Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 5

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


9/11 Truth Movement

Resolved: --Aarktica 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Judy Wood has been, and will continue to be, an increasingly important and critical figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It is not clear how many well respected scientists such as myself will be needed to form a "significant minority" opinion that Dr. Wood merits her own biography page at Wikipedia, but please count me in, and please let me know what it is going to take to get a biography up about her at Wikipedia -- one that remains up without being removed. I may be able to circulate a signature page if need be at the up and coming "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" meeting in Madison, WI, for which Dr. Judy Wood is the leading scientist and the keynote speaker, though I would hope there is significant enough data avaiable on the Internet alone to make it obvious just how influential Dr. Wood has become for this movement. 14:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Sincerely, H. Nicole Young, Ph.D.

There are guidelines available that could help sustain an argument for retaining such an article. Consider reviewing WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:GA, WP:RS, and WP:V for tips on what might be needed for such an article. --Aarktica 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you do, be sure to avoid making your case using WP:ILIKEIT rhetoric. --Aarktica 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Any subject must be notable with only neutral (more to that just being objective) and verifiable material. Neutrality is more achievable if the material is written be a disinterested party without COI, which may include holding strong feelings about a subject. Adrian M. H. 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Your proposed effort to "...circulate a signature page..." may be perceived as canvassing, and many Wikipedians frown on that. --Aarktica 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to recreate the article should take a look at the deletion arguments that took place in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Wood and determine whether they can be cleared up within the guidelines above. There were some substantial issues raised with regards to her notability outside of the 9/11 Truth sphere. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe just create a redirect to 9/11 Truth Movement? She's mentioned here:

While the so-called 'Pod' theory asserts that the jetliners bore some sort of explosive pods, a few members such as Judy Wood and former Labor Dept. economist Morgan Reynolds are proponents of what is called 'No Boeing' or 'No-plane' theory, which asserts that jetliners were not used at all to bring the towers down, going on to accuse major media networks of complicity in a supposed plot to broadcast a computer animation or CGI plane on live television using special effects technology.

--CliffC 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting Started

Resolved: --Aarktica 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please assist me in getting started on creating an article. I am preparing to write an article about a business from a neutral point of view and with no conflict of interest, etc. I have the material I want to include but I'm getting lost in the website with where to begin and how. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailang (talkcontribs) 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) <address removed>

Seeing that you are already aware of the policies regarding editing objectively; I shall assume that you indeed have no conflict of interest here. That said, any article written here would most likely be required to satisfy notability guidelines for corporations.
Guidance on creating "good articles" are available for your perusal. You may also want to review WP:EDIT for information relating to editing of articles. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 18:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Please take the time to read some of the pages to which you now have links on your talk page. They should prove helpful. Adrian M. H. 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My advice to you is to just get started, and ask for help along the way. If you're worried about making a good 'first impression' with your article (which is a valid concern since a lot of editors patrol 'recent changes' and might be quick to slap negative tags on your new page), why not create it in your userspace, then (with help from us if necessary), move it to the article mainspace when it's all 'trained up'? Anchoress 08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

Resolved: Thanks, Adrian. --Aarktica 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- As a part of my duties at The Peregrine Fund, an international non-profit conservation organization headquartered in Boise, Idaho, I maintain a website, the Global Raptor Information Network (, devoted to research and conservation of diurnal birds of prey. The site already contains the homepages of raptor researcher parrticipants from 52 countries, receives around 600,000 hits/year (mostly from professional researchers and university students), and contains handbook-style accounts on 330 species of hawks, eagles, and falcons. Most of the latter species accounts are purportedly the most authoritative write-ups of their kind, either in print or electronic form, according to independent reviews. I also write similar accounts for Encyclopedia Brittanica, but, of course, they are far briefer and more rudimentary (e.g., they lack citations) than the ones on our raptor website.

We have been trying to create External Links on Wikipedia to the above website, but when we reached some tipping point (ca. 30-40 links to particular species), we were blacklisted by Wikipedia's spyware. How do we get around this? For most of the Wikipedia species accounts on birds of prey, the only External Links (if any) are to the equivalent species accounts on the BirdLife International website. Like The Peregrine Fund, BirdLife is an NGO focused on avian conservation, and we maintain many reciprocal links with them. Before I ask them how they created Wikipedia links for so many species, I thought perhaps I could get the answer with this inquiry.

Thanks for any help or advice on this matter!


Lloyd Kiff, Coordinator, Global Raptor Information Network

Lkiff 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There are guidelines about including external links in articles. Editors often frown on undisclosed conflicts of interest when contributing the encyclopaedia; you may also want to review what is considered SPAM by the project.
I am unsure how to verify that the URL in question has actually been blacklisted as you claim. If that is indeed the case, you may want to submit a request to be delisted by following the instructions provided at WP:BLACKLIST. Hope that helps. --Aarktica 22:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC) -- If this comes out correctly, it's not blacklisted. Adrian M. H. 22:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was, I would not have been able to save that edit. Adrian M. H. 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte of Bourbon

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I supplied a good source for the June 24 wedding date of Charlotte of Bourbon & William the Silent, however, the date was changed to June 12 by another editor without providing a source except on the discussion page when I requested it. I am not sure want to do now. The source I provided is still there. Thanks. Daytrivia 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can just about make out "June 24" at the top of one of the excerpts. The next step is to discuss it and request a 3O if you get nowhere. You have probably read RS and its related pages at some point, but if you have not, do so now. Any sensible person would say that a peer-reviewed history book is inherently a more reliable source than an internet page; particularly one that is currently unavailable as I write this. The only issue that may count against it is its age, since new documents may well have come to light since 1907. History is often rewritten. Adrian M. H. 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are able to come up with a second independent and reliable source which you can CITE in the article, that will probably be more than enough. The burden of proof would then be on the other party to provide verifiable, reliable, sources to refute information you acquired by standing on the shoulders of giants.. --Aarktica 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Aarktica & Adrian M. H. I really appreciate the comments honoring my request for assistance. Very helpful and encouraging. Thanks. Daytrivia 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'll mark this as resolved, but if you have any further questions, please ask. Adrian M. H. 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Asking for assistance

Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 01:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Morgellons article is unbearable and abusive to any editors who don't believe that Morgellons is DOP.

Herd of Swine keep deleting cited material from the country's leading authority to further his own agenda. He abuses everyone who disagrees with him. It's a nightmare to try to make the Morgellons article have a neutral point of view. The editors gang up on anyone who does not assume that it is delusional -- despite the fact that the CDC has called it an debilitating, emerging public health concern which warrants a multi million dollar investigation. People are dying of this disease and efforts via wikipedia to trivialize the disease HURT SICK CHILDREN AND ADULTS. It is morally reprehensible, and incredibly distructive. Anyone who tries to make the article balance is abused -- there entries destroyed without discussion -- weasel words added. Herd and his cohorts are wiki-bullies. Someone needs to monitor that site or eliminate the whole article.

Please intervene and have an unbiased arbitrator help!! People have begged for this over and over, and nothing has been done to correct the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talkcontribs) 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read your talk page, some of the article's talk page (WP:ARCHIVE?) and the talk pages of the other two parties, this could be taken as trying to canvass support and make a point. This an old issue between you and the other parties (AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Pez1103 for example) and unless you can get it accepted by the mediation cabal, it might be time to drop it. That's my honest advice. Adrian M. H. 00:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
that's wiki's position -- if editors bully people with opposing points of view, I should just drop it? Then what? The bullies get to dictate what is on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talkcontribs)
That comment is indicative of your attitude to this article and the other editors. They are not bullying you as far as I can see; if you really had good evidence of that behaviour, you would have gone to ArbCom by now. I definitely think you need to step back from it for a while. Adrian M. H. 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps those afflicted with the disease should listen more to their doctors than an online encyclopedia vulnerable to temporary corruption. J-stan TalkContribs 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

request to have article removed from wiki until cdc investigation is over

Resolved: No further action necessary; editor blocked by User:Durova for making repeated legal threats. --Aarktica 13:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request that the Morgellons artcle be deleted. There has been years of bullying and bad faith edits. There is no hope of this article being nuetral. There are editors who bully anyone who does not believe that Morgellons disease is a mental illness. There are constant edit wars and personal attacks. The editors have conflicts of interest. People have repeatedly asked for help making this article more neutral, but no one has been able to help. The "wiki bullies" constantly minimize the seriousness of the condition. THIS IS IMPORTANT. PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM MORGELLONS DISEASE. There are thousands of children and infants who have this disease. The consistent message by wiki that this is mental illness harms the thousands of people suffering from this emerging infectious disease since Wiki has a big impact on public opinion -- it comes up second in search engines for Morgellons. There is a cdc investigation of the disease taking place currently. I am respectfully requesting that the article be removed until the cdc investigation is complete.

August 1, 2007, the CDC made a public statement that Morgellons is an unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern. . . . Persons who suffer from this condition report a range of coetaneous symptoms including crawling, biting and stinging sensations; granules, threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores) and some sufferers also report systemic manifestations such as fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. Moreover, some who suffer from this condition appear to have substantial morbidity and social dysfunction, which can include decreased work productivity or job loss, total disability, familial estrangement, divorce, loss of child custody, home abandonment, and suicidal ideation." The CDC further calls this disease an "emerging public health problem."

Wiki lead which the wiki bullies will not allowed to be modified: Morgellons or Morgellons disease, is a name given to an unusual and controversial condition, whose set of symptoms is most notably characterized by non-healing skin lesions and fibers found in and on the skin, as well as a host of other physical and neurological symptoms similar to known medical conditions such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome,[1] in addition to numerous psychiatric conditions, most prominently delusional parasitosis, which the medical literature generally equates with Morgellons. Morgellons has received a substantial amount of media coverage, after first being brought to public attention by an advocacy group, the Morgellons Research Foundation. The CDC is currently investigating the clinical and epidemiological features of persons who have reported themselves as having Morgellons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talkcontribs) 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments; that is zero out of three on this page today.
Frankly, your request is not going to go anywhere because articles are not removed without due process or specific reasons such as copyright infringement, speedy issues or inflammatory BLP content. Adrian M. H. 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
We're not trying to make a sympathy case of it. It should be an explanation of the disease, not a "you're in our prayers" page. If you want it deleted, go to WP:AFD, and follow the directions there. If all goes according to policy, it will be rejected for violating WP:POINT. Seriously, stay cool. J-stan TalkContribs 02:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Pez1103 has COI problems that are influencing her editing such that WP:OWN is also a problem. Use of unreliable sources, edit warring, failure to understand NPOV or WP:WEIGHT, whitewashing, failure to collaborate, etc. are some of the other problems. I suggest that User:Pez1103 seek (or be forced to) adoption, as well as using some time on other articles. This article is an obsession with her that is draining the resources of many other editors. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advocacy, and that is also a major problem here. -- Fyslee/talk 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is at present a nightmare, and a Third Opinion or RfC seems highly desirable, and would in my opinion be the best way to proceed--some work from an previously uninvolved editor would clearly establish NPOV--but I am not proposing myself for this. DGG (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It would need to go to RFC or mediation because there are too many parties for 3O – and really too significant an ongoing issue for one informal opinion. Adrian M. H. 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns on Pseudoskepticism

Resolved: Sufficient references have been found --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing at Talk:Pseudoskepticism#Lack of sources about whether the article meets the notability guidelines, and whether this even matters. I've expressed my position as best as I can, but I'm just not familiar enough with all the intricacies of the notability guidelines to explain it all (and I could well be wrong, in which case a third party saying so would be nice). Could some editor experienced with the intricacies of notability issues drop by and offer some advice? Thanks in advance. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, however you could also consider filing a request for a third opinion.--Addhoc 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The concept of notability and the assessment thereof is actually simple, with few real intricacies. It can be summed up in a nutshell:
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (My emphasis)
Of equal importance (and to some extent interrelated): WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Also of interest is WP:NEO, though I am of the opinion that Pseudoskepticism would not fall into that category. Adrian M. H. 20:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
During the previous attempts to delete this article and its predecessor (pathological skepticism) we found hundreds and thousands of links to these words. It just depends on how one searches for various spellings: pseudoskepticism, pseudo-skepticism, pseudoscepticism, pseudo-scepticism, pathological skepticism, pathological scepticism, etc. Among them are numerous instances of use of the word by skeptical (and other) sources, many of which are considered reliable sources, especially by skeptics. -- Fyslee/talk 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

page viewed on google

Resolved: Thanks, SilkTork. --Aarktica 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

dear friends of Wikipedia,

Few days ago I have added two links on Wikipedia, which have been soon removed by Nancy as they could be misunderstood as promotional pages for my business. The pages themselves were referring to photos of Abruzzo and Apulia, without any commercial message whatsoever. The removal of the links are fine with me, but what I do not like is that when I enter the query <houseabruzzo> in google, I see this page in the list of results: <>. As my intentions have never been dishonest and the misuse of links on Wikipedia was not intentional, can you please remove the page damaging my company image? regards

Houseabruzzo 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)user: houseabruzzo

I really don't think that's going to happen. I think Wikipedia is not censored applies here. Likewise, search engines are free to index all of WP's content; are you going to ask them to expunge that page from their results? Your links were subject to COI, which would have been obvious from your user name, and that gets a dim view from most editors. Adrian M. H. 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo does view the whole data dump thing differently and sees "no harm" in page blanking "difficult" Afds and ArbCom decisions. Wikipedia content is often highlighted in Google and I agree with Jimbo in this respect. In these circumstances i would ask the user to send an m:Office email and request that the discussion is archived. Wikipedia is not censored, but none article text must be treated differently if it impacts on a person or business reputation. Mike33 - t@lk 10:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
there are thousand and thousands of instances like this--the fair solution would be to have non-article text off limits to crawling, but this has been repeatedly rejected--though I think it remains a good idea. DGG (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
<> says "Link is not on the blacklist." I don't see that page as being damaging as it is not saying anything bad about houseabruzzo. People do have negative associations with the word Spam; however, I think a report which indicates that houseabruzzo is not on a spam blacklist would be seen as positive. I think there's unnecessary (though understandable) alarm here. SilkTork 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fanta flag problem

Resolved: Thanks, SilkTork. --Aarktica 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Having a problem with anons continually making a change to Fanta - Per Wiki policy the flag of the country at the time of invention should be displayed. A group of anons have continually either changed the flag to current version or removed it entirely. In the talk page anons indicate that they don't like it and that's why they change it - no other rationale is given. It's a bit touchy because it's the Nazi flag, but it's history! I don't want to get in an edit war. What should I do? Lexlex 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request protection at WP:RPP. If the history of the article shows consistent vandalism, which I believe this is, then they can protect the page from being edited by non-registered users... for at least some period of time. Lara♥Love 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This essay Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags#Political issues has some good advice. There are differences of opinion about the use of the flag, and use of the expression Nazi Germany, and the debate is not confined to anons. The article is not being vandalised so protecting it might be inappropriate. And in what state would it be protected? With or without the flag? I think there needs to be further discussion among the editors on the article to reach a consensus. My own view would be that use of the Nazi German flag in that article creates a tension which is not appropriate. The current editing of the article foregrounds and prioritises the history of the brand, though there are other choices that could be made, such as that it is a global brand with over 70 flavours worldwide. It is difficult to escape from a view that the current article set up contains a political bias. Lexlex removed a POV tag on June 25th - though User:Victorgrigas did not explain why he put that tag on the article. I feel it might be appropiate to put the tag back, but this time with an explanation that there are concerns about the way the article is presented which gives too much weight in the introduction to the product's history and association with the war and the Nazi party (currently there are no Nazi references, but these have come and gone, and appear to be a significant part of the background to this dispute). SilkTork 11:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Article {{prod}}ed per Adrian's suggestion. --Aarktica 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"/List_of_compositions_by_Arnold_Bax" seems to be redundant: All the works are listed in the main Arnold Bax wiki, in a format which is much easier to read (and more pratical).Tjguitar 07:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a request in there somewhere, it is well-concealed... --Aarktica 14:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking much the same thing. I'll have a guess and suggest AfD, where we like to delete unnecessary lists. Oh, and a wiki is a type of website; it's not the term for an article. Adrian M. H. 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I require assistance, as this (Chinese) party has not replied to my email. Grounds are a (spurious) "Suspected proxy", whatever that is. <address removed> DonPevsner Concorde — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOP Thanks! Gscshoyru 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The IP address that you made this request from appears to hav a clean block log.. However, if you are convinced that redress is needed here, you can use WP:RFU to make your case. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Which account was blocked? Obviously, it wasn't the IP, since you can edit with it, but saying which account it was will help us help you. Giggy Talk | Review 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author)

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 08:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I would like to request an outside opinion on the style and content of the article on Sam Harris (author) and on the conflict of interest concerns I have re Laurence Boyce and his relationship with Sam Harris, the subject of said article. More details below:


Harris is a notable public intellectual because of criticism of religion, specifically Islam in the post 9/11 context. He has argued that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace of all religions and drawn specific conclusions from this in regard ethics, law and foreign policy.

A while back I came across an article by Sam Harris which advocated torture and "ethnic profiling" for Muslims in the context of the "war on terror". As I began to read more of Harris' work I went to his Wikipedia page to get a bit more background on him. I found that the page made no mention of his biography or controversial views on human rights issues and his support for torture and ethnic/racial profiling, which in my opinion are extremely relevant to any assessment of his ideas given that he has argued for differential/discriminatory treatment of Muslims and other groups based on their aleged moral inferiority and violent ideology.

I therfore edited the page to include more detail about the context for Harri's critical reception, his positions regarding Islam, the war on terror, torture and racial profiling with quotes from the articles where he takes positions on these matters.

Initially this brought me into a dispute with the self appointed editor of the page who deleted my additions on the basis that they used quotes excessively and or that my additions were POV biased, even though, in my opinion, everything I added was based on what Harris has said in print, from which I deliberately did not star, hence my use of direct quotes. Finally Laurence agreed to incorporate my contributions into the article, but his edit was very Weasel worded, de-emphasizing Harris' position on torture and ethnic/racial profiling a and removing quotes that distinguished what were allegations made by Harris from more verifiable evidence.

For instance, in the subsection on Islam, Lawrence's edit to my original contribution reads as follows: “Muslims must be prepared to accept ethnic profiling as a tool in the fight against terrorism, so long as adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behavior.” However, by removing the quotations I contributed from the The Huffington Post article that is the source here, his edit implies that it is a fact, independent of Harris’ unsupported assertion, that adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behaviour, and this is at the very least a matter of controversy. The whole article is similarly skewed and were I to attempt a rewrite of it to correct them all I would surely provoke an edit war with Lawrence which I have no energy for.


I am concerned that Laurence Boyce is taking direction from Sam Harris himself. Lawrence as been preventing anyone from updating the article with biographical information that is already in the public record on the basis that Harris himself has personally asked Lawrence to do so on the basis of security conserns. I do sympathize with such concerns if they are legitimate but then again, I think that it goes too far to completely remove all biographical information. We don't need his home address or day-to-day whereabouts but some context would be appropriate in my opinion. Lawrence's position is that he is not acting improperly but I think its not very kosher to have the subject of a wikipedia page directing contributors regarding what can and can not be included in said article, especially when said contributor seems to feel he has the some proprietary authority over the page.

When I asked Lawrence to explane his relationship to Harris he got abusive calling me a "knob end" and a "cock". Generally he has never assumed good faith on my part and has been quite belligerent and dismissive of my contributions. Am I being unreasonable here? Does the page and this user's conduct seem appropriate to you?

See: Talk:Sam Harris (author)

Thanks, --Betamod 08:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Betamod: I don't have time to check your concerns in depth, but I'll offer some suggestions. First, you could tag the article with the template requesting evaluation for neutrality per Wikipedia:Neutrality_templates. Next, you could open a request for comment on the article, citing WP:CIV, WP:COI, WP:MEAT, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, etc. I'm sure others will have more feedback. Anchoress 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If you tag it, be sure to open a dialogue on the talk page if you have not already done so. Adrian M. H. 10:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice Anchoress and Adrian M. H.. I have also posted some requests on relevant project pages for 3rd parties to contribute so we shall see what unfolds. At the very least I think the article could benefit from some fresh perspectives. I would prefer to weigh in again, if need be, after some 3rd parties have had a chance to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betamod (talkcontribs) 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting "rules" and guidelines

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 08:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

I recently created an article as a means of information about a web development company / collaboration of freelancers. ( )

Whilst I appreciate "blatant advertising" is against the rules, the article in question was not in any way indicating marketing spiel, sales pitches, or advertising of any kind. The article DID include a company bio, and a list of products and services along with company structure information.

I'm at a loss as to why this article was deleted, however have noticed that the person responsible for its deletion (user Kww) has been questioned by other users regarding his extreme approach. I appreciate that it is a tricky subject to cover, however feel in this case that I have become a victim of "the shady grey".

In a nutshell, I would like an explanation as to why this article was removed, when other similar articles (one of which i used as a base for the design) still exist.

It seems ridiculous that an entry listing company information would be deleted when there is no attempt at marketing bias in the article, although admittedly it was written by a company member.

Thanks in advance,

Digitalvibe 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "company bio and list of products and services" may have had a lot to with it. I would also like to point out, in case you have seen any of the sub-standard CORP articles that float around on WP as victims of the backlog, that the standard is higher than it may sometimes appear to be. If you follow the wikilink, you will always see the deletion log entry where applicable: DigitalVibe. Please also take as much time as you need to read the pages that are linked from your talk page; many of them are in some way relevant to this kind of issue. Adrian M. H. 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Embarrassing question

Resolved: Help really works :-)

When I edit a template, using as a small example Template:Reflist, I see code like this

<div class="references-small" {{#if: {{{colwidth|}}}| style="-moz-column-width:{{{colwidth}}}; -webkit-column-width:{{{colwidth}}}; column-width:{{{colwidth}}};" | {{#if: {{{1|}}}| style="-moz-column-count:{{{1}}}; -webkit-column-count:{{{1}}}; column-count:{{{1}}} }};" |}}> <references /></div><noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}{{/doc}}</noinclude>

So... what language am I looking at? I was a programmer in the distant past, but as you might guess I haven't done any web programming beyond basic HTML. I'd like to get involved again. --CliffC 19:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki markup. Anchoress 19:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Gobbledegook. Adrian M. H. 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
mmmmmmmm - template got me very confused now, been playing with it but can't see what you want to do. What templates would really help me? last 10 edits to EAR and last 10 edits to ANI. don't think its poss though. Mike33 - t@lk 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I poked around some more and found the help I need to code a template, oddly enough at Help:Template. The example above of Template:Reflist probably wasn't the best one to use, but I wanted something that was short and showed off the basic messiness of template code. Help:Template tells me what Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude do, and what goes where in {{{1}}}-{{{2}}}-{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|1|0}}. I got into this trying to change two templates that I display on my user page so that they would not emit "Category:" statements as though the page was a regular article (more about why in a minute). I took the quick-and-dirty approach and stuck a "subst:" before each template call, saved the page, opened it again and chopped out code by trial and error. That worked. Then I thought, "Wouldn't it be nice to add a ' | cat=no' or such parameter to the real template", but realized that first I'd have to actually know what I was doing. Now for the 'why' -- when a template such as {{human anatomical features}} is included in a page, as I will do right here

it includes its host page in Category:Human anatomy. Several weeks ago I received a note on my talk page saying "Hey Cliff! I'm working on cleaning up the anatomy section, and I was wondering why your user page appeared right below underarm hair and above vagina:) Rather than edit your page, I was wondering if you could take yourself off the list of human anatomy. Thanks!" So, I'd like to (belatedly) help that editor clean up the category. --CliffC 04:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see!! Well, you could just subst the template on your user page and remove the cat from the text. That would do it. Adrian M. H. 07:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
lol any chance of somebody doing it here? Poor cliff is stuck between an armpit and a vagina and the Lord only knows where we will be sat once it gets archived ;-) marking resolved. By the way cliff if you are willing to adapt a couple (or a few) wikipedia templates for a small wikia project, I will ask you in my nicest voice Mike33 - t@lk 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Mike, looking at that template, I see worse places for Cliff to be! Less said about them, the better. Consider it substituted and I'll take out the category in my next edit. Adrian M. H. 07:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ha, sorry that template made a little extra work for you guys, but it was part of a good story. FWIW, I'm guessing that this page sat briefly between Ear and Elbow. Mike, that bit of work sounds interesting, as long as you know that it might go a little slow until I get up to speed. Maybe you could leave a note on my user page? --CliffC 10:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked your user page in the edit window, Cliff, and it looks very much like you might be in at least one hip-hop category as well!! Not how you want to be categorised, I bet. Let me know if you would like any help with fixing it. The hip-hop template has been subst'ed at some point, so at least the categories are already visible. Adrian M. H. 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I have already hacked (in the sense of "with an axe") that subst'ed copy of Template:WikiProject hip hop to get it to stop emitting Categories. During the trial and error, I realized I had no idea of what the code was doing, or even what language it was. Having found Help:Template, now I can go on and have some fun. Thanks again. --CliffC 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Eva Post

Resolved: Indef block by AndonicO

I have tried to edit the post on Eva Longoria and two people who appear to be editors keep removing it. It is a valid change and I have cited Access Hollywood on which she appeared. These two people do not let me contact them so I cannot do so. Can you please help? This is what I have tried to post numerous times.

Cited on Access Hollywood, In July, 2005 Longoria discussed how she landed her first television role in 1999 when the Executive Producer of the popular travel show "L.A.In A Day" met her at a LA Opinion Newspaper political event in Los Angeles and hired her to be the travel correspondent for his television travel show. Eva toured the Santa Inez wine country which would later become famous in the hit movie "Sideways". One of her features was at the Firestone Winery where she interviewed Adam Firestone, whose brother Andrew would later appear in the hit television series " The Bachelor". After L.A.In A Day, Eva's career began to skyrocket and the year 2000 had Longoria guest-starring in an episode of... Stupidwiki1 10 August 2007 01:35, UTC

There needs to be more than a claim that it was on Access Hollywood. There needs to be cited information to direct readers where to look to verify this. Lara♥Love 01:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User indefinately blocked after multiple 3RR by AndonicO (Mike33 - t@lk 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Morgellons article

Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 23:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been a constant source of editing wars. In the word of an unbiased observer: "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it [directed at people who do believe that this is a new disease]." (Mukrkrgsj:discussion page) It is a full time job -- 12 hours a day -- to try to keep this article unbiased. I'm sure that was not the intention of wikipedia to create this kind of editing nightmare. A biased article has the potential of seriously harming a group of people who may be suffering from a disfiguring and disabling newly emerging disease. This issue should be taken very seriously.

I am proposing two options to put an end to all this until the CDC finishes its investigation. I am asking that unbiased editors -- those who have not been part of the editing wars -- to comment on my proposals.

1)According to Herd and Dyanega, the idea that Morgellons is a newly emerging disease is a "fringe" theory. Since the article is about Morgellons disease, and if the idea that Morgellons disease even exists is FRINGE, this article violates wiki rules by its very inclusion. Therefore, I am asking that this article be deleted until the CDC investigation is over.

-- or --

2) I propose that the following be the entire content of the article and that it be locked. It is completely neutral, states everyone's opinion.

"Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease," is also referred to as "unexplained dermopathy" (skin disease) by the CDC. In June 2007, a CDC website asserted persons with this unexplained skin condition report cutaneous symptoms, including crawling, biting, and stinging sensations; granules, threads, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions. Some also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. The CDC indicates the etiology of Morgellons is unknown and there is insufficient information to determine if persons who identify themselves as having Morgellons have a common cause for their symptoms, share common risk factors, or are contagious.[2]

Morgellons disease is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis, and medical professionals' opinions about Morgellons disease are divided. Some health professionals believe that Morgellons disease is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research. Some health professionals, including most dermatologists, believe that signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are caused by common skin illnesses or psychological disorders such as delusional parasitosis[4]. Other health professionals don't acknowledge Morgellons disease or are reserving judgment until more is known about the condition.[5]

The CDC will be conducting an epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons. Pez1103 11:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my talk page? I am not sure how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 9 August 2007

I am just shocked that you have brought this here after everything else Morgellons Talk page with reference to every other noticeboard canvassed. Editors assistance is not a forum - its aim is to give a speedy solution or to redirect you to another place - I'm sorry but I doubt anybody will give you anything but cold comfort here. Mike33 - t@lk 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel the same as Mike about the way in which you are approaching this. It is now starting to violate WP:POINT. I didn't even want to respond to this when I saw it this morning. Adrian M. H. 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I posted a response on Pez1103's talkpage per her request here, but as she deleted it without responding, I'll repost it here:
Per your statement to Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): I am neglecting my health and my child trying to keep the article neutral and I cannot keep it up for much longer, I think you should stop neglecting your child in order to edit Wikipedia. There is NOTHING here that is worth more than your health or especially your child. Anchoress 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
--Anchoress 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with editing

Resolved: No further action necessary. --Aarktica 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the editors for the biography of Raul Julia Levy. I have repeatedly had to come in and change this profile to its original content - only to find that certain individuals that having nothing to do with Raul Julia Levy, constantly changing this page and writing untruths.

I am sending you the corrected version and I would like to know how we can prevent this from happening. This is hurting another person's life and is not right at all.

Thank you. <content redacted.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if you may be missing one of the key points of WP; namely, its collaborative nature. Your post here suggests that you are affected by the issue of a conflict of interest and an attempt at ownership. We cannot really judge the biasif any exists – of other editors when we have only read one person's opinion of their edits. It may well be the case that they have born in mind the maxim "verifiability ahead of truth" and are making properly referenced additions. These additions may actually be promoting a balanced view of the subject – good and bad – but you may not be able to see this clearly if you have COI and ownership issues. One good example of the problems at work here is your comment "...the proper biography that should be posted..." which serves to demonstrate the issues to which I have alluded. Adrian M. H. 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Comments expanded Adrian M. H. 00:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This information appears to be available elsewhere on the WWW; makes me wonder if this qualifies as WP:COPYVIO... --Aarktica 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, if it is published elsewhere verbatim (or very close to it) and it is not a fork of WP's content. If you have a URL whose content matches the current revision, that needs to be stripped back, rewritten or reverted. Or speedy it if there are no good revisions and a rewrite is not really an option. Adrian M. H. 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have elected to remove that content before the page is cached by external search engines. --Aarktica 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

HELLLLLLLP... what did I do? And what can I do?

Resolved: --Aarktica 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I joined.... wrote my first article.... then it was removed for being a promotional thing or advertisement. I read the ways to correct it. I tried to do so but then it was removed. Then I asked for help by posting in a couple areas... I got zero responses and now I cant seem to do anything. I was honestly trying to post my first article. Do I need to edit other things first? Do I need to prove myself by walking on hot coals? What do I need to do? Someone please help. PLEASE. Thanks. Dannyglasband 07:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything special - but your article does need to meet our inclusion criteria. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? If you email me the article text (, I can take a look at it and tell you how to make it meet policy, and thus not be deleted. Giggy Talk 07:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Take careful note of the pages to which there are links on your talk page and bear in mind that many subjects simply cannot meet the minimum requirements. For what it's worth, it certainly helps new editors if they first read, then edit, then create, in that order. Few do, which is one of the factors in the number of articles that have to be speedied every day. Adrian M. H. 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Article at a stale-mate

Resolved: User ignoring suggestions. --Aarktica 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


In the article on John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, it is becoming almost impossible to add cited information, as a couple of other editors keep immediately deleting it.

The latest example is a simple 2 sentence paragraph that I added, about how John Howard in the 1980s voted in the Parliament for immigration to be selected on race. Here's a link to the talk section about it: Talk:John_Howard#Bob_Hawke_motion_on_race.2C_opposed_by_Howard

You'll see that 2 editors, Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete), keep deleting the content. The rest of the editors appear happy with the content, as long as the wording and language is not too colourful.

This whole article is a real problem. It's got whole sections of uncited info. Some editors appear happy to leave it that way. If I try to add cited info, those same 2 editors, Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete), immediately delete it.

I tried placing "FACT" tags on contentious statements in the article, and people remove them. It seems the article can never be changed.

thanks, Lester2 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

comment. You can add myself to the list of experienced editors who keep reverting this new users rampant violations of WP:SYNTH and original research. Being as he is the only one reinstating the contested material, he would do well to read about consensus in the wikipedia project. This user also places "fact tags" directly next to statements when the reference is a few sentences down due to it referencing a larger chunk of material. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A few questions to the requester:
    1. Have you spoken with the other parties about this matter? In other words, have you made an actual effort to find out why they are reverting your edits?
    2. Are you using reliable sources? --Aarktica 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion on the John Howard talkpage. I actually think an RfC would be a good idea in this instance, to get some more eyes on the issue. I tried to open one, actually, but there seems to be something amiss with the RfC/Bio template. Anchoress 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Bob Hawke Motion paragraph was heavily cited, with multiple newspaper references.[1] (see the sentence that begins with "The Labor government sought....") I don't think anyone argues it is untrue, or libelous. Its just that some don't want it there, so they keep deleting it. Are there any Wikipedia policies or rules about people just deleting cited information the second it is added to the article? I would have thought it is better to discuss the content, rather than hitting the delete button immediately. Is there are Wikipedia policy against such deletions? Otherwise the deletors always win. How should I deal with people who only want to delete everything? Lester2 02:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As you have been told several times, the issue is not one of citing sources (though full marks to you for doing so) but of relevance. As for discussion, we've discussed this plenty already and you've been repeatedly told the reasons for deletion. If you want something included, then build a consensus. Maybe you won't get your preferred wording, but generally we can all work together for a compromise. --Pete 07:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going to urge you to refrain from EDITWARring, as you run the risk of being BLOCKed. Unfortunately, it appears that has already happened. Of course, you have since been unblocked as it was determined that the 3RR charges were unfounded. My suggestions for your would be as follows:
    1. Be COOL.
    2. Avoid making any additional reverts to the article in question for the time being.
    3. Keep the dialogue going; you might run into some incivility, do what you can to avoid returning in kind.
    4. Consider opening a Request for Comment on the matter. It appears that the situation might warrant it. --Aarktica 13:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm back from being blocked. I removed the "Resolved" tag so I can ask more questions: As you predicted, there has been much incivility, including the 3RR and remarks on the Talk:John Howard page.
I read through the pages on WP:CIVIL, WP:EW as well as WP:WQT. I still can't find any way to deal with other editors who quickly revert any new content, possibly involving an edit war, usually not stating the reasons for the revert, and usually unwilling to discuss or negotiate. It's an effective way for those who want to lock down their version of an article and prevent further change. Because I can't find any rules against this kind of behaviour, is there a place on Wikipedia to make suggestions about the rules of Wikipedia and how they could be improved? I mean, a place to discuss Wikipedia itself? EDIT: After searching, I just found Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, so I guess that's what I need, but please let me know if there are any existing rules about deleting content without reason/discussion. Should editors who continually delete without talk be reported to the Wikiquette alerts?
Another editor yesterday helped by applying a Request For Comment tag to the John Howard article. I have added my comment to that. Was the lack of RFC what you were referring to with the comment User ignoring suggestions? I think I was blocked for much longer than you expected (it took a long time for the block to be removed). Thanks, Lester2 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your contribution log – Lester2 (talk · contribs) – contradicts your assertion; you have continued to haggle over the article in question, making approximately a score of edits to said article since you were unblocked. Perhaps now would be a good time for you to review what can be EXPECTed when requesting assistance. --Aarktica 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Restored tag Lester2 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Advise on allegedly biased article

Resolved: --Aarktica 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I recently wrote the Radar Networks page. Unfortunately, it has been tagged as an advertisement and the individual who tagged it has denied giving reasons for why and revision advice. I fail to detect any bias in the article, but would of course like to make the style neutral if it isn't. Could someone please give me advise me on revisions? ---hthth 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is such a thing as neutral advertorial, but it is still advertorial in comparison to encyclopædic writing. In this instance, the article in question is not strongly affected in this manner; there are just some editorial improvements that should be made. I suggest that you remove the tag and then perhaps look at what you can do to improve the editorial. There is a slight issue of undue weight as well; listing the official website twice and a little more "history" to balance the "product", for example. There are no serious deficiencies here. I'll let you look it over and if you can't get any further, come back. Adrian M. H. 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for a quick and very helpful response. I'll continue to work on it in accordance to your suggestions. Thanks again. ---hthth 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why my links were removed

Resolved: Requester obstinate; no further action necessary. --Aarktica 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


I had put in simple links to my software WhizFolders from the relevant lists, Outliners, Personal Information Managers and so on. Someone removed those links on the grounds of commercial software. I am disappointed. There are lots of commercial software links in those pages and why mine was singled out is a mystery to me. Please have someone evaluate my web site and put in the links again. I am ready to answer any questions. I was impressed by Wikipedia and many users who found my software through it appreciated it. Please help.

Thanks, Sanjay Kanade Developer of WhizFolders ( SanjayK 13:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can go in the links of: List of personal information managers List of Windows Outliners

Any other relevant categories.


Resolved: Thanks, Studerby. --Aarktica 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello: Our articles on Christopher Klim was tagged for deletion. He has been a noted author, journalist, and professor for two decades--reviewed in all the major trade magazines. He has also been referenced eleswhere in Wikipedia (not by us) in articles, include where he teaches (TCNJ). He is not a mega bestseller like John Grisham or Nora Roberts. He is however a serious author. What is exactly the issue here? Why is he being singled out? Thank, EM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egress13 (talkcontribs) 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was tagged for deletion, just a notability tag. An article needs to establish whether or not it is notable, otherwise it could be deleted. J-stan TalkContribs 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Our article"? Since you brought it to our attention, it would be remiss of me if I did not point out that it needs to be more neutral (no peacock/weasel terms, for instance) and more thoroughly referenced; your attempt at a reference section does not adequately fulfill that role. These are particularly important since it is subject to BLP. Adrian M. H. 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
re: "Our articles" - A very very large percentage of this user's edits are for authors or publications associated with Hopewell Publications, suggesting the possibility of a big conflict of interest.
I've also added a real reference/reference section to the article, as an example of how it's done.Studerby 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

UechiRyu Information

Stale: --Aarktica 14:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Okinawa.

On 02 July I posted a question to Shikai Shaw on both of his talk pages but have not received a reply regarding the source of his information.

Here is my post; it's self-explanatory. I only wish to find the source of an apparent leak of my unpublished ms extract.


Info regarding kata names, etc Hello from Okinawa.

I wondered - where did you get the information regarding meanings of kata names, etc.? Most of it is from my personal writings and essays, much of it word for word.

How did it come to you?

Actually, I don't mind it being posted as alternate meaning or supplemental information; I am just puzzled about the source. I didn't share that with many people, and the Zankai is the only UechiRyu association or style that uses these meanings.

If you prefer, you may post to me privately.

<<removed e-mail>>

Regards to all,

Seizan 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Seizan 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is unpublished, no one can use it. If anyone posts OR material, it is unverifiable (as distinct from merely unverified) and can be reverted. You would be within your rights to remove the material from whatever article is involved, though in light of your position, it may be better if you provide the necessary details here for a neutral party to attend to it. This will reduce the risk of conflict. Adrian M. H. 00:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a forum for discussing articles with copyright problems on WP. Perhaps the audience there can amend the article to avoid any plagiarism pointed out... --Aarktica 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Posting Music Chart Information

Stale: --Aarktica 14:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


My name is Rafel Corbi. I am the Managing Director of the European Country Music Association. This organization takes care since 1996 of the weekly compilation of the Pan-European Top-100 Country Music Radio Chart (view They are considered as the official country music singles chart for Europe, with 200 hundred stations and DJ's reporting us from 14 different european countries.

I've been trying for months to update your charting information for country artists with the positions they have obtained in Europe too. I feel this is a very interesting information as Europe is the largest music market in the world.

However, anytime I or any of my assistants update a page with that information, in less than a week all this information dissapears.

I wonder what's happening and if somebody doesn't like this info, cause in other music formats there's info about UK, Japan and other countries charts. Why not with country music????

Please let me know what happens.

Pages as Pam Tillis, Kenny Chesney, Keith Urban, Tracy Lawrence, have been updated and the information dropped.

Yours, Rafel Corbi <address removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by rafelcorbi (talkcontribs) 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you need support in establishing notability for your association. Many editors have an allergy to conflicts of interest — both real and perceived. Planting links to your website probably triggered the reversions you mentioned.
Speaking of which, do you know if there was any explanation given (either as edit summaries or posts on talk pages) for the reversions? I doubt that your edits were undone using flimsy arguments.
In any event, I would suggest contacting members of WP:COUNTRY — a community of Country music enthusiasts. They may be able to help you further regarding this matter. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
"Many editors have an allergy to conflicts of interest" – that would explain the sneezing and watery eyes that I get sometimes! I just thought it was hay fever. Anyway, as my fellow EA respondent wrote, ELs are usually treated strictly because they can sometimes ring alarm bells. COI is a serious issue, because it can undermine the pillar that is neutrality. Another vital policy is that of verifiability, which requires that material be verifiable with suitable independent sources (and preferably actually verified by them with citations). I have not had the time to check whether your additions were referenced, but if they were not, or they used a primary or unreliable source, then that would have been a reason. Adrian M. H. 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I want help in to creating credible references and citations for my Article and categorizing it.

Resolved: Requester sourcing material as recommended. --Aarktica 14:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently created an article on M S alias Baburaoji Parkhe. He was an Industrialist and Philanthrophist. I have placed all the credible references of external websites like MCCIA - Chamber of Commerce website.It is an apex industrial association body in this part of the world. Inspite of that it shows as a non-cridable article subject to deletion. I want to discuss and negotiate on how I can make this article more credible and ensure it;s authentification. I also have some National Indian Newspaper cuttings (Like the Times of India - Original Times)which I can share with you guys but it will take sometime to scan and discuss them.

Secondly, I have an issue regarding an article I wrote, though most of my inputs related to Agnihotra have been well accepted, the Page regarding Param Sadguru Shree Gajanan Maharaj has been deleted for lack of credible references by this gentleman User:Peripitus. Now I want assistance as I want to re-instate this article page. I would be happy to chat with this gentleman and resolve any queries or issues.

Please let me know the next steps and the line of approach I should follow and as to how I should contact the above person.


Vinayak Parkhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayakparkhe (talkcontribs) 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC) <address removed>

One thing I've seen on AfDs is that it should be deleted due to WP:V. Try googling the subject, and see what comes up, and then add it. J-stan TalkContribs 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Source references now added to article

Resolved: Please refrain from posting COPYVIO material. --Aarktica 13:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the Article "Samuel Charles Mazzuchelli" was tagged with the notice that no sources were referenced, today I have added source references for areas of the article that might be considered "opinions" or interpretations. Other elements--that are simply factual in nature--have not had in-line notations because they can generally be checked in a variety of other existing reference materials.

I hope now that the initial tag placed at the beginning of this article stating that source references are needed can be removed now.

Thank you!

Sinsinawa 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Sinsinawa

I'm not at all sure why you have mentioned this here. Is there anything with which you need our assistance? Adrian M. H. 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor with only a pair of edits speaking like a veteran of the game? I get the feeling this is a talking SOCK... --Aarktica 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, but anyone but a newbie would know that anyone is free to remove maintenance tags if they believe that they no longer apply, or didn't apply in the first place. Adrian M. H. 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
True. --Aarktica 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When will I ever learn??? It seems that I have been working on material which is COPYVIO-ridden. --Aarktica 13:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have reverted the article to a version without the offending material. --Aarktica 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Aarktica. Good catch. Adrian M. H. 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request re Arbcom matter

Resolved: User received feedback from other sources. --Aarktica 14:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We need help at the following proceeding. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop. This began as an arbitration matter dealing with disputes about content, verifiability, and scope, on articles related to allegations of apartheid in various countries. it now appears to be turning into a slugfest, with each sides having to level acccusations at many of the editors on the opposite side. The reason for this is that since ArbCom does not handles content disputes, the only way to get action on a mater is to level specific accusations at other editors. Can anyone here help. Even a small appearance of a neutral editor would be like an amazing occurence.

I guess what I'm asking for is, just take a look at it, and let me know what your reaction is. for instance is your reaction:

a) wow, what a mess. guess you all know this stuff better than me. good luck with all that.

b) hey, what the heck? how did anything at Wikipedia reach this level. I never saw anything like this before. cxan someone please try to be more positive here?

c) don't know how this happened, but there's nothing anyone else can do. this is what happens when something is highly-disputed.

d) I don't know what caused this, but it doesn't worry me. this is how the process should work, even if it's messy.

e) what the...?! the whole system is breaking down!!!! Someone needs to find a better way and to fix this!!

f) any variation on the above. thanks.

end of post.--Steve, Sm8900 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me in posting this bio

Resolved: An attempt to recreate material because it was previously "Rejected" per Notability guidelines. --User:J-stan 01:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

BIOGRAPHY OF: BRICE CARRINGTON With over twenty years of experience, through the creation of Ultimate FX a surround sound library, which contributes to feature films, video games, software and ring tones. Brice Carrington has a few secret recipes that create his jaw-dropping sound effects. One of his key ingredients is the use of a Male African Lion in virtually all of his sounds. ALL the sounds that Brice creates are original works that are recorded in the field, using six microphones (for a true 5.1 surround sound). A great example of Brice's work is his rendition of the "T-Rex Eating". The challenge for Brice was to Re-Create the sound of a Dinosaur associated in one of the most successful films of all time, Jurassic Park. This film is so historic that the effort required a realistic approach. In order to understand the T-Rex, Brice went to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, and spoke with a Paleontologist in order to understand the Dinosaurs themselves; size, strength, speed and socialization, which is none. He spoke with an Archeologist to understand where the animals originated, the terrain they walked and how they evolved. In creating the voice of the T-Rex, Brice was told that it could be heard for over 25 miles away given the proper conditions. There is no living animal that can audibly approximate this creature. Other factors are that Dinosaurs are extinct and there is no historical data to glean from, except previously engineered attempts. Brice's solution was to use the sound of a Male African Lion, as the basis of the sound, because this animal can be heard for three to five miles away in the proper conditions. Neurologically, it evokes fear in man like no other animal today. It has become a staple for most all the sounds Brice has created. At the SF Zoo, they occasionally feed the lions freshly killed white rabbits. Brice recorded the lions eating these rabbits. So, in this solution the sound also includes lions eating bones, hogs slopping in water, (to add juiciness) flesh tearing, an elephant roar and a push lawn mower recorded at half speed. In Brice's Ultimate FX, collection this sound is called T-Rex eating. In order to "Re-create" many of the sound effects we hear in movies, Brice has had to travel the world to capture and record the original material, including Ringling Brothers and Barnum Bailey Circus and animals at the private Habitat of Siegfried and Roy in Las Vegas. Ultimate FX was the premiere surround sound effects library of BMG/Killer

tracks as well as one of the most state of the art distributed sound libraries in the world. Aside from being used in feature films, as provided by BMG to studios, Ultimate FX has been used in theme parks, such as Universal Studios Hollywood, Electronic Arts in video games and Sea World in Orlando Florida. Most recently, Ultimate FX is currently available in Pinnacles Studio. Studio is the leader in consumer based home editing software. Brice's latest creation is "Baidans Mixer" and will be available within Studio in 2007. This software will enable consumers to create their own original sound effects in their home movies. Brice is also the creator of the television series More Than Entertainment-aired on Fox affiliate KTVU/FOX cable KICU TV 36, 1999-2001 and coming soon Prophetic, Preacher Man, The Mentor and Prodigy Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrich (talkcontribs) 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't think he's as notable as people want, but if you really want to create it, Search for the guy, if his name does not come up, hit the redlink at the top, and then add your info to that box, and hit save. J-stan TalkContribs 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:COI, and most importantly, WP:BIO. Those should help you a lot before you decide to create an article on this guy. J-stan TalkContribs 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This looks awfully familiar... --Aarktica 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have seen this movie before. --Aarktica 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling TOC

Resolved: Thanks, Studerby. --Aarktica 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a scrolling TOC on my user page similar to the one I have here: pt:Vapmachado Can someone help, please?
vapmachado 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just copy the CSS declarations and adjust as needed. Come back here if you get stuck, but I am not aware of any technical limitations that are local to EN Wiki, so it should be OK. Adrian M. H. 00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find a template for it, but this code seems to work:
<div style="height:190px; width:190px; overflow:auto;  margin-bottom:28px; border:1px solid #CCCCCC;  padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0em;float:center;">

Studerby 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You know that thing that Boss Nass does? Where he shakes his head and it sort of blubbers? I just did that after reading this:) J-stan TalkContribs 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well, to some people, CSS is pure voodoo, a magic incantation to be applied by rote when instructed to do so; since we've no idea of the requestor's expertise, it's probably best to assume no knowledge.
There's also some vague generic good reasons not to embed CSS directly in pages much of the time (and plenty of exceptions); I've created a Template:TOC-scrolling. It's imperfect (I'm not a hardcore templater) but it's good enough for a start. Studerby 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Drake

Resolved: --Aarktica 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


My name is Cory Carey. I am a pro wrestler using the name Tommy Drake. I decided to make a article with wikipedia. However someone already started one a few years ago. But they didn't add enough content and the page was deleted. I want to request having the page made available agian so I can edit it properly, and so I can tell my story. Thank you. Corycarey 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The good news is, there is a deletion review process used for such matters. The bad news is, you are likely to be rebuffed for such an attempt due to the conflict of interest at play here. --Aarktica 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neurodiversity problem with link being removed

Resolved: Editor has made no further edits since the 14th. – Adrian M. H. 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) I've edited this page several times and my edits keep being deleted. I have added in the site under "Opposed" and under external links. This is a valid contribution to this page since Neurodiversity is fraud. I have written hundreds of pages that prove that Neurodiversity is a fraud. Whoever is editing this out should not be allowed to change it. This would be impossible to resolve since anyone associated with Neurodiversity will agree that I am one of their biggest enemies. They should not be allowed to perpetrate their fraud without having all opposing views listed.

Neurodiversity is hazardous to autistic children. They tout false information that prevents parents from learning how to cure their autistic children. Please email me an answer at <please do not post e-mail addresses> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettwice33 (talkcontribs) 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a strong hint of POV from your comments. Not to mention ownership, with the comment "Whoever is editing this out should not be allowed to change it", which flies in the face of one of the most important founding principles of this website. After reading comments like that and the even more aggressive comment about being one of their biggest enemies, I feel less than normally inclined to examine any of the diffs, to be honest. It looks like you are too close to this and it may be affecting your editing. Adrian M. H. 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Brooks Pond

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry that i seem to have added this text to the previous edit, i am a novice...

greetings, the Brooks Pond wiki page is being repeatedly edited by an anonymous user who is placing contested details of a legal dispute into the wiki page. i am familiar with the lawsuit and have tried to remove things that are not well established facts. but this person keeps putting in the legal stance taken by one party in the dispute. i would like the page to just reflect what the pond is and observable and known things, as well as any well documented historical notes. i have written on the 'talk' page yesterday but no response so far. i do not want to get into an editing war, but i would like the bogus information to be removed and the person who keeps putting it there to be stopped. they even put the name of the family involved in the legal dispute into the wiki page text, but later removed it.

how can i help keep the page factual and accurate without getting into a battle with the anonymous poster who is waging their legal war on the page? is it possible for me to work with an editor to establish what is a fact and what is not and to then 'lock' the page? thanks for your help. Bpfarmboy 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah there, hold on! We don't go around protecting pages just because someone recently made a controversial edit. Protection and S-protection are applied judiciously when necessary, because they essentially contradict a Foundation-derived principal that anyone can edit. The material just needs to be:
WP is not censored and does not indulge in censorship except in certain BLP cases. Adrian M. H. 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Forumcruft or not Forumcruft?

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago I made an edit to Talk:Dead_Rising to remove forumcruft that did not discuss improving or changing the associated article. Since then User:Yukichigai has been constantly reverting my edits, claiming that none of them are forum cruft. Obviously, I disagreed and revert; however, he has been constantly reverting the edit I made and is now on his 3rd revert today. He also claims I'm vandalising, and threatens to report me to WP:AN. I would like some outside editor assistance on this matter, whether it's not forumcruft and should be left, or should be removed as I previously did. You will need to check the history on the talk page, as I have not reverted Yukichigai's 3rd revert. I am providing the reason below as to why I removed the following sections from the talk page:

Boss fight with Convicts a chat about music lyrics, no mention of the article, another editor even asked why its being discussed.

Vandalisme non-signer asking "what liked of vandalism" was on this article(??)

Possible Controversy chats between editors on whether this game could have controversy. Not a mention of including it in the article, and even then, it would only amount to original research.

surprised? an editor expressing his opinion that he was surprised that this game was like another game.

pc version an editor asking if there will be a pc version; no there won't; ok thanks. No mention of article content improvement, simply a "personal" question for information.

Child's Play reference again, another editor asking for personal knowledge, no indication of adding anything to the article, just a question.

game causes 360 to crash? editors talking about their personal experiences on whether the game freezes their consoles or not - no mention of article.

Dead Rising is at least also coming to the PS3. editor asking if the game would be coming to PS3, he's told no. Again seeking knowledge for self.

Sequel is there a sequel? Yes.

door glitch an editor asking about a glitch

sequel same as previous

Infinite safe asking for gameplay help/guide

I believe I was doing the right thing removing such forumcruft in my opinion, but with that user threatening to report me as a vandal and not even realising that most of the listed he's continually restoring is ridiculous (I doubt he's even reading the stuff that's being removed), I don't want to revert again. However, I find it disturbing that the user continually reverts without actually restoring only the parts he believes not to be forumcruft. This is especially notable in the places where regardless of differencing opinions, some of what I removed is surely forum style posting (such as the request for game play help) - in my opinion the editor is simply unwilling to help out and remove the sure cruft himself, and would rather continually revert and threaten other editors as vandals.

Anyhow, any assistance either way would be great, thankyou. ParjayTalk 23:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between talking about how to play the game and discussing the facts of the game. Just because every single post to the talk page doesn't come with a full citation list and an explicit suggestion to add something to the article does not mean that a discussion of game facts is prohibited on the talk page. You seem to forget that new wikipedia editors very rarely are aware of policies like WP:V and WP:N; some of these "forumcruft" posts may in fact be genuine efforts to improve the article in question, albeit from editors who aren't really clear on how to properly accomplish that via a talk page. You need to assume good faith for posts like this. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From this diff, I will address each of the removed sections in order:

  • Line 8: Not in the least bit constructive is very unlikely to be intended to be.
  • Line 43: Off-topic.
  • Line 71: Lengthy forum-like chit-chat that originated from what may have been an appropriately aimed if poorly formed post.
  • Line 132: Forum-style Q&A.
  • Line 204: Forum-style chit-chat and Q&A again.
  • Line 236: Same, with added incivility.
  • Line 313: Marginally less unconstructive, though it should be asked at the Ref Desk, not on a talk page.
  • Line 346: Forum Q&A yet again.

The third point in this section is relevant, but all this should be promptly archived at the very least if it is not to be removed altogether. Adrian M. H. 00:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. ParjayTalk 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had my material removed and I want it put back! Thank you! Jim Hallowes

Resolved: --Aarktica 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list below of the contributions that I've made but everything seems to be gone now, and I don't know by who or how or why, I am the owner of the registerd trademark Highly Sensitive People® and own and run the website and speak on the topic of the Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) a lot including traveling to North Carolinathis week to speak about the trait of high sensitivity and highly sensitieve persons. How can I get my contributions and addtions to the "Highly Sensitive Person" page put back. I am confused. I would at least like this looked into thinking that maybe a person who doesn't like me has gone in an eliminated my material.

I am not sure what has happened, but I think it's appropriate that my information be included.

Thank you. Jim Hallowes <contact information removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHallowes (talkcontribs) 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your material was probably removed due to violations of WP:COI and WP:OR. If you really want it back in, you can revert the other edits, but that might start all sorts of bad things. J-stan TalkContribs 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits Removed?

Resolved: No updates from inactive editor. --Aarktica 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just joined and posted two edits, both links to external pages, and someone removed them. They seemed legitimate and worthwhile, so I cannot understand why they were removed. I am Griffin&Sabine and they were posted at: Eros and Psyche, and Casablanca (film)...thankyou for your help.Griffin&Sabine 06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, see EL and SPAM. Someone else with more time may expand on that. Adrian M. H. 11:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kagura (Inuyasha)

Resolved: No further responses. - Adrian M. H. 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia article: Kagura (Inuyasha) has been edited numerous times by users such as myself and many others.

However, user Someguy0830 has been editing out facts that I have made, along with others from other users. I have asked him to stop, warned him of reporting, and I doubt I'm the only one, yet he continues to vandalize.

I request this be stopped immediately!

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:03:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Note that I merged a bunch of sections on the page in question, and the IP is only intent on restoring the one that has the barefoot mention, something he's edit warred over repeatedly on several pages, including a 3rr block and with multiple sock puppets. This is just his attempt to continue that behavior unchallenged. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the edits in question are vandalism examples. I suggest taking a look at WP:VAND, and remember to assume good faith in your editing. If you revert SomeGuy's edits again, you will be reported to WP:AN3. J-stan TalkContribs 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you probably are the only one. Someguy has nothing to answer for with regard to those edits and he is certainly not a vandal. He is known to be a good editor, as far as I am concerned. The history clearly shows that Someguy is not the only editor to have reverted you. Adrian M. H. 09:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mayor article

Resolved: --Aarktica 23:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to Edit Mayor Jim Naugles Wikipedia profile with factual information taken out from the Sun-Sentinal Newspaper as well as the New York Times. It is a fact that there is a controversy surrounding Mr. Naugle regarding his comments about gay tourists in Fort Lauderdale. It is a fact that a group has been formed ( to have him removed from office. This issue has been reported in most mayor newspapers around the globe. It is as much as his record as it is that he is Mayor. Why has it been removed when I add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the history and take it up civilly with whoever made the reversion (assuming that a reversion took place). Remember to assume good faith. Adrian M. H. 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, "This is according to the local Sun-Sentinal Newspaper" doesn't cut it. Please read WP:CITE for details on what does, and how to make sure you can back up your info with reliable sources that are available to everyone. J-stan TalkContribs 15:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sources do not need to be available to everyone, though. We have discussed that at WT:RS. If availability were an issue, we would end up with editors contesting sources just because they do not have a copy and cannot locate one. Adrian M. H. 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess they don't have to be available to everyone. But if they are a print source, which are not always readily available, they should be cited properly. J-stan TalkContribs 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

MockSwede autoblocked? do not know why or how.

Resolved: Invalid allegation. --Aarktica 23:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

MockSwede 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mockswede is (auto)blocked? by Ryulong(?) I'm trying to figure out what is up with this. I'm looking at AFS program listing and following along to history of this organization and moving to Waldo Pierce (Peirce, alternate spelling), who was a friend of my grandfather's. Saw his name listed and wanted to add that Ernest Hemingway, a very good friend of WP, was also member of WWI AFS volunteer ambulance corp. Don't know why I'd be listed. I have '' email address and did have AOL internet service in distant past - over three years ago. Any suggestions/directions/explanations would be appreciated. MockSwede 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that you MockSwede are blocked. The logs that I can view (I'm not an admin, so there are some things I can't see) don't indicate any blocking. You should be able to make changes to any existing articles. There might be an auto-block on new article creation; if so, make some edits and wait a few days... There's a "new-user" autoblock that prevents creation of new articles for a few days; while your account was created last year, your contribution history is empty, so that might be the cause of the problem. If we can't get it figured out, we can ask Ryulong for an explanation... Studerby 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're not blocked. You would not be able to edit this page under your user account if your were blocked. Blocked editors can only edit their own talk pages. Adrian M. H. 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates for common layouts?

Resolved: --Aarktica 23:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We use a wiki here at work for the purpose documentation to include things such as shift hand downs. For each day of hand downs we have to copy the same text to the page as our layout which is then edited with our comments. I had attempted to create a template for this since every day uses the same layout but, when editing the page it actually edits the template itself.

My question, is then, is it possible to create a template or something similar which can be utilized to create an identical layout across pages but not be changed when a page is edited?

Thanks for any help you can provide Theillien 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. Templates can do almost anything and being able to edit around them is part of the reason for existence. But, without seeing exactly what you are trying to achieve, I can't help you. Adrian M. H. 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually. It depends. There's lots of different "wiki" software - it's not a brand name but a generic name, like "blog" - and not all wiki software support templates. In fact, in my experience, the majority do not. If your company is using the Wikimedia software that Wikipedia uses, then templates are supported. Studerby 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Result of AFD was DELETE; executed by Seraphimblade. --Aarktica 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi hope you can help, I'm trying to save the "Primalist's" page from deletion, but finding all the wiki-rules quite confusing...looking for any help possible.

I've re-edited the page to show verifiable and notable sources but, not to sure what to do next - if I have done enough or not to save the page?

I've also opened the discussion page to see if that helps?

Thanks in advance


(Cdtargett 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Do you mean this article? Quite apart from the fact that it should not have an apostrophe (I hate apostrophe abuse) it is not sufficiently notable, it is unreferenced original research, and it is in dire need of a cleanup. You say that you have added references to your sources, yet you have not. I'll give you a while to get it up to scratch re verifiability, notability, reliable sources and original research, but then I'll have to send it to AFD. Please read all those policies and guidelines; they explain clearly what is expected. Adrian M. H. 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Check out this page. It explains the deletion process, reasons, and alternatives. Also, deletions can be overturned via a deletion review. So even if it's non-notable at this time, if it becomes notable in the future, we can re-add it. J-stan TalkContribs 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify for Cdtargett: the AFD was raised by another editor, presumably independent of this discussion. Adrian M. H. 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I really can't see why the article needed to go through Afd. It should have been speedied straight away. I've copied the text to a sandbox on art wikia and am just awaiting final sanction on the copy to move it into mainspace there. I personally would have opted for WP:SNOW as soon as it hit Afd. The article is just too cool for school and won't have a place on Wikipedia until any of the founders are up for major awards. Mike33 - t@lk 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion

Resolved: Article deleted by Jersey Devil as CSD:G1 — Patent nonsense. --Aarktica 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

looking for assistance on improving an article that was tagged to be deleted. I am confused on how to approach and don't want to add more fuel to the fire. Thank you Pvara 99 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles in your contribs have been subject to any deletion noms. Adrian M. H. 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
look under 50+ should I paste my new material here in this area or go to my talk? Pvara 99 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no article by that name in your contribs. Adrian M. H. 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pvara 99 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Here goes the information from "myTalk" page after I tried to write something on 50+... 50+

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article 50+, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whpq 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Pvara 99 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)I have more information to add the 50+/50plus material along with cited material to backup it up.

I left an HTML comment in my last post requesting that you sign correctly and use indents..... The article in question does not exist, so has obviously been deleted. It would have made a lot more sense to post here before the deletion occurred. I suggest you check the deletion log for whatever title you used (50+ I assume) and take it up with the deleting admin if WP:DP was not followed. To be deleted quickly means that t must have been a speedy candidate, rather than a prod candidate (as the nominator chose). Adrian M. H. 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I just submit a new entry? Pvara 99 18:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No way. Not unless you are prepared and able to bring the article up to the required standard. New entries that appear at previously deleted locations and are not substantially improved and up to standard will be speeedied again and the title may well be "salted" to prevent future creation. If an admin whose opinion I tend to trust decided that it was a G1 candidate, then it can't have been merely marginal, to say the least. Without the extra tools of adminship, I cannot view a copy of the article in order to assess it for myself, but I do a lot of SD noms on new articles and most SD candidates could never reach the required standard. That's the point of SD. Adrian M. H. 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I paste my entry in this area for you to review and can you tell me if it will pass the standard? Thanks 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No. That would not be appropriate. Adrian M. H. 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a vague recollection of an article by this very name being submitted and quickly deleted as advertising two or three months ago, so this may not be the first go-round. --CliffC 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

upload information

Resolved: No further action necessary; requester was informed of Wikipedia policies and guidelines four months ago. --Aarktica 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

respected sir/madam i am trying to put some data and picture relative some villages and tribes, but it is deleted a day after. please help me how can i put some data and pictures. i will be grateful.

kind regards k.a.khattak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidkhattak (talkcontribs) 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

According to your talk page, you have created two unsuitable articles that have been speedied and uploaded an image that has no license information. Are you getting these confused? Either way, whatever images you upload must meet the license criteria and must be correctly tagged and described, otherwise they will be deleted promptly. See the images section of the Help menu and start reading the guidelines there. Adrian M. H. 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier(->)

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere in wikipedia where we should use the English spelling of a name e.g., Henry for Henri, etc. so I used Henry of Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier recently, however, an editor User:Stijn Calle claims the correct spelling of the name is Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier. I am a little confused about wikipedia preference in this matter. Could someone take a look at the edit history of Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier and advise me before I "goof" again? Daytrivia 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian history

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres my situation. I am a sixth generation Australian, which equates to around 1800. We are of European ancestry. it is common knowledge in our family, with our many years in Australia, that up until the 1920's Australias would often 'hunt' aboriginals as a means of clearing the land. It is something that my grandparents (long deceased) where fastidious in ensuring we knew. The problem with the Aboriginal history of Australia is that it of course was written by white people, and took out all the nasty bits. To add to this political correctness has further disinfected the harsh reality of what happened. So how does one ensure Wikipedia gets it right, rather than just repeating the same old assertions? Im told a reliable citation is needed and family history is insufficient. However, this is the exact means by which the bible was passed on before being commited to the page. Additionally, does this mean Wikipedia is nothing more than a collection of others peoples work, and represents nothing original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien2010 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes. There is a strong aversion to including information gleaned from original research. It is also important that information cited in articles come from verifiable and reliable sources. As such, political correctness has little to do with it. That said, it is also essential that articles retain a neutral point of view, even when reporting unsavory events. --Aarktica 00:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
(I hate edit conflicts) In your last sentence, you sum up exactly what Wikipedia and other encyclopædias strive to be: Tertiary information sources. This means what it says, basically; that it is our task to summarise what has been published elsewhere in reliable, independent sources. For "independent", read "secondary" to the subject itself. Original research and original thought are absolutely out, because all content must be verifiable. Of course, there is always a whole lot of crap that does not adhere to these "pillar" policies, but we deal with that as best we can. It is just not enough to believe or know something to be true; we have to provide evidence. Adrian M. H. 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Aarktica is correct. We specifically seek never to be original, and only to summarize material already published by reliable sources. If this was indeed a commonly-known event, sources may already exist, and you are of course welcome to add sourced material to an article at any time. If not, perhaps you could speak to scholars or news sources regarding what you know, and see if they'd be willing to look into the matter. I imagine some might be, and then not only are there reports from that source, but you can also use those as sources for material here! However, please do note that, while I am sure this particular part of history is a very significant one to you, the history of Australia is a broad topic, and care must not be taken to give any single event an undue amount of weight in the article. Please note, however, that we cannot accept "common knowledge" as a source—if the knowledge is truly common, sourcing will be trivially easy to find. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I very much doubt there are no sources available. I took a look at abebooks (online bookseller co-op) for material searching on the keywords australia aborigine genocide and got a number of interesting hits. Look for Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. ISBN 1571814116. Substantial portions are online at Google Books. Or Blood on the Wattle: Massacres and Maltreatment of Australian Aborigines Since 1788 by Bruce Elder, ISBN 0867771011. The point is that even if you don't run across them on the typical bookseller's shelves, at least some of the information is documented and available if you know how to look for it, and ought to be available in libraries even if a book is otherwise unaffordable. There must be others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference of opinion - external links added by and deleted by reseller

Resolved: Adrian M. H. 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone would look in on Talk:Antivirus software#External links and comment. I'm having discussions there and on one other talk page with a new editor who is a Symantec reseller who says his site's links are not being treated fairly, and who also seems to be saying that all external links are equal regardless of content, and that our link rules need to be changed. There was a short revert war which he has focused on to my bafflement, but I see the main issue as a conflict of interest on his part as well as a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. I stupidly said at one point "I don't know much about the software business, but..." and he latched tightly onto that and is questioning my qualifications in the subject area. Now we're just going round and round and spinning our wheels. Thank you. --CliffC 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's kind of sorted itself out, thanks to a comment from a third party, but if it continues to be a problem, let us know here. I will comment then if it becomes necessary. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Brentwood, Missouri

Resolved: Adrian M.H. took care of it. J-stan 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Brentwood, Missouri has continuously had content about an individual, Nate Wagoner. He is my brother. The things on there are demeaning and slanderous. Is there any way to find out who has written these things?

Jcatherine 01:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)jcatherine

Technically, it's libel :) And if what you say is true, then those edits are vandalism. Change it however you see fit, keeping in mind wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest, neutrality, and original research. Make sure your edits are verifiable by reliable sources, and cite them. I will not find who the editors are, because wikipedia's policies prohibit legal action, which I am worried could come into play.
By the way, if there is a record for most policies cited in a single paragraph, I think I just broke it :^ J-stan TalkContribs 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Consider it removed. See the summary for my reasoning. Adrian M. H. 12:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for info on translating articles

Resolved: --Aarktica 12:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking of translating some articles from Dutch (my native language) into English, or helping other translators and supporting translations already in progress. I would appreciate some basic pointers on how to go about this. Thank you in advance for any help and explanations you can offer. Frostlion 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Translation. Adrian M. H. 11:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the link... probably should have been able to find that one on my own (not the most surprising link name...) *goes to figure out how to list himself as a translator/proofreader.*Frostlion 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)