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 .

Gary, Indiana / Miller Beach, Indiana

Stale

– No advice forthcoming, for a long time.--Beloved Freak 09:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

resolution of Clay problem/d'Alembert' s paradox

Stale

– Advice give, no further response.--Beloved Freak 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

First of all, you all need to stop reverting each other. You are edit warring which could lead to any or all of you being blocked, or the pages in question being protected from editing. (See also WP:3RR), but bare in mind that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours.) You need to reach consensus BEFORE making the changes, even if you don't like what's currently on the page. I'm glad to see you are using the talkpages, but you don't seem to be getting very far. I suggest making a request for comment to get other impartial users involved. Put it in the "Maths, science, and technology" and hopefully you will attract users who know about this sort of thing and who can help you reach consensus. But stop just reverting each other, please. --Beloved Freak 10:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow revert war

Stale

– No edits to article in question since August 9th. --Beloved Freak 09:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

new user in trouble

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 09:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Sock puppetry accusation withdrawn. I note that Scott Silverberg abd Jan Delyth are husband and wife. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth should just simply ask what our relationship is.. but we are not actually husband and wife.. the information is out of date by 2 years. But this is irrelevant. I would like to post a grievance in the way I have been verbally treated by RHaworth, on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Celtic_Tree_of_Life. He has been insulting and insinuating rather than being helpful to me as a new user, as I have repeatedly requested. I have made clear that I simply did not understand the policies as a new user last night, and RHaworth has embaressed and humiliated me. I have requested another editor, to help with any language, or needs for substantiation other than the sources and references I ahve taken pains to provide on the Jen Delyth page. Or advice if it really seems I am not allowed to contribute being related to Jen, even if I consider my contribution unbiased, factual, and in line with other artist's pages such as the ones on the Faerieworlds site that made this all occur in the first place!

(Although it still seemed to me in understanding the Wikipedia rules that they are somewhat flexible, if the language and content of a page is appropriate? Many pages on Wikipedia are obviously created by close relations to the person - who are the only people to have the facts sometimes to create "biography" information . Assuming they are good solid contributions, that are edited and monitored by the Wikipedia community, which I was expecting would be the feedback - help in being appropriate, rather than rude acusations. Otherwise its just a game isn't it? inviting people to be sneaky and go around the rules (as I did not, using my clear email domain address and being honest and transparant about htat..) I feel I have been badly treated by this editor, which has not given me the best opinion of the community. Thanks though to Dolphin 51 for your welcome. Scott Silverberg SSilverberg (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If kelticdesigns.com are carrying out of date information about you, I suggest that you contact them, complain bitterly and demand that they correct it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written

After the article "Avoice: African American Voice in Congress" was tagged as being written like an advertisement, I made changes to it to make it unbiased. I would like to know if these changes have been reviewed, so that the tag can be removed. If after review, the article is still perceived as biased, I would like to know what measures could be taken to rectify this issue. Lokoots (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Vanessa Bean[reply]

I've cleaned up the lead a bit and added a note to Lokoot's talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other question is notability. The congressional black caucus is certainly notable, and much of the article deals with that rather than the avoice website. What makes the website itself notable enough for an article? Are there any references to back that up? Pastordavid (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed on notability guidelines

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 09:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please go ahead and check through my most recent contributions, and you'll see that I've nominated a few articles that (to me) are fairly obviously non-notable, even though they are barely squeezing through with a offhand mention in a long-ago newspaper article or something of the like. It is my contention that they are not notable, and I plan to continue nominating articles that aren't notable, like for example Embassy of Gabon in Ottawa. However, I'm clearly going against what consensus appears to be in the AFDs so I'd like to get some kind of assistance for a centralized discussions where other parties can weigh in. I don't know what the proper place is to get a wide variety of viewpoints, however. Aaronw (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a huge place and many types of discussions belong in different places. Do you want to discuss the general articles for deletion process, or the specific articles you have already nominated, or articles of that type, or the notability guideline in general, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of that type, or notability as it relates to those articles. WP:WikiProject Architecture will probably not be interested in the (hopefully admittedly!) non-notable buildings like the one linked above. There's also WP:WikiProject International relations , but for obvious reasons I think they might have a horse in the race, as it were. I'm more interested in what the WP community at large thinks of these articles. I've already looked at WP:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks) , but the people who are voting keep are not going by that guideline and believing that that diplomatic missions are prima facie notable, and I simply do not follow that line of reasoning nor can find any support for it on WP guidelines/policies. As the courts do, are other people just looking at previous cases and using those for precedent? The courts have a duty to look at the previous cases and make sure that they were based on the correct arguments. Does there need to be another category of things in WP:N? I don't know the answer. Aaronw (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that there are some articles on Embassies that should not be included in the Wikipedia, write up the objective inclusion criteria on the relevant project pages and see if it matches the past practices of editors de-facto and if it has the consensus of current editors. Embassies are more than architecture. patsw (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consider a discussion at the relevant WikiProject again. A statement like "for obvious reasons I think they might have a horse in the race" is not supportive of Wikipedia cooperation. My largest subject interest is prime numbers (hinted by my username and user page), but I have nominated several articles in that field for deletion, and merged many others into broader articles. Don't assume editors will support inclusion of something just because they have indicated an interest in the field. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

Resolved

– Others are now watching - please open a new thread if further assistance is needed. Pastordavid (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having issues with another editor, User talk:Corker1, about an image caption. I have attempted to contact the user twice on his talk page, as well as placing notes in the edit summary. He/she is unresponsive and I do not have any other recourse besides continuously reverting the edits. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, epicAdam (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're now communicating via talk pages. That's the best way to resolve it. Please come back and post again if need be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed in with a suggestion that, I hope, provides an acceptable middle ground. JohnInDC (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion on the Talk page now but the reversions continue. A couple of extra eyes might help. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A few extra eyes would definitely be warranted. I am not even going to touch the article again until tomorrow morning to fix some of the poor prose and invalid references that User:Corker1 has added in. I know they're good faith edits, but this is like dealing with someone who insists that the Earth is flat. This user also has the unfortunate habit of saving their changes every minute or so, resulting in long strings of edits that are near-impossible to follow. Oh well, such is the nature of the Wikibeast. -epicAdam (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Nauru / Menen Hotel / OD-N-Aiwo Hotel

Hi. Re the above articles, I'm having a hard much content that is actually encyclopedic and doesn't read like a travel guide - do these really meet WP:N ? In the history for the OD-N-Aiwo Hotel, there's a comment that notability was established because it was one of only two hotels on the island - I don't remember that coming up as a reason for notability in the past.. Anyway - any feedback on these articles, or pointers to how to improve them would be appreciated. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a quick glance, I'd recommend merging the first one into Nauru. There isn't much there to keep separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing newswires

Is there a citation template that I ought to use for citing information that I got from a newswire (I'm getting stuff from Lexis Nexis)? Or should I try to just use a newspaper that reprinted the newswire story? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any citation templates beyond those at WP:CITET and in CAT:CITE. Ideally, yes, you should cite a newspaper - otherwise just use your best judgment and try to match the referencing style at WP:CITE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Caro

Dear Sirs: I have changed the birth place of Joseph Caro (Yosef Caro) from Spain, which is a mistake according to the sources I refer, to Faro, in Portugal. There is still the same mistake in the head of the article, which doesn't appear in the editing page. So please give coherence to it, or teach me how to go to that part of the text, so that I can also change it.

Thank you,

jorge campos da costa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge campos dacosta (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes - is this what you mean? I've changed "Spain" to "Portugal" and put the source there, and referenced it again in the Biography section. [1] x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ways to edit the lead of an article is clicking the "edit this page" tab at top. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Nicktoons Page

Hello, my name is onepiese226 and in need of help. I recently cleaned up a page...Nicktoons: Globs of Doom and put all the already confirmed correct information such as already announced characters and such. Since then some people have been adding not announced characters such as, Invader Zim characters and taking off the Fairly Oddparents characters. Now since this happens once a week, ive been cool about it and changing it back, but i'm really tired of it. There isint much about the game yet. But the stuff ive put on has been confirmed in many sites. please helpOnepiece226 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226[reply]

Hi, since the information you are adding is "confirmed", it would really help to add references to reliable sources that back up your additions. This will give people less reason to delete them. As for the other additions, if they are not verifiable, then you are right to remove them. The first step when you have disagreements with other editors should be to discuss the issue with them. This can be done on the article talkpage, but they may not notice that, so try talking to them on their user talkpages. The revision history for that page shows a large number of edits in a short place of time, and edit warring. You may well be in the right, but if it's not blatant vandalism that you are reverting, you can still be blocked for edit warring. You should try to reach a consensus with the other editors. If you have no luck engaging them in conversation, then try a third opinion or request for comment to get other editors involved. But, first step: get references for you additions. --Beloved Freak 10:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review on policy

Something feels weird about the article John Fleming (DJ). There aren't that many references and the wiki-links seem to go to other articles which have poor references. Though I haven't looked finding other sources, I question the notability of the subject and the verifiability. I also wonder, what or where is that policy that talk about promoting your own website? --CyclePat (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean, is that this article, and some of the related articles, don't appear to have any 3rd party references. It uses references which appear to be right from the original source. That's okay, but according to WP:OR we should use some external or 3rd party sources, right? --CyclePat (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That lack of third-party sources makes me question the DJ's notability. I tagged it as such. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and WP:V

A while back, I cleaned up the List of frequently misused trademarks and converted it to table form. I thought I had established a consensus that the only allowable entries were those which asserted generic misuse of a valid trademark in its main article.

I had been patrolling occasionally to be sure no one added a link without an article supporting it. Recently, User:AlistairMcMillan deleted the list asserting that each entry required a source documented on the list page. (He did leave a few entries which had in-line citations, but apparently did not actually read the sources--none of the sources related to the generic misuse of the marks.)

I tried to point out that this left the "challenged" information on the main pages and did not alert most interested editors that a statement had been removed/challenged.

I'm currently working on a sortable table intended to replace both List of missiles and List of missiles by country. But if every list entry does require an in-line citiation, I'm going to throw it away as it would be unmaintainable.

Does WP:V, in fact, forbid the use of index lists?

ComputerGeezer (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the diff, I would say yes. Those articles should have any uncited statements removed as well, but if there was a citation, it should be put at both the table and in the other article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance in handling dispute over pop culture link inclusion in War of 1812 article

Resolved

– editor blocked, no support for including the external links. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I seem to have incited a bubbling edit war by those opposing my (good faith) inclusion of a notable popular culture reference to the War of 1812 in the form of a YouTube video to a popular song. (link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jlFZhprU4)

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with other editors on the [[2]] page. However, I feel strongly that my good faith inclusion is being deleted by other editors without merit and am looking for some guidance on how I can defend my contribution while maintaining civility and good etiquette.

Here is the relevant discusssion [War of 1812 Talk]

Thanks --Digiterata (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digiterata has been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR, as seen here. [3] I'd welcome any other editors taking a look at the situation. The link he's adding is a youtube link to a song about the subject, which no one else (myself included) feels is notable or appropriate to add to the historical article. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other users are correct to revert the inclusion of that link per WP:External Links. The only items that should be placed in External Links sections are those to help the reader better understand the article's topic beyond the information provided in Wikipedia. While I believe you inserted the link in good faith, the linked YouTube video does not provide any additional insight, commentary, or additional knowledge to be gained. If the only qualification for external links is they relate to the article's subject, then Wikipedia would be nothing but a link farm. There are a total 342 YouTube clips about the War of 1812, obviously not all of them could or should be included as external links. Best, epicAdam (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can a request for delete be considered as vandalism for it self?

Can a request for delete be considered as vandalism for it self? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einat_Haran Would appreciate your help on this issue, there is a group of political activists whom try to eliminate any detail that may associate the killer of that little girl with his actions of killing her. Thanks On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an AfD nomination is clearly in bad faith, it may be closed as a "Speedy Keep". Note also that an editor who repeatedly makes bad-faith AfD nominations may be sanctioned by an admin - again, assuming that the bad faith is clear. However, that does not seem to be the case here (I have also commented at the AfD itself, and laid out my opinion in more detail). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment, uncivility and POV editing by User:Cityvalyu

Something should be done about this editor and fast. His continual POV pushing edits and harassment of other editors, that do not favor his POV and are trying to maintain NPOV, is rampant. You can not try to come to a consuses, because he feels that anything that does not blatantly support his POV is simply the POV of the other editor even when sourced. His harassment then spills over to the editors talk page (see User_talk:Jmedinacorona) where he then tries to further push his point of view without end, using words stating he's using WP guidelines in editing and that everything said to him is lies. Below are just a few examples of his edit style:

Do editor's on WP really have to put up with someone like this constantly pushing their view and then following it up with harassment? I think this kind of incessant behavior discourages the participation of all and as a new editor myself, it has nearly discouraged me from participating further. I did not come to WP to have verbal confrontations of this caliber, I came to try and contribute as I can within WP guidelines. Thank you for your consideration and hopeful intervention. --«Javier»|Talk 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you already report this information to WP:AN? If so, what was the outcome? -epicAdam (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not. After reading the guidelines for posting there, I was absolutely confused on whether it belonged there on on 10 other different assist pages. It was all very confusing to say the least. So I chose here so I could be directed to where I might actually post it, trying to get a consesus of where it is appropriate from more seasoned editors.--«Javier»|Talk 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like you are being personally harassed, then you should post to WP:AN and specifically detail the incidents of harassment; those admins will take it from there. His edits, despite violating WP:NPOV, are not blockable offenses in themselves but he could violate the WP:3RR rule, which could then lead to a block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -epicAdam (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariakon SIM-5

Having come across an uncategorised paintball gun article (BT TM-7), I was debating marking it as an advert, but thought I'd check if there were other articles of the same sort. Picking the Ariakon article at random, can someone tell me why this counts as a valid article, and not advertisement ? I can't see anything that refers to 'real world' references - indeed, the only references seem to be for the company and a discussion forum. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that at present the article reads like an advertisement. I would probably recommend both for deletion. -epicAdam (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Send them both to WP:AFD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happly married

Resolved

– Nothing to do here. Pastordavid (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop sending these pages to me. I HATE them. I also do not use that word lightly. You cannot X out of the pages. I am asking nicely for you to remove my myspace/bliedsusan from your file or I will have to go further in stopping this. I am disabled and can only sit for so long and it takes up valuble time for me.

Thank you for your help, Susan Moore Myers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.122.93 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not sure, but I think I know your problem. We do have a vandal on Wikipedia, which does this sort of vandalism. It is something that we can do nothing but reverse their edits, and block them from editing. Apologies about this. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar delete of an article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran

Resolved

– the closing rationale was clear that no merge was done, and that the decision about where to merge still needed to take place. Pastordavid (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested both by an admin and in the discussion board on Samir Kuntar to hold to personal biographical material and to have articles for other important issues in articles of their own. As a result of that 2 new articles were initiated: Nasser Operation describing the event, and Einat Haran about the reason for why this event is noatble as the "worst terror attack ever in Israel". During the tough..discussion, all sides agreed to merge and redirect the article, however it was not agreed where to yet. In the middle of the discussion some admin decided to delete the article and redirect it to the place where the problem actually started Samir Kuntar (making us going on circles again...). He added in the history a message that he "merged" the article, but he did not: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran&action=history, please reopen the page and bring the issue for the admins to vote/decide upon. The article has also been vandalized and therefore I ask you to kindly protect it. Thank you. On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking to get overturned an action taken to implement an AFD, even a non-delete action such as this, the proper venue to look for such an overturn is called Deletion Review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic. Nothing has actually been deleted yet. User:Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran as a redirect/merge. As noted, he hasn't actually performed a merge; he has redirected Einat Haran to Samir Kuntar. I think the problem is just a misunderstanding. The history of Einat Haran is intact and the content can still be viewed, and indeed merged into a destination article, when that's decided. The task now is to discuss the best destination - probably Talk:Samir Kuntar is the best place for that discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are closed by a single uninvolved editor (usually but not always an admin) after around 5 days. Longer has already passed so it was certainly due. It was decided to not delete the article (which means to permanently delete the content from view by non-administrators), so the matter no longer belongs at Articles for deletion and there is no reason to reopen it there. As SheffieldSteel says, it can be discussed elsewhere how to merge it. SheffieldSteel gave a direct link to the page history. Such a link can also be reached by first clicking the redirecting name Einat Haran, then clicking "Redirected from Einat Haran" at the top, and finally clicking the "history" tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD edit summary "Closing debate; result was merge" [4] means the AfD has been closed with a decision to merge. It doesn't imply that the merge has already been performed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emarosa

Inhumer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FatalError (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - on the Emarosa page, both of these users are changing the genre from "Rock" to "post-hardcore" repeadedly and change my information as soon as I get it on the spot. WP:RS states the source needs to coexist with the fact, the album. The album redirects buyers to riserecords.com and myspace.com/emarosa which lists "Rock" as the genre. My source is Allmusic.com http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll and it's a PROFESSIONAL music metadata base review staff widely recognized even on wikipedia. This PROFESSIONAL source coexists with riserecords.com and myspace.com/emarosa as the genre "Rock", which is listed on their album. These two users have listed either OLD information or minor websites that do not coexist with the genre on the album. Their sites do no coexist with the facts which in turn makes them non reliable sources. I have the only reliable source on the page. I need these two users blocked in order to be able to make my changes because they instantly delete "ALL" of my professional information. HELP!!!!!!!! please Thisisyourwayout (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)thisisyourwayout[reply]

It appears that the changes made by User:Inhumer and User:FatalError are good faith edits. The source you point to indeed lists the band's genre as "Rock"; however, the argument made by the other users is that "post hardcore" is simply a subsection of the all-encompassing "rock" genre. I therefore see no conflict in the sources. The fact that the AMG, MySpace, and Rise Records only categorized the band by the overall category does not, at least to me, mean that the band cannot be listed as "post hardcore" as well, as the other sources say. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians

Hello, there. I am User:Troy and would like to request for help on the following.

There is a content dispute in the said talk page (the very last section and the third-last section are currently active). I did restore some of the text that was removed temporarily as there was not yet a consensus, but I still take that the original (partial) deletions were in good faith as FunkMonk likely assumed that there wouldn't be an issue. I sort of over-reacted (*oops*) as I easily took it personally when it came to the idea that the Egyptians were all "Arabized", but now, I am trying to keep things a little calm. Dab, of whom we obviously do not know eachother very well, appears to disregard my attempts, and whenever I try to respond, he appears to take offence at my comments. I have already explained that the ethnicity issue in regards to Egyptians (mostly surrounding how it relates to Copts, but also Arabs and a few berbers) was discussed to its death on Talk:Copt, the linguistic-ethnicity relation was decided on Talk:Coptic language, and most importantly, the Egyptian identity was discussed as a whole on Talk:Egyptians a while ago.

Dab, already after FunkMonk made good-faith edits, continued them when he was aware of the fact that there was absolutely no consensus. Most recently, this included adding a government newspaper, Al-Ahram, which notably deflates Christian figures in Egypt and is not reliable in the first place as it is a government source (see WP:SOURCE—you can't use sources like Al-Ahram if it is it is contentious or is biased towards the opinion; ie: the opinion of Egyptian politicians). It uses government census figures that are decades-old, and, quite frankly, there has already been discussion surrounding the Egyptian government's religion figures—even the CIA factbook and some of the Muslims admit about 10% of the population (Al-Ahram says something like 5% or 6%). He also appeared to have ignored the fact that I wanted to head towards a resolution.

Also, in regards to Zerida and his sock puppets, I, somewhat understandably, was erroneously accused as being one Zerida's mean-old "buddies" by Dab—I highly resent that. Sure, I may have agreed with Zerida's "views" on the Egyptian ethnicity, but I still withhold that I am 100% against sock puppetry.

Lastly, when I clearly explained that there was no such source that proves that all or most Egyptians are "Arabized" (specifically the Copts), Dab said that "You are welcome to present academic sources for each and every one of your claims" and "again, if you want to discuss the persecution of the Copts, bloody well do your own homework, go to a library, and dig up some quotable sources". The response should really be quite simple: "you can't prove a negative". On the contrary, if Dab feels that he should insist on making claims that all Egyptians were "Arabized", then I feel that the burden of proof is on him to add a reliable source for that.

If anyone is careful to read all of this, please kindly accept this request and see to it that we can stay on the same page. My utmost apologies for the long, complex but yet important post.

Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now doesn't seem nearly as urgent as before, but if someone is willing to make sure that everything is alright, then go ahead. Hopefully it isn't as bad as before. ~ Troy (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox display dispute

Stuck

– Moved on to more appropriate venues. Please take further discussion there. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Infobox discussion at WP:EAR, where this thread might be better located now too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The user User:Wetman and I have been "discussing" the use of infoboxes, specifically at Ponte Vecchio. He has issues with them, and with the data in them. We've discussed this in talk pages and in a Wikiquette alert. Today, he tried another tack, which IMHO, doesn't work well. Why he can't just leave the infobox alone appears to be because he finds it to be clutter. Others find it an easy way to get to information without having to search the article for it. I'm hoping for arbitration to help us work this out. - Denimadept (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very many editors have strong views for and against infoboxes in particular contexts. I doubt if this page is the right place to seek a solution. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have come up with an elegant and simple modest way to keep all the value of an Infobox— whatever that may be, for that is not the issue— without disrupting the flow of informed and nuanced encyclopedia text and the layout of informative supportive illustrations with "Infoboxes" that are objected to on many talkpages concerning art, architecture etc.

An example of a not-particularly informative Infobox taking up prime space at Cellini Salt Cellar. Not bad.

An example of the same article with an infobox available at a single mouseclick: Cellini Salt Cellar. Much improved.

An example of a misleadingly reductive infobox intruding at Ponte Vecchio. Distractingly competitive.

An example of the same article with an infobox available at a single mouseclick Ponte Vecchio. Still fully available.

All discussion of content aside, what could be the objection to this less-aggressive display? And why would it be forbidden?--Wetman (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Gregory IX shows a sensible use of an infobox: tabulatable information only, nothing requiring nuanced text. At the base of the page are three tabs, opened at a mouseclick, just as in my suggestion for infoboxes: a perfectly elegant solution to what would be a visual glut of distracting information. --Wetman (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should probably remain per the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges. Of course, it's just a guideline, and an infobox may not be warranted for this article; however, an objection to removing the infobox from this article has been raised, and therefore a consensus is needed to make the change. To me, the hidden infobox at the top of the page is inelegant and aesthetically displeasing, not to mention that it could violate WP:IBX. Further, your objections to the infobox seem to stem from your objection to providing incomplete information; a hidden infobox in no way alleviates that situation. I would suggest trying to update the infobox to be more concise, such as the box at Pope Gregory IX, before declaring it to be unusable. If you still feel like the infobox should just be removed altogether, then I would urge you to achieve consensus first before taking it off the page. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Bridges has no special jurisdiction over bridge articles than anyone else - Wikiproject Rivers or Wikiproject Civil Engineering (if we have one) for instance, or even the author of the article all might have equal claims. Setting up a wikiproject doesn't confer particular special status, so the guidance isn't much use unless it also accords with common sense. Wetman's seems a sensible and elegant solution to keep everyone happy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should remain: no one is deleting anything. The content or suitability of an infobox is discussed on a case-by-case basis at each article's talkpage, but is not an issue here. No "objection to removing the infobox from this article" has been raised: there is no question of removing anything, not even misinformation or misleading reductions. This is simply an issue of whether a show/hide function may be permitted at Wikipedia, as demonstrated in examples above. The infobox remains available at a mouseclick, for those who want to check a fact and don't want to struggle with a lot of text. --Wetman (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that the solution you promote effectively removes from sight if not deletes the infobox, which is a preference and should be chosen at the user's discretion as are the following:

Format broken links like this (alternative: like this?). Justify paragraphs. Auto-number headings. Show table of contents (for pages with more than 3 headings). Disable page caching. Enable "jump to" accessibility links. Do not show page content below diffs. Show hidden categories.

Adding to those preferences something like "Minimize infobox display by default" would be an elegant solution. I agree with Epicadam that the examples you give are "inelegant and aesthetically displeasing" and am suggesting that even if the code allowed the main text to float left after mouseclick and display it still would reduce the efficiencies created by having infoboxes display by default. WP:IBX stresses: "The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia". As there is no way to count the feelings of casual readers, why not agree that this is best handled as a preference whereby you may enjoy your reading "without disrupting the flow of informed and nuanced encyclopedia text and the layout of informative supportive illustrations" as you see fit? Sswonk (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A preference setting, in the form of a checkbox, say, which defaults to "show infoboxes", would be ideal. - Denimadept (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there may be tweaks that could be done to the formatting (having infoboxes spread out across the page more, for instance), I think Wetman's contribution here is a good compromise, and, in fact, I think his idea and proposed solution is sufficiently good that I think it might be seriously considered in many other situations where the potential disruptive presence of an infobox on visual presentation and ease of reading can occur. In these cases, perhaps the name "infobox" might be changed to make the shown name more informative for the casual readers. DDStretch (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having all such boxes collapsible and minimised by default would be a good idea, but needs to be raised in a wider forum. However, building on Wetman's excellent idea, the impact of the "hidden" infobox can be minimised even further by having it right-floated: see [5] That puts the (hidden) box in the place where readers have become accustomed to find it, but prevents acres of whitespace appearing when it is "uncollapsed". No doubt someone can improve the code (put it in a class, or template-ify it, or whatever). -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There we go! Look at the presentation of the infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar now! Since the content of the infobox is unchanged and not at issue, and only the display is being adjusted, in this elegantly simple fashion, what further objections can be raised? Not counting, "it's my infobox and I want to see it pasted at the head of every page."--Wetman (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but not ideal. If the infobox defaults to "collapsed", newbies and casual users won't know what it is and won't get the benefits of it. I suspect it is a rare person, like yourself Wetman, who want it collapsed by default. It would be better if it were dependant on some kind of setting, as specified above. - Denimadept (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! "Infobox" is jargon that a new reader may not follow. DDStretch has made a fine suggestion above. How about a display "Facts at-a-Glance"? Check out the display at Cellini Salt Cellar now. Denimadept won't like it, but perhaps you others will.--Wetman (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"infobox" is for coding pages. A more descriptive name, which helps people understand why they might want to expand the box, makes a certain amount of sense. But I want Ponte Vecchio back the way it was. What you do with articles like Cellini Salt Cellar I don't care. Bridges are my main area of interest on this site, not sculpture or whatever the salt cellar is. We need to discuss this in a more appropriate and wider location, to get a proper consensus. Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a visible infobox, the contents of which reflects a general sense of restraint, is preferable to a hidden one. Two reasons. First, the casual user will never see the "show" button unless it is conspicuously highlighted. I'm *not* a casual user and I missed the button on both the example pages above. An hide / view preference toggle (or a neon 'show' button) would largely fix that problem, but it wouldn't solve the second, which is that once infoboxes can be hidden as a matter of course, infoboxes will - I guarantee it - begin to accumulate cruft and clutter like your crazy aunt's attic. Every time someone proposes adding yet another stray fact to an infobox, they'll defend it in the same way: "*Someone* might find it useful, and, if you don't like the clutter, then just hide it." The only thing keeping infoboxes remotely sensible now is that we all have to look at them. Let's leave them them as they are.

I said two reasons but really it's three. The third is, too many things on line are buried behind hyperlinks already. We click enough as it is. We should just present the text and let the reader simply take in the page, without having to contemplate how they are intended to *interact* with it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This dialectic has gone on to be cross-posted in the Manual of Style, and Wetman has jumped in with a statement separate from it there. I will reiterate that Wetman is not offering anything elegant, but is foisting a personal preference on a well-established, well-used editorial feature of Wikipedia. There is simply no better solution than making the display of infoboxes optional as a user preference, which may help register more users and lower the number of IP edits if many casual readers feel the display of infoboxes disrupts their reading. I seriously doubt that is the case. I don't know how to count the use of infoboxes en masse in the encyclopedia, but a quick look in a dozen project pages shows a large majority of good articles include them. I do care about infoboxes that are included in an article, including in Cellini Salt Cellar, Judith and Holofernes (Donatello) and Christ and St. Thomas (Verrocchio) and find them helpful, even though I may actually bother to "struggle with a lot of text" as well. The arbitrary "elegant solution" at Cellini Salt Cellar is self-serving and borders on vandalism.

The somewhat mocking comment above, "it's my infobox and I want to see it pasted at the head of every page" can easily suffer reduction to "I don't like infoboxes and I am going to zap them down at every page I can't get past the thought of reading with one in my way." That is the statement of a preference, and the viable, proper solution is to have the display set by the user as a preference, with display of infoboxes being the default state. Sswonk (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure we could add a preference checkbox under the "Gadgets" tab, "User interface gadgets", to be something like "Show infoboxes by default" with the box normally checked unless specifically unchecked by the registered user. How would we go about adding this pref? Does it require a change to the MediaWiki software, or is there something less drastic we can do to implement it? - Denimadept (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to take an important call prior to the posting by Quiddity below, but would have answered that it involves a software change and would be under the "Misc" tab as are items listed above such as "Show table of contents (for pages with more than 3 headings)". With that, I look forward to finding this discussion where it may land, my suggestion being WP:Village pump (proposals). Sswonk (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss such a drastic change at WP:Village pump (proposals) (and/or at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes or WT:Manual of Style (infoboxes) or Template talk:Infobox), not here.
Hiding infoboxes is considered harmful by a large quantity of editors: Inconsistent hiding/display of infoboxes will confuse most readers. Hidden elements are inaccessible to wiki-newcomers (most readers). And a variety of other reasons (hide vandalism, break page layouts, etc). But again: this is not a good venue for this discussion.

Thanks. -- Quiddity 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed. I'm just trying to be equitable with a few users who, for whatever reason, hate infoboxes due to layout preferences. We've already brought up the issue at WT:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and referred them to this discussion. If we can get a flat out statement by the community on this, Wetman and compatriots may get the message. Or they may look for yet another way around what they were told a month or so ago on this topic. It's hard to say. - Denimadept (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: There are accepted precedents for sections of large infoboxes to be hidden; See Toronto or Bertolt Brecht for examples.
There is probably an easy css/js way for individuals to hide whole-infoboxes by default (ask at WP:VPT for help), but making it the default for everybody is extremely unlikely to gain consensus. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As already been suggested this is a page for requesting assistance from other editors not for discussion of the problems. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Wetman, it's your proposal, I suggest you post it and put a pointer to it here. I've reverted Ponte Vecchio until you get a consensus. - Denimadept (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version is an excellent idea [6], and yes, I would support it if it's collapsed by default. If people are capable of working a PC and getting to the page, they are quite capable of clicking one step further, especially as the only people wanting the facts in a second are likely to be kids who are far more savvy at these thigs than their elders. Giano (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Gilkey

My daughter pointed out the wiki relating to my father. He and I have the same name. The entry was originally posted by Oregon State University but lacked much detail and was factually in error, particularly in regard to his military service at the end of WWII.

I fleshed out the entry and look for more editing from others.

Thanks,

Gordon Gilkey (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Gordon S. Gilkey[reply]

May I suggest requesting help at the article's two Wikiprojects?: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. The editors there have some expertise in the matter and have indicated a willingness to help improve articles. This project is meant help deal with disputes among other editors, and may not be the best to request help in fleshing out a page. If you're simply looking for general comments, you may want to refer the article to Wikipedia:Peer review as well. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've done as much as I can to improve the article. I'd like to echo the recommendation that you contact WikiProject Oregon, of which I am a member. We have produced many excellent biographies and are good at finding sources for citations. But, I'm puzzled that you've ignored the messages I've placed on your talk page so far. BTW, I don't think the entry was originally posted by OSU. You can look at the page history for more information. (And you will also see why I asked you to use show preview and edit summaries.) Mostly what the article needs now is citations to reliable sources, many of which I've placed on the article's talk page, which is a good place to further discuss and changes that need to be made to the article about your father. Unfortunately your personal knowledge of the subject is considered original research, so though it's helpful to know from you which inaccuracies exist, it would also be good to find sources to back up the accurate information you provide. (P.S. no need to write your name after you sign your posts with ~~~~--the wiki software will automatically render your user name and a timestamp.) I hope this helps! Katr67 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aafour

This user has added the adjective "Arab" to a long list of biographies. I'm not sure what this constitutes or whether or not this is even a problem. If someone could take a look and weigh in with an opinion, it would be appreciated. The user's contributions are here. Thanks! TN‑X-Man 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please let me know if this is the appropriate forum for this question. Thanks. TN‑X-Man 18:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSBIO, a person's ethnicity should not generally not be mentioned, unless it's directly relevant. Further, the changes this user made appear to be rather indiscriminate. Just because a person is from a majority-Arab country or speaks Arabic does not mean, necessarily, that the person is an Arab. I would suggest putting a note on the user's talk page directing him or her to WP:MOSBIO. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia contributor requests assistance

Hello, I've written an article for inclusion in Wikipedia and i would like to request a peer review so that I can edit it to comply with Wikipedia standards. How do I go about getting this peer review? Thank you. Fastfact (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]