Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Inappropriate deletion of Entries

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:23, December 2, 2007

Over the past few months, User:JzG has repeatedly deleted a handful of quality entries, which I assisted in seeding and starting. Amongst the entries that JzG deleted are Travelport, Jeff Clarke and Gordon Wilson. After the three entries were recreated by Wikipedia users, I participated in editing them to include many of the factual items from the original entry, only to have JzG delete the latter two entries for a second time. I've made an effort to make a case for the entries and get a clearer sense of why they were deleted without process but his responses were not helpful nor did they address any of the issues at hand. While I fully understand why people with a personal stake are discouraged from some levels of participation, I feel that I have followed all the guidelines, made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and done so with complete transparency to facilitate open discussion in the event of a disagreement over merit or content. Per the dispute resolution guidelines, I backed away from the situation with JzG for a bit. I'd like some assistance from other editors to solve this disagreement before, as was the case previously, the entries are replaced with lower quality placeholders. Thank you. TP kelli 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, I suggest that you recreate those two articles in your sandbox, so that others can read and evaluate. I have to say even without reading them, just from seeing so many other articles about companies and their officers, that all three probably should be deleted. What you deserve is a good explanation of why they should be deleted. Here's how to create your sandbox and articles inside them: Make a wikilink to the non-existent pages, then click and start editing. Here's your User:TP kelli/sandbox. When you edit there, add links to the subarticles, e.g. [[/Gordon Wilson]]. Then you can click those redlinks to make those pages. Sbowers3 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (and thanks for your message on my wall). I've placed the articles in my sandbox, and it would be great if you and others could look over them and provide some feedback and make some edits. Despite their deletion, I really feel these entries have merit and deserve thoughtful consideration. Thanks again. TP kelli 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Three points (some of my points may be more valid than the others, so bear with me).

1. Your photograph is not free. Unless you get the owner of the copyright to donate the image (release the image under a free license) it will be deleted. Permission to use images is generally not enough.
2. You're writing about a company that you have a vested interest in: "Editors proposing to write about ... their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors."
3. Your articles are not neutral. You need to have something more than "this guy is great". There doesn't necessarily need to be a controversy, but there does need to be both sides (or all sides) of the story. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous product plug on a talk page

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:23, December 2, 2007

Plug added to Talk:Instant messaging manager. I'm inclined to remove it, or at least the sentence where the product is mentioned, but I was once chastised for "page blanking" someone's racist comments on a talk page. Thoughts? --CliffC 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

the relevant page says: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Go ahead and remove it and make sure to explain what you're doing (and link to WP:TALK) in your edit summary. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing such a short comment might not be worth the controversy. I searched Wikipedia for presensoft.com, and notice there was a small-scale spam attempt in March, 2007, that was quickly undone. If whoever left the new comment can find reliable sources to show that his company's product is important, then he should have a chance to make the case. (It may seem unlikely, but it's possible). EdJohnston 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Advise on 2 Articles

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:24, December 2, 2007

Recently, I've encountered a user that is hell bent on reverting edits. The first article is on Vanessa Angel. He/she keepings editing my changes due to "poorly cited" references (their words). Granted, some info on Angel is hard to find so I did resort to IMDb which I've since changed, so that might be a dead issue, but they also keep deleting info in the infobox (birth name, spouse, etc). Is that information not suppose to be included in the infobox? I've seen plenty of biographies that have that info included so I don't get why the keep deleting it. They don't give a reason for it either. I've contacted them on their talk page and even suggested starting a consensus over it, but they don't answer. Another issue is on the Jayne Mansfield page. I'm not personally involved in that edit war, but while checking external links during my WP:WPEL duties, I noticed that they keep deleting a fan site that seem perfectly acceptable to me (external link section is not too long, site is dedicated to Mansfield, etc). Supposedly, the unofficial site is approved by Mansfield's family and has had approval to be listed. So far, they've repeatedly reverted the edits when someone adds it back. They've reverted that edit about four times. I don't know all the guidelines for Wikipedia and I'm basically going on things I've seen on other articles so, any suggestion on how to deal with this is greatly appreciated. Pinkadelica 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit tired as I write this, so I don't want to go through diffs and so on, but take a look at 3RR and EW and see if they are helpful to you. You're right to avoid using the IMDb: it is acknowledged not to be a reliable source. Adrian M. H. 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pinkadelica! Welcome, and let me add to Adrian's response. Indeed, IMDB is not a reliable, third party source, so cannot be used as a reference to items in articles. There is a template to place it in the external links, {{IMDB}}, and that already exists on that article. I'll remove the refs. As I'm unfamiliar with the Angel article, I don't know the reason for the reverting over birth name, etc., from the infobox, I'd suggest that you make a post on the article's talk page, if you have not done so already, and request other editor's opinions. I do not see why any editor would remove birth date and such from the infobox, unless it is not confirmed by a reliable source, in which case it is valid to remove it. Finally, the biographies of living persons policy applies here, so all information needs valid, reliable sources, or it can be removed. I'm sure this person has been written about widely by news media, so it should not be that difficult to find some good sources. As far as the other article, again I'd just suggest that a note on the editor's talk page be placed explaining why the link is valid, link to the conversation on Valrith's page, and add it back in, with an edit summary explaining it. I'd also suggest making a note on the article's talk page. If an editor refuses to discuss issues, there is not a lot you can do to force them to respond, except to document your actions on the article's talk page, and assuming the site is not a sales site, or something (if you're a WPEL member, I am assuming you're quite familiar with WP:EL), then I see no reason not to have it in the links section. If the editor reverts more than 4 times in 24 hours, report it to the 3RR noticeboard, per the directions there. If you have any further questions, let me know! Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tears for Fears site linkage

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:25, December 2, 2007

I'm getting frustrated with this. People are getting way too angry, and I'm not even sure I'm as level headed as I think I am. Over at Tears for Fears there is an edit war going on over a website linkage. I've made some comments on the talk page, but stopped doing any editing as I'm unsure what the actual rule is in this case. Some help from cooler heads might help. Thanks! Rabidwolfe 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites are not appropriate External Links. They do not meet the WP:EL guidelines, no matter how much said fans want to argue that they do. Collectonian 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question at hand, if you read the dialouge, is if one site in particular really is a fan site. Besides, the WP:EL guidelines do not include a blanket ban on all fan websites. All it says is sites with certain features are "normally to be avoided", which implies there can be (rare) exceptions. At the very least, how do we determine if something really is a "fan site" at all? One of the commentators claims the site in dispute isn't a fan site at all. AT this point, it seems like all we have to do is label something as a "fan site" and it goes, regardless of whether the label is accurate. Rabidwolfe 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It self identifies as a fan site and the about us very plainly says it is run by one woman who is a "big fan." It may be official in that it is accepted by the band, but it is still a fan site. You are right, the WP:EL guidelines do not specifically ban them (though I honestly believe it should), but they also aren't specifically allowed. :-P It may be something to also bring up there, as well, the need to clarify that. I just noticed though, that in the argument, you also are having the actual webmaster trying to argue for their site (WP:COI violation if they are the one who added the link in the first place). Collectonian 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good evening to you both. If I might add something here, although I can see that there is no specific mention of fansites on WP:EL I believe that they are covered sufficiently in Personal Web Pages (#12 in the "links to be avoided" section) and therefore would contravene Wiki policy. I do accept that #12 in that list might benefit from some minor rewording though in order to clarify the point further. Kookoo Star 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

over at the talk page for WP:EL - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links - I am told there is not a blanket ban on fan sites, and that if (IF) a site can pass muster, it is okay. Unless told otherwise by TPTB, that seems right to me. Rabidwolfe 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you already have been told by TPTB in this very message thread that that fan site in particular does not pass muster. Furthermore, back over in the talk page for WP:EL which you just quoted, they have also stated quite clearly the problems with copyrighted information on fansites. This isn't just about the band's own images/music/videos, but also to copies of press releases and audio interviews from radio stations (this has already been pointed out in the original discussion). Kookoo Star 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about whether the talk page over at WP:EL supports the inclusion of the fan site in question. I am reassured that, despite your (and other's) claims, there is no blanket ban on fan sites. Whether that applies to the TFF site or not, I'm still not sure. But in my 00:55, 14 November 2007 statement, I was making no claims about any particular site one way or the other. Rabidwolfe 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

talk:eucharist

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:26, December 2, 2007

I'm trying to talk out differences but believe I'm getting trolled. Could someome with time on his hands check out the recent colloquys at Talk:Eucharist? If someone could give an independent look at the validity of the applications of the No Original REsearch, Reliable Source, Common Knowledge and Verifiability canons, I would much appreciate it. Eschoir 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is exceedingly difficult to make heads or tails of what you have copied/pasted here. Would you instead, please provide links, diffs to relevant issues, and explain what the problem is, in your own words? Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 06:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Eschoir had simply pasted the whole section from Talk:Eucharist#Eschoir - his table. I've removed the wall of text, as anyone can read it simply by going to the page. GlassCobra 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, yes that's much easier on the eyes to see it in its "native environment" lol. Thanks dear GC! Ariel♥Gold 07:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my first foray in dispute resolution. Eschoir 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that TCC has been assisting you, which is good. If TCC wasn't already involved, I would have suggested a 3O to start with. The comment "The question whether Matthew and Mark call their meal Passover is common knowledge, nobody challenges it and doesn't have to be sourced." caught my eye in particular; it is hardly common knowledge according to either my or WP's interpretation of that term and therefore needs a citation. Adrian M. H. 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(<-)TCC can be a great assistance. He is widely respected. You may wish to consult Pastordavid as well if he's available. He's good with religion article conflict resolution.Majoreditor 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful-a straight answer. Thank you, adrian. By citation, I read you to say in instances where there is not consensus reached among editors, and the information is not common knowledge, reference is necessary to a source other than the editor's interpretation of the Primary source, but you could mean something else.

Either citation like 1) "God hates the world (see John 3:16)"

or 2) "God hates the world (See Nietzsche, Friedrich, On John 3:16 Der Froelichen Wissenschaft, 1872)

1) seems like OR to me Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here, but let me interject. "God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would be OR in most contexts, because it is a statement on God. However, "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says. Pastordavid (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am mighty appreciative for the response. I point out to you the twist in my example, which raises another issue. "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says. What would it be, then, given that it is a ludicrous statement about what John says that is 180 degrees from the actual obvious explicit meaning of 3:16, and would certainly be contested? Forgive me if these questions seem elementary - I am a lawyer and if there were a place to look up caselaw I would go there first and search the precedents. Eschoir (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, in which case the proper response would be to insert the text of J 3:16, and let the text speak for itself without any interpretation. If the meaning of the primary text is obvious, "John says X", then it is not likely to be disputed. If it is disputed, then the text should speak for itself or any interpretation should be that of a reliable source - not the wikipedia editors. Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language OR

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:26, December 2, 2007

Under what circumstances is it OR for an editor with no language training to opine about the derivation and meaning of foreign words referring as his source an online lexicon? Eschoir 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir may not be referring to his insistence on 20 October 2007 that it be proved that "ὁ υἰὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means "the son of God" (cf. this edit). It would be helpful if he would indicate at what point he was referring as his source to an online lexicon. Lima 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima carries his edit war to a second front. I don't know what he is asking, if he is asking anything. I don't believe I have ever used an online lexicon as a source, hence my question about the legitimacy of such a citation.

And what do you suppose is up with the he reference?Eschoir (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for intervening. I just thought that the abstract way in which the question was put made it difficult to answer. This further intervention is only to apologize for intervening against Eschoir's wishes, to explain that, by "he", I meant "he himself", and to assure that I will say no more on the matter. Lima (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you google the term online lexicon you'll see a Biblical Greek lexicon which may help. I've seen editors use them before. Majoreditor (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir, you can also try searching on the romanized term -- several sites show it and its variants as "son of God" [1].

Is there some alternate translation? Ask InfernoXV or Pastordavid.

(Lima, perhaps Eschoir is objecting to the assumption of gender in your choice of pronouns.) Majoreditor (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, but my question involves interpretations of the Original Research rule rather than a search for lexicons.

Is an editor without special language training or expertise, who, when confronted with a controversial Primary Source text in a foreign language, uses an online lexicon to translate each word of the text and cobble together his own translation of the passage, citing the lexicon, rather than a published secondary source, engaging in Original Research?

Eschoir (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the lexicon shows both the word or phrase and the rendered translated on the same page then it is a secondary source since there is no synthesis or OR. Personally, I prefer not to use online lexicons when providing in-line citations, but other editors employ them and, to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, the practice isn't forbidden. Majoreditor (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, you conclude that if the lexicon doesn't show both the phrase and the rendered translated on the same page then it is not a secondary source and it is synthesis and OR. Eschoir (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to see the specific issue before reaching a conclusion. I'd probably take a different course of action and reach out for a third opinion on the translation before doing anything else. There have been unfortunate instances when tendentious editors have attempted to wiki-lawyer translations needlessly; these situations often end badly. A third opinion from one or more uninvolved parties is a good way to avoid that kind of circumstance and reach consensus. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual translation of "ὁ υἰὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" is "the Son of God." If a citation is needed for a lexicon that uses that exact phrase, see Danker, Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)(BDAG) υἰὸς, def: 2.d.β. BDAG is the academic standard for koine period Greek, and uses exactly this phrase as "the Son of God." There is, of course, a minority position that translates this phrase as "a son of God", namely the Jehovah's Witness tradition in the New World Translation. This runs counter to every other translation of the NT, and represents a small minority of translators. "ὁ" is the definite article - "the" - and while the Greek uses the definite article in some situations that we would not, the broad stream of translation history agrees that this is not one of those situations. Pastordavid (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is getting substantive, whereas my question was originally procedural. I will take my substantive question to talk:pastordavid. Thanks! Eschoir (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

it is noted that the section needs more references...

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:27, December 2, 2007

Spreadsheet

i added more details regarding the world's first electronic spreadsheet - LANPAR

i am the co-inventor and have articles and proof to substantiate everything i have said there

on my website, for example, www.renepardo.com i link to an article from AT&T news from 1971 which refers to the spreadsheet

i have all the original manuals, as well as the presentation which i gave to 18 vice presidents of the operating telephone companies and AT&T in 1971

what more references do i need to provide?

rene pardo <phone number removed> toronto cell anytime

warm regards,

rene

i love your wikipedia by the way - outstanding. <e-mail address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.82.161 (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2007

First, welcome, but your personal information has been removed for your own privacy. Allow me to direct you to a few relevant policies and guidelines. First the conflict of interest guideline, which says you should not create or edit articles about yourself, your company, product, family or friends, as you'd be unlikely to edit neutrally. Neutrality is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and is quite important for an encyclopedia. Second, reliable, third-party sources mean sources unrelated to the company or product. Things like personal websites, blogs, unreliable websites, etc., do not do fact-checking, and are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are things like media articles, professional journal articles, and the like. Original material falls under original research and cannot be used in articles. Manuals are also, not reliable sources, and presentations you've made would also not fall under reliable sources. You will need to find news articles, from reputable publications, to verify the information you wish to add. I hope this helps you understand why your edits are being removed. I'd suggest that instead of editing the article, you instead go to the article's talk page, and discuss the issues there. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leon Youngboy

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:27, December 2, 2007

Hi I was posting a article about the history of this 1st Asian American Latin freestyle and a editor kept on taking it down,, than I sent him or her proof by telling them to go to

Take a look at the Hoy newspaper article dated January 13,2006 page 30 Take a look at the Chinese World Journal dated November 29, 2005 page E3 Take a look at El Diario article dated May 11 2005 page34 Take a look at The Sino American Times dated Dec. 16, 2005.

Even with the proof they won't release the article.

Somebody help me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Answer8 (talk • contribs)

I have alerted User:Scientizzle of your concern, and have asked him to reply. BTW, it isn't appropriate to ask for another Wikipedian's email, especially to send him articles. If you have sources to add, add them. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left another message to this editor explaining simply that all he or she needs to do is add sources to the article. All I did was propose the article for deletion (after declining a speedy deletion) because there were (and still aren't in the article) and cited sources to meet WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I'm not going to give this editor my mailing address or email address for any reason. — Scientizzle 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be watching the page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Scientizzle 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's up at AfD. Can't say I disagree, see my comment there. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced portrayal of Iran and the NPT

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:29, December 2, 2007

In the page on the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," the section on the "third pillar" states in part: "Controversy can arise when a state claims it is pursuing enrichment for peaceful purposes but has no reactors that require enriched uranium fuel, as is the case in North Korea and Iran." That is passive-voice editorializing, and factually backwards.

I provided links documenting that N Korea has had a small Uranium reactor for some time, and that Iran is halfway finished building a Uranium-fueled reactor with Russian help. Unfortunately the page quickly reverted to how it was before I edited it.

Similarly, in another location it states "Iran violated its NPT safeguards agreement by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret..."

Each of those points remain in dispute, and it is not the role of a wikipedia writer to determine what is a violation of a the NPT unless the case is clear-cut. Uranium enrichment is Iran's right under the NPT. Under the rules of the IAEA in force at the time in question, Iran was under no obligation to disclose much of its work related to Uranium enrichment.

I'm somewhat new to the wikipedia community, so any guidance and help to positively resolve this matter with neutral language would be appreciated.

Some of my version of the text appears below...

---

Iran started construction of uranium enrichment facilities without declaring them, consistant with the IAEA safeguard agreements in force at the time (see http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/21/stories/2005092105231000.htm ). The United Nations Security Council then passed a resolution ordering Iran to suspend its enrichment-related activity (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm ), illegally revoking Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy. The United States and some members of the European Union have accused Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, which would be in violation of article II of the NPT. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the agency's head said that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons (see http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071028/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaus_071028162940 ).

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had corrected gaps in its reporting to the IAEA. The IAEA wrote that "To date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme." Yet in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, citing Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, declared that Iran was in non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself. The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhcatsteve (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Challenging article material

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:30, December 2, 2007

I have been requesting inline references on an article World War II Online for claims made in the Damage Model section and it looks like I've already made some mistakes on the discussion page by adding specific policy language about what are acceptable references. Although I initially deleted the material after awhile it was added back, this time with references. The links given are to a pay only web forum for the game itself. I think I've been doing the right things (stepped away from it, given time etc.) but maybe with the wrong tone. I have expanded the reasons for challenging the material on the discussion page of the article and now with two specific editors over on the Wiki Video game project pages. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you. Awotter (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong in outlining the requirements; you have handled that perfectly acceptably. Fora are certainly not reliable sources by any sensible definition, whether independent of the subject or not. One comment in particular shows a deep lack of comprehension of WP:N – "Do you realize how little attention this game gets outside of just it's [sic] forums [sic]? It gets very little." Editors must know that they need to work within the realms of verification, omitting material that cannot be supported, and they have to establish notability, which is not deemed to be inherent in this subject area. Stick with it, if possible. Adrian M. H. 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should Wiki articles lead the reader to a correct conclusion?

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:32, December 2, 2007

Editorial comment is solicited on the accuracy and NPOV implications of this declaration: (Wiki articles) should indeed lead to a conclusion, as should any informative article. It should lead the readers to a correct conclusion about what the current state of knowledge is on a subject, and not distract them with irrelevancies or mislead them with discredited theories. Eschoir (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First, NPOV applies to articles, not to discussion. As to the accuracy of the statement, I would need to see it in context. Pastordavid (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary (IMO) category changes

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:34, December 2, 2007

Could someone please take a look at what this editor is up to? I asked on his talk page for an explanation of this but received no reply. His goal seems to be to take categorization down to more granular levels, of state or town, and he's made scores of edits today, in some cases introducing ambiguities as well. At least a few other editors have registered their objections, saying it better than I can here. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A similar swath is now being cut by this editor, probably the same person, he started editing two hours after the other one stopped. Is this part of some official Wikipedia project? I don't see the value in categories with only four members like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Vancouver%2C_Washington or ones like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_the_Portland_metropolitan_area. Maybe it's a good thing but I just don't recognize it. This edit might be the key to his thinking, I can't tell for sure since there are hundreds of edits but zero edit summaries, and no reply to a talk-page question. If these changes are legitimate I'd like some admin to say so. --CliffC (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of a rule of thumb that 3 articles was enough to start a category. In any event, I think Xnatedawgx correctly changed the city-category for Clearwire. Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of unsigned encyclopaedia articles

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:37, December 2, 2007

WP:NOR says the following: "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources."

Does this mean that "articles not signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can not be regarded as reliable sources?

Separate question: can a Wiki article be a reliable source for another Wiki article? Eschoir (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The easy one first: No, a Wikipedia article can not be a reliable source for another Wikipedia article, mainly because we have no expert peer review process, and because anyone can edit at anytime. Although the overall quality, i.e. comprehensiveness and accuracy, of featured articles can be considered fairly high, even those articles may contain unnoticed ommissions or errors because we have no process of expert review.

With regard to unsigned articles in other encyclopedias: The staff of print encyclopedias is usually made up of experts. Even though the individual entry may not be signed by an author, encyclopedias like e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica or Brockhaus Enzyklopädie can safely be assumed to be reliable by our standards. |dorftrottel |humor me 12:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think your interpretation is correct. Unsigned articles in encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica are not considered to be as reliable as signed articles and information from such a source ought to be reinforced by a more authoritative source. For example see the section in Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Impact of the attack "Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's incorrect retracted estimates." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that such a case pertains to WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For the average, uncontroversial information, we can generally assume that EB is sufficiently reliable. Of course, a signed text by an expert is generally better, but the question was "Does this mean that "articles not signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can not be regarded as reliable sources?" - The answer, I maintain, is: Yes, in most cases they can. We can't just assume that EB articles are a priori unreliable, even though there do of course exist some bad apples.

Consider that ignorance towards our policies on original research and a simple formulation (part of NPOV) pose far greater problems with regard to accuracy. Citing a source in an untruthful manner (as happens very frequently) is far worse than innocuously citing a figure from EB before someone else comes along and puts those figures into perspective with an even more authoritative source. |dorftrottel |humor me 14:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The firszt question you've asked is predicated on a logical fallacy, to wit: I tell you that all dachshunds are dogs. Does that then mean that animals that are not dachshunds can not be dogs? No. The set of all reliable sources includes articles in specialised encyclopedias signed by an expert. That fact says absolutely nothing about the rest of the set of reliable sources. It speaks only of the intersection of those two sets. See what I mean? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're replying to the exact formulation of the question rather than answering the question itself, which is quite an interesting and relevant one. There's another fallacy. |dorftrottel |humor me 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To go back to the NOR statement of whether "For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources": That statement (and indeed all of that section except for the concluding sentence) can be ignored since it subverts and dilutes the value of the principles outlined in reliable sources (WP:RS).

While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using general encyclopedias, it is crucial to understand that - from the specialist's point of view - general encyclopedias are not reliable sources at all. This is not because they are unsigned (as WP:NOR is implying), but because general encyclopedias sometimes simplify matters to the point of inaccuracy or even falsehood; and because individual articles are not dated and do not cite their sources and are not peer-reviewed and are - due to long update cycles in some disciplines - sometimes outdated. These are serious reliability issues that cannot be compensated for even if articles are signed.

Inversely, signing does not enhance reliability when other reliable sources (WP:RS) issues fail. A typical example of such a source is the Catholic encyclopedia, the articles of which are signed, but not necessarily reliable.

Be also aware that the concept of good scholarship and (building) good reputation are unknown to very many WP editors, to whom then a name (and thus reputation and integrity) of a source's author are irrelevant.

'dorftrottel' (who is evidently very smart and not a trottel at all :-) is also quite correct to point out that a knowledgeable person can put general encyclopedia-cited statements into perspective. Sadly however, the knowledgeable person will often have to fight the editors who draw on those sources. If this happens to you, don't let it get to you.

Btw: The "exceptional claims" clause is only effective when editors are capable of recognizing the exceptional. Unfortunately (in my experience), most editors who cite general encyclopedias are incapable of doing so.

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think unsigned encyclopedia articles can generally be treated as reliable sources, so long as they are not contradicted by more reliable sources. Obviously if you had two encyclopedia articles, one signed, and one unsigned, you should rely on the signed one, other factors being equal. The point about biased sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, or out of date sources, like the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition must be considered as well. Often you should be able to find a more reliable source than an encyclopedia, but if that is all you have, by all means reference it. Dhaluza (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is an interesting case. There seem to be two P.D. editions floating about, labled 1915 and 1939, maybe identical (it would be amusing if the edition dates were fudged). Its conservative bias is an advertising and marketing point. Eschoir (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RAK Men's College

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:40, December 2, 2007

HI there, my name is Stephen R. Pellerine and I'm wondering how to get a page back up on Wikipedia? Our college was in the process of making a page RAK Mens college and we are not really sure where we wen't wrong. The development was good for juat about a week - but voila, something is obviously wrong. The article is down.

Wondering what we did wrong?

Thanks a million for your support.

Kind regards

Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by HCTProjectDay (talk • contribs)

Could you provide a specific name for the article you were working on? I just went through several variations of "RAK Mens college" and couldn't even find a deletion log. It's likely the article was deleted for some reason, but the deletion log would give the reasoning. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I found it.

18:06, 17 November 2007 Natalie Erin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ras Al Khaimah Men's College" ‎ (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement here.

So, there you go: you may want to ask Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) for her reasoning; if there's an issue with the deletion, you may want to go to deletion review and ask for editors to review the situation there. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The 16th amendment

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:42, December 2, 2007

I appear to be at odds with famspear on this issue.

in several sections omission give the wrong impression

It is posted:

Income taxation of wages, etc. The courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[

This is of course patently false wording

It should read allows a direct tax on income derived from wages salaries.

Interpretation

The Amendment—which overrules the effect of Pollock[18] -- essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.

and this passage should read tax on incomes derived from what ever source.

Excluding these key words entirely changes the percieved meaning of these sentences.

To say tax on income from any source is patently false.

Furthermore this is the kind of response i get from him when i make statements in discussion

Famspear:

No, the document does not say anything about a "tax on the National Government."

I believe that this may be the wording of the Taft message: “I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.”

In other words, the protesters read just the words "conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government" and ignore the rest of the sentence. the rest of this sentence bears no relevance to the meaning of it. Conferring “the power to levy an income tax” upon the National Government is not the same as the bluntly goofy idea of proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the National Government to levy an income tax upon the National Government itself.

Taft obviously never did any such thing. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is well-documented. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

so clearly he says no it doesnt say that then turns around and says the exact same thing.

this appears to me to be dishonest and decietful on his part to alter the context of statements to his liking and his liking only.

Implying i am a protestor for wishing the text to be factually accurate to me is childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lojack12b (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 November 2007

Need assistance in relation of article on Geo TV

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:42, December 2, 2007

I am needing some advice on what to do with the article about Geo TV, a Pakistani TV channel. I am unable to clean up the section about the station shutdown, which appears to have a copy-pasted news article about the station closure. Even if I do a clean-up, the clean-up gets reverted. Since I do not want to be engaged in the edit war, but at the same time, the article is against WP:NPOV policy, I decided to ask for assistance. Thanks in advance. Tarmo Tanilsoo (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not even one of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V (but it would be, had it been legitimately written). The main issue is that the entire text in the section had been copied verbatim from http://www.hindu.com/nic/geo.htm, which is clearly inacceptable. I've reinstated the concise version and introduced the Hindu.com article as an additional reference.[2] |dorftrottel |humor me 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation with POV editor loading attacks against in biography of living person

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 22:46, December 2, 2007

See Article: "David Reardon" Discussion: "Pro-Life Activist"

Despite the fact that there are already criticim sections for this biography, the anonymous editor continues to insert out of place and POV inferences in the opening paragraph of this biography and has little or no sense of Wikipedia rules.

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 November 2007

I've tagged it for Neutrality, just to let everyone know. I've noticed you haven't addressed the IP directly on their talk page. Please do so, and let us know what happens. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues disambiguation . . .

Resolved

 – Explained how to rename pages and how to discuss on talk page. — Dave (talk) 09:39, Thursday May 15 2025 (UTC)

I have redesigned the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and would like the Search box to go directly to it rather than to a subsidiary page title Garrigues. How is that done? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean redirect? They seem to refer to different things, so that wouldn't be appropriate. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my. Did I use the wrong term? Well, whatever term is used, how does one use the Search box to go directly to the Garrigues (disambiguation) page rather than to a subsidiary page Garrigues that refers only to a county in Spain, which I suppose is a nice place but which most folks searching for the term garrigues would find rather marginal? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "search box" goes, by default, to the article with the exact name one types. If one types Garrigues, it takes you to the page by that name. The only way to accomplish what you describe would be to rename (move) the pages to the names you want. Firstly, you would move the Garrigues page to something like Garrigues, Spain and then move the Garrigues (disambiguation) page to Garrigues. None of this should be done, however, without posting to the talk page of both articles telling editors what you suggest doing. Only after a full discussion or, at last, providing ample opportunity for discussion, should you attempt such a move. In general, the principle is that the base name should be at the page that is most likely to be searched for. If most people entering Garrigues want the Spanish county, that should be the default but there should be a prominent {{dablink|Garrigues (disambiguation)}} at the top... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave, for the help. I will pose the problem to the various Garrigues pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, mon ami. Just for clarity's sake, you don't need to conduct separate discussions at each of the pages. What I'd do is start a renaming discussion at the base (Talk:Garrigues) page and just point to it by way of a note on the other talk page(s). Happy editing. If there's anything else you think we can help you with, please feel free to post back at your leisure. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin Entry

Resolved

 – Cleaned up the article, tagged it appropriately and provided guidance and admonitions on the talk page. User needs some supportive guidance -- working with him. — Dave (talk) 09:39, Thursday May 15 2025 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin is the Middle East correspondent for the Fairfax newspapers. His reporting of the news has been extremely controversial.

There is world-wide criticism of his journalistic practices. Studies have been undertaken to determine whether he is being fair to the subjects of his stories or whether he is taking a stance. I believe that any wikipedia entry on O'Loughlin needs to allude to his performance or it would be overlooking the very essence of his noteriety. His proponents have every opportunity to make their position in this bio. without repeatedly and without explanation entering a deletion war.I feel that they are vandalising the article in order to suppress a valid, reasoned, alternative view on O'Loughlin. Any attempts of mine to explain my position and clarify why others are deleting in "discussion" are not responded to.

I am new to this mechanism of Wikipedia so please forgive me if this format or presentation is not correct.

Please advise, please help

Adon Emmet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.92.25 (talk) 05:10-06:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember that every single thing you say about a person, especially a living person, needs to be scrupulously sourced. Accuracy needs to be paramount. It's no good to say that "common knowledge says 'X'" or that "some critics have said 'Y'" unless you can point to reliable sources that have said precisely 'X' and 'Y'. I'll give you an example of a problematic statement from the current O'Loughlin page. The article says

"The content of his reportage has been studied. A detailed analysis of his compliance with independent standards of journalism has been published by Media Study Group [1]. This is the only in-depth study into O'Loughlin's work and is noteworthy for its scrupulous methodology. It has revealed a clear and undeniable pattern of advocacy journalism. Mr O'Loughlin disputes these findings of bias in certain of his articles but no authoritative refutation to them has yet been provided."

The reference at [1] (which should point to the actual article which, I presume, is at http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/-The_Age-_Newspaper_Study_(pdf).asp and not at the page the reference points to) , however, is not, strictly speaking, a detailed analysis of O'Loughlin's reportage. It is a detailed analysis of reporting at The Age about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are more reporters at The Age than O'Loughlin and there is also more reportage going on than about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The study, which I have just now read more-or-less in its entirety, does not make any conclusions at all about O'Loughlin's work but makes conclusions about the reportage at The Age. The only real evidence in there specifically about O'Loughlin's reporting is in the table that compares the various reporters and where it is shown that the rate of problematic statements in articles under O'Loughlin's byline is slightly higher than the average for the paper. The wording and the reference really need to be tightened up to make it 100% bulletproof. The following sentences in the article are completely unreferenced. If we want to say that O'Loughlin disputes something, we have to provide a reference to where O'Loughlin disputed it. If we want to say that no authoritative refutation is provided, we need to reference somewhere where precisely that is said. These are just a few of the problems I see with the article. Remember, at all times, that the criterion for inclusion of a statement in Wikipedia is not whether or not the statement is true but whether or not we can provide verification for the statement by way of references from reliable sources. It might be helpful for all involved in the dispute to review those policies and guidelines as well as that at BLP. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page, removing anything not rigorously sourced or inadequately sourced. Whilst there, I undertook a general cleanup and correctly formatted the references. All editors need to be aware of WP:BLP. That's an official WIkipedia policy and is entirely non-negotiable. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance on Joseph Schlessinger

Resolved

 – Joseph Schlessinger has been protected.[3] I dorftrottel I talk I 23:18, December 2, 2007

Could you take a look at the page on Joseph Schlessinger when you get the chance? It looks like either Joseph Schlessinger or a representative of his keeps deleting select sections of his page, not reporting an even balance of the facts. (i.e. keeps deleting anything perceived as negative even though the page is 90% positive PR and anything which might be perceived as negative is all the way at the bottom) The editing history speaks for itself. I believe the section is written pretty factually and would be interested in hearing a senior reviewer/editor's input.

What might work out best for this would be for soneone higher up to just make a decision on what to include or not include, and then lock the page for a specified period, as you see fit. Thanks in advance for looking into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)