Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

request - wikipedia entry for Dean Barker

Resolved

 – Thanks, Jreferee. --Aarktica 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a sailing journalist and have known Dean Barker for many years. Since the outcome of the America's Cup on Tuesday someone has been editing his wikipedia entry to his detriment with their own opinion, rather than fact. Dean Barker is one of the world's top sailors. Most recently this was shown by his helming and skippering the team that defeated all others (5-0 in the final) to take on the present America's Cup holders to challenge for the world's oldest sporting trophy this year. The America's Cup match itself was extremely close - as is reflected in the win by the Defender by one second only in the final race. It will go down in the record books as one of the closest fought and best sailing series of all time. I appreciate that some people like to hammer those who lose in sport, but feel that the level of personal attack, and inappropriate and inaccurate remarks concerning Barker's extremely successful sailing history and personality (he has superb team leadership ability), is unwarranted and highly inappropriate for any encyclopedia. Somehow I cannot imagine that the person who wrote the comments has ever represented their country internationally in sailing (I have done so), let alone been an Olympic representative after a campaign of only a few months, or been part of winning America's Cup and Louis Vuitton Cup teams, which are points included, amongst many others, in Dean Barker's extremely successful sailing career.

You will see my edit removal of yesterday (anneh1), which appears to have been auto-replaced, with the addition of a sentence, which is now duplicated, in the first section of the article on Dean Barker.

Could you please bar the IP address/user ID that is creating this auto-replacement of personal attack material from edit access to Dean Barker's wikipedia entry? Could you also ensure that the text that I removed yesterday is deleted once and for all?

Thank you,

Anne Hinton anneh1 (email address removed) 131.111.151.217 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take into account the criteria for blocks before requesting that an anon IP be blocked for something that does not warrant a block. This is just a content dispute and since there are only two parties involved, you have 3O as your first option. I would not advise that you continue to edit against the other party, partly because edit wars help no one, but also because you may get close to COI and ownership issues. Keep it civil and start by pointing out the need for all BLP material to meet Verifiability and NPOV. The latter is a policy, and one of the five pillars. Adrian M. H. 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed BLP, NPOV, and WP:OR material from the article and placed a note on Lgask's talk page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Logging in problems

Resolved

 – --Aarktica 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I logged in twice to edit articles on the 83rd infantry division and Buchenwald concentration camp. After both revisions I was informed that I was NOT logged in and that information would be made public that might expose me to spam et al.

No giant problem in this . . . but . . . thought you should know.

Note . . . after entering my user name and password I was informed that I was "logged in" . . . but got the "not logged in" message when trying to submit the edits.

Dan Morrow (e-mail removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.34 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest making a check of cookie handling behaviour in your preferred browser, together with any cookie filtering that may be present in your security suite. Though the session cookie handling is the prime suspect. Adrian M. H. 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking help from a biology editor

Resolved

 – Enok^talk 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

After years of gnoming, I started editing bear to see how much I could improve an article if I focused my attention on it. Unfortunately, after finishing a new introduction I got stuck on the next section (taxonomy and evolution) and am now looking for a more knowledgeable editor to help me in this area. I already have numerous sources (print and digital) but I'm having a little trouble understanding some of the terminology and knowing which taxonomy/theories to present in the article (as there are several). In other words, I have all of the necessary references and need help putting them together. Thanks. Enok^talk 06:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that any of us regular EA respondents are mammal experts, but you could enlist assistance at WikiProject Mammals. One of its members could bring to bear their expert knowledge! Couldn't resist a pun! Adrian M. H. 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Teehee. Good answer! - Demong _talk 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality check - Falun Gong

Resolved

 – --Aarktica 23:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor and I have been engaged in what could be described as an edit war on the above article, which is under probation. There is a year-old to-do list on the article's talk page, and I have tried to transform the article from through some fairly radical edits in conformity with said to-do list, but a certain editor has taken an offense to my edits. My efforts have been repeatedly (at least twice) reversed by said editor, who has furthermore accused my of sock puppetry and vandalism. The person has refused any dialogue with me despite several attempts to create a discussion on the article's talk page, and on the editor's. I have tried to be more open and transparent as possible with the editing after the first failed attempt, but said editor has not only reverted all the changes I introduced, he has put it in a more biased state than when I first touched the article by deleting sourced material placed by someone else under a rather spurious interpretation of violation of WP:BLP. His edit history reveals that he rarely strays outside the FG series of articles, and continues to make rather blatant POV edits including removal of tags, and sourced information. He also edits talk pages of other editors to preach, which again seems to prove he is avoiding me deliberately. Another editor has engaged me in constructive discussion on my talk page, and appears to agree that the individual may be behaving inappropriately. I do not know how article probation works in practice. I believe I am wasting my time with trying to get this article into a good one, but still believe that the individual's actions should be brought to someone's attention. Ohconfucius 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me commend you for retaining your composure and maintaining civility when it might have been easier to do otherwise. This is anything but a "waste of time", and is greatly appreciated here.

According to the dispute resolution guidelines, you have a few more options available to you. Seeing that you have already sought a third opinion, I would suggest you seek mediation; this comes in two forms — informal or formal. Hopefully, this approach will work for you.

Good luck. --Aarktica 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I have just had a reply back from the editor concerned, who left me some long messages, so I think the dialogue can continue from there. Thanks for the trouble. Ohconfucius 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have received a Warning on my talk page that is totally without merit.

Resolved

 – Anchoress 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just received a Warning template on my talk page, warning me not to "experiment with Wikipedia".

Here's the problem: I have not done anything at all that can be construed as vandalism. The newly registered User:Luvente (reg. 15:42, 14 July 2007) has gone into a edit war with me over a couple of articles I have created (with plentyful sources) and claims that these articles constitute Vandalism. He has no sources to back him up, I have half a dozen right now and can get hold of nother dozen quickly if I should want to.

I do not want a completely, utterly, totally false warning on my talk page, I take honor in the factual accuracy of my edits and have so for over two years without complaint. What can I do with this talk page vandalism? Please help me here. Manxruler 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you're not obligated to keep any warnings on your talkpage, so feel free to delete it. Second, the best thing to do is to discuss it with the editor who left the warning. Perhaps you could explain to her/him that you feel the warning is undeserved and/or find out from the editor what it was s/he was warning you about. It's always best to go to the person you're in conflict with first, before escalating it. Good luck! Anchoress 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information, Anchoress. I have actually addressed this individual, but I do not expect to receive any constructive replies from him. He seems to be the "I'm right and nothing else counts"-type. Its a good thing I can delete the warning, but I think I'll wait and see if I can't clear the issue up with User:Luvente before doing so. I feel he needs some guidance in proper procedure. Manxruler 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I noticed after I posted this that you had replied on your talkpage; I haven't checked back since, but if it were me, I'd delete the whole thread from my talk, and post an extremely civil, neutral message on Luvente's talkpage inquiring about the reason for the warning. You might also note that (per many discussions on WP:AN and WP:AN/I) it is generally considered de trop to give established users vandalism warnings. There might even be an essay about this somewhere. Anchoress 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again. Since the last "Warning" I have received a "last warning" with threaths of being blocked from Wikipedia from mr. User:Luvente. No response to me inquering as to what the problem seems to be, just a harsher "warning". I'll delete the thread alright, but this guy doesn't seem to be willing to either explain his actions or cease his "warnings". Any other advice, Anchoress? Manxruler 10:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the 'final warning' template before I commented on Luvente's talkpage. I think you (and Mike and I) have done as much as is warranted at this juncture; Luvente's actions to date appear to be meritless (particularly in view of the fact that s/he hasn't taken the opportunity to clarify or defend her/his actions), so you needn't credit them further. I'd just leave it as is for now, and file it as 'resolved as far as possible with an uncooperative party' and await further developments. Luvente's actions, however perplexing, don't warrant any action beyond what's been taken so far (I noticed that Mike notified AIV about Luvente - I don't know what the result was). Anchoress 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I would be alone in finding Luvente behaviour very strange for a new user. One of the first acts he did was to raise an Afd, even longstanding members get confused raising Afds. I will raise a note at WP:AIV, I can't guarantee it will do any good, but the behaviour strikes me a regular either blocked or just on a mischief spree under a diferent name. Mike33 10:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I sort of suspect something like that myself. This user went straight on the attack at once, usually people need a little time to get comfy. Manxruler 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to label this thread 'resolved'? Two experienced editors (in addition to Manxruler) have now posted to Luvente's talkpage commenting on the issue, I'm not sure that anything further will result from discussion here. Comments? Anchoress 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that it can be marked as resolved. Adrian M. H. 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. Anchoress 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, HERE is the resolution to Mike's AIV report. Anchoress 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help correcting NPOV

Resolved

 – --Aarktica 22:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_Group -- was tagged as "reading like an advertisement", which complaint I don't understand. What can I do to make this article fit protocol? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgord01 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The history shows that you have not contributed to Analysis Group. Indeed, this is your only edit (notwithstanding any deleted articles, obviously). And you should not refer to any page as "my page". Have a look at style guides (MOS, IA, etc.) and the featured articles to better gauge good quality formal encyclopaedic writing. Adrian M. H. 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone help me close/archive this peer review?

Resolved

 – Based on status update provided by requester. --Aarktica 16:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I filed a peer review on I Not Stupid on 8 July 2007, to prepare the article for a GA nomination, which I filed on 15 July 2007. As I Not Stupid has achieved GA status, and I have no intention to get it to FA status, I see no need to continue the peer review. Could someone please help me close/archive the peer review? Thanks in advance. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs, the review was archived over a fortnight ago. However, the review was left on the Peer Review list (perhaps an oversight?)

In any event, I went ahead and removed the listing from that page. Hopefully, this completes the archival of the request. Cheers, --Aarktica 04:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated that it first looks [See logs] I had a similar problem with a recent Afd that was moved/renamed and disappeared from the daily log. I had a look at it yesterday and came to the conclusion that current Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid should be moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid/Archive4. Well I think that is what needs doing. I would spd the current (08 Jul 07) Wikipedia:Peer review/I Not Stupid, so that if it does need another PR, it doesn't go through the same problem again, and just manually adjust the PR red links on the talk page to the right archives. Mike33 - t@lk 06:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How could a peer review be archived six days before it was filed? It was probably the article's second most recent peer review that was archived on 2 July 2007. This request is now moot, as the most recent peer review was archived yesterday. However, the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the article's talk page may have errors that need to be corrected. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuetrality

Resolved

 – Addhoc 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to write an informative page about Nature's Cure - a company too often confused with nature cures (already with a wikipedia entry). The goal is to create one similar to the Burt's Bees wikipedia entry, but I'm having trouble since there is a "please help review this article from a neutral point of view" flag on the entry.

I have external links which discuss Nature's Cure - would that help with notability?

Also, would it be helpful to put links in the entry which would link it to other wikipedia entries?

Please advise. Thanks! Christyae1 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are describing two different problems, so I'll cover them in order. No one has raised the issue of bias, and I do not really see any problem from that standpoint unless you are subject to some undisclosed COI. It is not apparent from the article anyway. The issue of advertorial has been raised by someone, but is actually a little misguided in this instance, I believe. If you want to see what advertorial really looks like.... well, you don't have to go far to find it on WP. Some of the articles at AFD absolutely stink of it. Notability is easy; just read that guideline and you will see what needs to be done. Related to that are the policy of verifiability and the guidelines about footnotes (two links there). Where are those reliable neutral third-party reference sources with non-trivial editorial treatments of the subject matter? Get plenty of those and notability tends to fall into place. Adrian M. H. 22:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, forgot to say that the editor who added the Notability tag should have opened a discussion on the talk page to explain his reasoning, but didn't. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Christyae, I've edited the article to remove bias and included references to establish notability. However, I haven't been able to include the company logo in the infobox. Perhaps someone else could assist? Addhoc 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) now fixed. Addhoc 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need help on Railpage Australia

Resolved

 – Addhoc 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to prevent the Railpage Australia Forums article [1] (a rail enthusiast site) turning into a vanity page. As it stands much of the article is poorly referenced with unreliable sources. Every edit I have made is supported by verifiable facts which justifies that change. My first attempt earlier this year was to reinstate information posted by another user that concerned one individual's railway criminal activities who was also involved with the operation of Railpage Forums as a moderator. The criminal activities of that individual were reported in the Australian national newspapers.

My most recent edit resulting in a edit war, was to call the Railpage Forum "commercial, free to join, voluntary payment for service". I have justified this edit based upon that the Forum is owned not by a individual, but by a registered corporation and on Australian taxation law/rulings. The problem is I suspect there are two or three die hard supporters of the organization which the article is about who delete my editing with little (just a statement with no verifiable facts)or no explanation. The other day, I accused two of them of suspected conflict of interest COI. It seems that these two registered Wikipedia users have gone away, replaced by two or three anonymous I.P. editors. I'd like someone to look at the whole article and make a few comments. Thanks. Tezza1 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that much of it is unsourced and only refers back to the forum. As an anorak myself (worked at Ballaarat station 94/95), I tend to keep very well clear of railway accidents etc. I do notice that you have only just started editing under Tezza1, that isn't a bad thing, but if you are accusing others of WP:COI, they may well doubt your neutrality. What do I suggest? mmmmm find a neutral party from say Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways and raise your concerns there. I know it isn't an Australian project, but neutrality is the only way you can move forward. Mike33 - t@lk 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

• the article does clearly require a rewrite and inclusion of secondary sources
• editors are allowed to source citations from the web site if these conditions are met
• the criminal activities material probably contravenes the presumption in favor of privacy aspect of the BLP policy
• if someone reverts you take it to the talk page

Addhoc 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tezza is certainly NOT neutral. He has a history of attacking the site on Usenet newsgroups. 61.193.244.20 07:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Tezza1 20:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the "little or no explanation" comment in tezza's post. Certainly, there was disagreement with tezza's edits, but the replies (as witnessed on the talk page) were well constructed and seemed to refute tezza's arguments. My take on the COI affair was that tezza was frustated that he could not get his edits to stick, and made the COI accusation in that spirit. There are many factional splits in the Australian Railfan/Gunzel/Anorak community, and it appears to me that some of this has spilled over to the Railpage wiki article. Yes, I am a Railpage member (not moderator/admin), and I do have concerns (raised with Tezza, but with no direct reply), as to Tezza's motive behind his edits. If that makes me in COI, then so be it.Johnmc 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User Mike33 I put it up for peer review as you suggested, and guess what happens? the anonymous IP's become activeTezza1 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo Sails.

Resolved

 – link spam see [google]

I tried to ad a page about a recently patented product, PHOTO SAILS. Wikipedia has files on other patented products such as Rubics Cube and the Swiffer. Why are you blocking my addition of a product that holds 30+ worldwide patents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronkiss (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do "ads" and your addition was purely an 'ad'. Please consult WP:NOT and if you were directed to this page from an SEO site, I would suggest you pay more attention, because this is one of the pages that are listed to avoid. Mike33 - t@lk 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe Girardi

Resolved

 – Requester blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Pascack. --Aarktica 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

The Joe Girardi page has been subject to consistent edit wars regarding the team colors in his info box. The colors previously had listed the colors of the Chicago Cubs (red and blue) since Girardi played the most years (6) for the Cubs than any other team covering two separate stints. He played 3 years for the Yankees, 2 years for the Rockies, and 1 year for the Cardinals. However, several users, mainly IP address 208.168.252.236 have repeatedly changed the box to Yankee colors. Can you please help as the constant re-editing is ruining the page. Thank you. Joeidaho 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that, if you can have only one, you should choose the most significant. Which would normally have to be judged by longevity for sake of avoiding subjectivity. Perhaps you should suggest to the other editors that no colours should be included at all, and see what they say. Did he have greater success with any of the other teams, by the way? Adrian M. H. 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the players are listed with teams with the most longevity. However, user mghabmw continues to violate the 3RR rule either under his own name or IP 208.169.94.8 on both the Joe Girardi page and Reggie Jackson page. He appears to be a Yankee fan and constantly changes players' colors to Yankees colors. In Girardi's case, he played 6 years on the Cubs and 3 years on the Yankees. In Reggie's case, he played 9 years on the A's and 5 years on the Yankees. He is consistently reverting and I don't know what action can be taken at this point. Joeidaho 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone at 65.160.57.101 requested my password

Resolved

 – Nominator concurs with closure. --Aarktica 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I received an email from wiki@wikimedia.org with subject line New temporary password for Wikipedia. The text is

Someone from the IP address 65.160.57.101 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "CliffC" is "(redacted)". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If it was you who requested this new password, then you should log in to Wikipedia and change it to your desired password by clicking "My Preferences" at the top right of any page, or by visiting the following URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org

I didn't ask for my password to be sent and I don't know who 65.160.57.101 is. When I go to his talk page here I see that he's a spammer with three sock accounts, but I don't see any intersection between the articles he's spammed and those where I've reverted spammers, or even visited.

So... "What's all this then?" I once saw this question asked elsewhere in Wikipedia, I don't recall where, but the answer was something to the effect of "nothing to be concerned about, move along". Can someone explain (or speculate on) what's going on? --CliffC 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit disconcerting, I agree, but probably nothing to worry about. I have seen this mentioned at the VP before. I suspect that someone decided to try something nefarious and picked your account at random (perhaps from article history or a talk page). As they will no doubt be aware by now, they are out of luck! The important thing is to (a) have a very obscure password, (b) never sign in at a publicly available PC, and (c) avoid spyware. Adrian M. H. 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It means you're famous Cliff - you must be doing something right, if people are trying to undo your good work. "my preferences" button at top of the page lets u change passwords as many times a day as you want. You can even forget and get a new code - remember only you know it unless somebody has access to your email. It could just be a mistake tho, if you're bored try Special:Listusers and search for a blue link Cliff! Mike33 - t@lk 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, gentlemen. I lean towards Mike's "famous" explanation since articles I edit are still trolled once in a while by the honey-roasted peanuts vandals. Aarktica has suggested that this item might be closed, and I agree. --CliffC 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H.

Hi there Editor.

I just thought I'd let you know that an article about me was initiated by people who wanted to highlight what I did with Bill Gates/DVD Video, Internet Cafes and Digital Audio. I felt rather uncomfortable about it, and understandably, with the treatment that some loons on here have given these people, as well was thinking they know best without really helping, suggesting or trying to help edit such article, makes absolutely no sense to me and the supposed "spirit" of wikipedia.

Right now, being the subject of such article, I'm feeling quite peeved and want any such material erased, which would hurt the original authors, but understandably I've been quite hurt by Media in the past and would require that such article be either protected or governed in its formation or writing due to my sensitivity to such exposure.

I would appreciate your thoughts about such behaviour as I was nearly ready to let someone I didnt know have the source listing to such verifiable articles and content re-published to support the article further, but if the article is going to be further scrutinised without expert opinion as to why and how to improve, then I'm not willing to divulge information pertaining to such.

I realise these two or three editors are novices to wikipedia and one is also a person that, being a member of a minority group in Australia, would further cause controversy and bad media about this service. Who am I to judge? They want a chance to be a part of this! So why not give them a chance? I have certainly given thousands of people such a chance through my mentoring as part of the same scheme that I began my career with, before retiring last year.

I would humbly ask for your thoughts on such. I dont want to hurt the novice authors feelings but I feel quite upset this article is being mocked by amateurs. Understandably, its been written by the same!

Thankyou --Achidiac 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The article is quite likely to be deleted anyway. And by editing it yourself, you are in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI and, judging by the article's current state, WP:NPOV. Adrian M. H. 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)