Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Citation assistance

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:45, February 7, 2008

Hi,

I'm wondering if you can help me with some trouble that I'm having with a citation in the article Heavy Metal Umlaut.

In that article there is currently the following statement:

"Although spellings such as reënact and coöperate have largely fallen into disuse, this use of the diaersis mark, or trema, is still used in some English-language publications."

To me, "some English-language publications" is vague, and I would like to change it to something like:

"Although spellings such as reënact and coöperate have largely fallen into disuse, this use of the diaersis mark, or trema, is current in many prominent English-language publications such as The New Yorker and and MIT's Technology Review "

However, one of the editors is insisting on a citation for this. I noticed that he had earlier rejected a citation that referenced another Wikipedia article, so I tried citing the journals themselves and providing examples. But he rejected this on the grounds that it constituted "original research".

Can you please help?

Thanks!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which editor rejected your citations? With such claims, yeah, you'd need citations. Wikipedia is generally not acceptable as a source. I don't see how providing a reference is OR, though. I'll have to contact the editor directly to see what's going on. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! To all interested editors, the discussion is found here. It appears that you didn't cite a source, rather just stated that the New Yorker uses it. That is OR. I suggest finding a reliable source discussing the use of the diaereses in modern english, rather than just finding an instance of it. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermmm... I'm not sure where to find a reliable source that will confirm that a certain publication spells a specific word a certain way. Any suggestions? Any idea why it is OK for the Wikipedia article on diaeresis to make the same statement without complaint? I'm kind of stumped!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the source should confirm that the New Yorker or MIT's Technology Review uses it, just maybe the article should discuss the general usage of the diaereses in today's grammar, and perhaps it should mention that modern publications also use the mark. Just a suggestion. And it should be cited on the Diaereses page, but for some reason it isn't. Also, it's less of a problem because it doesn't limit itself to its usage in Heavy Metal contexts. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is, what little I have learned about diaeresis usage I have learned from the Wikipedia article, and from my own personal observations. I really don't know where to go to find a reliable source. Do you have any suggestions where to start? I'm new to the research game!

Is it really worse to state that The New Yorker and Technology Review use the diaeresis (which anyone can easily verify for him- or herself simply by reading the publications in question) than to say "some English-language publications"? Statements like that raise the question "Which English-language publications? My nephew's 'zine? The monthly newsletter of the National Association for the Advancement of Bushisms?" To me, mentioning these publications is the lesser of two weasels. What are your thoughts?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To show that a particular periodical, such as The New Yorker usees diaeresis, all you really should have to do is provide a few examples, such as this one, where this is the case. You don't need to show they use it on every single occasion (that would clearly be impossible, unless you get ahold of the manual of style used by their copyeditors), or for every single possible time it might have been used, simply that, contrary to current general journalistic practice, they use it where others don't. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith, Interior Designer - Deletion Review

Resolved

 – Deleted at AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and Happy New Year!

I submitted an entry for Will Smith, a finalist for HGTV Design Star Season 2, and it was deleted. I am not sure as to why. He is listed as a contestant ont he HGTV Design Star entry. He was a fan favorite, which is well documented on the HGTV website, through blogs and fan voting. As a matter of fact, he was predicted to win the show, with the viewers voting him the best room on all projects put to a vote. Unfortuately, he was voted off by the judges before it reached the decision was to be made by the viewing public.

I made edits to the entry the was filled with facts only, based on an interview directly with him and information from HGTV. With this being said, can you please tell me why his entry was declined and what can be done to get it back and linked to the HGTV Design Star page? Thank you in advance for your response.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonita Perry (talk • contribs)

First, it would help greatly if you would sign your talk page comments using four tildes (like this: ~~~~). I will be happy to ask other editors to review the deletion, as I think it probably should not have been speedily deleted. However, it will most likely then go to an extended deletion discussion, and the end result will most likely be the same. The reason is that, at least in previous cases that I have seen, being a contestant, even a runner-up, on a reality show is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If he then went on to get his own show ... start his own notable company ... etc, he would then be notable.

As I said, I will be happy to help you to pursue this, but don't expect the end result to be much different. Leave a note here letting me know how you would like to handle this. Pastordavid (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time making an entry into the Wiki system. There is a lot to learn in terms of characters and symbols being used to communicate. At any rate, thank you so much for helping me with getting Will's entry as part of the Wikipedia system. I know it seems that he is not as notible because he did not win, but you should see the response he is getting. Kind of like, the Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard win. At one point, you would have thought Clay won. Thank you again for your help, and your patience while I learn proper wiki communication. <Tonita Perry>Tonita Perry (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)</Tonita Perry>

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Your statement above that "the entry the was filled with facts only, based on an interview directly with him" is not relevant. The issue is whether the facts were verifiable. So whatever you do with the Will Smith article or future articles, please be sure to include verifiable references to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone over the article you created (Will Smith (Interior Designer)) and made some style changes to bring it in line with the style more commonly used on wikipedia. it is much more nuetral this time. HOwever, notability is still marginal at best. I will leave it be for a few days, and then nominate it at articles for deletion to see what the community thinks. Pastordavid (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Listed for a deletion discussion. Please comment there. Please don't archive until AFD closes. Thanks Pastordavid (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (Conflict of interest and criticism)

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:46, February 7, 2008

Please explore and provide feedback into the discussion open regarding the CRSQA, Glenn Hagele, and the biased nature of the current article. Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele. I am suggesting user Ghagele be prevented from editing the article further due to this obvious COI (for which he has received two warnings) and that more information is added towards the criticism of the association. --SirDecius (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there are a couple of good editors watching that page. My advice, revert if he comes back. If he violates the 3RR, file a report (WP:AN/3R). You can also file a request for check user, if it becomes a real problem. This will out all the sock-puppets. Pastordavid (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom (standard) JamesMSnell

Resolved

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:46, February 7, 2008

Help

If you take a look at the editing history for Atom (standard) you'll see that JamesMSnell reverts every edit, no matter what...I simply fixed the Disamb links and he reverted, fixed them again and left him a note on his userpage and he reverted again....I am confused as to what to do from here...it looks like he wrote the initial article and treats it as his own? I don't know...help? Legotech (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked as well. I'm really not sure why the reverts were done, it's possible they were in error. I saw nothing wrong with the disambig repairs upon looking at them. Still, I would give him some time to explain why he objects before going back to it, no good ever comes of edit wars. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it's generally helpful to provide links to pages in question. The article in question here is Atom (standard), and the user is JamesMSnell. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I forgot to make them links...I'm relatively new to the editing game...I wasn't really paying attention when I redid the dabs, I use wikipedia cleaner and only realized after I hit send that the page was way out of order (WC alphabetizes the pages that need help) Comet (programming) is another one where someone seems to have 'adopted' the page and I noticed before I re-edited that one. Thanks again for the help...Wikipedia can be a scary place to go alone ;) Legotech (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars: unsure how to proceed

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:46, February 7, 2008

I've had some back and forth on the article's talk page with some wikipedians with far more experience, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere (read: they refuse to agree with me :)) I am a Classics PhD and can state with absolute confidence that the term (Greco-)Persian Wars as used by every reputable, published historian refers to the Persian invasions of Greece in 490 and 480-479 BC. Period. The intro of the article seems to acknowledge this, but then states that the war began in 499 and lasted until 449. This is inaccurate. The seeds for the Persian Wars were sown in 499, and hostilities continued until 449 (and beyond), but scholars do not include these events under the rubric of the "Persian Wars" proper. I suggested that (e.g.) the aside about Macedonian unification was off-topic, and apparently offended a rather ardent nationalist, among others.

Look, I am a man of peace. And it is not my intention to turn every classics-related article into my own personal fiefdom. But the historical convention that the Persian Wars = 490-479 has a long pedigree. I tried to point this out, and Wetman accused me of an "artificially atomized" view on the matter. This is absurd. Others have complained that the article is too long (what are the guidelines, btw?), and narrowing the scope of the article to its proper focus would help immensely.

I foolishly went in guns blazing on the Pandora article a while back (newbie enthusiasm), and don't want to cause more trouble than necessary. But the thing is, I'm right. Ask Victor Davis Hanson. Ask Thomas Martin. Ask Peter Green.

Any thoughts? Please visit my talk page. Thanks! Ifnkovhg (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

help with biased contributer

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:47, February 7, 2008

hi, I've made some edits to the Michael Jackson page (for style, not content), and found that there is a contributer (User:Realist2) who's only wiki edits seem to be Jackson-related and who seems to be, in my opinion, overly-controlling with regards to those pages. This person reverted my edits, after which I left him a note User_talk:Realist2#Do_not_revert. So far, so good. However I noticed on her/his talk page that many other editors have had similar experiences with Michael Jackson pages, and so I would like to ask someone with more experience if there is some way of dealing with editors who have taken control of a page. In fact just right now, I've noticed that the last time I made a contribution to this page (months ago) this user also undid my edits.

p.s. I don't actually care about Michael Jackson, but I do find it annoying that my edits were undone, and I feel that Wikipedia's purpose is being subverted when someone through sheer persistence (some of us have jobs!) takes over a page.

p.p.s. looking back on his/her other contributions I found other questionable behaviour, such as [1].

Thanks in advance. DiggyG (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is much that we can do. One suggestion would be that, if you feel this editors style is disruptive, you can file a request for comment on the editor in question, to get input from the community. Other than that, just deal with each situation as it comes up, I am afraid. Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Revising Snowball (Animal Farm)

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:47, February 7, 2008

The article, "Snowball (Animal Farm)," contains an irrelevant paragraph in the section, "Exile." The paragraph follows a description of parallels between Snowball and Trotsky. It compares several other characters (in a sentence or so per character) to specific people involved in Stalin's administration, etc. The paragraph is irrelevant because it contains these off-topic comparisons without relating them to Snowball in some way. For this reason I suggest that this passage be moved to another article or simply deleted. However, this seems to be too large an edit for me to partake of without having the support of others. I would like to know if you find the passage relevant and act accordingly. Jean Girard (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations, seems to be the same person

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

copyvios posted to article Guillain-Barré syndrome. A short history of these is on the article's talk page here. What should be the next step? User has been warned and must be well aware of the disruption caused. --CliffC (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It has only happened a few times and you only warned them once. Also, it was by an editor that, sadly, is on an unregistered IP which is changing due to their ISP. What I'm saying is that there is a very high chance that the user didn't see your only warning. This time, tag their page with {{subst:nothanks}} or {{subst:uw-copyright}}. Consider checking out the user template messages page for more information. "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." If it happens a third time (which it probably won't), then you can consider {{subst:uw-v3}} or {{subst:uw-v4}} (because persistent copyright violations are vandalism). Make sure to use an appropriate edit summary when tagging their user page with the warning. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no way he is not aware of all this because of all the hullabaloo on the article's talk page after he dumped scores if not hundreds of copyvios into that article and other medical articles over a three-month period last year until he got caught. His mess ended up causing everyone's contributions over those three months to be purged; that's all on the talk page if you'd care to look at it; also there are lots of warnings on the talk page of the first IP mentioned in the link above. I do not agree that his IP changes because of his ISP; his IP stays stable until he's caught, sorry if I sound angry but he needs to be found and banned. I disagree that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously, based on what I have seen so far with the person in question. I know this is all the same person, so I don't see much point in starting a new progression of warnings; however I have done as you advise and posted the warnings. Thanks for the reply. --CliffC (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any time! I'm glad I could help. "I disagree that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously" In this case, "Wikipedia" means you, me, and everybody else; we take copyright violations seriously. Ah, I never saw .186, I only looked at .108 and .27. I also didn't notice that you were adding warnings to the "User" page instead of the "User talk" page. Usually warnings go on the "User talk" page. I've moved the warnings you added. I hope you don't mind. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to avert edit war

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:47, February 7, 2008

I've continually added sourced information to the article Military history of African Americans‎, specifically in the section concerning Black Confederate soldiers. This information is continually being deleted by one or two other users who in my opinion are demonstrating a clear bias that they do not want this information written. I've attempted to discuss the situation on the talk page, but have gotten no where. Could an administrator and/or any other possibly interested parties please tkae a look at the situation. Could the page maybe be put on lock down to avert an edit war? If I'm wrong I'll back off, but I think the sourced & referenced information I've added in no way detracts from the article. Sf46 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help setting up auto-archival of my talkpage.

Stale

 – Pastordavid (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to set up auto-archival of my talk page. I saw on Help:Archiving a talk page that there's three main bots used to do this, but I don't know which one is best and I'm slightly worried about screwing up. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One way to go about it is to just archive by hand. That is, start the page User talk:Zenwhat/Archive 1, and manually cut and paste items onto that page. I can't say I know much about the bots, as I manually archive (and we do on this page as well). Pastordavid (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is too tedious. Letting bots do the work for me is so much easier. I guess I'll just send a message to each bot-owner. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do it for you. Marlith ^T/C 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

hi

Resolved

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:49, February 7, 2008

(appears to be resolved, judging by the fact that the user has made edits to user talk pages afterwards: Special:Contributions/Mahadnoor)

im srry to disturb you but how do you talk to other people on here because i want to ask questions to people but i dont know how to pleaze can u help me !!! spanx!!!--mahanoor (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, every user has a user talk page, so if you want to ask them anything, just go there. Anything I can help with? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on 'ADHD', and an attempt to insert a prominent mention of controversy about this diagnosis

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:50, February 7, 2008

(pursued on other talk pages)

For some time I have been seeking to insert in this article a clear statement that the diagnosis of ADHD is a contentious one. I freely admit that I broke the four reverts rule at the start of this dispute, when another editor repeatedly removed my edits. I regret this, and I shall not repeat this. Since then, ( see ADHD Talk page ) I and others (users Miamomimi and NuclearWinner, one of whom(Miamomimi)is known to me and one of whom is not, neither of whom, so far as I know, has any personal interest in this matter) have sought to reach a compromise. NuclearWinner has sought recently to insert changes to the text, which have been removed almost immediately. Our efforts to do so, and the response of the entry's defenders, can be found on the 'ADHD' talk page.

The dispute is not about whether 'ADHD' is a genuine diagnosis (my personal view, as I freely admit, is that it isn't, and that objective scientific evidence for its existence is lacking but I know you can't prove a negative). It is over whether it is controversial. Since there exists a Wikipedia article entitled 'Controversy about ADHD' you might have thought this fact wasn't too difficult to establish. But editors who seem to regard themselves as guardians of this entry have acted to prevent and oppose any prominent mention of this controversy on the entry. Their reasons for doing so include what I regard as ad hominem attacks on one of the sources I adduce, and claims that other sources (against whom such attacks would be extremely difficult) don't make statements sufficiently sceptical of ADHD to count as evidence of controversy. This appears circular to me. They have also argued that statements made in the British House of Lords, or peer-reviewed research suggesting that a major treatment for ADHD is unsatisfactory (thus implying faults in the diagnosis), are not admissible as evidence of controversy. I agree that a statement in a legislative chamber cannot be submitted as evidence of scientific truth, and wouldn't do so, but surely it is self-evident evidence of controversy?

I and the others have tried repeatedly, using facts and logic, to persuade these editors to give way and allow this mention. It is clear that any attempts by us or others to change the text in this direction will be instantly reverted, leaving me and the others with the choice between giving up, embarking on an edit war - or turning elsewhere for help. They have repeatedly declined to shift their position, using arguments which I regard as illegitimate, and I think the moment has come to seek disinterested outside assistance. I have deployed every argument and fact that I can, without effect. My main concern is that a non-scientific reader without computer skills, perhaps a parent of a child said to suffer from 'ADHD', will turn to this article and remain in ignorance of an important fact. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC) .

I've attempted to help this user follow Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sourcing and what can be used from sources, and he's been singularly resistant. There *is* controversy, and there is no doubt about that. The question is balance, and, consistently, this user (Peter Hitchens) has attempted to put *unsourced* claims in the article, or very weakly sourced claims that are interpretations of the source, implications derived from it. This can be seen in his description of the problem. It would indeed be useful if someone who knows policy and practice would help him. I've tried, but he clearly doesn't trust me and imagines I am part of a cabal out to censor him, even though, before today, I didn't take out one single edit of his, and today I think I took out one or two unsourced pieces. The article in question, by the way, is Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.--Abd (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I refute the claims of Abd above in that whilst he may have meant to be helpful: "that's why I'm letting him ... come up with proposed edits. I would personally then consider them and if there is anything usable there, help integrate it into the article", he did not support a simple inclusion of the fact that ADHD is a controversial diagnosis and a link to the wiki article detailing this. And when, in answer to the edit war, Clockback displayed proposed edits on the talk page (which were moved to a seperate page by an admin), he supplied no material help, rubbished the efforts and focused on Clockbacks "incompetence", which is hardly helpful. Abd has indeed written huge tracts of instructions and whilst I am sure the detail of his diagnosis of ADHD, and his family, and 'Robert's rules' and 'parliamentary procedure' and a general chat about the diagnosis may be of interest in a forum, it does not help insert in this article a clear statement that the diagnosis of ADHD is a contentious one. Clockback's comment is correct. Miamomimi (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With as many {{fact}} tags as I already see in the article, I can understand reluctance to allow any more unsourced information. The best way to bulletproof an edit remains to source it to a highly reputable and reliable source, and to make sure that it closely mirrors what the source says rather than infers conclusions the source doesn't explicitly state. If there are disputes over the reliability over of a source, the way material from it is presented, or how much weight to give it, and a compromise cannot be found by discussion, an article request for comment to solicit opinions from uninvolved editors can help. If there are problems with tempers heating up, informal mediation or formal mediation can help cool things down. Dispute resolution really does help, if everyone involved gives it a chance. As to entirely unsourced information, it can be challenged and removed by anyone, and the burden is on the person who wishes to retain it to source it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editiorial request

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:51, February 7, 2008

As you know, this is your policy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."

This policy has been repeatedly violated on my biographical entry.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheri_Yecke. An editing war took place this summer, and I was ill so I stayed out of it. Now all I am asking for is neutrality and fairness. I do not wnat to make an edit myself or the editing war will start again.

The first sentence in my Wiki bio (1) is not similar to those of other conservatives, and (2) gives an inaccurate description of me. (See below for comparisons with Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Bill Bennett.)

Issues to be resolved:

1. I am not defined by my stand on creationism anymore than Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, and yet this is in the first sentence of my bio. All I am asking is for a fair description.

2. Mike Huckabee is running for President and yet he is not described as a politician – but I am. Rick Santorum is a former Congressman – but is not called a politician – but I am. Again – all I want is fairness.

3. Anytime I have tried to edit in the past, my edits have been redone almost immediately. For fairness, please see suggested edits for sentence A below, in sentence B:

How can these edits be made without an editing war erupting? Thank you for your consideration.

A – Needs editing - Cheri Pierson Yecke is a (delete the rest of the sentence) conservative politician who has been involved in attempts to have creationism taught in science classes.

B – Suggested edits - Cheri Pierson Yecke is a (new, neutral text) conservative educator and author who has served as the chief K-12 school officer in Virginia, Minnesota, and Florida.

Examples of other, similar people -

Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee (born August 24, 1955) was the governor of the U.S. state of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007.[2] He officially announced his candidacy for the 2008 United States presidential election on January 28, 2007. Huckabee is the author of several books, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a public speaker, and a musician, playing bass guitar in his rock band, Capitol Offense. He is well known for having lost 110 pounds (50 kg) in a very short time and then advocating a healthy lifestyle.[3] He and his wife, Janet, have three grown children: John Mark, David, and Sarah.

Richard John Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a member of the Republican Party and was the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the number-three job in the party leadership of the Senate.

William John Bennett (born July 31, 1943) is a American conservative pundit and politician. He served as United States Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988. He also held the post of Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (or "Drug Czar") under George H. W. Bush.

Thank you for your consideration. ```` Integrity II (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrity II (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the lead sentence to more accurately reflect your wishes. Is there something else we can help with? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great God in a bottle, that article's got a ... lively history. User:Integrity II, can I suggest that if you have further concerns, that you bring them up on the talk page? It looks like there's a pretty good cadre of editors who watch the article, I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that this article has been attacked by sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Larry Fafarman (and who has recruited meatpuppets on his blog to help "defend" this article), that there were reliable sources used to confirm what was written, and there has been a number of reliable and experienced editors helping with this article. Why would an encyclopedia accept the statements of the subject of the article as the "truth". OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? All I asked for was that the tone be in keeping with that of others who hold similar beliefs, and fortunately the first responder to this post "got it" and made the change. But then someone started yet another editing war to make the entry biased and non-neutral, in conflict with Wikipedia policy. How in the world can this be resolved? Integrity II (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that your article looks different that the ones for Huckabee and Santorum because .... you are not Huckabee or Santorum. The opening sentence of Santorum's article mentions that he is a senator, because that is what makes him notable enough for an entry on wikipedia. Huckabee's mentions his office as governor and his candidacy for the presidency for the same reason. Your article mentions your role in the creationism debate for the same reason - it is the thing that makes you a notable person. As I read the article right now, it all appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources -- that is, factual. If you find, however, there are concerns about non-factual information being written about you, there is information about how to contact wikipedia with your concerns here and here. Pastordavid (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This shows how little some people know about the facts. The "creationism" issue took place during the revision of the Minnesota Sciecne Standards when there was an attempt by committee members NOT to "add creationism," but to allow debate about evolution. I was fine with this - I still am. It is an issue of tolerance of others' opinions.

But to look at a 25-year career in education, two books, multiple articles, service to five Governors in three states, and distill my career down to one issue (which lasted about 30 days) is unfair, unjust, biased, and at odds with the Wikipedia policy which states: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."

Again - is there some way to bring balance to this entry without the start of another editing war? Integrity II (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

North American currency Union

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:53, February 7, 2008

(user hasn't edited since January 19: Special:Contributions/Sandman4570)

My site, http://www.amerocurrency.com , has been deleted from the "external links" section of the "North American currency union" page. The link was there for months. It was there legitimately, because my site is, arguably, the most informative site on the web, regarding the topic. The link was removed a month or so ago, I don't know why--my guess is someone who considered them self a "competitor" removed it (oddly laughable, considering the theme). I re-inserted the link. It went away again. I contacted the editor who removed my link the second time, pointed out a disparity in policy, then re-inserted my link. Subsequently, he removed my link, sent me a smart-assed reply and "locked" the topic due to "vandalism."

Last quarter I took on advertising. This is the only reason I can imagine I could be--semi-legitimately--unqualified as a source. Does my site being a profit center disqualify me as being a resource? I think not. Indeed, I would expect Wikipedia would encourage web growth.

I believe the editor in question, "Kralizec!," has too much editing time on his hands, but hasn't spent enough of that time reviewing the source he so readily deletes. My legitimate edit he declared "vandalism," locked the page, and has, in my estimation, an itchy trigger finger looking for a target.

If my site is not a legitimate resource, due to the advent of advertising, I will hasten to inform merriam-webster.com, and similar sites, they are no longer eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. If my site is not a legitimate source due to my editorial position--I don't know how any other site, of any type, remains linked.

I am so offended and outraged, I cannot relate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman4570 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC) --Sandman4570 (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for editing Wikipedia. The rule that is most relevant to this situation is: conflict of interest. Because you own the site you don't have the neutrality to determine if it's a valid link or not. Among more important altruistic reasons, you also want the site to be linked because it garners more interest to your site. Instead of linking to your site, allow other unconnected parties to decide if it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. You're free, however, to bring up the suggestion on the talk page for the article here. A side note: you are still allowed to edit the article. It was protected for an unrelated reason. What you are doing is not vandalism though it could potentially thought of as spamming if you do it in such a way that violates this guideline or this guideline. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. As arachnid, please read our relevant guideline on external links. Each article ought to have very few links, ideally. Note that wikipedia uses "no follow" tags, which means that links on wikipedia do not help your google or alexa rank. Pastordavid (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

why am i being blocked from linking

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:54, February 7, 2008

(the below request is the user's latest edit: Special:Contributions/Brownaddictuk)

I am trying to put some links to my website Helping Addicts on the pages that are relevant, such as heroin, addict, etc. But I have been blocked and am now on my last warning!

Why cant I link my site, it is relevant to the subject.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownaddictuk (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your addition of the links appears to be spam, which is against our guidelines. You are encouraged to improve articles rather than linking to other sites. Barrylb (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see our policies on external links. Note also that wikipedia uses "no-follow" tags, which means that links on wikipedia do not help your google or alexa ranks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Environnement2100 and issues with "Civility/disruption/reasonableness"

Resolved

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:57, February 7, 2008

(Environnement2100 hasn't edited since January 27: Special:Contributions/Environnement2100)

Note: last month the editor assistance request was discussed here: editor abuse. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the past month Environnement2100 has escalated what began as a content dispute to what now boarders on wikistalking and harrassment. He has called my editting vandalism (probably in retaliation to edits I made after he repeadedly blanked sourced information while ignoring attempts to discuss and resolve the issues). His request for editor assistance about me did not back him up, and apparently as a result he now goes to other pages bringing up old disputes.

This editor has a recent history of poor and disruptive editing, even though having been a Wikipedia member for at least a year [2]

From the first three weeks of December 07:

• [3] [4] removing information discussed at length in talk page (a discussion s/he avoided) with no explanation
• [5] removing information without discussion or reason (I've heard the info he removed discussed as an issue on NPR), replace with unsourced claim, edit summery disguises removal as addition of "link to main Oil spill"
• [6] completely changing meaning of passage without discussion, replacing with claim using wikipedia as source, adding a non-sequitor, edit summery non-descriptive
• [7] changing meaning of passage without discussion and citing unknown source "(USA, 2007)", edit summery is "links"
• [8] removing information without discussion or source (simply called this guy "wrong")
• [9] example of same type of actions on French Wikipedia (use "? Différence précédente" to see whole sequence)
• [10] redirect page without merging (loosing information)
• [11] inserting unsourced POV editorializing
• [12] inserting non-sequitor sentence which disrupts the lead of this article

Please advise on how to handle the latest and any future attacks by this editor. NJGW (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. All of the links above are regarding old edits that mostly happened before your last request. How has the situation changed since January 1st? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Jan. 1st, Environnement2100 has been much more active on the French site (which I haven't looked at in depth since December) and much less active on the en.wiki site.

On Jan. 7 I asked him to clear up what I consider wp:or here, and asked ~a (user • talk) for comment. Environnement2100 derided me for that request.

On Jan. 9 he made several good points on this talk page, with which I tried to make peace by saying I thought so on his talk page.

On Jan. 12 he started a discussion reviving an issue which I had considered resolved from a month before. I have repeatedly asked for sources which represent the conclusions Envi. draws, but am only told that my sourced statements are "false".

On Jan. 18 and 19, Envi. posted these two statements, which I feel are intentionally misrepresentative and meant to somehow discredit me or intimidate me. The sentence in question seems fairly meaningless and I considered removing it all together. My intent was to update a two year old prediction, but I missed a strong statement made near the end of the source for which Environnement2100 has pounced on me. NJGW (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I applaud you for your message on his user talk page. I also responded to one of the borderline-attacks you referred to above. I'll try to monitor the situation as it unfolds. I suggest that you try to keep most of the controversial edits regarding oil and land models to the talk page where consensus can be reached between you and the community. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance in Iranian folklore

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:59, February 7, 2008

(pursued on other talk pages)

In the page Iranian folklore,Agha Nader,insists on his view that various types of performing a religious ceremony can't be considered "folkloric". He is so insistent that he is using an improper language[13].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I merely insist that only sourced material be included and that the synthesis OR be left out. I believe the so-called "improper language" Alborz Fallah is referring to is my characterization of this material in the article: "Churchill used for any mischievous person [as an example of 'folklore Heroes']" as ridiculous. Please see [14]. Cheers.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Alborz Fallah should have read the first sentence on this page: "The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral." --Agha Nader (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm mentioning this quote of Agha Nader "This is ridiculous. The editors who add unsourced material like that do not belong at Wikipedia" and his insisting in that he has the right to address the editors instead of the editions Section "Merging with Iranian folklore?".--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I stand with the support of most Wikipedians when I say that people who violate policy do not belong here. Alborz Fallah routinely adds original research. Finally, I am appalled at his misrepresentation of the issue. His statement: "[he] insist[s] in that he has the right to address the editors insted [sic] of the editions" is maliciously incorrect. In fact, I did the opposite: I commented on content. Of course, this has been explained to Alborz Fallah. I wrote "By the way, if someone makes a ridiculous edit, I am going to call it ridiculous. That is very different than calling an editor ridiculous. The former comments on content, the latter comments on the editor and is a PA. --Agha Nader (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)" However he has chosen to ignore the truth and slander me. Perhaps actions, such as blocks, ought to be levied against him. These actions would be educational and not punitive. --Agha Nader (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think his sentence "I think I stand with the support of most Wikipedians when I say that people who violate policy do not belong here" , shows all the problem . Indeed , I want to explain for him that his judgment about the (peoples - and not the texts- who violate the policies) is not needed.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you cannot go around violating Wikipedia policy (such as WP:V and WP:NOR) and expect other editors to not remind you that we have policies for a reason. Would not you prefer to be made aware of such pressing issues? I would.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well,I asked for editor assistance here to find out what's the opinions of editors.You have expressed your opinion and thanks for it ,what do others think?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The situation seems to have been more or less resolved here: [15]--Agha Nader (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That shows he don't thinks you were violating Wikipedia's guidelines;But request for assistance still stands.I'm demanding a third opinion to find out am I wrong or right.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that the two of you may well benefit from seeking some further dispute resolution such as a third opinion, some informal mediation help, or a article request for comment. I don't have a particular opinion on the content dispute here. I would tend to remind Alborz Fallah that sourcing one's edits is required when someone disputes them, since we never allow an editor's personal opinion to be used, and to remind both editors that courteous and polite discussion is required regardless of whether one is right or wrong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute in an American History article

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 12:00, February 7, 2008

(pursued on other talk pages)

I would like help from an editor who has a background in U.S. legal history, particularly about federal Congressional matters. I made edits to the article, "Treaty of Tripoli," which I expected would be controversial (indeed, the Treaty of Tripoli is itself a controversial subject). Another editor reverted all of my contribution with a single comment that the revision would be in place until certain problems were cleared up. On my talk page, the other editor claims to be defending the position that the Founding Fathers were not strictly orthodox, Bible-adhering Christians (I never claimed they all were). I restored my edits, and asked the other editor not to revert edits for which I had provided citations, and to provide his own citations. He reverted my edits again, and replied that his position is "extremely well-known and well-established," but he did not provide any citations, again. I asked him not to remove all my edits when he only objects to certain limited statements in my edits. He has made no reply to my request. I am up against 3RR.

I am well-aware of the controversies regarding the Treaty of Tripoli. I have argued about them for several years. Frankly, I expect that what I have to say would be a minority position on Wikipedia. However, I have provided citations to substantiate what I have written. In fact, I also wrote a term paper for my college class on government that addresses this subject (for which I received a good grade and compliments from various people). So, even though I doubt that very many Wikipedia editors would agree with my statements, I am certain that my statements are valid, correct and substantiated. I certainly have no problem quoting from established history authorities to substantiate my statements. Pooua (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is really not the place for your hypothesis from your latest term paper. What you seem to be espousing is a minority position on this particular subject. As such, if it is covered in the article at all, it will be in a minor way. I would suggest asking for a third opinion, asking for help at the reference desk. Personally, I don't have access to the proper secondary sources to weigh in on this one. Pastordavid (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

concrete pumping article

Stale

 – User:Dorftrottel 12:37, February 7, 2008

I recently added a site that was helpful to me, and I posted it next to concretepumping.com. Now that I notice it was deleted. Why? I am going to put it back on, and I would like to challenge the actions of this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.64.152 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link, along with two other external links in the article. I removed your link and the link to concretepumping.com because they are forum sites, which are not considered reliable sources. I removed the reedpumps.com link because the site appears to only sell concrete pumps rather than giving information on them. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, nor is it a place to advertise a company, product, or website. For more information on external links, see Wikipedia:External links. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Har Homa

There is a problem regarding the Page about Har Homa.

i whould like some help (editor assistance), it seems we have an editor war there, i try to edit while some other party revert it a few hours after. theire claims is that my languaqe is partial and partisan, while i argue for calling an shovel a shovel.. i think my langue is neutral but no mather how neutral it is, it will never feel very nice to the thief caught with the fingers in the cookie jar.

best regards.. 88.89.23.249 (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, looks like quite a problematic edit war there. I'll request that the page be protected, and I'll notify everyone involved to discuss it on the talk page. Remember that Wikipedia's most important policy is that it is written from a neutral point of view, and that in situations where the facts are disputed, all sides should be given fair and balanced weight in the article based on the notability of each position. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested full protection for the page, and since it seems everyone's already started discussion on the talk page, there's no need to notify anyone. The only thing left to do at this point is to work everything out on the talk page. My advise is to be willing to compromise; there may be parts of your addition that would improve the article and other parts that are non-neutral and need to be removed.

If, after a good deal of discussion, everyone has made a serious attempt to work out this issue and you are still unable to come to a consensus, you can try going to the next step in the dispute resolution process. However, this is to be avoided through discussion if at all possible. Ideally, everyone will be able to come to a consensus and agree on what to add or remove in the article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi Article

Hi. I'm having problems with an editor who continues to add non-biographical content to the Sonia Gandhi article. Most of his additions are political criticism like "her vote catching abilities are in serious doubt", or insignificant details like "notice by the election commission of india" and how it was a "big blow to her" due to her "family's dignity". The editor (User:Inder315) was recently banned for operating three other puppet accounts on the Sonia Gandhi page, but has resumed edit warring after his block expired. I've tried to reason with him on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page but to no avail. Right now the article has his rambling criticisms and commentry and noone is fixing it. Can someone offer me some advice on how to handle this, I'm at my wits end. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for coming here for help. "In fact I demand an apology" I wouldn't "demand" an apology because you're very unlikely to get one. Just remind the other editor that you don't have any affiliation with Sonia Gandhi and assuming as such without evidence isn't logical. With regards to the reverting, I politely suggest that you don't revert edits that you know Inder315 would disagree with. Come to a compromise on the talk page before editing the main-space. Is there anything in particular you find problematic with the sources that Inder315 is providing? I for one don't understand some of the text in question, but I'm hoping that better understanding your issues with the sources will help me come to a better suggestion for a compromise. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for responding to my plea. Actually the material he is adding is totally unencyclopaedic and should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. But he just won't listen. The references he provides don't back up the content he adds. For instance the reference given for the line "all wins are due to Sonia, all losses due to local factors" does not attribute that statement to a congress spokesperson like he claims; it's the article writers own observation. The problem area is the second half of the Criticism section (starting "Questions are being asked now...") and the section "Notice by Election Commission of India". I would request you to kindly read those portions yourself and guide me on what to do about it. Once again, thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Wikipedia:Search engine test

Hello, I am involved in an Wikipedia:Search engine test with Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. Just check the page history and you'll see what's going on. I have requested the change be discussed on the article talk page (twice), and posted that request to the user's talk page. The user has not responded, but keeps reinserting the change with the same edit summary. The information appears to be total OR - the only source is a link to the user's own webpage. He appears to be an experienced editor, so I don't know what's going on here. I can't really send a WP:3RR warning since the edits are spaced out, and I don't want to just keep re-reverting. Torc2 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for coming here for help. I've replied to the talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This problem persists and shows no signs of abating. Since the above entry, at least three editors have commented on the project discussion page Wikipedia talk:Search engine test on the questionable nature of the self-published link and apparent POV in the user's edits. I also added a request on the user's talk page User talk:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard to discuss the matter before blindly reverting the page. The user has ignored the suggestions and entreaties, and subsequent to the original request for assistance here on January 22, has reverted the page three more times back to his original edits, each time with the same comment from the prior reverts pasted into the edit summary field. As Torc2 notes above, he appears to be an experienced editor and thus versed in etiquette and procedure, so this unheeding persistence is a bit of a mystery. JohnInDC (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Overlooked a (testy) further exchange February 2 on User talk:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. That notwithstanding, I think the conflict could still use a bit of mediation. JohnInDC (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any "mediation" is required. I haven't read Jonathan's user talk page, but based on the project talk page this is a very clear cut case of a user going against consensus. I added a note to the project talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

my mother, charlotte fisk

what is your problem here???????? That is my mother and these things I said are facts people, are you scared of something???? I want an answer WITHIN 24 hours to my email address. You can not contest facts people, check out what I said before you demand it be removed or I will SUE YOU and whomsoever complained about it as IT is MY family, not for others to tell ME what to say on here or again you might GET sued along with any one who wants to complain about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria astor (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat? Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. So warned. Feel free to follow up in any other way you might feel would be helpful - I'm headed off-line. Pastordavid (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT and Notability. Marlith ^T/C 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the complaint is about, her mother's article has been deleted. And by the way, there are rules governing what we can and can't say here. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I trust someone will delete these edits as unencyclopedic (and perhaps as a bit of advance book advertising). --CliffC (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Been done. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pest, but this edit by an IP user was the first one of that string. Based on its edit summary, likely all the same user. This was the one I was most concerned about, but it's still in the article. --CliffC (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pastordavid (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Crane aka Young Maestro - dispute on this page

Hi,

There seems to be a problem or dispute of some kind on my page and I do not understand it. Please could you resolve it for me without losing my page or tell me how to do it.

Here is the link:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Crane

Thank you for your help.

Best Wishes,

Matthew Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largehairy (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. There seems to be two issues with that article. The first issue is vandalism. An editor added some obviously untrue information to the article and I'll try to keep that under control. The second issue are the messages (tags) at the top of the page. If you have any specific questions, the user who added the tags was AnemoneProjectors (I've linked his talk page). In my opinion, the main issue is that the article doesn't have any links to reliable sources to back up the information there. You need to find links to reliable, third-party, published sources (more info). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Welshleprechaun

The user insists on tendentiously adding spurious references to such things as Cardiff being the capital of Wales, there being 22 stations within the county boundary, comparisons of other locations to it, etc. to articles where the information is either not significant or not relevant. In further supporting their local peacockery, the user also insists on removing significant information relating to the lack of scheduled air travel in the country from Transport in Wales, based on the idea that they do not belong as they are not "in Wales" (ignoring the fact that this exceptional state of affairs was the reason they were included in the first place). The user has a history of poor, almost-abusive editing and abuse of process.

Having attempted to explain precisely why their edits are poor, they reject it out of hand, because "I am right, and you have anti-Cardiff POV" (para.). Some assistance in dealing with this user is sought. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor Issues Changing Factual Information

Hello..

I am having an issue with other editors removing pertinent, accurate information from a Wiki-page. They have created a 'third-party' website so they can refer to that website to outline controversy that they have created. I have not removed their information because, no matter how dubious, they cited it and that would be wrong of me. However, they are always deleting my additions stating that because they come from a primary source, they are not valid. Even additions with more than one citation have been removed malicious. Our page has already been shut down once because of a revert war and I fear that if I continue to place factual information on the Wiki page, they will continue to remove that information and a war will ensue. The other editors seem to be conspiring to keep the page minimal, inaccurate and controversal. I want to report vandalism, but it does not rise to Wiki Vandalism standards.

I just need to understand how I can get factual information to stick? Obscuredata (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

heya, what is the page concerned? Seddon69 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is still Oxford Round Table‎, where there has been an edit war for a while now. Pastordavid (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Your comment about "pertinent, accurate information" is almost irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts are referenced and verifiable through reliable sources. (Note that primary sources are not considered reliable.) If you add information without any reliable sources then your edits likely will be removed. If someone else adds information that you know is inaccurate, but is supported by references to reliable sources, then you cannot delete it. So go find reliable sources for all of your edits and add them as references. And check out the other editors' sources to see if they qualify as reliable. If their sources are not reliable, then you can so tag their edits and then delete the inaccurate information. (I hope I am not contributing to an edit war, but if the result is that all information is referenced to reliable sources, then that probably will be good.) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been other problems with Obscuredata's edits to this page - WP:copyvio, WP:notability, and WP:listcruft, for example. A couple of us have tried to suggest that Obscuredata would benefit from learning more about the relevant policies and guidelines, but he/she seems to be stuck on a simplistic notion of "factual information" and doesn't seem terribly interested in the suggestions offered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have verified all of the information I have posted and it continues to be removed. What now? Obscuredata (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether YOU have verified the information. It's a question of whether you have provided references to reliable sources that are verifiable by OTHER editors. You must provide references; they must be references to reliable sources; they must be verifiable. References are necessary but not sufficient. Your edits - any user's edits - must satisfy other policies such as WP:copyvio, WP:notability, and WP:undue weight. If anyone deletes your edits ask them to explain what policies were violated. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana Jacobson

Resolved

 – Taken care of. Pastordavid (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I was editing the article on Dana Jacobson, and it looks like I deleted all the references. First of all, I apologize if that is the case. What can I do? TomHennesst (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello: Tom.. I don't know what you're referring to . We're talking about the ORT. Obscuredata (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom. It's not a problem. I restored the rest of the article (it was just a matter of closing the mark-up on one of the references). It should be good now. Pastordavid (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawat e Islami

I request here regarding Dawat-e-IslamiPage in Which certain editors are inserting their POV.They are Unnecessary relating it to tablighi Jamat to show it in Bad light .It has no links with [Tablighi Jamat] and there are also no Sources that either its founder or it was related with Tablighi jamat .It is peaceful Movement of Islam . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msoamu (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OOXML

Edit wars are pulling the OOXML article out of hand. OOXML is a controversial subject because, in a month's time, the standard goes before an ISO Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) to decide whether OOXML becomes a standard or not. Apparently, the proponents and opponents of standardising OOXML are fighting for control over the article; opponents are editing supporting arguments citing advertising rhetoric whereas supporters are removing dissenting opinions citing them as hearsay or irrelevant to the article. With the BRM a month away, I can only imagine that the edit wars will escalate in the days leading up to the vote. Since the Wikipedia article shows first in Google OOXML searches, it is reasonable to assume that people introducing themselves to OOXML and the office file format war are finding that page.

My question, therefore, is whether a senior editor would recommend putting this page through a general dispute resolution process after casually reading the contents and the lengthy discussion page. DominusSuus - 76.10.147.31 (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gilo

I'd like to request some assistance over on the page on Gilo. So far all my attempts to negotiate and compromise have failed or been reverted. Since the last admin to edit the page, KnowledgeOfSelf has left Wikipedia I thought I would ask here. I am more than happy for it to be both an Israeli Settlement and a neighborhood of Jerusalem, as I think due to the international media attention on Gilo it is important to highlight all the relative points of view. However these, including many sources i have added have been flatly removed including all references to it as a 'Settlement'. Thanks in advance, as I have a feeling this may not be an easy one to solve. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

However responds (I probably won't have time today), please be aware of this arb com case, which recently closed. Pastordavid (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wena Naty (video)

Hi. Could an editor please have a look at this article. I'm having a hard time working out if this meets WP:N or not. The page creator is the only one who's performed any edits, BUT they seeem to be acting in good faith (based on their other contributions), so I'm loathe to tag it for possible deletion without a second opinion. I have, however, tagged it as a rough translation in the hope it will get cleaned up somewhat in any case. CultureDrone (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though it was deleted per WP:CSD#G3 (pure vandalism) which has nothing to do with notability. Interesting. Billscottbob (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some help with a article about my product

Hi, There is an article called Matchday Soccer that is wrong about pretty much everything, I have done a major edit but it was reverted and I was accused of vadalism. I then wrote to the editor explaining the problem amd requesting help on how I could change the article but he just deleted my message. To be honest the article is so wrong it should just be deleted as there is another article that is far more accurate (Match Day). The article is about a game I wrote (rather a long time ago) but has multiple errors including the wrong name (there is no game called Matchday Soccer, if there had been we would have taken the makers to court), the wrong publisher, the wrong description (it describes the followup game, Match Day II), unfounded and wrong claims that Diago Marradona was considered for the artwork (despite the fact that he would only have been 13 at the time the game was written), and includes a rumour that a new version is being created for 2008 (again wrong as i still have some rights over the game and would therefore know).

You may think that the article is just about a different product but half way through it the author refers to the sequal and gives it the almost correct name of Match Day 2 (an article about that game can be found at Match Day II).

I am Jon Ritman and if you need to confirm that my email address is on my web site [16] but you will need to remove the nospam part of the address.

I am a supporter of Wiki but this does demonstrate to me a major problem where I can't even correct stuff that is personal to me.

Cheers Jon Ritman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.105.101 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jon. Thank you for coming here for help. For future reference, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (from this policy). In other words, you need to provide proof, or explanation of why something is true. Just stating you wrote the game and everybody should believe you is not enough. However, I've looked at the external links on the Match Day article and believe that this is the correct title for the game. Furthermore, since the Matchday Soccer title is just an incorrect title for the Match Day game, I would suggest redirecting the former to the latter. Since there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. I'll propose the "merge" there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all that you've done, very prompt as well. I'll admit I'm pretty inexperienced about all of this, I do see your points. For future reference if I do find factual errors in articles about my games how should I approach it? Is it enough to just note it on the discussion page for the article? Will anyone notice it? I am told I shouldn't do major edits because of a conflict of interest but how does that work when I notice factual inaccuracy, should I edit with copius references? Your own comments on the discussion page indicate that the article was so far into the outer reaches that you must see how hard to edit it with references it would be. Maybe I'm asking too many questions, I have to say that barring this one the other articles about my games all seem mostly accurate, hopefully this will be the only one that was completely crazy. --83.67.105.101 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. "Will anyone notice it?" That the hope. On article talk pages, I often follow up my proposals with something like "I'll make the change tomorrow unless somebody disagrees here." (or next week if it's a substantial or controversial change). You can make changes to articles you have a conflict of interest on if you take extra care to be neutral. However, it's still best to leave it to the talk pages for those kinds of articles unless it's a trivial change. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon, as regards your "Will anyone notice it" query. Would I be right in thinking that you may be a bit nervous that the problem you've had with this article may flair up again on another article if you make the edits yourself. If you feel you want other editors to see and discuss you proposed changes before you make them, a good course of action may be to add your proposal to the article discussion page and then to alert members of the Video Games Wikiproject to it on their talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games). - X201 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

help with organization logo

Hi, I am not that versed in HTML so please bear with me. I work for Catholic Relief Services and I want to add our logo to the 'Catholic Relief Services' entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Relief_Services. I understand I need to add a copyright tag, but I obviously am not doing it correctly, because I keep getting a message that it will be deleted for lack of a proper tag.

Can you please just dumb it down for me and tell me exactly what code to paste in and exactly where it goes? I would really appreciate your help!

Thanks, Lduringtoncrs (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you've got to add a bot-recognised boilerplate tag. As it is a copyrighted logo, you must put {{Non-free logo}} in the summary, along with a rationale of why you believe it can be used under US fair use law. ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vince Colletta

Sirs,

I have been attempting to delete some negative editorializing that was placed on my father's (Vince Colletta) Wikipedia page. My dad was a prolific artist and gained a great reputation both for his art and his ability to get work done on time.

There are those who feel that he was less than great, however, I don't feel as if these people should be allowed to post derogatory comments about him. They are unsubstantiated and harm his reputation unneccessarily.

In addition to attempting to delete these negative posts I tried to put in some positive quotes that others said about him but the Wikipedia editors deleted them.

Why is it that people like Len Wein or Mark Evanier can make unfounded statements, alleged to have been said by others in Wikipedia and I cannot place a positive reference in that is easily verifiable?

Thank you for your anticipated help in this matter.

Franklin Colletta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin222 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

It doesn't really matter whether quotes are positive or negative. What matters is whether there are references to verifiable sources. The Len Wein quote is verifiable and cannot be removed just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The quote you added from a MWGallagher is verifiable but the author is not clearly identified so cannot be included. The quote you tried to add from Robert Bradley appears verifiable and Bradley is himself notable, so I think that quote is worthy to include. The only problem is that you left off a trailing </ref> which messed up the rest of the article. I included that quote. Just remember that references to verifiable sources is the key to most questions about including or removing material. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that Robert Bradley is not notable - the Wikipedia page for that name is what is called a disambiguation page and none of the persons is a cartoonist. So his quote is not verifiable. If you can find verifiable quotes, particularly from notable cartoonists, then you can include them with appropriate references, and provided that you do not put too much weight on one point of view. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick Nolte

Apparently I'm in disagreement with someone that the "Church of Nick Nolte" doesn't warrant an entire section on the Nick Nolte article page. Any assistance would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.41.234.41 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanent makeup Vandalism Again

See also: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 8 § Dispute at the Permanent makeup page

See also: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 11 § Permanent Makeup page problems continue

It seems that I keep coming back here for assistance, and I am sorry to have to do so. There is malicious vandalism occurring in that not only is important information being deleted, but various links are being reverted to other websites - even documentation on photos submitted by someone else is being altered. What is particularly alarming are false accusations and information on the talk page by this person, user 76.189.163.253, about me:

User Tatt bratt has provided misleading information and routinely erases information that exposes her agenda with SPCP. She goes out of her way to manipulate information and distort the truth regarding the FDA and the laws regarding Permanent Makeup. She is a schill from SPCP who is under inverstigation and has a pending slander lawsuit against her and sveral other memebers for lies thaey have Blogged about other people in the past

I do not know her personally, I have never met her (although I have seen her website since I tracked her from her previous changes she used to make that sent people directly to her website) and I am not involved in anything she mentions, ESPECIALLY a slander lawsuit! She makes NO constructive contributions to the Permanent Makeup page - only those of a self-serving, personal nature. I respectfully request intervention.Tatt bratt (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the IP has been blocked for making legal threats. The IPs edits clearly were vandalism (e.g. removing the References section header and the {{Reflist}}). You could have posted a vandalism warning (see WP:WARN) each time and then submitted a report to WP:AIV if vandalism continued. That probably would have stopped it earlier or led to a block sooner.

I also see violations of the Talk page guidelines. I have posted a reminder about some of the guidelines. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Would it be proper form to remove all the "dialog" from the talk page and let the page stand with the talk page guidelines? I strongly feel that the libelous statements against me, the threats, and the use of a person's name held in high regard in this industry should not be left there at all.Tatt bratt (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While much of that section is inappropriate, some of it could be actual attempts to improve the article. I think it should not be deleted. I think the right thing to do is to create a WP:ARCHIVE. Cut and paste everything except the section on talk page guidelines to the archive. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I did this correctly, please have a look if you have a moment. Thanks. Tatt bratt (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You did quite alright. I might do some work to the article later (it looks, for example, like many of the FDA's concerns regarding tattooing are omitted though sources are cited as ELs, and many parts are unsourced), but it's coming along alright. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

URGENT Todays feattured article appears to be compomised with what I beleive to be innappropriate imagery

Resolved

Today's featured article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Manos%22_The_Hands_of_Fate) has an image commonly known as "goatse.cx" inserted into it.

This image does not appear to be relevant to the article and I believe would be offensive to many people and possibly cause for a take down notice in some jurisdictions.

I believe many people would think it inappropriate content for a featured article on a site such as wikipedia.

I suspect the article/site has been compromised.

Regards Jason Tan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.138.77 (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by another account here. TableManners^C·U·T 06:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted, uploader indefinitely blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with obstructive editor

I'm new to editing within Wikipedia, but am trying to make one simple edit to add two external links within Lotus Esprit (talk, history). I have carefully read WP:EXT and associated policy & style guidance since this episode started. I believe the links have great merit towards inclusion, but am being met by a very poor attitude and a refusal to debate the merits of the change.

I entered the debate in a civil manner, questioning the editorial policy in a reasonable tone, yet am being met with what can only be summed up as an "It's my ball and you're not going to play with it" attitude from one particular editor.

The other interested editors have acknowledged that the first of my links is valid - indeed, all the cited references within the article link to pages on that site. The impasse still stands for the second link.

I have listed my reasons for making the edit, expanded on the context of the site to which I want to link, defended accusations of conflict of interest, taken a step back to let things cool a little, repeatedly politely requested that refusals to consider the change are quantified or qualified in the context of this particular linked site, etc.. I have tried to maintain a calm, conciliatory approach, despite considerable frustration.

Following repeated refusal to discuss, citing vague points within WP:EXT, I undertook to provide a brief summary of how the linked site fares against all 40 or so guidance points within WP:EXT. Overkill, probably, but in face of a 'no debate' policy, this seemed the next sensible step because it explained my reasons for inclusion, and allowed others to explain their reasons for exclusion, point by point if they so wished. This has now been met with personal abuse and the same "no discussion" attitude.

I have no axe to grind here, apart from the fact that I was, quite frankly, amazed that the WP article in question did not have external links to certain key sites that provide support and information relating to the subject vehicle. My intention in adding in the links was to improve the comprehensiveness and thereby the quality of the WP article.

Currently my experience suggests that WP articles are held at a lowest common denominator of informational content by a small number of obstructive editors. Not exactly the greatest introduction to contributing to "The Free Encyclopedia".

I now understand, having read further into WP policy, that I engaged in an edit war, and have thus ceased this activity; it was not my intention to be disruptive but merely the product of frustration at having my edits immediately deleted without the courtesy of discussion.

I'd gratefully accept any advice on how this could better have been handled, and how to proceed with the matter. DanBasterfield (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute - how to work to resolution

I appear to be in danger of continuing an edit war with another editor, and would like to resolve the issue. However, I'm having difficulty doing this because despite leaving messages on the article's talk page Talk:Fox in Socks and on the user's talk page 75.40.33.116 (talk · contribs), they do not reply or nor do they attempt to discuss the issue. The only response is a revert and/or re-edit of the page, plus wiki-comments to the effect: "Please do not delete or move this text." The fact that the user is an anonymous IP also make s life difficult as it appear that they can sometimes change IP address. Any suggestions about the best way forward within the Wikipedia guidelines/policies would be gratefully received. The edit in question is not particularly controversial, but I don't like to give in to what feels to me like bullying tactics. Another editor is having a similar problem with this user in the same article. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. A content dispute over a Dr. Seuss book. Just wow. It might be wise to take it to RFPP, or I could full protect it, duration unspecified, if you want, and unprotect it once the dispute is handled. Justin^(c)_(u) 16:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I know... not exactly a pulsating topic! But hopefully at least I'll learn how to handle edit conflicts better as a result. Are you saying above, that, because the anonymous user won't enter into any discussion about the changes, he effectively loses the right to modify the article, as there is no way to reach a consensus with him? I have modified the article to a version that has been agreed by those who were discussing it (two registered editors) - i.e. removed the "Stop it, stop it" line. So maybe protecting now (semi or full) might coerce the anonymous editor into entering some sort of discussion. Thanks for your help. -- MightyWarrior (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the need seems to have disappeared, but I was suggesting full protection, meaning everyone loses the ability to modify the article. At least until the dispute is over. If consensus (minus this outstanding IP) has been generated, it will eventually boil down to a 3RR vio. Justin^(c)_(u) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Being in an editing conflict with an uncooperative or uncommunicative editor doesn't excuse other editors from adherence to the three revert rule, but you do have other options, including asking for input at third opinion and request for comment. Good luck! Anchoress (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've listed this dispute at "third opinion", as we are still reverting each others edits (although only at a rate of once per day – US vs. UK timezones) which I feel is an unacceptable way to carry on indefinitely. However, given that the anonymous editor won't answer any of my requests for discussion, is there any chance that a "third opinion" will carry any weight? It is non-binding. If there still seems to be a dispute, maybe it'll need to go to RfC. Of course, if "third opinion" comes down in favour of the anonymous editor, then the dispute is ended (from my side, anyway)!! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Atma Singh article

A post has been put on the article that seriously impugns my character. This is the press release by the Greater London Authority. I am taking legal action against the Greater London Authority on this issue. There are very many articles on this issue - from google website. There are some critical of what I did and many which support what I did as a whistle-blower. As the article stands, it could be included in my legal case because it is not a fair representation of the controversary and repeats the GLA press release. My side is not given any representation. It is written by political vindicative people - there is enough material in the press to write a balanced article. As currently constituted, it is a character assassination and liable to legal action in the middle of a UK London Mayoral election. So please write a fair one. Trotskyite groups I exposed in the Mayor's inner circle are trying to deletae this article, which was written to give an indication of my important and public profile role carried out at the top pf the Mayor's organisation.

So please get someone neutral to have a look at and one not biased against Asian people in public life.

regards

Atma Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atma Singh (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling books

I have provided extensive documentation and discussion for my edits. An anonymous editor continues to revert my edits and remove key parts of my documentation, all while providing no documentation or comments of his/her own. I am getting tired of continuing to revert the offending edits; because of the nature of the article, such reversions are often time-consuming. I am not sure how to proceed at this point. Fragesteller (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Jon Surf Shop

As the article creator admits in the history, this article has already been deleted four times. Does the current version of the article differ enough to remain ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And on an associated note, can someone please double check the notability etc of Ron Jon Surfpark, which is associated to the above article ? Thanks CultureDrone (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the first thing, it looks fine to me. The claims to multiple shops and locations seem to make it notable, along with the accompanying article. If it genuinely will host nationally televised surfing events, that makes it seem pretty notable in my eyes. ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Emeka Chike Nwogu

In the list of Nigerian poets, I discovered that my name is joined to another name of someone else. Please re4soolve it and make the name accessible, as the one the presently there does not respond to click. The name am talking about is Emeka Chike Nwogu - Richard Ugbede Ali. The right name is EMEKA CHIKE NWOGU

Thank you

Emeka Chike Nwgu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.19.195 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 FixedFixed the entire list. List of Nigerian poets--_pete 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing my User Page

I need big time assistance on editing my User Page. There is a few things I need help on:

1. Are you allowed to write about yourself in your user page?

2. If so then, for the next few numbers please help me out. First, how do I create a table of contents box and get the links in the box? How do you get the links to go to each headline in the box when the link is clicked?

3. How do I create a biography box to post in the side of the page (right side)? For example: The wrestling superstars bios, except with my information, such as: height, weight, hometown, birthplace, date of birth, full name, sexual orientation, religion, relationship status, significant other, school I attend, college I will attend, my major in college, my grade point average, and etc. These are just examples, but I will post them into my box. If you don't know what I am talking about, then you can go to the WWE Roster's page and you'll see a list of WWE superstars and then click on a name and to the side underneath their picture is their biography. That's what I want to have.

4. How do I get an image of myself above my biography page? Also, how do I get a caption underneath the picture? Also, how would I be able to get pictures of me on the page with the appropriate heading in it with the captions?

5. How do I make headings for each section I will talk about?

6. And finally, how do I create links in my user profile page to, for example, have the Boy Scouts listed and it redirects you to the Wikipedia page of the Boy Scouts? That was just an example and I will post something like that, but I just need to know how to do it.

7. How do I create subpages, for example: a page on Awards, Email, Contributor, User/Home, and etc.? Or is that only for administrators?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Please message me back and let me know how to be able to edit these. Because it is so confusing for me to figure out all this stuff on my own and would greatly appreciate any help an experienced editor can give to me. Thanks for the help in advanced and keep up the good work.

Awesomemccoy18 (Scotty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomemccoy18 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed to write about yourself. 2 and 7 are tied together, because when you create a section ( by putting two equal signs "==" before and after the section text with a line break, and adding one equal sign for each level of subsection), it automatically produces a table of contents. To create links, put double brackets around the text ("[[]]"). Subpages are made by creating a link, but putting a slash ("/") before the title in the link. The basics can be found here. I also suggest adoption. Justin^(c)_(u) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New Wiki editor, how to adress changes without other person discussing it

I edited an article. I am a new WIki editor. I have a very extensive level of knowledge of the article topic. I made a change to the first paragraph of the article: Nhat Hanh (a famous buddhist author). Someone changed the article back, but nothing on the talk page why. He put a few comments that don't really make sense in the history page (comment shows next to the version). WHat should I do? How do I ask him to discuss this first. SHould I change it back to my version. ANy simple advice is appreciated?

How do edit disputes get resolved? I am not supposed to/can't send a message to this user, right? How do I put a comment in the History section - so it says a comment right in the history (as this user - Mind --- did). thank you. Maybe I should revert and put a comment asking him to read and respond in the talk page?

- MasonPlum (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can (and should) put a comment in the History section by typing into the WP:edit summary box which is below the main editing box. Editors often communicate via such summaries. If there is not enough room in the edit summary or if you are having a dispute, then the next step is to start a section on the article's Talk page.

Remember to always include a reference to the source of your information. You may have extensive knowledge of the topic but per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

You added a ref to part of your edit, but the other editor may have deleted the other parts of your edit because there were not references. If you ask him on the article's Talk page, he will explain his reasons. You can also post a message on the other editor's User talk page but first I would try the article's Talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help me on a particular topic where I appear to have drawn insults?

Hi there - I've been a member for quite a while but only recently started editing. I was reading Reddit which linked to a wiki article titled Spurius Carvilius Ruga which is a hoax article. I marked it up for deletion (which was removed by someone thereafter)and then received a message from a user who's details are Shii (tock) 07:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)He basically stated 'You're an idiot get off wiki' on my talk page - a) can someone tell me what to do about the article which is nonsense b) How to report or respond to Shii??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by OzScot (talk • contribs) 02:42, 3 February 2008

The first step is to ask Shii to explain the comment. I have placed a request on his talk page, asking him to leave a note here explaining the comment. Pastordavid (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikiquette alerts would be a good place to start. Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"I was reading Reddit which linked to a wiki article titled Spurius Carvilius Ruga which is a hoax article." ← Look at this willful and proud ignorance on OzScot's part. This is not an honest mistake, it is simply a stupid thing to say. He didn't even read the article. I will not respond to comments like this, or {{db-nonsense}} tags (which he put on the article), with a polite correction. I'm not his mom and he needs to learn how to read. Wikipedia suffers deeply because editors are afraid to call out idiocy when they see it. Shii (tock) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

it isn't necessary to "call out idiocy". idiots by definition aren't going to understand that. what they - and all editors - understand is to just revert and use a simple edit summary such as 'please read the references, this is not a hoax article'. there is the foundation of civility which you should at least make a cursory attempt to abide by. i won't pretend i've not been uncivil with other editors, but the fact is, it fails at the desired result. for example, see this very thread. Anastrophe (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Shii, you are in clear violation of Wikipedia:BITE. Please stop. ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 12:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

About my site Agranews

My site Agranews is in the Indian newspapers list(English). But when any time I write 2 lines about site with link, someone always remove it. All the news sites in your list have few lines about their sites. I dont know what to do. I really need help.If you can write just two lines and put link. ( website: www.agranews.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.49.194 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST TO EDITOR :

My site Agranews is in the List_of_newspapers_in_India#English_Language in wikipedia list.

Just name only have no meaning. I would be greatful if any EDITOR can put the link of the website(www.agranews.com) with name and write two lines atleast that Agranews is a online news site from Agra. I really need help from a editor who can do this favour.

Thanks Rajeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.49.194 (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Brain tumor deaths

Having been adding categories to various articles, I came across someone who died of a brain tumo(u)r. I was going to add them to the relevant category, but the Brain tumor deaths category is a soft redirect to the Brain tumour category, which doesn't actually exist. Is this an error, or has the category been deleted / never been created ? I wouldn't normally think to categorise someone by the means of death, but other categories - such as Prostate cancer deaths exist, so I'd have thought this one would as well..... CultureDrone (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good category, I see nothing wrong with it. Just remove the redirect, IMO. ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but I rechecked and 'tumour' category had been moved to 'Brain cancer deaths', so the 'tumor' category was falling foul of a double redirect. Fixed the category redirect and it seems ok now :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me the name of the 'image tag is incorrect' template

I've found an image needing this tag on, because it clearly isn't under the right license - anyone know of the template? I can't seem to find it. ǝuɪuǝsɐ ^(ʞɿɐʇ) _sʇdpǝ 12:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vidura College - Colombo

Could someone please take a look at Vidura College - Colombo. I've been watching it for some time and I can't put my finger on what's wrong. It's not encyclopedic but I can't be more specific than that. Is it too POV? I just don't know what tags to put on it to make it better. There are some specific things I would delete but I don't know what to say to justify the deletions:

• under Calendar: "School sportsmeet will be held on 2nd of March 2008."
• the whole Contact Vidura section.

Maybe it's just me. If you think the article is okay, then let me know either way. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not just you. The article was originally written here: Marketing material (click on the links at the top for more of the copied text). Then User:InduUS copied the information to Wikipedia and subsequently released the information on the website under the GFDL (complete with a serious conflict regarding copyright status). The main point, however, is that this is a blatant conflict of interest and the text copied was originally written as marketing material. If it were me, I'd start by tagging the top of the article with {{COI}} and {{Unreferenced}}. If the article doesn't pass notability, I'd suggest proposing it for deletion. If it does pass notability, then I'd suggest removing everything from the article that looks like marketing. Since nothing is sourced, remove or tag dubious statements. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hublot

Could someone take a look at Hublot. Two weeks ago I nominated it for speedy which was denied. That's okay but now a second editor has nom'd it for speedy, and it was again denied. When two separate editors nominate an article for speedy I think there probably is something wrong with it. I no longer think it should be deleted; I think it probably is notable. The problem I think is that it reads too much like an advertisement. But I don't know just what to rewrite to make it more encyclopedic. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It reads a lot like an ad, cmoplete with glowing prose about the products the company sells. Jayron32, who denied the speedy, suggests an AFD, but the company would appear to be quite notable, so a rewrite would certainly be in order. I haven't got the time right now, but I'll maybe give it a shot tonight - it'll be beaten to a pulp by the time I get all the promo-speak out of it, though... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Too late, beat you to the punch! So yeah, it was really bad. I don't think it should be speedied, but I'll wait for a second pair of eyes to remove the advert tag. Justin^(c)_(u) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot better; I went through and took out some of the marketspeak that was left. It still needs sources desperately, but has enough content to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Educating Rita

The current version of the article is tagged as uncategorised - which is what drew my attention to it in the first place. Looking at the revision history, the version dated 22:19, 22 January 2008 by VMS Mosaic seems complete, though with a lengthy description of the plot. The page was then vandalised, with various attempts then made at cleaning up the mess. This left the article with no categories and a more truncated version of the plot. Not being entirely sure of WP policies on detailing plotlines within an article, should the article be :

1. Restored to the 'long plot' version, or

2. Recategorised in its current 'short plot' form ?

CultureDrone (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would look at other plays and be influenced by the general form found in those articles. I note for example, that Pygmalion has a quite a detailed plot summary. It is really up to your preference. Some other editor will come along and trim or (more likely) expand the work anyway. Wm (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for the advice. Since several well known plays I checked seemed to have short plot summaries, I've resummarised the plot in short form CultureDrone (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor has changed my talk comment heading

An editor has changed a sub-heading that I used to precede a comment on an article talk page.

Diffs:

• my talk comment added
• editor changes talk comment

What is an appropriate way to deal with this? Should I ignore it, change it back, raise a Wikiquette alert or take other action?

I have already asked the user to revert to my original wording but he has ignored me diff. Thanks. Wm (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I don't get it. In the diff you provided, he didn't change your talk page comment. He changed the heading. Is that what you're referring to? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes it is. Wm (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic headings are frequently changed, especially if they are inaccurate or inflammatory. In this case it was the heading that was changed, rather than any actual content, and the editor made his reason clear in the discussion content. I wouldn't get over-excited about it if I were you. Not unless you were interested in making trouble rather than editing an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. I understand the issue with the new heading, but it's pretty trivial. I'd just change it back since it's such a minor change (use an edit summary like "I prefer my old heading"). If it were a change to your words, or if he insisted on his heading: only then would I raise an issue or ask him his reasoning. Even then, however, I'd probably just drop it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note: User:Skyring (Pete) has offered advice above without declaring his interest. He is the editor that made the change to which I refer. Wm (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But good advice nonetheless. And no, I'm not stalking you. I have this page on my watchlist and spotted your contribution to the topic above this one, which sparked my interest enough to click on it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would have been the same regardless of what Pete said. I actually drafted my response (except the "Yeah. I agree." part) before I saw Pete's reply. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WNYO (FM)

Resolved

 – User:Dorftrottel 11:43, February 7, 2008

I don't want to go into a 3RR, so I am bring this here to get some help. A student at the college station added the following section WNYO (FM)#The Golden Pitcher. I first removed it because it did not cite sources and warned the user (I even welcomed them) see User talk:FancyMustard. I asked them to cite sources see User talk:FancyMustard#WNYO (FM). The source that was given just pointed to the radio station and the editor stated in their edit summary that "I had to listen to the podcasts". When I could not find any sufficient references at that website, I commented out the section and left a notice on the articles talk page. This morning the following was left on my talk page (as well as the section being edit back in to the article):

Why are you picking on a little station in Oswego, NY? Don't you guys have better things to do? Plus I would know more about the subject being a student there and a competitor in these events. I wouldn't edit things I don't know about. So please leave mine alone. Have you ever been to Oswego? I thought wikipedia was a collective effort by anyone who has things to add. I find it to be a bunch of bullies who feel they can run it and do as they please. Wikipedia is far from a good source to use for anything! It's a site with broad information on anything. I don't know anyone who uses it for acedemic papers or anything. And if they do, they would be stupid to site it. Professors hate it. Plus most of the citations people use on wikipedia are non-credited internet sites. I can go create a webpage explaining all about the pitcher and then cite myself? But the Golden Pitcher is a big thing between the two sports depts. Call the WNYO station at 315-312-2101 for information on the golden pitcher contests. -FancyMustard (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So now what? Help. --_pete 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious problems with that section are related to WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:DUE. I therefore removed it and tried to explain the involved issues to FancyMustard, asking not to restore the section in its current form. User:Dorftrottel 13:46, February 5, 2008

Unable to edit for more than 24 hours!!

I recently updated an article regarding Fightstar, with album cover images, I followed exactly the same protocols that a previous editor had used regarding the uploading and presenting of the images, but within 24 hours my updates had been removed. The images had been obtained from the same source as the previous editor, and uploaded/represented in the same manor as the previous editor.

I find it hard to believe that the "peoples encyclopedia" is preventing it's users from editing articles.

Takuhii (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The user who removed the images pointed to the article talk page in the edit summary. Please see also our non-free content policy. Fair use images may only be used if they add crucially to the understanding of the discussed subject matter. They may not be used for mere decorative purposes. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, February 5, 2008

King of Babylon

This article was originally just a redirect page, but an editor has changed it to an article which would appear to fall foul of WP:NOR. Any views on whether I'm correct in this assumption ? If so, should I change it back to a redirect, or propose it at AfD for a wider consensus ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic, but the article clearly falls short of following our content guidelines and policies. User:Dorftrottel 18:03, February 5, 2008

A fellow editor not focusing on content and is constantly judgemental

A fellow editor (Abd) not focusing on content and is constantly judgmental on Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies. This impedes my ability to naturally respond in talk because I feel that I am constantly being flamed and it takes my energy away. I have posted numerous warnings and have clearly stated my case in talk. He behaviour encourages other editors to act in a similar fashion. Other editors are also not happy with his approach. --scuro (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific as to what you object to? In most of the comments I read on that article's talk page (admittedly, it is quite long and I read only the latest ones, not the whole thing), Abd appears to be discussing the article's subject and content. Might you be able to provide diffs of the behavior/comments you consider problematic? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on posting to the following page!!!

I am trying to post a very useful resource on following IT consulting page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology_consulting#Finding_the_right_IT_consulting_firm_for_your_organization

below is my posting, why it's get deleted??? The current content on that page is VERY biased as it only list the top or big consulting firms. In US, there are thousands of small/mid sized IT consulting firms, why they are NOT listed? Please explain!!!

Finding the right IT consulting firms is very different than finding the right product vendors. Product vendor is a much more concentrated space than consulting firm. For example, Oracle as a product vendor has thousands of VARs of which most are consulting firms. So does Microsoft, Siebel Systems. With IT outsourcing to offshore as a trend, organizations are looking for more cost effective consulting labor, yet with good quality. This puts pressure on local high pricing “Big Four” type of consulting firms. Accenture has grown to billion dollar revenue company in only 5 years is a good example of utilizing off resource to provide cost effective consulting. Other trends in the IT consulting are small or mid sized companies can compete with big ones more efficiently as they are quick to respond to customer’s requirement , deliver good quality work and charge lower price.

Overall, IT consulting is a much more fragmented sector than the product vendor industry. To any organizations, how to find the most qualified IT consulting firm to fit their project and business needs becomes an increasing important consideration to management people. Here are the leading online portals to help you search qualified IT consulting or management firms in your decision making process.

searchcio.techtarget.com

www.requestfill.com

www.itconsulting.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.101.5 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are really asking about two things here: 1) Why can't all IT consultants be mentioned in the article, and 2) Why can't the text you wrote be included in the article.

1) It is true that there are thousands of smaller IT consultants in the USA, as well as in India, the UK, the Philippines etc etc. Adding them all would make the list meaningless and unencylopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The whole point of an encyclopedia article is to mention the notable firms, which means the large and important ones. As you can easily see by looking at the article's talk page it was decided in 2006 to only include companies with more than 10,000 employees in the list, thus removing a lot of companies that had been listed before..

2) The text you have included, using a number of different IPs (and stating your intention to keep using different IPs to circumvent blocks, which is completely unacceptable), consists of first a block of original research and unverified claims, not to mention that it is promotional in tone; and then three URLs which cannot be included in an article because of the policy on external links. Several different people removed the text because it was not encyclopedic.

Hope this has explained matters. --Bonadea (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer Disputes

Hello:

So sorry to bother you. I really did search the FAQs for my answer.

My name is Christopher Klim. I am an author, journalist, and professor. Over the years and while working as the lead editor in restoring Eric Hoffer's books to print as well as bring unpublished manuscripts to print, I have become a leading authorities on the life and work of Eric Hoffer. I am also in regular contact with the Hoffer estate. I have the ability to resolve many of the Eric Hoffer disputes on his page, but I just don't understand how to lend by commentary and knowledge to the debate.

For example, I'll take on the first three citation requests.

1) Eric Hoffer did not consider his first book, The True Believer, to be his best. His close associates (and he did not have many), which included journalist Eric Sevareid, documentary Filmmaker John McGreevy, and his long time companion Lili Fabilli Osborne, state that Hoffer preferred his second book, The Ordeal of Change. They and I, concur.

2) The True Believer established his reputation as a writer, appearing on the bestseller list about one year after its launch, however, it was the National Television interview series with Sevareid that brought him into the national consciousness. Sevareid claimed until his death that it was one of the most widely seen and well-responsed public television interviews.

3) The True Believer--the title from where this very expression was derived--was indeed his most successful book, having never gone out of print in over fifty years and selling about 5 to 1 over his second most popular title, The Passionate State of Mind. The True Believer has been translated into countless languages around the world and continues, like his other books, to be read today.

Regards, CK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim13 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have a great system of FAQs as such. Maybe I'll write one someday. That aside, hopefully some advice will help! While it certainly sounds like you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, personal research or knowledge may not be used for an article. On the other hand, if you have published works regarding this person, you certainly may use those as sources, provided that they pass our reliable source guidelines. (You may cite works which you wrote yourself, provided that the work is one which we would normally consider reliable.) We require that all information in articles be verifiable, which means it must be drawn from a source which has been published in some manner. The source should also be reliable, in that it has been fact-checked, edited, or peer-reviewed by other professionals. If you have any other questions, please ask away, and don't be sorry to do so, we're here to help! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

sandbox

i need to change the name and make my test a real entry--Henslee57 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for coming here for help. I don't think you want to make that a real article. The content you added to the Sandbox seems to be some game that you made up. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

She or he didn't make up the game - it has existed for quite some time. 1 2 3. Which doesn't imply that it is notable enough for a WP article, mind you :-) --Bonadea (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Game (game) is permasalted in any case, and is very, very likely to stay that way, there has been so much trolling and nonsense over that thing. Henslee57, if you want to make an article on that, you are going to need to create it in a userspace sandbox, and find a very good number of highly-reliable sources. Might I suggest you find some slightly less hot-button topics to write on before making that attempt, to learn your way around first? If at that time you really think you can write a real article about it, you could always try then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis City-County Council

Hey there. I come looking for assistance on the Indianapolis_City-County_Council article. A user has disputed the order of the list of councilors on the page, and continues to change the article to match his thoughts, however the list is in accordance with WikiStandards.

You can find discussion on the subject on the talk pages of Ecoleman56 (the user in question), TheHoosierState89, Gonzo_fan2007, and myself, Jasont82

EColeman56 has been given a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR, but I'd like to have the whole thing settled before the ban is lifted so we don't have to go through this again tomorrow.

Thanks!

-- JT^Holla! 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, EColeman56 has deleted the Counsel part of of his Talk page, but you can find the page in question in his history by going to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecoleman56&oldid=189616390 Thanks! -- JT^Holla! 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with Zachman Framework-related articles

A number of new editors, some with declared WP:COI, would like assistance with a number of concerns. There are spam issues here (spam report), which I think are taking a back seat now that the editors have joined in the discussions. The articles are (mostly) Enterprise architect, Enterprise architecture, John Zachman, and Zachman framework. The other editors are User:Lockezachman, User:Metaframe, and User:Phogg2. I've been trying, not very successfully, to get them to discuss the issues on article talk pages rather than my personal talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin Garbus

Martin Garbus has a lot of "issues". Anyone want to help out? Sbowers3 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You may want to bring this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. For WP:BLP issues requiring immediate attention, go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. User:Dorftrottel 12:59, February 7, 2008

copy versus content editing

Hi

I have been a copy editor for many years. By that I mean that I correct grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc. I can do more than these things, but I am interested mainly in this kind of editing here on Wikipedia.

If, while I am editing an article, I find factual errors within it, am I responsible for correcting the errors, or can I simply edit the text without correcting the facts? For example, I just edited the copy of the entry for Colombian coffee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_coffee

and found several factual errors. I corrected the grammar and other textual concerns, but left the factual errors untouched. While I knew that the facts were wrong, I was not sure exactly what information might have been correct, nor did I know off-hand where to find the appropriate citations.

My question, again, is whether I am responsible for factual errors when I edit text.

Thanks for your help!

Grey Autumn Rain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.21.52 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good question! "Responsible" first and foremost depends on your personal feeling responsible, as an editor. Obviously, typo and grammar correction (called wikignoming in Wikipedia lingo) is highly appreciated. However, if and where you feel up to the task of improving factual inaccuracies, you're most welcome to address these, too, along our core content policies. Additionally addressing any such issues at the respective article talk page is generally considered the gold standard of editorial contribution. User:Dorftrottel 12:53, February 7, 2008

Please do correct grammar, etc. even if you don't fix factual errors. You might highlight factual errors for others to fix by adding a {{fact}} citation right after the error, by mentioning the error in your edit summary, and by adding a note on the article's talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The overusing of {{fact}} has been discouraged by Jimbo. The preferred course of action is to remove unreferenced dubious claims rather than slapping a tag on it, just as boldly fixing issues oneself is generally preferred and encouraged over using tags. User:Dorftrottel 13:43, February 7, 2008

I think it's best to finish the copyedits, save the article, then come back and make the edits to the facts. That way if there is a dispute or if you get reverted, the copyedits 'stick', do not cloud the issue, and don't have to be repeated. --CliffC (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these original research? Do they quote reliable sources?

I wonder if someone could look at the material added today to the "Sources and research" section of Payday loan with this edit. The article draws a lot of spam and self-serving edits from the Payday Loan industry; to me this looks like more of the same, and not just because the IP submitter parked his material right at the top of the section. For starters, the edit summary says "added new independent research". The first PDF linked, "PAYDAY LENDERS: HEROES OR VILLAINS?" is headed "Draft January, 2007 Preliminary and Incomplete". To me it looks like WP:OR, just one professor's opinion.

The second document, "Payday Holiday: How Households Fare after Payday Credit Bans: is a "Staff Report" from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, bearing the caveat

This paper presents preliminary findings and is being distributed to economists and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit comments. The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily reflective of views at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

The third, "An Experimental Analysis of the Demand for Payday Loans" comes from the Social Science Research Network. The link has been retitled (deceptively, IMO) by the IP as "Restrictions on Payday Loans Do More Harm Than Good". This seems an exaggeration of the study's Summary and Conclusions section, which says in part "While some subjects’ financial survival was adversely affected by their use of payday loans, we found that the majority of subjects in our experiment benefited from the existence of and their subsequent use of payday loans."

As you can tell, I don't think references to these documents belong in the article. I'd like a fresh set of eyes to take a look. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I do about an editor who keeps accusing me of plagiarism?

There is a Wikipedia editor that persists with an accusation that I am a plagiarist. This is an extremely harsh allegation, not to mention reputation ruining. I have reviewed the editor's complaint and found it absurd right on the face. I have explained to this editor why his allegation is false. I have asked this editor to cease. Finally I warned him on talk pages that if he persisted my hand would be forced to have something done about his actions. He persists. I do not tend to make use of complaint departments (here or elsewhere). Hence I am completely unfamiliar with how to report this vicious behavior and ask for something to be done about it. I would appreciate some guidance on how to proceed? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess in part it depends on whether this is an editor that you need to continue to interact with for other purposes. If so, then an WP:RFC on the situation might be a good way to get it all out in the air, and get input on the situation from other editors. If this is an editor that you do not need to continue to interact with, then ceasing to interact with them at all might be the best course of action. I had a similar situation last year. An editor who I can only guess was upset at my deletion of one of their articles, started laying out nasty accusations against me of racism, accusing me of specifically hunting down and deleting pages created by minority editors. Ignoring any responses about how it is generally impossible to know the race of most editors, this accuser continued to make the accusations. No supporting evidence was ever provided, despite the accuser being asked by a number of editors and admins to back up their accusations. After several weeks of trying to reason with the guy, I finally said enough is enough, and stopped feeding the troll. After that point, any time he smeared my talk page with his crap, I simply hit the revert button and moved on. The troll still smears my talk page once a month or so, but he mostly leaves me alone these days, as he no longer gets any direct reaction/response from me.

So the ultimate point is that, if you do not need to work with your own accuser any more, ceasing all interaction with them to deny them the pleasure of your reactions is one way to handle things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

TexasAndroid: I appreciate you taking time to offer your recommendation, and I agree with you. Unfortunately the likelihood is high that this other editor and I will frequently find ourselves editing the same pages. Thanks again.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito responds

Regarding this matter, I have documented this matter.on the two talk pages. Editor Shilmer refused to comment on an editorial issue I opened for discussion, and after a week of silence from all editors on the matter I acted as I had recommended. Within minutes, literally, Shilmer reversed the edits and quickly labeled my work as vandalism (he is prone to so accuse with other editors too). This went on three times inside of a few hours, and the third time he essentially reverted the edit in a way just skirting the WP:3RR rules. Later when the matter was pushed to mediation at my request, Shilmer claimed that the original edit was his work. I detailed the edit history and relevant quotes on he appropriate talk pages. No one, except Shilmer, has ever complained. I also asked arbitrators to look into this matter and invited him to do the same. As a broader matter, I had been recommending certain changes to the article in question on its main talk page forum. Shilmer created a sandbox version of the article (which had been locked over the core dispute) and invited other editors to move the discussion there, despite the mediator doing the same. Shilmer then began publishing on the talk page that I was not worth conversing with and that his sandbox article was progressing despite the actual article being "held hostage." In that sandbox article he used many of my suggestions and presented these as his own innovations. It is understandable why he feels that he should be the Chief Editor -- he claims an academic background (though never really gives his credentials), often loses his temper and demands that people respond to whatever it is he is off about (and berates them if they don't follow him on the asides), and has even proclaimed that his 'methods are infallible.' I am neither the first editor he has berated, nor will I be the last. I have received private thanks for finally stepping up and challenging his perceived hegemony. Interestingly, no one that has ever been a part of an editorial discussion with me has ever accused me of being a troll, but others have identified Shilmer as a troll in a direct exchange that was also leading nowhere. Equally funny that the longest argument with Shilmer on his arrogance and obstinance on his talk page was with another editor entirely, and that editor engaged Shilmer more than once on different incidences and not always about himself. I have merely posted defenses to Shilmer's accusations he made of me on his Talk page. -- cfrito (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Denplan

Denplan has a section [17] that is a copy-paste from here [18]. I tagged the section as a copy violation but the author removed my tag. What is the next step for a copy violation of a section? And the rest of the article seems to me not encyclopedic, maybe a little POV. Comments? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The author's lack of response is deafening. I think putting the tag back would be correct, or simply removing the section altogether. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Web site as a Wikipedia Subject

Dear Editors,

I understand that personal websites are not meant to be the subject of topics on this site. The company I want to add an entry for, however, is also a web name: CreditCards.com. I think the Online credit cards offer websites are a trend offering card searches great information all in one place. A switch from all of the credit card snail mail that we all recieve and generally throw away. I've tried to submit an entry, and it hasn't gone well. Can you give me some advice on how to get my entry approved?

Thank you. Jodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannjodik (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:WEB for the notability requirements for web sites, and WP:CORP for the same for company requirements. If your site meets the requirements for either of those, you can likely get a page made that will not be deleted. If not, then you you may be fighting a losing battle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinz Politzer

Resolved

 – User:Avraham has fixed the incorrect information in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

hello, someone just brought to my attention that there is a Wikepedia entry for my father, Heinz Politzer. I checked it out, and there are some glaring errors.

first of all, my father never taught at Ohio University. Rather, he taught at Bryn Mawr College, Oberlin College (which is in Ohio), and the University of California, Berkeley (not Berkeley University).

also, while he did live in Israel during WWII, he never identified as an "Israeli writer." he was first and foremost an Austrian writer, who happened to live and work in both Israel and the United States.

he was an expert on Kafka, Freud, Hoffmanstahl and Grillpazer. He was greatly responsible for the original interest in Kafka in the United States, and he was a close associate to Kafka's protege, Max Brod.

he was awarded the Key to the CIty of Vienna and the Austrian Cross, among many other prizes and honors. the highlight of his career was giving the Eroeffnungrede to the 1976 Salzburg Music Festival.

at the time of his death, he was survived by his wife Jane Hinman Horner Politzer, and four sons, Mike, Dave, Steve and Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.62.141 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Avraham, who responded to an OTRS ticket, this issue has already been taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Very bizarre first two edits

This may be nothing, but this and this seem like a very unusual first two edits. I've warned user normally, but does this bear any further investigation? BusterD (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith because it could be a newcomer's mistake - perhaps he/she has edited anonymously before? Unusual yes but nothing the template warnings can't solve. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth Offending Team Glossary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veraguinne

Deb deleted my article on 30th without explanation to a newbie. Other Admins tried to help. I tried to make the necessary clarifications. Deb's final word was she was too busy with her own articles, and I was too thick to understand her explanations. I'm afraid I don't think this is appropriaite behaviour.--SJB (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I also asked Deb if she could clarify why my Feb 8th additions were not displayed. She claimed "I have no idea what "additions" you are referring to. Deb (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)" Deb's revision history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&action=history appears to show that she deleted them without explantion. --SJB (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, glossaries are not encyclopedic. It may be possible to present them as a list but not a glossary in itself, unless the glossary itself is notable, which means it is covered by multiple veriable reliable sources. She did not say you were too thick, she said she could not help if you did not understand. Perhaps the concept is useful and perhaps it can be included somewhere. What I think is being objected to is the information being presented in its own article. Because if it does, it needs to be notable as stated above. I would think that User:Deb has acted as she should. The result of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Offending Team/Glossary was delete and I think you should read the comments of the other users so as to understand why it was deleted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

edward r murrow

Hey, your entry on Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, N.Y., says CBS journalist Edward R. Murrow is buried there. But your entry on Murrow says he was cremated and his ashes spread at his upstate New York home. Is one story wrong? Were his ashes divided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasdave (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a NY Times article mentioning his grave in Green-Wood Cemetery, so I added it as a reference to the cemetery's article. I removed the unsourced claim about his cremation and scattering from the Edward R. Murrow article. See also a mention on Green-Wood's own website. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Officers in an organization

Please look to United Isshin-ryū Karate Association. What is the best way to list the officers in the organization. I do wish to add some basic information about each of the people listed, so a layout that includes the ability to add a line or two would be best. Thanks. Noxia (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The section on officers should probably be deleted from the article. These officers don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles, and people outside your group are not likely to have heard of them. So, knowing their names does not help our readers. The article currently includes the name of the director, Harold Mitchum, and that ought to be sufficient. If your group has been written about in newspapers or magazines it would be helpful to add pointers to that coverage. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Belize area

I spend a lot of time in Belize. belizesearch.com is the best tool i have when there. best website on belize out there. and you won't link to it. STOOPID. I've tried adding several excellent links here over the years and you always erase them IMMEDIATELY. thats why i rarely even come to wiki. if you are so dadgum provincial in this area, you probably are in other areas, unless this carl bunderson guy is just a jerk.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.21.135 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning editing difference

Please provide mediation assistance with the Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning article.

Two editors have opposing views on this article and can not reach consensus. Mutually exclusive edits are merely erasing each others edits and making no progress towards a resolution. Possibly one of these editors has an agenda to portray a viewpoint and is deleting anything contradictory to this view. There is also a fundamental difference in cultural background on the topic resulting in a fundamental difference in opinion. The view differ that 3D work is low-status "untouchable" work or is traditional blue-collar living wage work. This difference is unlikely to be resolved with out help.

Both views are valid and should be represented.

The Portal:Organized Labour should be involved in this dispute since most of the deleted material relates to the labor movements representation of 3D occupations e.g. electricians, steel workers, and miners. The workers in these occupations were the first to organize and should be represented in the article. These occupations still are the foundation of the labor movement since these workers need representation the most. A joke is that you do not see a union for "rich old men" who sit in board rooms sipping tea.

Please provide a return to the last page version before the deletion of half the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented over at Talk:Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning. Key point is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Sbowers3 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LENNY BRUCE APPARENT ERROR

Spouse Honey Harlow (June 15, 1951 - January 21, 1957); 1 child

THIS INFERSimplies THAT HIS WIFE WAS 6 YEARS OLD WHEN SHE DIED. SOMTHING IS WRONG. 204.116.139.64 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what it says is that they were married in 1951 and divorced in 1957. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)