Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Reliable source & scholar quotes v. primary & tertiary inference.

Resolved

 – Taken to a more appropriate forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How do we get MEDIATION on a page by someone familiar with WP policy? I have tried Requests for Comment, Third Opinion and selecting from the editor assistance list over a two-months discussion. The United States article says it "includes 50 states and DC". But a scholar looking at U.S. expansion from 1803, says, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232). And now collaborating with Buzity, we have at U.S. Government Printing Office, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, and the territories ...” (Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.)

Golbez agreed to “include territories”, but then reverted them, citing wikilink to the Insular Cases. He has since promised to revert any further edit. Buzity and I found law journal articles, court cases, statutory law, executive orders superseding Insular Cases. U.N. resolutions cited for "include territories" have secondary sources. I have a summary at "Include territories” summary for mediation, and at WP policies for “include territories”. Golbez added a citation using a tertiary source, but WP policy would prefer secondary sources. We are warned that we are only two, we can be banned from the article and talk page, we are illogical and we cannot change anything unless we agree to change everything in all related articles, none of which rings true. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted to the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, VH, you may want to relax your style of argumentation. It comes off as Wikilawyering, and you may be interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines way too strictly. Things here are very flexible normally. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We could use a bit more input here. Please don't be daunted by the volume of the discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request filed. See WP:DRN#Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of award winners

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

I understand from recent discussions regarding award categories that in general we discourage these (many of them have notability issues). I need to ask about award LISTS. At Fred Jarvis I have provided a list of winners of the Fred and Anne Jarvis Award. This is presented annually by the National Union of Teachers so maybe it would be better placed there, or perhaps a list should be created under its own name (say "List of winners of the Fred and Anne Jarvis Award"). At John Read (psychologist) it states he won the New Zealand Psychological Society’s Sir Thomas Hunter Award in 2010. We have a stub of an article at Thomas Hunter (psychologist) and no article at all for New Zealand Psychological Society (although we do have an article for its parent at Royal Society of New Zealand). I have begun researching the Sir Thomas Hunter Award with a view to adding a list of award winners, but where should this be placed (if at all)? If an individual is considered notable enough to have an article in his/her own right then isn't it appropriate for an award named after that individual to be noted somewhere, along with a list of its recipients? Do such lists belong under the organisation presenting the awards (difficult for the Sir Thomas Hunter Award!), or as separate entities (with a mention of the existence of the award in the article for the individual for whom the award is named)? I don’t want to create lists if this breaches any Wikipedia guidelines (I’m guessing it may have been discussed before but I couldn’t find a suitable guidance note). May I have advice, please? Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that for an example you look to the articles James Tiptree, Jr., James Tiptree, Jr. Award and List of James Tiptree, Jr. Award winners: three (linked) articles, each properly sourced and linked. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will create separate pages for the two lists ("List of Fred and Anne Jarvis Award winners" and "List of Sir Thomas Hunter Award winners"), with citations, and add links to the various pages. I don't feel, however, that there needs to be separate articles for these awards, and am happy to simply put explanatory paragraphs in the main articles. LenF54 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you create the explanatory sections as part of the NUT article rather than under the List articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

Years ago, My parents had a red covered about one foot oblong square and about 9 inches thick, I think it was about 1953/4 edition. It has some small black drawings/photos in it, with a couloured maps in the back. I'm not after a school dictionary, but a extensive dictionary that is beyond the bookshelves. I wish to have it on my 'puter with a icon. I know that I will not able to compleatly download all the information, but is there a way that I can some how click on a letter or what ever that I can access to please? If you cannot assist me in my request, can you please suggest a another dictionary that will suit me? As I said, I do not want a kids dictionary as I am 72 years old and at times I find in the ordinary dictionary there is no such word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bywater (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Wiktionary:? SpinningSpark 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The OED is a pretty comprehensive dictionary. Wiktionary is going to give you more current information though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The OED is great but you need to pay for a subscription or be a member of a library or institution to get the OED online. There are many free online dictionaries: examples are Meriam-Webster and The Free Dictionary, or if you are looking for slang and modern unconventional usages there is Urban Dictionary. But Wiktionary remains a good choice. SpinningSpark 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Prosperity theology

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

Reverend Ike=Father of Prosperity Theology???

Talk:Prosperity theology - johncheverly 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an ongoing dispute. There was some disagreement over including information about Reverend Ike in Prosperity theology, but an editor has added something since the last post. If the disagreement is over whether we can call someone the "Father of" a movement or school of thought... my take is that you need to find a reliable source calling him that, and then phrase the usage as "[such and such a source] has called [person] the 'Father of [Movement]'", then cite the work. And then it should only be included if it's pretty clear it belongs. Calling someone the "Father of" a movement comes dangerously close to being a peacock term. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Albanian LAnd Forces

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

Albanian Land Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I got all my article deleted from the page Albanian Land Force.. please i need a clear explanation of why was my article deleted, and why was that called a vandalism when i was just adding information to that article because there was almost no information. I don't think what I did was vandalism or something near it, in fact erasing it can be. I'd be thankful if you respond to this email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.83.98 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your initial mistake seems to be that you not only deleted a large amount of information from the infobox without explanation (lack of explanation will often get you reverted) but also broke the page formatting in the process (which will nearly always get you reverted). Your second edit added unsourced information to the infobox. Unsourced information is often also reverted, as it was in this case, probably encouraged by the previous reversion. Finally, because you have been repeatedly reverted in the article by human editors, ClueBot (an automated process) reverted your subsequent edits as possible vandalism. Click the "history" link in the template above to see the full chronology.

I have no doubt that you are a good faith editor and it is unfortunate that this has happened. Your work can easily be restored (and perhaps it should) but I am not willing to do it myself as it is poorly sourced. You cited two sources: Who is Log gets most of its information from Wikipedia and is hence a circular reference while internet forums are never considered reliable by Wikipedia.

I suggest you run this past other interested editors before atttempting to insert in the article again. Start by posting your suggested additions (you can retrieve your text from here) on Talk:Albanian Land Forces. Next, alert interested editors to the suggestion by posting a link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history amd/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania. Hope that helps, and good luck with your future editing. SpinningSpark 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Fictional" character or "comic book" character?

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

I was just curious which category is correct for fictional characters who have appeared in, or even originated in, a comic book, but have moved on to other media, where they may be more well known. For instance, Optimus Prime first appeared in a Marvel Comics comic book published in 1984. I could categorize him under "Fictional characters introduced 1984" or "Comic book characters introduced in 1984". The comic book category is included inside the fictional characters category, so either could be correct, but would you define a character as a "comic book character" just because that's where he originated, even if he's more well known for TV and movies today? Should he be called specifically a comic book character, or simple a fictional character? If the character had appeared in TV or movies FIRST, but then went on to comic book, should it be a fictional or comic book character then? Thanks!Mathewignash (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason Optimus Prime cannot be in both categories. It is irrelevant which medium he first appeared in. If the article is discussing the character in all media then both categories are appropriate. SpinningSpark 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It would make no sense to list BOTH categories, since the category "Fictional characters introduced in 1984" contains "Comics book characters introduced in 1984" as a sub group. You generally would not list both.Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If there were a "film character" sub-category then there would be no argument he should be in both. If the character was only in film and there were no film sub-category there would be no argument he should be in the parent category. So my reasoning still stands, as a comic-book character he is categorised as he would be if he were only that, and as a film character he is categorised as if he were only that as well, and moved to the film sub-category if and when it is created. You could always solve the problem by creating it yourself. People get way too hung up with the arbitrary rules about categorisation. Objects are often not that neatly categorised as you have just discovered and some flexibility and common sense needs to be sometimes applied. SpinningSpark 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Right to left text problem

Resolved

 – Directly resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabbatai HaKohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone edited the article on December 20, 2012 to fix a date order problem in the first sentence (1662-1621) -> (1621-1662)‎. The right to left text in the lang-he template messed up their edit. I could not fix it using Firefox 19 on Max OSX. Could someone fix it? Thanks. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, the template was missing closing braces. SpinningSpark 07:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Advise on article

Answered

 – . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've created the article FocalScope Email Ticketing Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FocalScope is a Singaporean product which was developed in 2005. It has since then been recognised for "changing the ways emails are being handled" and is being deployed by global companies such SingTel, American Express, DHL and Radisson Hotel to support them with their daily operations and deliver their customer support. Looking at its users and growth, I would definitely say that it's a notable product. It's however up for deletion discussion. Maybe its notability needs to come across stronger in the article/discussion?

Based on the discussion which has taken part so far, it seems like a more experienced editor need to participate since some of the messages are tagged with "made few or no other edits outside this topic." It would be great if you could provide me with advise of what to do to ensure that an article about a notable product doesn't get deleted. Thanks. Samira Holma (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability is judged on Wikipedia by how much it is discussed in reliable sources. To establish notability you need not only to make claims about notability, but also provide citations to reliable sources (please read both those links which will explain the requirements in detail) which have substantial discussion of the topic. Notability is different from importance or fame (although such subjects are more likely to be notable) and is certainly not the same as market growth. Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You should also read this essay on the shameless abuse of the legitimate word "solution" by flacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. We have a contents disagreement on that page since a long time. I see my edits are deleted by more than one user (one being more prominent) and my attempts to resolve the issue on a reasonable ground in the discussion page seem to be failing. On the other hand, the most actively opposing user expressly stated he is not willing to cooperate to bring the issue to a third party mediated dispute resolution mechanism. In fact one of my past attempts to bring the issue to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard failed because the other party did not respond to calls to discuss. There are also some issues of conduct: The other party responds whey I try to contact in the talk page, but those discussions are led to a futile ground by questions and comments not exactly related to the topic. Could anyone please suggest me how to proceed in this issue? Filanca (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be a tough issue to get any help on: it appears fairly nuanced (thus requiring someone familiar with the topic), it involves a culturally sensitive issue (thus possibly requiring detachment from the issues at stake), and it's gone on for awhile leading to a palpable atmosphere of frustration (as well as a general TLDR situation). I don't think I can help with this, but it sounds like WP:DR/N is all you can do right now and hope the other editor responds to the request this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While the other side explicitly said they will not cooperate in a moderated dispute resolution (and really did not cooperate when I tried) it would be naive to expect the opposite in the future. I will try to find another solution. There are many articles in this encyclopedia with culturally sensitive issues and there should be a way to bypass the block of a user (or a group) against resolution of disputes like in this case. Thank you anyway. Filanca (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, WP:DRN may not be appropriate... but I'm not sure what your next step should be. I'm loath to suggest arbitration at this point though. I think it's way too early and still too much of a content dispute. I can only suggest reading over WP:DR a bit more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors who refuse to collaborate in some circumstances may be deemed to be disruptive. For instance, if their behaviour has degenerated into edit-warring or abuse of other editors. In such circumstances administrators can deal with it as a matter of editor behaviour, although they will not arbitrate on content disputes. However, as Mendaliv has said, every effort must first be made to cooperate and discuss before taking the matter to an administrative forum. I have not looked at any of the material and have no idea what the dispute is about, but the advice is always the same: argue and write from the sources. If one does that good faith editors should be able to find a solution. On the other hand, repeatedly inserting unsourced material after it is challenged, or deliberately misrepresenting sources is disruption and can be dealt with by administrators. SpinningSpark 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is an edit suitable?

Answered

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Vela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to know if an edit to Vela is suitable. Vela is also an acronym for a popular music app, Vela (Voice Enabled Listening Assistant), that lets you voice control music on your mobile phone. I would like to request that an editor add it to the list of varied meanings of Vela. It would be similar to the Shazam edit which list shazam as mobile phone application. Please let me know an opinion if this is suitable? If so, please refer me to editor whom can add the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juslog12 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia! This edit, though, wouldn't be appropriate at the moment. Pages like Vela are not intended as a list of all the possible meanings of the word, but are there to help readers find Wikipedia articles - you can read more about this at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Since there is currently no Wikipedia article about the app, it doesn't belong on the Vela page.

I have left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Element Mobile

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests

 – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I requested an edit to the Element Mobile Wiki page a week ago on the talk page but the page seems to be inactive. Is there someone that can assist me with editing the page? The current content is outdated and has several expired source links.

Akbemis (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The request is in Category:Requested edits awaiting review, so I am afraid that you will have to be patient, we are all volunteers.--ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Dylan Taylor (executive)

Resolved

 – Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dylan Taylor (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How should we proceed regarding edits to Dylan Taylor (executive)?

Apologies, I'm Dylan's assistant, and we're new at this. A POV/neutrality tag was placed on this page in May, and we made corrections and expansions according to the editor's advice, and asked on the entry's Talk page whether the tag should be removed.

The original editor has not responded (and appears to have been inactive since August), and subsequently another editor pointed out that we may now have created a COI situation. After reviewing the COI guidelines, he may have a valid point.

So I'm stumped on what the next steps should be. How do we get someone to rule on the neutrality issue, and does someone need to render a decision regarding whether our edits actually constitute a COI?

Am concerned that anything I do will now make things worse. Thanks for any advice you can provide.

Dylan Taylor (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you are right that there is not much you can do. COI editing is nearly always a bad idea here. Editors will show extreme reluctance to remove tags on articles written/contributed to by a COI editor. Your best hope is that an uninvolved editor will take an interest (which will eventually happen if the subject is truly notable) and rewrite/expand the article. By the way, if you are not Dylan Taylor, you should not really be editing from an account that makes you seem as if you are. SpinningSpark 23:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the help. Dylan Taylor (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User conduct issue (Opening an RFC)

How do I open an RFC on myself?

Concerns were raised about what I was doing (and the response) on a sister project, and I am wanting to be sure I'm not making the same mistakes here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, what have you been doing? The direct answer is that you can't open an WP:RfC/U on yourself because that requires at least two other editors to testify that you have been a bad boy and that they have already tried to resolve the issues with you. If that were the case you would already know there was an issue. You can however request an Editor review. SpinningSpark 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

See the talk page on that project... In effect in validating some pages, a number of typos got missed, and in trying to resolve it in good faith I was over-bold. That's why I want to be sure I'm not making simillar mistakes here.

Thanks for the suggestion. 19:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What project are you referring to? You have not provided a link to the talk page you mention. SpinningSpark 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

en.wikisource.org, but the issue is there is currently being considered. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I doubt that that would get you blocked here, but if you do go for Editor Review I suggest that you openly explain that's what you want them to look at. You will get a better and more focused response that way. It was only after your third post that I was able to see the issue, and then only because I bothered to search for it on wikisource, you still have not stated it here. I would also note that if you are using automated processes here you should get approval for the tasks to be done at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. SpinningSpark 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Autoconfirm the Timeshare Article

I would like to put an indefinite Autoconfirm status on the Timeshare Article. (Timeshare) If there is any article that deserves to be auto confirmed it is the "Timeshare" article. I hawk the article every chance I get; however, the sales people in the timeshare industry continue to use every trick in the book to eliminate the negative facts concerning this business. The latest attempt was this morning, when a user went in and nicely did grammar corrections to the article, just so he could try and eliminate a reference to the Cancellations chapter. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You need Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. SpinningSpark 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Following exchanges on the article's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Jobs#Apple_Computer.27s_1997_Financial_Rescue), three editors have been joined by a moderator following a dispute resolution request. The dispute resolution dialog is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Apple_Computer.27s_1997_Financial_Rescue_discussion

The moderator has become uncivil in this person's view with ad hominem comments though he's been asked to be mindful of those partaking in the exchange. A non sequitur further attack has led to requesting a new moderator for dispute resolution.

Two of the three editors have provided conflicting sources, with one party's sources being viewed as editorial content either unattributed or from anonymous sources in otherwise non-editorial news content and the other party providing the company's information as filed with the US government, which the first party views as original research.

The editors are aware the article's subject person is a source of controversy. The contention however is narrow revolving around one sentence in the article involving the subject person's last employer and its financial and legal condition during a change of control.

Request for a replacement moderator is being made.

Pdunbarny (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is already being handled by other volunteers at the DRN listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for a replacement moderator is being made.

Pdunbarny (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The matter has been closed out due to lack of participation and unlikelihood of consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My article got deleted

Hi I submitted an article but it got deleted (copyright laws) Could I find out why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuspranskunas (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article you uploaded was copied word for word from a website, which is not permitted per Wikipedia policy. However, even if this were not the case, the article has multiple issues that may have lead to its immediate or eventual deletion. Namely, no explanation was provided for why the company was notable enough for an entry (companies do not get article simply because they exist) and no reliable sources were referenced in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for help / mediation

School Psychology International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I happen to edit (i.e., in real-life as opposed to the Wiki-World) the journal School Psychology International Journal. I've added several updates to that page (e.g., "articles most cited"; the journal's-focus; theme-issue title) to record contemporary information about the journal. This has all been encyclopedic in manner ~ non-promotional. I'm experiencing a new Wiki-editor undoing all my edits...citing 'promotional' even though it's merely factual recordation. How might I proceed? I'd appreciate your review since I want so much to be a contributor of verifiable facts to the Wiki-World. My user name: CavenMcloughlin Cavenmcloughlin (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The first place to take any discussion on an article is to its talk page. This one is currently entirely empty so it is premature to start asking others for help. You can also communicate with other editors on their own talk pages. Editors with a COI, as you have, are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly. It is next to impossible to write neutrally when one has a COI and it is much preferred that you make suggestions on the talk page and leave it to others to add to the article as they see fit.

I pretty much agree with User:Randykitty's deletions. Trailing future content is WP:PROMOTION and WP:CRYSTAL. By the way, they are not exactly a new editor, they have over 7,000 edits on this site. SpinningSpark 20:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hello,

I am requesting assistance as a first time user of Wikipedia for my edit which has quickly bogged down into dispute. I am seeking an immediate resolution because I do not have the time or inclination for the protracted process this may involve to simply contribute what I know to be credible , useful and missing data to an article.

The relevant links are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Edit_request_on_5_March_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&action=history

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive

I have encountered undue accusation from editors, which I regard as neither true or reasonable, who do not want to discuss content or have it considered for inclusion in a neutral fashion.

I hope that in time I may be allowed to include the material for the sake of completion of the article alone.

Sincerely 27.99.110.80 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't do dispute resolution on this page. We can advise you where to find our DR processes, but if you are not willing to follow them then there is nothing we can do to help you. SpinningSpark 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking to unblock a user, blocked by overzealous administrator

Resolved

 – Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Lmartval (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I made a request on the user's talk page and the merits of the argument are apparent there. The request received the response "There is no provision in wikipedia policy for granting an unblock in response to a request by a third party. I will not initiate a precedent, although I accept that your request is meant in good faith". Any suggestions on a way to proceed? Kaffiend (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

yes. Do nothing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"No policy for x" is different to "there is a policy not to do x". I want help about how to approach a problem where policy guidance seems to be absent. Kaffiend (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, it is currently against policy to have a third-party unblock request. If you think it should be in policy, then suggest it at WP:VPP. Mdann52 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) The administrator is quite correct, unblock requests must be made by the blocked editor, no one else. The reason for this is that before unblocking we need to be convinced that the behaviour which led to the block will not continue. To answer your direct question, you can take the matter to the administrator's notice board but in my opinion you are not likely to get a different answer there. The block has been reviewed by three different administrators, all of whom declined the request. You now have a fourth one looking, I am an administrator myself, and I would not have granted an unblock. Even if I was convinced that the contributions were not promotional, the editor has engaged in an edit war in order to get his material in. This is a big no-no on Wikipedia and is grounds for blocking by itself regardless of the value of the material. We work by consensus here and expect discussion to follow challenges or reversion of material, not an argument taking place in the article itself. To unblock, I would at the very least want to hear from the editor that they are going to desist from edit-warring. You should also note that we strongly discourage editing of articles where there is a COI, which there certainly is when an editor is linking or referring to "their own stuff". So I would also like to see an undertaking not to edit the Kopi Luwak article directly, but instead just leave suggestions on the talk page for other editors to take up as they see fit. If LMartval has nothing else to contribute other than the material that has already been rejected by other editors then there is not a lot to be gained by unblocking in any case. By the way, if you do take this to ANB, it won't help your case to level accusations like "overzealous" highly experienced administrators. SpinningSpark 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all - appreciate the thoughtful comments. What I'm reading from Spinningspark is that "there is a policy not to do x" whereas my unblock request indicated "there is no policy to let me do x". Also, the 'overzealous' was actually borrowed from the description of a more experienced editor - I have no sense for what is the norm here - and prompted my attempts to get a review of the situation. Kaffiend (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please tag as resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffiend (talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

For Editing of Wikipedia Article

Hello, I am new in Wikipedia. I want to know how I shall editing an article of Wikipedia and how it will upload. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohabbat328 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! I have left you some introductory links on your talk page, including "How to edit a page" and "How to create your first article". I hope that helps. Feel free to ask more questions whenever you are stuck. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Italian-speaker needed

Marino Alfonso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is there an Italian-speaker willing to explain COI, copyrights, self-promotion and so on to Archivio mafonso (talk · contribs)? He has again pasted in copyrighted Italian text into the Marino Alfonso article. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bogdangiusca is an active editor, administrator, fluent Italian speaker, and translator. He might possibly be able to help. SpinningSpark 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dick Cheney Edit

I was a doctoral candidate (ultimately successful) in the late '60's at the University of Wisconsin department of Political Science and witnessed Dick Cheney's abuse of his deferment to work in Washington when all the other students were actually students. I want to add that to his page. He was not on site. His work for Steiger [if I recall his guy - I do recall Cheney's legendary absence] was notorious, and no other student was flagrant in that manner. No one else so openly manipulated the availability of academic deferments to avoid the draft.

Emily Albrink Hartigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehartigan (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you can't add it in yourself because if so it would be original research WP:NOR which is not permitted on wikipedia. You need to find a source claiming that somewhere, book or magazine article or website, and quote that source. However, seeing that its a bio on a living person they, the person, could always object to your edit and have it removed by wikipedia's powers that be.Wombat24 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use personal recollection as a source for an encyclopaedia article, much less your personal opinion of that recollection. SpinningSpark 09:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Threat from Administrator

Being suspicions of someone WP:SOCK two editors wrote on my Talk page that the person I suspected wasn't a SOCK, however I still doubted (Obviously if they were a SOCK they'd defend themselves) The two editors mentioned that I was entitled to file a WP:SIP which I hadn't come across before so I read up on that and filed one. Turns out that both those editors are Administrators. However after filing the WP:SIP I got this from one of those Administrator:

"Ah ...--you went ahead with that stupid SPI anyway......I removed that talk archive template you placed here incorrectly, since it fucked up the page. Back to business: that SPI will be closed very quickly, and it will find that no socking has taken place .... If I find you making those accusations again after the SPI is closed I am blocking you at least temporarily for disruption, harassment, and/or incompetence. ...." (edited for space)

My questions are 1) can an Administrator used foul language saying F*%^* -and calling a SIP 'silly' ? can we, or can I swear too elsewhere in a Talk page? 2) can an Administrator threaten to block someone due to 'incompetence' seeing there are wiki rules I didn't know about? 3) Or is it just pointless following up on this and better to ignore it altogether? I did, by the way, delete the paragraph from my Talk page.Wombat24 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This has now passed far beyond the bounds of acceptable contact. Wombat24, a SPA who was on the wrong side of a content dispute, claimed without any basis whatsoever, that an editor who opined in the content dispute must be a sockpuppet of the other editor he disagreed with. His theory, apparently, was that there was something suspicious about a regular editor at WP:BLPN to comment on the talk page of a BLP that was the subject of a BLPN post. This was on the heels of claiming that there was some off-wiki conspiracy when an admin, using Twinkle, took note of his edit warring on the BLP, and warned him against it. Having been told, repeatedly, that there was no basis whatsoever for his SP delusion, he persisted in filing a SPI, was kicked to the curb by SPI , and now is complaining that he is getting picked on, insisting that there should be no consequences should he/she make continued baseless personal attacks. Three admis have given him due warning. At this point, there should be consequences to continued disruptive editing and personal attacks per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Fladrif (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here Fladrif have no relevance to the questions asked above. I've came here in good faith to ask for some guidance form other editors due to that Administrators language and possible threat, nothing else. No delusions mentioned above. Plus you are transferring to this page what we already argued in the Talk page and dealt with, plus I actually deleted the paragraph in dispute, before filing that SIP, which was what you argued for. However to briefly answer you the basis of that SIP was the IP addresse's edit history which was inactive for 3 years but then suddenly turns up in a BLPN as his first visit after 3 years which seems odd at least. It is explained in the WP:SIP which is still under administration. The checkuser only was rejected because they say it can't be used for IP address only and not based on the argument presented. But they will decide and that will be it! End of story! I suppose they will tell me what the ruling is....However I'd actually welcome your answer the questions I posted if you answer those because I can't find a procedure for complaints against Admins. And by the way it was two administrators, not three, of which only one used f*&* and threats. The other one was informative and correct in his/her language.Wombat24 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Context: The article talk page that spawned this waste of time [1]; the discussion at Wombat's talk page [2], at an administrator's talk page [3], and the SPI [4]. I've the honor of being the 99IP. This unnecessary drama was presumably begun by Wombat's indignation over having two users call an edit into question. What's followed is self-evident: an editor who reacted by making unfounded accusations of socking, refused to heed the warnings of two admins, went ahead with the SPI, has yet to admit the error or apologize for it, and is instead complaining about the behavior of one of the admins. See WP:CHUTZPAH. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

99, you aren't, the IP was 99.149.87.54. Your IP here is different. Or are you the same person? I don't know. However your entry has no relevance to the questions posed nor the help sought. I was going to just delete it but then again people should see that you post has no relevance to the questions asked or the Administrators behaviour or commentsWombat24 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made quite clear that I'm the same user as the other 99IPs, and that relationship has also been explained by two administrators as well. That you'd even consider deleting my post, or consider it irrelevant, speaks volumes. I do think the matter of competence is an increasingly appropriate concern. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't. You never made that clear, plus wrote "It's too late. You've said more than enough, I'm afraid. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2013". Why would I think you are the same as the that .87.54? There are millions of IP addresses around. I considered deleting it because it had no relevance to the questions posed or the help requested, but its all still hereWombat24 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Last answer to you 99 cause I'm getting sick of this pointless arguing with you. Your comment on 'what's follow' is just wrong. I suspected socking or wrongdoing, not 'reacted' since I actually conceded the point in the original argument to move on and improve that page, then two editors wrote on my talk page without identifying themselves as administrators at first, later one did and the other I assume he/she is but still don't know for certain, I lodged a SPI in good faith and await an result, if I'm wrong with the socking I'll admit it in due time but no result yet plus the checkuser was rejected on what is basically a technicality since it just can't be used with IP's, but now I am seeking advice on how to complain about an Administrators comments which I believe to be wrong especially when considering that he is in a position of authority, but as yet I haven't found a procedure to follow, if there actually is oneWombat24 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• 99, Fladrif, let's let Wombat be. I think the arguments have been presented very well on both sides. If I am to be reprimanded for my use of the word "fuck" or some conjugation thereof, if the IP is to be spanked wherever he may be, if Fladrif is to be scorned for having a funny name and the gumption of providing a correct timeline, we'll find out soon enough. Let us all move on and screw up some more articles. Also, Wombat, there's been some merry-making over "fowl language"--I think that's silly because everyone knows you meant "foul". Let those jokers be; there's no point in trying to teach them manners. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I should employ you as my spell-checker, an appropriate job for someone with your creative language skills. So then, can I use "fuck" in good faith on wikipedia Mr Administrator? seeing you are here you may as well answer just one question. Good point though about screwing up articles, I should have mentioned that before. But sooo much time wasted here arguing instead of improving some article or apologizing for loosing your cool there DrmiesWombat24 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Finally one answer to the above questions. Fladrif wrote on my Talk page to take it to WP:ANI for any complaints on admins. I'll read up on that soon. But seems to be a board where one complains about editors for Admins to intervene? Any other suggestions? agent 99? Drmies? since you three guys seem to be reading everything I rite lately, sorry 'write'.Wombat24 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the only stuff you seem to be writing is complaints about us, so yeah, we read that. If you want an administrator to intervene, to block me for instance, you should go to ANI, yes. I'd make a prediction--but it would be pretty much the same as for that ill-fated SPI. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Dude, Am having a great day here. But look, only you threatened someone and used insulting language so it should be correct to complain about it; I suspected wrong doing so I brought it up on the appropriate Talk page and then, due to the responses, I reported it to SIP. We do that, report things, in law abiding countries. Then the authorities decide what to do with said report. But you three seem to be following me around all of wikipedia, I mean I asked here for guidance concerning an admin's comment without naming you nor linking to the page but then you three write all the above? c'monWombat24 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I want to be involved... but, here I go. To the admin in question in re: language, WP:TROUT. As for WP:SPI, generally a great deal of evidence is required to start an investigation, per the privacy policy. I don't know anything about the SPI request in question, but I will agree that, in general, a request regarding a well-established user is very likely to be thrown out. Why? Because frankly, a well-established user is probably not going to engage in disruptive sockpuppeteering. As for the policy standpoint on blocks for incompetence, there are none for "incompetence", specifically, but WP:DISRUPT could apply, arguably.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool; taking your advice here. CheersWombat24 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)