Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by .

problem with another editor

ScienceApologist is deleting the content, references, and images from the process equation article because they were placed there by me [1]. He dislikes my edits on Talk:WP:Fringe and is trying to retaliate. Need some assistance with the article.

Another example of his non-constructive edit is here[2] where he put back the invalid link, only because valid one was placed by me.

Lakinekaki (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for posting here. I can see what ScienceApologist is doing, but beyond edit summaries I don't know why. Please add more info to your post if you can show that you know why, otherwise it looks like you might not be assuming good faith. On the first diff you cited, you hadd added some text about creating 'bios' or 'infinitation', neither of which make sense there. The rest of your edit might or might not have been useful, but you don't help your case there. On the second diff the url did look like it might not work, and ScienceApologist used an edit summary describing your edit as good faith. You then reverted, with a somewhat confrontational edit summary, and that version stands. Please try to assume good faith, and realise that we can all make mistakes. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?! What are you referring to here with 'infinitation'? I was quoting cited articles. Whether it makes sense or not to readers is another issue. Scienceapologist used false statements in edit summaries to justify deletion of the content on process equation article[3], and when he realized that didn't work, he switched to ad hominem arguments. In second case, SA didn't test URL, but had actually assumed a bad faith and that I would place 'messed up' URL and had reverted my edit without bothering to click on the link and see where it links to. He also started editing few other articles that he saw in my contributions list -- therefore he finds some interest in my edits, and somehow his edits tend to be deletions, often with no explanation or with false excuses. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit appears to be ScienceApologist's first reversion of you in that article, and you added the words 'bios' and 'infinitation'. Whether or not it makes sense to readers is a huge, core, issue; if your editing doesn't make sense to readers then what value does it have? As for the url, it looks like a good faith error to me. Such things happen. As for the rest of your accusations, I'm not going to go searching for examples to support you. You'll need to cite specifics. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really expect to understand a mathematical article from edit difference, without looking at images[4], and references that were deleted[5] along with words 'bios' and 'infinitation'? Lakinekaki (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor did I do that. All I'm suggesting is that if your edits use made-up words then they'll probably be reverted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits don't use made-up words. If you read the cited papers, you would find those words there. I am confused why you offered to 'help' when you are not really trying to? SA first deleted the reference where those words were used, and than he deleted those words. You are attributing 'making this up' to me without even bothering to read the article and its references. Thanks but no thanks for your help. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I don't think it would be useful to other readers. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that, for example, today's featured article is useful to me, nor other readers, but I don't go there to delete stuff I don't like. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A different user is now reinstating ScienceApologist's edits, with the summary "general fixes". Could be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I don't remotely understand the subject of this article, so I can't really give an outside opinion of the diagrams. I'd recommend the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has now nominated that article for deletion, so it's dependant upon the outcome of that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gussow article - apparent family edits, now real-estate promotion

Resolved

Could someone please take a look at Mel Gussow and Talk:Mel Gussow. This article about a journalist who died three years ago has a history going back to at least 5 September 2007 of what I would call a slow-motion edit war between apparent family members who each have a favorite version of Mom's maiden name, Grandma and Grandpa's first name, Dad's middle name, Dad's religion and an opinion on whether or not a brother or an earlier marriage should be mentioned; and don't mind reverting away several months of legitimate edits to get it.

More recently, in assaying a general restoration and cleanup, I removed a real-estate company link that gave the family's street address in NYC when the subject died, calling it not relevant. Now editor User:66.108.95.8 has four times added the link back in, along with another link to a second real estate company, both supporting a new (and freshly invented, as far as I can tell) claim that Gussow owned and operated a real-estate agency as well as writing for the New York Times. I have reverted three of these and warned the editor on his talk page with {{welcomespam}}, a personalized message, and most recently {{uw-spam3}}. I am now out of reverts and would appreciate someone else taking a look at this. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this page to my watchlist. Vandalism seems very serious, perhaps the page needs to be protected. Until such a time I will make an effort to help you maintain the page. Can you please clarify whether or not the expanded names are false or legitimate so that I can focus my effort in the right direction. InterislanderTom (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, more eyes are appreciated. Some background of the article's abuse can be found at Talk: Mel Gussow; then at User talk:66.108.95.8, User talk:68.175.96.59, User talk:Egussow. I just now took another shot at editing the article, still plagued by family edits and the reintroduction of spam. I made five separate edits to get it to a reasonable state, with an edit summary explaining each, and also informed one WP:SPA account that if he's a family member he has a conflict of interest. --CliffC (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add User talk:68.175.96.180, who today in his first edit ever added an unsourced statement as to Gussow's religion and 'interfaith marriage'. Competing claims as to Gussow's religion have been a part of the apparent family dispute, and his religion was changed several times over the months, leading me to remove the infobox 'religion' parameter. I reverted today's edit and informed the user that he/she would need to cite a WP:RS. Question - should this article be protected from anonymous edits? That might help a bit. --CliffC (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now protected from anons, that should help with some of it. And thanks for the eyes. --CliffC (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Sex

A colleague of mine recently asked me to help lend my expertise in archaeology and anthropology to the Wiki article The Firt Sex, about the book "The First Sex."

I went to the article and tried to add several referenced statements, bib. references, and a picture.

Much of what I wrote was deleted, often with no explanation. At least one accurate statement was repeatedly changed into a grossly, laughably inaccurate statement (I'd say I tried to change this statement back to its accurate form at least half a dozen times).

Although my picture was clearly related to the content of the article, it was deleted again and again. And even though a note at the beginning of the article said the article needed a picture, those who deleted my picture did not replace it with anything. (Today I notice that note is gone -- along with the note saying the article is in dispute)

My bibliographic references -- most of them from university presses, or other highly respected publishing companies -- were deleted again and again.

A direct quote about the book, by a well-known and well-thought-of author, was deleted with no explanation -- again several times.

Frankly, the entire experience was a nightmare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athana (talk • contribs) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the part where you started saying that all of the people who opposed you must be "virulent males" and obviously were proving the inferiority of their gender. What a nightmare! --Jaysweet (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So sarcasm is part of what we come to wiki for, Jaysweet? I don't think so. And I've never even seen any references here before - I have another issue pending on this page -, but your attitude is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with NPOV

Da Costa Syndrome talk pages

I would like some assistance with NPOV editors having a look at the current discussions on the Requests for comment page here [6], and the pages associated with it, to ensure that policies are being applied appropriately Posturewriter (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter[reply]

Hi there, you might get more response from NPOV-focussed editors at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Beloved Freak 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Indoor Football Association

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Michael Mink Co-founder of this league and i want the truth to be on this page. What belongs to us should be there and what does not should not be there. The information is not all correct and it is hurting our business. We want the truth and only the truth!

Please help as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Michael Mink (personal information removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmink (talk • contribs)

I've left a message on this user's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an ANI thread due to the user's "legal threat" over allegedly incorrect info. [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editor posting my legal name on several articles talk pages

Resolved

– Taken to AN/I. --Beloved Freak 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hillman contribution history shows all the places where he placed my real name. I did not object when it was placed in 'bios theory' article, nor even in 'process equation', but he placed it also on 'asymmetry' and 'intermitency' and this is going too far, and violates several WP policies and guidelines. If you want me to, I can place here links to specific policies.

Anyhow, I request User:Hillman be warned or banned from posting my name anywhere else, and from writing about me, and even from stalking my edits. Actually, I ask here where and how can I request above.

Thank you.

Lakinekaki (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this to the admin's incidents noticeboard. As an active user, the User and Talk pages should not be protected. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help.

For the article on former NJ Governor James McGreevey, we need intelligent, objective help resolving a talk page dispute about whether to list in the intro all of the circumstances surrounding his 8/04 resignation, or to mention only the one issue that Gov. McGreevey chose to mention when he announced his resignation. Would you please take a look at the intro and the discussion of this question low on the talk page, and weigh in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_McGreevey Thefactis (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are struggling to reach consensus, you might want to try a request for comment to get more eyes on it. --Beloved Freak 11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of referenced name - Madison Taylor

Resolved

– Doesn't appear to be much that can be done. --Beloved Freak 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally requesting that the reference to one of my children be removed from Wikipedia as it has no applicablity. The intent was obviously submitted as a joke or prank by one of her classmates. As my daughter moves from private/public school to college and into the business world, this form of reference provides no professional benefit nor has any socially redeeming value.

Your assistance to remove the reference to Madison Taylor is very important. Thank you for your time and consideration.

James Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by JT2007 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what "references" you are referring to. Otherwise, no one can really help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be the first redlink at dab page Madison Taylor. Seems like a non-notable porn star using an (unfortunately) common name, and seems unlikely that she is the same person. --CliffC (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is it could also be the other one at that Dab page or a reference in a different article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My money's on the redlink on the dab page, which I've just removed. No need to have it included until there's actually an article, if there ever is one. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think removing the redlink also means the dab page needs deleting as that leaves it with only one entry.~~ - forgot about the cardcaptors thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem might be something that some "meany" wrote further back in the article's history. If so, there's not much we can do about it short of oversight. Since it's such a common name, that probably won't be seen as necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

webpage deleted

Resolved

– Relevant advice given. --Beloved Freak 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a talk discussion with the wiki admin, Daniel J. Leivick, but I'm waiting for a quicker response. I created a wikipage for The Salvation Army Chicago Metropolitan Division twice, and it was deleted twice by Daniel. He said it looked like an advertisement. It was too much information added for it to be an advertisement. The Salvation Army and a number of it's sub divisions have wikipages already created and they have not been deleted. Please tell me what it is that I'm doing wrong so that the wikipage is not deleted.

Thank you,
Angela Vaughn
Web Marketing Manager
The Salvation Army Chicago Metropolitan Division —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjelyk1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading the policies about notability, verifiability, etc. Have a look at the help pages (especially those around creating your first article). Remember that although you are the Web Marketing Manager that you MUST write the article from a Neutral Point of View and that as the Web Marketing Manager this can be quite hard to do (see WP:COI. Hope this helps and please feel free to contribute constructively to articles for which you don't have a COI. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro empires

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion here is starting to get out of hand. There have been several accusations of single-purpose accounts flying around as well as a conflict of interest which has just recently been brought to the attention of WP:COIN. There are now a couple of users who are expressing their distate of the accusations and the progress of the AfD discussion who are now throwing blanket accusations at others for "crusading," "wallowing in the ecstasies of bureaucracy," and for not assuming good faith — bordering on incivility. What should the next steps be in the meantime, while we wait for what WP:COIN can gather from the situation? I don't want to hastily go right to RfC if I don't have to. MuZemike (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the lack of expediency, the discussion has escalated, and I had to request for comment on the dispute. MuZemike (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cashmore

Resolved

– as far as the vandalism goes. --Beloved Freak 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted a substantiated, neutral article on Tony Cashmore, President of the Society of Golf Course Architects. Someone has "got at" the original entry, a person with a personal grudge against Tony. As a result, the entry has had a number of untruths added and the result is almost libellous.

How does one reinstate the neutral entry that has been on Wikipedia for the past few weeks? How does Wikipedia stop a malicious contributor from accessing and changing the nature of a neutral entry?

Kind regards

Ray Cashmore (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like those were standard vandalism by an anonymous user, and you did the right thing by reverting them with the Undo command. We get that a lot.

As for the article, I think it needs some more work to reach that neutral point. Other editors may want to take a look and consider what can be done to polish it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

galagedara

sir, there are 8 galagedara articles.the correct galagedara article is Galagedara, Central Province. there is an article about the galagedara the electorate.the Galagedara, Western Province is a not important place either and i don't belive it worth an article too.so i here by request that remove the galagedara articles except Galagedara, Central Province and merge galagedara electorate article with Galagedara, Central Province.go and type galagedara to see the galagedara on Google map.thank you.--Chanakal (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian politicians - NPOV review request

At a time of high inter-community stress in Belgium which could easily lead to the breakup of the country, Olivier Maingain is one of the more overt francophone unilateralists, right or wrong. He is mayor of a Brussels council which is generally known as Woluwe Saint Lambert amongst the anglophone community of Brussels. The use of the Flemish version Saint-Lambrechts-Woluwe is indicative of a non-NPOV flemish viewpoint in that article, as is the general content of the text, which was certainly not written by an English native speaker. I would suggest that a member of the staff of the local English weekly, the Bulletin, should be asked to review this and similar pages, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

도이체 방크

Hi. This article needs transwiki'ing to the korean Wikipedia. I've had a look at the example at Help:Transwiki, and would have followed the instructions, but when trying to create the 'transwiki:도이체 방크' article on the Korean WP, it's showing what I believe to be the 'we can't find this page, so do you want to create it' page you get in the English WP, unfortunately, I can't read Korean so have no idea if that's what it is, or if there's some sort of error (spot the major flaw in the process !). Can someone either take over the move or explain to me in words of less that four syllables how to get the article moved ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can list the article at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. --Beloved Freak 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toytowngermany.com

Does anyone else think this fails WP:WEB/WP:SPAM, or am I being unreasonable ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At the moment it looks like a spam article (recently notable in the daily telegraph isn't remotely referenced in the article). It does have an underconstruction tag so maybe give it the benefit of the doubt for a little bit. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Maltese towns in English

Wikipedia Policy requires that the Names of localities are to be in English. But what happens when there is a disagreement about how the name of a locality is actually spelt in English? Template:Malta-LocalCouncils was a mix of English and Maltese. The problem is that English dictionaries do not seem to list these localities. User:Kyarichy decided to use as a reference http://www.fallingrain.com/ and change the Locality names to spelling that to any resident of Malta (both Maltese and English speakers) are totally unrecognisable. Of course technically my claim is "Original Research" even if I have no doubt that I am correct. The problem is that I am unable at the moment to provide reliable references, as User:Kyarichy is claiming that the gov.mt and the | Times of Malta and the sites of the local councils themselves do not count as they are based in Malta itself, and I myself consider comparative Google searches of both spellings not enough (which would support my spellings). So until such time that I can go to the library and fetch a couple of books which can help me, are we to live with Wrong information? --[[::User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] ([[::User talk:Inkwina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Inkwina|contribs]]) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Honestly the new spelling really look odd, and will look so silly to anyone who has ever lived in Malta, but this is of course only my opinion which I cannot ever hope to corroborate.

You are quickly becoming tiring now. This has been explained to you countless times. Maltese sources list the names in Maltese, and therefore, believe it or not, that is not English. And please at least try to list the information truthfully. Geody.com has also been used to show the English equivalent names. Oh, and also, the English spelling "Rome" looks odd to an Italian, but it is still the name of the city in English, and as such is titled as Rome on English Wiki. If you disagree, take it up with the naming conventions of articles. You are now disrupting wikipedia to make a point, after the countless explanations you have received, and frankly most of us don't have time for it. Kyarichy (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~done~~ - sorted amongst ourselves. Kyarichy (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sign of that on your respective User Talk pages. Am I missing something? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user pointed something out which indicated Marfa was not the same as Mtarfa, so we realized the page could not be named Marfa, and then I found that the source the user gave, stated the English equivalent was Imtarfa, so the page has now been moved to that. 78.149.215.98 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all the times I have been in Malta I have never heard of any of these names. Seconding the fact that they are archaic and obsolete and renaming the articles back to their original names, which are the ones everybody uses today including English speakers.

And don't mark the discussion as done when you know clearly that it has not yet been "sorted among ourselves". ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sources provided suggest otherwise, and since what you are saying is OR, your opinion really isn't relevent.

Secondly, the discussion clearly is done, considering in the words of Inkwina him/herself, "truce".

Discussion closed. Kyarichy (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of different sources that officially use the current names instead of the obsolete English names, such as the Official Tourist site, he Department of Information, the Malta Council for Science and Technology, and I can give you many more if you wish. As you can see, simply by doing a search on Google one can find few uses of these English spellings.

As stated on WP:NCGN, many local names are widely accepted in English. By your logic, we should rename Mumbai and Beijing back to Bombay and Peking!

As extra evidence, you may find plenty of information regarding RAF Luqa and its importance to the British forces during the war but a search on RAF Lia results 9 pages of nonsense!

And as you have clearly never visited Malta before, I suggest you leave these articles to editors who are more experience in the subject. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 10:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never visited Malta? Oh really? How racist. So because I am asian, I have never stepped foot in a western country? I suggest you watch your tongue. The English naming conventions are staying - end of. Kyarichy (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some places have English exonyms which are different to the endonyms, but their existence does not mean we have to use them - we use them if they are the most common name in English-language texts. Sometimes the exonym is more common than the endonym (e.g. Rome, Munich, Moscow), but equally often it is not the case. English-language texts now use the endonyms from such places as Regensburg (not the earlier English Ratisbon), Trento (not Trent, except in historical context of Council of Trent), Marseille (not Marseilles), Zaragoza (not Saragossa), Mechelen (not Mechlin) - in all these cases the endonym is far, far more common in English writing than the exonym, and there is nothing more English than what English-language writers use. There is a long-established trend in modern English writing to increasingly use the indigenous endonym in many cases - and our naming policy tells us we follow suit by reflecting usage - see WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME

In the case of the Maltese towns, I have heard and read about Qormi, San Ġwann and Żurrieq, yet never ever seen Curmi, San Giovanni or Zurrico. These articles should be restored to the Maltese endonyms where these articles have stood for a long time, until evidence has been provided to show that the English exonyms for them are used more frequently than the Maltese endonym. From my experience at least, the endonym is far more common. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for your at least civil response. However, I state that the sources provided already give some notion of the English names used. Also, Maltese is slightly different from other languages since it uses diacritics on some letters. These are certainly not used in English, since the English keyboard system does not even allow for them. Kyarichy (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UE allows for diacritised titles in general (Bácsszőlős, Sørvágsfjørður, etc.) - even if there is a non-diacritc exonym, e.g. Lüneburg which is used far more often than Lunenburg. We use redirects so that people without the right keyboard can get to the articles, e.g. click on Sorvagsfjordur, or for a Maltese example Ghasri. All the sources you have provided so far show is that the exonyms are used occasionally in English - what you need to do is show that the endonym is used more often than the endonym - there's a very important difference there. Knepflerle (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sources which mention the names. No sources have been given to counter that. Kyarichy (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have only shown a few sources use a particular name. You have to show that more sources use those names than those that use the indigenous names. That is how you show it is the most common name, not just a name that is sometimes used. Knepflerle (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I did not revert Kyarichy's edits does not mean that we sorted it amongst ourselves, it was due to Wikietiqutte and wishing to avoid a WP:3RR. That said, if my initial reaction was not civil enough, I apologize, and offer you to meet up for a drink on me next time you are in Malta, just to make up. In the mean time I have contacted the webadmin of Geody about their own sources, this is the response:

    Could you please tell me Where you are getting the place names for Malta, as quite a few of them seem odd to me.
    Can you also tell me what the order of the alterantive place names means.


Place names for Malta were provided by the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Alternative place names (which came from the same source) are ordered alphabetically. They generally include the name in English, in local languages, and historical names.

If there is a specific issue with place names in Malta, please let me know.

It is now clear to me that several Geographic web sites are using the same source where the historical, English and local version are simply sorted in alphabetical order. I hope this settles it, and we can revert back to the most commonly used names. --[[::User:Inkwina|Inkwina]] ([[::User talk:Inkwina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Inkwina|contribs]]) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't tell us which one is the historical, English, and local one, so it is still not conclusive. Kyarichy (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as with the example of Curmi, "Qormi" is the Maltese name, "Curmi" is the English name, and "Città Pinto" is the old name. Kyarichy (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason not to use that site. Don't worry too much about individual websites - it is clear in our policies and guidelines that we are more concerned about the most common spelling over all sources. Also notice that geody isn't just prescribing one particular name for each town - the site not only uses Zurrico, but also Casal Zurrico, Iż-Żurrieq, Zurriek and Żurrieq. I haven't heard anyone shouting for Zurriek yet! Rather than use one site which tries to list every possible name without distinguishing their usage, frequency or origin, just use your knowledge and best judgement about what is used most in English-language texts as a whole. Hope that helps, Knepflerle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

site deleted with spurious reason

I am a cartoonist in 200 places and do 2 blogs. One is : www.donnabarstow.com/park_blog and I placed it in the Silver Lake, Los Angeles, CA entry. It has been removed twice by someone calling himself Matt Field who lives near Silver Lake and apparently doesn't want info about it disseminated. I can't find the message he wrote to me now, because I didn't have a name here then (and it was quite time-consuming getting a name here, btw, with no help, and no names on the board. Which I will find, anyway.) But he wrote that I was not an attributable author. Does he get his kicks by deleting people here? How did he know I had put it up again so quickly? Is he the one in charge of LA, or gay areas ?(which for some reason Silver Lake is described as.) I would like more info on him. I already wrote to his website with no reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the talk pages at ALL. Am I supposed to sign this? Hottertoddy (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I see a problem above (or below, can't understand what you are doing here) that says blogs are not allowed on wiki except in limited circumstances. There's an enlightened point of view for you. Mine is 24 rated on Technorati, and linked to the LA Times, CNN and many other places.[reply]

Hello, Hottertoddy. A writer and cartoonist will certainly be welcome as a contributer on Wikipedia, but you'd better slow down and get to know some of the rules and conventions. Calling fellow editors' motivations "spurious" isn't in the preferred cooperative spirit. Yes, comments should be signed (as it says at the top of this page). If you type 4 tildes, the date/time and your signature will be added. Yes, blogs are allowed in "limited circumstances", a logical and worthy policy though not well described by that terminology. An example of blog entries which are allowed as references are (some of) those on ScienceBlogs, where the authors are recognized experts in their fields. Calm down, stick around and you may find that editing here is fun. --Hordaland (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the page where I previously listed my problem. This is to find that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hordaland: I see no place on your talk page where I can start my topic, and I'm not going to interfere in the other threads you have there. As I said, I don't understand how talk pages work, and I actually designed and wrote html and css for my sites. You're right, I don't consider Matt's actions to be cooperative. How do I even know that he's an editor? As I said, his reason for deleting me on that rather short page seemed to be that I'm not attributed. I'm not presumptuous enough to call myself an editor. Did he become one by deleting me? If just anyone can go in and edit anyone than this is far worse than a blog, which wiki apparently bans.

But I don't want to be hasty, I want to be accurate, so let me see if I understand you, Hordaland. Are you actually saying that only Science Blog writers are recognized as being experts or having any kind of attribution or validity in Wiki? So my experience and credentials as a journalist mean nothing unless I write about science? And anyone who puts up a one-page website - which I also have, although it is closer to 100 pages - is by definition more worthy in Wiki than any blog? What a fascinating blog article this would make. Hottertoddy (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Ironically enough, my blog is an environmental one, that is almost all science, although I'm not a scientist. I am a researcher and journalist in the LA Press Club who writes about science. Matt, who deleted me, looked at my blog for about 30 seconds, according to my tracker, and then deleted me from wiki. Matt is a photographer in Hollywood. I should correct that I have a 24 link rating in Technorati, not that I'm #24. Then I would be in the stratosphere (although still ignored by Wiki, apparently.).Hottertoddy (talk)

` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the page history by clicking the "history" tab at top of Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California. It sounds like you are one or more of the IP addresses which have edited the article. Click "Talk" links (not if they are red which means no page) next to them to see messages posted to them, for example at User talk:68.121.19.116 and User talk:68.121.241.15 where User:Mfield has posted. Maybe the article is on Mfield's watchlist so he can easily see when it has been edited. Special:Contributions/Mfield shows he is an experienced editor and edits many articles.

Anybody who edits articles is considered an editor by Wikipedia. There is no application or acceptance process to become en editor. Wikipedia:Replies to common objections may be of interest to you.

You can start a new talk page section by clicking the "New section" tab at top.

Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest says: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.". This means you can click "New section" at top of Talk:Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California and suggest your link. Note that Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (It doesn't have to be about science). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say you already wrote to Field's website with no response. I don't know whether you refer to an off-Wikipedia site, but discussions about Wikipedia are usually kept here and you can post to User talk:Mfield. I don't know about Mfield but some editors have experienced real-life harassment over Wikipedia disputes and many editors prefer not to discuss things outside Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Hottertoddy. It looks as though PrimeHunter has answered most of your questions.(?) We don't need to take up space here, perhaps. I'll message you on your Talk page. --Hordaland (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hordaland, I think this is rather an important issue, although I look forward to your message on my Talk page. PrimeHunter, thank you very much for answering these questions. I did understand that anyone can be an editor, but apparently there are degrees of editors here, which is not covered in the Wiki pages. Yes, I see that Matt Fields has done a lot of editing. But he also advertises his own website on his user page, and also publicizes his photos (from which he makes a living) on Wiki, according to that page! In what way is that not self-serving? Is this common practice with editors? He approved listing an entire city (Silver Lake) as a gay city (which has been removed in the last 2 hours by someone), and approves an entire section on the music in Silver Lake. (he makes a living by taking photos of bands.) He also approves two commercial projects: a gay hospital, when no other hospitals are listed, and a gay map of Silver Lake and Hollywood called Clubfly that tells you where to find leather bars, etc. But meanwhile, my blog is totally non-profit and covers ongoing pollution problems in Silver Lake and Griffith Park.

Please tell me who at Wiki would be best to talk with or communicate with about this issue of blogs, and the much smaller issue of my blog. Thank you.Hottertoddy (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Does anyone have the phone or email for Michael Snow? Thanks very much.Hottertoddy (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snow can be contacted at User talk:Michael Snow or Special:EmailUser/Michael Snow, but doing so now over one external link in one of more than two million English Wikipedia articles would make no sense. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. The guideline at Wikipedia:External links can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:External links. And please stop making personal attacks on other editors. Finding relevant images with a license allowing use on Wikipedia is often hard (Wikipedia doesn't pay for images), and editors are encouraged to upload their own images for use in articles. Wikipedia:User page allows editors to mention their own website on their user page which is not part of the encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, PrimeHunter. Since this is a ripe topic on blogs, I will approach it from that angle. There are over 100 million blogs now. Surely some of them have merit.

Thanks also for the reference to personal attacks. I do not believe I am doing that, as "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." I am talking about Matt Fields actions on this page about that covers several hundred thousand people.

I understand what you are saying: that photos are important in Wiki. However, each of his photos links to his website, and he MAKES A LIVING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER.

Personally, I don't object to him getting great PR that way, but please don't say it is helping Wiki more than his career. And it is certainly different than someone from the Flickr pool contributing photos.

Actually you are misguided here, I only make a small fraction of my living from photography. In addition, I only have one music photograph on Wikimedia, and don't generally upload anything that is directly related to the photography I make money from. I have never got a photography job because of my work being on WP. Mfield (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your suggestion to add my blog to the discussion page of Silver Lake. However, as I feared, only he has looked at it and commented. This is certainly not the neutral review I hoped for.Hottertoddy (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve also commented there. Dayewalker (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm preparing to write about this, and look what I found: "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Yet, with my blog, it was a first resort! And no effort at all was made to find a source. When I asked if anyone here had ever heard of Technorati, no one said a word. That's scary. I gave a link in my discussion page on Silver Lake. No one responded to it. Does the LA Times count as a 3rd party source? Mr. Fields lives in LA, so you would think he'd have heard of it. It's a whole new world out there to Wiki people, I guess, if you've never read blogs before. Hottertoddy (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the WP:EL page. However, you need to show why your blog adds reliably sourced information to wikipedia. Simply being an independant source about an area is not enough to guarantee inclusion. I'm familiar with Technorati and the LA Times, please refresh me on why they're coming up in a discussion about your blog. Dayewalker (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they link to me, as well as dozens of other news sources. Check Technorati. I consider them as a reliable source. I'm not going to explain this any more.Hottertoddy (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to explain why your blog deserves special consideration to bypass wikipedia policy isn't an unreliable request. Simply saying you've been mentioned by the LA Times doesn't necessarily qualify you as a reliable secondary source. You need to be more specific about why your blog is a proper resource as per WP:RS. Dayewalker (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (just a couple of comments ago): "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Yet, with my blog, it was a first resort! is clearly a misunderstanding. The quote refers to an article, a whole "page" on Wikipedia, most often a newly written article/page. What is being discussed in this thread is an external link added to the bottom of an article, which is something else altogether.

Deletion of an unsourced article (page) should be a last resort, after trying (and failing) to find reliable sources for its content. Deletion of a link to a personal website or blog, particularly when it has been added to an article by its owner, is routine. -Hordaland (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. As I am.Hottertoddy (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that several times. Again, please show how. Being a "service" is not enough. What is your blog a reliable secondary source of, as per WP:RS, that would make it a resource for wikipedia? Dayewalker (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do the right thing on Wikipedia, of course, and so I deleted one link on this page that was broken, and deleted 3 more that are blogs like mine. I know Wiki hates blogs. Now there are only 2 links left for a city of several hundred thousand people.Hottertoddy (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I just talked with Wikimedia. I will continue my discussion with them directly. Meanwhile, oops! In the last minute Matt Fields reinstated the SCARY BLOGS, including the broken link! And so the game that is Wiki continues. Hottertoddy (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a game. You have joined a community and yet you don't want to abide by our consensus rules and policies. That's what communities are. If you don't then feel free to leave but don't complain when everyone else says what you are doing is wrong. There's plenty of reading you have been directed to to explain where you are falling foul of policy. Mfield (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just talked with Jay Walsh, and he told me about Jimmy Wales. Rules are made to be broken when they don't work anymore. I could care less that the whole lot of you have ganged up on me. That doesn't make you right. Hottertoddy (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, btw everybody, Matt has just given me a warning. Some people just can't resist using their "power" to control others! Now, can someone here help me understand, since we are all EQUAL editors, may I give him one, too?Hottertoddy (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having further contact with you, please do not contact me either. I have spent 24 hours patiently explaining the way that WP works, only to face personal attacks for my efforts. Other people have tried to explain the same things as I have. I do not have any 'power'. We are all in a position to warn people who are breaking policy, something that I have not done. Be careful with the threats to warn me as inappropriate warnings are not looked on lightly either. I have been editing wikipedia a number of years and I have never yet given someone an inappropriate warning. I will leave it to others from this point onwards as I am worn out with trying to explain the same things again and again. Mfield (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes us right is that a) you want to use wikipedia for promotion of your blog, which is against WP:EL; b) you refuse to actually discuss the matter and explain why your blog is a unique resource; and c) you appear to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point, since policy is against you. I'd advise you to take your discussion to the talk page, and actually make a case for your blog there rather than simply get angry it's not allowed. Until you can do that, I'd wager that any editor who comes across you adding your blog will remove it. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant trivia?

Could you guys have a look at the material added to the Tarot articles such as The Hermit and Strength. Is it appropriate or just too tangential? I don't think sharing the card's name automatically makes it viable for inclusion, certainly when it has absolutely nothing else to do with the cards. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally lost

I was reading the article on Barack Obama and I wanted to ask a question in the discussion section. There is an abbreviation used without explanation ("... which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–2002...)" so I logged in and it shows that I'm logged in when I'm on the discussion page. I click the link to start a new thread or whatever and my ID goes away, it says Log In at the top, and the page says I must be a registered user to post. I thought I *was* a registered user.

Then I have to start from scratch and click all over the place and this is getting super frustrating!

All I want to know is what DCP stands for. Can anyone tell me?

Punstress (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Developing Communities Project. It's talked about a bit earlier in the article, and at greater length in the sub-article on Obama's early life. -- Vary | Talk 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha Wikipedia Page

Hello. I am a college student, and my proffesor gave us an assignment to contribute to a Wikipedia page. I chose to do my work on the Geisha page, but it is currently "semi-protected." I would like to contribute my work to this page because I think it would be helpful since I researched information. It there a way I can contribute on this page? Thanks! Asoriano (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Asoriano[reply]

Hi, articles are sometimes protected at Wikipedia to prevent edit warring or persistent vandalism from anonymous users. To edit a semi-protected page you need to have an account which is autoconfirmed. This means the account must be at least 4 days old and have at least 10 edits. So, you'll need to make a few more edits on other articles first. In the mean time, why don't you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. And please make sure that when you start adding material that you have references to reliable sources for anything you add. If in doubt, bring it up at the article talkpage first. --Beloved Freak 10:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Youth_Chance_High_School

Dear editor, Iam writting to request deletion of this article that was written about me. Please find link below;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Youth_Chance_High_School.

Please let me know what i need to do to have this article deleted because it is defamatory in nature.

I appreciate your help.

Emmanuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelobel (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. First of all, that page is a talkpage, meaning a place where people can discuss the article Youth Chance High School. The comment was added, it seems, by someone connected with the school who wanted to deal with misinformation in the article. The only comment about you was that you weren't fired, which presumably, at the time (in 2005) the main article said you were. As you can see, you are not mentioned in the article at all now. I have removed the information about you and some others from the talkpage partly per our Biographies of living people policy which demands that all possibly contentious information about living people be sourced, or removed. Not only that, but I don't think that the information is really that necessary for the growth of the article since as far as I am aware, articles about schools don't tend to focus on the comings and goings of the staff. Hope this has helped, --Beloved Freak 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: trilogy copyright vio???

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 11:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Corellian_trilogy

The three articles seem to violate copyright by having copies of the back issue cover blurbs. Lots42 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on google and found the summaries on Amazon, copyrighted to Lucasfilm. In a clear cut case like this, the best thing to do is just remove the offending material. I have also warned the user who added it. If you're not sure whether or not something is a copyright violation, you can list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Beloved Freak 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help understanding and appealing a sockpuppet finding

I have been linked to a sockpuppeteer [8]. I do not agree with the findings. I believe they were based on a multistep theory with more than half the steps missing. If this is in fact a linking, I need help finding exactly how this may be appealed as I cant seem to find the info on how to appeal this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with dispute

Having a dispute over notability with another user. Please see User talk: Carte Rouge#Congressional Scorecard or Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements to help

The dispute is on an entry with a lock on the talk page. So, the dispute is being played out on Carte Rouge's talk page.

Thank you very much! (Daredevil0405 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

M.I.A. article and claims of LTTE support

There is a edit war going on in the M.I.A._(artist) article. The fight involves information coming from dubious sources and the citing of irrelevant articles with information claiming her LTTE (which is a terrorist organization) supposed support and/or affiliation. These changes strated after a Sri Lankan rapper of Sinhalese ethnicity launched a diss video on youtube in blogs calling her a terrorist. Can and editor solve this dispute as it is important since this is a biography of a living person and there have many, many edits and reverts.

Thanks,

Nickcin2000 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this issue. I've left a warning for the user that was adding the material. If they add it again, post back here and I'll see if there's anything an uninvolved admin wants to do about it. If an IP address makes the same changes, that may be the same editor staying logged out to avoid scrutiny and I'll see what can be done about that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help to follow proper procedures (sock/meat puppets and/or single purpose accounts)

I'm not remotely sure of all the various policies and guidelines are on the above and I'd like to WP:AGF so without going into details about a specific case I'm asking for advice on how to go about encouraging users of the above nature to contribute constructively to other articles on the project but, also what procedures exist to investigate such matters. (Ideally, I'd like to be able to look into it and only report it if absolutely needed). Thanks in advance for any help and/or advice. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start with WP:SOCK and WP:SPA and follow other links from there. Remember that having multiple accounts isn't necessarily bad in itself. The problems start when multiple accounts contribute to the same pages, particularly when it creates a misleading impression of consensus. Use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is also problematic. It's not a simple task to persuade single-purpose accounts to branch out into other subject areas; if they wanted to edit elsewhere, they could already be doing so.

Suspected sockpuppets may be listed at WP:SSP without necessarily invoking administrator action, although any admin may choose to act on information posted there. As for disruption caused by SPAs, it depends on exactly what's happening. Links and info at WP:DE might help. Without knowing more about the details, it's difficult to be more specific. I hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input always help. Especially, when it concerns me getting better at helping out around here and/or helping others get better at helping out around here. I won't post details here as I really don't want to get anyone in trouble (and I could be 100% wrong about the whole thing anyway). Thanks again though for the help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Asian American Media article help

Please help with editing our page for The Center for Asian American Media. The original article that was written was recently deleted. I am an intern here at The Center for Asian Amerian Media and am helping them develop Wikipedia information on the organization and its role in our community. This is not being used as an advertisement. It is primarily to be used as a source of educational material. Please advise. Thank you. CAAMwiki (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia's copyright policy and advertising policy. Edits must be encyclopedic and cited with reliable third party sources. Copying and pasting from your company's web page is not acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with Reallmmablogger and MKil

Resolved

– Per Reallmmablogger. Fleetflame 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realmmablogger seems to have an issue with anyone who attempts to clean up articles he has started or significantly modified. As you can see here [9] and here [10], for instance, he fails to understand or abide by the site's copyright policy. He also likes to remove cleanup tags from these articles [11] and [12].

I attempted to clean up some of his articles. For instance, on Young Corbett II I added references, categories, and, in my opinion, improved the writing of the article. He did not like that and simply reverted it [13]. On Charley Belanger he has consistently reverted my attempts to clean up the article.

Because of my attempts to improve the quality of these articles, Reallmmablogger now accuses me of harassment[14] and has said I am trying to "sabotage" him [15].

He appears to be a new user here so perhaps he is not fully aware of the rules (although he has had incidents with other users here and has been somewhat combative towards them [16]. I would request that someone intervene with this user to discuss the necessity of civility and other Wiki policy.MKil (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

We have been going back and fourth on this issue. I have tried to come to an agreement. Mkil does not want to come to an agreement. The information I have provided for the article is important for the article. Obviously this user has friends on here trying to help him out in this dispute. What reason did he give to undo changes? The reason was he did not agree with the information. The information is fact and non of it can be disputed. I have opened this to get a non biased opinion from users that truly care about Wikipedia. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the unwillingness to work well with others. I would love to work with a fellow editor who truly cares about what he is editing. The links he has provided proves my case showing that he has been following my edits and harassing me. The link that he put is not even from me. If you click on it it shows this message [17]=

My chess club (and its not mine anymore, never was) could easily destroy your mafia, tons of perverts with no feelings, robots, the undead! I am glad once in your pathetic life you feel sorry! And that's a lie in itself! But manners you will never learn! Contradiction is your name! And stop violation other rules. Oxymoronic perfect term for you! Just keep on playing mr ip user from IS X-Originating-IP: [162.84.41.179]

That message has nothing to do with me he is purposely trying to sabotage me for some reason. Can someone please realize this. The one below is also another disagreement where he thinks his article is better and I think mine is also. I also tried to come to an agreement but he did not want to. [18] Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this goes He keeps on stating that Mike Tyson should not have an information about the Wrestelmania he referred for I tried to explain that to him. in a nice manner. I also did not like the one he wrote to me. Which states below

As far as the Tyson Wrestlemania incident goes, I removed it because it is a very trivial event in Tyson's career and giving that much space to it in the Tyson article is ridiculous. Wiki is not here to be a comprehensive biography. It should not catalog every little event in someone's life.MKil (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)MKil [19] Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to him specifically states great reason why this needed to be in Mike Tyson's article [20] Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for [21] Not only did he keep on editing my article he even edited the aricle by user:Amalthea on the issue. Even though user:Amalthea had resolved the issue between the aarticle. So what does he want things his way or no way there is no resolution with him. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also unaware that you could not remove tags if you tried to fix the problem. I would have not done this if I would have had a user explain this to me. All I have tried to do is make the boxing section broad for researchers. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also unaware that you must put an edit summary when you eidt an article. Th ereason I just found this out now is because of a kind user named Mfield (talk). Thanks to him I can better serve Wikipedia. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any problem that I had with a user in the past has been resolved on its own except for this matter. I have tried everything I could so I am glad now we are both here to get some help to put this behind us. Reallmmablogger (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin. First, on the Young Corbett II page, Reallmmablogger states, "The one below is also another disagreement where he thinks his article is better and I think mine is also. I also tried to come to an agreement but he did not want to." If you look at his reversion here [22] you can pretty clearly see that he didn't try to come to any agreement. He simply reverted my changes. I think you can also see that my version is objectively better, given that it is not merely a list of people who "Young" fought but an article that has sources and categories.

In terms of his need of some lessons in civility, I think his message on my talk page speaks for itself: "For a boxing enthusiast do you know anything about the boxers life or just what you think you know. Do everyone on Wikipedia a favor don't ever mess with information about something you think you know about but really only know very little."

He also complains that I edited "his" Billy Soose article. Apparently he finds my attempts to expand the article [23] offensive. I fail to see why this edit should provoke such a response with him.

In short, Reallmmablogger's reply illustrates the very issues I have been struggling with. When I try and talk to him I get a rude reply so I hope someone else can have some luck with him.MKil (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

In short he has never tried to talk to me that is a lie and I have not been rude. He would not even listen to great points I made on Mike Tyson and kept on ignoring me please help Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I posted to him on Mike Tyson

You posted this incorrect information to anotheer Wikipedia user trying to help out.

I think it's irrelevant because it's a very, very minor incident in his life. If Wikipedia were to start listing every single public appearance by everyone, it would quickly devolve into a trivia site, not an encyclopedia. Not everything someone does is notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia.MKil (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)MKil

How can Mike Tyson being at Wrestlemania be a public appearence? It was ajob that he had he got paid to be the special guest referee. I think that you have a problem with wrestling. Do you? It was also false of you to state that it was minor in Tyson life. He was retiring from boxing at the time and he got a job to work at Wrestlemania which I stated to you before which you probably did not read up on is the biggest PPV ever in Wrestling history period. Please read the Wrestlemania article maybe then you can understand until then I am not sure if you will. User Nhgaudreau was right in asking you what was the problem now I will make it my personal mission to make sure his questions and contributions do not go unheard. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning for the edit on Mike Tyson I gave him is below.

I wanted to ask you also why would the wrestling information sbout Mike Tyson be irrlevant Wikipedia is here to provide researchers with as much information about a person of interest and importance life. Wrestlemania where he was the referre is the biggest wrestlig PPV of all time. You should look it up I highlighted it for you. Muhammad Ali was at the first Wrestlemania in 1985. Also even the great Muhammad Ali was involved in wrestling facing wreslters like Gorilla Monsoon, and Antonio Inoki. Muhammad Ali was also a guest referee at Wrestlemania in 1985. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. also has a wrestling section in his profile for the last Wrestlemania that he was in2008 is that irrelvant? Rowdy Roddy Piper had a boxing match with Mr. T at Wrestlemania in 1986. Roddy Pipper was acommpanied by Lou Duva and Mr. T was accompanied by Joe Frazier is that irrelevant? For a boxing enthusiast do you know anything about the boxers life or just what you think you know. Do everyone on Wikipedia a favor don't ever mess with information about something you think you know about but really only know very little. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you see his entry he cut and pasted a minor part of what I wrote instead of the whole thing which is another reason that lead me to believe he is trying to sabotage me. Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Charley Belanger this is what I wrote to him below

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. But the Charley Belanger was incomplete when i came upon it. I always refer to a boxer by his first name while making a page. I will also continue to. If you are a real boxing enthusiast then you would enjoy seeing Charley's notable fighters and what titles he held with the year and what boxer he took the title from I know other enthusiats are appreciating it. I see you have done around 20 boxer that is nice. I have done 100 boxing articles as well as mane other contributions to pages that were already made. Thank You Reallmmablogger (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide I would love to come to an even resolution please help. Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since he posted my so called disputes here is his which are not so sunny.

[[24]] [25], and [26]
talk [27], and [28] this one shows that another user accused him of having his buddies back him. So it proves that I am not going crazy.
[User:216.129.105.149|talk] [[29]] [30]
talk [31]

[32]

talk [33] [34]

There you go Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had many good experiences with many user such as

(TN)
(talk)
(talk)
(Justin (koavf)❤T)
(talk)
([[Stifle]])

I have had only a dispute with one other user before this and that was with Amalthea (talk). The disputes were over Marc Ratner, and Rob Calloway. Both came to a resolutions ended with the following statements by both me and Amalthea (talk)

Thank you for the heads up (talk) I have taken care of it thank you.

Reallmmablogger talk 18:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

   OK, glad we're OK again.
   Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea talk has been trying to make a resolution between me and MKil (talk) but it has not worked. Recently the only other time I have heard from Amalthea (talk) has been on the articles that me and MKil (talk) had disputes on they are Manning Galloway, Charley Belanger, Mike Tyson, Billy Soose, and Young Corbett II.

I hope that Amalthea talk is not a buddy of MKil talk. That is why I am so happy we can have a neutral party help Reallmmablogger (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Calling me a liar and using conflicts with banned editor and notorious vandal BoxingWear/Vesa/TheGeorgeReevesPerson to back up your point.

As far as the Mike Tyson situation went, I tried to come to a compromise [35]. You, as you usually do, simply reverted it [36].MKil (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I've taken a look at several of the pages at issue here, including Young Corbett II, Charley Belanger and Mike Tyson. On the whole, the edits by Mkil represent substantial improvements - e.g., turning lists into prose and paring down extraneous information. Reallmmablogger has, also on the whole, tended to revert these edits with little or no explanation of his actions. Perhaps Mkil might have said more on the talk pages of the various articles about his reasoning, but the articles were plainly better as a result of his efforts, and, to be honest his edits really didn't need much defending. JohnInDC (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) as far as the no reason for my acitons I gave him my reasons. I also did not know how to edit my summaries. I was just shown how to by Mfield. Reallmmablogger (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary with your edits. Thank you. Mfield (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also simply reverted everything to does that make you right. We both did the same exact thing reverting back and fourth because we could not compromise. You write I just kept on reverting it like you did not either. I want a solution to the problem. Lets stop blaming each other and lets both start taking ownership of our actions. Reallmmablogger (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a band user I have no idea is the user was band or not all I know is that he also had issues with you and I brought it to the surface. Reallmmablogger (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to be the bigger man. If users believe that I was wrong I apologize to MKil talk). I will go about my business and will be open to settle future diputes a lot better then this one. I just want the issue done. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mkil pretty consistently explained what he was doing in his edit summaries. Now that you know to do that, perhaps these back-and-forth disputes will come to an end. It is also highly recommended that, when you find yourself at loggerheads with another editor, take the disagreement to the Talk page, where you can explain yourselves much more completely than you can in any edit summary. It also gives interested third parties an opportunity to weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then Mkil will get my apology and there will be no more diputes thank you talk for all of your help. Have a great night buddy I will apologize to him on his talk page. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below is what I just posted to Mkil page. Dispute is over Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong

Hey bud I am writing you to let you know that I apologize. There will be no more disputes from me. I hope we can work together in the future to make the boxing section in to a great section keep up the good work. Reallmmablogger (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

Hi, As The Angelina Jolie Article Is Partly Locked, Could You Please Change The New-Born Twins Names To 'Knox-Leon' Rather Than Just 'Knox' and 'Vivienne' To 'Vivienne Marcheline'. Thanks Guys, Appriciate It. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigeh05 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full names are in the last paragraph of the section Angelina Jolie#Children. If you want to suggest changes to the article then you can click the "new section" tab at Talk:Angelina Jolie. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daska

Hi. I'd be grateful if someone reviewed the changes I have made to this article, before i get slapped on the wrist. IMHO, the revision in place had probably been added to over time, with the result that it rambled, included flight times and telephone numbers for the radio station, plus biographies of local people, some of dubious notability. I've attempted to clean it up, but would appreciate someone having a look over my changes to see if they're reasonable.... Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I don't think you'll have any issues over it. Synergy 11:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about User:Excirial Speedy delete tags

Resolved

– Originator added as I'm happy with the response and have now discussed with Excirial. -- Dpmuk (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this isn't the right place to bring this up if so I'd appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction. Anyway, I'm concerned about User:Excirial use of speedy delete tags as many of them seem to be not applicable or the wrong one used. As they are more experienced than me I thought I'd seek other editor's opinions before taking it up with them or taking it further. Some specific examples (obviously only one's that haven't been speedied I seem to remember others that probably have been speedied by an admin under another criteria now their attention has been drawn to it):

Rapid roll - Used db:bio for a mobile phone game when it's obviously not a person and not eligable under any speedy criteria as it's not web based.
Tiger images - No comment as to why g6 applies and I suspect it doesn't.
The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) - Again used db:bio for something that isn't a person and no speedy applies to.
Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center - Similar use of db:bio.

Any thoughts? Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of those were appropriately tagged. Pages should almost never be tagged with G6, as that's what administrators use to handle history merges and other ugly stuff that requires the delete button. I'll drop him a line and see if there are any others that have been missed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the last two articles could fit under A7 through "corporations or businesses". But as you pointed out, the wrong template was used despite being the right criteria. Anyway... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a fair comment. I suppose I look on them (certainlt the Gadfly and probably the other one) as being about a product of a buisness and so not speediable per "A7 applies only to ... articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on". That said, I'd take this possible intpretation on board for my future editing. Dpmuk (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda depends on how it's written. If you're not sure, a PROD won't hurt anything.

After looking through some more taggings, I think most of those are either accidental or simply mistakes. Most of the taggings seem appropriate, and he seems to know what he's doing. Thanks for bringing it up all the same, when someone's using a tool like that it's easy to get a little careless. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry probably should have made it clearer that my concern was with them making, what to me is, reasonably frequent mistakes with an automated tool. I don't think they are delibrately missusing tags but possible don't understand them fully and with automated tools that seems a little dangerous. Hence why I brought it here for advice (rather than ANI or directly bring it up with the editor) as I wasn't sure how to proceed espcially as I weren't sure whether that percentage of false positives is considered acceptable. Dpmuk (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on his talk page (which I've just spotted). In the interest of transparency I'm going to admit to it being me on his page as well. I only raised it here for advice not because I was afraid to list my concerns to them. Dpmuk (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida 2000 election results

hi - i was looking at the Florida Election results in 2000

the data is clearly wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000_Florida_results

the data shows Bush winning all but one county! in reality the election was reported within a couple hundred votes in Florida so this is clearly impossible - someone has hacked this data.

Look for yourself.

Thank you.

[edit] Results by county County Bush # Bush % Gore # Gore % Nader # Nader % Miami-Dade 328,867 53% 289,574 46% 5,352 1% Broward 387,760 67% 177,939 31% 7,101 1% Palm Beach 269,754 62% 152,964 35% 5,564 1% Pinellas 200,657 50% 184,849 46% 10,022 3% Hillsborough 180,794 50% 169,576 47% 7,496 2% Orange 140,236 50% 134,531 48% 3,879 1% Duval 152,460 58% 108,039 41% 2,757 1% Brevard 115,253 53% 97,341 45% 4,470 2% Lee 106,151 58% 73,571 40% 3,588 2% Volusia 97,313 53% 82,368 45% 2,903 2% Polk 90,310 54% 75,207 45% 2,060 1% Sarasota 83,117 52% 72,869 45% 4,069 3% Pasco 69,576 49% 68,607 48% 3,393 2% Seminole 75,790 55% 59,227 43% 1,940 1% Escambia 73,171 63% 40,990 35% 1,727 2% Manatee 58,023 53% 49,226 45% 2,491 2% Leon 61,444 60% 39,073 38% 1,934 2% Marion 55,146 54% 44,674 44% 1,809 2% Collier 60,467 66% 29,939 33% 1,399 2% Lake 50,010 56% 36,571 41% 1,460 2% Alachua 47,380 55% 34,135 40% 3,226 4% St. Lucie 41,560 53% 34,705 45% 1,368 2% Okaloosa 52,186 74% 16,989 24% 985 1% Charlotte 35,428 53% 29,636 44% 1,461 2% Hernando 32,648 50% 30,658 47% 1,501 2% Martin 33,972 55% 26,621 43% 1,118 2% St. Johns 39,564 65% 19,509 32% 1,217 2% Bay 38,682 66% 18,873 32% 828 1% Clay 41,903 73% 14,668 26% 562 1% Citrus 29,801 52% 25,531 45% 1,379 2% Osceola 28,187 51% 26,237 47% 732 1% Santa Rosa 36,339 72% 12,818 25% 724 1% Indian River 28,639 58% 19,769 40% 950 2% Highlands 20,207 58% 14,169 40% 545 2% Monroe 16,487 49% 16,063 47% 1,090 3% Flagler 13,897 51% 12,618 47% 435 2% Putnam 13,457 51% 12,107 46% 377 1% Nassau 16,408 69% 6,955 29% 255 1% Sumter 12,127 55% 9,637 43% 306 1% Columbia 10,968 59% 7,049 38% 258 1% Walton 12,186 67% 5,643 31% 265 1% Jackson 9,139 56% 6,870 42% 138 1% Gadsden 9,736 66% 4,770 32% 139 1% Levy 6,863 54% 5,398 42% 284 2% Suwannee 8,009 64% 4,075 33% 180 1% Okeechobee 5,057 51% 4,589 47% 131 1% Bradford 5,416 62% 3,075 35% 84 1% Wakulla 4,512 53% 3,838 45% 149 2% Baker 5,611 69% 2,392 29% 53 1% Hendry 4,747 58% 3,240 40% 104 1% Washington 4,995 62% 2,798 35% 93 1% De Soto 4,256 55% 3,321 43% 157 2% Holmes 5,012 68% 2,177 29% 94 1% Taylor 4,058 60% 2,649 39% 59 1% Hardee 3,765 60% 2,342 38% 75 1% Madison 3,038 49% 3,015 49% 54 1% Gulf 3,553 58% 2,398 39% 86 1% Jefferson 3,041 54% 2,478 44% 76 1% Gilchrist 3,300 61% 1,910 35% 97 2% Calhoun 2,873 56% 2,156 42% 39 1% Dixie 2,697 58% 1,827 39% 75 2% Franklin 2,454 53% 2,047 44% 85 2% Hamilton 2,147 54% 1,723 43% 37 1% Union 2,332 61% 1,407 37% 37 (Buchanan) 1% (Buchanan) Glades 1,841 55% 1,442 43% 56 2% Lafayette 1,670 67% 789 32% 26 1% Liberty 1,317 55% 1,017 42% 39 (Buchanan) 2% (Buchanan)

[edit] References —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.133.157 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this problem. The results were changed in a good faith edit (by an administrator no less) who didn't notice that the vote counts in a previous format were listed with the winner of the county mentioned first, and not with the overall winner Bush mentioned first in each county. I have fixed it but the quick fix meant going back to the previous format which doesn't look as good. I will contact the editor who goofed up and may want to reformat it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I indeed deserve the trout wacking on that one. I'll try to redo the table later with better tools than good old notepad :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help...getting unnecessarily reverted for copyediting lede

I am being locked out of editing the Book of Mormon lede...I found it to be very choppy writing very redundant and missing some key information, but I'm getting ganged up on by a few of the paranoid people who think every edit on this page is an attack! It couldn't be farther from the truth, I am fixing ugly prose and don't want an edit war...can you help please? Twunchy (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you resolve the issue on the talk page, as other editors are pointing out to you. Synergy 20:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the talk page...and no one's giving me anything that I'm doing wrong other than I'm editing their baby. Twunchy (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the Talk page dialogue is that the other editors would like to go over your suggested changes one at a time; your edits weren't that extensive, true, but it *is* a sensitive page, and that request doesn't seem unreasonable. I would not give up on that process yet. JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JohnInDC, here Twunchy, although I think you are in some senses, being unfairly "dismissed". That's not fair to you. You are absolutely and unequivocally allowed to edit that page to improve it. I looked through the diffs of your contribs, and while I can see why some of them may need a consensus to change, I strongly believe they were made in good faith. I encourage you to politely engage the "regulars" on the talkpage. They are "regulars" because they have interest in the accuracy of the article, and the "good faith" position is to believe that they aren't trying to be biased or in attack mode. Please work with them, from what I can see, they seem to be a good group of editors. I understand your frustration certainly, you made a good faith attempt at improvements. Let me know on my talkpage (I won't be watchlisting that article, your talk, or the article talk) if you are given unfair treatment. Right now, it appears to me that you have some good ideas, are perhaps being misunderstood (that article gets "attacked" all the time, making the "regulars" edgy for sure, and perhaps a little bit of "frayed nerves syndrome" is happening. Please don't take it personally). Please don't edit war to "get your way" (they shouldn't either). Again, let me know if you need further assistance, but I encourage and implore you to "use the talkpage" to work out your differences of opinion to make the best article possible. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper role of an admin

I'm not sure where to put this, so maybe the answer will just take the form of pointing me someplace. At the ABN AMRO article, there's currently a content dispute going on about whether to use "AMRO" or "Amro." There was a small requested move discussion, which resulted in a consensus for moving the page to ABN Amro. Someone who disagreed with the decision made a post to WP:AN. At that point, JzG, an administrator, moved the page back (diff) and then move protected it (diff) for two weeks. His edit summary for the page move reads, "Fuck the MOS, this is what the ocmpany is LEGALLY called."

Setting aside the issue of the which style is actually better, I'm troubled by three things:

An administrator used his tools to intervene in a content dispute.
An administrator overrode the consensus of a page move discussion and replaced that consensus with his own feelings on the topic.
An administrator used a brute force measure--a fourteen day protection--to enshrine what he wants for the article. If protection were appropriate because of edit warring or something like it, then it should have been protected in its current form. JzG made sure to enshrine the changes he preferred beforehand.

Is this proper conduct? Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of JzG a.k.a Guy have already been discussed in the section you give a diff to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found and read the comments you refer to. Since the page is still move protected, I take it that his actions are therefore considered proper? Croctotheface (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the case has already been discussed at an administrator noticeboard I don't think the properness should be discussed further here. The move protection [37] expires 19 August. If you still want the page moved then you could try the full procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves at that time. I don't think the matter is urgent or worth causing more drama if it can be avoided. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the AN thread is now archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?. Not a good log entry for sure, though they have a point with the company's own identification being with the capitals. If you really want to make a case of it, I think that admin is in a case at arbcom. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carteret High School, Carteret, NJ

Joe Medwick the Hall of fame baseball player and last to win the triple crown in the National League is not mentioned as a famous alum????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.207.105 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article is protected you should be able to add the information yourself (although you should make sure to include a reference from a reliable source). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 2-month disagreement with no solution

Could someone please help find a way to resolve a problem in the Bayt Jibrin article. It's about whether or not the former town was originally called Beit Guvrin and whether or not it had a Jewish population in the 3rd and 4th centuries. I tried to resolve it twice but it ended up in argument and revert wars. See talk. The argument is between User:Gilabrand and User:Ashley kennedy3. Please try to find a solution because it's the only thing preventing the article from passing the GA review (stability). Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, Indiana / Miller Beach, Indiana

There are two articles involved: Gary, Indiana and Miller Beach.

Undisputed: Miller/Miller Beach was once upon a time an independent municipality which was subsequently incorporated into the City of Gary. Gary as a whole is mostly black. The Miller neighborhood is mostly white. Some in Miller are not happy about being a part of Gary.

The dispute: Some editors on the Gary page and especially on the Miller Beach page repeatedly try to state that Miller Beach "is" an independent town. Additional weasel words or language with NPOV problems are used to suggest that the incorporation was forcible or illegitimate.

My position: Miller (aka Miller Beach) in fact is, today, as a legal matter merely a neighborhood or part of Gary. I don't have a problem with a historical piece on the former Town of Miller Beach, but see it constantly stating, erroneously, that Miller Beach "is" a small town, when it is not an independent entity at all. Even the other editor's edits acknowledge Miller's having been incorporated into the City of Gary as a legal matter. Constantly saying that Miller Beach "is" a small town (not "was") seems more a part of an agenda by the editor involved.

The problem: Constant editing and reverting back and forth...

How to fix the situation so that information -- however one may feel about it -- which is clearly (and admittedly) factually erroneous not be constantly re-edited back in?

See also the discussions on this topic in the Gary and Miller Beach pages. This topic has been discussed among a few editors. Xenophon777 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting a notice showing up on the pages that says I am vandalizing pages, but do not have an account. What is wrong here?

When I click on the warning, this is what I get... I don't even have an account, so I could not have possibly made any modifications. Please assist. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.145.77.112&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.77.112 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People without accounts can edit Wikipedia articles in the same way you just edited this page. The IP address you just used to post here has made edits in the past, maybe when somebody else had the same IP address. See Special:Contributions/216.145.77.112 and click the "diff" links to see the edits which are mostly vandalism. The message was intended for the person who made the former edits. Wen you don't have an account, Wikipedia cannot determine that it wasn't you. Avoiding messages intended for somebody else with the same IP address is one of the benefits of creating an account. There is also an explanation about this in the box at the bottom of the page you link to. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia false redirect

Dear people,

When I enter "evolution" into Wikipedia search, I am redirected to a series of options that includes "Evolution." But when I choose that option, I am redirected to an empty search page. Upon back tracking my choices, I suspect that somehow, someone has added a "redirect" command to the Evolution page.

Please investigate my complaint, starting with a public Wikipedia search for "evolution" (small E).

N.B. Often searches and links within one's own network work. Meanwhile public internet users experience other consequences. Always use outside computers to test your web page links.

dn Centennial, CO ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.187 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entering "evolution" sends you directly to the Evolution page. I'm not sure what this IP is referring to. Dayewalker (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unable to find a problem in a search for evolution. I tried logging out and it still worked. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

resolution of Clay problem/d'Alembert' s paradox

I am involved in a dispute about referencing the article "Blowup of Incompressible Euler Solutions" by Hoffman and Johnson claiming resolution of the Clay Mathematics Institiute millennium problem on the Navier-Stokes equations on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness and on the related page about d'Alembert's paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_paradox.

The editor Crowsnest keeps on deleting the reference on the Clay problem page without supporting the removal by any scientific source. The reference is published in a refereed journal of high standard. Since the Clay problem is a major open problem of science and mathematics, it is of general interest, and by the nature of an open problem general consensus is lacking. The talk pages for the Clay and d'Alembert pages present the arguments put forward by Crowsnest and Egbertus concerning putting up the reference or not, without consensus being reached. Asisstance is needed. The dispute has several interesting aspects of principal character.Egbertus (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

Two editors are involved in the discussion with Egbertus on the talk pages, and on d'Alembert's paradox both have reverted the material under discussion
I accompanied the discussions of the removals on both pages by, to my opinion, appropriate reliable references. On the Clay Prize regarding Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness the removed paper itself explicitly says it solves another problem then demanded for by the problem statement of the prize.

Crowsnest (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editor who deletes many things without providing reasons and edit summaries

Is this the right place to go for help in determining if Unclefester89's edits are vandalism or done in good faith? Thanks, Espoo (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually examined the edits but I see there is no discussion at User talk:Unclefester89. Discussing with the editor should be the first step, preferably with links to relevant policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It appears you have tried to talk to the editor in edit summaries but I don't know whether Unclefester89 has read it. The account is only 6 days old and may not know how Wikipedia works. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand enough about the articles edited, but it seems s/he's on a pretty wild crusade (more than 200 different pages in 6 days) to eradicate mention of certain ethnic groups and to add articles to categories. How can I get help from an expert on vandalism detection and prevention? Thanks, Espoo (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Unclefester89 to use edit summaries. I looked at many of the edits and didn't see vandalism. Most of the examined edits looked like appropriate categorization and See also links. There were a few cases with possibly controversial removal of content but I don't have the background knowledge of Iraq to say whether it was inappropriate, for example per WP:NPOV. People at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq would probably be better to evaluate it. If you post there then I suggest notifying the editor about it and providing diffs so people don't have to go through hundreds of edits in search of possible problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PACITA ABAD PAGE

Sir/Madam,

We manage Pacita Abad Art and are the copyright holder of her work and website.

We noticed that a page on Pacita Abad on Wikipedia was recently deleted based on a request by irisdescent on the basis of blatant infringement of copyrights. An effort to re-create the page caused it to be deleted for the second time.

We would appreciate it if you could let us know if Wikipedia administrator is the one who did the deletions and which part of blatant copyright infringement is involved in her Wikipedia page text, as we own the website and hold the copyright to its content.

Thanks and we look forward to hearing from you. Please send a copy of your response to our email: pabadart@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Jack Garrity Pacita Abad Art —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacitaabadart (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but I'll try to help. I'm not an admin, but it sounds like the article was written in violation of copyright, which is to say it was copied from somewhere else. Wikipedia articles need to be sourced by reliable secondary sources, just like any other encyclopedia. If you'd like to see this subject get a wikipedia article, I suggest you read the instructions for making your first wikipedia article. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through the website. If everything there about the artist is true (which I have no reason to doubt), she is certainly notable enough to have an article in the encyclopedia. You (Garrity) will have to study Wikipedia's rules and guidelines - or ally yourself with someone who is familiar with them. Merely releasing your material into the public domain and then quoting it, will not be acceptable here. You must have third party references to establish, among other things, notability. With this lady's background, there must be hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles you can cite. Don't give up! Become a Wikipedian or find one who is a Pacita Abad fan. --Hordaland (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You (Garrity) shouldn't be writing the article at all, as you obviously have a COI (conflict of interest). Find someone else to do it. --Hordaland (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

this article states that bernie mac has died. according to http://www.lasentinel.net/Bernie-Mac-Death-Rumors-Untrue.html he is in the hospital, not dead! please correct this article.

i am a busy person and i do not have time to fix it myself. thank you! jenn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.144.176 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part of your link http://www.lasentinel.net/Bernie-Mac-Death-Rumors-Untrue.html which says he is in the hospital but not dead is dated August 2. Later on that page it says he died August 9, the same death date as in the article linked near the bottom of the page: http://www.lasentinel.net/Bernie-Mac-Dead-at-Age-50.html. Our article Bernie Mac also says August 9. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow revert war

User_talk:Jimclyne seems to be an WP:SPA to thwart the inclusion of Curtis Sliwa being mentioned as an honorary alumnus who attended Brooklyn Preparatory School. He has repeatedly declined to discuss the reason for this repeated deletion. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any rationale for the deletion: Curtis Sliwa has his own article on the Wikipedia and the official alumni site records his award as honorary alumnus and this is cited in the article. patsw (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan and Cold War pages vandalized

Someone has figured out a sneaky way to vandalize several pages that have links to the Cold War related categories at the bottom of the page. I can't figure out exactly where they've hidden their message. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of how the Categories are organized could take a look and try to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.180.64 (talk)

Thanks for raising this issue. This is the work of a known vandal and it's been dealt with now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my name from your website.

Thanks.

Brian Schmitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.245.2 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Brian should email the nice people at WP:OTRS and ask them to help out. If possible, they will do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, but we don't know if he'll come back here to see it. The biographical article Brian Schmitz has at present so many warnings up about missing refs and sources, that those boxes take up twice as much space as the article text. The history looks mostly like one continual edit war, revert upon revert. I think the article should be speedily deleted. If Schmitz is notable, the article can re-appear complete with very reliable sources, not before. --Hordaland (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new user in trouble

Hello. I am a new user, and already in trouble.

Yesterday I tried to create a page to represent Jen Delyth, an artist well known for her original and published work in the Celtic art field.

In complete honesty and transparancy, and being a complete novice beginner to Wikipedia, I created a Jen delyth user account, and created the page. I thought this was what you were supposed to do. It then seemed like that was considered "self promotion", so I stopped using that account, and created one under my own name Scott Silverberg (this account).

I followed the directions to edit the page, and have spent a lot of time checking other pages of peer artists, and reading Wikipedia rules and regulations.

I understand a lot more now about how the community works.

Now not only is the page slated for deletion, but I am suspected of being a "sock puppet".. Which I am not. I'm just trying to understand the system here. I have put the required deletion code on the JDelyth user page, and am continuing only through my own user account.

I would also like to say, that creating the Jen Delyth page, is not an act of self promotion, and it is not an unnoteworthy addition to Wikipedia.

Jen Delyth is one of the foremost Celtic artists working today, is extremly well known and respected in this country.

The reason I decided to create the page is because some other Wikipedia pages mention Jen, and I wanted to link up to her, as other artists are for example the Faerieworlds festival (where Jen is a guest artist, along with Brian Froud, Amy Brown etc. and other notable Wikipedia artists)

Also, Jen has created a design which is extremly well known in this country, although often misperceived as an ancient design.. her Celtic Tree of LIfe. We have been asked by many people to created a Wikipedia page talking about the Celtic Tree of Life, and have been afraid to assign the creative commons copyright to the design. It is time to include information about her important symbol in Wikipedia.

If you have any other questions, let me know.

Scott Silverberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSilverberg (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a Welcome! message on Scott's User talk page; also a statement in support of removal of the sock puppetry banner on Scott's User page; and a message to the user who posted the sock puppetry banner. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. I appreciate it. Scott 66.117.128.94 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]