Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

HELP - Our Borough listng is being restrained

Resolved

 – Advice given. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently for the past few months our entry (Greensboro, PA) has been continuously UNEDITED - we are small community with limited resources and have a historical story to share - please review the last entry made ([[1]] and explain what is the problem with this - I have emailed Dodger as to what the issue and have received no response except for reversion (is this a game?).

Below is a copy of the email sent: I am confused - the recently removed (again) edit made to Greensboro PA was a replacement of the original content that was made over a year ago (before BOTS started doing cleaning) not a template issue.

Regardless, images have been updated with my own photos and content from our Borough website (of which I am the part-time maintainer)has been copied as well as original content. If I am missing something here like some copyleft statement (there is nothing obvious) - let me know, this is getting tiring and appears to defeat the purpose that Wikipedia helped when bridging information across websites.

The message regarding the edit had little relevance to the content that was being removed and does nothing to help continue the shared effort of others to enhance this page. I would hate to believe that Wikipedia has become another bureaucratic organization that stifles web connectivity.

Your assistance is appreciated.

--- This e-mail was sent by user "Rhjiv" on the English Wikipedia to user "DodgerOfZion". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

This really needs to be straightened out - these actions appear petty and makes the entire idea of participating with Wikipedia very frustrating when all we are doing is adding some much needed meat (history) to a small entry about a community the "editor" has little or no actual knowledge of.

Your assistance with this would be greatly appreciated in allowing us to manage our community information in this medium.

Regards Ralph

Rhjiv (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The main problem with your additions is that they are copied verbatim from another source. Unless the information is copied from a source that is in the public domain (i.e. does not have any copyright restrictions), material cannot be simply lifted from one website and placed on Wikipedia. This restriction remains in effect even if the editor claims that somebody has granted permission for the text to be used. The other issue with the information provided is that the material about pottery and sustainable development is not really encyclopedic information and reads more as promotional material than statements of fact. If you would care to add information to Wikipedia, paraphrased in your own words while citing the sources you use, then you are certainly welcome to do so. If you are unsure as to how to do that, please reply here and some of the volunteer editors will be able to provide assistance. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the follow up and believe I can remedy this with the little time I have available to these efforts. Here is the action plan to do the following:

-first, we will pull the History from our Municipal website that our local historian wrote and place it in the Wikipedia - replacing the municipal site history with a quote from Wikipedia (basically swapping)

-second, I believe economic development & historical pottery has to go back (with some tweaking) - it is as intrinsic as any municipality's amenities (Denver - Culture[2] or Recreation [3] as well as other. Greensboro [4]historical pottery backfills the information lent through entries like Stoneware - I believe that you will agree that municipal entries are either devoid of information (making them useless) or rife with information coupled with prosperity and economic resurgence (very RAH RAH).

Lastly, I would hope that in the future if Editors (of all articles) take liberty in negating (<1 minute) the efforts of individuals attempting in earnest to expand the Wikipedia (> 1 minute) that they communicate their concerns without the eradication of entire sections, there is a difference between EDITING and CENSORSHIP. Editors should be working together with authors to ADD and SHAPE content rather than dictate editorial opinions in a seemingly arbitrary manner or with little and no communication. I believe that editors are essential to maintaining the legitimacy of Wikipedia but it would appear to me that the type of editorial-ism (our community entry has received) is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

Rhjiv (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to add information, but your plan to "pull the History from our Municipal website that our local historian wrote and place it in the Wikipedia" is exactly what you cannot do on Wikipedia. Content, even from local municipal websites, is typically automatically protected by copyright and cannot simply be placed on Wikipedia. This is not just a Wikipedia policy, lifting text from one source and placing it on another is also illegal. As you may have noticed, the Wikipedia editor even warns users in bold print: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." This is not censorship, it is complying with the law.

However, if the website clearly demarcates that its content is in the public domain, then you may use the text. If the website is not in the public domain, you would be wise to take my advice from above and paraphrase the history section, in your own words, citing the municipal website as a source. This, however, does not prohibit users from going in and making changes to your edits. And while not an ideal situation, those users may or may not discuss those changes first. That is simply how Wikipedia works and you must become comfortable with that fact. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed but there appears to be some confusion when I said PULL - I meant REMOVE it from one site and PUT it in Wikipedia (copyrights supported), we have that capability since we manage and are authors of the Municipal site to begin with.

At the risk of piling on, I'll add that User:Rhjiv seems to be making a distinction between authors and editors that doesn't exist here. You, me, epicAdam; we're all editors. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not piling on but it is good to know that there SHOULDN'T be a distinction between editors and authors (although I believe there is in practice) - my personal explanation would be to say AUTHORS create and add content - EDITORS enforce rules of grammar and validity. Ideally, we all self-edit. I guess my basis ("gripe") stems from the lack of direction (as in none) an "editor" offered in better developing our municipal entry. It is easy to negate a persons effort but requires some effort to help to correct - the opinions I have received in this forum allow for things to be corrected and improved. I can only hope that these changes will not be met with simple disregard by our "editor".Rhjiv (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The action you are describing, removing copy from a website you control and placing onto Wikipedia, still violates two principles: it clearly represents a conflict of interest and it can be construed as wikispam. You may risk removal of the copy again based on the action you describe. Sswonk (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Sswonk's comments above, the copyright would not transfer to Wikipedia. Any text placed in an article is immediately released into the public domain; there is no copyright-protected content on Wikipedia. Further, Others would be able to do what they like with the text. Second, the information you "remove" from the first website would have to be sourced from somewhere. That is to say, the information could not just stand on its own and would have to be referenced back to appropriate books, journals, or anything that would be considered a reliable source. Any information that is left without a source can be removed. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal behavior check

I've been encountering a great deal of difficulty and stress both in myself and in other editors in trying to discuss Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)#Category:Homophobia. I've tried to keep discussion policies in mind, but I've gotten in a little over my head. I seem to be only antagonizing other editors whose personal views are sharply different from my own common wisdom. I am autistic, and I have no intuitive instinct for being tactful, so I sometimes have to subdivide my cognative skills to do it (with mixed results). Please counsel me. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gilgamesh, Thanks for posting here. I'm not sure I'm so well qualified to answer your question, since I'm rarely accused of diplomacy myself, but I'll offer an opinion anyway ... I looked at the discussion at Prop 8, and also at Category talk:Homophobia, and all I saw was editors expressing markedly different opinions in more-or-less civil ways. It can certainly be a little stressful, but I didn't notice any allegations of bad faith, nor very much in the way of personal attacks.

On the content matter, I'm going to look for another category to suggest. While I can, personally, sympathise with the idea that any bias is per se irrational, I do wonder if there's some other way of identifying this as "likely to be perceived as discriminatory" without using that category. Not going to change anything yet, just looking.

I encourage other assistants to offer their own assessments too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

blanking list articles; replacing with directs to categories

By the way, just to show the intentional misrepresentations posted here in order to get an edge on a content dispute, I've never "redirected" any page to a category. I've redirected to mainpages where I had moved the correctly sourcable peoples. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 is engaging in a reckless and disruptive pattern of editing which is being opposed by every other editor involved. Bulldog is blanking out list articles and replacing them with directs to similar categories and when he does not get his way, just threatens and acts to do additional damage. See List of Danish Americans, List of Americans with Finnish ancestry, List of Estonian Americans, List of Dutch Americans, List of Norwegian Americans. This is being done in total disregard of the established pattern for articles of this type and in disregard of the WP guidelines what differentiate betweeen list articles categories and accept both as valid and is being done based on his sole and single opinion of what is correct. Help before his activiites get further out of hand. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide "diffs" of these "threats of additional damage?" Or does User:Hmains admit this is an intentional exaggeration? Bulldog123 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor (User:Bulldog123) had formerly proposed many dozens of such articles for deletion (s/he seems to have an antipathy for any article showing intersections of ethnic or national identity), and when those pages were voted on as "keep," s/he decided to simply be "bold" and delete huge areas of mostly sourced text without prior discussion, or to delete the articles entirely via (again undiscussed) redirects. In a recent edit, s/he stated that because the AFDs hadn't gone his/her way, s/he had been "forced" into such "unorthodox" deletion (see edit summary here). Whatever the case, it's highly disruptive, as all other editors have been asking is for prior discussion and consensus in the case of such huge deletions. Badagnani (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note Badagnani's claim that "In a recent edit, s/he stated that because the AFDs hadn't gone his/her way, s/he had been "forced" into such "unorthodox" deletion (see edit summary here)" is an intentional misrepresentation of what was meant. If you take a look at the previous edit summaries and discussions you'll see that "I tried the ulterior method" refers to my attempt to initiate a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, which was (likely purposelly) ignored by Badagnani. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For examples of the articles blanked in the past 24 hours, see the warnings at User talk:Bulldog123. Badagnani (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what's going on, the guy just keeps blanking sourced text: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc. and has not really engaged in a discussion to explain him/herself Talk:List_of_Estonian_Americans#Massive removals, September 11, 2008. Meanwhile I've just added more refs and sources in case any already referenced-sourced text has been removed by User:Bulldog123--Termer (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could pick one of the lists as a test case, request comments, and try to reach consensus? That would be the AGF path, I think. Alternatively, a more aggressive approach would be to post at WP:ANI if you think Bulldog123 has blatantly contradicted the consensus at a corresponding AfD. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the irony of it is, that I'm implementing the consensus. :P Bulldog123 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This would be a logical course of action if the blanking editor chose to use "Discussion" (s/he does not). We are pleading for some action on this extreme disruption; is none forthcoming from those in whom we have accorded such trust to preserve the judicious working process of our project? Badagnani (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to go to WP:ANI. The assistants here have no more power or influence than you do; we're not (generally) admins. ANI is the place to seek an admin's intervention. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on WP:AFD a year ago was that these lists can stay (they were originally deleted and then overturned on AfD) if everyone who is not sourced properly or sourced at all be removed and/or fixed. This was not done for a year. Days beforehand I left a message on WIKIPROJECT:ETHNIC GROUPS requesting a discussion. I was ignored. Meanwhile, User:Badagnani and User:Hmains who have a grudge against me for nominating the lists in this first place have been harassing me on my talkpage User_talk:Bulldog123. I've explained to them on infinite edit summaries and discussion pages want needs to be done. Have made attempts to move ALL properly sourced material to mainpage, but have either been ignored, or tagged a WP:VANDAL. At the same time, Badagnani purposelly brings in users who don't know anything about the situation, such as User:Termer, to help in his revert wars: [12]. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I understand so much that Bulldog123 removals don't make any sense to me. By removing well sourced random names from several lists with unclear reasons, at the same time for example the List_of_Scottish_Americans has been untouched by Bulldog123 even though there barely are any sources provided. Why is there for example on the list of Scottish_Americans Tim McGraw, American singer (father is Scots-Irish, mother is Italian-Irish)?? at the same time - symphony conductor IMG Artists Estonian-born conductor Kristjan Järvi etc. like many other Estonian born Americans get removed from List of Estonian Americans??‎ Sorry but the logic behind Bulldog123 actions is indeed beyond my understanding.--Termer (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're clearly not speaking to one another direct, User:Termer should realize List of Scottish Americans has not been revised as of yet. That simple. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse to ignore verification issues. Also Kristjan Järvi was never removed intentionally - she may have been lost in the constant revert wars User:Termer and User:Badagnani are instigating. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The logic, or lack thereof, behind User:Bulldog123's edits is not the issue; it is the hyperaggressive manner of editing, specifically the lack of prior discussion and consensus before blanking sourced text (and sometimes entire articles). Lack of attention to such a problematic manner of editing poses a severe problem for our project. Badagnani (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thing is. Had you responded on the Wikiproject, which I know you edit at, we could have had the discussion ahead of time. You didn't, so I rightfully implemented WP:BOLD and was met with reverts of "vandalism" and harassment by you. I'm under the impression that your mode of POV-pushing is to simply ignore the concerns of others (as had been displayed obviously on the AfDs - where, it should be noted, you requested the closing admin should be banned for closing to the opposite of your liking), and then revert them with false claims of "vandalism." I had obviously, and clearly moved everyone of verifiable X-Americanness to the article mainspace, where the page was redirected to. This is not "blanking pages" - it is a merge. The hypocrisy of complaints of "hyperaggressiveness" coming from someone who throws false threats of blocking on my talkpage (how many times now? nine?), is pretty blatant. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It should also be known that User:Badagnani had a year of which to revise the issues with List of X-Americans after he reviewed the deletion of several of the lists. There was plenty of time for others to fix the issues. Bulldog123 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To Bulldog123: What exactly any list should look like usually is determined by WP:Consensus. You have made your ideas clear so much at least I think that in your opinion only well sourced 100% ethnic X-people who happen to be American Citizens should be listed? As far as I can tell there is no such a consensus achieved on WP that any of these lists of X-Americans should be based on such a formula. If you'd like to change the way people get listed, you'd need to bring it up first at talk pages, reach a consensus instead of blanking out the lists on WP as you please.--Termer (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion isn't relevant. The sources you give (not all but most) only justify a Category:Americans of Estonian descent. That's the beauty of perfect verification; if we find a reliable source that calls X Estonian, it's likely that he is well-known for being so. If it doesn't, then its just "trivial". There is no consensus on how to source properly. This isn't a content dispute. For example, you can't source somebody on a list of Estonian Americans as "half Estonian" - that's not what the lists about. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre in The Guardian Legend

Resolved

 – IP has stopped reverting --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been several anons that have been changing the genre of the video game article The Guardian Legend from an action-adventure game to an action-RPG game, which is against the consensus set forth on the article's talk page after a recent edit war with an anon (see history). It's starting to get to the point where the anons are doing the same thing (WP:SOCK), but also they are removing verifiable content, which is considered vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You could try requesting some level of page protection at WP:RFP; semi-protection blocks out anons. However, the admins there seem to have a rule of thumb that requires several IP vandalisms per hour in order to justify protection. That page seems to be more in the 1/day range. I realise it's annoying, but it's not as severe as some other cases around here. If the same IP keeps reverting, then you could request a temporary block at WP:AIAV, but make sure to post warnings first. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Update — Same anon keeps changing the information in the article without discussing it at the talk page first; looks like we're going to have another edit war (which is the reason I came here to try to squash it ASAP). I have dropped a message (left no warning this time as I am assuming good faith) to discuss the changes in genre ans other information he/she has made on the article's talk page. If this persists, should I take it up the WP:DR process further, as a request for semi-protection can very well get shot down in this case? MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You and I have both left messages in the past hour; that IP appears to be in Japan so the anon editor might very well be offline. There are plenty of escalation steps available, but it seems a bit premature to discuss those; let's AGF for now.--AndrewHowse (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, Indiana, and Miller Beach

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This one still keeps coming up. 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 (e.g., 67.175.7.85) 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) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the downsides of being the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, is that anyone can edit! I looked at the history of the Gary page, and there doesn't seem to be a vandalism problem in this respect. I do see occasional (1 or fewer per day, on the whole) reversions as you say to the Miller Beach page. There's no way of stopping that without preventing any anon editor from editing, and the community doesn't usually support semi-protection in this kind of case. My only alternative suggestion would be to consider merging Miller Beach's page into the page for Gary. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolving dispute on AIPAC article

Stale

 – Posting editor withdraws, pro tem. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I started trying to clean up the article about AIPAC. It's long and messy with lots of lists and not very easy to read. Worse, the facts and sources are not very well balanced and some appear to be deliberately chosen to cast AIPAC in a negative light. I have typically made these points on the talk page before making direct edits, pointing out what I think are violations of WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOT. (I have been reading a lot of policy pages, but if I am misunderstanding some of the policies, please let me know. Also, I am a member of AIPAC, which I disclosed when I decided to become involved on the page.)

However, my contributions have been reverted almost every time by a few different editors that I suspect (but have not previously accused) of being the same editor, or maybe a few people working closely together. I have done my best to avoid arguments about good or bad faith, and tried to discuss changes on the talk page. I seem to have succeeded, at least for now, in revising the Criticism section, but now I'm debating the History section over the same issue. I have asked that the other editors to explain why they disagree with my interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but none have done so.

The biggest point of disagreement, and the current one I need help with now, is the inclusion of citations from an author named Grant F. Smith. Smith's books are very clearly self-published (Amazon.com lists the publisher as the group the author is director of) and make allegations against AIPAC that have not been reported on by any other news organization. Yet when I point this out, the editor accounts in disagreement won't address the specific evidence or policies. In the latest dispute, in the History section, they now attribute this to Market Watch, which I have pointed out was just hosting a press release by the same group. Even after I argued that blurbs from the book jacket did not count as reliable verification, my changes were reverted and one of these editors quoted all the blurbs to me from the book jacket. Clearly, no progress is being made.

So I'm now looking for outside help in resolving these issues, hence my comment here. I had planned to put a disputed warning on the page, but I'm not sure which template is the right one. And after looking at the WP:DISPUTE page I'm not quite sure what the next step should be to resolve the issue, because arguably there are multiple issues. And I was going to ask for arbitration, but I see that is considered the last step, and I want to be careful. Please let me know what is the best thing to do next, and if anyone else is interested on intervening I would appreciate that, too. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Smith's book, despite being published by his own institute, probably meets the criteria of WP:VERIFY. From a quick search, I found that Smith is has also been published in other, more mainstream sources like newspapers and magazines. Granted, those pieces are opinion pieces, but they were still published by a third-party source. I think a simple compromise, since it is controversial, would be to attribute the information to Smith in the article text. For example, "According to Grant F. Smith's book America's Defense Line, ..." Even better, would be if you could find a reliable source to refute Smith's claims. However, I see no reason for the information to be removed. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi epicAdam. I see only a few citations for Smith writing for other places. One is Antiwar.com[13], which is essentially a blog. Another is the website of David Duke.[14] The only reliable source I see him writing for is the Minneapolis Star-Tribune[15] which is as you note an opinion piece.

Meanwhile, I think it's worth taking a closer look at WP:REDFLAG, which states "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." The claim is exceptional for alleging that AIPAC has direct ties to Israel it has not disclosed and that its predecessor organization had done so, too, and Smith's reputation is hard to nail down but obviously there are reasons to be suspicious. Also, when there appears to be no reliable news organization sustaining his claims, it is very unlikely there will be other sources refuting them. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see this as a WP:REDFLAG issue. Red Flag claims are seriously outrageous, potentially libelous, statements often pertaining to living individuals. In this case, the accusation that AIPAC is secretly funded by Israel is not a new accusation. Mearsheimer and others have made similar statements in the past. I don't find the accusations made by Smith to be particularly outrageous or, frankly, surprising.

Further, I don't think WP:SPS totally applies here either. The prohibition against self-published sources is designed to prevent editors from simply creating their own material in order to provide a citation within an article. Here is an extreme example of where REDFLAG and SPS would come into play. In an article on John Doe, an editor inserts the statement that "John Doe eats human babies for dinner" and then sources that claim to a book that he just had printed. That is an instance where editors would then be obliged to remove the information.

The fact Grant F. Smith and the "Institute for Research" are covered in some detail by a myriad of organizations shows that the author is not just some Joe Schmo who decided to write a book one day. Further, the book is also available for sale through major retailers, which is not typical for self-published books. While it is true that you can pay to have a book published (i.e. formatted and bound), self pubs can't really pay retailers to carry a title. And, not only are the retailers carrying the book, but Smith's other books have apparently even sold enough copies to be reprinted in softcover.

My main issue with the way the material is presented here is that it is stated as a 100% certain fact within the history section, when it should really be attributed to one author/organization. Wikipedia absolutely permits (and I am perfectly comfortable with) providing statements that are the opinion/research of a single author, as long as they are labeled as such. As opposed to simply removing information entirely, I do trust readers to make their own decisions as to how much weight should be given to a source. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, epicAdam. I understand your points, although I still see this differently. For one thing, I believe the claim should definitely be considered extraordinary, because it directly challenges a widely-accepted fact about AIPAC, and because if Mr. Smith's claims were true then it would force AIPAC to register as a foreign lobby, which its website is very clear that it is not.[16] You are right that the accusation is not new, but that does not make it any less incendiary.

I see what you mean about WP:SPS but why should this be judged by an extreme example? Looking at the policy, it says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If he is an expert, why does his career just count one op-ed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune? That seems like a very low bar for "established." And an op-ed is hardly "work in the field". The Star-Tribune did not publish his reporting, only his opinions.

Moreover, I see no independent review of his work that is published in any reliable sources. He has blurbs on his books, yes, but are Smith and the Institute really "covered in some detail by a myriad of organizations"? Can you please show me which organizations you mean, and what level of detail? As I have said, I have been unable to find almost anything about Mr. Smith or his Institute (I can find no evidence that anyone else works there) that is not a press release by himself.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Smith has set up his own website to give himself a platform. As for being carried in retailers, I don't know the procedure for getting a book listed on Amazon, but it does sell self-published works[17] and so does Barnes & Noble.[18] You note that there is a paperback and hardback version of one of these books -- but the publisher is still himself, not a third party. B&N has a few more books by him, again all published by his low-profile "institute."[19]

To sum up, Mr. Smith is making damaging allegations with little established credibility, and there has been no independent review of these claims. Are you sure this warrants mention in Wikipedia? Are there any other editors who have an opinion here? Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered, I believe, Mr Bergstrom. You came here for advice and epicAdam gave it. You're not obliged to like it, but you have nonetheless received that which is given here. Forgive me for using your phrase - are you sure you're not opinion shopping?! As Adam said, finding a reliable source to set against Smith's statements would be the most powerful action to take. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I am afraid I disagree not just with epicAdam's interpretation of the policies, but also some of the relevant facts -- this is why I am still asking. But I am new to the non-article/talk parts of Wikipedia, so I want to be careful. What exactly constitutes opinion shopping? Would I be in violation if I took the request either to WP:FTN or the ArbCom? Is the opinion of the first editor I meet equivalent to Wikipedia policy? What are my options, exactly? Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A few other points to clarify: I certainly understand your point that it would be preferable, in most circumstances, to present a refutation of certain claims rather than simply delete them. However, part of the problem is that there has been no refutation or even confirmation of Mr. Smith's writings.

Additionally, I have brought facts to bear that Mr. Smith does not meet WP:RS. This requires some detailed examination by another editor, and based on Adam's replies, I do not believe he has examined the issue closely.

If you look at the talk page, I have been trying for several weeks to achieve consensus on the page, but the other editors, some of whom have no real history of editing Wikipedia (and I say this even though I am fairly new) but appear only to exist to reinstate mentions of Mr. Smith's writings. It is very frustrating, and impossible to achieve consensus with editors who will not make a good faith consideration of my points.

I have now looked at WP:CANVAS and I believe it does allow me recourse to consider taking the issue to another board where I will get a more thorough response. But please do not think I am simply ignoring opinions I do not like. All I am asking for is a full examination of the facts. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You say you disagree with Adam - fair enough - and that you disagree with some facts? That doesn't seem right. Opinion shopping is simply asking one's question in multiple fora until one receives the answer one wishes to hear. You're entirely free to post at WP:FTN; I have no experience of that so I have no idea how it will be received. You could try a request for comment. I don't think ArbCom is the right place for this; this is just a species of content dispute really.. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if Mr. Bergstrom wants another opinion. In my mind, this case isn't as cut and dry as most WP:SPS or WP:RS cases; this situation is more of a gray area. Here, there is a book written by a person who seems to have attracted a reasonable amount of attention for his work, but rational people can still debate whether or not Grant F. Smith is an "expert" on the subject. If there were other reliable sources on this topic, I would be fine with excluding this information; however, the fact that so few reliable sources even exist leaves me to err even further on the side of including the information, albeit with a caveat warning readers about the source. Ideally, if somebody actually has this title, it would be great to find the sources cited in the book and then use those sources to reference the information provided, if possible. To me, that is far preferable than removing information on a subject because that information portrays an organization in a less-than-flattering light. I feel as if this book portrayed AIPAC in an extremely positive light that there would be little-to-no objection to its use. If this issue really were as inflammatory as Mr. Bergstrom seems to believe it is, I feel like there would be a greater number of users (out of the thousands who have viewed the article) voicing their opposition to the source. Instead, the information has lasted on the page for months with very little reaction whatsoever until recent. Having said all that, it's still the user's right to get additional views on this as no single person is the final authority on any of this. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time. I will probably need another day or so to write something a little more thorough, one thing I did learn from this conversation is I will have to be very clear about facts and how I believe they relate to policies. When I do ask again, I'll link back to it here so others can follow this discussion. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese gymnasts

The following sections, independently submitted, appear to concern the same set of articles. In the interests of economy and consistency, please read them together. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with editor about interpretation on Wikipedia's rules and regulations

Dear sir,

I am requesting assistance that I disagree with one of the editors on what kind of information could be included in a wikipedia article and what information could not. Could I get a third party to help me?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 13 September 2008

Which article are you having problems with? -epicAdam^(talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese gymnastics articles

I've been having issues with two editors on articles for two of the Chinese gymnasts involved in the age controversy scandal at the Olympics, Deng Linlin and Jiang Yuyuan. Both of these articles have been subject to vandalism by people on both sides of the case and it has taken considerable effort to source and get them to a point where they don't violate WP:NPOV. However, there are currently two editors--one a single-purpose account and the other with a possible conflict of interest--who have decided the article is biased, is mean to the Chinese gymnasts, that the sources don't count, etc. and have repeatedly tried infuse the articles with their POV and delete sourced material. I've tried to explain the way RS and other policies work, but it's not penetrating. Today the SPA has gone off the tracks. He started out as a vandal a few days ago, calmed down and started talking, and is now threatening to vandalise other articles if he doesn't get his way.

I've tried asking for help at the Wiki Gymnastics project and BLP, but I think at this point most people have been scared away. I'm the only one left trying to sort this out, and I'm really losing patience despite myself. Any help, feedback, whatever would be appreciated. DanielEng (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I read over the talk pages and checked out the sources. The user making the edits is clearly just trying to cause trouble. If he is insistent on changing the information, then put him on notice that he will likely be inviolation of WP:3RR, and if he does so, then report him. If you need somebody else to revert the changes so you don't go over the limit yourself, let me know. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Epicadam. It makes me a little less frustrated with these articles to read this. The editor complaining directly above my post is the SPA account and one of the two causing trouble. I hadn't even realized he was here until I saw these two posts linked. I would definitely appreciate help if I have to revert, and will contact you. Thank you again! Best, DanielEng (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to this, the SPA editor is still all but spitting blood on the Talk Page. I've basically tried to say "I'm not answering this anymore," but apparently it's made the SPA angrier. As long as it's confined to the Talk Page, I'm guessing the best course of action is to ignore it completely? DanielEng (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O or WP:RFC seems useful in this case. If there are serious WP:BLP concerns, head off to WP:BLP/N. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance on "Jiang Yuyuan" article

This 3rd thread was submitted after the previous two but was moved here (by me) for clarity. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr blocked User:Tinbin2 as a sock of User:Tinbin, used to evade a block. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently added information from chinese sources to "Jiang Yuyuan" article. I discussed about using the chinese sources with editor "DanielEng" before adding them and he agreed that chinese sources can be used and I added the relevant parts from the original texts for easy reference of translation. According to wilkpedia regulation Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content., therefore I am obeying wikipedia's regulations. But other editors keep removing my chinese sources. Therefore, I need assistance on this matter. 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin2 (talk • contribs)

Note: Nobody said this user had carte blanche with Chinese sources; he was pointed toward the appropriate text in WP:RS, and since then, other editors have gone to great pains to explain everything as to why his sources and the content he has added are inappropriate. Also, this is a sockpuppet of User:Tinbin, who has been blocked for 3RR and has now used a grand total of three IPs and two different sockpuppets to try to evade his original block. DanielEng (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tinbin, you really are digging a hole for yourself here... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor's discussion page BLOCKED for IPs?

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BillCJ reverted a new section (popular culture) I added to the V Bomber article, while I was still editing refs. I undid it, added a ref and a Wikilink that shows some significance, and added a notice on the discussionboard. However, by looking at User_talk:BillCJ, this "Note to "disruptive" IP" (at #28, for heaven's sake! Is everybody supposed to find it there?)) makes me believe this editor is somewhat hostile towards IPs:

"To the "disruptive IPs: Don't waste your time posting here or responding to this - it will be removed. I can easily add dozens of fact tags to the A-7 Corsair II article. But other editors would object to the "clutter", and replace it with an article tag! Rather than spending your time tying to "disrupt" WP to prove whatever point you're trying to make, you could actually spend some time improving the actualy content of an article, such as adding actual inline citations to the A-7. I know that's not as much fun as being "disruptive", but please remember WP is still an encyclopedia - for now, anyway!"

Looks like this Editor thinks that every IP is disruptive. Consequently, his discussion page can't be edited. So, how am I supposed to get into contact with Bill if he decides to delete my entry again? Is this kind of unfriendly behaviour allowed? What about WP:Bite? Not to speak of that reverting a totally serious and certainly not vandalous IP edit within ten minutes smells of WP:ownership. Could someone pls take a look at this, and maybe advice the editor to relax a bit? 89.182.194.94 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page about your message here. You must assume good faith as the messages to disruptive IPs is not related to your content dispute at V bombers and you have made a few accusations that could be considered as personal attacks that are not relevant to this forum. As this is a content dispute a message on Talk:V bomber should get a reply from User:BillCJ you do not need to use his talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Thanks for posting here. There are a number of options available to you. First, you could register an account. That allows everyone to see your editing history and hence allows you to gain credibility from a constructive history. Second, you could use the article's talk page to discuss the article; I think BillCJ listed that among the bullets at the top of his page. Third, and I especially recommend this one, you could assume good faith and even note that BillCJ posted that message days before you edited, so it's probably not aimed at you! And, fourth, you could add the reference at the same time as adding the text, which would avoid the whole unreferenced thing.

Sorry for the long list. Seriously, don't be discouraged. Some editors here are more friendly to IPs; some have had bad experiences and are consequently more sceptical towards IPs. Stick with it. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thx for weighing in folks. Just three points in return; Firstly, I didn't ACCUSE Bill of anything, I was stating facts: He DID revert my edit within 7 minutes, his discussion page CAN't be edited by IPs, and instead of an explanation he HAS this somewhat discriminating statement on his discussion page. And he didn't put anything at the discussion page after reverting me. I'm still waiting for an answer there. God knows if he'll notice anything I post there! But he WOULD be reminded if an editor posted on his discussion page. See the difference?

Secondly, yeah, I should have logged in, but I had a spontaneous idea when reading the V-Bomber article and I didn't think adding relevant information would be controversial. Since I want to preserve my privacy, it's too late to log in now (this would link my username to my IP). And thirdly, now what's your proposal for my most urgent concern? If I get into trouble with this guy, how shall I communicate with him? I can totally understand if userpages have to be protected against vandalism, but then, a notice about this should be at the start of his pages, and secondly, how shall non-vandalizing users get into contact with this editor??? 89.182.194.94 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You can post at Talk:V bomber I guess. He's not obliged to read it, nor to respond, but that's the best place to discuss that page. He's not obliged to read or respond to his own talk either. For that matter, MilborneOne has pointed him to this page too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that reminder by MilborneOne is helpful. I just wanted to point out to Bill that I'm not one of those vandalizing IPs, and that we should dicuss it if he has a problem with one of my edits. Good that MO relayed that message. Milborne citicized an edit on that talk page, too, and even though I think he was a bit nitpicking, I changed the wording of that section. However, even though I understand the need to safeguard some editors from vandals messing up their user pages, I still think a notice at the start of the page would be helpful. Isn't there a template for this somewhere? Something like: "Because of vandalism, these userpages have been blocked against edits by IP users. If you want to discuss with this editor, pls use the discussion pages of the articles.". Imho a clarificiation like this would be a good idea.89.182.194.94 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what message you had but if I try and edit his talk page I get the message Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get that message, Milborne, because the "edit" link doesn't even show up (made me first think something is wrong with my browser or so). There's no way an IP can edit this page. So, the message you, as a logged-in-editor, get when editing this page is somewhat paradox. After all, you can edit it, so it doesn't have to concern you, but the IPs who would really be interested in getting this information can never see it. Strange.89.182.194.94 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Milborne, could you pls relay to Bill that his conspiracy theories about me are useless? To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited articles about military planes before, and I don't remember ever meeting BillCJ anwhere here. I also am not a well known editor, but just a part time contributor with very few edits, all in all (both logged in and as an IP combined). Do a checkuser on me, if you like. I don't have any problem with admins checking my edit history here, it's only that I don't want everybody to know the IP of my useraccount. And I think it's strange that Bill has a discussion with you, where I can't participate, instead of using the IP talkpage or the discussion page at V-Bomber. Somewhat impolite, imho. 89.182.194.94 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One definition of "Cobble"

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

There is a definition of the word "cobble" that is missing from the Oxford English dictionary although it has been in use for years.

A cobble is a clearing in the woods preserved as a bird sanctuary.

There are two entries under cobble, (in Wikipedia), which already make use of this definition, but the definition itself is not given.

I tried adding this definition already but, I gather, it was edited out?

What is the best way to successfully add a meaning for a word which has been in longstanding use, but isn't listed in the dictionary yet?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosefat (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. The page I think you looked at, Cobble, is a disambiguation page. It serves to direct readers and editors to various encyclopaedic articles that could be known as Cobble. However, the example you give is more of a dictionary definition, and is hence suitable for Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. If you can find some good sources from which to build an article, then all well and good. But the entry you added doesn't lead to any article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Dooctrine

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A new post was added today that while it quotes a source, it relates to partisan views expressed to explain the lack of knowledge of a candidate. The individual adding the section is clearly using your semi-protection policy to avoid having it changed or flagged just long enough for people unfamiliar with the issue to be confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azrights (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss Bush Doctrine at Talk:Bush Doctrine, and you can edit it when your account becomes autoconfirmed (takes 4 days if you make 10 edits). Your theory about an individual using semi-protection sounds strange to me. There are a huge number of autoconfirmed users and the article has been edited by 12 different user accounts today. Do you have a specific request for editor assistance? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

David Foster Wallace

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DATE OF DEATH WAS SEPT 13, NOT SEPT 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.50.219 (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for that date then you can either change the article yourself or discuss it at the related talk page discussion. But note all the quoted sources in the article and talk page refer to a death on Friday night (the 12th). MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources currently aren't very clear or detailed. The only time curently given in all sources (e.g. here) is that 9:30 pm Friday night his wife found him. It isn't clear from the sources I found whether or not he was dead at the time he was found, but it seems that way. If you have reliable sources to back up your claim, by all means insert them in the article. Everyme 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn

Hi,

I recently posted a line stating that Canada Post issued a stamp of Audrey Hepburn. This is public knowledge, and the stamps were sold at every outlet in Canada.

I had a "bully" MarnetteD delete my entry.

Is there some way of resolving this? From what I can tell this person can be quite aggressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If somebody has requested a source then please provide one before readding something, even if you consider it trivial. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Your post to MarnetteD seemed aggressive (and ignorant of Wikipedia policy) to me, and some people easily respond to aggression with more aggression. Try being polite to avoid escalation. Note that the article history [20] shows another editor removed it for not being important. Also note that her appearance on an American stamp is already mentioned with a source at the end of Audrey Hepburn#Awards and honours, with an indication this is significant. And she did make American films. Has she made any Canadian? If stamps of other countries should be mentioned then surely it should be in the same place and not in another section. You could suggest the addition at Talk:Audrey Hepburn and see whether others support it. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you really want the addition and don't get support on the talk page, but is this little factoid worth such effort? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider this a mere "factoid." I also don't think supplying a reference for everything in pulic knowledge necessary. For the sake of wiki harmony I will re-add it with a reference and hope that that will settle the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record this editor added the unsourced and improperly placed info four times and did not respond to edit summaries or talk page messages before trying to bring about wikiharmony. MarnetteD | Talk 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese version

HI,

I was viewing the Japanese version of Wikipedia when I noticed, at the top left hand corner that it said: uikipideia where it should say waikipideia. (the u and the wa look very symelar).

Just pointing it out :)

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.246.47 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You should probably point that out on their website, to be honest :). But I'm pretty sure they intend it that way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert deMaine

Robert deMaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an associate and admirer of this concert cellist, and believe I have revised his Wikipedia biographical entry to conform to a more neutral point of view. A stub writer whose Wiki moniker is "Chubbles" had placed the "conflict of interest" notification at the top of Robert's entry, and I am hoping that this issue can soon be resolved, and the notification can be removed. Please feel free to edit this page further if it is not deemed to be enough of a neutral nature! Thank you very much.

Respectfully, Julia Grabowska ("Griffbrett") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffbrett (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The COI tag was inserted on the page because User:Rdemaine contributed significantly to the page. Wikipedia frowns on the subject of an article actually contributing to it. The best way to resolve any conflict of interest is to be bold and find reliable sources (i.e. independent, third-party sources) that reference the information provided in the article. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That page would benefit greatly from some references! --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance with page Brian Schweitzer

Hello,

Lot of shenanigans going on at Brian Schweitzer. Section "Controversy" is being removed and reverted every other edit, but I don't want to get involved because I cannot be impartial. Need help putting a temporary lock on page while it is sorted out.

Also note that one of the edits comes from a [21] Montana government computer].

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. snachodog (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted 3RR warnings on the talk pages of the two editors who have most recently been adding and removing it. Further reverts without the necessary talk page discussion/consensus will merit blocks for all involved. Consensus needs to be established. Mfield (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much!snachodog (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to get frustrating. Section was out right removed again by an anonymous user. Any other steps I should be taking? snachodog (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for a few days, meaning that anonymous editors can't edit it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edgewood, New Mexico and Moriarty, New Mexico articles - potential vandalism or misunderstanding of WP:ELNO

Edgewood, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moriarty, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Today, I added links to virtual tours of these two communities to their respective articles. User:Nyttend Nyttend has, despite my explanations to the contrary, repeatedly deleted these on the basis of his/her decision that they are either spam or some violation of the WP:ELNO rules - to the point of violating the "three undo a day" standard. I've reread the spam and ELNO guidelines, and these links clearly do not violate them. I am requesting assistance in resolving this issue. --Weckerleje (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The same problem occurred with the link I placed on the Torrance County, New Mexico article.--Weckerleje (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. It's possible that you're reading WP:ELNO rather narrowly; it's not sufficient that an external link isn't prohibited; it has to be worthy of inclusion. WP:ELYES provides some balance. Perhaps you could use the talk page(s) to explain why you think the links are worth including and then there could be some discussion, rather than just edit warring. 3RR doesn't apply to removal of vandalism, so if the other editor has a good faith belief that you're just adding spam links, then s/he wouldn't be in breach of 3RR. I know you don't think it's spam, but that's why you need to discuss it, not just revert each other. Happy consensus-building, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's one fact here that is very telling on the issue of your intent in adding the links. You stated on Nyttendat's talk page that you "run a web design and hosting company". Well it just so happens that the two seemingly unrelated sites you linked to, [22] and [23] (actually you inserted three links but two are separate pages from the same site), are both designed by the same webpage design firm, which I'm intentionally not naming but anyone following those links can see this for themselves. You also added to Torrance County, New Mexico, this link which, lo and behold, was also designed by the same firm. You added another link that page, [24] and, though I didn't find the designer listed on the site, I was quite unshocked to find on the design firm's website that it too was designed by the same firm—your firm. The evidence is more than damning; it's incontrovertible. So, whether the sites you've added do or do not fail WP:EL is really beside the point. You are indeed a spammer, spamming Wikipedia, just in a way slightly more difficult to recognize than the average because as a designer, you avoid the obviousness of promoting a single site, thus cloaking yourself a bit with seemingly unrelated external links. You seem to care about your region, and some of your edits seem genuinely intended to help the articles. By all means stay around and make more good edits. However, what is going on is clear. Any further link spamming will be reverted on sight. 3RR does not apply, and if you persist, warnings and ultimately a block for spamming may result.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edgewood, New Mexico and Moriarty, New Mexico articles - potential vandalism or misunderstanding of WP:ELNO - Response

Response re-grouped --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to respond directly to the feedback I got to my original request. I'd like to thank AndrewHowse and Nyttend for the polite and thoughtful responses, here and elsewhere. As for "Fuhgettaboutit":

Thank you for your rather "direct" comments. First, let us be clear on one issue - I'd like suggest that you, and those who follow on if need be, be clear about the fact that it was I that brought this forward for clarification. I find it rather confusing that a request for assistance would be answered in such an apparently hostile manner.

I thought it was fairly obvious in the discussions, early on, that I was, in fact (through my firm; I get to do some community service things because I HAVE the firm to begin with) the author of the content in question. How anyone could see "cloaking" here - especially given my user name - is not entirely clear to me. I apologize for any lack of clarity on that issue - please understand that I do not spend a lot of time producing or editing Wikipedia articles. I am certainly the author of the content in question, and hold copyright to the imagery. There's nothing to be shocked or "unshocked" by, here, nor is there anything to be proud of or ashamed of - we do a lot of work for local and regional communities and organizations, and we do it because we are who we are, and not for some cheap advantage, as you seem to suggest. I'd be delighted if you could point me to the specific policy that forbids a webmaster from posting a link to a nonprofit site he or she has created. Please be specific, as opposed to providing a statement on your personal philosophy. I'd also appreciate a link to the policy that gives you the authority to make threats - anonymously, of course - on behalf of Wikipedia.

Please note that I am also the editor of nm-central.com, and have been for months, and have never even thought of posting a link at Wikipedia to that site because it would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Ditto for most of the other sites we've produced.

Frankly, I find your accusatory language and name-calling offensive. First, let me point out that the links are for local, community service nonprofits. And riddle me this, Batman (dating myself, here); what makes you think I need to spam these links at all? Type "edgewood new mexico" or "moriarty new mexico" (please feel free to leave out the quotes - it's more fun that way), and you'll see the virtual tours of Edgewood and Moriarty on the second page of the Google results. As for the EMIFPA link, I created the initial site AND the current one for free. There's no profit motive here. It's just useful and/or content, and I frankly think it's a shame that it won't be available to Wikipedia readers.

I'm more than a little disappointed to see this kind of attitude being displayed in response to a request for help. It will certainly affect my inclination to spend time on Wikipedia in the future. I actually took the time to track down the vandals at the local high school (East Mountain High School; see the edit history on the Edgewood page) who were vandalizing articles all over Wikipedia, and consider myself to have been a good "wiki-citizen" overall. I don't see that happening again, and to be perfectly blunt, I don't see myself developing or contributing a lot of content in the future if this is how requests for assistance are handled by the establishment. I'd like to recommend far less suspicion and much better manners in dealing with those who come to the editors for help.--Weckerleje (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One note on grouping: each section has an "edit" link to the right, opposite the section header, in most browsers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I tried that on the original response, but got a message that it couldn't be edited. The guidance suggested re-posting on the active page. Did I goof somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel attacked, Weckerleje, but you've run up against a pretty concrete community norm here. Self-linking (that is, an editor linking to a site he or she created, owns, has some stake in, etc) is heavily frowned upon, and you'll find very little good will here for people who do it. Mostly this is because we spend far more time than anyone likes cleaning out link cruft - links people make to their personal blogs, links people make to their own business, links people make to things they have a vested interest in promoting. The best way to avoid being jumped upon for posting spammy links is to not post links to things you're connected to yourself. That doesn't mean you should ask your friend Bob down the street to make an account and do it (that's called meat puppetry and it's also against the rules); rather, it means that you should suggest and describe the link on the article's talk page. Once it's there, other editors will check it out; if the link is valid and useful enough, another editor will add it to the article. I know this response may not satisfy your desire to be vindicated and have someone here tell you that your links are just fine, but honestly, we have no way of knowing if your intentions are good or if you're a slimy self-promoter, and it's better to just avoid triggering people's knee-jerk "omgspam" response and go overboard in the other direction, giving other editors control of posting "your" links. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I maintain that the links are useful and not spam, but if this is a "concrete community norm," I can accept it; certainly, this appears to be the position of most responders, here and otherwise. I do reserve the right to disagree with it, however, at least to some extent. While I agree that self-promotion should be discouraged, excluding links to content for no other reason than the fact that the person who created it provides the link seems counterintuitive to me - a link should be examined with respect to the content, and its value should be judged on that basis and whether or not the content violates realistic guidelines. Allowing "norms" of this kind to get in the way of making information available smacks of censorship. I've generated a good bit of well-received content on the web - some dating back to before Wikipedia came to be - and it seems odd to me that none of it can be linked from Wikipedia simply because I produced it (so far, nobody has raised a single objection other than this. I have virtual tours of the Grand Canyon, Sedona, the historic Waco Bridge, Mesa Verde, and Salinas National Monument, just to name a few, and you seem to be telling me that I can't share these with the Wikipedia community for the simple reason that I produced them. Frankly, I think you're selling the community short on a lot of potentially interesting content.

I'll overlook the "slimy self-promoter" comment except to note that self-promotion is not something I need - and if this is the perception of what I'm trying to do, and there's no way to convince the powers-that-be otherwise, I see little point in pursuing the matter further. I'll post the suggestion on the talk page as you recommend, and that will be the end of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We're coming from very different places because I can't imagine not knowing, without ever looking at a single policy page, that it would be inherently inappropriate to add links to multiple sites I was both personally invested in and financially connected to, and to further fight over their inclusion, regardless of how pure my underlying motives were. In many settings the standard is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Even if you really believe adding these links doesn't promote the sites, do you think this activity doesn't very much have an appearance of impropriety on its face? Reading as true your statement that your firm doesn't need the promotion, adding the links nevertheless does act to promote—of course this is the case because the linked sites have prominent links to your firm included—so your actual promotional intent, or not, is not relevant to the appropriateness of the conduct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Webb

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed -epicAdam^(talk) 14:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review the name over the photo of Senator Jim Webb. 'Poo Poo Butt' is inappropriate, is not made reference to anywhere else, and is someone's idea of humour I would guess. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.116.32 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 70.174.85.52 has been removed; thank you for notifying. --Jh12 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are all entries we place for iComment.com removed?

We are trying to add our new patent pending technologies but nothing we add sticks. iComment is a new unique patent pending technology. Please let us know how to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icomment (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately iComment is not yet notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. Please see what makes an article or subject notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are over 100 download sites that have written about icomment, reviewed it, noted its unique technology. Even AOL's staff wrote about it. Doesn't that make it notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.132.174 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the source. For example, a download website may say what iComment does and why it's unique, however that does not necessarily make the technology notable. Notability would be achieved if iComment were highlighted in a mainstream publication that details why the technology has received mass attention. If a reliable source can reach those qualifications, then the next step would be to write the article using those sources as a basis. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Lutz

Please review the article on Al Lutz. There is an on-going disagreement about whether certain information is more relevant to the article describing who Al Lutz is, or recaps of past articles Al Lutz has written. The information in question is in the "Disney Reports" section. Several recaps of the article have appeared, and then are removed due to a disagreement about the content's relevancy to the Wikipedia Entry.

205.215.210.10 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What is editorializing, and am I doing it?

This dispute is about information regarding Illinois Senate bill 0099. The bill is discussed on the following three pages: Senate bill 0099, Political Positions of Barack Obama, and Illinois Senate Career of Barack Obama.

The paragraph in question is listed at the bottom of this assistance request. I am new to the Wiki editing hobby and am not familiar with that term's use in this community. I desire to provide facts and references not currently displayed on the page, and welcome any suggestions which will make the paragraph acceptable for display.

I understand a great deal of political tension currently surrounds the subject bill of my paragraph, but the information I provide is not partisan.

Here is the paragraph in question:

Much of the outrage against Illinois Senate bill 0099 and counteroutrage in its defense revolves around explanations of the bill, even though it is short enough to warrant reading first-hand. Furthermore, a published "guideline for comprehensive sexuality education: kindergarten-12th grade" is available to explain the program. The guideline pamplet divides lesson plans up into six categories: human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and society and culture. There are also four recommended "age appropriate" levels of instruction. Level 1 is for ages 5-8, Level 2 is for ages 9-12, Level 3 is for ages 12-15, and Level 4 is for ages 15-18. Level 1 for sexual behavior consists of the following three development messages: "touching and rubbbing one's own genitals to feel good is called masturbation;" "some boys and girls masturbate and others do not;" "masturbation should be done in a private place." Level 1 for sexual health includes many developmmental messages designed to protect children from sexual abuse. For example, "no one should touch the private parts of a child's body except for health reasons or to clean them." The sexual health category also covers abortion for all age groups. The Level 1 abortion lesson has a single developmental message: "sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child." Buddyg04 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have broken the WP:3RR policy, not to mention the terms of article probation over the Barack Obama-related articles. Please "self-revert" your latest attempt to edit war the content into the article. If you do not do so immediately you may be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. (I will place a similar warning on the editor's talk page if it is not there already, then file a 3RR report) Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see this has already been reverted by other editors. You may or may not squeek by this one without a block. However, in the future do not edit war, particularly not on the Obama articles, however you feel about a subject. You should definitely not revert again because this may result in an immediate block to prevent disruption to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several fundamental principles of editing in Wikipedia that should be adhered to, especially in cases of controversial material and controversial people (politicians, almost by definition, are controversial). I highly recommend reading the following policies and editing guidelines before editing in any more articles about Barack Obama or any other political figure:

WP:RS - Sources should be high-quality and reliable. Time Magazine, for instance, is going to be a more reliable source than someone's opinion blog. By and large, opinion pieces are not reliable for anything but the opinions of their authors, and should not be cited for statements of fact.

WP:V - Sources should be verifiable. The information included in Wikipedia should be sourced to documents other people can read and verify.

WP:NPOV - Wikipedia should present a neutral point of view. That means we present the facts, but we do not editorialize on those facts. If I write, "John Smith says he is angry," that is a statement of fact: John Smith says this. If I write, "John Smith says he is angry, which is perfectly understandable given the circumstances," I am introducing my own bias into the article, and presenting my opinion as fact.

WP:NOT - There are several things Wikipedia is not, including a soapbox for espousing one's beliefs.

I highly recommend reading all of those in their entirety, and gain a firm understanding of them before diving back onto the field. --GoodDamon 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing Page Title/URL

Resolved

 – Page moved per request. Fleetflame 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend - British musican and writer John Moore asked me to help him change the title to his page here. We both have looked and see no way of editing it.

Here is his page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moore_(drummer)

This title is inaccurate. He is more than simply a "drummer". He played drums for a very short time during what has now been a long career as a multi-instrumentalist (primarily guitar) and writer.

We would like to know how we can change the title to his page to:

John_Moore_musician/writer

Could you please help us with that?

signed and dated

Dave Cromwell65.200.151.162 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any registered editor can move a page to an unused name; I moved it to John Moore (musician) since Wikipedia pages don't have slashes in their titles. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this.

Dave Cromwell65.200.151.162 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Victory

I have found myself engaged in an edit war on the Victory page with a user (Projectyugo:Talk) who insists on posting a particular example of a Pyrrhic victory alongside the "See also" entry for Pyrrhic victory. I have tried to engage this user in a discussion, but he only responds by re-editing the page with cryptic edit summaries. I have even taken his example and added it to the Pyrrhic victory page, with proper wiki notations, but this user insists on placing this particular example on the Victory page, where it is out of place. I'm seeking an impartial third party to help resolve this issue.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're pretty clearly right on this one. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on Van Allen Radiation Belt

There is an edit war in progress at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Allen_radiation_belt&action=history

Please advise.

Furthermore, the user responsible for the majority of the reversions has attempted to remove this message. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help. The content you are attempting to add to the article is very contentious, so you should probably politely discuss your requested changes on the talk page and stop editing the article in the meantime. Keep in mind that the editors who discuss with you there are probably going to mention your serious edit warring up until now (if you apologize for your edit warring, you might be able to continue a discussion). They might also bring up the fact that you're trying to push a fringe theory so make sure to read up on that page. Let me know if you need any further assistance. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My original edit was not vandalism, so both editors in question have violated the three revert rule (which I was not aware of.) You say the information is contentious, would you care to explain what you mean by that? You also say as a fact that I'm 'pushing a fringe theory', could you elaborate on that as well? The current information on the page is flagged for neutrality and weasel words; it explicitly makes false claims used by moon landing deniers as fact. *That* is a fringe theory. I corrected these issues and my edit was reverted without comment as 'vandalism', when it clearly was not by any definition. Now if I violated wikipedia's policies or if there was some problem with my edit that made it inferior to the prior material (which was flagged as inappropriate) then I'd be happy to discuss it and make any necessary corrections; if someone would only tell me what the problem with it was. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I never called your edits vandalism: other editors did. Your original edit removed lots of material from the article which is why I called it contentious. As you can see, I added a strike-through in my edit above: I consider your edit to be a fringe-theory and others will too, but that is irrelevant here. I was just informing you that it will likely come up in conversation and it is all up to debate here. Starting up a conversation there will probably bring to light the issues people have with your edits. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. There are certain exceptions to the 3RR rule, one of which include reverting obvious vandalism. I'm sorry to say, but your edits to Van Allen radiation belt constituted vandalism, (in particular removal of content). I understand that you are a new user and you may be unfamiliar with wikipedia policy, however rather than obstinately removing content and adding your own material multiple times, you could've dropped my a line at my talk page, or on the articles talk page. Thanks --Superflewis (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While all the reversions are unfortunate, it's not at all clear that 80.42...'s edits are vandalism. S/he removed some unsourced and fringe-ish material, and added content in its place that appears to be sourced. Should it be discussed on the talk page? Absolutely. Is it vandalism? That's certainly not been proven, and it might well not be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that the IPs edits were not "obvious vandalism". Perhaps Superflewis is a bit overeager with his new AWB tools, considering other questionable reports of vandalism at AIV (see [25]) Gnome de plume (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and accuse Superflewis of having a vested interest in the material I removed. I hope I'm wrong, and if so I apologise, but it's quite clear that the edits I made didn't constitute a malicious attempt to violate the integrity of wikipedia. His problem with them has always been with the material they replaced, he's been quite clear about that. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not falsely accuse me. I have no interest in the content that you replaced or placed up. I do however have a problem with removal of good quality content without a reason. Not explaining why remove content and insert your own material does constitute vandalism, and this becomes even more controversial is the new material is a Fringe theory. --Superflewis (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know if you have any evidence for that, 80.42..., but if you don't I'd strongly advise you to strike that. Use <s> at the beginning and </s> at the end. Each of Superflewis' reversions came after one of your changes/reversions; I think s/he's just watching IP edits that result in a net removal of characters (bytes) and often reverts those rather quickly. Her/his contributions show multiple edits per minute, seemingly using Huggle, which is a semi-automated tool for this and many other repetitive tasks. Anyway, please show evidence or withdraw that last post. Thanks --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Superflewis, the IP was removing Apollo-denier positions and adding more conventional positions. Seems like a removal of a fringe theory to me. For example, see this diff. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. No, that was MY mistake. I have added strike-throughs above. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I couldn't agree more. Please also follow suggestions to discuss the content issues on the talk page instead of discussing editors and vandalism and rules. We all make mistakes, but advice to focus on the content have gone largely ignored. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gnome de plume's edit looks to be a good compromise position to work from in that section. Everyone take it to the talk page, please. (And good lord, the edit history is horrid - 3RR is a distant memory, if that...) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gnome de plume's edit is superior to mine. If it remains I will consider the matter closed. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The point here is not the content. I honestly don't mind if you reinstate 80.42.161.45 contributions into the article. The problem I have is that s/he didn't explain why s/he editing out a large portion of the article and replaced it with their own material (I reverted it in the first place, because it looked suspicious), and rather than sending me a message, s/he pursued a stubborn policy of reverting my edits. . .I also think that this was completely unacceptable - I'd like an explanation, thanks --Superflewis (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did provide a summary after you requested it; you continued to revert my edits. 'Looking suspicious' does not make an edit vandalism, and as I understand it, knowingly falsely reverting an edit as vandalism is itself vandalism, and my reverts of your reverts were acceptable. (However, they were not productive while you were continuing to flaunt the rules, so I should have requested assistance immediately. I'll know better next time.) Nor will I strike out the accusation, given that it was properly qualified. I am not stating it as a fact, and you are free to disprove it by your actions. I will point out that I apologised in the event that the accusation was incorrect, while you have steadfastly refused to back down from your demonstrably false accusation of vandalism. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)An edit summary would certainly have helped. Not sure it was worth having an edit war however. And retraction would seem to be appropriate and has already been requested here and at the IP's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I was not the only editor that identified his/her edits as vandalism. Check the history. User:Fieldday-sunday together with User:Epbr123 (an admin) took his contributions to be detrimental --Superflewis (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I daresay they looked at it rather quickly; they were both editing in a rather similar way to you. I don't mean to denigrate anti-vandalism activities - they're both tedious and necessary. But now that you've looked at the content involved, do you still think the original intent was vandalism? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an editor that I have reported in the past for deletions who continually follows me around delting my entrys. He is doing it again but not instantly deleting my entrys but 'marking' them for deletion. I am following the guidelines but am new and trying my best to comply. I need a little guidance not bullying. And this editor is nothing but a bully.

His name is Sgroupace and he currently has my page PHPulse marked for deletion. He has just instantly deleted it several times. I am the maintainer of the open source project which has been around since 2001. I tried my best to comply with your guidelines and just stick to facts for the entry and not 'indulge' s that it would not get marked as spam.

But no matter what I do, he seems absolutely determined to delete it. Please help! I have no idea what to do about him and am totally new!