Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Infidel

At the article Infidel I am having an issue with another editor over the validity of the inclusivity of the 1913 Catholic Encylopedia, and I suspect a particular direction that the article may take as well. If someone would like to help out that would be much appreciated.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason you insist on basing the article on that 100 year old source, rather than on broader, modern, reliable sources. That, in a nutshell is the main problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has been noted but not agreed with. I'd rather debate our disagreement on the relevant article talk page than clutter this one.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Without wading through the talk page there, let me say: (1) Articles should avoid incorporating text from the 1913 CE, as it is POV, (2) When contridicted by a more contemporary source, the contemporary source should be prefered, and finally, (3) secondary sources, where possible, are to be preferred over tertiary sources like encyclopedias. Pastordavid (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would "partially" disagree with point one, as a summary of it for you then per Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material, the WP:RS noticeboard [[1]], the Administrator noticeboard [[2]] as well pages such as discussions on articles such as Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Anti-Masonry, Knight Kadosh and a multitude of others. In short my stand is the same as those on the aforementioned threads that 1913 doesn't merit a blanket exclusion because of its POV or age and can be used but with due care and understanding that it represents a dated Catholic POV. I agree with both points two and three and don't see an issue with removing or amending of the 1913 information in that light. I do however object to information sourced from it being removed without verifiable cause, and can undertake to substantiate the information in the 1913 from more modern sources as well. I see you are a Pastor, maybe you can take a look at the article and give us some feedback on content of the article as well.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been told it's not reliable, and you should use modern sources. Accept that and comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Trollish comments will be ignored to keep this thread civil and productive. A discussion has just begun, consensus is being established.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How odd; you keep claiming elsewhere that consensus has already been established. Which it has, of course. And that consensus is that it's unreliable, don't use it except in extremely limited circumstances. Leading the Infidel article, and forming the basis for its contents, obviously isn't one of those circumstances. And please abide by WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Globe NPOV

The wikipedia article about The Boston Globe goes into some details about particularily unfortunate things that have been done by the Globe's staff, etc. I suspect that something like 1/5 of the current Wikipedia article (and 1/3 of its prose) is talking about the worst .1% of the things the Globe has done. I'm not sure that's consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, I'm not entirely sure, and would like to see other editors' opinions about this. JNW2 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, that certainly does sound like a violation of the undue weight part of our neutrality policy. It might help to look at the question in terms of how many sources say good/bad things about the subject. Of course, it's an unfortunate fact that news tends to focus on negative matters, and news about news is no exception. Hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Crib Rock brand

Hey there, A newbie trying to post on http://www.cribrockcouture.com, the history, the business model (guerilla tabloid publicity) the founders (movie people naturally) and before the post was even "dry" a guy named Max from Russia took it down as advertising. Help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TracyMKB (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at our policy on advertising and conflicts of interest. If you believe the article was in full accord with wikipedia policies, you can request a review of the deletion, in which other editors will decide if the article should be restored, or remain deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User not repecting majority opinion.

We are having an on going disagreement over deletion of mention of irrelevant persons in another person’s biography. In the page for Natalie Gauci one user constantly reinserts the irrelevant mention of other persons that have been deleted. During a period when the page was protected the proposed deletion and the reasons why were discussed at length. The changes were agreed to by all responders, including that rogue user (subject to being told what to do by another user). However, the page became unprotected before the administrators had made the requested deletion.

This is the preferred version: “She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12,”

This is the version with irrelevant comment: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12."

The deletion of the words mentioning Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost does not detract from the point of the paragraph. That Natalie did not get fan support early in the competition, but needed help from the judges to get to the final, is clear from the modified version. The page is about Natalie Gauci, and to mention two other contestants is irrelevant. It would make as much sense to name all 10 of the contestants who got voted through to the final 12. But this would also be irrelevant since the article is about Natalie Gauci, and there is another page on Wikipedia about that Australian Idol contest where the losing contestants could be named more appropriately.

Again, during the period this page was in protection these changes were discussed at length and they were agreed to by all responders. This discussion has continued and all users except the rogue user agree to make the change. That user insists there is no consensus until he/she says so. This user seems to believe that they are the user in charge of this page.

How do we get that user to stop making unwanted and unwarranted changes to the page, and to respect the wishes of the majority? I have suggested this user should be reported to the administrators but I am not sure how to do that. There does not seem to be a way to do that easily, which may be why this rogue user seems to feel that they are in charge, and untouchable. Any suggestions?? DrDownunder (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would recommend politely pointing out that Wikipedia works by consensus. Consensus does not mean everybody agreeing - it means everybody consenting to take one course of action - and frequently it is possible for editors, through discussion, to reach a consensus position that one editor simply refuses to abide by.

If this editor refuses to respect consensus, then, since this is a classic example of a "content dispute", I'd recommend you follow our guidelines for dispute resolution. Politeness and a quiet, reasonable approach can be surprisingly effective in such cases.

Finally, if all else fails, or if you feel that the user is excessively rude or blatantly tendentious, you may report them to the administrators' incident noticeboard. Before you do so please take the time to read the instructions at the top of that page; they may point you to a more effective venue.

I hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help me understand what happened at Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka#Requested move

Resolved

 – CzechOut is a regular editor and needed a sound board. BpEps - t@lk 22:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On 30 March, I started an RM at Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka#Requested Move. Noting an earlier, failed attempt to find a singular name for the article, per {[WP:NCGN]], I tried to include a wide range of parties by posting invitations on a number of WikiProjects, including WP:Mountains and WP:Geography, as well as WP:Poland and WP:Czech Republic. I also personally invited the participants of the previous discussion. Initial responses to the proposal found different aspects of the proposal unsatisfactory, but various parties were noting that they would be in favor of an article name change if modifications were made to the name. Then, suddenly, the conversation was abruptly closed under WP:SNOW by one of the total critics to any sort of name change. There wasn't, in my view, sufficient time for too many editors, beyond the somewhat politicized world of WP:Czech Republic and WP:Poland to weigh in. And the discussion might have led to useful revisions of the original proposal, had it been given time to breathe.

It seems as if this article is doomed to maintain its double-name, despite clear warnings at WP:NCGN that such names should be avoided. Does anyone have any recomendations on how to foster a discussion on this matter that isn't closed immediately? Is it even "right" that active participants to a discussion should be able to close discussions? Is it possible to reopen the discussion to allow for others to join in the discussion? This is quite unlike, and quite a bit more uncivilized than, any other discussion I've ever been a party to here on WIkipedia. Any help understanding what happened would be appreciated. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

just in the last 18 hours, another user, who was a participant to the now-"closed" debate, has started a new section on the talk page. It is in effect a continuation of the discussion, and would've likely been the subject of a second round of proposals in that discussion anyway, since the RM was launched under Template:moveoptions not Template:move. So far, all respondents have indicated they understand that WP:NCGN doesn't find the current compromise satisfactory, and all are at least "not strongly against" a move to a single name. Which is the option of better wiki-etiquette: reopening the (in my view, prematurely-) closed debate, starting a whole new debate, or waiting for a while and then opening a new debate? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I puzzled over this one when you first raised the issue. If it was a town, we would have no problem. But a mountain split between two nations? The only other example I can think of is Žumberak/Gorjanci on the Croatia/Slovenia border. On the first move option it was raised that you could meet half way and call it by its German name Schneekoppe and that was immediately shot to pieces.

I can't see you reaching a consensus easily please read Polls Are Evil ;-). You need to put forward every option possible and explain that its not a vote. Its the most level headed arguments that generally form (or split) consensus. Personally, put a note on all the regular editors talk pages inviting them to submit their proposals for the options you are going to use if and/or when you pagemove. Just as importantly move discussions on this to a sub-discussion page so that everything is clear. Have a definite timespan say 28days (the interest you are going to generate is going to be quite exclusive (as you found with the Czech and Polish wikiprojects) and not everybody contributes every week to Wikipedia. Make a ground rule that there won't be a WP:SNOW and that you'll invite an Administrator to close the discussions. Any other ideas? -- BpEps - t@lk 06:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With the recently created redirects, any name that a person enters will be directed toward the article at its current location. While it is a little unusual, in terms of naming conventions, it is also effective. Naming conventions are just that - conventions, guidelines - not hard and fast rules. And unusual location may require an exception to the convention. I would suggest that you just leave it be, and spend your energy on contributing to the encyclopedia in other ways. Pastordavid (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are this anon editor's contribs legit?

74.14.6.207 (talk · contribs) has identified herself as being a leader with an organization in the field of children's rights. Before and after that she has made a lot of edits to the children's rights article in which she cites her organization's materials and perspectives repeatedly. I know these are disruptive but not vandalism, and I also I don't want my own edits to be nonconstructive. Any feedback on this situation is appreciated. • Freechild'sup? 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that Children's rights has been given full protection due to the edit war between you and the anon. The right thing to do is to make your case over at Talk:Children's rights, and work out a solution there. Your comments have been more civil than those of your colleague, but I don't 100% agree with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Individuals aren't reliable sources; publications are. Whether Hillary Clinton's views belong in the article is a judgment call, not a simple policy matter, and could take some negotiation. I notice you've filed this case at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which is a reasonable step to take. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I am trying to proceed here carefully by following all the steps... The issue for me isn't so much that the other editor changed what I'd originally written, insomuch as she clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:DE and most importantly, WP:COI. • Freechild'sup? 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Lutz

Al Lutz article continually is being reverted back to a state which has biased POV views about the person, and makes fallacious claims about Al Lutz's alleged impact on the Disney Corporation. Each time this information is removed, it gets reverted back. Concessions have been attempted to appease the one who continually reverts the article, but the editor simply does not appear to be happy without the "Tom Sawyer Island" section intact, as well as the title "Impact on Disney" as opposed to the more verifiable and correct "Reporting on Disney" which is what Al Lutz does. The main issue is the "Tom Sawyer Island" section of the article, as the claim being made is that Al Lutz caused Disney to keep a loose Tom Sawyer theme, which is not verifiable, and implies that the correlation is the causation. Additionally, it doesn't fit Wikipedia standards. A brief mention of the Tom Sawyer controversy is already made in the article, and this we don't need to have a recap of everything Al has blogged upon.

Please assist in determining a suitable solution here! This is out of hand. 151.151.21.105 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Page has been full protected until the dispute is settled, and a medcab request made. Besides putting more eyes on the dispute, not much else to do. Pastordavid (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Rock

Resolved

 – leave it to clueBot. BpEps - t@lk 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Until the version dated 10th November 2007, this article was about a golfer....now he's a UVF leader. I'm assuming that someone just wiped the article and replaced it. The golfer is of semi-notability, having competed in a major tournament (though he only placed 16th so this may not indicate enough notability for a WP article), but the UVF leader is also of dubious notability - certainly Google doesn't turn up much in the way of information. The question therefore is - which is the one to use, or should it be disambiguated ? (Note also that the Rock disambiguation page lists this article as the UVF version, but the article is also apparently part of the Golf wikiproject..... Any ideas how to sort this out ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: (1) article about the golfer at Robert Rock (golfer), current article moved to Robert Rock (UVF), and a dab article at Robert Rock. I would then put both up for AfD with a nom rationale of borderline notability, and let the AfD process sort it out. Pastordavid (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

KARE ratings edits

There has been an ongoing dispute on KARE's page regarding its news ratings information. Someone is continuing to modify the page to reflect questionable information, unnecessarily diminishing KARE while supporting competitor WCCO-TV. The first link provided is dead and I have found no other online information to support this. It is also interesting that WCCO-TV itself does not address this supposed 20-year achievement on its own online PR page.

Furthermore, the other editor(s) have placed ratings information out of context, which alters its meaning. Toward the end of the ratings paragraph, there is a sentence referring to the questionable November 2007 demographic numbers (dead link), followed by February household numbers. These are 2 different ratings periods in entirely different categories. In my modification, I left the reference to KARE's third place ranking in households (as a compromise), but also cited the most recent (February 2008) demographic ratings, which continue to put KARE in first place and are most valued in the TV news industry. It is noteworthy that even though KARE is in third place in HH, it has maintained the desired demographics. The other editor opposed this information.

Household ratings have one basic purpose... A quick internet search led me to this quote from Rob Owen, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, (December 25, 2003): "Why do TV stations care about demos? Because the household ratings are almost meaningless -- they're good for bragging rights only. Television advertising is bought and sold on demographics: age, gender, etc." http://www.post-gazette.com/tv/20031225owen1225fnp3.asp Applying this to the situation at hand, even though KARE finished third in households, this information really only serves to support competitors who have placed better. So, if the information must stay on the page, it should be compared with the demographics numbers for clarity and purpose. As it stands, KARE's competition gets bragging rights on the KARE page.

The February 2008 demo information I submitted was deleted, for no good reason. The editor simply stated on the discussion page, "Material on demos was already included in previous version," although it was from November 2007 (not the most recent) and again, questionably accurate.

Additionally, other edits diminish the great achievement given to KARE as NPPA 'Station of the Year' for large markets. The NPPA awards are highly competitive and esteemed in the industry. I have tried using different wording to support this achievement, although I have been accused of lacking a NPOV. The last attempt I made used the word 'honor', but was replaced with "was the recipient". Quotes used from KARE's website were deemed invalid. Wikipedia user Orange Mike remarked on the discussion page, "Information from the station's own website is not from a reliable source." I then added a judge's comment from the NPPA website, along with cited reference on the page. This has been removed as well.

I do not work at KARE, Gannett, or any business affiliate, nor do I know anyone who does. There is no conflict of interest--I am simply a KARE-11 viewer. However, the other editor(s) seem to have a passionate desire to downplay KARE's success and magnify its weakness, while cleverly uplifting WCCO with inaccurate and meaningless information--clearly showing a strong conflict of interest.

I have voiced my concerns on KARE's talk page, but the same edits/reverts are still occuring. What can be done? Thanks for your help. Robinsegg 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sean Horlor" posting

Hi, I was hoping to get some advice from an outside editor. I'm a Canadian poet who posted an article on myself (my apologies, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's ethical guidelines and now realize I should have spoken to my editor or publishing house or a reporter from a local paper to do so on my behalf). There is a user who has motioned for my posting to be deleted (quite rightly perhaps) but his deletion request isn't based with a referenced fact. He seems to target emerging writers and warrants the deletion of their entries based on his opinion (which is subjective rather than objective). On the other side, there are a number of self-posted writer entries that I know of that are uncontested by the Wikipedia community. I'd love to hear what others Wikipedia users have to say about this. Thanks! Seanhorlor (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the main reason articles typically are deleted here is because of our notability rules. A good starting point is to read WP:N--lots of links from there branch out to explain the concepts of notability we apply here for articles. We discourage people from starting articles on themselves, and on that note, check out WP:AUTO and WP:COI. In general, though, it's not the end of the world, and mistakes happen, and you're making efforts to rectify them. If you have examples of independent news coverage of yourself, or industry coverage, you might want to post it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Horlor for review, with a simple explanation that you just didn't know. We don't and never expect people to know every rule or anything like that when they start. Good luck. Lawrence § t/e 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment from another editor.

Hello,

I seek advice on how to deal with another editor who constantly disrespects my edits. The editor, named One Night in Hackney, knows Wikipedia very well, especially vs. me.

From my perspective, he immediately reverts my edits and often says something nasty on the talk page of the given article. He has referred to my edits as ignorant and has used curse words like crap and f*** in the course of his editing. When I ask a direct question on a discussion page that asks why a source is not valid he ignores it, changes the subject, etc. I don't get an answer, do get frustrated, and on 3 occasions have been frustrated enough to get banned. That's been my fault, I admit it (also, still learning some rules).

But the editor, One Night in Hackney, acts as if he is the ultimate authority on things Irish Republican. He is not. My view is that that when primary sources conflict then that conflict should either be noted in the article or in a footnote. Instead, One Night In Hackney persistently chooses his preferred source and sticks to it, ignoring alternative interpretations. This, to me, is original research.

What I seek now is a place to turn next time this happens.

If you are interested, please check out the discussion pages for entries on subjects like: Ed Moloney, Ruairi O Bradaigh, Gerry Adams, and Border Campaign. Thank you. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues like this are best addressed in a place like WP:ANI, with evidence of any problems. But have you tried to discuss it first on his talk page? Lawrence § t/e 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do disrespect edits which are reepatedly and continually made in violation of policies such as biographies of living people, verifiability, original research, especially from a single purpose account intent on pushing a minority, extremist POV. On occasion I have risen to the trolling and lost my cool (a couple of months ago IIRC), however now I just ignore it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lawrence, thank you for your comments. I will check out WP:ANI when there's a chance. But the comments above from One Night in Hackney are indicative of the tone constantly taken. I have tried to discuss issues on ONIH's talk page and on the relevant discussion pages in Wikipedia. ONIH states above that "now I just ignore it," but please note that yesterday he did a major rewrite of the Ed Moloney article and began his justification on the discussion page with, "Basically, this article was a load of crap."

Last week we had a disagreement with the wikipedia article on Gerry Adams. On the discussion page I pointed out that J. Bowyer Bell, a reputable author, stated that more than 100 people walked out of the 1986 Sinn Fein Ard-Fheis (convention). ONIH stated, "Clear misrepresentation of the source. Bell doesn't say 100 walked out of the AF itself, he says that's how many reconvened later on." I typed in direct quotes from Bell's account of the Ard-Fheis, which in full states, "November 2 came and two-thirds voted against the traditionalists and for dropping abstentionism: 429-161. Ruairi O Bradaigh, Daithi O'Connell, and about one hundred others walked out to form Republican Sinn Fein...." He claimed Bell was referring to people who reconvened later, but when asked how ONIH knew that there was no answer to the question. In frustration, I pushed the issue too far.

In the Gerry Adams instance, the sources are not in agreement (if you want, see the discussion page). My point is that my (valid) source was dismissed with, "Regardless, it was a small split that nobody cared less about...." I care about it, and suspect others do, too; perhaps some have given up based on the responses of ONIH. It is not "pushing a minority, extremist POV" to ask that articles are accurate. Bell might be wrong, the sources ONIH cites may be wrong, but it seems inappropriate to me to dismiss my source out of hand. Instead, the article should be written to reflect disagreement and seek a middle/neutral ground. That seems to be the spirit of Wikipedia.

Again, Lawrence, thank you for the help. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't perform any "major rewrite" on Ed Moloney. I stubbed the article, due to the large amount of OR and other unsourced content added to the article, unsurprisingly including a significant quantity by WilliamHanrahan. Fixing your content policy violations is not harassment, not by any stretch of the imagination. And you're not here to reflect neutrality, you're intent on pushing a tiny fringe Republican Sinn Fein POV on a small set of articles, and have even used meatpuppets to further your aims. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

another editor deleted comments from my discussion page

Resolved

I have been involved in an ongoing disagreement with user HiDrNick about links at the end of the Spider Solitaire page. He's put unpleasant comments on my discussion page and I have done the same on his. A third user posted a short message of support to me on my discussion page and HiDrNick deleted it (I reverted the page to restore it and you can view his actions on the history links on my discussion page). I think this is outrageously inappropriate. Advice?? 206.74.61.67 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the edits and WHOIS of that other account, I'm fairly certain that HiDrNick thinks it's a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account. If I may suggest something, I'd encourage you to get your own wikipedia user ID. That has all sorts of advantages to it, including helping other editors and admins track this sort of thing. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Need

Greetings,

I've become a wiki user to try and resolve an issue of home town pride.

I'm contacting you for instructions on how to replace a terrible and depressing photograph of our home town that's posted on the Wikipedia page for Portland, Indiana. Could someone please provide step by step instructions. Other novice users have attempted to understand how to replace images from what they have gleaned from reading on wiki, but have had no success.

Also, while the user that posted the image did it in good faith, I'm at a loss as to how to mediate because they don't have email contact.

Here is the URL for the page, and the picture we want to replace with one that's a little more cheery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Indiana

Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

IfOnlyThePresidentUnderstood (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. Let's see if I can help you out a bit. Step one would be finding a photo (we call them "images") that you want to have on that page. That might involve somebody taking a photo, preferably with a digital camera. If you are using an image taken by somebody else, you must have their permission to use it, and they must provide it within the copyright licenses that Wikipedia accepts; it's probably easier to get your own photo unless you know of a really terrific one that is "public domain" or "Creative Commons" licensed. Step two is to upload it to Wikipedia; you must be a registered user (like you are now) to do so. You can upload the photo directly from your computer. When you upload the photo, you have to choose a license under which it can be used. Wikipedia requires free use licenses; essentially, once it is loaded onto Wikipedia, anyone in the world can use that photo; This page can help you understand the differences between the acceptable licenses. Once the image is uploaded - put it in the article! You can replace the dull photo with your new, exciting, cheerful one; it's part of the wiki tradition to constantly improve articles, with better images, better prose, and better references. I will warn you, though: once you start, it's very easy to become addicted. Risker (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've looked at the article for your town, and see someone tried to put a link into a photo from flickr. That photo doesn't meet the free use licensing requirements (it is all rights reserved, according to the flickr page), but if you know the photographer, you can ask her or him to change the copyright status to "CC by SA" and then we'll have something to work with. Let me know if you are successful by leaving me a message on my talk page (click on the word "talk" after my username) and I will help you upload it. Risker (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Help doing a BOLD thing with a WP guideline.

Hi. A little over a week ago I started a discussion about adding a new section to WP:RS to be known as WP:BELIEFS and I believe it is time to be bold and go live.

I have discussed it in the RS talk page[3], I have made a Request For Feedback[4] and also advertised the discussion at the Village Pump (policy) page[5]. All feedback seems generally amiable to this proposed guideline so I would appreciate help in how to best integrate the text to the actual policy page. One of my concerns is the way the most recent revision's proposed text[6] is formatted feels sloppy/amateurish but I am not sure how I could format it better. Any help is appreciated. -- Low Sea (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oregon State University

I have been helping build Oregon State University's Wiki for about a year now and continue to encounter vandalism from several handles (Likely the same individual) who appear to be blatantly biased against the school.

The handles this individual uses are "VegaDark" and "AboutMoves". For about four months this individual has hounded the Oregon State University Wiki and made unfounded revisions repeatedly.

This individual will begin building a case to make changes on a site by appearing to gain consensus in the discussion with several of his/her own handles and within a period of days will begin making deletions with little reasoning.

As you will read in our discussions, I have requested editors provide an alternative to the word "Revered" rather than delete it. For four months I have received no alternatives and, as you will see in the history, the repeated deletions of this word continue without end.

I am recommending the page be locked with my most recent changes and these handles be blocked from editing this page. Neither handles have contributed anything of value to the page and appear to be playing a game. Thank you for your help. AgntOrange (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the page. The sentence at issue reads as follows: "Revered as a top tier forestry school, OSU is widely considered the nation's leader in the subject." I agree with User:VegaDark, User:Edgewise and User:Aboutmovies that the word isn't appropriate. As Edgewise explained on the Talk page, the word "revered" is an "unnecessary intensifier with religious overtones". The sentence could easily be rewritten as "OSU is widely regarded as the nation's leading forestry school" (provided that the claim is properly sourced). Succinct, unambiguous, neutrally stated. JohnInDC (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about accusing VegaDark (who is an admin) and Aboutmovies of vandalism. That is not an accusation to be thrown around during what is merely a content dispute. See WP:CIVIL. They are both alums of the school, and care about the content of the OSU article, that is all. AgntOrange, you also seem to be accusing one or more editors of sockpuppetry? I can assure you that that is completely unfounded, especially because VD and AM sometimes don't get along very well, but if you are concerned you should make a report here. Katr67 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Honestly, ridiculous is the only word that actually makes sense in this situation. They're all constructive editors, while AgntOrange has little to show in his career other than a block. Wizardman 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence shouldn't even have the phrase "widely regarded". See WP:PEACOCK. What about simply saying "OSU is a leader in the subject of forestry" or somesuch. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous is the word I would use. There is clear consensus on the talk page to not have revered. To accuse me and VegaDark of not only vandalism but also sockpuppetry is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Additionally, there is the concern over the formatting of captions:

Valley Library- View a video presentation of the library video, or see a live webcam by clicking these links.

That is how AgentOrange has made the picture captions. There is also consensus that this is not proper, basically due to that little thing called the WP:MOS. There is no reason to bold or make them small, and per WP:EL the external link oddly enough should be in the external links area. As to size, there can be exceptions, but not for every picture. If AgentOrgane wants the pics bigger he/she can change their own user preferences so that people who may have small screens will not have a picture take up 80% of the page, which is sort of the reason why the default image size is adjustable in user preferences and why thumb is supposed to be the default size (again covered in the MOS). Aboutmovies (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war with User:Badagnani on Florida State Seminoles

Stale

The editors of Florida State Seminoles are in an edit war with Badagnani hand has been asked by three users including myself to stop with his edits. the item has been brought to talk, and he refuses to yield to the majority even with the offer of a compromise. --UkrNole 485 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief comment on the FSU Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Need help removing an erroneous redirect

Resolved

Apologies: I really don't know how to do this. There are two articles with similar content: [process modeling] and [business process modeling]. There is a redirect from the search term "Business Process Modeling" to the more generic article 'process modeling'. The redirect should be removed. At least, that is the apparent consensus of the editors on the discussion page.

That said, there is a great deal of overlap between the two topics. I've posted a suggestion that we move the content from the 'process modeling' article that is specific to business process modeling to that more-specific topic. We shall see where that goes.

For now, I need help removing the redirect. Nickmalik (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you follow this link [7] you can edit out the redirect. Make sure to put some content in its place though, or else you will be left with a blank page. Howie ☎ 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

sam melville

Resolved

 – Started stub Sam Melville (actor) Can you help? -- BpEps - t@lk 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your posting on Sam Melville deals exclusively with a US minorities personality!! Sam Melville WAS also a leading performer in the TV show "ROOKIES" .. the current article on Sam Melville needs to be edited to reflect this!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.100.118 (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes your quite right Just checking wanted pages, Sam Melville (actor) has at 3 red links and The Rookies article. I'll see if I can get a stub together in a day or two. -- BpEps - t@lk 09:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing war resolvement

Resolved

 – At least here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please investigate MapsMan for editing harrasment.

I ammended a few articles and every time he has individually reverted my work.

my information is reliable.

My defense was not acknowledged and he has not carried out duties correctly.

As a disabled wikipedian, i condone harasment or blocking without any real grounds.

my contributions are equally worthwile as a person. for the moment i dont like his harrasing tactics.

Please be aware of this.

ian Snowball —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Snowball (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've looked at the edits on the Chris Mullin page and I agree with MapsMan that the article, after you edited it, did not conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I agree with his reverts and I also think that his explanations on your talk page were quite civil and polite. I have also investigated the edits to the A1018 road article and, once again, I agree with his editorial decisions. You have used phrases such as "noteable Sunderland Politician , CHRIS MULLIN has his office." which includes a non-neutral point of view and incorrect formatting for the politician's name. MapsMan has complied with the correct style and has also included references correctly. He has politely asked you to do the same. I do not see any evidence of harassment at all; please be careful when making such accusations. Howie ☎ 05:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have continued to revert changes in the A1018 road article. Please follow the course of action mentioned on your talk page and above, or I shall request admin assistance. Howie ☎ 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute regarding a possible joke edit.

Resolved

 – Someone thought someone else was vandalizing. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I came across what I feel to be a clear cut joke edit here. I removed this and placed Template:Uw-joke3 on the talk page of James Callahan as he had already been warned using Template:Uw-joke2. This user has accused me of making mindless threats on his talk page and responded that it was not a joke edit.

Can someone please look at this edit his talk page and my talk page and weigh in on this issue, I'm not sure how to deal with it.

Thanks very much. Wjw0111 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much of a sense of humour and I thought it was probably a good faith edit. Judging by his explanation on his talk page he thought he was doing right too. Slapping vandalism warnings around can cause tempers to flare but WP:CIVIL overrides WP:DTTR by a factor of 1:100000.

There has been some discussion about WP:BEANS recently, albeit more in terms of what we advise editors in Wikipedia space rather than in the project space. But I can see how a statement in an article "Don't do this kids" can have an entirely opposite effect than the one proposed.

Incivility isn't cool on Wikipedia when essentially we are all after the same thing - a workable and useful online Encyclopaedia. If you can brush off some abrupt (and hopefully) spontaneous outbursts from an other editor then I would let the matter lie. If it continues then take a trip to Admin noticeboard/Incidents and post your diffs there. Blocks on editors are only useful if it makes them desist in uncivil behaviour for spur of the moment outbursts they only create hostility. Hope this helps. -- BpEps - t@lk 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Help request

Resolved

Hi,

I have just tried to add a page to wiki and am new to this - my submission has problems. What can be done to rectifiy it. The page is called - Garrett and Alexandra Conover -

Many thanks,

Abodude (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at it and to tell you the truth it needs starting from the beginning. Although it is a pleasant enough article and pretty comprehensive, the Manual of Style (Biographies) has been invoked. Basically it sets out a formula that every biographical article should stick to. I wouldn't say that there is any rush though, the backlog of articles requiring cleanup is huge with some of them being tagged for a year or more. Your's is far from being a worse offender. I have a few projects on the go at the moment but will drop in on it to see if there has been any changes. Good luck. -- BpEps - t@lk 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stardoll

Resolved

As a publicist I represent a client, Stardoll.com, which is one of the most trafficked websites on the net. They previously had a wikipedia page but it was deleted. Since I represent them I don't believe I would be the appropriate person to create/edit the page.

I would like to request a page be created on them but it's previously been deleted. I think it was deleted because the Stardoll community (it's a virtual world with about 8 million international uniques/month) is very young (about 9-17 yrs old) and they are very enthusiastic about the site and I think they were editing the wikipedia page too often and using too much flowery language.

Is there a way that we could create a page for Stardoll but then block it so it's not easily accessible to edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisolipsist (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Stardoll was deleted no less than seven times, mostly under the blatant advertising criteria of our speedy deletion policy. I took a look at one of the more developed versions and noted that it was built with no reliable sources to ensure that it met our requirements for notability of websites. It may well do, but at this point the page has been protected to prevent recreation, so anyone who wishes to create it would have to go to deletion review and provide evidence that it's notable enough to be unprotected and recreated. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus these three deletions for Stardoll.com. Interestingly enough if his an Alexa Rank of 495 and 609 top-rankers linking in. I doubt that it would be hard to source it for V and N. Only Stardoll appears to have been salted so a trip to deletion review might not be necessary. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikisolipsist here again, wish I were more versed in the editing/creation process--I'll read up on both Deletion Review and SALT. If I'm eventually able to reinstate a basic page and make it so that it's completely accurate and well-sourced--then is there a way to protect it? It's not well known like Heath Ledger or Facebook. But it's really well known among teen and tween girls--about 16 million members have signed up since it's launch in that demographic. And I think because the audience is so young and web-savvy they pose a unique problem for the existence of a stardoll page on wikipedia. I think their general age makes them more apt to try to edit the page and add language that is not necessarily true. But I think a WP entry on them is warranted--they've been featured in the New York Times magazine [8], Wall Street Journal, Mashable.com, PaidContent.org, TechCrunch.com and a number of other media properties. And I think competitive sites, like Club Penguin and Webkinz have WP entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisolipsist (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have more articles along the lines of the NY Times piece, that would certainly indicate notability. The problem is, if you're representing the site, you definitely have a conflict of interest issue. Tell you what; if you can pull together a few more links to articles such as the one above, go to my talk page and drop them there, and I can try and take a shot at creating something. They need to be specifically about the site, and be of a good length, not short snippets. I'll put something together in my userspace. As for protecting it, we don't pre-emptively protect pages except for those that are major targets (eg George W. Bush and similar). If the article is created, it would then have to be kept maintained by other editors unless vandalism reaches a high level at which point it would be protected for a short time. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really appreciate your help on that. Yeah, I rep them and wanted to up front about that b/c I'm a big fan of WP and don't want to violate the conflict of interest clause. Wikisolipsist —Preceding comment was added at 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference that is incorrect

Stuck

 – Please don't mark as resolved until there is a definite resolution. BpEps - t@lk 17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Resolvedish. I had an email from Mr Wong the NYT guy referring back his info to the Jacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan Art. Until Wikipedia decides on what is "truth" (not "thruthiness"), then verifiability is how we can decide. -- BpEps - t@lk 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a new user of Wikipedia and I want to clear up a reference to an article I wrote. On the Jacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan Art Wikipedia page, an Editor has placed a reference to an article I wrote [Sarah Johnson, "From Staten Island to Shangri-la: The Collecting Life of Jacques Marchais," Orientations Vol. 38, No. 4, May 2007, pp. 85-90]. My problem is that some information in the sentence that bears a reference to my article is incorrect, and I do not want people to think I am the author of this incorrect information. I dispute the fact that Jacques Marchais used the name "Jacqueline Norma Klauber" and do not want my article linked to that misinformation.Sarah108j (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to our attention. I have edited out the information not included in the reference. I did not see the "disputed" name in the reference source used, nor on any biographical information about the museum's founder on the museum website. I will place a link to this discussion onto the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as unresolved, there's a COI issue here. 1) the reference that acknowledged it was the New York Times and I'm happy to get a full version of the article that used it. 2) The museum itself acknowledges that Klauber was Marchais' married name. Because the curator currently disputes it, why should we remove a verified fact? Curator has also contacted me off wiki which I find entirely inappropriate. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Klauber in the New York Times (full text), also here (also full text), and multiple refs here. I strongly disagree with removing this at the current curator's request. Will not re-add now so as to avoid edit war, but I think taking it out is showing bias. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If we consider Verifiability The NYT is clearly a verifiable source. What seems to be at issue is Sarah Johnson's (Sarah108j the curator of Jacques Klauber's) attempts to have her book de-listed as a further source while Wong's NYT article is still used. My own feeling is that this should be passed to the foundation and let the OTRS team consider if the critism is fair. Author's should not dictate the content of Wikipedia if we are to be seen as Neutral which is the primary goal of Wikipedia. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, another editor has re-added it with further information on exactly why it should be there and removed the author's source. I think that's a good move since I don't believe really should have been a sole source of information in the first place since it's not independent of the subject. I don't exactly understand the issue here since the museum itself acknowledges she uses the name as do a number of reliable sources. I don't think the thoughts of the current curator should be taken as gospel for excluding a piece of valid and verifiable information, which is why I asked whether they were trying to hide something. I don't know what OTRS/The Foundation would be able to do in this matter since it's verifiable and not a BLP issue (regardless of the fact that she'd dead, it's not an issue if she were alive). I agree with Ed Johnson on the talk page -- she was reported with the name in the Times, and there's no evidence it was ever retracted. It appears to be a fact. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NB - Some conversation regarding this discussion can be found at: User_talk:Travellingcari#Jacques_Marchais_Museum_of_Tibetan_Art

• Comment: Discussion also on the article's talk page TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for lake of "wikette"- I am not a technology person and am not used to this kind of discourse. Again, I would like to point out that I do not dispute that Marchais' married name was Klauber; I dispute the incorrect variations of her name such as "Jacqueline" and "Norma." In academic writing, usually the most current research is considered to be the most updated and accurate. Unfortunately, there is misinformation in the 1996 essay on Marchais in the Museum's catalog. This misinformation was printed and reprinted in such sources as the New York Times (I would correct this information with the Times, but the Wong article was published 10 years ago!). Many of these inaccuracies were addressed in current research, based on new historically verifiable information on Marchais such as geneological and archival documents. It is curious to me how a Wikipedia editor can cite a reference without having read the content. For the sake of accuracy, again, the establishment date of the organization is 1945, and the 1996 catalog was not published by the Journal of the American Oriental Society. Sarah108j (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bill Godley" vandalism

Resolved

Hi,

Memphisbassman and 74.193.136.139 have been systematically replacing bassists with "Bill Godley". Neither the user Memphisbassman nor 74.193.136.139 have any edits to their credit except for this vandalism.

Perhaps a warning or temporary block is in order here. I don't know how to go about these things.

Thank you!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User warnings may be found here. If you're positive this is vandalism and it continues after warnings, report them here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 11:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there a way to mention multiple articles in a single warning? This person has vandalised several. Webbbbbbber (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the various edits, they do appear to be vandalism (albeit undertaken with a pretty light hand). I added a vandalism warning to Memphisbassman's Talk page. I didn't bother with the IP inasmuch as the last edit from there was in February. I guess we'll just see how it unfolds. JohnInDC (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that you've gone through and reverted the edits as well. Webbbbbbber (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would add that, to test the truth of these edits, I dug back into some articles about Todd Rundgren and Jeff Beck (two of the affected entires) for cross-references on the albums on which "Bill Godley" was said to have played. These gave no indication that any such person played on them. What's more, a Google search on "Bill Godley bass" or "Bill Godley guitar" turns up a couple dozen hits, all but one or two appearing to be the Wikipedia pages at issue, or places to which those same articles have propagated. As best I can tell, "Bill Godley" at least as he appears on the internet, is almost entirely a creature of these various entries. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I found another user who had attempted to add "Bill Godley" to some other bands several months ago. Perhaps a half-hearted attempt to create a fictious person? Webbbbbbber (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington sportspeople category

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've just noticed that WP has both Category:Washington sportspeople, and Category:Sportspeople from Washington ..... what's the difference ?! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

None. They are redundant. Let me see if I can sort it out. Pastordavid (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Redundant/empty category deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

hi. the entry below is getting rejected do to this reason, 'web content doesn't show notability' [a7]. please help me fix this. thanks.

Jehovah article

Resolved

 – Not really resolved but countless editors have agreed that the two articles are seperate. CHS"CH -- BpEps - t@lk 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been somewhat involved in editing the Jehovah article recently. A problem is that another, and better written article, Yahweh, seems to cover the exact same subject. In other words, the Jehovah article seems to be a content fork of the Yahweh article. Other editors not been clear on this question, and I would appreciate it is someone could take a look at the two articles. I do not want to disrupt the editing process if I am mistaken, and initiating an AfD certainly would be disruptive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages for the last 7 years (over 3000 threads). Everyone has an agreement to let each page develop on its own lines. I can even remember a discussion about merging them both into KJB Lord. Please don't consider Afd. They start much the same but are very very different in outlook. Chag Samaech and please let thing pass. -- BpEps - t@lk 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

psychoanalysis

Resolved

I want to move the order of the topics as they appear. In addition there are two topics that need to be consolidated: Evolution of Theory and Brief history. I do not know how to do either because each topic is listed ith an individual edit section. R38597033 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)R38597033

It's no problem. All you have to do is scroll to the top of the page and click on the edit this page button. This will let you edit the whole thing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bootleg Live Recordings on Band page

On the page helmet (band) there has been a dispute as to whether or not an exhaustive list of bootleg records of the band should appear on the page. During discussion the general feeling seems to be that this information should not appear on Wikipedia, however despite this one user User:Henrikbauer persists on returning these items to the page. They also seem to be unwilling at this stage to enter into any discussion in regards to the issue.

I'm wondering if I can get come clarification on whether or not this information should or shouldn't be on this page?

Album notability - aarrgghhh !

Ok, I'll admit it - this question has always bugged me - a lot of the uncategorised pages I try to categorise seem to be albums. Now, according to WP:MUSIC/Albums, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability", and then goes on to say "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Fair enough - but what if the artist has their own article, and several albums articles, but this particular article is nothing but an track listing ? Take, for instance, the band Starfield - they have their own article, so are apparently notable enough for inclusion. They have released several albums, all of which have their own articles, but only one of which Beauty in the Broken would seem to be notable, due to it reaching a number 1 position. So, assuming that this makes that one album notable, what happens to the other album articles ? Should these be merged back into the main article, a discography article created, left as 'track-listing only' articles, or simply deleted ? Ow..it's too complicated...my head hurts !! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

what to do with constant re-editing

I'm a relatively new Wikipedia editor and seek advice on how to deal with another editor who constantly adds negative comments and reverts my edits in the Anchor Weights section of Anchors. I believe the editor, IP 124 197 12 28 knows Wikipedia very well, especially compared with me.

This Editor constantly adds that anchor weights do not work in heavy weather sounding as if he is the ultimate authority on the subject. These negative comments are not supported by any research and appear to be personal opinion. We also believe there is a conflict of interest with our product and his.

I made an error initially in using our normal user name and have been accused of sockpuppetry along with being blocked for vandalism. I have now created another user name.

I seek your advice as to what to do the next time this happens.--Ruloo (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Malicious editing of Matthew Koon's page

To Whom It may Concern

Someone has edited my son's page and added nasty comments. I tried to re-edit it but the comments still show in the google Cached text. Please help to amend that or let me know what I need to do to amend it. Thanks.

Hilda KoonLowfatchicken (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your first attempt to clear the most recent comments appear to have reintroduced them, and made you appear to be the vandal. Vandalism is a chronic problem on Wikipedia, and most of the time it's fixed simply by editors who recognize it for what it is, and report the vandals so that their accounts can be blocked. With a bit of practice, you could do that easily yourself, and that may ameliorate the problem. In cases of really persistent vandalism, a page can be 'protected' so that it can only be edited by registered users (or not at all); but that's not that common. As for Google - there is really nothing to be done about that except to wait for Google's caches to catch up with the correct version; that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. JohnInDC (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I feel I should point out that as you are the mother of the person who is the subject of the article, you should also read WP:COI as you potentially have a conflict of interest when editing this article. I notice one of your removed edits, regarding your son's dance instructor, was not notable and also did not conform to a neutral point of view. Howie ☎ 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Text is not truth in an article

Hello, the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML The text shows a thing that is literally incorrect. I change the article twice (with comments as explication), but then another user ("HAl") undid all my changes and removed all my considerations. The article's editor ("Ghettoblaster") didn't undo any change from me nor from the other user.

The problem is about the status of Office Open XML as ISO standard. The article now shows that format is an international ISO standard, but actually its status is 40.98, while ISO releases an international standard when its status become 60.60. This is no reflected in the article.

Besides, this is in agreement with a Microsoft campaign releasing this format is already an international ISO standard. However, the wikipedia article shows at bottom the problems that the format has to be released as an international ISO standard.

If the article's editor do not action, can I do anything to correct this? I think is not correct the other user and me are doing changes continuously.

Thanks.

I've removed your email address, for liability issues. I'd suggest going to the article's talk page. Just click the "discussion" tab at the top of the article you're trying to edit. On the talk page make a new section discussing the matter and see what other editors have to say. If you have reliable source for the information please link it in your discussion. If no one discusses it you can place the information back into the article, but be certain that you add the reference to your addition. If you put the information back without a reference it will mot likely be deleted again.If you have any other questions or need further help just ask.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request admin protect Ayn Rand page from anonymous edits

Hello, The Ayn Rand page has been edited recently by an anonymous IP user (multiple IPs) who signs his talk as Edward Nilges. He has bombarded the talk page with long posts full of insults. I've put various talk pages of his IP addresses on wikiqutte alerts and asked him to be polite and constructive. That has failed and he started adding a long POV section to the article. I reverted it and putting my reason on the talk page. He posted more insults and began to revert war over it with more insults and calling me a vandal. I mentioned the idea of protecting the article from anonymous IP edits and several editors agreed on the Ayn Rand talk page. I figure he can make an account and still participate. I would like an admin to take a look at protecting the Ayn Rand page against anonymous edits. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to have a page protected, ask here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

failing URL links to Wikipedia

I couldn't figure out where else to put this.

On two occasions in the last two days I have tried to provide links to other people which pointed to wiki URLs.

They both failed because of punctuation marks.

The first because of an exclamation mark ( ! ) at the end of URL.

And the second because of an apostrophe ( ' ) in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

I don't see why you need to make URLs like that.

[email protected]

67.167.210.220 (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to edit a page--Hu12 (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

article : Michele Renouf

> I have a problem with the article " Michele Renouf". > Each time I make a change to the article, another user, Robert Ham, > deletes them. By looking at his activities at WIKIPEDIA, one > can objectively conclude that he IS A HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST > himself. Here is how describes himself on WIKIPEDIA :

I R EAT J00 I found this edit both funny and sad. It's a wonderful example of mindless Zionism from a fool, something that predominates on wikipedia>>

> How can we bring an end do to our repeated edits/unedits ? > > -- > BENJAMIN YAFET > xxxxxxx > ORO VALLEY, AZ 85755 > 520-xxx-xxxx >

I took a look at the edits that are being reverted by Robert Ham and to my eyes, the edits themselves look like the POV problem - not his reversions of them. I would invite other editors to take a look and see if they concur. (PS - I edited the foregoing comment a bit for readability, to remove personal information, and to add wikilinks.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This disagreement appears to be continuing and I think it would help if someone else were to weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JohnInDC, Robert Ham etc. User:byafet is edit-warring to introduce material which violates WP:NPOV and arguably WP:BLP, and at the time of writing has made no other edits. If no discussion is forthcoming, and any further disruption occurs, a block may be necessary. I've posted a warning to that effect; let's see if it gets the user's attention. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Layer 8 and Layer 9

Hi. Can an experienced editor please review these two articles. Both cite the same sources - one is a joke document, the other only cites these as a section heading with no note of verifiability. Both articles are NOT official policy, but apparent jokes. I'd therefore assume these would either fall foul of WP:NOHOAXES, or at the least WP:NEO. I don't want to get involved in an argument over these, so could an experienced editor please provide some input. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of National Anthems article

Resolved

 – Howie ☎ 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I made an amendment to a Wikipedia article entitled 'List of National Anthems'.

The amendment I made was to include the national anthem of Cymru / Wales. The reason for the amendment was that Wales is a nation and that it has an anthem. The logical conclusion being that the anthem would, therefore, be a national anthem, which should be included in a list of national anthems.

My amendment has been deleted and the previous article reinstated.

I've looked at the article again and I can see that all the nations listed are noted in the English language, rather than their own language. I assume that this is the reason for the deletion. The reason I chose to include the Welsh name for Wales was because the Welsh national anthem is in the Welsh language. I see now that this is inapproprate.

I would like to resubmit an amendment adding the national anthem of Wales, but before I do so I would like to ensure that the reason for the deletion was for purely linguistic reasons, as I don't want to make further amendments if there are other reasons.

Please advise.

Best regards,

Dai caregos.

You should really put what you have written on the talk page for that particular article, as it is most likely that the person who reverted your edit (along with others who have an interest in the article) will see it - it comes up on their watch list. If you don't get a response there, then look through the edit history to find the user that made the change and ask them on their talk page. Howie ☎ 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

David Haye

I have a user that has repeated the same edit the page on David Haye twice.

The user is editing the wording from "Kyrenia in the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"

to "Girne, in The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"

I would rather not get into the politics of what the city is and isn't called according to which side of the border someone lives on.

The wiki article is currently listed under Kyrenia

I don't expect the cyprus problem to be resolved but it doesn't need to spill over to a page about a UK Boxer

GenestealerUK (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the simple solution is to write (known as Girne in Turkish) or just simply (Turkish: Girne)? Howie ☎ 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't hurt

GenestealerUK (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This was edited again despite the change. This apparently remains unresolved. There are two IP addresses that have repeated this change: Special:Contributions/87.84.240.238 and Special:Contributions/90.199.224.114

GenestealerUK (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Re Mark Mullen NBC News Correspondent in Beijing

Resolved

 – The deletion was overturned at WP:DRV

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently attempted to write an article about the NBC News Foreign Correspondent in Beijing, Mark Mullen. I wrote a well researched article that cited four different sources and thought that I indicated the importance of the subject by nature of the fact that he's one of NBC's most prominent correspondents on Nightly News and Today.

It was, however, summarily deleted despite the hour or so it took me to research and write it. Can you offer any clarity as to why this article was categorized for speedy deletion? Thank you.

NewsGuru (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)NewsGuru

The answer's on your Talk page. In short, other users felt that your article did not make clear why the subject was notable (see Wikipedia's definition of notability for more on this). If you feel this is wrong, you can request a deletion review, which might restore the article if you can prove they were mistaken, or you can contact an admin who might be willing to send you a copy of the article; you can then work on improving it somewhere safe (like a User sub-page). Hope this helps... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

jamiecg74

Having not really edited anything on wikipedia before, I thought that for fun I would add my own page for when i have been in newspapers to see it online. I wholeheartedly accept the comments for why the page should be deleted should it be deleted. However I object to comments from Tavix (who is one of your moderators i assume) saying things like "there are absolutely no references that would tell me if any of this crap is true". Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamiecg74

I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be an objective community that is involved of the upkeep and maintenance of useful and important information for the world. I found the comment by Tavix upsetting and although not offensive, it was obviously a negative comment that took totally out of context my intentions of what I wanted to do on my page. I would appreciate your thoughts on this? --Jamiecg74 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I agree with your comments about the use of language and lack of care taken by Tavix. I think it's totally irresponsible for an editor (especially one who has been here for over a year) to speak that way about an article that actually has verifiable content. Although I don't think the content is noteworthy (see WP:N) there's no need to call your life "crap". Can I advise that you add the information in the article (in an edited form) to your user page instead? Howie ☎ 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AddMorePhotos

I tried to create an article for "AddMorePhotos". It is consistantly being removed immediately and I am following the TOS.

Here is my article:

"AddMorePhotos.com is an online photo sharing service based in the United States, the site was launched in 2008. AddMorePhotos.com is considered a public sharing service. It differs from other photo sharing websites in that the users are allowed to create gallery pages that stay up for 60 days and then deleted. It is idea for those who only need to promote photos for a short period of time or want to include photos in classified websites similar to Craigslist, Kajiji, Gumtree etc."

Any suggestions on what is happening and what I need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostenlose (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The deletion log indicates that it was deleted under the Wikipedia:CSD#A7 guideline. The article did not indicate why it was important enough to include in the encyclopedia. You might also read the WP:Notability (businesses) guideline. Sbowers3 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles

Hi, I've added (sourced) statements re:Ms Knowles' "songwriting" and this stan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Efe keeps reverting them for no reason (other than that he can't stand having his idol criticized). Can someone assist? Thanks! Nathan86 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As Efe (talk · contribs) notes on your talk page, the site you're using as a source for your edit here is a fan site, and is definitely not a reliable source for our uses. This other contentious edit cites Youtube twice, which is not generally allowed as a source. It also seems to be interjecting an opinion to the article. I'd say take your concerns to the article talk page and work with it there until you come to a decision on the best way to move forward and find a neutral position. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User keeps editing pages with wrong reasoning

Resolved

 – Howie ☎ 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The user claims my company has nothing to do with a cappella music, yet my company deals specifically with design, hosting, and public relation planning for a cappella groups. We also shoot, edit, and encode concert video from our client's concerts as another service. There are other businesses listed as a cappella websites, yet mine is still being discriminated against. I've tried to talk to this user, but he/she responded back with the 'this has NOTHING to do with a cappella'.

The page in questions is 'a cappella' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_cappella

Please advise..

Thank you!

Acappellahosting (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is most certainly a conflict of interest case. It is also considered linkspam. I've looked at your website and it in no way has anything to do with the subject of a cappella. It is a web hosting business. It is not about the subject of a cappella music - it is about the subject of web hosting and therefore does not belong on that article or Wikipedia in general. Howie ☎ 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously SEO/Spam. {{usernameblock}} Blocked. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone look at the other ELs on that page? Even though User:Acappellahosting had a host of problems, he had a point that other businesses were listed. I removed three others that sold product. I'm not sure if others also should be removed. Sbowers3 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the other links - real life caught up with me, and when I came back you'd made the appropriate edits! Howie ☎ 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whacked a few blogs per WP:EL, but looks like Sbowers3 got the rest ;)--Hu12 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph J. Romm

This article is all out of scale with the importance of the subject (the talk page shows concerns over the subject even being notable enough for an entry at all). I've been trying to at least tighten up the language and remove trivia and redundant info, but its being zealously guarded by one particular editor who reverts any change which shortens the entry, however valid. Recently, a personal friend of his (by her talk page at least) has begun to assist him, making claims my edits were "bad faith" or vandalism.

I'd like someone to objectively view the situation, and determine who is in the right here. Thanks! FellGleaming (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into the edits by User:Broadwaygal, it does seem to be a clear case of Meatpuppetry, based on her past level of interaction with Ssilvers, and the fact she's never before shown any interest in this article. But I'd like a neutral opinion.FellGleaming (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think notability is established (the talk page discussion about it is two years old and a request for deletion failed) but I do agree that the article does contain information of marginal relevance or significance - e.g., what Romm's brother does for a living or an entire paragraph setting out details of a Department of Energy program that Romm "helped manage" as Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary during his tenure there in the mid-1990s. (That reads more like a resume entry than anything, and if "helped manage" is all that he did with it then the information is really pretty tangential.) Other parts of the article do read a bit puffy to me, but not so thoroughly that removing the text is really demanded. Perhaps you would gain more traction by identifying the things that are really beside the point and taking discussion of those to the talk page, rather than making wholesale changes to the article, which, while efficient, often simply invites wholesale reversions.

These are of course just one person's opinions, upon a brief review of the page and the edits. Others may have different views - JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. When Romm was the acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, he was in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. When he was Principal Deputy AS, he "helped" run the office, but he was the #2 guy for those periods. This office is the DOE's billion-dollar energy efficiency and renewables research and applications program. Since this is Romm's bio, describing his activities at this important government job would seem to be definitely worth a paragraph. I'm not sure what the basis would be for excluding it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - thanks for the thanks.

I guess it's that, when you are in a high (politically appointed?) position in government, you oversee a lot of different operations and programs, with many possible levels of actual involvement. "Helped manage" -- to me anyhow -- is one of those slippery resume words that can mean as little as "I had to sign off on memos written by knowledgeable subordinates and otherwise had no clue about what was going on". It smacks of puffery. (Indeed given that the phrase, "helped manage", as well as the program description, tracks language from four or five nearly identical, separately and sometimes repetitively footnoted, presumably self-authored, bios of Romm, I think this observation may be well founded.) You're right that it's his bio but that being the case then what matters first is what *he did*. Did he devise the program, champion it, give it new direction, rescue it from moribundity (a word?), acitively direct it - what? If none of those then the program details strike me as only so much clutter. (By contrast, his role in "The Five Lab Study" is plainly stated, although the significance of that study is not clear.)

Just so it's clear - I am not saying that these segments violate Wikipedia policy or that it's *wrong* to include them -- but instead that the article does seem to go off a bit on tangents, and that -- as FellGleaming contends -- it could use a bit of tightening, and these examples seem like pretty obvious candidates for excision. It would make a better article, I think.

(Maybe the Romm talk page is the better place to continue this, if we are going to.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Active disagreement

Hi. I am getting a little upset with another user/editor who seems by his actions to be somewhat intent on 'warring' with me. I am by nature a peaceable character. I did not join Wikipedia to get involved in arguments. Nor indeed to waste hours of my leisure time researching and writing articles to improve Wikipedia, only to have the content deleted without any prior notification, or indeed without any attempt to discussion. Since most users edit in good faith, and any mistakes they make are normally made in ignorance of rules and procedures of which there are many, I would myself never delete major content from an article written by another user without discussing this with them first. In fact I believe those that take this line are not only discourteous, but since it actively discourages users from contributing to Wikipedia, they are the kind of editors we can well do without. To promote knowledge is what I consider Wikipedia to be about. Deletists however simply seek to destroy it. That can never be considered a good thing and if this trend is allowed to continue, it will in the long term I'm sure prove very harmful to the site. We all have much to learn from each other. We all have a wealth of experience to share. To help each other should be our aim. I am certainly endeavoring to keep my cool in this particular situation but I confess this is proving extremely difficult for me since the editor is clearly intent on continuing to antagonize the situation. I would therefore appreciate someone's assistance with helping me to find an amicable resolution to this problem before it gets totally out of hand. Since I do not wish to divulge the name of this editor publicly, I would be grateful if someone could contact me on my talk page. Thanking you in advance.  _♫ Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason why an editor should not revert an edit, if they believe that it does not improve Wikipedia. The important thing is that, if someone reverts an edit of yours, and you disagree with the reversion, you should discuss the matter on the appropriate Talk page (usually the Talk page of the article where the edit was made). Reverting back and forth without discussion is very disruptive, and making arguments in edit comments does not count as discussion. Given the importance of discussion, I'm quite concerned that you apparently do not wish to discuss the matter with the other party. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I had written and I'm glad you agree that reverting back and forth without discussion is very disruptive, for indeed this is in fact my whole point. I had also thought I had made this very clear in my request. This is also of course why, after tracing the editor who *without discussion* had taken it upon himself to delete most of the content in the article I had spent many days writing, I decided to leave a polite message on his Talk page.  _♫ Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Mahamad

Note - This was copied from conflict of interest

The Mahamad articles current revision isnt appropiate. The article is redirected to Bhavishya Purana, and the way Muhammad is described is ridiculous plus isn't fair to the other vedas (holy books) that Mahamad is prophised in. This revision would be better [9]

Note - Mahamad is not only mentioned in Bhavishya Purana, Mahamad is cleary mentioned in RigVeda and other vedas, puranas etc... (i have sources/refs to claim that). further Muhammad had successfully completed the prophicies in some Vedas.

Note - Those users have no sources to even claim Mahamad in Bhavishya Purana article and further some users watch that article and do not allow any users to contribute and fix up the inappropiate wording view.

This view is much better [10] . Would an Redirect to that Link be better?. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - Even if them users want to keep Mahamad in that article Bhavishya Purana this revision would be more appropiate [11] cause just the way they mention Mahamad is outrageous and further it says Shiva will destroy when thats false, i could mention why if needed. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a conflict of interest problem to me. Perhaps you would be better taking this to requests for editorial assistance. Howie ☎ 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mahāmada for context. The edit history of the Mahāmada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article also shows a sockfest in favour of the version proposed by Mujahideen194 (talk · contribs) above. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The History of Mahāmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) That was the first Article to be made than got redirected to all sorts of places because of many socks from many users.

Actually the Mahamad article was very popular at one time (see [[12]] ) after being reidrected many times, right now it needs to be fixed up just look at the Mahamad article and content is (without any support for claims) is just hidious.

--Mujahideen194 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Forum-shopping. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mahāmada for context. The edit history of the Mahāmada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article also shows a sockfest in favour of the version proposed by Mujahideen194 (talk · contribs). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note what don't you understand ? Mahāmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the first article created (see the history time-line) and it clearly shows many users participating in contributions and all these socks from different users redirecting, adding cites, links, etc ... --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That article needs to be opend up and all those other books that Mahamad is prophised in must be mentioned, and all the prophicies he completed according to the vedas to claim titles must be mentioned as well.

Those prophicies regard an important role. its useless to only redirect to Bhavishya Purana cause thats not fair to all the other books. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Slanted Article

I need help. I have been trying to correct a slanted article to represent a neutral point of view. Howdoyoudoit (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least tell us what the article is called...? Howie ☎ 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BSFC article

Hi,

I have an issue with edit made to my post on the Wiki Article for BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumptio) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption

A fellow editor (unregistered) removed my post without any explanation (see below) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brake_specific_fuel_consumption&oldid=204090949

Can you assist me?

Kind regards

Shane GTMnetwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtmnetwork (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters in Fair City

I notice a proliferation of articles about fictional characters from this RTE radio soap programme. On a similar vein, the characters from The Archers are all (by and large) listed in one article - List of characters in The Archers. So, should the character bios for Fair City be condensed and dropped down to one article - e.g. List of characters in Fair City ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral part needed on Maemo page

I could be wrong, but I think we are dealing with a WP:TE on the Maemo page. I would like a neutral third party to review this dispute and either block one or more users, possibly myself, from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brontide (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should add more information to give background. GeneralAntilies started a community effort in January to cleanup Maemo and related pages http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=166717&postcount=1 . On or around April 13th a user named meanwhile on iTT stared a flame war about the security under maemo and related technologies http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19074 . After two days of trolling the forums he started inserting a security section on the Maemo page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maemo&oldid=205859127. The wording and tone has not changed significantly since that first draft and he insists on inserting it into the page no matter how many editors have objected. The problems are compounded by the fact that he continually does weird editing of posts on the discussion page making it nearly impossible to carry on a discussion with him. Since that time the section has been reverted approximately 6 times, 2 by myself. I have given up trying to revert the text since it's clear that he has more time to police the page than I do.

While backed by some facts, the majority of my complaint and that of others is that the arguments he is making are inapplicable to the maemo platform or they are generic arguments against unix. I had worked up a security section that I believed was NPOV pointing out the maemo specific security concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maemo&oldid=207671119. We have tried to resolve this on the discussion page with almost no success.

I am more than willing to cease editing that page and/or section if I'm in the wrong here. Brontide (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Toddst1

I wanted to put the official US Army report to the 'My Lai massacre" as it is published in the Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations into the My Lai Incident, Volume III of the Peers Inquiry. Your Wikipedia says the wounded is unknown. This is wrong as if you would only read the http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RDAR-Vol-IIIBook3.pdf at PDF page 478, you would discover the truth as there are five vietnamese suvivors, by name. I tried to correct your Wikipedia as it is incorrect and some user erased it as vandalisim. I only put what was in the report and nothing else. This is the official and only report as to the My Lai massacre. If what I put on the article is wrong than the Peers report is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.187.244 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry for Producer's Edge Magazine

This page has been re-edited, but the advertisement note is still up. Could someone edit this page further to conform with the wikipedia standards or remove the advertising warning if it does pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer's_Edge_Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.106.211 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. I think it reads well enough now but I left the tag up pending someone else's look at it. I'm not altogether sure it warrants a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam page deleted WP:CSD#G11, Timothy Dampier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
--Hu12 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave Zirin Revert War

I am having a problem with another editor who insists on reverting a change, based upon verified information duplicated on the talk page, to the article of Dave Zirin. The change is as follows:

From: "Zirin maintains the opinion that the aggressive hatred toward the use of steroids by Barry Bonds is in large degree due to racism. Zirin is also one of the few reporters that believe Bonds has never done steroids."

To: "Zirin maintains the opinion that the aggressive hatred toward the use of steroids by Barry Bonds is in large degree due to racism."

Why the change? In an interview, Zirin denies the validity of this specific sentence. He says:

"Ah. Wikipedia. The source of truth for the desperate college freshmen and terminally stupid among us. I never wrote that I "believe Bonds has never done steroids." I wrote a column in 2003 called "The Case For Reasonable Doubt" where I go through the ways Bonds was breaking many of the accepted truisms about roids: I wrote, The greatest case for reasonable doubt lies in Bonds' very late career success. His unparalleled middle-aged majesty screams his innocence. Steroids and rapid 'unnatural' muscle growth puts tremendous pressure on the joints and tendons. Admitted steroid users like Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Lenny Dykstra and banned substance user Mark McGwire all saw their bodies break down as they hit their mid 30s…Bonds has thrived as he hurtles toward 40, not unlike Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, Reggie Miller, and Randy Johnson. To go by the rumors that surround him, Bonds' ankles should be snapping like toothpicks every time he jogs to first base. Also, worth mentioning that unlike oh so many others, the man never actually failed a steroids test. Is there a ton of circumstantial evidence that the man juiced? Absolutely. But he is still the best player I've ever seen. The best player of what will go down as the anabolic era."

To my mind, the statement "Zirin is also one of the few reporters that believe Bonds has never done steroids" is too strong in light of this interview. But 96.247.37.46 disagrees and continues to revert my change, even after being directed to said interview.

Some form of mediation, it seems, is necessary. Editor437 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Article

I updated a wikipedia article a few days ago, and it was immediately marked for speedy deletion, I believe by a spammer. Then it was moved to my Upload Page, citing that it was bungled. The article was written with a great amount of research. It is possible that the article should be tied in with another subject, and if this is so, I apologize for not doing so. I would appreciate assistance in having this page successfully uploaded in the right context instead of being toyed with by a spammer named Ziggy Sawdust. Lessmoore (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One of our core values on Wikipedia is assuming good faith; please be sure to do so in this case. In looking at your contribution, the article reads far more like a personal essay and original research than an encyclopedia article; I can't even tell what the actual topic of the article would be. The other editor was quite correct to relocate the piece out of article space and to your personal space; it was created with the name "Upload page" and moved into your user space. I'm going to leave a welcome message on your user page; please take a look at the links included in it to learn how to properly formulate and edit articles here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright policy and the {{cite news}} template's "quote=" parameter

I am the original writer of Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Expecting parts to be challenged, I cited it thoroughly, using 12 sources – 11 in the New York Times and one at a Weather Underground figure's website. Each citation used the {{cite news}} template with its "quote=" parameter, and each citation included the cited story's lead paragraph as the "quote=" value. The idea was to provide footnote followers the essence of each story so they could decide whether to click on through to the page-image PDF of the original. I believe this is fair use.

Between the article's first posting last year and April 22 it drew only a few edits, but after the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers/Weather Underground so-called "connection" story broke last week, it attracted more attention and a major rewrite and trimming. In the rewrite, the article was described as "overfootnoted", a term I have not heard before. The original citations were retained, but their "quote=" values were removed, with the single exception of a self-serving statement by Mark Rudd describing his Weather Underground comrades' nail bombs as "...crude mirrors of the anti-personnel weapons the U.S. was raining down on Indochina".

The rewriting editor and an anonymous IP from the same geographical area have accused me on the talk page and in edit summaries of copyright violation, as well as of "lacking judgement in a big way", and have given an uncivil recounting of my other alleged crimes against Wikipedia. I admit that I am not the world's best or most terse writer, and now that I have had time to cool down I will not deny that the rewrite generally improved the article. But I do need to know whether citing a news article's lead in a footnote constitutes copyright violation. --CliffC (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protocol, esp. for blocked user

Hi, I'm troubled by this, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about it. User:Daynal has been blocked, for SPAish user name and behaviour. Since being blocked, he has put a good deal of work into his talk page, including the collection of various comments from other places. My interest arises here; he's taken several posts of mine and presented them in a context that's not quite representative of how they occurred. Somewhat connected, User:Rldavisiv seems like he might be another account used by the same individual; the userpage says he's banned, but he doesn't appear to be banned or blocked. My questions: Is this all reasonable, in which case I should just worry about something more important? Or, is there some other course of action required? Thanks in advance, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history for Daynal Institute Press, I find that User:Daynal was the only editor of the page. The only other article edited by User:Daynal is Timothy Wyllie‎, which was blanked by User:Rldavisiv, who also says he created the article (the history reveals that it was User:Daynal). I hear quacking, and will file a suspected sock puppet report. Pastordavid (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal. Pastordavid (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Thank you for your reply. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I dont know if this is the right place, but a person edited a page that a friend of mine spent a while working on and then i changed it back. He then send things to my talk including saying that he dislikes Wikipedia becuase it is unreliable and enjoyed editing the page. If there is any way you can prevent him from editing again thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surferdude27 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)