Christian POV to exclude the Christian viewpoint on the issue and to cite the LDS.org website as accepted fact.

However a few members continue to revert my edits, saying the issue has already been discussed and that citing the LDS.org website as fact is presenting it NPOV.--KCMODevin (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with the article saying just:

Mormonism sees itself as a restorationist Christian religion.[4] [3] Thus, Mormons regard themselves as Christians.
However, traditional Christian faiths, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and most branches of Protestantism either regard Mormonism as a non-Christian faith and/or as heretical Christianity.

I don't see what is so wrong and bias about this? --KCMODevin (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

American Indoor Football Association

Stale: --BelovedFreak 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
American Indoor Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Michael Mink Co-founder of this league and i want the truth to be on this page. What belongs to us should be there and what does not should not be there. The information is not all correct and it is hurting our business. We want the truth and only the truth!

Please help as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Michael Mink (personal information removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmink (talkcontribs)

I've left a message on this user's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There is also an ANI thread due to the user's "legal threat" over allegedly incorrect info. [5] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

editor posting my legal name on several articles talk pages

Resolved: Taken to AN/I. --BelovedFreak 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillman contribution history shows all the places where he placed my real name. I did not object when it was placed in 'bios theory' article, nor even in 'process equation', but he placed it also on 'asymmetry' and 'intermitency' and this is going too far, and violates several WP policies and guidelines. If you want me to, I can place here links to specific policies.

Anyhow, I request User:Hillman be warned or banned from posting my name anywhere else, and from writing about me, and even from stalking my edits. Actually, I ask here where and how can I request above.

Thank you.

Lakinekaki (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this to the admin's incidents noticeboard. As an active user, the User and Talk pages should not be protected. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of referenced name - Madison Taylor

Resolved: Doesn't appear to be much that can be done. --BelovedFreak 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am personally requesting that the reference to one of my children be removed from Wikipedia as it has no applicablity. The intent was obviously submitted as a joke or prank by one of her classmates. As my daughter moves from private/public school to college and into the business world, this form of reference provides no professional benefit nor has any socially redeeming value.

Your assistance to remove the reference to Madison Taylor is very important. Thank you for your time and consideration.

James Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by JT2007 (talkcontribs) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Please clarify what "references" you are referring to. Otherwise, no one can really help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Might be the first redlink at dab page Madison Taylor. Seems like a non-notable porn star using an (unfortunately) common name, and seems unlikely that she is the same person. --CliffC (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem is it could also be the other one at that Dab page or a reference in a different article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
My money's on the redlink on the dab page, which I've just removed. No need to have it included until there's actually an article, if there ever is one. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think removing the redlink also means the dab page needs deleting as that leaves it with only one entry. - forgot about the cardcaptors thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem might be something that some "meany" wrote further back in the article's history. If so, there's not much we can do about it short of oversight. Since it's such a common name, that probably won't be seen as necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

webpage deleted

Resolved: Relevant advice given. --BelovedFreak 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a talk discussion with the wiki admin, Daniel J. Leivick, but I'm waiting for a quicker response. I created a wikipage for The Salvation Army Chicago Metropolitan Division twice, and it was deleted twice by Daniel. He said it looked like an advertisement. It was too much information added for it to be an advertisement. The Salvation Army and a number of it's sub divisions have wikipages already created and they have not been deleted. Please tell me what it is that I'm doing wrong so that the wikipage is not deleted.

Thank you,
Angela Vaughn
Web Marketing Manager
The Salvation Army Chicago Metropolitan Division —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjelyk1 (talkcontribs) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Start by reading the policies about notability, verifiability, etc. Have a look at the help pages (especially those around creating your first article). Remember that although you are the Web Marketing Manager that you MUST write the article from a Neutral Point of View and that as the Web Marketing Manager this can be quite hard to do (see WP:COI. Hope this helps and please feel free to contribute constructively to articles for which you don't have a COI. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro empires

Stale: --BelovedFreak 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The deletion discussion here is starting to get out of hand. There have been several accusations of single-purpose accounts flying around as well as a conflict of interest which has just recently been brought to the attention of WP:COIN. There are now a couple of users who are expressing their distate of the accusations and the progress of the AfD discussion who are now throwing blanket accusations at others for "crusading," "wallowing in the ecstasies of bureaucracy," and for not assuming good faith — bordering on incivility. What should the next steps be in the meantime, while we wait for what WP:COIN can gather from the situation? I don't want to hastily go right to RfC if I don't have to. MuZemike (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of the lack of expediency, the discussion has escalated, and I had to request for comment on the dispute. MuZemike (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony Cashmore

Resolved: as far as the vandalism goes. --BelovedFreak 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Tony Cashmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently submitted a substantiated, neutral article on Tony Cashmore, President of the Society of Golf Course Architects. Someone has "got at" the original entry, a person with a personal grudge against Tony. As a result, the entry has had a number of untruths added and the result is almost libellous.

How does one reinstate the neutral entry that has been on Wikipedia for the past few weeks? How does Wikipedia stop a malicious contributor from accessing and changing the nature of a neutral entry?

Kind regards

Ray Cashmore (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like those were standard vandalism by an anonymous user, and you did the right thing by reverting them with the Undo command. We get that a lot.
As for the article, I think it needs some more work to reach that neutral point. Other editors may want to take a look and consider what can be done to polish it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars: trilogy copyright vio???

Resolved: --BelovedFreak 11:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Corellian_trilogy

The three articles seem to violate copyright by having copies of the back issue cover blurbs. Lots42 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I searched on google and found the summaries on Amazon, copyrighted to Lucasfilm. In a clear cut case like this, the best thing to do is just remove the offending material. I have also warned the user who added it. If you're not sure whether or not something is a copyright violation, you can list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --BelovedFreak 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts with Reallmmablogger and MKil

Resolved: Per Reallmmablogger. Fleetflame 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Realmmablogger seems to have an issue with anyone who attempts to clean up articles he has started or significantly modified. As you can see here [6] and here [7], for instance, he fails to understand or abide by the site's copyright policy. He also likes to remove cleanup tags from these articles [8] and [9].

I attempted to clean up some of his articles. For instance, on Young Corbett II I added references, categories, and, in my opinion, improved the writing of the article. He did not like that and simply reverted it [10]. On Charley Belanger he has consistently reverted my attempts to clean up the article.

Because of my attempts to improve the quality of these articles, Reallmmablogger now accuses me of harassment[11] and has said I am trying to "sabotage" him [12].

He appears to be a new user here so perhaps he is not fully aware of the rules (although he has had incidents with other users here and has been somewhat combative towards them [13]. I would request that someone intervene with this user to discuss the necessity of civility and other Wiki policy.MKil (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil

We have been going back and fourth on this issue. I have tried to come to an agreement. Mkil does not want to come to an agreement. The information I have provided for the article is important for the article. Obviously this user has friends on here trying to help him out in this dispute. What reason did he give to undo changes? The reason was he did not agree with the information. The information is fact and non of it can be disputed. I have opened this to get a non biased opinion from users that truly care about Wikipedia. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the unwillingness to work well with others. I would love to work with a fellow editor who truly cares about what he is editing. The links he has provided proves my case showing that he has been following my edits and harassing me. The link that he put is not even from me. If you click on it it shows this message [14]=

My chess club (and its not mine anymore, never was) could easily destroy your mafia, tons of perverts with no feelings, robots, the undead! I am glad once in your pathetic life you feel sorry! And that's a lie in itself! But manners you will never learn! Contradiction is your name! And stop violation other rules. Oxymoronic perfect term for you! Just keep on playing mr ip user from IS X-Originating-IP: [162.84.41.179]

That message has nothing to do with me he is purposely trying to sabotage me for some reason. Can someone please realize this. The one below is also another disagreement where he thinks his article is better and I think mine is also. I also tried to come to an agreement but he did not want to. [15] Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as this goes He keeps on stating that Mike Tyson should not have an information about the Wrestelmania he referred for I tried to explain that to him. in a nice manner. I also did not like the one he wrote to me. Which states below

As far as the Tyson Wrestlemania incident goes, I removed it because it is a very trivial event in Tyson's career and giving that much space to it in the Tyson article is ridiculous. Wiki is not here to be a comprehensive biography. It should not catalog every little event in someone's life.MKil (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)MKil [16] Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer to him specifically states great reason why this needed to be in Mike Tyson's article [17] Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As for [18] Not only did he keep on editing my article he even edited the aricle by user:Amalthea on the issue. Even though user:Amalthea had resolved the issue between the aarticle. So what does he want things his way or no way there is no resolution with him. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also unaware that you could not remove tags if you tried to fix the problem. I would have not done this if I would have had a user explain this to me. All I have tried to do is make the boxing section broad for researchers. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also unaware that you must put an edit summary when you eidt an article. Th ereason I just found this out now is because of a kind user named Mfield (talk). Thanks to him I can better serve Wikipedia. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Any problem that I had with a user in the past has been resolved on its own except for this matter. I have tried everything I could so I am glad now we are both here to get some help to put this behind us. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Where to begin. First, on the Young Corbett II page, Reallmmablogger states, "The one below is also another disagreement where he thinks his article is better and I think mine is also. I also tried to come to an agreement but he did not want to." If you look at his reversion here [19] you can pretty clearly see that he didn't try to come to any agreement. He simply reverted my changes. I think you can also see that my version is objectively better, given that it is not merely a list of people who "Young" fought but an article that has sources and categories.
In terms of his need of some lessons in civility, I think his message on my talk page speaks for itself: "For a boxing enthusiast do you know anything about the boxers life or just what you think you know. Do everyone on Wikipedia a favor don't ever mess with information about something you think you know about but really only know very little."
He also complains that I edited "his" Billy Soose article. Apparently he finds my attempts to expand the article [20] offensive. I fail to see why this edit should provoke such a response with him.
In short, Reallmmablogger's reply illustrates the very issues I have been struggling with. When I try and talk to him I get a rude reply so I hope someone else can have some luck with him.MKil (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil
In short he has never tried to talk to me that is a lie and I have not been rude. He would not even listen to great points I made on Mike Tyson and kept on ignoring me please help Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is what I posted to him on Mike Tyson

You posted this incorrect information to anotheer Wikipedia user trying to help out.

I think it's irrelevant because it's a very, very minor incident in his life. If Wikipedia were to start listing every single public appearance by everyone, it would quickly devolve into a trivia site, not an encyclopedia. Not everything someone does is notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia.MKil (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)MKil

How can Mike Tyson being at Wrestlemania be a public appearence? It was ajob that he had he got paid to be the special guest referee. I think that you have a problem with wrestling. Do you? It was also false of you to state that it was minor in Tyson life. He was retiring from boxing at the time and he got a job to work at Wrestlemania which I stated to you before which you probably did not read up on is the biggest PPV ever in Wrestling history period. Please read the Wrestlemania article maybe then you can understand until then I am not sure if you will. User Nhgaudreau was right in asking you what was the problem now I will make it my personal mission to make sure his questions and contributions do not go unheard. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning for the edit on Mike Tyson I gave him is below.

I wanted to ask you also why would the wrestling information sbout Mike Tyson be irrlevant Wikipedia is here to provide researchers with as much information about a person of interest and importance life. Wrestlemania where he was the referre is the biggest wrestlig PPV of all time. You should look it up I highlighted it for you. Muhammad Ali was at the first Wrestlemania in 1985. Also even the great Muhammad Ali was involved in wrestling facing wreslters like Gorilla Monsoon, and Antonio Inoki. Muhammad Ali was also a guest referee at Wrestlemania in 1985. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. also has a wrestling section in his profile for the last Wrestlemania that he was in2008 is that irrelvant? Rowdy Roddy Piper had a boxing match with Mr. T at Wrestlemania in 1986. Roddy Pipper was acommpanied by Lou Duva and Mr. T was accompanied by Joe Frazier is that irrelevant? For a boxing enthusiast do you know anything about the boxers life or just what you think you know. Do everyone on Wikipedia a favor don't ever mess with information about something you think you know about but really only know very little. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you see his entry he cut and pasted a minor part of what I wrote instead of the whole thing which is another reason that lead me to believe he is trying to sabotage me. Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As for Charley Belanger this is what I wrote to him below

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. But the Charley Belanger was incomplete when i came upon it. I always refer to a boxer by his first name while making a page. I will also continue to. If you are a real boxing enthusiast then you would enjoy seeing Charley's notable fighters and what titles he held with the year and what boxer he took the title from I know other enthusiats are appreciating it. I see you have done around 20 boxer that is nice. I have done 100 boxing articles as well as mane other contributions to pages that were already made. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide I would love to come to an even resolution please help. Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since he posted my so called disputes here is his which are not so sunny.

  • [[21]] [22], and [23]
  • talk [24], and [25] this one shows that another user accused him of having his buddies back him. So it proves that I am not going crazy.
  • [User:216.129.105.149|talk] [[26]] [27]
  • talk [28]

[29]

There you go Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had many good experiences with many user such as

I have had only a dispute with one other user before this and that was with Amalthea (talk). The disputes were over Marc Ratner, and Rob Calloway. Both came to a resolutions ended with the following statements by both me and Amalthea (talk)

Thank you for the heads up (talk) I have taken care of it thank you.

Reallmmablogger talk 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   OK, glad we're OK again.
   Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea talk has been trying to make a resolution between me and MKil (talk) but it has not worked. Recently the only other time I have heard from Amalthea (talk) has been on the articles that me and MKil (talk) had disputes on they are Manning Galloway, Charley Belanger, Mike Tyson, Billy Soose, and Young Corbett II.

I hope that Amalthea talk is not a buddy of MKil talk. That is why I am so happy we can have a neutral party help Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Calling me a liar and using conflicts with banned editor and notorious vandal BoxingWear/Vesa/TheGeorgeReevesPerson to back up your point.
As far as the Mike Tyson situation went, I tried to come to a compromise [32]. You, as you usually do, simply reverted it [33].MKil (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)MKil


I've taken a look at several of the pages at issue here, including Young Corbett II, Charley Belanger and Mike Tyson. On the whole, the edits by Mkil represent substantial improvements - e.g., turning lists into prose and paring down extraneous information. Reallmmablogger has, also on the whole, tended to revert these edits with little or no explanation of his actions. Perhaps Mkil might have said more on the talk pages of the various articles about his reasoning, but the articles were plainly better as a result of his efforts, and, to be honest his edits really didn't need much defending. JohnInDC (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(talk) as far as the no reason for my acitons I gave him my reasons. I also did not know how to edit my summaries. I was just shown how to by Mfield. Reallmmablogger (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary with your edits. Thank you. Mfield (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You also simply reverted everything to does that make you right. We both did the same exact thing reverting back and fourth because we could not compromise. You write I just kept on reverting it like you did not either. I want a solution to the problem. Lets stop blaming each other and lets both start taking ownership of our actions. Reallmmablogger (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as a band user I have no idea is the user was band or not all I know is that he also had issues with you and I brought it to the surface. Reallmmablogger (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to be the bigger man. If users believe that I was wrong I apologize to MKil talk). I will go about my business and will be open to settle future diputes a lot better then this one. I just want the issue done. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mkil pretty consistently explained what he was doing in his edit summaries. Now that you know to do that, perhaps these back-and-forth disputes will come to an end. It is also highly recommended that, when you find yourself at loggerheads with another editor, take the disagreement to the Talk page, where you can explain yourselves much more completely than you can in any edit summary. It also gives interested third parties an opportunity to weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Then Mkil will get my apology and there will be no more diputes thank you talk for all of your help. Have a great night buddy I will apologize to him on his talk page. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Below is what I just posted to Mkil page. Dispute is over Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong

Hey bud I am writing you to let you know that I apologize. There will be no more disputes from me. I hope we can work together in the future to make the boxing section in to a great section keep up the good work. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Concern about User:Excirial Speedy delete tags

Resolved: Originator added as I'm happy with the response and have now discussed with Excirial. -- Dpmuk (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right place to bring this up if so I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction. Anyway, I'm concerned about User:Excirial use of speedy delete tags as many of them seem to be not applicable or the wrong one used. As they are more experienced than me I thought I'd seek other editor's opinions before taking it up with them or taking it further. Some specific examples (obviously only one's that haven't been speedied I seem to remember others that probably have been speedied by an admin under another criteria now their attention has been drawn to it):

Any thoughts? Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, none of those were appropriately tagged. Pages should almost never be tagged with G6, as that's what administrators use to handle history merges and other ugly stuff that requires the delete button. I'll drop him a line and see if there are any others that have been missed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the last two articles could fit under A7 through "corporations or businesses". But as you pointed out, the wrong template was used despite being the right criteria. Anyway... Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's probably a fair comment. I suppose I look on them (certainlt the Gadfly and probably the other one) as being about a product of a buisness and so not speediable per "A7 applies only to ... articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on". That said, I'd take this possible intpretation on board for my future editing. Dpmuk (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It kinda depends on how it's written. If you're not sure, a PROD won't hurt anything.
After looking through some more taggings, I think most of those are either accidental or simply mistakes. Most of the taggings seem appropriate, and he seems to know what he's doing. Thanks for bringing it up all the same, when someone's using a tool like that it's easy to get a little careless. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry probably should have made it clearer that my concern was with them making, what to me is, reasonably frequent mistakes with an automated tool. I don't think they are delibrately missusing tags but possible don't understand them fully and with automated tools that seems a little dangerous. Hence why I brought it here for advice (rather than ANI or directly bring it up with the editor) as I wasn't sure how to proceed espcially as I weren't sure whether that percentage of false positives is considered acceptable. Dpmuk (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on his talk page (which I've just spotted). In the interest of transparency I'm going to admit to it being me on his page as well. I only raised it here for advice not because I was afraid to list my concerns to them. Dpmuk (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

problem with another editor

Resolved: Article has been deleted. --BelovedFreak 10:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is deleting the content, references, and images from the process equation article because they were placed there by me [34]. He dislikes my edits on Talk:WP:Fringe and is trying to retaliate. Need some assistance with the article.

Another example of his non-constructive edit is here[35] where he put back the invalid link, only because valid one was placed by me.

Lakinekaki (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I can see what ScienceApologist is doing, but beyond edit summaries I don't know why. Please add more info to your post if you can show that you know why, otherwise it looks like you might not be assuming good faith. On the first diff you cited, you hadd added some text about creating 'bios' or 'infinitation', neither of which make sense there. The rest of your edit might or might not have been useful, but you don't help your case there. On the second diff the url did look like it might not work, and ScienceApologist used an edit summary describing your edit as good faith. You then reverted, with a somewhat confrontational edit summary, and that version stands. Please try to assume good faith, and realise that we can all make mistakes. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh?! What are you referring to here with 'infinitation'? I was quoting cited articles. Whether it makes sense or not to readers is another issue. Scienceapologist used false statements in edit summaries to justify deletion of the content on process equation article[36], and when he realized that didn't work, he switched to ad hominem arguments. In second case, SA didn't test URL, but had actually assumed a bad faith and that I would place 'messed up' URL and had reverted my edit without bothering to click on the link and see where it links to. He also started editing few other articles that he saw in my contributions list -- therefore he finds some interest in my edits, and somehow his edits tend to be deletions, often with no explanation or with false excuses. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, this edit appears to be ScienceApologist's first reversion of you in that article, and you added the words 'bios' and 'infinitation'. Whether or not it makes sense to readers is a huge, core, issue; if your editing doesn't make sense to readers then what value does it have? As for the url, it looks like a good faith error to me. Such things happen. As for the rest of your accusations, I'm not going to go searching for examples to support you. You'll need to cite specifics. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You really expect to understand a mathematical article from edit difference, without looking at images[37], and references that were deleted[38] along with words 'bios' and 'infinitation'? Lakinekaki (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No, nor did I do that. All I'm suggesting is that if your edits use made-up words then they'll probably be reverted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My edits don't use made-up words. If you read the cited papers, you would find those words there. I am confused why you offered to 'help' when you are not really trying to? SA first deleted the reference where those words were used, and than he deleted those words. You are attributing 'making this up' to me without even bothering to read the article and its references. Thanks but no thanks for your help. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I don't think it would be useful to other readers. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that, for example, today's featured article is useful to me, nor other readers, but I don't go there to delete stuff I don't like. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A different user is now reinstating ScienceApologist's edits, with the summary "general fixes". Could be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I don't remotely understand the subject of this article, so I can't really give an outside opinion of the diagrams. I'd recommend the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has now nominated that article for deletion, so it's dependant upon the outcome of that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mel Gussow article - apparent family edits, now real-estate promotion

Resolved: User:CliffC, 19:23, 11 August 2008

Could someone please take a look at Mel Gussow and Talk:Mel Gussow. This article about a journalist who died three years ago has a history going back to at least 5 September 2007 of what I would call a slow-motion edit war between apparent family members who each have a favorite version of Mom's maiden name, Grandma and Grandpa's first name, Dad's middle name, Dad's religion and an opinion on whether or not a brother or an earlier marriage should be mentioned; and don't mind reverting away several months of legitimate edits to get it.

More recently, in assaying a general restoration and cleanup, I removed a real-estate company link that gave the family's street address in NYC when the subject died, calling it not relevant. Now editor User:66.108.95.8 has four times added the link back in, along with another link to a second real estate company, both supporting a new (and freshly invented, as far as I can tell) claim that Gussow owned and operated a real-estate agency as well as writing for the New York Times. I have reverted three of these and warned the editor on his talk page with {{welcomespam}}, a personalized message, and most recently {{uw-spam3}}. I am now out of reverts and would appreciate someone else taking a look at this. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this page to my watchlist. Vandalism seems very serious, perhaps the page needs to be protected. Until such a time I will make an effort to help you maintain the page. Can you please clarify whether or not the expanded names are false or legitimate so that I can focus my effort in the right direction. InterislanderTom (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, more eyes are appreciated. Some background of the article's abuse can be found at Talk: Mel Gussow; then at User talk:66.108.95.8, User talk:68.175.96.59, User talk:Egussow. I just now took another shot at editing the article, still plagued by family edits and the reintroduction of spam. I made five separate edits to get it to a reasonable state, with an edit summary explaining each, and also informed one WP:SPA account that if he's a family member he has a conflict of interest. --CliffC (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Add User talk:68.175.96.180, who today in his first edit ever added an unsourced statement as to Gussow's religion and 'interfaith marriage'. Competing claims as to Gussow's religion have been a part of the apparent family dispute, and his religion was changed several times over the months, leading me to remove the infobox 'religion' parameter. I reverted today's edit and informed the user that he/she would need to cite a WP:RS. Question - should this article be protected from anonymous edits? That might help a bit. --CliffC (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Article is now protected from anons, that should help with some of it. And thanks for the eyes. --CliffC (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The First Sex

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A colleague of mine recently asked me to help lend my expertise in archaeology and anthropology to the Wiki article The Firt Sex, about the book "The First Sex."

I went to the article and tried to add several referenced statements, bib. references, and a picture.

Much of what I wrote was deleted, often with no explanation. At least one accurate statement was repeatedly changed into a grossly, laughably inaccurate statement (I'd say I tried to change this statement back to its accurate form at least half a dozen times).

Although my picture was clearly related to the content of the article, it was deleted again and again. And even though a note at the beginning of the article said the article needed a picture, those who deleted my picture did not replace it with anything. (Today I notice that note is gone -- along with the note saying the article is in dispute)

My bibliographic references -- most of them from university presses, or other highly respected publishing companies -- were deleted again and again.

A direct quote about the book, by a well-known and well-thought-of author, was deleted with no explanation -- again several times.

Frankly, the entire experience was a nightmare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athana (talkcontribs) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Especially the part where you started saying that all of the people who opposed you must be "virulent males" and obviously were proving the inferiority of their gender. What a nightmare! --Jaysweet (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So sarcasm is part of what we come to wiki for, Jaysweet? I don't think so. And I've never even seen any references here before - I have another issue pending on this page -, but your attitude is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talkcontribs) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with NPOV

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa Syndrome talk pages

I would like some assistance with NPOV editors having a look at the current discussions on the Requests for comment page here [39], and the pages associated with it, to ensure that policies are being applied appropriately Posturewriter (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Hi there, you might get more response from NPOV-focussed editors at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --BelovedFreak 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We need your help.

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the article on former NJ Governor James McGreevey, we need intelligent, objective help resolving a talk page dispute about whether to list in the intro all of the circumstances surrounding his 8/04 resignation, or to mention only the one issue that Gov. McGreevey chose to mention when he announced his resignation. Would you please take a look at the intro and the discussion of this question low on the talk page, and weigh in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_McGreeveyThefactis (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are struggling to reach consensus, you might want to try a request for comment to get more eyes on it. --BelovedFreak 11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

galagedara

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

sir, there are 8 galagedara articles.the correct galagedara article is Galagedara, Central Province. there is an article about the galagedara the electorate.the Galagedara, Western Province is a not important place either and i don't belive it worth an article too.so i here by request that remove the galagedara articles except Galagedara, Central Province and merge galagedara electorate article with Galagedara, Central Province.go and type galagedara to see the galagedara on Google map.thank you.--Chanakal (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Belgian politicians - NPOV review request

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

At a time of high inter-community stress in Belgium which could easily lead to the breakup of the country, Olivier Maingain is one of the more overt francophone unilateralists, right or wrong. He is mayor of a Brussels council which is generally known as Woluwe Saint Lambert amongst the anglophone community of Brussels. The use of the Flemish version Saint-Lambrechts-Woluwe is indicative of a non-NPOV flemish viewpoint in that article, as is the general content of the text, which was certainly not written by an English native speaker. I would suggest that a member of the staff of the local English weekly, the Bulletin, should be asked to review this and similar pages, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

도이체 방크

Resolved: I think? Fleetflame 23:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This article needs transwiki'ing to the korean Wikipedia. I've had a look at the example at Help:Transwiki, and would have followed the instructions, but when trying to create the 'transwiki:도이체 방크' article on the Korean WP, it's showing what I believe to be the 'we can't find this page, so do you want to create it' page you get in the English WP, unfortunately, I can't read Korean so have no idea if that's what it is, or if there's some sort of error (spot the major flaw in the process !). Can someone either take over the move or explain to me in words of less that four syllables how to get the article moved ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you can list the article at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. --BelovedFreak 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Toytowngermany.com

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Toytowngermany.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does anyone else think this fails WP:WEB/WP:SPAM, or am I being unreasonable ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. At the moment it looks like a spam article (recently notable in the daily telegraph isn't remotely referenced in the article). It does have an underconstruction tag so maybe give it the benefit of the doubt for a little bit. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Names of Maltese towns in English

Stale: --BelovedFreak 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy requires that the Names of localities are to be in English. But what happens when there is a disagreement about how the name of a locality is actually spelt in English? Template:Malta-LocalCouncils was a mix of English and Maltese. The problem is that English dictionaries do not seem to list these localities. User:Kyarichy decided to use as a reference http://www.fallingrain.com/ and change the Locality names to spelling that to any resident of Malta (both Maltese and English speakers) are totally unrecognisable. Of course technically my claim is "Original Research" even if I have no doubt that I am correct. The problem is that I am unable at the moment to provide reliable references, as User:Kyarichy is claiming that the gov.mt and the | Times of Malta and the sites of the local councils themselves do not count as they are based in Malta itself, and I myself consider comparative Google searches of both spellings not enough (which would support my spellings). So until such time that I can go to the library and fetch a couple of books which can help me, are we to live with Wrong information? --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Honestly the new spelling really look odd, and will look so silly to anyone who has ever lived in Malta, but this is of course only my opinion which I cannot ever hope to corroborate.

You are quickly becoming tiring now. This has been explained to you countless times. Maltese sources list the names in Maltese, and therefore, believe it or not, that is not English. And please at least try to list the information truthfully. Geody.com has also been used to show the English equivalent names. Oh, and also, the English spelling "Rome" looks odd to an Italian, but it is still the name of the city in English, and as such is titled as Rome on English Wiki. If you disagree, take it up with the naming conventions of articles. You are now disrupting wikipedia to make a point, after the countless explanations you have received, and frankly most of us don't have time for it. Kyarichy (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
done - sorted amongst ourselves. Kyarichy (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any sign of that on your respective User Talk pages. Am I missing something? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The user pointed something out which indicated Marfa was not the same as Mtarfa, so we realized the page could not be named Marfa, and then I found that the source the user gave, stated the English equivalent was Imtarfa, so the page has now been moved to that. 78.149.215.98 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In all the times I have been in Malta I have never heard of any of these names. Seconding the fact that they are archaic and obsolete and renaming the articles back to their original names, which are the ones everybody uses today including English speakers.
And don't mark the discussion as done when you know clearly that it has not yet been "sorted among ourselves". ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the sources provided suggest otherwise, and since what you are saying is OR, your opinion really isn't relevent.
Secondly, the discussion clearly is done, considering in the words of Inkwina him/herself, "truce".
Discussion closed. Kyarichy (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a multitude of different sources that officially use the current names instead of the obsolete English names, such as the Official Tourist site, he Department of Information, the Malta Council for Science and Technology, and I can give you many more if you wish. As you can see, simply by doing a search on Google one can find few uses of these English spellings.
As stated on WP:NCGN, many local names are widely accepted in English. By your logic, we should rename Mumbai and Beijing back to Bombay and Peking!
As extra evidence, you may find plenty of information regarding RAF Luqa and its importance to the British forces during the war but a search on RAF Lia results 9 pages of nonsense!
And as you have clearly never visited Malta before, I suggest you leave these articles to editors who are more experience in the subject. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 10:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Never visited Malta? Oh really? How racist. So because I am asian, I have never stepped foot in a western country? I suggest you watch your tongue. The English naming conventions are staying - end of. Kyarichy (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some places have English exonyms which are different to the endonyms, but their existence does not mean we have to use them - we use them if they are the most common name in English-language texts. Sometimes the exonym is more common than the endonym (e.g. Rome, Munich, Moscow), but equally often it is not the case. English-language texts now use the endonyms from such places as Regensburg (not the earlier English Ratisbon), Trento (not Trent, except in historical context of Council of Trent), Marseille (not Marseilles), Zaragoza (not Saragossa), Mechelen (not Mechlin) - in all these cases the endonym is far, far more common in English writing than the exonym, and there is nothing more English than what English-language writers use. There is a long-established trend in modern English writing to increasingly use the indigenous endonym in many cases - and our naming policy tells us we follow suit by reflecting usage - see WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME

In the case of the Maltese towns, I have heard and read about Qormi, San Ġwann and Żurrieq, yet never ever seen Curmi, San Giovanni or Zurrico. These articles should be restored to the Maltese endonyms where these articles have stood for a long time, until evidence has been provided to show that the English exonyms for them are used more frequently than the Maltese endonym. From my experience at least, the endonym is far more common. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for your at least civil response. However, I state that the sources provided already give some notion of the English names used. Also, Maltese is slightly different from other languages since it uses diacritics on some letters. These are certainly not used in English, since the English keyboard system does not even allow for them. Kyarichy (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:UE allows for diacritised titles in general (Bácsszőlős, Sørvágsfjørður, etc.) - even if there is a non-diacritc exonym, e.g. Lüneburg which is used far more often than Lunenburg. We use redirects so that people without the right keyboard can get to the articles, e.g. click on Sorvagsfjordur, or for a Maltese example Ghasri. All the sources you have provided so far show is that the exonyms are used occasionally in English - what you need to do is show that the endonym is used more often than the endonym - there's a very important difference there. Knepflerle (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have provided sources which mention the names. No sources have been given to counter that. Kyarichy (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You have only shown a few sources use a particular name. You have to show that more sources use those names than those that use the indigenous names. That is how you show it is the most common name, not just a name that is sometimes used. Knepflerle (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I did not revert Kyarichy's edits does not mean that we sorted it amongst ourselves, it was due to Wikietiqutte and wishing to avoid a WP:3RR. That said, if my initial reaction was not civil enough, I apologize, and offer you to meet up for a drink on me next time you are in Malta, just to make up. In the mean time I have contacted the webadmin of Geody about their own sources, this is the response:
    Could you please tell me Where you are getting the place names for Malta, as quite a few of them seem odd to me.
    Can you also tell me what the order of the alterantive place names means.


Place names for Malta were provided by the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Alternative place names (which came from the same source) are ordered alphabetically. They generally include the name in English, in local languages, and historical names.

If there is a specific issue with place names in Malta, please let me know.
It is now clear to me that several Geographic web sites are using the same source where the historical, English and local version are simply sorted in alphabetical order. I hope this settles it, and we can revert back to the most commonly used names. --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't tell us which one is the historical, English, and local one, so it is still not conclusive. Kyarichy (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, as with the example of Curmi, "Qormi" is the Maltese name, "Curmi" is the English name, and "Città Pinto" is the old name. Kyarichy (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason not to use that site. Don't worry too much about individual websites - it is clear in our policies and guidelines that we are more concerned about the most common spelling over all sources. Also notice that geody isn't just prescribing one particular name for each town - the site not only uses Zurrico, but also Casal Zurrico, Iż-Żurrieq, Zurriek and Żurrieq. I haven't heard anyone shouting for Zurriek yet! Rather than use one site which tries to list every possible name without distinguishing their usage, frequency or origin, just use your knowledge and best judgement about what is used most in English-language texts as a whole. Hope that helps, Knepflerle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ LDS.org - Definition: Restoration of the Gospel
    • ^ LDS.org - Definition: Restoration of the Gospel
    • ^ LDS.org - Definition: Restoration of the Gospel