Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Legitimate content and discussion on said content being delted

Resolved

 – Seems to have settled down for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I've tried several times to add to this article. It keeps being reverted by the same group of people, and they refer to it as vandalism for some reason. I posted on their talk page asking why, and this was reverted as well and called a "meaningless rant". I believe it's being done because they're using the page as part of their advertising for their kung fu school, so they don't want any references to their competition, even though they're relevant and accurate.

I'm not an expert wikipedia user and I feel like I'm being railroaded by these people. I'm asking for help because I don't know what else to do. Xavierq (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look. As best I can tell, you'd like to add the name of one person to a list of the subject's students or followers, plus an external link to a Kung Fu studio. If you can find some reliable source in support of the former addition, then it is probably improper for the other editors to remove it. Without a reliable source, it's just information that you happen to know, and shouldn't be included. See WP:OR. (Perhaps some of the other names there should be removed for a similar reason - I don't know.) The school link is, however, inappropriate - as are the links on that page to other Kung Fu schools that add nothing to the understanding of the subject of the article. I removed those, and I suppose we'll see if someone tries to reintroduce them. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I added his name back with 5 independent links mentioning him as either a student of CTS or as a training brother of the other men listed as students, as well as video of them together and press releases. His name is the ONLY one on the page with references now, hopefully it'll stay in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of those refs aren't good Wikipedia sources so I removed all but one - it's kind of dicey too but was the best of the lot. (I agree that they all do generally support the edit you made.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Logged in today and my edit had been removed from an IP address stating that a one page source with no publisher or date was unreliable. Being that that information is right on the source and that the others on the list have no references at all, I undid his removal and added the date and page number to the reference... if it's undone again I'll post here and ask for more assistance... Xavierq (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating when an editor takes out your contribution, complaining that the cited source is unreliable, yet leaves in wholly unsourced material of the same variety. I added a template to the section suggesting that further citations be found for all the information therein. JohnInDC (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This one is actually bubbling up again, with a series of edits and reverts. With luck it has stabilized but I am making a note here to keep this one from being archived for the next 48 hours or so. JohnInDC (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the tag - not sure what more we can do. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the editors would respect a consensus that consists of more than just me, so if others were to take a look at the dispute and weigh in, it might help. JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, the above claim that the article is not sourced is flatly WRONG. In the past the article was flagged for lack of sources and we (the disciples of the late person) made a concentrated effort to provide links. At this moment there is a wealth of sources supporting our claim, some added as recently as this morning!

My contention remains rather simple. I have posted articles by the person in question and about the person in quesiton, published in his lifetime, that list the disciples. There are also external sources, a facebook tribute page maintained by the association of disciples, etc. Thus, we have two occurances. First, CTS himself in his lifetime asserting who his disciples are. Second, after his passing, on one side a large group of these same individuals (ie the ones named in the articles) and on the other side a single person whose behaviour has been very questionable, so questionable that they have been investigated on a martial arts fraud site known as "bullshido"

The ONLY source for this person is an article that is NOT about Chan Tai San, nor his system. It is an article about a wing chun instructor who says he learned something from Kaparos and then claims that Kaparos was a disciple. There is this one rather weak source vs. a MOUNTAIN of other sources all saying something different. I would thus claim they are NOT equal

Nysanda (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[e/c] Could someone else please take a look at this? The basic issue is very simple - should the name of a particular person remain on a list, where the inclusion is (to all appearances) properly sourced. One editor persists in removing it, contending that the circumstances surrounding the sourced article make it clear that the assertion set forth in the article is not true. In my view that analysis runs contrary to WP:Synthesis and the information should remain in the article until a reliable source is found to affirmatively contradict it. Interested editors can skip everything except the (exhausting) discussion that can be found at Talk:Chan_Tai_San#Gus_Kaparos. JohnInDC (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to leave the article as is for now (please note that this would mean the other person NOT changing and deleting links as they have tried thus far!) while others take a look. However, again, I find the claim that it is unsourced absurd all sources considered! Nysanda (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you've deleted talk comments and third time you'd deleted sourced material. The next time either happens I will request to have you banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This ongoing dispute will seem weirdly familiar to anyone who's old enough to have watched the original Star Trek episode, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. Once again it would be helpful if another editor or two could take a look at the page and weigh in with comments and whatever else may help. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First, John himself said that if there is an open debate regarding the "student list" then it could ALL be deleted. Yet now he reverted that edit? I could also argue that the "student list" is irrelevant to the article. The rest of the article is well source.

SECOND, John reverted a personal attack by Xavier, an unsubstantiated (and clearly laughable), claim on "motivation". And then of course there is the threat "I will get you banned" (I can see him doing the "neener neener neener" face now).

FINALLY, Xavier consistently fails to "sign" his statements, which IS againt wiki policy. Nysanda (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nysanda is frustrated, Xavier is frustrated, and my efforts have not helped to bring order to this page. Indeed judging by the foregoing they are, in some eyes, making things worse. I'm going to bow out here and let more experienced editors try their hand. JohnInDC (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I forget to sign some of my comments. I'd go back and edit it in, but the sinebot takes care of it before I can do it. No harm done.

I wasn't threatening you. Deleting sourced material because you disagree with it, and doing it multiple times despite repeated warning by several users is a violation of the very essence of what wikipedia is here for. If it continues, I will request you be banned. Its not a threat, its simply whats best for the community. And again, I've said that I'd rather that not happen, as you have a lot of valuable contributions here. But you have to follow the rules.

As far as this dispute, unless a higher authority forces it into completion, it will never end. Nysanda is dead set on proving a lie to be true, and I'm just as dead set on keeping the truthful information in. I can only assume his motivation is personal, as I've never seen someone so dedicated to a falsehood before. I'm seriously at my wit's end with this nonsense.

Xavierq (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Now "Xavier" is signing on as anon (64.52.227.66) and acting like he is a different person. Dear lord, PATHETIC. Also, his "repeated warning by several users" is JUST HIM reverting and arguing. LAME Nysanda (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my work address, guy. I posted before I realized I wasn't signed in. I immediately signed in and added my name once I realized it. JohnInDC was the other user I was referring to warning you about not deleting user talk comments or sourced material.Xavierq (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article cited by NYSanda has been uploaded in full and the content and citations have been updated to match the text of this article. This is the article he's stated excludes Gus Kaparos. The link proves that he is in fact listed in this article. This should end all debate on this subject.Xavierq (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed (per John) that a NEUTRAL party should review the matter and no edits be done until that neutral party stepped in. Yet "Xavier" (not his real name) conitnues with edits. He is also persistent in sending me messages I have no interest in, IE he is harassing me. The article should be left where it was when John stepped in and Xavier's nonsense should stop. PERIOD Nysanda (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Guy! I FOUND the magazine. I literally bought a copy. I scanned it. It proves once and for all who is and is not a disciple. I didn't even change the list, just linked the actual reference in full and corrected the citation to just source the people it actually mentions. I didn't delete the people who blatantly aren't mentioned. This discussion is closed.Xavierq (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical matter with taxoboxes

Unresolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give me some assistance or tell me what I need to do regarding the following problem. I modified taxoboxes in the following: Foraminifera, Allogromiida,and Alveolinella, and added a new page Alveolnidae. !st the following marks ;"| ended up appearing in front of the title in each taxobox and before the words, Scientific Classification. 2ndly color either disappeared or was not included.

I stand by my changes or entry, although yes they are subject to debate and review. Meanwhile how can I correct the technical problem of appearance.

Regards and thanks,

JM (talk)

George St. Pierre (MMA Fighter Page)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this:

In the section Named "Road to the title" I see "St-Pierre was then matched up against top contender Frank Trigg at UFC 54. St-Pierre controlled the fight and eventually sunk in a rear naked bone with less than a minute remaining in the first round." - should be "rear naked choke"

Thanks for pointing this out, I have fixed it. So you know, if you notice errors like this, you are more than welcome to fix them yourself. Thanks. Vancouver Outlaw (Speak) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow-motion Edit war in 'Seven league boots'

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven-league boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP based user 220.233.222.154 (talk) has been repeatedly re-adding information to the page Seven-league boots that amounts to a strategy guide from the game Morrowind. I have edited it to a version that concisely gives similar information without being an in-depth strategy guide, but I was responded to with 'YES IT IS NECESSARY' and a revert. A previous edit by another IP-based user was responded with 'EAT IT' and a revert. As I am only a rare user of wikipedia, I have no interest in creating a username to deal with this, and I'm hoping someone can step in. 208.79.244.67 (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Nothing else to do at present. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over a lot of stuff

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have been trying to help rework the Middle Bronze Age alphabets page for a few days (a euphemistic way of portraying this). The article is essentially a whole bowl of wrong. It is largely not cited, polemical in favor of one fringe personality (whose work isn't even cited anyway), includes inaccurate diagrams (based on the extant actual photographs), and may in fact be a conflagration of a series of subjects anyway.

It's a bit complicated, but I would appreciate any and all assistance. However, in my humble and extremely inexperienced opinion, I think I may have not only been pointing out the flaws in this page, but possibly a much broader series of holes in the Arabic letter pages as well. Again, at this point the debate has been so long winded that I would really appreciate any and everyone's help. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

On quick look, I can't tell if that is ancient or a list of icons that will replace English text on my next app or appliance :) Yes, the sources seem lacking but I can't judge perspective. I guess you could put a template on it indicating it needs sources and that may get some additional attention, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_custom_messages . I guess something like coi, cherrypicked,pov, etc may be apropos or request expert attention. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over two article

Unresolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Windows Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Windows Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an on-going dispute over two articles.

User SchmuckyTheCat has merged both articles into Development of Windows XP article by his own whim. He did not even get a consensus before. He merely assumed, that because no-one replied to his merge request on the talk page, that it automatically means, that there's no opposition to it. This is clearly wrong, proven by the fact, that so many people reverted the articles, after he merged them, to the state, before he merged them. And he insists on reverting it back to redirects, over and over.

After I, the umpeenth user, who doesn't agree with his move, reverted his redirects once, I attempted to get a hold of him on the talk pages of both articles. He ignored both, and reverted again, which I reverted again.

He attempted to get semi-protection for the redirects, and I attempted to get full protection for the proper articles, and both were denied, and we were instructed to apply for a dispute request, instead, which I'm doing right now.

I'd kindly ask editor assistance in the matter, as it's going nowhere. - OBrasilo (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bio Shawn Mitchell

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently updated Shawn Michell's bio to reflect some national news attention he is getting for his remarks at a formal legislative hearing. It keeps getting removed and I would think the information is important and would like to see it stick.

Thanks for your help. I have opened a discussion with the two users who are removing my entries but would sure like some guidance as I like Wikipedia and think it's a great tool for getting the truth out.

Eyeonyou (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting a discussion is certainly a good move. The article's talk page, Talk:Shawn Mitchell would be a good centralised location. Meanwhile, do stop reverting each other. That's called an edit war and is strongly discouraged here.

The content you're trying to add might be notable, or might not; in some ways it's too soon to say. As a start, please look at how other parts of the article are sourced and try to follow that model. The way you've laid it out doesn't fit our manual of style. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew thanks for the input. I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page for Shawn Mitchell. I changed the entry to better reflect I believe the rules of Wikipedia and it was again removed by another NEW user. I'm committed to getting this right and I appreciate your help however the other NEW users are not talking with me. Eyeonyou (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't force other editors to take part in a discussion. We can only do our best to produce articles that are verifiable and unbiased. I've reverted your last 2 edits, where you still haven't cited reliable sources appropriately. AP is a good source. ProgressNow, which you describe as a liberal activist group, is not such a good source. If you can find a similar reference in a more neutral source, that would be much better. As OrangeMike suggested, please see WP:CITE for info on citing sources correctly. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary G. Enig

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary G. Enig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a nutritionist with very controversial dietary advice is sourced almost entirely with primary references, which ends up creating a virtual webpage for her views. Long ago I added refs on her credentials, however a search for 3rd party sources turns up mainly a few blogs that call into question (not so nicely) her views and advice. However, I have been unable to find coverage in WP:RS. Another editor responded to a request for a 3rd party opinion regarding BLP and commented that the article may not meet the notability requirement (here & here) and suggested that the article go to AfD, which I don’t know how to do. Furthermore, I suspect that the supporter’s of the subject’s organization (WAPF) would come out in force as they have previously. Any suggestions for improving this article so it is less of aun constested comprehensive repository of this probably non-notable person’s controversial articles? Also, if anyone would like to weigh in on the accusations Gregwebs has made toward me on both my talk page and the article's page, that would be appreciated. Does this meet the etiquite standards? Thank you on both issues. OccamzRazor (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way to improve it is to make it sound less like a promo piece and more like an encyclopedic article. Some reliable sources to support claims of notability would be a good place to start. As it is, it's up for Afd here. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RANDOM ARTICLE OPTION

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

THE RANDOM ARTICLE LINK SHOULD HAVE AN OPTION LIST OF THE TOP 1,000 OR 5,000 ARTICLES THANK YOU

Please don't use all caps.

I'm not sure I understand the request.. if you want to go to only random featured articles you can use this link: Random featured article. -- œ^™ 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article on Evolution

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sirs,

I do thank you for the contribution wp makes to the internet. Though I use it much I just came across the article on evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and would make this comment:

WP should remain a factual account of any subject on which it speaks and though I understand the contention between opposing views of some scientists against creationists and the variety of creationist views I do feel this article omits a fundamental truth in its presentation and is therefore inaccurate.

Science at this time still accepts (if grudgingly) that evolution is an unproven theory and it is still known as the 'theory of evolution'. This article does not make that clear and speaks definitively. Likewise creation is a 'biblical doctrine' and the debate between evolutionists and creationists is a contest of faith ie beliefs.

The article should be entitled the 'Theory of evolution' if WP is to maintain its status as a reliable factual reference. This link http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html to the evolution section of Berkely university demonstrates a fair presentation of this subject correctly couched and contains this paragraph near the begining:-

"The theory of evolution, formalized by Charles Darwin, is as much theory as is the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. Unlike theories of physics, biological theories, and especially evolution, have been argued long and hard in socio-political arenas. Even today, evolution is not often taught in primary schools. However, evolution is the binding force of all biological research. It is the unifying theme. In paleontology, evolution gives workers a powerful way to organize the remains of past life and better understand the one history of life. The history of thought about evolution in general and paleontological contributions specifically are often useful to the workers of today. Science, like any iterative process, draws heavily from its history."

I think such reasonable presntation of any subject would only enhance wp's standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.65.226 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for some context, I haven't looked at the evolution article except maybe in passing but to differing extents many of the same fallacies creep into human thought in other scientific areas. For example, if you have ever seen the certainty with which doctors and scientists at biotech companies present their results you have to question how scientifically they view their own work or that in related fields- and that's fine I guess as it is natural for even academics to try to apply their own fields of work to as many issues as possible ( scientists are still human). Creation Science page however doesn't seem to tolerate much discussion about topic or policies and I would note that in principle the term "religious" is probably not inherent in a CS/ID theory although usage here depends on existing literature. I'm also not sure I have any idea why this is so important to biology since the issue involves history and nothing which can be tested. History can not be tested but an antibiotic can. I don't recall having seen evolution mentioned in most fields that I've examined except maybe in some attempts to develop trees from gene sequences and these are of generally peripheral interest to many immediate problems. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the editor has a valid point. There should be a clearer separation between what appears to have happened over geological time, and why we think it happened like that. I've also discovered that Theory of Evolution redirects to Evolution, but Evolutionary theory redirects to Modern evolutionary synthesis. There seems something awry with the organisation of the material. (In case anyone is suspicious, I'm a 100% believer in evolution, with no time for CS/ID except to point and laugh.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there certainly are a lot of comic fallacies in many plausibility arguments all the way around and moralizing creeps in everywhere. Did Persinger conclude that a God hallucination implies there is no God as he presumably would with visual hallucinations? IIRC Dawkins, as universal judge of good design, concluded that a God with "good" design skills can't possibly exist. Certainly people have and will continue to laugh at various ideas- the problem seems to occur when people are too certain to tolerate opposing views. Intellectual freedoms would seem to be issues of general interest to encyclopedias and maybe this issue can be a specific example from which more general ideas can be extracted. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You should read the FAQ at the top of Talk:Evolution. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Paranoid Q: ok, check log for this page some comment in this section was wiped out entirely. Anyone familiar with criteria here? While I doubt it was a fullfilled prophecy, I am curious :) Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries - that mystery edit was me - I got logged out by accident and asked for my IP address to be removed - and the powers that be removed the whole message as well. Anyway, what I had said was something to the effect that the FAQ is all very well and good, but I think it might be an idea to suggest a link at the top to Modern evolutionary synthesis just in case people are looking for modern evolutionary theory when they type in "evolution" or "theory of evolution". The modern synthesis isn't very prominently displayed or linked to in the article; an extra link might improve useability. Having FAQ on a talk page isn't so helpful for readers.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article at Evolution as theory and fact may be instructive. Also Q3 of the FAQ at Talk:Evolution, "Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?" Though your question makes sense, you are revisiting ground that's been heavily debated in the past, by a large number of people, including editors who are experts in various fields of biology. (Check the 52 archives of Talk:Evolution). You'd need very good arguments, or a surprisingly novel issue, to make a dent in the current consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Expert" of course often being a synonym for COI and there are experts in CS/ID too and expert astrologers. Many of these debates focus on what appear to be topic specific issues but often there are more general problems. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The initial post here is based on a misconception.It is not the case that "Science at this time still accepts (if grudgingly) that evolution is an unproven theory and it is still known as the 'theory of evolution'". This is a very common misunderstanding, due to a common use of the word "theory" as referring to an unproved hypothesis, as opposed to the use of the word to refer to a coherent body of theory. There is a very solid consensus in the biological community that evolution is definitely proved. EdJohnston is quite right: this has all been discussed at length before, but I thought it might be helpful to summarize the essential point here. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Help about "This article does not cite any references or sources"

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello,

I added the page Checkmarx, added as many cites an references I could think of (from Wikipedia - MSDN, OWASP, Security innovation, Ofer Brothers Group, and main sources outside Wikipedia - such as CWE), and still have the message about references to cite.

Which other references should I cite in order to prove that this company really exists?

Thank you very much in advance,

Adarw (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The tags were added before you added the references. I'll take a look and see if it can be removed or at least downgraded. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will also change the relevant ref's to cites, I understand this is the correct way. Adarw (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

CxQL - any ideas how to elaborate?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello (again),

I am new in Wikipedia, and try to add things I know, this time - CxQL. I was sure I added some reliable secondary sources, but it seems I didn't :(

Any suggestions why the sources are wrong?

Thank you in advance,

Adarw (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not secondary sources. See WP:SECONDARY for the full run-down, but we much prefer sources that are independent of the topic. The sources you show are essentially company press releases. It would be better to find reliable sources that are independent of Checkmarx. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will do my best to find such sources. Adarw (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed-circuit television

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mme/Sir, Please review User talk:Stassats concerning his/her deletion of a photograph I have added to Closed-circuit television. It seems I can't convince him/her the deletion is unjustified. I have added some relevant text to Macular degeneration#Impact concerning the same photograph, but I am not hopefull this will change Stassats' POV. Thanks for your assistance - Etan Tal (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Stassats. While I don't doubt that the usage depicted is an instance of CCTV, we don't need to catalogue all possible uses. In fact, I think the section on Niche uses is rather trivial all around. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Tours: Animated (again)

68.183.52.43 (talk · contribs)

Previous request for Editor Assistance: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 52#Star Tours: Animated?

This user is causing problems again, along the same vein as before: inserting information about casting of an apparently mythical animated version of Star Tours, specifically involving characters and voice actors from Star Wars: Ewoks. The user also makes legitimate edits. Does not generally revert my reversions, so it's not an edit war, but the number of articles involved makes it hard for me to keep up with the edits -- I'm certain I've missed some that were made when I wasn't watching, but there's no way to know.

None of the dispute resolution steps seem appropriate, since they tend to be designed for content disputes on specific articles, and for users who repeatedly revert to a preferred version. I also cannot engage the user in dialogue because he or she almost never responds to messages on his or her talk page (and when a response is made, it's a non-sequitur at best).

I would like to see a long-term solution for this user, but I'll take a short-term one if anyone has any ideas.

-- Powers ^T 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but use WP:Twinkle or similar to warn them for each instance of vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing without references

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I realize the importance of accurate information in editing information, I need to see if there is a way around this. I started a WikIpedia Biography of my Father. The article is: Eddie Talboom. I now want to go back and edit and add information. This information is from my own personal experience as my father's son. I also have information coming from oral history from my family that I would like to include, but which is not published anywhere. How do I edit/add to the article without using published references? Thank you for your help. Mark E. Talboom, D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalboom (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by our readers, or else they would and should have no reason to trust the content. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is meant to only reproduce (collected and summarized) content already published in reliable sources. It is not the original publisher of anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The solution, Metalboom, is to publish your oral history and personal experience in some other medium first. Shop the story around to a magazine, journal, or newspaper -- some publisher that does some amount of fact-checking and is considered reasonably reliable. Once someone picks up the story of your father, only then can Wikipedia look at including that information in our encyclopedia. Powers ^T 22:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Band Boston page (link inside)

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to go about this, fairly new... But I have been retained by the band Boston [[1]]to keep their page clean of trash coming from disgruntled previous members of the band, non-fans who wish to vandalize and so forth. This is one particular user User:TimothyHorrigan who consistently posts stuff from other websites, erroneous unsourced information, or just out and out untruths etc. A look at his talk page indicates that he has been the subject of many complaints by many other folks. He recently edited the Boston page to show that Micheal Jackson had been a member of the band, which of course was blatantly untrue.

I do not want to get into a match with this fellow and am requesting assistance with this matter.

Thank you in advance

Whitelitr (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be for the two of you, and any other interested editors, to thrash it out on the talk page. I see you've started to do that; it's really the only way to get to a consensus position.

By the way, saying that you've been retained by somebody isn't usually very persuasive here, simply because it's not verifiable. The best way to build some credibility behind your edits is to build a good track record. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look good either way: if the editor was "retained" by the band, then he or she has to be careful to retain a neutral point of view because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. If he is she wasn't really retained by the band, then he or she is making a false claim. I think the disgruntled band members deserve to have the "other" side of the story at least alluded to. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the potential COI; on your other point we need reliable sources and we need to bear in mind WP:UNDUE. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I appreciate your help. Whitelitr (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure is always appreciated but similarly not verifiable- "I'm GW Bush and I'd like to express my support for two photon absorption processes etc etc" Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone is erasing my added information.

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

An editor has deleted all the content i added for this page. It is well source and in a neurtal voice. I've gone back in and added again but how can I stop this wholesale deletion?

TelecomMaster (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC) TelecomMaster

An editor is erasing my sourced info[[2]]. I have gone back in and replace but how can i stop somone from completely erasing my added material?

An editor is erasing my sourced info[[3]]. I have gone back in and replace but how can i stop somone from completely erasing my added material?

The sources you provided were all blogs and press releases, which as self-published-sources are not generally considered reliable. And since the neutral point of view is necessarily the point of view of reliable sources, you can't really have neutrality without having any reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How to underline text?

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to use various fonts to illustrate specific word functions that are necessary for a complex explanation. Instead of writing "The orchestra (noun) quickly (adverb) played (verb) classical (adjective) music (noun)" to teach parts of speech one can make all adjectives underlined, all nouns double underlined, all adverbs in italics and all verbs bold. This example is metaphorical. In the actual text that I want to submit the categories are not mutually exclusive, and I also need to use strikethrough to show discarded sections.

I shall be grateful if you would please email me, because I have an important contribution to make to lexicology in word games. GoodGreeff (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way that articles are usually written here. The Manual of Style has the details.

You might try laying out your proposed additions on a user subpage first, say at User:GoodGreeff/sandbox. Then you could come back here and ask for some constructive criticism. Remember to cite reliable sources, or your contributions might not be suited to mainspace here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would use italics by using ''text'', which produces text.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to underline text like this? Or maybe like this? Refer to Chinese classifier, a featured article, for an example. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Example from Chinese classifier:

demonstrative – number – classifier – adjective – noun

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep; per Benlisquare and Unionhawk, the way to do common formatting things is:

• italic ''italic''
• bold '''bold'''
• underline <u>underline</u>
• double underline {{du|double underline}} (in some fonts this will show up as a single thick underline)
• strikethrough <s>strikethrough</s>

Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting has more options. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Chartjackers

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

I am trying to do a wiki about a charity project for the BBC's Children in Need and I have a problem with a bot called User: CommonsDelinker which keeps deleting a logo that I have permission from the organizers to use. I have sent in an email about this and had no reply. How can I get this resolved?

Also, there is a message saying that it may be deleted. How do I get this resolved?

Thanks.

Here is a copy of the message I get on my page.

This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (September 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footynutguy (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you mean Chartjackers? The problem is with the sources: there's very little reliable secondary material there. Has there been any other independent coverage? Youtube isn't a good source here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

my piture in your website

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir/ Madam

My Name is Gul Hussain Ahmadi, from Afghnistan, as I have visited your website, I have seen a wrong picture on my name which is not my picure.please remove it as soon as possible

wish you all the best this is my email:

(Removed)

Ahmadi kabul - Afghanistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.42.50 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not positive where exactly you are referring to, I can't answer exactly. But it likely is the name of somebody else, and perfectly legitimate. Grsz¹¹ 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

However, if you believe an article about you is incorrect, then please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) to report the problem. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have no article for Gul Hussain Ahmadi, Gul Ahmadi, Hussain Ahmadi, or even Gul Hussain, so you need to be more specific. kwami (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue with evaluation criteria for articles

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Cellared in Canada" article was recently given a major revamping by another contributor, and in my opinion, they did an excellent job. However, I am concerned as it as given a "C" rating and viewed as being of "low importance". Putting the issues that it covers in perspective, you may see why this categorization is inappropriate.

The importing of foreign bulk wine (or any commercial product) and then marketing it as a product of another country is an enormous problem worldwide. This is because:

• It is unethical marketing.
• It becomes very difficult to identify true products of local business.
• Climate change is a direct result of these practices when they occur on a large scale.

I suggest that you reconsider your evaluation criteria, as they seem quite skewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istephen (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles are assessed (as stub, start, c etc) basically according to how well the article is written. It considers how well the article covers the topic and how the information is presented. The subject of the article and any social or economical problems associated with it has nothing to do with the assessment. Also, the low importance rating means that WikiProject Wine considers the article is low priority within their scope. That is, although the article is within their scope, it is not a major part of it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Goethean's Vandalization of Integral economics

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Over the course of the last week, Goethean has been maliciously waging an assault on the content of Integral economics. Consequently, I've endeavored to understand and resolve any legitimate issues. Gauging from a review of Goethean's user page however, this individual appears to exhibit a history of irresponsible and incendiary behavior here at Wikipedia.

Though this individual's actual identity is unknown to me, I believe there's an outside possibility that the same person has undertaken similar personal attacks against me within the last two years in another forum. If this were in fact the case, I wouldn't hesitate to seek legal recourse in restitution for damages incurred as a result of their criminal intent.

Although I've initiated a discussion page at Integral economics including a section on 'Integral Methodological Pluralism' to better explain and subsequently defend my contributions, Goethean seems set on pillaging the page (i.e. deleting an external link, proposing deletion of a template, etc.) as a personal vendetta. Therefore, I'd respectfully (but adamantly) request that this user be prohibited from making edits to either this page or, subsequent contributions of mine, in the future. - gospelnous (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I will ignore User:Gospelnous' personal attacks and paranoid fantasies and stick to the facts. The list of events that he insists on inserting at Integral economics is classic original research. Although he cites numerous sources, I'm fairly certain that none of them mention "integral economics" or specify that the listed events have anything to do with the subject of the article. Gospelnous is a new user, so he may not understand Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, he seems resistant to learning about or abiding by that policy. Here's to hoping that he changes his ways and contributes to the project constructively. — goethean ॐ 17:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

...and about the template: you stole it. You simply copied the contents of a template that had been worked on by myself and numerous other individuals, and changed the title to "Integral economics". Your copied template should be deleted because it contains no new content. Characterizing my nominating that template for deletion as "a personal vendetta" and "pillaging an article" is dishonest as well as ludicrous. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to endorse gospelnous's description of goethean's edits, I do agree that some attention from third-party editors at Integral economics would be helpful. The article seems to rely heavily on synthesis, especially referencing sources not associated with the Integral movement while interpreting them according to integral theory. If anyone could assist with either finding more appropriate sources or revising the text to eliminate unsupported claims, it would be greatly appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin KillerChihuahua misusing power

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am having trouble with the article "As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen" which is the article about Reverend Moon's autobiography. Admin KillerChihuahua put a quote on the site from a conspiracy theorist Robert Parry whom is an extremely biased anti-Moon Journalist who makes up all sorts of crazy stuff. KillerChihuahua keeps on trying to block me when I add this info about Parry and KillerChihuahua says I am smearing Robert Parry but he is the one who is being defamatory to Reverend Moon by putting up biased information. Please keep an objective view of this situation. -Thank you --Rochus in rice (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to look at this but generally the subjective issues are things like context ( or prominence ) and reliability of sources( subjective meaning hard to argue logically without a lot of effort directed at finding solutions, not blame). I've had problems like this on the Creation Science pages. Probably there is an argument over reliability and BLP's are often held to a high standard for defamatory claims. But, as you point out everytime you try to bias something there is a counter bias argument that quickly becomes an ad hominem spiral. Often the dispute really revolves around what you can claim based on the cited source but, sure, sometimes reliability becomes an excuse for the conclusion you want to present. Since this is an article on Moon, presumably criticisms of him would be more relevant than criticisms of detractors who can be ignored if unreliable or frivolous or not notable. Quoting reliable sources is not "smearing" but you do need to meet some burden to show reliability and relevance. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone create a link (redirect) of "Incheon Women Artists' Biennale" to the page: http://iwabiennale.org/2009_new/eng/sub02/sub02_02.php ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biennaleeditor (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That's not how redirects are used; they simply provide a path from one potential description to the right article. If there was sufficient independent coverage of the Incheon event to establish notability, then somebody might write an article about it, and then we could consider some external links. You could request an article at WP:AFC. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please remove the link to my livejournal blog?

Resolved

 – Link removed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Cynthia Martin. While I appreciate having a wiki page and think it's a fine one, I'd very much appreciate it if the link to my personal LiveJournal could be removed. It's mostly locked anyway, and I'd prefer to keep even the unlocked posts off the radar for various reasons. I do have an FB if anyone thinks the article needs an external link.

Thanks,

Cynthia Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.23.249 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It probably doesn't belong since it's a personal website. If it gets re-added feel free to come back here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, We have no way of knowing if this was posted by the subject or not. Subjects of pages can request corrections as described at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject); otherwise, the appropriateness of the external link is governed by WP:EL. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to ask about that. Normally blogs are not reliable but a public blog from a notable person may be a reasonable thing to ad to a wikipedia entry and there is no way to confirm the source of the request and even if confirmed I'm not sure that you could act on the request any more than some requests are made to conceal derogatory but properly sourced information. What is the harm in the link you find objectionable? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you guys are talking in generalities here. However, take a look at the blog. It clearly doesn't belong. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

9014user

Resolved

 – User has not made a vandalism edit since last warning, report to WP:AIV if problem resumes.  7  00:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have a concern with an editor User talk:9014user. He has been warned multiple times not to vandalize Wikipedia. He has been warned with the "Only Warning" templates at least 3 times, the third one being a picture uploaded today regarding the article Osama bin Laden. I think that he is either unaware of the warnings on his talk page or that he is completely ignoring them. What should I do? Should I inform an Administrator? Should I post on his page? Cutno (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User has been given their latest "final warning" today and has not edited since then. In terms of the past warnings, many people feel that these expire after a while. In other words, a user that got a level4 or level4im in the past (months / years) may be given a fresh start with new warnings. I am not saying that I agree with this in every case (for example if the user's ONLY edits are vandalism) but it appears that this user also makes some positive contributions periodically. Suggest you report to WP:AIV if they continue to create problems after the latest warning.  7  23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ENGLISH CRICKET TOURING TEAMS TO THE WEST INDIES1894 TO PRESENT

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the huge gap in Wickipedia between the years 1960 and 1993. were there no touring teams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.160.131 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess they haven't been written yet. Why not join up at WP:CRICKET and help out? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Josef Tal - COI

Dear Mme/Sir, I would like you to assist in settling the COI issue discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josef_Tal . It seems I can't convince 78.86.25.78 to omit the COI template. With all understanding I expressed, I feel it is inappropriate to use it in this case. Thanks - Etan Tal (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well? Can anybody, please, update me?Etan Tal (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious WP:COI here and it is appropriate that this is discussed on the talk page and that the article be tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hi-jacking" of an article, to link to a policy debate (and an advocacy site) that is only peripheral to the subject.

Resolved

 – material has been removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that adding the section on "Controversy" was in itself a bias. Although the wording seeks to achieve formal neutrality by distanciation from Gun Owners of America ("The airing of the episode [...] caused accusation by..."), it is quite obvious that the author of the addition used the article to bring attention to another subject, that is only peripheral to the subject of the article. The letter sent by Gun Owners of America is one criticism of one episode among the many episodes that may have caused controversy in Explorer's quarter-century existence.

In addition, the paragraph does not describe what the controversy is, but merely mentions it; the Management of National Geographic itself did not respond to the letter of Gun Owners of America (as indicated by one of the links), providing the author of the addition with a great opportunity to link to a point of view without counter-balance.

Although I would think that the "undue weight" policy should include such cases of "article hi-jacking", and that this "controversy" addition should therefore be deleted, Wikipedia policies do not explicitly states this. I am therefore not deleting the section but seeking Editor Assistance.

192.86.100.29 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference to an item in Wikipedia in Turkish in 2007.

However, someone is deleting my contribution and putting a different information. I think this is a kind of vandalism. Please see the link below:

http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bor,_Ni%C4%9Fde&action=history

How can I protect my contribution?

Thanks for your help in advance.

--85.105.66.79 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to ask for help at Turkish Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction there. → ROUX ₪ 05:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blaine, Washington - User:Swingline888

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing battle on the Blaine, Washington in which I believe User:Swingline888 wishes to use this page as a soapbox for a slightly off topic. First I believe the content does belong in wikipedia, but if it does, it belongs in another page (Blaine School District or Blaine High School (Washington)). Multiple editors have removed these posts, I have tried to talk to User:Swingline888 on his talk page, only to get the questions deleted.

• am I wrong here?
• if not how should I proceed?

Blaineboy (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here, and you've done the right thing in trying to explain that to the other editor. I'll try a low-grade warning. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

that didn't work, what next? Blaineboy (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well in the short run, you have to keep on discussing your issues with the other editor. I've added a second warning to his talk page and sadly that's the best we can do for now. In the mean time, be careful not to get into an edit war on that page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried talking again(on his talk page), and as usual it is deleted, and I get a told to "get some". I have not deleted the text again to avoid an edit war. Blaineboy (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well he's being mildly rude but it's benign enough we can probably ignore that. As for the content, I added a comment to the talk page. Hopefully he'll reply there, if not we can at least refer to that talk page section in the future. If you want to add a comment there, it would probably help. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The offending user has been block indefinitely. Please let me know if there are any other problems. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Its to bad it had to go this far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaineboy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorial dispute - more editors needed for better perspective

The editor Ckatz has removed every reference to ProCon.org that he could find. There were over 100 of them built up over the last few years. See Ckatz talk page and ProCon.org history for details. He argues that some users have aggressively linked to ProCon.org and therefore he should delete all entries because they are suspect. I argue that much of the information from ProCon.org is relevant and helps make Wiki better, and that ProCon.org should not be punished for users who aggressively link on Wiki. I am relatively new to Wiki and Ckatz has been around for a long time. I have no power, and I feel that he is using his power for the wrong reasons. I'd love for other editors - who have some power - to please look into this dispute and save ProCon.org from being bullied/censored by one rogue editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard to try to get a consensus formed about the reliability (or not) of ProCon. I didn't find any record of it having been discussed over there. If there's consensus to support its reliability, then you would have a good rebuttal; if there's not, then we shouldn't cite it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As always, it depends upon what you are trying to substantiate. It may be reliable about itself but not much else or maybe just some parts of it are reliable about certain things- for example, blogs on WSJ may not be reliable etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The details of this issue are interesting, to say the least. From my perceptive, this has been a straightforward administrative action. The problem with excessive links to ProCon's web site first came to my attention in late September, when the editor Cjsklions13 added links to the site to several unrelated articles such as Insider trading and Medical cannabis using text of the form "Furthermore, such debate has led Procon.org to analyze the predicament and present both sides of the argument"". Cjsklion13's only edit prior to that was to the ProCon article on July 11th. Further investigation revealed over 150 links to this site, most of which had been added by single purpose accounts such as Mjmusic99 and IPs such as 71.105.89.9 and 71.106.83.141. Shortly after I removed the link from Medical cannabis, Redondomax makes that account's first edits since editing the ProCon article on July 12th, first editing the ProCon article and then proceeding to restore ProCon links to the "medical cannabis" article. He/she then proceeds to post on my talk page, and then to complain on the talk page not of the administrator who left me a note agreeing with the unsuitability of ProCon, but of another editor who disagreed. Then, earlier this morning, a brand-new account Carljung makes its first and only edit to date on my talk page, supporting Redondomax's post. Furthermore, another admin commented that the ProCon site is "a tertiary source with unknown quality control and usually no named author", and that "in almost all cases we can ourselves cite the sources that ProCon cites". --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although ProCon.org presents itself as a neutral source for both sides of major arguments I think we would need a third party analysis of the site in order to determine if it was truly neutral. Although blogs are not reliable sources, the arguments made on Library Juice present arguments against the neutrality of the site:[4] It claims that pro and con quotes are chosen in order to direct the reader to an American conservative POV, and that the selection and naming of topics is POV, e.g., “Jews: did they kill Jesus?”, “Blacks: are they better at sports for genetic reasons?”, “Is the ACLU good for America?”. Therefore I think that the only link to this source should be in its own article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they express a notable POV then that may have a place- for example, there are articles describing both popular abortion camps and both mysogynists and baby killers have lots of press that reliably describes their views. I'm not sure people would argue about CNN being reliable, but you do have to question POV on religious topics among other things. Brainwashed or informed doesn't matter a lot for the sake of "reliable." ( I have to kill firefx again to fix a memory leak, more in a minute). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion here. Here are several points to consider. 1. Here are third party links that shed light on the organization's POV: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=001519. Also, here's the California Supt. of Education with his views on ProCon.org: http://www.procon.org/education.asp (granted, his comments were from his Twitter page). Here's proof of 676 schools that use ProCon.org http://www.procon.org/how-schools-are-using-procon.asp. Those hundreds of published references should be plenty to demonstrate a broad perception of neutrality vs. the one example from the Library Juice blog about bias.

2. The links that CKatz cites as unrelated posts by CJKLions are in fact links to related content on ProCon.org websites. There are ProCon.org websites about insider trading (http://insidertrading.procon.org) and medical cannabis(http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org). He/she may still be wrong to have spammed the links but the good intention seemed to be there because the links were relevant.

3. Regardless of POV, I think CKatz makes a fair point that spamming links to Wiki is bad because it does not take context or content into consideration. However, removing all links to ProCon.org is just as bad for the same reasons. You can shoot the messenger but don't shoot the message unless the content is not appropriate for Wiki. Content should matter in deciding which links to remove. CKatz removing over 100 links to ProCon.org is inappropriate as other editors have indicated and warned him about. User:Redondomax 6 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Comment Interesting what one discovers when one digs into the matter... turns out that ProCon.org sponsored a contest to create a Wikipedia article about themselves. The contest ran in July 2009; site members were encouraged to register an account at Wikipedia, create and edit an article about ProCon, and then submit their names to ProCon by email with a random draw of names to win a one hundred dollar prize for contributors. Redondomax edited the article during that period, as did another single-purpose account (ThomasMorton, who stated "This non-profit has tons of great info". And the winner of the cash prize was... you guessed it, none other than Cjklions13! --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Redondomax has shown us that some media covered the launch of ProCon.org, some journalists have used it in their research and some schools have used it as a tool. What we need is a third-party analysis of their objectivity. If editors use ProCon.org to research a topic, the references they provide should source to the original cites reproduced there. In no case could any synthesized statement from ProCon be considered reliable and no opinion expressed there would be notable. Even if a statement could only be found on their site, it would be unacceptable to include the statement because it could not be reliably sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:The Four Deuces request for third party proof of objectivity, try the American Library Association's CHOICE magazine of resource reviews (Apr. 2009) where it stated: “Pros of this resource include its ease of use, content, and organization, which are quite good for a free resource. Sites are balanced and well documented, offering source documents, maps, and time lines.” or the California Supt. of Education July 14, 2009 statement: "Just met with the founder of procon.org. It's a great resource that breaks down hot button issues with quality, sourced info…The best part about procon.org is the entire web site is free to use. No ads, no registration necessary. If you’re in ed, check it out... a quality resource for controversial issues..."

Check out the ProCon.org Talk page for more on this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One more for User:The Four Deuces re: third party proof of objectivity (I think you'll especially like this one), the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, said ProCon.org was neutral (http://blog.citizendium.org/2008/12/15/is-proconorg-neutral/). He said: "The whole project looks wonderful, from the point of view both of a researcher and of someone who loves neutrality in educational resources. My compliments also to whoever designed the site and its software. It is remarkably well-laid-out." User: Redondomax 7 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

I see all of this as evidence towards the neutrality of the site but nothing conclusive. My view is that it is not neutral. For example under Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction after the 1st Gulf War?,[5] part of the question about whether the US invasion of Iraq was justified, notice that it does not ask the relevant question, did SH have WMDs in 2003. The first pro argument is from Colin Powell who stated Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons. That seems like a conservative POV trying to re-write the justification for the war. The first con argument is from Saddam Hussein who not only was unreliable but because of his notoriety discredits the con side. Also, Powell's opinions from before the war are outdated because subsequent events allowed better information to determine whether or not the weapons existed. That is the sort of thing that an independent review of the site would address. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WACL article citations requested, but removed by user

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

THe following has taken place on the talk page for the article:

"Having worked in radio for 18+ years in the Harrisonburg, Virginia area, and having worked for WACL (98 Rock) for 5 years (ending in 2005), I have respectfully asked that the format information for this station be changed to reflect it's official format, which is Classic Rock. The station's official format is Classic Rock, not Rock, Album Oriented Rock and not Active Rock. I received this response from users who will not allow me to edit the content myself: "I talked with that other user and he said since WACL "makes no clear distinction in its marketing (and based on the station website and group website, it doesn't) either rely on the Arbitron listing (which is derived from the station's own reporting)" it should fall under the Rock label. Not AOR, or Classic Rock, just plain old Rock. I will make a note in the article that the station plays a 50/50 "blend" of Classic Rock and Active Rock. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)" In my opinion, the accuracy of the content depends on fact, not on how the station markets itself, and not on Wikipedia users' opinions of what the station sounds like. The station does, in fact, rely on Arbitron when creating sales pitches to their advertisers, and Arbitron lists the station as Classic Rock because the station has reported to Arbitron that it's official format is Classic Rock. Having an extensive amount of professional experience in radio in Harrisonburg, Virginia qualifies me as an expert on this particular subject. Again I ask that the following changes be made to the content on the WACL article: WACL (98.5 FM, "98 Rock") is a Classic Rock formatted broadcast radio station licensed to Elkton, Virginia, USA, serving the Harrisonburg/Staunton, Virginia, area. WACL is owned and operated by Clear Channel Communications. History The station first launched on February 22, 1989, with the callsign WPKZ. During that time, the station would carry a country music format, branded as "Z-98". On March 7, 1997, the format was changed to classic rock, branded as "Cool 98.5". To accommodate this, the callsign was changed to WACL. On May 2, 2001 at midnight, WACL changed their branding to "98 Rock". On April 1, 2008, WACL began carrying the syndicated radio program Nights with Alice Cooper, when it moved from WBHB-FM at 105.1 FM (now WTGD) to WACL-FM at 98.5 FM when the format had been switched to classic country. Music WACL plays a blend of Classic Rock and Active Rock. The current content is completely inaccurate and non-verifiable. Because I am an expert, I am considered a verifiable source according to Wikipedia. Allowing inaccurate information to remain in any article on Wikipedia goes against what Wikipedia is all about - providing true and accurate information that is not based on point of view or users' opinions.Knowledgeispower76 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Um, self-proclaimed expertise does not make anybody a "verifiable source according to Wikipedia". The station, based on actual reliable sources, plays a rock music format and apparently a varied one. - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC) You're reliable resource is incorrect. The format is Classic Rock.Knowledgeispower76 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)"

I added a disputed tag to the content of the page and asked for citations for several of the statements. The information provided is incorrect. Knowledgeispower76 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You were given accurate responses on the talk page. The standard for inclusion here is verifiability, and the burden of proof is on the person making a change. The latter might seem arbitrary, but that's how we work here. Personal knowledge and/or expertise is not verifiable by other editors, so it counts for nought. If you can cite a verifiable source for the format you want to show, then bring it to the talk page. Otherwise it's just a series of opinions with no resolution in sight. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't given accurate responses. It doesn't surprise me that Wikipedia is quickly becoming a place "not to be trusted" when looking for FACTUAL information. The people who are editing the Harrisonburg, Virginia radio station pages are idiots. Pure and simple. Knowledgeispower76 (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You were told that self-proclaimed expertise doesn't make you a verifiable and reliable source, and that's true. We like to be able to demonstrate that we use good information, by identifying our sources; that's the essence of the verifiability policy. Can you help us with that, please?

Please don't call other editors idiots. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ESPNSoccernet Page

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

I recently added an amendment to the ESPNSoccernet page regarding the reliability of one of the site's editors. I have cited a number of examples of easily identifiable errors (incorrect nationality of players, what team they play soccer for, etc) with links that show the factual errors in his work. My goal is to demonstrate that this is a great website but readers should be aware that, with one author in particular, there is a documented history of glaring errors with proof to this effect.

User "Donhend" keeps pulling this fact off the page. I have contacted him via "Talk" to ask for his reasons. No response. I have told him of the "3 changes in 24 hours" rule and he continued to pull of the amendment and refused to open a dialogue.

Could you please help resolve this? Thank you.

Andrewponsford (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)andrewponsford

Hi, Thanks for posting here. The material you're trying to add doesn't appear to be encyclopaedic and at best would go on the page for that particular contributor. There are some sourcing problems too - the reference, for example, you give against the Drogba bullet describes him as Ivorian. It could have been copy-edited of course, but it doesn't support your point.

More importantly, you're now edit-warring and must stop. If you still want to pursue this then take it to the talk page and thrash it out there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I added a link and took the malformed link out of your post. Hope you don't mind. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pazhassi Raja an upcoming Indian Movie in Malayalam which claims existence of a non-existent kingdom

For some days now, I have been trying to edit false claims made on the page titled "Pazhassi Raja" which is the title of an upcoming Indian movie from Kerala in Malayalam, dubbed in three Indian languages - Tamil, Telugu and Hindi. It is a movie that is seeking to make history. The most interesting aspect of the movie is that it claims, all information about the supposed freedom fighter of Kerala, Pazhassi Raja, was suppressed by the British and other Indians, including Keralites from the region he is supposed to have battled the British, for 200 YEARS! The incident that supposedly took place between the years 1797 and 1805, was not written about until a movie script writer decided to write about it. To collect material he read the book written by a British collector in North Kerala in the 19th century. Malabar Manual by William Logan.

The problem I had with the details written about Pazhassi Raja, who supposedly lived in Kannur District of Malabar District of North Kerala is, that a new name is being invented about a non-existent kingdom - the Kottayam Royal Family. The fact is no such name existed at any time in North Kerala. In South Kerala there is a place called Kottayam district, but it was formed only in 1754 by the king of Travancore, Marthanda Varma, by uniting small principalities he annexed, Thekkumkur and Munjanad, to which he later added Devikulam. These details are historical facts. The official website of Kottayam district in Kerala confirms it. There was no Kottayam Royal Family, because Kottayam was formed as a revenue district of Travancore.

But there is no Kottayam in North Kerala. There is a lot of fabricated history in recent years put up on bogus websites to create an impression of authenticity.

User:Tinucherian, who gives himself or herself also as UKexpat, has been doggedly deleting the corrections I made to the bogus history posted in the introduction of Pazhassi Raja. He or she threatens to ban me from editing Wikipedia. Does a Tinu Cherian own the Wikipedia? On what basis does she or he issue threats to have been banned for deleting what is clearly propaganda to promote a movie?

Please advice. My corrections can be read on older edits of Pazhassi Raja. But Tinu Cherian is obviously being paid to stay watch 24 hours a day and delete any correction.

DieWahrheitBitte —Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWahrheitBitte (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One initial piece of advice would be not to edit in BOLDPRINT, no matter how "right" you are. Stuff like that will definitely be removed. Secondly, as far as I can see from the history, your claims are unsourced. That is a problem as well. On the other hand, the article was riddled with so many citation-tags that tagged it with a general refimprove-tag on top. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What reference does the User Tinu Cherian aka UKexpat give but a bogus webpage?

Some time ago Bollywood made a "historical" movie titled 'Mangal Pandey' starring the famous Aamir Khan. The film is supposedly about a freedom fighter called Bhagat Singh. Aamir Khan admitted that the only bit of history the film makers had at hand was the name, Bhagat Singh, among a list of rebels who had been executed by the British. The film makers had to come up with a story around that name, creating scenarios that might have happened during the freedom struggle. There is a national obsession with some groups (read: Hindutva Nationalists and their sympathizers) to find militant heroes who opposed the British Raj, because in reality it was the non-violent resistance of the Indian National Congress led by Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru etc who won freedom for India.

This movie, Pazhassi Raja, seems to be along those lines of finding militant heroes. The only problem is that his name is not even recorded in the primary sources of history about Kerala. Kerala consisted of three regions by the time British Raj was established. Two princely states - Travancore in the South and Cochin in central Kerala. In the North, recorded history shows only Zamorins of Calicut as the powerful rulers until Muslim rulers from Mysore, Haider Ali and his son Tippu Sultan, starting in 1766 by 1792, had annexed all of North Kerala and parts of central Kerala. At the request of Hindu rulers of the area, (only small feudal lords apart from Zamorins of Calicut, NONE of whom had the name Kottayam Royal Family) sought the help of British to oust Tippu Sultan. Thus in 1795, British ruled North and parts of central Kerala came to be known as Malabar District of Madras Presidency. It consisted of today's districts, Kannur, Kozhicode (Calicut), Wayanad, Mallapuram, and Palakkad (Palghat).

Since no kingdom by the name Kottayam nor a family known as Kottayam Royal Family existed in North Kerala, how do the film makers claim the existence of one? The existence of a Kottayam Royal Family is not recorded in history. Now the propagandists aka promoters of the film, Pazhassi Raja, claim that British "suppressed" the information. How come Keralites "suppressed" it too, until a film maker came along sixty years after independence to announce the existence of such a king in an area of Kerala which has no such place as Kottayam?

Is the onus not on the part of the promoters of the film to produce a primary historical source (not a fake document created now) that substantiates their claim about the existence of a so called Kottayam in Malabar District of North Kerala? But there are several books that serves as primary source for the existence of a Kottayam (spelled Cottayam in some sources) in upper revenue division of Travancore kingdom during British Raj. There are books written by British CMS missionaries and other European anthropologists who have written about the Travancore kingdom during British Raj. Similarly books have been written about the Malabar District in Northern Kerala, only no books make a mention of a Kottayam kingdom or Kottayam Royal Family. But they do mention Zamorins of Calicut, Haider Ali, Tippu Sultan etc.

DieWahrheitBitte —Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWahrheitBitte (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here my take on the possible real history about Pazhashi Raj ( Pazhassi Raja) being distorted for the sake of making a commercial film, over two hundred years after the supposed armed freedom struggle. I do not claim any primary source of information, merely logical conclusion based on recorded history and the story presented in the film.

Malabar District in North Kerala were areas annexed by the Muslim rulers of Mysore, Haider Ali and his son Tippu Sultan. When British ousted Tippu Sultan and started direct rule in 1795, they appointed a British Collector for the whole district. There were no revenue divsions named upper Malabar and lower Malabar. There was just the Malabar District with one British District Collector. Thekkumkur, a small principality was annexed by Marthanda Varma, the king of Travancore in 1754. Thekkumkur was united with Munjanad and Devikulam to form the Kottayam revenue district of Travancore kingdom. When British Raj began in 1795, and the king of Travancore entered into an arrangement with the British, becoming a princely state with a British Resident, and Kottayam became part of the upper Travancore revenue division. This much is recorded history. Now to the film: Probably a member of the Thekkumkur Royal Family, which had lost its power to the king of Travancore in 1754, Pazhashi Raj (referred to as Pazhassi Raja) refused to pay taxes either to the British or the king of Travancore, as per the arrangement made by the king of Travancore for the upper Travancore revenue division. The British then with the consent of the king of Travancore first handed over the collection area of Pazhashi Raj to his uncle (the uncle is not named by the makers of the film, which makes the verification of such a claim impossible). Losing all his property, Pazhashi Raj, started the revolt. He was not helped by his uncle (whoever that uncle was) because the uncle had been given the land on ?lease by the British or Travancore king. The king of Travancore would not help either. Thus Pazhashi Raj fled to the hills near Kottayam (there are plenty of tea and rubber estates in Kottayam-Pathanamthitta district) and worked with tribals there(who have been described in books by CMS missionaries and other anthropologists)to resist capture by British. The film claims his friends from "South Malabar" (there was no South Malabar, only south Travancore revenue divion) did not help him. It means that no one from the South Travancore revenue division did not help him. With the consent of the Travancore king, the British tracked him down and he committed suicide before his capture. So the story goes. The British allowed him to be given a proper funeral, as indeed they would if the king of Travancore had permitted it. The kingdom of Travancore was after all a princely state under the British and the king was on good terms with the British.

So why does this story have to be transported to Malabar District in North Kerala? The British ruled directly only in Malabar District. How could anyone portray resistance to British in the princely state of Travancore, which was not under direct British rule? Why the invention of a non existent Kottayam Royal Family? To connect Pazhashi Raj (Pazhassi Raja) to the South, where he really stems from, because a Kottayam district, does exist there, even if a Kottayam Royal Family doesn't. Why not mention that he is from the Thekkumkur Royal Family? That would spoil the entire plot of the film which is trying to portray armed resistance to the British. It would expose the fact that a Kottayam Royal Family didn't exist. It would expose the fact that Thekkumkur had merely been an insignificant principality that had been annexed by the king of Travancore in 1754.

These are just my thoughts and hypothesis in the absence of primary sources of information.

This is what User Tina Cherian posts again and again:

"Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja, popularly known as the Lion of Kerala, hailed from Padinjare Kovilakam and was the king of the Kottayam Royal family (near Thalassery, Kannur district) of Malabar region in Kerala, India during the last decades of the 18th century.[1]

He achieved the title Veera (brave) when he fought a guerilla war against British occupation[2] with the able help of his loyal Kurichiyar tribe."

My comments: The state of Kerala was formed only in the year 1956 along linguistic lines. How could a "Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja" have existed in the year 1797? No king in North Kerala/Malabar District had the name Varma. The kings of Travancore and Cochin however did. Marthanda Varma is the famous Travancore king and Rama Varma is the famous Cochin king. How come this Pazhassi Raja was not known to anyone in Kerala until a film maker decided on a commercial film, over 200 years after the supposed armed freedom struggle and sixty years after India gained independence? Earlier versions of the propaganda claimed that the incident took place in 1797, now the dates are getting shifted. But if it is struggle against the British it can't be earlier than 1795, because that is when British established their rule. Recorded history shows that Haider Ali and his son Tippu Sultan had annexed North Kerala starting 1766, and Kannur being the northernmost part of Malabar would have been the first to come under Muslim rule because Haider Ali came from Mysore, north of Kerala.

That is why there is serious fallacies about the historical claims. How could a king from Kannur who had lost his power to Muslim invaders from Mysore in 1766, have possibly fought the British in 1797? Kannur is north of Calicut, where the Zamorins were the powerful rulers. There is no recorded history that there was a powerful or even a small ruler in Malabar north of Zamorins in Calicut.

Let the promoters of this movie (which includes someone from the Pazhashi Raj family, who according to reports about the movie claims had either committed suicide or fled overseas after the death of Pazhashi Raj - fled to which overseas in the year 1797? Surely not to Britain?), who make historical claims about it answer all my legitimate questions, and provide primary sources of reference, not propaganda generated for the sake of the movie.

It would have been okay if the promoters of the movie had made no more historical claims than that of the Bollywood megahit, "Lagaan," (nominated for the Oscar) a work of fiction based on the theme of resistance to British.

DieWahrheitBitte —Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWahrheitBitte (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added the image File:Johnny Test Cast Poster.jpg the character section, which was proposed to be moved into another page, but the user Warmpuppy2 claims that the "image does NOT belong on Wikipedia. It belongs on the Johnny Test Wikia". When I put it back and stated that there was no such rule or guideline stating this, they proceeded come to my talk page, called me a schmuck and claim that I didn't know the rules. All of which can be seen here. I've tried putting the image back but they and an anonymous IP keep removing it claiming that it doesn't belong. So what should I do now? Sarujo (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Warn for personal attacks and patiently explain the relevant policies on his user talk page (new users might not know to watch user talk pages on which they have posted), is what I would do. Intelligentsium^review 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'Article is in need of expansion" Prefix

I need to add the prefix to an article ( Historic Centre of Florence ) but I don't know how, can anyone tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyM1987 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You just add {{expand}} at the top of the article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyM1987 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's a Template, not a "prefix". Cheers Intelligentsium^review 02:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture content edits

Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I made several different edits on the acupuncture page. They were all reverted with the following change summary provided: "Bit of a whitewash, changes things to give undue weight to singlee studies, removed a negative source to allow a more wishy-washy statement, etc.. "

In one edit, I removed an inaccurate paraphrase for the results of 2 reviews and replaced it with quotations from the abstract of the reviews. I do not see how this is whitewashing or how it giving undue weight to single studies. I was just replacing incomplete paraphrasing with direct quotes from the abstract. The sources cited were not changed at all. See edit at 2:14, Oct 8. Another edit involved the AMA statement where I made a note that the reviews that the statement was based on were conducted in 1992 and 1993. I felt it was important to note that the studies that the statement was based on were done over 15 years ago as it was a comment on the state of research in acupuncture effectiveness. This was called white washing too. See edit at 1:54, Oct 8. The last edit he had a problem with involved me replacing a paraphased statement that was attributed to 3 sources (one was misattributed), with a direct quote from the NIH consensus statement because the other 2 sources were unreliable. See edit at 1:46, Oct 8. This solved the misattribution problem and also avoided using 2 unreliable sources that were not peer-reviewed, came from books, and did not use any cited soruces properly. This is my second encounter with the editor in a few weeks. Earlier, he has also reverted my edits without discussing it in the discussion page or his talk page despite my requests. Please assist.99.255.196.199 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some editors seem to take the notions of direct quotes to an extreme but it is possible to quote isolated sentences out of context. I've also found that often controversial but non-mainstream science related topics attract editors who tend to exclude a lot due to undue weight or reliability even if an article on generally disproven topics such as alchemy would not hesitate to include more complete coverage of the thoughts of alchemists. However, in many of the former catagories there are a lot of non-notable fringe or unreliable sources so it can be hard to make broad statements here. I would also mention, based on personal experience following biotech stocks, that even reliable sources by most criteria ( credentials for example) can be questionable on merit of their statements( what could be reasonably and prudently inferred from existing data or primary sources). It is very difficult to get people to approach problem solving in preference to hype- either in fringe-science or even in mainstream. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I should quote the whole abstract then? Right now, the paraphrased summarizing statement only summarizes one review's results. The reviews themselves are reliable. They are peer-reviewed and anyone can find them on Pubmed. I actually had 4 sources for the statement (all systematic reviews) but another editor removed 2 because he said it was unnecessary. Do you think it is okay to add year of publication to the reference in the article about critical reviews. The studies were done in 1993 and 1995, so I think this is important to note.99.255.196.199 (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at details, I personally don't see how a source can be called "unnecessary." A source may be unhelpful due to its properties and if wiki had to fit on a bookshelf maybe or maybe you could argue about clutter but generally too few sources is the problem. Cherrypicking is a common problem in these fields, not just wiki, so I'd definitely want some details on what criteria make a source necessary. I have found editors who have a thing against primary sources as being unnecessary or original research but I don't know how a review would be ruled out that way. Wikipedia even seems to single out medicine as an area for using primary sources due to inability to secondaries to get everything right. Just as an aid to the reader I personally favor inclusion of sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw on the user talk page of the user who reverted it back for me that the editor commeneted that he removed them because one review had somewhat reasonable justification for being removed- it was in Hebrew, although the abstract itself concluded by clearly supporting the effectiveness of acupuncture was in English. The other review was removed because it was not specific to acupuncture- its abstract stated its conclusion about the effectiveness of acupuncture along with several other treatments. He did not state this in the change summary, and he did not state why he removed 3 reviews previously before someone jumped in. Just out of curiousity, if a peer-reviewed systematic review is in another language, but the abstract is in English, would that be accepted as a source?

Here's what he wrote FYI:

"I've modified the text since it is dishonest to make it look like it's good for all osteoarthritis since they're only about the knee, removed the less specific English one and the Hebrew language one for accessibility and specificity and combined it to one reference only since it is unnecessary and ugly to have four references after a statement" - WLU

Anyway, I was also hoping to get some advice about another issue, which I may take to dispute resolution. Currently, it states in the AMA (American Medical Association) statement section: "The statement on acupuncture specifically concludes that critical reviews have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease." I wanted to note that the critical reviews that it refers to (as per its footnotes) were conducted in 1992 and 1993 so as to not mislead the reader. I originally wanted to remove the whole statement for a variety of reasons but the debate still burns. I thought it would be reasonable to at least include date of publication for the reviews that form the basis for that statement at least so to not mislead the reader, but my edit was reverted for "whitewashing". Is there any wikipedia guideline that states this kind of action/info is whitewashing and is not allowed? I want to see how good my argument is before taking it to formal dispute resolution. Thanks.99.255.196.199 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard of references being considered as clutter, and if that is the issue you can probably force wiki to use hyphens "[n-m]" but that hardly seems material. A supporting reference that isn't accessible is a hindrance but dead-tree sources are used all the time, stuff happened before the internet, so that alone wouldn't be much of an issue but there is always a concern for confirmation. If you need to resort to obscure references alone to make a specific controversial claim however, it may be considered fringe but that alone would not have to exclude the source, and personally I have just lumped things like that all together with a string of cites (" others have concluded various things[n-m]"). A paper from a foreign university shouldn't be a big problem however. Highlighting the year of publication is often done but you would probably need to find some relevance- a change in sentiment or methods or criteria since then unless you have a general chronology. I'm not sure dates just for implication would work however (" this is 20 years old and probably wrong" ) unless someone else has made this observation. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page itself is littered with reviews done since 2000 that show the effectiveness of acupuncture in some areas, but I would rather not note this because it seems to be enough resistance from other editors to just note the publication dates, nevermind noting that the evidence has changed since then! I would rather keep it simple by noting it like this: "The statement on acupuncture specifically concluded that critical reviews (conducted in 1992 and 1993) have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease". I feel it is necessary to note that it's commenting on current state of research based on reviews done in 1992 and 1993. What do you think?99.255.196.199 (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the details to say anything that specific. For drugs and devices anyway, the FDA generally needs well controlled prospective trials. Retrospective literature reviews( " we found more cases where it seems to work than not") aren't real conclusive. Notable opinions should be included and it probably wouldn't be too hard to find credible sources that suggest the AMA to be conflicted or outdated but you would be limited in what additional observations you can include. Something as simple as a factual observation if lifted from the same source shouldn't be a problem (" we are basing our opinion largely on studies from 1992 and likely impact on our member's income") but unless another source has made these observations this can become a POV/cherrypicking concern as you can just pick stuff to support new ideas. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Same guy here. I'll need to sign up soon. Hm, it's not lifted from the same source, but on the source page, the footnotes for the "critical reviews" statement indicated that they were conducted in 1992 and 1993. I don't see how it can be seen as a cherrypicking concern in this case since every other review-based statement on the acupuncture page indicates the publication date of the review. My main concern is that the reader may be mislead because, although it notes right now that the AMA statement is based in 1997, a separate summary statement in the same section states: "The statement on acupuncture specifically concludes that critical reviews have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease" Readers may be mislead into thinking that the critical reviews mentioned are recent, and are thus why the AMA has not released a new statement. Is this good enough justification for adding the publication dates in?99.229.146.30 (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that these IP addresses (99.255.196.199 and 99.229.146.30) have been used by User:CorticoSpinal. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IT wouldn't be surprising if disputed arose in the past over presentation of alt medical or science topics but offhand, I don't see what the harm is including a passing date in the text even if included in the foot note, " A 1942 AMA review concluded blah blah blah" but again retrospective reviews, while being valuable for suggestions and ideas, are not normally considered proof of anything ( although sometimes the FDA will react to conjectured side effects on less than conclusive evidence). So, an opinion based on this work doesn't become more valid due to the credentials of the authors as they lack the data to prudcently make a determination. But, it is likely you can reasonably conclude that you don't know, and that just seems to be what they are saying. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy guidance - Magnetic Water Treatment

I User:Timpo appear to be in dispute with User:Keepcalmandcarryon over the content of magnetic water treatment

This technology is unproven. Keepcalmandcarryon appears to be convinced it is a scam.

Like cold fusion something is certainly going on with magnetic interaction with calcium rich fluids, but we can not quite find out what it is.

The overwhelming scientific investigation literature on this topic is negative. But there are some positive ones too. The majority is always the most numerous, but not necessarily the most correct.

In this sort of case, I think Wikipedia ought to reveal the nature of the known claims and counter-claims (NPOV)

In this particular case, I included a simple test so that potential users could evaluate if the proposed technique might be useful in a particular application.

my concern is that Keepcalmandcarryon may be connected with of a rival technology anxious to rubbish this avenue of exploration for commercial reasons.

Certainly the medical Magnet therapy claims are dealt with on a different page. This is specifically about water treatment and presumably the use of treated water for making concrete or cleaning teeth, rather than any biological effect.

It is not entirely clear how to start the discussion with Keepcalmandcarryon since he does not explain his edits on the talk page and his edit is untitled. I have restored the dispute flag.

I feel some impartial advice may now be appropriate.

Regards, Timpo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm is actually on the right side of policy with regards to that page. The neutral point of view is the point of view that can be backed up by reliable sources. Patents and companies marketing various forms of magnetic water treatment and other forms of magnetic therapy are not reliable sources, except to state that they claimed something. Unreliable sources do not demonstrate the significance of the subject. Adding your own "test" to the page for users to verify the process is original research. You're not going to get yourself anywhere in the dispute unless you actually present those reliable sources (peer-reviewed articles in respectable scientific or medical journals) that you allege support the concept. If those exist, please post them to the talk page so we can discuss them. In any event, the proper cause of action is dispute resolution, but as I suggested before, it would only turn out against your edits unless those reliable sources can be turned up. Also, Keepcalmandcarryon is probably not financially connected to a rival technology, unless he cleverly pretended to be a good faith and productive user for a year and a half waiting to pounce on the inevitable attempt to fix that page. And finally, claiming that one or more editors are conspiring against you for financial reasons is liable only to make you look like a crackpot. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidance on complaints about RFC closure

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

I have closed an RFC Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library#RFC:_Link_to_itilcommunity.com and prior to closure struck out a comment from an anonymous vandal that has now been blocked for 5 years 69.65.40.43 (talk · contribs) in compliance with the guidance of WP:TALKNO. After closing the RFC, two editors have complained that the anonymous comment was struck out and the RFC does not represent consensus. It should be noted that this is the second attempt to reach consensus on this matter and one of the complainants has a long history of lobbying for the external link under discussion, as per the lengthy and emotive discussions on the talk page spanning for a year and a half, whilst the other has made only one edit (to undo vandalism) to the page in question.

I believe the RFC was closed fairly and would welcome an independent view one way or the other; or advice on how (or whether) to proceed.—Ash (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mishawaka, Indiana

Please review the above article and discussion. COM continues to revert changes which are accurate and made in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.133.201 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By "made in good faith", the IP means against consensus. The IP was nearly blocked for 3RR, was reverted by 3 separate editors, and now wants to keep adding the same material. The material he/she keeps adding is either uncited, or against consensus. With another revert on this article, the IP will once again be guilty of violating 3RR, for which he/she has been warned, again. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On a larger note, what happens when "against consensus" is in conformity with the existent literature? For example, if you did get a flood of pro-foo editors when the literature was anti-foo? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography dispute (not a living person)

David Horrobin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been having a long discussion with User:Keepcalmandcarryon on the David Horrobin page. He (I am assuming 'he') is an experienced editor and is insistant that the quoted phrase "the greatest snake-oil salesman of his age" should be included in the lead section. This phrase appeared in a controversial obituary on Horrobin which was printed in the British Medical Journal, and a second obituary in the Independent, by the same author. His rationale is that "The phrase is notable and worthy of inclusion here because it was about Horrobin and appears to be one of the most notable single phrases ever written about him. It also generated significant controversy."

I feel that it should not be in the lead (although it should be covered in the article) because its notability derives from its appearance in the BMJ (where it shocked many people) rather than because it attached to Horrobin as such. (The phrase when used in the Independent attracted no comment at all.) Furthermore, I feel that its inclusion in the lead without any balancing quotes runs the risk of misleading the reader, by presenting effectively only one side of the controversy.

If it is felt it should be in the lead, I feel that there should at least be a positive quote, or perhaps some quotes relating to the obituary itself ("vile", "personal abuse", "vitriolic" and "infamous" have all been used in print) to reinforce that it is controversial.

The full discussion can be found on Talk:David Horrobin#Richmond Obits (both of them) vs. other obits.

I would appreciate guidance on two issues:

1) Whether my approach to the lead section is reasonable, according to Wikipedia guidance.

2) Whether I have handled this dispute appropriately.

I am relatively new to WP editing - maybe I should have chosen a less controversial subject to cut my teeth on!

Thanks for your time and help.

Beechnut (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Very Verrrrry Vary: Generally adjectives, especially those picked by an authors, are not a good idea if something more sourceable and specific is available. I developed a very,very,very big dislike for adjectives from biotech PR where they are used to replace or headline unflattering data. If in fact the "topic" was notable for selling snakeoil, literal or figurative, that may make a reaonable lead. If it came out of the blue in the obit, then sure it would seem to be a fringe viewpoint that may be worthy of less prominent mention. If you can source "vile" as applied to obit from a reliable then it may make sense to qualify the quote or even impugne the source rather than topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Mea culpa - I should have double checked my references. I misremembered "vile", but I do have the other three referenced and can add "character assasination" from the Press Gazette. My feeling is that we should just note in the lead that there was a controversial obituary and leave the details to the appropriate section where they can be covered more fully. Beechnut (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just a note to let you know that I have given up the struggle. I have been abused, reverted and obstructed for six weeks now on this article. While I tried to reach consensus through discussion on at least some aspect of the article, other editors turned it into an attack article based on salacious quotes and cherry-picked sources. I have no problem with negative information, properly sourced, but not character assassination. This is not what I thought Wikipedia was about so I'm leaving the project. If you are interested, you could compare the original versions [6] with the current one [7] but otherwise, you can just close this request. Thanks. Beechnut (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington and YouTube Time-Lapse Video of March

Taxpayer_March_on_Washington and Talk:Taxpayer_March_on_Washington

Hello. Can I get another editor to review the first and last archived items on the Taxpayer March on Washington article Talk page? I was arguing for adding a YouTube video named "9/12 Protest Washington DC Time Lapse Footage 0800 - 1130" as an External Link. I presented my reasons and asked several questions but the response was 1)silence, then 2)"shut up and stop beating a dead horse" (sent to my user:talk page). I believe I have refuted the assertion that the time-lapse video contains no information. and, I don't believe my questions have been answered. I would appreciate an outside opinion. Also, I can't tell who is deciding that these issues on the Talk page are "Resolved" -- I can't find a signature. Thanks. Kenatipo (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The archive boxes were added by User:AgnosticPreachersKid, as can be seen in the history of the talk page. To be honest, I can't tell if your questions were really unanswered, or if they were at least partially answered in a way that you didn't find helpful. There seemed to be a fair amount of activity on the talk page, so I don't know if I'd characterise that as silence. Would it help to progress things if you were to be more specific about why you wanted to link to the video? Different reasons could well be addressed by different parts of policy and guidelines. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. Please look again at the top of the first archive. The reason given was that the video "contained absolutely no information". But traffic cams DO provide information, which is why they are accessed a million times a day. NBC News apparently thought the traffic cam provided information because they used video of the march from the very same camera on their broadcast that evening. The reason given, "no information", has been refuted by simple common sense and by NBC Nightly News. Secondly, I asked APK more than once to explain to me why photographs of the 912dc march downloaded from Flickr.com and put in the body of the article are magically RS, verifiable, NOR, NPOV, etc., etc., but an External Link to a video from a traffic camera seems to break every one of Wikipedia's 426 rules. Your honor, with all due respect, could I ask you to slow down a little and carefully review all the evidence before announcing your final decision? Thank you! Kenatipo (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I was wondering if you might clarify the reason for adding it? There really ought to be a reason. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be added for the same reason that NBC Nightly News used it in their broadcast that night: it is visual evidence that tends to confirm the assertion that "our people think that hundreds of thousands of people were here" (Tom Costello, NBC News) and to support other descriptions of "a massive crowd" and "a sea of people". Kenatipo (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the best visual evidence of the size of the march. It was taken by a traffic camera so it is NPOV. It was taken from a high point looking down on the crowd. Since there is controversy about the crowd size and no official estimate, it lets the WikiReader view the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. Kenatipo (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I looked more closely at the talk page history and I now see where APK archived those sections. Thank you. Kenatipo (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My first thought is that this is pretty iffy territory. YouTube isn't generally a reliable source, except in narrow circumstances, and the way you're talking is pretty close to claiming it's a source. However, this is a somewhat grey area and I'd like to think about it further before I form an opinion. I hope that's OK with you. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, old man. I'm in no hurry -- the truth takes time to uncover. I appreciate the time you're spending on this. Watch the YouTube time-lapse video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjvc6baor8 and the NBC Nightly News segment here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32813988#32813988 especially around second 50, 51, 52 right after Tom Costello's intro. And remember, the reason given for blocking a link to the time-lapse video is that "it contains no information whatsoever". Kenatipo (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on looking at this from policy, guidelines, and common usage. I'm not going to look specifically at the merits of "it contains no information whatsoever". --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but I would still like to know what they mean by saying the video "contains no information whatsoever" as this is the reason given for blocking an external link to it. Kenatipo (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to ask whoever wrote that. Mind-reading isn't included, unfortunately! --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm no better at mind-reading than you are! Kenatipo (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the video. My major concern is that there doesn't appear to be any way of verifying that it represents the march in question. If one were sufficiently sceptical, one might imagine that it could depict any march. Is that possible, or is there some way of demonstrating beyond any doubt that it represents that particular event? --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you compare the three seconds of video from this traffic cam shown in the NBC Nightly News segment starting at about second 50 with about second 21 of the time-lapse video you will see that they are practically identical. In fact, if you look at the 3 seconds from NBC and then look at the time-lapse video, you should be able to conclude that they were both from the same camera on the same morning. More generally, this event was very closely scrutinized by many parties: ABC TV was quick to point out, and rightly so, that they didn't report a crowd size of 1.5 million and so, the march organizer had to correct his mis-statement. Someone posted a photo on the Web claiming that it was a picture of the Mall during the event. It wasn't; it was from a PromiseKeepers rally years earlier. People here in the DC area knew it was the wrong photo right away because the weather that day was mostly gray due to low level clouds, not bright sunshine like the PromiseKeepers photo. So, the over-eager right-wing bloggers had to back off and admit that the photo was not of the 912dc march. My point here is, that if the time-lapse video was bogus, with all the interested eyes watching, it would have been exposed as such by this time. It has been viewed on YouTube more than 800,000 times, in one form or another. Some people concluded it was fake because the American flag on the JW Marriott hotel is at half mast. But, it was at half mast, the day after 9-11-09, and this can be confirmed by looking at photos posted on Flickr with the tag 912dc (people at the march took thousands of photos and posted them on Flickr). The American flag on top of the Willard Hotel, next to the Marriott, was also at half-staff most of that morning. The Willard Hotel is relevant because its roof is the location of the camera that took the video we're discussing. The camera is a Westwood One camera at 14th and E Sts NW and anyone can see what it sees on the TrafficLand.com website. It can be aimed in different directions -- it does not usually, from what I've seen, point down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. Back to NBC's 3 seconds vs YouTube's time-lapse: NBC apparently has access to full videotape recordings from this camera, which is why their 3 seconds looks "normal". The guy (YouTube user N37BU6) who put the time-lapse video together had to do it the hard way -- off of the Web (I assume the TrafficLand website) every few minutes he had to do a screen grab and save it as a PNG file. Then he pasted about 120 "frames" together in sequence somehow so they would look like a video that could play on YouTube. He describes his method in his notes on YouTube. The reason I tell you this is so you will know why the NBC segment "looks a little different" than the YouTube video.

So, my short answer to your question is that after almost a month and more that 800,000 views, no one is questioning the fact this this is video of the 912dc march. And NBC Nightly News validated it when it showed video from the same camera of the same event on the same day. I believe AP did as well but I haven't tracked it down yet. Kenatipo (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy Edit War

Please provide assistance for the Mary Baker Eddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) edit war. An editor has been inserting "... a mental retard ..." as a description of the subject. Discussion has been provided on Talk:Mary_Baker_Eddy#Mary_Baker_Eddy_was_a_Mental_Retard.3F (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and in edit summaries.

The editor's assertion is not cited and is also not consistent with knowledgeable facts or myths regarding Mary Baker Eddy. As a former Christian Scientist and co-moderator of a web site opposed to her teachings, I generally do not defend her. In this case, however, accuracy, fairness, and credibility should be appropriately represented. Additionally, if citable, the information should not be presented using the pejorative, "mental retard".

Thanks,

Do go be man (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If the attacks continue, you can request the page to be protected as a prevention against vandalism. You should also warn the vandal after each bad edit. After enough warnings and notice that he will be blocked the next time he makes a nonconstructive edit, he should be reported to AIV. ThemFromSpace 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this is not an edit war, it is straightforward disruption and should be treated accordingly. There is no need to protect the page, there are only two IPs involved as far as I can see, both resolving to Kuwait and one belonging to the US military. I have blocked one of them and given a final warning to the other. SpinningSpark 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Differences of opinion with editor

An editor, User:Proofreader77, is using collapsing and deletion on a talk page Talk:Roman Polanski, and using a broad stick with which to judge these things. Everything I can see in policy claims that editing another users comments is wrong, and after sincerely asking the user to point out applicable policy, said user denied that it was relevant, then later went on to discuss their opinions on the matter without giving any concrete policy that allows them to do this. I was sincere in asking where the policy was that allowed a user to unilaterally delete/collapse other users comments, and I made a true good faith effort to locate said policy. The closest I could find was a discussion on completed code-heavy disputes, etc, which take up a lot of room on a page. Everything else definitely seems to say that it is wrong to delete anothers comments. Any help would be appreciated. WookMuff (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to help keep a talk page focused on improving the en.wikipedia-article at hand is permissible. For obvious reasons, users might frown upon seeing their own post collapsed, but simple collapsing does not amount to editing another user's comment. Moreover, Wikipedia policy gives advice in the form of permissions only where it concerns an exception to a more general, explicit restriction.

I know you won't like it, but I also couldn't help but notice that you have been blocked for edits to the same article talk page. Maybe you are a tad too much emotionally invested in the topic? --78.34.218.97 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I was actually banned for a personal attack on a completely different editor by an admin who violated WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK to do so, but thats neither here nor there. If you go and look at the subheadings, edit summaries, etc posted by said Editor, I belive you will see things at least a little differently, however, not to mention attempts to bait me using the very fact of my recent block. WookMuff (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help to edit and authorise page - Robin French

Hello,

Please can someone help me with the page for Robin French

Initially a tag was added saying that it is written like an advertisement. The page was rewritten with help from users. Then a tag was added 'needs notibility references' so I added many references and quotes to add validity. Since this I have asked many times for help on the general help page and finally someone has marked it for speedy deletion saying it is written like an advertisement (in reference to quotations) therefore I have removed the quotation added by myself and have left only a quotation added by another user.

This page now has three tags at the top (including one which marks it for speedy deletion). I am concerned (1) that it may be deleted; and (2) that the writer has a page with three unfavourable tags attached to it.

Please please can someone help me sort this problem out and either authorise it or rewrite it as appropriate. I have followed all of the advice that I have been given but the most recent tag was left without specific advice.

Due to the sensitive nature of biographies and the long period for which I have been editing this, I consider this a matter to be resolved urgently.

Many thanks, Felicity Waters (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the {{hangon}} tag, since that's used in response to nomination for speedy deletion and that's not presently in effect here. (However, I didn't look to see who removed it ...) OrangeMike added the advert tag with an edit summary that implied the critics' quotes weren't taken from the referenced sources. That would be a good thing to correct. One can find the edit summaries in the history section - click the tab labeled "history".

As for notability, take a look at WP:AUTHOR and decide if any of the criteria there can be met. If so, then demonstrating that a criterion is met should be your priority.

I hope this helps. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks for the help. OK I have looked at the criteria and I think the notability can be justified under the following conditions:

Any biography - 1. The person has received a notable award or honor.

Creative professionals - 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers.

Creative professionals - 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Entertainers - 1. Has had significant roles in multiple television shows, stage performances, or other productions. (*as writer)

Entertainers - 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (*TV show Trinity has more than 21,000 fans on facebook)

Please advise me what else to do! Thanks, Felicity Waters (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate at least one of the above in the article, by use of citations to reliable sources. I imagine you'll want to focus on one of the creative professional criteria. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Notible awards include - winning 2 play writing competitions at Cambridge University, awarded as a "young star in the ascendant" in 2005 by the Guardian (and the Observer although this is not available online hence I have not added this detail) and twice awarded the title of Hotshot by Broadcast Magazine (in 2006 & 2008) (Broadcast magazine is the major trade publication of the UK television industry). I have just updated it and now all details of these awards are written on the page.

There are many reviews which have citations to authorised sources (periodical articles and reviews) - The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Performing Arts Journal, NME, Broadcast (magazine).

If need be I can also add citations to reviews about the TV shows.

Thanks for your help and please let me know if this is ok! Felicity Waters (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little better, but I don't know if the awards are sufficient. A BAFTA would be unambiguous; the university competitions are probably insufficient, and the Hotshots are somewhere in between. In any event, I think there's enough there to avoid a speedy deletion. Keep the page on your watchlist and we'll see what happens. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Sources don't have to be online. An acurate citation of an offline reliable source is perfectly good too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for good advice. I have cleared it up again after info from another person (i actually removed quotes that were added by another editor). I am suprised that the notability of the writer is contested as many many collegues of the writer have pages which have less detail and less awards - however have no tags. None of them have BAFTA awards either. Shall I add reviews of TV shows to the page? I have now added more information about winning the Royal Court Young Writers Programme. Can the tag noting 'advertising' finally be removed? As noted before I am concerned as this is a living biography. Many thanks again Felicity Waters (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting editor Assistence

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is the use of several references in this article that I don't believe to be appropriate. The dispute centers around this section:

On 26 June, Micheletti wrote a letter,on National Congress letterheading, to Romeo Vásquez Velásquez saying "respectfully I am writing you to greet you and to remind you of the Mission to be undertaken on 28 June; that already the institution that you lead has been called to defend our CONSTITUTION and country and every one of those Hondurans thanks you." Micheletti continued, "These people who say they are Hondurans and wish to change our constitution don't deserve to be in our country, violating our constitution and selling our country."

The references at the time of writing point to Telesur which is owned by Venezuela and Chavez. I believe references of this sort do not meet wp verifiability because of surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;

There are other newspapers listing this and blogs but all essentially parrot the Telesur article. Being owned by Chavez seems to me to disqualify the reference because Chavez is involved in the dispute between the parties. He provided the ballots for the referendum. --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) --Da'oud Nkrumah (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how this could be resolved, but you might like to note there is a page for help with determining the reliability of sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. SpinningSpark 01:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor with language and subject problems

This is in reference to user kendwallace, who has been starting or adding to many different pages concerning planned mullti-use developments in several parts of the U.S. for the past several months now. Check the log at Special:Contributions/Kendwallace. His or her edits are almost always incoherent and are based, for the most part on the Web sites of the developers. If you will check the history of Centennial, California, you will see how many times I have reverted his or her material and how many times he or she has put it back with no explanation. I frankly do not know what to do with Mr. or Ms. kendwallace. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes on Sunday mornings you see this- all of a sudden one editor stubs out a bunch of radio stations, aliases for a company or holding company, etc. I'm not sure what the notability requirements are for planned developments but this seems to be like non-notable crystalball advertising and non encyclopedic but they could have inherent notability like the licensed radio stations. Once you open the door to this it seems hard to stop. I guess you could just nominate these en masse for deletion assuming they qualify and go after the articles instead of the editor. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, one of the articles being edited by kendwallace (Tejon Mountain Village) is going to be the largest planned development in California, although it does threaten the habitat of the California condor. (I am writing an entirely new piece on that one relying on local newspaper articles.) The other one in which I am interested, Centennial, California, is smaller but of course will be an up-to-date planned community. Both are encyclopedic. Is there a way to keep the aforementioned editor from monkeying with them? He or she has a very limited grasp of the English language. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that kendwallace is misguided rather than disruptive. At least, I find it hard to believe that the developers would employ someone with writing skill that poor to spam Wikipedia. He has accumulated a lot of warnings on his talk page but there seems to have been little attempt to engage him on his talk page or on the article talk pages. All he has seen is warnings and flames in edit summaries. One editor (Hebrides) did carefully explain to him why maintenance tags should not be removed and that particular problem does not seem to have recurred. That, and the repeated insertion of "help me" (sic) or "help me to edit" both on his talk page and in article space leads me to believe that he is open to discussion (although its likely to be the mother of difficult discussions). I suggest at least trying to talk to him and see how far that goes. SpinningSpark 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all mind reading, guessing intent is far from an exact science. ( 1/2 hour later wiating for firefux) Well, if there is controversy you can document then it may be encyclopedic but simply "going to be the biggest show on earth" may not qualify. A controvesial subject, of more than local notice, could have POV sources but overall the wikipedia article has to reflect the total coverage. You may very well end up with a paragraph on what the deveopers think and this may cite their websites as being reliably sources about their views assuming someone else ( like CNN ) has made these views notable. Beyond that, requesting protection or blocking I know nothing about. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Spinningspark. I can see that you have looked into this matter. Well, the only thing I have done is to report kendwallace's use of two user names as an example of wp:sockpuppetry. I suppose (sigh!) that I will just have to get used to reverting his or her disruptive attempts at editing. I actually feel sorry for this person, who is trying hard but simply can't do it. I rewrote the Tejon Mountain Village article from sources, and you can see the differences here. Those of us interested in keeping this article somewhat readable and free from "Advert" tags will just have to keep out eyes on it. Sincerely,

please help me I am learning disabled when it come to english

• User:Lovablehearts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Beanie Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Princess (Beanie Baby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I need help with an artical Called Beanie Baby Princess 3.2 Princess the bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . It keeps getting removed because of the style of the artical. I am learning disabled and know my artical is correct but I cant read or write very good. I dont know how to sign this letter either. I couldnt figure it out. Please take a few minutes to read what I have and see if it can be written correctly. It is 100% correct but just typed badly. I need help. I dont know how to sign but you can contact me at <email removed> and my name n here is also Lovablehearts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovablehearts (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you have not been editing Princess the bear, there is no such article, you have been editing Beanie baby. There is already an article for Princess (Beanie Baby) so you do not need to create one. Your edits were deleted because there are certain things that should not go in the encyclopedia. Some of the things you should not do in articles:

• Do not talk about yourself (don't use the words "me" of "I")
• Do not give your opinions.
• Do not ask questions

I think the best thing for you to do is to write what you want in your userspace, at User:Lovablehearts, no one will delete it while it is there. When you are happy with what you have written ask another editor to review it for you. If you both think it is good it can then be moved in to the article. SpinningSpark 01:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to redirect

Working on Hotlist_of_Mythology_%26_Folklore|hotlist of myth and folklore and trying to redirect Chimney-sweeps (folklore) to Chimney_sweeps#Superstitions. Cannot creat redirect page, says its blocked. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created the redirect for you, but to Chimney sweep#Superstitions (singular) as the plural Chimney sweeps is itself a redirect. Chimney-sweeps (folklore), or any of the variations of that title I tried, is not under any sort of protection so I do not understand why you could not do that yourself. If you get the problem again, copy and paste the exact message you see on screen which might help to figure out what happened. SpinningSpark 10:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Why are my posts being deleted when I'm trying to post a valid question regarding genetics and same sex marriages?

Is WIKI in the pocket of the gay community?

Thanks

Grant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.41.153 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for people to post their questions; the articles are to reflect the statements of reliable sources. The material you were repeatedly trying to add to the article same-sex marriage were unsourced and of dubious relevancy. - Nat Gertler (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find out why an edit has been reverted by looking at the article history. Click the "history" tab of the page you are interested in. I expect you repeatedly inserted the same material because you did not know how to look at the history. The reason against each edit (if there is one) is the text inserted in the edit summary box when the edit was made. This is why it is important to leave edit summaries, something that you are not doing. You should read our policy on verifiability, it is not good enough just to say that something is "well known" or "obvious", especially if it is challenged by another editor. This has nothing to do with bias at Wikipedia, the same policy applies to everone. SpinningSpark 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would mention that there are exceptions for factual "well knowns" such as simple arithmetic that would not need to be sourced or be considered original research. However, these are probably a lot more limited than you may think. Also for questions there are help desks available if not already mentioned. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The key phrase here is "likely ot be challenged". Nobody is likely to challenge 2+2=4. SpinningSpark 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As continuance of soapbox below, "too obvious to be wrong" has impeded a lot of progress until someone stupidly questioned something and got a noble prize. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spin -- sorry to butt in here but "Nobody is likely to challenge 2+2=4". Oh really? I have 3 or 4 people over on the 912dc taxpayer march article telling me that "traffic cameras provide no information whatsoever". and they're using that absurd statement to block a link to the time-lapse video of the march. Kenatipo (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Greenwood & Hall - written like an advertisement

I recently made changes to the Greenwood & Hall page. After a day or so, a message appeared that the page was written like an advertisement. I substantially modified it about a week ago to be more neutral, but the message remains.

How long does it take for the page to be revisited? Does the page need more modification? If it does, can I get specific feedback?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

David Ruderman <email redacted> tallguy2270—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallguy2270 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we discourage people connected with an organisation to edit its article because of conflict of interest. A notable organisation will eventually have its article written by someone independant, a non-notable one has no business on Wikipedia in any case. The normal procedure with maintenance templates is for it to be removed by the editor making improvements after the issue has been addressed. There is no time limit - templates can stay there for a very long time - it all depends on how long it is before an editor takes interest in the article; remember, Wikipedia editors are all volunteers and there is no schedule. It would be quite inappropriate, however, for you to remove the template yourself because of your COI.

I would say the biggest issue with this article is that it is devoid of references to reliable sources, there are none and I am mildly surprised that it only got a template and not a nomination for deletion. I am sure you are in a good position to find sources (news articles etc) and I would advise you to concentrate on doing that rather than the prose of the article. The two external links are worthless as RS, one is to the company website (which is a valid external link for this article but not an independant source for obvious reasons) and the other one, EnCircle, I cannot even work out why that is relevant. 82.163.106.84 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

( eid tconflict recover?) I will re-iterate my comments that it is possible to edit your own article, the concern is the article not the interests, but usually people who are used to writing polemics or promotional material can't even see what is wrong. While this may be viewed as my own soapbox, informed ( esp anonymuous) volunteers often have conflicts and most govt agencies including the FDA constantly run into the same problems. Don't be offended, in many circles it is even bad form to be critical and usually puffery pays quite well. Here we are interested in faithful documentation of the state of human thought, generally not to convince anyone of anything simply make more people aware of what others already think. Writing these articles, even with a conflict, can be quite helpful for mental discipline but it is probably the opposite of most intuition you will bring from other fields. To be clear, I'm not even hyping science at this point at many of these fields are filled with puffery too. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Barak Obama talk page

Hi,

It seem like any attempt (and several were made by different editors) to discuss the inclusion of the wide and diversed criticism on the Nobel prize that was awarded to the above is being concealed in short time as "WP:SOAP" or "WP:NOTFORUM". As for myself I took part in one short discussion with few other editors with different views on that matter and shortly after my comment in which I only asked why there is not one reference to the criticism in the Nobel prize section in Obama's article the all discussion was declared as "WP:SOAP" and deleted from the talk page. I think that something realy fishy going there, would thank for your help.--Gilisa (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the cited criticism (if any) should be on the Nobel Prize page? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May be it's, but how does it explain the immediate closing of any attempt to raise it to discussion?! It seem like many editors tried without sucssus. P.S. My personal view is that Obama main article is the place as most readers won't go to the Nobel prize article and that the section itself is big enough to include external criticism beside the ambiguous one Obama expressed himself, probably because of his awareness to the exceptionaly wide and maybe unprecedented critisicm on this matter.

Probably because there has been a year's worth of POV-pushing by Obama-haters to try to put anything they can into the article that will push their anti-Obama stance. Readers might come to the Obama page to find out that he won the prize, but are you saying he should be criticized because someone else awarded him a prize? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the organization that once gave Henry Kissinger the Peace Prize, fer cryin' out loud. The criticism, if any, belongs on the prize page, not the Obama page. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So you see, we are running here a discussion on whether he deserve or not to the Nobel prize and not on whether at least a discussion on inclusion of the criticism in the article must be allowed on the talk page. I'm not worried by Obama haters, I'm sure that they tried to push their opinnions but it doesn't seem to be the situation now. You can't assume that any one who suggest what I suggested do it out of hate, it's realy fault. More, we all know well that this kind of articles are being extensively edited by supporters, not to tell that maybe by people who are paid to do so, among other things.

P.S.I know well the history of the Nobel prize for peace, had Hitler postphoned WWII to December 1939 he would be awarded with it himself. After Arafat won it two of the committee members have resigned, I can give you list of warmongers who won this prize (I don't think Obama is one, even if I think that the dcecision and its timing are peculiar).--Gilisa (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe use the Kissinger page as your guide on how to handle it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm out of this buisness, it's still rolling on media so there is no immediate need to include it.--Gilisa (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Selection and Monitoring

Sirs:

As a longtime user of Wikipedia, I am very appreciateive of what is being done here.

In looking through the Help information, I do not see the answers to three questions:

1 - exactly how are editors chosen for any topic?

2 - how does one simply identify who are the editors for a specific topic?

3 - what is the process where editors who have a financial or other stake in a topic, are held to your commendabe standard of neutrality?

I would suggest that the answers to these fundamental questions be prominently posed in your Help section.

<e-mail removed>

Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MensaPhysicist (talk • contribs) 11:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

and to answer your question, there are no specific editors in a given topic. This is a wiki that anybody can edit. If an editor has a COI, they are encouraged to not edit about it, or at th every least, remain neutral about it.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 11:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP could make use of the "history" tab on each page- there you can get a list of each edit may by each contributor and look at contributors from specific editors and make an assessment on POV. I would also reiterate that experts almost always have biases and conflicts, see some FDA issues on this problem. In the case of volunteers, sure, editors are often chosen by motivation which would be suggestive of a bias but not always. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(sent to me from MensaPhycicist via e-mail) "I understad the concept that "everyone" is an editor. However, when legitimate edits are submitted, and then are deleted: who has that "authority," and how did they get it?

And when corrections are submitted more than once, and the response is to then ban the contributer: who has that "authority," and (again) how did they get it?

And as excellent as the neutrality concept is, exactly what is the process for fixing abuses?"

Well, entire pages are deleted by administrators, who go through a Request for Adminship to ensure that the community trusts them. Anybody can remove or change an individual fact in an article though. I assume when you say "ban," you mean block, as a block and a ban have their distinct differences. Blocks are performed by admins as well. As for neutrality issues, those are fixed by either editing them, or, if normal editing won't fix much deleting them.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Article "NuVinci Continuously Variable Planetary Transmission"

The above referenced article was apparently deleted on or about October 9, 2009. I cannot find any record of it being deleted, who deleted it, or why it was deleted. It does not appear in the deletion log. This was the URL:

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

Now this has been redirected to the article "Contiunously Variable Transmission".

Please assist me in simply locating information about the deletion of the article. If I understand who did this and why, I can re-edit the article to address the relevant issues.

Thanks! Ebarrios (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuVinci_Continuously_Variable_Planetary_Transmission&action=history Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you examine the history, you'll see that User:Twp redirected the page to a section of the CVT page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As to why, you'll have to ask User:Twp; but I'd guess it was because the NuVinci article was one long advertisement of and paean to NuVinci and its CVT products. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it reads like one big long public-relations handout. Why don't you just edit the reference on its new page if there are any errors over there? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Philip Mould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 10th October large sections of the entry for Philip Mould were removed despite being verified and correctly linked. I replaced the missing sections yesterday but they have been removed again. Please can you tell me whether it is one of your editors removing the text, and explain to me why they are doing so. I would be very grateful. Many thanks, Emmahenderson (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Emma Henderson

Well by looking at the history of the article it seems like you and User:Teapotgeorge have been moving the article forward. He has agreed with some of your material but not all. To get everybody's take on your current issue, I'd suggest starting a conversation on the talk page. He is flagging a conflict of interest that you might want to also discuss. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whiteberry (frozen yogurt)

I would like to request an article about Whiteberry (frozen yogurt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as there is not an article already in existence. We are advised not to write articles on companies we are affiliated with so I am requesting an unbiased article. Thank you. Anyafloris (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct place to request an article is at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Be aware that all editors here are volunteers and articles only get written when an editor comes along and finds the subject interesting. This may take some time and in any case a subject must be notable to have an article on Wikipedia. You are correct that persons associated with a company are discouraged from writing articles on that company. However, it is certainly allowed for you to help the process along by identifying reliable sources from which the article can be written, especially ones that support notability of the company (read the links so you understand what Wikipedia means by those terms). You are much more likely to find a willing editor if they do not have to first do the research into the subject and I am sure you will be in a good position to find the sources. SpinningSpark 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess if you could put a stub article in and on the talk page provide reasons you think the topic is notable. On deletion discussions, it is often hard to guess why the author thought anyone else already cares about a questionable topic. There is no blanket rule against COI editing but it can be difficult if you are used to writing promotional material. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

wow, who deleted that as it sounded like the procon.org complaint earlier?

I was staring at the section , that in condensed for read as follows but it was quickly deleted, " Relevant links removed from numerous articles Hello, We have just received an email from Wikipedia user, informing us that someone removed links to our website throughout Wikipedia. As all links that we add to Wikipedia are highly relevant (direct links to photos related to the article), this seems to be a targeted action [...] Please advise on the further action we shall take. 65.115.240.16 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)" While the post did out an editor, it seems that it would have been redacted as is often done. Regardless of merit, it seemed to be an important situation to consider as a similar issue came up with IIRC procon.org. Anyone care to mention briefly what happened? Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And again, looks like they reposted without outing anyone... I can check the log I guess but curious about reasons. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened with the editor CKatz who removed over 100 links to ProCon.org without consideration of each link's relevance to the Wikipedia page? He just searched for every reference to ProCon.org he could find and deleted each one. Does someone who works for Wikipedia investigate these acts to determine whether or not each deletion was warranted or whether this editor has committed an act of sabotage? I don't see the comments re: ProCon.org on Ckatz Talk page any more even though other complaints about him have been archived. How can I prompt an investigation into this issue? My view is that some of the edits may have been warranted, but to delete all of them (some of them had been there for years) is totally irresponsible and arguably grounds for being booted from Wikipedia entirely. Redondomax 15 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow you are all over the place here. Lets not discuss "booting" or "sabotage" and instead stick to specific instances. Can you pick out an example (or two) of articles where the link should not have been removed? Since the external linking policy is pretty subjective and the procon website had a contest or whatever, I doubt CKatz behaved improperly. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will do. Innocent until proven guilty (assuming good faith) is a terrific standard when applied consistently. Deleting every link to ProCon.org is not assuming good faith. Here are some examples of what I personally consider to be killing the messenger regardless of the message:

1. Candidate profile of Cynthia McKinney (who contributed statements by email to ProCon.org) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cynthia_McKinney&diff=prev&oldid=317331277

2. Research compiled by ProCon.org chairman and sourced http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_tobacco&diff=prev&oldid=318124480)

3. Responses from presidential candidates about health care reform (some responses researched and others received from campaigns themselves) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008&diff=prev&oldid=318124183

His deletion binge started on Sep. 30 and initially seemed legitimate but soon spiraled out of control to include every link to ProCon.org he could find. It is so frustrating to have one admin wield so much destructive power and for new users like me to get chided for calling BS when we see it. May I ask for more of your time on this issue? Can you look into the problem I am reporting, check out some of the talk on this page at ProCon.org's Talk page, and see if you can't make some constructive improvements, restore whatever content you think should not have been deleted (if any), or tell me what else I can do to escalate the fair resolution of this problem? I am still learning the ropes at Wikipedia; I want to do things properly; and I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks for your attention. Redondomax 15 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I looked at the Cynthia McKinney link to procon and I have three competing thoughts:

• In my opinion the information in that link is interesting and valuable.
• The link however is not reliable (see the definition I was using). This is a big one.
• Also weigh this in: Procon (the users and/or the controllers) has spammed Wikipedia (other link, other link). I believe that is not in dispute.

I'm afraid this adds up to a big no-go for me. CKatz maybe did the right thing here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was using as an assessment as well. There has been a definite effort to spam ProCon links across the project, based on the number of IPs and SPAs who did nothing other than to add links to the site. Many of the "references" that were added were little more than simplistic add-on tags, which should be properly sourced directly from the respective subjects. For example, with regards to the "medical cannabis" article, the ProCon link was repeatedly restored as a reference for which US states allow medical marijuana, when the better and more reliable solution was clearly to go directly to the respective state sites. I'd say it is also fairly likely that the editor who revived this topic was one of the editors participating in the ProCon contest as well, given the timing of his/her edits during the contest period in July. ProCon may well be useful as a starting point for research, but it cannot be used as a reference and the spam history would preclude the addition for direct links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arichnad and CKatz for the explanation. Some remaining issues:

1. I focused on ProCon's content which Arichnad and I agree is interesting and valuable. We agree that content-wise, ProCon (or at least that one page you looked at) is a pro.

2. I read the source reliability information, and I find nothing to support concluding that ProCon.org is unreliable. In fact, I find a clear reading demonstrates that ProCon.org meets all of the listed criteria for reliability (credible, reliable publishing process, trustworthy authors, multiple layers of review prior to posting (per FAQ page), sources directly support claims made, neutral POV, used by other sources, etc.). Did you read the FAQ page? Please spend a bit more time on the site. To me, it seems to comply with most everything Wiki needs for reliability.

3. Regardless of the Wiki reliability page, I personally felt that ProCon.org was a reliable source given its sourced content, its high-level testimonials, its widespread educational utility, its transparent methodologies, its repeated references in mainstream media, and its primary, secondary, and tertiary research. Whatever happened to assume good faith?

4. Re spam links, many of the links CKatz removed pre-dated the spam period he/she references, in some cases by years. If someone spammed New York Times links on Wiki, it would not make sense to delete all references to the New York Times.

5. The "medical cannabis" page was better with the ProCon.org content. I know a lot about this topic and what CKatz did by removing the ProCon made it harder for Wiki readers to easily see when legislation passed, how, by what margin, what are the growing guidelines, and what are the fees. His/her move had a logical basis and was ultimately constructive, but I still think it was a poor decision.

Bottom line: Will CKatz review his own deletions of every single ProCon.org link and thoughtfully reconsider each one based on merit? Will other Wiki editors review the CKatz deletions and restore whichever link or links they feel should never have been deleted? I have tried to restore a link here or there, but CKatz is an admin with more time and power on his/her side. I don't want to fight; I just want to stand up to an admin bully and do what is right. Please help shed some much needed neutrality and non-emotional reasoning on this topic. Redondomax —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

You've already had one uninvolved admin tell you the site is not suitable as a reference, and now another uninvolved editor here has done the same. At some point, you'll have to accept that the site doesn't meet the requirements Wikipedia has set out for references. Tossing around spurious and unfounded accusations won't change that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to get nasty CKatz by calling my legitimate objections to your editing spurious and unfounded. I gave five very specific reasons above for my claims, I asked you a specific question, and I'd appreciate responses to all. Calling me names will not help make Wiki better. Please try not to take things personally. I respect your admin status, but I disagree completely with some of your actions. You have at least one person who agrees with you, and I have several others who agree with me. Can you please address my specific points? I think we should reason this debate out publicly among Wiki editors and let them weigh in and help both us understand this issue better and make better decisions for Wikipedia. Redondomax 21 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Relevant links removed from numerous articles

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[This post has been deleted twice with the reason of "outing". On our second post, we removed all identifying information from the text, except name of the editor, which is public and available on Wikipedia. In this post we will remove editor's name as well...]

Hello,

We have just received an email from Wikipedia user, informing us that someone removed links to our website throughout Wikipedia. As all of the links are highly relevant (direct links to photos related to the article), often offer unique content and in no way could be considered spam, this seems to be a targeted action against our website, NYCfoto.com. While all links to our website have been removed links to other sites providing similar content remain intact. Below is the excerpt from above-mentioned email along with the examples of removal of our links.

Excerpt from the email, notifying us about unusual activity:

"I have noticed that a Wikipedia editor ... has spent the better part of today removing links to your site from Wikipedia. See [link to articles from which editor removed the links]. [The editor] ... has a history of trying to get competitors' photos out of Wikipedia. I am wondering if you would have any information as to exactly why [the editor] would spend so much time trying to get your site off of Wikipedia?"

Examples of link removal:

East Village article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Village,_Manhattan Our link has been removed: http://www.nycfoto.com/showPage.php?albumID=827 Link to about.com is still there. Notice that about.com is not relevant to the article as most photos on that page are of Greenwich Village, not East Village. Our link goes directly to East Village photos.

NYC Halloween Parade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_Village_Halloween_Parade Our link has been removed: http://www.nycfoto.com/showPage.php?albumID=1161 About.com link has been left (link to photos of Dog Parade, not directly related to the event) NYCfoto.com was one of the official photographers of the 2008 parade. Along with our photos, [the editor] removed link to official NYC Halloween parade photo site.

We do not feel it is worth contacting [the editor] regarding this event as [his/ her] actions appear to be hostile.

Please advise on the further action we shall take.

Nycfoto98 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) NYCfoto98

Hello Nycfoto98, and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the person who contacted you played you so that you would come here emotional and raise a fuss without knowing the issues; they didn't have your best interest at heart, and that your messages were repeatedly removed is evidence of that. Please try to assume good faith (although its hard when people try to incite you with falsehoods such as "has a history of trying to get competitors' photos out of Wikipedia" - I don't have any such reputation). It only took twenty minutes, start to finish, to remove the links, so your e-mail friend further tried to incite you by saying that I "spent the better part of the day". Clearly, you were misled by someone looking to cause trouble. User:GeorgeLouis pointed you to the primary reason I removed your site, which is that Wikipedia is not a link farm. The photographs on your site are for sale. I don't see that you have any interest in contributing to Wikipedia outside of inserting links to your website, which raises Conflict-of-Interest concerns. This comes up often on Wikipedia - you can see one such discussion here at Barrow, Alaksa (where I have no photography). I wasn't keeping your photography out of Wikipedia because you weren't contributing it to Wikipedia. You were only contributing links to your website, a common practice that often results in the links being removed wholesale. The same would happen for www.nyc-photo-gallery.com; www.nyctourist.com; or www.newyorkcitytravels.com. There are many, many websites that would like to be included on Wikipedia, so we remove them unless they are official or unique in some way. Granted, on the 36 articles where your website was inserted I didn't look at every link (like I said, I spent twenty minutes), but I did remove other obvious violations. Again, I'm sorry that you were played by somebody trying to incite you. I suggest you report them to this noticeboard for such offenses, as what they did is considered harassment and is against our policies; they made you look bad. -->David Shankbone 00:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, David. Thank you for your response. It is unfortunate that author of the email was trying to cause a conflict. I understand your point of view, however, I cannot agree with it.

First and foremost, NYCfoto is not a commercial website. Its primary goal is to show New York City through photos. Ads and print sales are there to pay for the hosting which they do not fully cover... When we first started, back in '98, site had no ads or print sales but with time, the gallery grew and cost of hosting increased considerably. It was very surprising to see that you removed link to our photos of East Village and left a link to about.com (site overflowing with ads) which doesn't even have correct photos (They have Washington Square Park in East Village gallery). You also removed our links to NY Auto Show photos -- NYCfoto is probably the only site that has photos of the event going back ten years. Content like this is highly relevant and could be very useful to the readers. We only post links which are directly related to the article, for which "External Links" section has been created.

We had a similar situation several years ago -- an editor removed links to NYCfoto, thinking we are spamming Wikipedia. However, after he took a closer look, all links were restored. Hope you understand our point of view and we could come to an agreement.

Nycfoto98 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NYCfoto98

Hmmm. Could an uninvolved editor review this and give an opinion? -->David Shankbone 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I qualify as uninvolved. A perusal of the site reveals that prints may be purchased for "non-commercial" use, as noted above by David Shankbone. Even with the best assumption of faith it's difficult to see how NYCFoto complies with the concept of free use espoused by Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, any commercial use of site content is grounds for its dismissal from External Links? Photos found on NYCfoto are available free of charge for non-commercial projects, as long as credit to the site is given. Our images have been used (without a fee) in a lot of research reports and school papers, as well as in non-profit projects. Paper prints are offered for a fee, as well as commercial licensing. I do not understand what creates an uncertainty... The fact that we are trying to pay for hosting using our content? Why should Wikipedia users loose access to relevant supplemental content? If the same logic would be applied to other sites, most of them will have to be eliminated from Wikipedia...

Nycfoto98 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) NYCfoto98

• Well when I checked your site, it said that prints for cost were only available to non-comercial types and that all others should contact the site administrators. If you and your site are so committed to freedom then release your images under a licence compatible with the terms of the English Wikipedia. Or be silent. It's pretty straight forward. Crafty (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Not exactly. We draw distinctions. For instance, if Fort Greene, Brooklyn had an article written up about it in the New York Times discussing its nightlife and restaurant scene, we might include a link to it as they are a neutral source, the information would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia to heavily recite; however, it would also be helpful to readers. The difference here is that an independent editor would be adding the link (as opposed to someone at the New York Times) after making an assessment on its merits. This raises another issue that many people don't realize about Wikipedia: we are activists, not just scribes. We are trying to create a large repository of free information (including media files) so that everyone can use it, not just school children (who, let's face it, could get away with using your photos even if they were not licensed the lowest CC license, as they are). My images of Madonna, Kanye West, Woody Allen, and over 600 other people can be used for profit, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't think just about school children; I think about struggling authors who need photos for books but have trouble navigating complex copyright issues and payments; I think about community newspapers who can't afford Getty Images; I think about artists in need of multimedia. Your site is nice, but from our standpoint, it's not really the best fit for what Wikipedia does, and what we, as activists, hope to achieve with this site (which we call a "project"). In truth, we would rather not have any media, than to have copyrighted media, which is why many of our articles went unillustrated for so long (I personally have created the largest body of creative commons images found anywhere, particularly when it comes to high-value photographs of the famous). Lastly, there is nothing preventing school children from Googling New York City photos and finding your site (you're the second hit). The ultimate issue with your site is that nobody at NYCfoto.com appears to want to contribute to this project; they just want the traffic it might bring, which tends to rub editors of the site the wrong way. -->David Shankbone 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you mean that in order for our site to be listed in Wikipedia, we have to offer free prints to everyone? Or not offer this service at all? Using the same logic, Wikipedia cannot have links to articles that have a reprint fee (but could be read online for free) or to any photos that are available for purchase as prints... The goal of our website is not to mail people free prints of our photos (site wouldn't be online for ten years with that setup.) We offer unique content by showing NYC through many photos targeted not at sales but at showing off NYC itself. Links that have been removed pointed readers to photos directly related to the articles, sometimes the only photos available on a subject. We do not require a fee to view photos or use them in research, etc. The reason we ask for non-commercial license is because the content gets stolen a lot and misrepresented as someone else's. No sane person would offer printing and shipping for free. We do not charge anything to view all of our photos online, we don't force membership or anything to view online content (unlike NYT, for their historical articles.) Can any other editor express an opinion? Nycfoto98 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)NYCfoto98

We select external links for inclusion in our articles only when they can add something significant to our reader's understanding of the topic. When I look at your site, as well as a Google ad section on every page, I see a rather indiscrimnate collection of images. Some are interesting (the diner in Bensonhurst for instance), many are just pictures of cars and cloudy skies. If you had specific galleries showing typical architecture of a neighbourhood for example, with thumbnail description of the buildings and their ages and locations, then that is something I would consider to be of great interest to our readers. The about.com page you mention is such a thematic display, so it barely qualifies as an appropriate link. If your site had the same content and presentation as the about.com page, I would substitute your link in a second, since about.com is blatantly commercial, more than half the page is advertising. As it is though, your site looks to me like various pages of "just a bunch of photos". Don't get me wrong, obviously a huge amount of effort has been put into it, I just don't see a compelling reason to link to it.

As far as the commercial use issue goes, the rights you assign to your images are just one factor we would use to assess suitability of an external link. A site of completely free images with no advertising at all would "score" a little better, but if they were all pictures of trees and stoplights, they wouldn't help our readers, so we wouldn't link to the site. We do like completely free images though, if you changed your licensing for some of the best images, you could upload them to Commons and create photo galleries there, they could be used directly in articles on every wiki around the world - and you would be quite free to link to your site in the image description. Sorry I can't help any more than that. You've put a lot of work into the site, it's just a little under the threshold I would want to see. Regards! Franamax (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your response seems to be the most un-biased so far. Instead of analyzing quality of some of our photos (there are some that can be found "boring" and off-topic), let's look what has been accomplished by the editor: article about Bensonhurst,Brooklyn had a direct link to our photos and aside from underexposed photo that came with the article that was the only source of images of this neighborhood mentioned in the article. There are a lot of more descriptive photos in sub-albums with not as much "trees and cars". Link to "An ethnic picture of New York" has remained -- that page has almost nothing to do with the article. Another example: NY Auto Show. Links to our photos of this event (from 2000 to 2009) have been removed, while link to about.com stayed intact, while about.com adds nothing new to the article and has no photos of the event, it does have, however, 10 or so ads on a page. On NYC Halloween Parade page, our link has been removed, along with a link to official photo gallery of the event organizers, while link to about.com gallery of dog parade is still there. Link to http://www.halloweennyc.com/ -- a fully commercial site that adds nothing to the article is also listed (by the way, we just noticed that this website stole our photos for their front page and other pages). As it was mentioned above, ads on our site partially pay for hosting. Wikipedia asks for donations every year to support the site, we are not as famous to generate donations and have to find other ways to support the website. We have a feeling that there could be other reasons why our links have been removed, this action seemed to be biased and targeted. While our links have been removed, those to fully-commercial sites and sites that don't contain related information remained intact. Nycfoto98 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)NYCfoto98

Assuming that there are ulterior motives isn't helping you. Assuming that all 36 articles that you put your link on were then thoroughly combed through for other inappropriate links is leading you to wrong conclusions, and I can assure you these assumptions are not winning you supporters. Have you read our Conflict-of-Interest guideline? -->David Shankbone 19:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to win any support -- that is not the goal or the point of this conversation. We feel we were specifically targeted because we have a link for purchasing/licensing of photos. We don't go around Wikipedia adding our links wherever New York is mentioned. In the end, the the content was not improved and no new information was added by the editor. In fact, some articles lost links to relevant and, in some cases, unique content.Nycfoto98 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Nycfoto98

You are unlikely to find any satisfaction here. When it comes to links added to numerous articles, editors tend to be somewhat cynical. Many people try to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Here's my suggestions for a way forward: upload some of your images to Wikipedia. Make sure to call your files something like "Someone Famous by NYCFOTO.jpg" and ask for attribution. Add these images to as many articles as you can. Periodically check the articles - if anyone has added a new image, just remove it and re-add your own. If they complain, wait a week and add yours anyway (you can remove the other one later). Offer to take pictures for editors. Make friends with admins. After a couple of years you'll be practically untouchable and can pretty much get away with anything on Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've struck part of my comment above because an editor felt that I was referring specifically to them. I wasn't -- I was just listing some of the tactics that I have seen used by many self-promoters on Wikipedia -- but I realise that others may take my facetious suggestion seriously. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to supporting Dc's comments about cynicism on the part of more experienced editors about widepsread external linking (sorry, but that just happens when you see an editor only making edits that link to their own site) and my acknowledgement of the first bit of Dc's now struck post above, which goes on to hit a little too close to a certain home, can I suggest this? Nycfoto98, can you suggest some specific articles where you think your site link would be most appropriate? We can look at those specific proposals here, and you are always free to discuss on individual article-talk pages why you feel that any specific external link is of benefit. Hmm, I've written "specific" three times in the same paragraph, oh well... Franamax (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with one: NY Autoshow (we had links to our yearly photo reportage going back to 2000). These photos can be very useful to people interested in the topic and they are also directly related to the article. Yearly photos of the event going back ten years provide a unique source of information. Nycfoto98 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)nycfoto98

I don't have an objection to that one. -->David Shankbone 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

With the New York Auto Show you put 10 links to your website on one page. Do you have one you want on there, perhaps to a main page that has the different years listed? -->David Shankbone 13:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a page that lists only Auto Show galleries but we can create one so only one link will to be posted. Before, all ten links were added in one row, all but first one listing just a year, so it didn't occupy much more space than one link would.Nycfoto98 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)nycfoto98

supposed Mortage w/paymentsbehind 08?

Request unclear

 – --Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I started bankinking with Chase Bank in dec. 08, and now true credit is saying that i have a mortage. I just moved from the shelter andthis mortage is from before dec. The bank has not sent anything to my address in my name. just keeps wanting my transunion report. i'm in the process of retrieving these reports,so far nothing is showing, is this related to identity theft, since i'm a single mom rasising an infant on unemployment, and can't seem to move anywhere in northern michigan without something not being mine come up under my legal information, people up here think it funny because i can't afford a lawyer,also. i can pass a lie detector, and am on the ferge of having my out of state lawyers activate a complaint fully on this state. I will not pay for these criminals NOTHING. and have been up here for 4 years, and sick of it. I need some professional input. DHS just changed my case number after 10 years instead of turning in their own families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.83.16 (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request unclear: What do you want us to do ? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this boils down to we are not authorized to give legal or financial advice...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

STALKERS

how is it that i was told by a cop at 18 the name and age of a stalker, and he now has visitation on our infant son, under a different age?????? With no DNA analysis provided because the t13th. district court in Traverse City don't do that no more, and can send people 3-4 different case numbers, and the courts can base child support on income parents don't have. Like for instance, 40 hours at min. wage, when the parent ain't getting CASH from DHS, and is getting backdated unemployment no one can touch, because of many issues from materninty leave and return to work? Set visitation that don't have to be reg. or cosect. and the other parent don't have to pay reg. child support because of other kids,and more on way, but think they can terminate other parties pregnancies.According to 4CFR chapter 400 and 500 and 600, the courts don't know federal or state laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.83.16 (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. You must see an attorney. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

need notability / delete opinion on template war here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Wheat&action=history Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

dj emile

Request unclear

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ive been trying to get my content which is Ztrip's info referenced . How do I go about it emile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djemile (talk • contribs) 07:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What to do with these personal attacks?

Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Bosonic dressing is repeatedly attacking me personally on the Indian subcontinent talk page, while removing citation request tags without providing citations, and removing sourced material from the article. Politely asking for appropriate actions on the talk page is not helping. Apparently the user's behavior is solely based on deeply embedded assumption of bad faith. Can someone, please, check the situation? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded on the talk page about this editor's pedantic behaviour, which three editors have commented on and which seems more to prove a point than anything. I certainly have NOT removed citation tags without adding reliable citations first, and this editor merely copied and pasted content from elsewhere into the article without doing anything else to it (formatting etc). In fact, I have provided ALL the citations in the article so far, while the commentator has not provided any yet repeatedly asks and comments on the issue. I will not repeat here what I've said on that talk page, but in summary my assumption of faith has been fueled by this editor's lack of it to begin with. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Both statements can be verified easily by looking at the history. All actions are recorded along with time stamps. The personal attacks continue here. And, the claim of providing ALL the citations still looks a bit precarious. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a perusal of the article history will reveal all that is required. As of the prior writing, yes: I provided ALL sources in that article ... and that doesn't include your crude paste of content from 'South Asia'. No matter. Given the obstinacy of this editor, I am refraining from commenting further. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it permissible by the Wikipedia to keep attacking an editor personally, without an attempt at discussion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: The situation has aggravated a bit by an edit war started by User:Bosonic dressing. Apparently the user has been edit warring on other articles as well. This really needs third-party intervention. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not feed someone else's flames, and this editor's commentary doesn't deserve nor require my added response. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So, edit warring and insults would continue. Okay, if the community permits then it should be okay for some editors to violate the guidelines and principles then I can only assume something has changed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Item on Robert Wistrich

Please help me get rid of the following remark on the top of the item:

A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

article in question:

Robert S. Wistrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 

I am not sure how to proceed thank you very much

Wistrich (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Sara Grosvald

Did you try the discussion tab on the page and create a section? Ask whoever put the tag there to explain why article is biased, he could just be reacting to your alias without specific contributions in mind, hard to know. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[e/c] Well- you have taken the user name "Wistrich", which at the very least suggests some connection between you and the subject. If there is none, then you should create a section on the article's Talk page, explaining the *lack* of such a connection, and then removing the template. (If there is no connection, I think that username is a bit sketchy under WP:Username policy in any case and would suggest changing it.) If there is a connection, then read through the template, follow the links, and decide how to proceed consistent with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I know who write the tag there, how do I ask him/her? Wistrich (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Sara GrosvaldWistrich (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I put the conflict of interest tag on the article. As far as I recall it was only because of the username, and I have now removed the tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much I will never ever edit anything else under any circumstances!! Wistrich (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Sara GrosvaldWistrich (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well - the concern here - based on your username - was that you had some kind of personal connection, and therefore a conflict of interest, with the subject. If that's not so then you should feel free to edit that article, as well as any other one (consistent with the policies and spirit of Wikipedia and so forth). Though really you should think twice about that username. JohnInDC (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AEM Yorkshire

Hello, I am writing with regards to a page entitled AEM Yorkshire.
The original version of this page was deleted in September as it was considered too promotional. I consulted the editor who deleted the article, and he kindly assisted me with re-writing the page so that the same factual information was conveyed but without it being in any way promotional. Thus the page was accepted onto wikipedia and subsequently a number of people thanked me for taking the time to write about this publicly funded knowledge transfer network.
However, I was then asked to include several links on the page. I did this in October, and this resulted in the page being deleted. However, the editor who deleted it said the deletion was due to the overall content of the page, and not just because of the new links.
I accept that the links were not necessarily appropriate, and will be only too happy to remove them. However, I disagree strongly with the opinion that the information on the page is not appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia. Your editor's comments give the impression that wikipedia is an elitist publication. I have nothing against elitist publications, but wikipedia is clearly not such a publication as is evidenced by the content which it contains. The information on the AEM Yorkshire page was no more or less appropriate than the information contained within the vast majority of other pages on wikipedia.
Thus, I would like the AEM Yorkshire page to be reinstated. It goes without saying that I will follow any specific guidance (ie not just a lazy reference to a wikipedia code) in order to further improve this page. Thank you for your attention, Andham (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted with the following deletion log entry: 10:25, 14 October 2009 Khukri (talk | contribs) deleted "AEM Yorkshire" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). However, I cannot find any trace of a deletion discussion, so I have put a query about this on the talk page of the deleting administrator. However, on a different issue, I don't think this is anything to do with elitism: it is simply that Wikipedia's policy is to include only subjects which have received a significant amount of independent coverage, and also not to include material which seems to be promotional. In both these policies Wikipedia does not differ from most other encyclopedias, whether electronic or paper. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for further info, and response. Regards ^Khukri 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Found conflicting info in two articles and dont know which is correct

I was reading the "today" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_14 and under 1966 birthdays it listed Savanna Samson. I clicked through to her page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_Samson where the text said she was born October 14, 1967 and the info box on the right says she was born October 14, 1974. So, between two pages there are three different dates for her birthday. I don't know which is correct, that is why I'm contacting the editing team.

Thanks

John

PS: You do not make it easy to find this editing help page! AgLupo (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says 1967 (I clicked on the little [1] next to the birthdate on her article). You can fix the other two dates: according to the source, 1966 and 1974 are both wrong. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"The source says 1967": which source? Sources (both cited in the article and found elsewhere) contradict one another. I have made a web search and found all three dates occur repeatedly. Until someone can find a reliable source the dates had better be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The objective is verifiability, not truth. If a source is reliable, it seems you need to include its POV as part of documenting human knowledge or lack thereof. Factual accuracy can be in dispute and notable hoaxes or misinformation is still part of the mix. Characertization ( " while source foo says bah, the birth record in whoville officially says do re me"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible new posting for Cadianda - historic site in Turkey

User:SoftPage

I can see no reference to this site, my research has only turned up official information at http://www.muglakulturturizm.gov.tr/tr/07710.asp I have recently visited the site and the information I have placed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SoftPage is what I have discovered - I also have some images from the site, but it seems I do not have the necessary level of access to upload them.

Please advise how to proceed from here.

SoftPage (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your draft reads like a tourist info guide, and that's something to be avoided. Information on "how to get there" is usually frowned on unless it is stated in terms of "this place can only be accessed in such and such way". However, references do not need to be online. See WP:CIT for info on how to cite books, previous encyclopedias, etc. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Inapppropriate article creation

Whoops, never mind, I see it's being resolved.

American Revolutionary War/Boston Tea Party(Reasons for the uprising)

Hello. While attending a respected community college, I came across information that one of the reasons for the uprising that lead to the BTP and ARW. Was the fact that Britain was respecting its Treaties and Promises to the First Nations of North America at the time. One of the big issues of the British North American Colonies was that they needed more land and thought because they paid taxes they should get the vote and the say on what goes on locally. When Britain refused to attain more land for the colonies, the colonies rebelled. I will have to search and find my sources, but, beleive me, I will if you don't. Please address this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.208.54 (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to find sources for this and add it to the article (maybe a discussion on the talk page first would be a good idea). But please note that we cannot add it based simply on your word. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You must go back to the article and come back here if you have any content disputes. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

why do i see "..." in ANY quotes on this "encyclopedia"

i will say that this came to me in an odd way, i looked up joe the plumber and i noticed on his information page that in most of the quotes instead of a complete quote most of them, be they from him or someone else, have "..." in some way shape or form in them. And the ... isn't a link to the full quote, its not a link at all. Why would you not have complete quotes in something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia of sorts (this isn't a tv show, you read at your leisure). I am being careful of using html tags in this because i am afraid that might be why my edit to that article was reverted pretty much immediately, prompting me to make a user name because i didnt change anything on the article but added near the see also this: "Please fill in the ... sections on this article, this isnt a tv show with limited time, all of the text should be available. I will only say that i dont like the guy, but i think he and others involved shouldnt be ...ed on this type of forum. i'll repeat, please fill in the blanks, i know the information is available because you are quoting known things, i'm lazy so i prefer to mention this instead of doing it myself, not to mention i'm just an ip

I DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE AND NEVER WILL ON ANY ARTICLE, I ONLY ADDED THE STATEMENT BETWEEN THE LINES." near the see also part of the page in its own set of horizontal rules (HR). i belived that would be acceptable and might stick around long enough for people to see that the quotes shouldn't ever have "..." in them in a place like this and perhaps somebody great would volunteer the time to look it up and fill it in. my primary question though is: Is it acceptable to quote someone in a place like this and not reveal the whole quote? and if so why?, and beyond that i'm sure there are many possible questions that i'd love to have answers for combined into the rest of this message. anyway please help, btw i'm not an editor, i never want to be an editor, but i would like to have the right to point out places where this site looks more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia. as i said i posted that message in its own little section without editing anything else, and it was pretty much immediately reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kght22 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding what your issue is correctly, this answer should be useful...I think there is a legitimate reason for quoting things in this method: context. Yes, it is an encyclopedia with fairly well infinite space for quoting things, but there's not always a need. If part of the quote is all that's needed to explain the quote and its context and relevance with regards to the article, then that's all that is left on the page. And even if there isn't a full quote, there will typically be a reference at the end of the sentence or quote (notice the little number at the end of the quote or line, in brackets and superscript). You should be able to click that reference, taking you to the full version at the bottom that should have a URL or book title where you can find the entire quote if you so desire. Also, a couple of little things: If you have a complaint to make about an article, use the talk page (there's a link to it at the top as "Discussion"); if you just write things into the page it'll be reverted as vandalism. Also, when making such posts please sign them using four tildes as such:~~~~. If there's anything else I can help you with regarding this or other issues, please don't hesitate to ask. --tennisman 12:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of our Manual of Style says that we need to keep articles to a reasonable length. Extensive quotes (aside from becoming potential copyright violations) make articles overlong. For long source documents that are available under suitable licenses, there is the separate Wikimedia site Wikisource. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor making up acronym for article

An editor (User:Ti-30X) keeps trying to insert information about something he calls the "Novel Electromagnetic Materials Program" to which Ti-30X has assigned the acronym, "NEMP." I deleted it because that's not what the program is called, and a google search shows this name is being propagated to wiki mirrors.[8] A search of Duke's website shows this is not what the program is called.[9][10]

The professor's research group is called "Novel Electromagnetic Materials" and the professor lists "programs, collaborators and funding" on his webpage, and somehow this editor has turned this into an existing group called "Novel Electromagnetic Materials Program" with the acronym "NEMP." Please look at the professor's web site and see that this is so. Search Duke and the professor's page. There's no NEMP related to Smith's research group. It's not there. Not.

The editor has told me he will be reinserting the material.[11] What do I do now in lieu of edit-warring to keep this editors OR made-up acronym and research group title out of the article? --69.225.5.183 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know wiki policies here but often people define terms intended to be limited in scope to a given publication or document. For example, many contracts or legal filings use general terms for specific parties. I guess if would depend on details but if a given term comes up a lot a clearly defined shorthand shouldn't be an issue that is too hard to resolve. If there is a well known acrynym or shorthand that would seem to be a more reasonable choice however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Internal references

We are making this wikipage about a military organization and we understand the need for references to validate the article. However, much of the information used comes from internal documentation that cannot be released to the public. Certain unclassified facts have been pulled from these documents to inform the public of our operations in Bulgaria and Romania. How do you suggest I reference these materials as I will not be able to provide a link or source document?

--JTF.East (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything should be referenced, so even if you know something but it is not covered in any reliable source it's likely to be regarded as original research and removed. In any case, it sounds to me like you are talking about publishing classified military secrets, which might have serious implications for you in real life. I wouldn't do that if I were you. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this account as a role account (almost used the spamusername tag, but decided not to be too bitey). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OHL

I disagree with the Ontario Hockey League dominating the OHL wikipedia page. There is a company that has been operating since 1951 that does business as OHL and operates at www.ohl.com. OHL for the Ontario Hockey League is an acronym and I hardly think that gives that group the domination over "OHL". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.19.29 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. OHL is a redirect to Ontario Hockey League because that is the most likely thing people would be thinking of when they search for OHL. The other topics are listed at OHL (disambiguation), which is linked from the hockey league article. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the Name of an Article

We would like to change the name of the article "HCJB" to "HCJB Global" because it is the full name of the organization and we would like the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakerctrn (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bakerctrn. I looked over your request and, while this move would be possible, it is currently unnecessary as there is already an article about the organization known as HCJB Global at World Radio Missionary Fellowship, Inc.. Cheers! --tennisman 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment on my profile which is out of order!!

My name is Freddie Potter, if you look on my profile some has put this sentence 'where he is currently under FA charges for match fixing and being an all out beaut.' Can i please find out who has written this statement and for an apology as i am getting accused of this which is true but i am not guilty! and the 'and being an all out beaut' is angered me! Can you please found out who this was as i want it reported immediatley!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.8.136 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the comment, it was added by an anonymous user as vandalism, and apparently went unnoticed. Sorry about that--Jac16888^Talk 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Advertising Article

Resolved

 – Article deleted

I found this article that looks to be advertising only. It is located here: Actim_prom_test. Terribly sorry if this is the wrong place to raise this question.

Chicagogeekwoman (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chicagogeekwoman. I'd suggest you read the page on what is and isn't viewed as advertising, because I don't see anything on that page that qualifies as such. Though the page you reference contains little content, what it does have appears to be entirely descriptive in nature and written from a third-person point of view. --tennisman 18:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason it seems like advertising. Here is the article:

"Since the concentration of IGFBP-1 is much higher in amniotic fluid than in other body fluids, finding IGFBP-1 in the vaginal or cervical sample can reliably indicate a membrane rupture. Many studies have shown that the diagnosis of PROM by detection of IGFBP-1 is the most reliable method, and therefore superior to other chemical, clinical and immunological methods available today.

The Actim PROM dipstick test can be easily performed by taking a vaginal or cervical secretion sample, extracting it and immersing the dipstick in a solution of the extraction. Results are clearly visible in 5 minutes. A positive result appears as two blue lines. A negative result appears as one blue line (only the control line appears)."

Here is the company web page:

Since the concentration of IGFBP-1 is several decades higher in amniotic fluid than in other body fluids, finding IGFBP-1 in the vaginal or cervical sample reliably indicates a membrane rupture. Numerous studies have shown that the diagnosis of PROM by detection of IGFBP-1 is the most reliable method, and therefore superior to other chemical, clinical and immunological methods available today.

The Actim PROM dipstick test can be performed quickly and simply by taking a vaginal or cervical secretion sample, extracting it and immersing the dipstick in a solution of the extraction.

Results are clearly visible in 5 minutes

A positive result appears as two blue lines – a control line and a test line – in the result area. If only the control line appears after five minutes, the test result is negative.

I'll leave this for someone else to sort out, since trimming the copyvio leaves very little text. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible that the test itself might be notable, but the item deleted was spam with a side order of copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to Add a Link

First, I need to say that I find Wiki to be incredibly complex and confusing. If I have done anything wrong, I apologise, but I really cannot figure out how thing work around here.

Some time ago, I tried to add a link for our website to the Cybele page. We are modern followers of the goddess Cybele, and our website is a very good source of historical information.

Each time I added the link, it was deleted by someone, and I got yelled at about it, until I guess I was "blocked".

So my question simply is, can I put my link anywhere on Wiki where it will be useful, and allowed ?

Here is the link to the website, so you can take a look at it.

http://www.cybele2.com

Thanks,

Jean

04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

signature added

--Priestess Jean 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

• Comment: I have had an issue with sources being labelled "fringe" or "unreliable" but that depends on context. If you are a recognized or noted practitioner or authority on the subject, I would think your site could be a useful source of information about that topic. But, at least with creation science, there is a tendency to judge "fringe" against a larger universe of people. So, a relatively obscure site even if well known among a small but relevant community ( in this case people knowledgable on the subject) may be glibbly taken as fringe or unreliable. I'm not claiming every obscure site would qualify, but certainly the potential is there for useful information getting deleted as "crank" or "vandalism." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That website fails our standards of reliability and neutrality. Your continued efforts to add it to the article have already gotten you blocked once. We do not challenge the sincerity of your beliefs, but your religious opinions do not qualify as encyclopedic content and links to your group's site will continue to be removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• What?: There are articles on abortion that AFAIK link to popular advocates of both camps, what is the difference here? If the belief is "fringe" as astrology might be, but still notable, then those who represent the belief may be fringe in a larger article but perfectly reliable and mainstream regarding the topic. If they are "sincere" ( colloquial usage for this point), then they would indeed inherently be representative of the topic and be automatically reliable for at least one POV. A balanced article would probably link to more sites with different denominations within the topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The link is to a site for a religous group that claim to be modern worshippers of Cybele. The site has no verifiability since it simply reports their interpretation of information, and to allow its posting, especially by a COI editor, would be to allow spamming of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And you expected? : If you are waiting for Ted Turner to cover it, or MTV to get the latest from IEEE, then wikipedia will be quite sparse. What more do abortion groups do other than expound their own view points? Could you write an abortion article, no less pro-choice article, without refrence to POV groups? The fact that this is a smaller community ( of experts no less) means you can't use the same numbers in your cutoffs if you want to include any obscure topics. Sure, you want to make sure this site is not a single-purpose-site and had some notion, for lack of a better word sincerity, and secondary source coverage from unrelated groups, even attack groups, would be helpful. But, it wasn't clear if these exist of if their existence was considered. After asking a few questions on scholarly works on various historical artifacts, you can appreciate that in many cases evidence supporting confident conclusions is lacking. So, even if source is not "Credible" in terms of being able to factually support some assertion, they may be reliable about modern day followers, esp if they are the only ones. If crackpots are notable, then they are also reliable sources about themselves. Note I am making hypothetical statements and not arguing that your conclusion is wrong, it is just that these things do tend to automatically exclude good sources for TOPICS that aren't generally considered to be reliable for other purposes. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just two quick points... 90 percent of the website that I'd like to add a link to, concerns history... and is very well sourced. It contains over 70 clickable references, and provides a great deal of additional insights beyond the Wiki article on Cybele. BTW, almost all of the refs come from Wiki, so their accuracy shouldn't be in question.

Secondly, yes the website does present the existence of a modern group that worships the Goddess, however I would think that such information would be of value to people reading the Wiki article on Cybele, since it gives them a path to follow if they are interested in joining such a group, or simply asking some questions for a term-paper...

Blessings, Jean

--Priestess Jean 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

Ohoh: References back to wiki in fact are NOT helpful. That suggests that you are largely if not exclusively based on what you have found here. You need to show some evidence of being a reliable source about the TOPIC, and citations to wiki DO NOT help that in a number of ways. If those are just part of a larger whole great but otherwise they don't help establish notability or reliability of your site. Wiki miroors that only add viagra ads would probably not contribute to an article for example. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Some of the comments above are a little confused. External sites need not meet the requirements for reliability, neutrality and verifiability. These are requirements for the article's sources. If this site were to be invoked as a reference for the text of the article then those things would apply and it would fail to meet them. However, as an external link the relevant guideline is WP:EL. In an article about your own group, the link would be perfectly acceptable, even necessary. However, their does not appear to be an article on your group and before there could be one you would need to establish that it was notable in the Wikipedia sense of that word. It is unlikely that you will find anywhere else acceptable to place your link, quoting from the guideline, one should avoid...any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. So in short, no, you can't post the link. However, you are welcome to add information to the Cybele article (or any other) provided that it is well sourced. SpinningSpark 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So, an article on "pro-choice" could not in any way reference NARAL? POV sites can be reliable about the POV and if the topic is about a POV, then NPOV requires that the topic POV be described in an NPOV way? Does that help? You can't possible find any NPOV source about abortion AFAIK yet there are, IIRC, articles on both pro-choise and right to life. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See last EL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice You couldn't possibly write this article without such a link, indeed citations to their site would be important and reliable about the BELIEF. The existence of competing views while maybe worthy of note, doesn't mean you exclude a reliable source that can accurately document the topic of the article. A source is inherently reliable about itself when an a self-refential claim is made ("foo believe bah"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Service Provider Pages

I'm new to this and I posted a question on the Talk page of the ExpertPages wiki page. It's been over a week and no one has answered, so I thought I'd ask here as well. I'm curious as to why a service provider has it's own page when there are many other, more well known service providers in the same space that do not have their own page. Can anyone advise? Thanks Dabrousseau (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer operation. People create articles on topics they believe to be notable, and the articles are then improved and expanded. If nobody has created a valid (non-advertising) article about a notable company, then no article will exist. Sometimes, on the other hand, an article will be created about a non-notable company, or a "spammy" (highly promotional) article will be created, and then slip through the cracks (like I said: all volunteers here), to remain unchallenged until somebody says, "Well look at this piece of junk!" (Thus, we caution, "There are these lousy articles in Wikipedia already, why can't I add another one?" is not a useful argument for retention of an unacceptable article.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama-Brazil Offshore Oil Projects

What is Obama's involvement in financing Brazil offshore oil exploration projects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.115.163 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you want the reference desk, this page is for helping editors with problems. SpinningSpark 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AVG intercept of a page identified by Google as an attack site

Page fortunecity.com/meltingpot has been identified by Google as an 'attack' page, meaning that it has been found recently to host viruses or Trojans. There are 1000+ links in Wikipedia to fortunecity.com , a small sampling of these showed the intercept showing up only on the meltingpot page; Wikipedia has about 40 links to fortunecity.com/meltingpot, not sure what should be done about these or where this should be reported. --CliffC (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The blacklist could probably stop all these links, but it could be possible that Google is mistaken, or that there were only ever a few such "attacks", added accidentally and which haave since been fixed? Intelligentsium^review 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, and I sure didn't go check after the above exchange, that whole domain only contains unreliaable sources anyway. Unless a given site or page is notable itself, I wouldn't think many articles would benefit from links or sources that point there. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with editor over notability of article

Since June 8 I have been engaged in a dispute with another editor, User:Doctorfluffy, over an article for a character on the TV series Nip/Tuck, Kimber Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The dispute began with the editor attempting to re-direct the lengthy article to a small List of Nip/Tuck characters, something I disagreed with as the character is a series regular who has appeared on the show from its first episode and is worthy of an article herself. The editor went on to suggest that I add sources and references to the article (quote "Anyway, why don't you add some sources to this article and the others then to indicate their notability???"), which I did to the best of my ability. This was also deemed not good enough ("redirecting, minor non-notable character, sources are almost entirely episode summaries and the like"). I have attempted to discuss the matter four separate times on the user's talk page, but the editor has ignored me every time.

I had recently added a link to the show's official website which lists Kimber as one of the six series regulars on the series (in an effort to prove the character's notability), but despite having been the very thing the editor was looking for, he did not specifically respond to my latest update and simply re-directed the page once again.

While I admit that the page may require additional work in terms of sourcing and references, what is severely annoying me is the fact that it is only this specific page that this editor seems to have a problem with. In the editor's user talk I have listed several Wiki pages for fictional characters which have even less sources and references, while there are many minor characters from Nip/Tuck which still have their Wiki pages intact (including Eden Lord, Nurse Linda and Merrill Bobolit, to name a few) and yet this user seems to have absolutely no problem with those.

My real problem is that I see absolutely no evidence why out of all the many, many Wiki articles for fictional characters, a series regular on a major TV series is deemed to be undeserving of her own page.

I have requested several times to debate the article in question, but it appears in recent months the user has simply ignored me and continued re-directing the page regardless of my many improvements to it. I am seeking some kind of independent moderator to take a look at the article. But please take into consideration the many articles on this site for fictional characters beforehand, and realize that if Kimber Henry's article is worthy of redirection, so to are the many, many fictional character articles on this site.

Thank you. Maxpower03 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, pointing to what is, or is not done, in other articles is not a good argument - see WP:OTHER for why this is so, arguments should be based in policy. There is no specific guidance on notability of fictional characters on TV but WP:Notability (books) has a few words: "articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability ... it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." There is also a proposed guideline WP:Notability (fiction) which says much the same thing. I suggest that you measure the notability of the article against the requirements of these guidelines and then see where you are. If you conclude that these guidelines support a separate article, then explain to the other editor how it meets the requirements with reference to the guidelines. SpinningSpark 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but I'm guessing I can't do anything about it. The links you supplied have a basic list of what constitutes notability, and of course she barely fits. Yes, she's a titular character in the series. Yes, I've supplied at least two links to non-trivial articles about her. But, no, of course she isn't the basis of a college study. Of course there isn't a book about her. Is there absolutely no way it can stay a full article? She's an important character, I've added countless bits of trivia and character information, links to support her importance on the series. For whatever reason this editor is only interested in re-directing this very article. It just feels so ridiculous. Maxpower03 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Titular means that the character's name appears in the title does it not? That would not apply in this case then. I think you possibly have an arguable case, but it is very weak. Most of the references in your article are either not independant, are about the actress or the program rather than the character in particular, or are just listings. I did see at least one article that discussed the character, so you do have something to go on. One solution here might be for you to compromise and expand the entry for Kimber Henry in List of Nip/Tuck characters instead of trying to create a seperate article. All the same, it is bad form to not respond to you, I have left a note on Doctorfluffy's talk page making him/her aware of this discussion and giving an opportunity to respond. One thing you must both do is to stop this back and forth edit warring before it attracts administrator attention which will only result in you both being blocked. Another way forward might be take the article to AfD, I notice that Doctorfluffy has already offered to do this at the point you were still talking to each other, and this is a way of getting a wider debate and a definite decision. SpinningSpark 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh just noticed, the link I gave you to WP:OTHER, should, of course, have been WP:Other stuff exists. I keep making that mistake. SpinningSpark 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional help. I guess titular does mean "in the title". Excuse that. The "AfD" suggestion is interesting, but the editor has never threatened to delete the article, only re-direct. But, of course, this does delete a lot of information in the process. I'll investigate AfD procedures and then make a decision of whether I want to pursue that. Thanks a lot. Maxpower03 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctorfluffy did indeed suggest AfD in this edit on the article talk page. Deletion debates can result in a "redirect" decision which is what Doctorfluffy wants, as well as "keep" and "delete" decisions. Even if he will not open an AfD himself, it is possible for you to do it yourself and then !vote keep. SpinningSpark 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving a page

I have already read on how to move a page, and I believe that my account is not yet auto confirmed. I also read that an adminstrator can move a page, would it be to much to ask for your assistance in doing this? Please?Jack W. 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Willow (talk • contribs)

I would happily help you if you could tell me what page it is. But if you're referring to User:Jack Willow/Kenneth B. Cromer, I can't, because the article does not explain the importance or significance of the subject (see WP:CSD#A7). This article would be deleted shortly after entering the mainspace. You may be interested in reading more about notability, and also reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BosWash article should define neologism, not promote it as true name for region

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

In July of this year, I placed a {{Disputed}} tag at the head of the article after seeing nothing of substance done for over a year previous about concerns raised by me and Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs) regarding the overall use of the article to declare de facto an area formerly described by the neologism "BosWash" in a forty-plus year old theory. Please see the discussion for the many reasons we found to object to the way the article is presented. To be brief, the opening sentence reads in part: "BosWash ... is a group of metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States ..." This is then followed by paragraphs of statistics and images that essentially treat "BosWash" as something that really exists, as in Benelux. It of course should read something like: "BosWash is a term coined by futurists Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener in a 1967 essay which they used to describe a theoretical megalopolis extending from the metropolitan area of Boston to that of Washington, D.C. in the United States.", which should then be followed by a brief tie-in to the work of Jean Gottmann and sixties-era socioeconomic theories about the concept of a "megalopolis", with all remaining copy removed, and the hatnote serving to direct readers to the Northeastern United States article for the demographics and cultural features that are currently masquerading within the article as being part of this mythical land.

To keep this short, I am providing only one of several examples supporting my view. The multi-dictionary search site onelook.com shows 4 separate sources with entries for Boswash: two describe it as "informal", another states "this definition appears very rarely" (Acronym Finder) and a fourth, the Wikipedia article in question here. Compare that result with 22 unique sources for Silicon Valley, 26 for Benelux and 27 for NAFTA. Please advise me on how to proceed with replacing the current article content, which has aspects of WP:OR and WP:CFORK, with only a definition of the neologism, while keeping conflict to a minimum. Sswonk (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you declare your intention to rework the article with an outline on the article talk page. Give other editors a reasonable time to respond and then be bold and go for it. Hopefully, any disagreement that arises can be worked out by collaboration, discussion and reference back to the sources in which case there will be no need to seek third party involvement. SpinningSpark 08:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To initiate this suggested solution, I am pondering using the talk page to lay out my case yet again, and also creating a subpage such as Talk:BosWash/Rewrite with my changes, properly sourced, presented. Would that method and temporary page title be helpful to forming a collegial consensus? Sswonk (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That can definitely be a helpful thing to do, but it might be unnecessary effort. It depends first of all on what other editors are watching the page - you could be playing to an empty house. Secondly, if the watching, interested editors do not disagree, or do not strongly disagree, with your proposals it will have been unnecessary. This sort of thing is only commonly done for controversial proposals so they can be thrashed out first, but not otherwise. I suggest you gauge the opinion first with a post on the talk page and that should give you a clue whether you need to lay out the detail in all its glory for discussion. Also, be advised that there are many editors out there who pretty much ignore the talk page until the article itself gets edited and then join in, possibly with a reversion. Sometimes the only way of getting a debate opened is to be bold and edit the article. SpinningSpark 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The process and result of the discussion at Talk:BosWash#Notification of intention to rewrite article went smoothly and the article is now recast as a discussion of the term. The associated articles Largest companies based in BosWash and Highways along the BosWash corridor have been proposed for deletion. I would now like to address the remaining articles within this realm of neologism-described geography, ChiPitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and SanSan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My feeling is that these two terms are a degree less likely to be searched for than BosWash and should be deleted. Which process, prod or AfD, is most appropriate for these two? Sswonk (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely AfD, not prod. At one time, these three concepts were trendy (see the 1972 edition of the World Almanac for a somewhat breathless exposition of these futuristic ideas); I would say that an AfD is going to fail. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was leaning toward the same thoughts which is why I asked here. They exist under similar form as the original BosWash page, so I am assuming the {{disputed}} and talk page notification about recasting as a discussion of the term rather than treatment as a geographic location is in order? Sswonk (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus Leyden X page can't ne found

Resolved

 – --Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The Papyrus Leyden X, Leyden Papyrus X page is not to be found. Was it deleted, renamed, or never existed? Thanks. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log shows It has been transwikied to Wikisource at s:Leyden Papyrus X. There was also a deletion debate at Wikisource concerning the copyright status of this work. SpinningSpark 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Side Effects of taking Acetaminophen and How taking this medication affects/alters Platelet Counts

I am currently receiving in-patient chemotherapy treatments as well as out-patient chemotherapy treatments. My platelet count yesterday was 21, which is critically low. I was told to AVOID any Acetaminophen, and I am just wondering WHY? and how does taking acetaminopen effect my platelet count, or cause it to plummet? Thank you!---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockie5265 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. For general information, you could try to search for those topics here or in Google, but for your specific case you need to ask your doctor. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Acetaminophen causes an increase in antibodies that reduce your platelet count. But you shouldn't rely on the Wikipedia reference desk for medical advice. Ask your doctor. Good luck. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Try pubmed for general background. The above comment seems to relate to an idiosyncratic reaction but one that comes up with different specifics. Here is a case report that discusses more generally loss of blood cells due to an immune response to a drug metabolite, http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/109/8/3608 . Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Over on the ref desk talk page, there's a debate about whether answering the question "Will masturbation stunt one's growth?", which is strictly an old wive's tale, constitutes "medical advice". And here we are leading an editor toward self-diagnosis of a potentially serious medical issue that he should see his doctor about. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like all the comments are directing the questioner to other, more appropriate venues -- so what is the problem? Oh, and it won't stunt growth, but it will make you go blind. HyperCapitalist (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a much longer response that I finally scrapped- Indeed, it addresses these issues and talked about a recent situation with PFE making off-label marketting claims and COI editors here, freedom of expression, fraud, and the need for people to second guess and sanity check experts in all fields ( hence the value of an encyclopedia unless your doctor is omniscient and free of conflict). And, to continue in this line of "thought" IIRC, there is a funny case from the TV show House where a parent brings in her pre-school daughter convinced she has epillepsy but House diagnoses her as masturbating. So, ok, it could be medical advice. But, I also would not dismiss anecdotal evidence- my latest "thing" was health effects of citrate that could indeed have spurred anecdotes about citrus fruit that had been attributed to vitamin-C. Also, unless this OP has a home platelet test kit and made up the thing about "his doctor" and still couldn't find pubmed, it sounds like he has a doctor. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it may also be worth noting, as this general argument is recurring, that the value of an expert such as a doctor lies in things like diagnosing idiosyncratic reactions or rare or confusing clinical data where response time may be crucial. The encyclopedia is valuable for a number of things but the time constraints don't make it a suitable way to help a novice make a decision "now" and if not well written, it can exclude information on making uncommon differential diagnoses. But, this also highlights perhaps the need to avoid confirmation bias in articles and a rationale to present critical or obscure or uncommon information as these things can be important for background and perspective. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Marching Band

Please provide factual evidence for the statement "award winning marching band" I am unaware of any awards showered upon the cobra marching band 2008-2009. If there is no good verifable evidence please remove statement.Kkunkel2 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The editors here are all volunteers and you should not demand actions of them, it is more usual here to fix problems yourself. It would also help if you identified the article you are talking about, there are many dozens of articles containing the phrase "award winning marching band". If you happen to mean Cane Bay High School (which has a football team called the Cobras) then you should tag the statement with a {{fact}} template, or, if you know the statement to be untrue for certain, you should delete it. SpinningSpark 11:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling abortion infanticide

Request unclear

 – --Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

On your page about Abortion, under Social Issues, it has "female infanticide" in the paragraph title, when infanticide is not discussed, just the abortion of fetuses that are known to be female. That is not infanticide, that is abortion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catharingrace (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true; abandonment of newborn girls is also mentioned, although the main article goes into more detail. But the full paragraph title is "Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide"; as in the relation between the two phenomena. That's not the same thing as calling abortion infanticide. -- Vary | (Talk) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you actually have a request for assistance? SpinningSpark 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

benzodiazapine drug misuse, lack of credible sourcing

The Benzodiazepine_drug_misuse article is being continuosly reverted by Literaturegeek. They have not provided a credible or secondary source for the, in my opinion, already irrelevent subtopic of Drug-related_deviance in the article. This person has also accused me of being a sockpuppet and has not responded to my posts on the Talk page. Skrewler (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In reality you were reverted by 3 editors, one of whom was an admin. I only reverted you twice. You deleted the same text 4 times. If you are not a sockpuppet it is strange that you have "requested admin assistance" but worded it in such a way as to make your dispute an "issue" only with me, why not mention the other editors who were involved in the dispute? Also another editor tagged your userpage and filed a report of you being a sockpuppet and it was another editor who accused you of vandalism, an admin I think. Why single me out, if this is not personal and you are not a sock puppet? This trying to recruit projects to join your side is also strangely familar.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR is for 3 reverts on a single page in 24 hours. I see User:Literaturegeek has only reverted you once per 24 hour period. However, the 3RR rule is not really the best first option (though as I said, Literaturegeek did not come close to violating this rule). Also, given Literaturegeek's continued work on the article, I'd imagine he would have the best interests of the article in mind during his revert. Given that two editors have reverted your removal, it is best to take it to the article's talk page before violating 3RR yourself. Commenting on the article directly, I see a lot of general conclusions based on a single government source. While I trust the Australian government just as much I trust every other government, it does seem a bit much to give an entire paragraph to a single survey performed on a island country founded as a penal colony and generalize to drug misuse/abusers everywhere. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Oldie5533. I agree with your points. I have been in discussion with another editor regarding these very points, on her talk page.User_talk:Cosmic_Latte#Reverted We are discussing how to resolve undue weight, see my last post to her. I think that it should be bore in mind that the article in question is a relatively new article and for its young age is in good shape. I am certainly open to other editors improving the article, consensus building and so forth. I am just having issues with disruptive and combative editing. I will in the near future try and incorporate findings from other countries.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is up to debate. It is original research by Literaturegeek on benzodiazapine drug deviance. There is probably a reason why I can find absolutely nothing on benzodiazepine drug related deviance or crime on multiple journal sites (yes, I have fulltext access). In the talk page I explained this, yet you resorted to a personal attack instead of addressing any of my points. I have no idea why you think that a primary source from the Australian government is a reliable source. Unless you can find some sources, it should be removed, why I had to request help with this, I have no idea.Skrewler (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop these false accusations. It was Cosmic latte who edited in the term deviance in preference to crime not I. The reference was on crime, I will change it back to crime though as that is what reference was about. I actually personally think crime is more accurate than deviance. I have addressed your concerns on talk page. If you find a recent secondary source covering the very points that a primary source is covering then it should be removed. If we deleted every primary source from wikipedia half of wikipedia would disappear. Primary sources are not outlawed. See WP:MEDRS, they can be used cautiously. They should not be used to cast doubt on secondary source but no secondary source is tehre that it is casting doubt on. Please read WP:MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what the name of the subsection is, whatever the name, it is not encyclopedic and should be removed. Your link WP:MEDRS simply strengthens my argument, not yours. Some claims made on one website (that is a broken link now), does not mean it should be included in the encyclopedia. Your claim about deleting every primary source on all the articles is hyperbole. Just because there are equally bad, or even worse, subsections in existing articles does not mean that this one should stay. I have already provided two secondary sources, review articles, about benzodiazipine related crime. In fact it's in the article right now. The claims made in that section from the Australian government lack verifiability and constitute original research.Skrewler (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments seem to me like you think this is some personal vendetta on you or something. To be clear, I couldn't care less who did what first, last, blah blah blah. The subsection needs to be removed, it makes the encyclopedia look bad.Skrewler (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The reviews which you provided were on drug facilitated sexual assaults and robberies, i.e. drink spiking. This is a whole different aspect of crime from the Oz government report. If you are claiming that drink spiking reviews should be used to delete the Oz gov report which is not about drink spiking then this is misusing irrelevant refs. I don't think that you understand what original research and verifiable means. Undue weight is a policy might be useful though with the Oz gov report, perhaps we could compromise and work out a way to give it less prominance in the article and shorten the section?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that info on drink spiking is more reasonable because it's properly sourced. If it's verifiable and not original research then show me a valid source. The burden is on you, not I. Also when should I escalate this to a RfA? Skrewler (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced. Arbcom would not accept a case like this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, both Skrewler and Literaturegeek have (at the core of their arguments) valid points. Skrewler is right that primary sources shouldn't be given undue weight. But Literaturegeek knows this, and he's right to note that if secondary research is not forthcoming, then decent primary material, if available, might have to do for the meantime. Material derived from primary sources can't really have undue weight if it can't even be weighed against anything else. Yes, it can be easy to fall into original-research traps when citing primary sources; one can inadvertently create emphases and connections that the authors did not precisely make. WP:SYN can be one of the toughest obstacles to get around. But in a thought experiment that I've just devised, I imagine a primary source that, for one reason or another, passes WP:GNG, even survives WP:AFD, and ends up with its own, solid article space here. Won't the article have to go into some detail about what the study says? In this case, too, there likely wouldn't be any secondary material against which to weigh the primary findings. One could see the benzodiazapine section as a microcosm of the aforementioned article-about-an-article. I just would want to ensure two things. First, the section cannot allow the reader to lose sight of the fact that the section is derived from a single study. And second, the section should be compared with the full text of the source, and should be cleaned of any conceptual brushstrokes that do not appear proportionately in the source. And on a slightly different note, c'mon now. Neither sockpuppetry accusations, nor threats to "escalate this to a RfA", are going to improve the article. A little bit of WP:LOVE can go a long way. And that, I think, is pretty WP:COOL. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Words of wisdom Cosmic as well as good common sense advice!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? Are you an admin or just some random dude? The link doesn't even work. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi336.pdf Skrewler (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I dont know what arbcom is. I guess I meant RfC. Skrewler (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article. If you feel that I've misread something, please feel free to tell me what I missed. To answer your second question, I'm "just some random dude"--but it doesn't really matter, because 1) arguments rest on their own merit, not on the administrative capabilities of the arguer, and 2) individual administrators generally shouldn't exercise their extra capabilities in a content dispute involving them. As for the link, I'm glad you pointed out that it was broken, and I introduced a live link here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Wordsmith arbitrarily deleting my material

Resolved

 – The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the Colorado Balloon Incident story over the past few days, showing the Father in the incident had paranormal beliefs and claimed that the balloon operated on a pseudoscientific principal. I cited all.

Wordsmith claims the material is tangental which it seems to me could be said about most anything you wanted to delete. Wordsmith's own pages show some interest in paranormal topics and I wonder if that motivates his deletions and whether I have to accept them.

Lance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancemoody (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem I have noticed with this edit is that it appears you might have been referring to other citations/references but the citation style you were using does not match our standards. I have added a welcome to your talk page which may help you with citation style and formatting.  7  01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, i'll weigh in here. I removed biographical information, including some that Lancemoody contributed, from the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which states "biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event." The content would be perfect for an article on the father, but only tangentially related to the event itself. I attempted to explain this to the user on the article talk page, and the user reinserted the material (with sources not intact), which I reverted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As a newbie, I think I now understand better how things work here. Please consider this matter resolved. Lancemoody (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems inserting external link into Southern Comfort Conference

Southern Comfort Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a staff member of the Southern Comfort Conference, and am also the moderator of the conference's Yahoo Group. We use this group as an information resource and exchange for attendees. The group has been around since 2001, with over 2200 members.

When I tried to add an external link to the group, it was removed by your bot, and I was send a vague message that it didn't meet Wikipedia standards. Does this mean that all Yahoo Groups links are invalid? This means that we cannot link to one of our most useful resources?

Please let me know why I can't link to this group.

--DivaMissZ (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to be used to accumulate a collection of links. External links are only used in articles for some very specific reasons and there are many more reasons for excluding them. See our guideline WP:EL for more details. I would advise you to concentrate on finding some reliable sources to establish notability of your group rather trying to insert a Yahoo Groups link. Without sources their is a danger the article will be nominated for deletion. SpinningSpark 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the links you have just inserted after making this post are even more inapprpriate and have been removed. SpinningSpark 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The links are being removed by a bot. If a bot removes them, they are blatantly inappropriate, not just borderline. please read WP:ELNO.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Diva, sorry about the rough welcome here. The above editors are correct in their assessment of those links, first of all. Second, though, I do see some hope for the Conference article, since I found a few relevant hits in Google News. (You really need to focus on finding more of those reliable sources that help establish the notability of the subject!) Since I do have some faith in this topic's notability, I have removed the PROD. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FEMA Article

Users QueenofBattle and Sceptre are vandalising the talk page on the FEMA article. Refusing to discuss the inclusion of subject material and instead deleting user comments, despite those comments meeting discussion on-topic with inclusion the article and their dismissal of anything related to agreeing it should be in the article. 203.171.199.156 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

For your consideration, and as can be seen, user 203.171.199.156 has used the talk page as a forum. Additionally, I have reported 203.171.199.156's 3RR behavior here. ANON has also filed a retaliatory, bad faith 3RR notice, while continuing threats and incivility at my talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update, user 203.171.199.156 has been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule and using a talk page as a forum. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The same editor ("Sutter Cane") had 203.171.196.230 blocked from editing for block evasion. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

Please be advised that Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) has been baiting and goading me into having an edit war with him. Please refer to the message he left on my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Gaza_War_3 What makes this more troubling is the fact that just prior to this post, he filed a complaint against me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tyw7#Hi_again.21 I believe that he is deliberately attempting to set me up for an ANI complaint. Mr Anon Unsigned has a nasty tendency to revert sourced material and when he encounters resistance, he files a complaint in an attempt to censor those who disagree with him. But please don't take my word for it. The post below is from Stellarkid (talk) and directed at Mr Anon Unsigned:

• "I do think the comments that Juijitsui guy put up at ANI that you put on his talk page were inexcusable, however. And I see what is going on, where you make POV edits and then when someone reverts them, you report him, as non-collaborative. It certainly appears to be an effort to silence those who disagree with you. Hey but that's just my opinion." Stellarkid (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• "You are of course correct that one can see another's errors more easily than one's own. You accused me of combativeness in your last post, but it was not until you began with the wikilawyer at various boards that I became less willing to WP:AGF. Prior to that, I excused much of what you said on the basis of my assumption that English was not your first language, which made it harder to understand why you were so willing to revert (without comment) material that rested much of its rationale on English grammar, and WP:NONENG and was being amply discussed at TALK. Looking over your edits more closely and listening to you at TALK, I did come to believe that your removals of material were quite one-sided and thus inappropriate. The chart, which covers only a little over a week of edits, does seem to reflect that. Again, I probably would not have been inclined to be looking so closely at your editing behavior, if you hadn't been running off to "Etiquette Boards" making charges against others when you clearly had a "moat" in your own eye!" Stellarkid (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can plainly see, he is not constructive but rather destructive and many of his comments are laced with racist invective. I'm doing my best to ignore him but it is difficult given the fact that he continues to post on my page (despite being told not to), continues to issue complaints against me, continues to revert sourced material and continues to goad and bait me. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

what the options and/or protocols are for putting the original content back after someone has dramatically and inaccurately rewritten a wikipedia article

CAP-e (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The original wikipedia article was dramatically and inaccurately rewritten with the explanation that it was not notable. Clearly it is notable as it describes a unique and published method for determining antioxidant bioavailability. I am having difficulty determining what the options and/or protocols are for rolling back the current article to the original content. --Dcruickshank 99 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor who made the changes explained on the article's Talk page why, in his/her view, the process wasn't notable; and commented that the rewrite was to avoid a nomination for deletion on that ground. At first blush everything appears to have been above board and in good faith. Your first stop in trying to sort out this disagreement would be to review that editor's points and respond to or comment on them there. Good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am in the process of preparing a response, but what next. I mean conceivably we could just go back and forth rebutting each others comments. --Dcruickshank 99 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcruickshank 99 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well - first see what the discussion teases out. It may be that s/he misunderstands the process. It may be that you misunderstand the relevant policies. Or something between. Perhaps you will find agreement - hard to say. Please remember in any case to assume good faith and remain civil, and the discussion will go more smoothly, even if you can't find middle ground. Should that happen - no middle ground that is - and no other editor(s) appear to help break the deadlock, then there are mechanisms for bringing the dispute to a wider audience so that consensus can be reached and the article stabilized. Do take a look at the policies that editor has noted - a good understanding of them will make any response on your part more persuasive. Again, good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again! Although, in addition to responding on the discussion page is there any reason I can`t provide a concise and thorough rewrite of the article on my own.--Dcruickshank 99 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

we cant judge merit bu notability is established from unrelated sources, not self-cites.

There is no rule against it as such but my sense is that at this point it would probably be best to discuss the issues, and any further revisions you want to make, beforehand. You could put your proposed counter-revision onto a page in your user space for comment (although, ever the dilettante, I can't advise on how to do that precisely). You really do want to avoid ping-ponging back and forth between two different versions. JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I would like to add information to the article en.wikipedia.com/wiki/eng-tips.com about how users are frequently blocked from using the website or many people are experiencing difficulties with the website. However, a few people who own the site keep a close eye on Wikipedia and delete any negative comment immediately. Numerous websites confirm that difficulties exist but nothing has been published by a publisher. Is there any way to include this content, such as criticism or controversy? I have seen lots of examples of this on Wikipedia.

Thanks, LG Magone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If no reliable sources have published the information, then no. Such content is not only unverifiable, but would be insignificant even if true. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Doublemoon Content in Wikipedia

Ayhan Sicimoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- example

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is Ezgi Canerli from Doublemoon Records. We have a problem with regards to our pages on Wikipedia English..We have pages of our artists that include their bios. All rights about these bios belong to us, as you can see on our own official web site, we use them in our press kits, web site, rosters everywhere since they are written by our team.

Ayhan Sicimoğlu Bio

But when we use them on wikipedia they are somehow deleted. I dont know how to process with this problem and kindly ask your help since this platform is important for us and keeping editing the deleted articles doesnt make any sense.

Looking forward to your feedback,

--Doublemoon (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Ezgi Canerli

Contact info removed to minimise spam.

Everthing contributed to Wikipedia must be released under the CC-BY-SA licence and the GFDL. It says so right beneath the edit window. IF you choose to retain rights in the material then it obviously is not released as described, so it will be deleted.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for advertising and we require a neutral point of view, not a promotional tone.

Please also see our username policy at WP:USERNAME; you appear to be at risk of breaching that too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as blatant copyright violation. All content is licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license as well as the GFLD, so material that is copyrighted elsewhere (and is not a fair use image) is not allowed on Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tribe: Spin offs and Continuations section

Hello. I am working on The Tribe article and have tried to make it as factual as possible and have added references. I have a disagreement with another editor on a section of the article. User:Lancemitchell added a section about fan productions that has changed name three times since then. I have tried to explain on the talk page why I think the section is problematic and why it needs to be improved and properly referenced but we can’t seem to understand each other. (Talk:Fan Productions and Talk:Spin offs and Continuations) I asked for some feedback on the article and other editors added different templates but User:Lancemitchell removed them. Could you help me in resolving this dispute? Am I wrong in thinking the section needs to be worked on? Thank you. ErisDysnomia (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Loading several images into one page

Example: I'd like to upload different images (of a book cover) unto one Wiki image page.

1. Is it permitted by Wiki rules if it's just a Cover (of a crime let's say) submitted at different times?
2. How do I upload a couple of images unto one page?
3. Please respond on my Talk page at User:Ludvikus.

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image must be uploaded separately, but several images can be displayed in one article. See WP:IG for more info. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Preparing a biographical entry

I have been encouraged, by friends, to prepare a biography. As a senior professor at the Catholic University of America Law School here in Washington, D.C., I have a rather substantial bibliography. Asking people around here at the school for someone whom I could retain to do the submission has landed me nowhere--for, no one seems to understand the process that you have laid out for submitting a biorgraphy. So, I write to ask whether you might be able to suggest the name(s) of people whom I could retain to prepare my submission? Many thanks. (Prof.) George P. Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.148.205 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers who are interested in this type of activity scan the lists at WP:RA, so you could add yourself there, perhaps to the section WP:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law#Jurists, judges, attorneys and legal workers. One of the criteria to be applied is that we require subjects to be notable, and the usual standards for academic people are laid out at WP:PROF. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to reply with a lawyer joke but I think the confusion relates to this being predicated on volunteer contributors without much formal process or review(editorial prior restraint?). Generally if people stick to the topic rather than personal issues it seems bureacracy can be minimized and only in reaction to problems do "formalities" exist. So, I suggest you just get an account and start editing in your own user space ( terms that others can point you to) and solicit feedback from others here as you progress. It isn't clear exactly what bio you are talking about or if you would have a conflict but certainly it is possible for people with experience writing impartial or other non-promotional pieces to write COI entries especially if you solicit additional opinions here. Wikipedia does have a problem with self-promotional pieces but if you have a notable topic as described above, usually these issues can be fixed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Once an article is created the original author no longer has control over its contents and anyone can edit it. You may wish to look at the edit histories and discussion pages of biography articles first to see if you really want an article. There is an article about the Columbus School of Law which provides a link to the School. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

re. invalid neutrality disputed tag

re. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People

An unidentified user or 'Nihonjoe' have tagged the page with a 'neutrality disputed' and 'references needed' tag, saying that he/she was 'just passing through' but actually if you look at the history -they've been doing much more than passing through.

It looks probable that this is a Shell troll trying to undermine the credibility of information against them by just adding a 'neutrality disputed' tag without providing the slightest evidence for why the article fails on NPOV -if you look, it mostly consists of just listed hard historical facts, not opinions of sympathy.

As everyone knows, Shell has one of the worst histories of human rights abuses in poor countries of any major company, and just don't want the facts being published if they can possibly prevent it.

I would like to remove the tags unless the pro-Shell users can provide specific evidence for why the article is biased. Kester ratcliff (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kester, please assume good faith of other editors. Nihonjoe is actually a Wikipedia administrator and somewhat unlikely to be a shill or a troll for Shell. I took a look at the article and I agree with the assessments of Nihonjoe and the IP on the talk page; the article is phrased in a way that presents not only facts, but opinions about those facts. Phrases like "the degradation of their lands by Shell in Nigeria" are not neutral, and the article generally presents the situation only from a point of view that appears to be sympathetic to the MOSOP. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sympathetic to either side in a dispute; we must remain neutral and present only facts and/or well-sourced analyses by reliable sources.

In addition, I would recommend that you not remove any tags from the article, as it appears that you may be emotionally involved in this dispute and may not be able to remain impartial. If you disagree with the tag, the thing to do is generally to discuss it on the article talk page and either try to persuade the people you disagree with that the article is neutral, or work with them to remedy the shortcomings in the article. Accusing people you disagree with of bad faith and of being trolls or biased is unlikely to resolve the dispute. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this but with notable issues, several options exist. Abortion is so large that both sides have their own pages. If there is a controversy, it is likely multiple POV's exist and the goal is to represent them inline with their prominence. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if you haven't, then your suggestion may not be very helpful. This isn't abortion, it's a clear-cut case of an organization active in a field where there are great differences of opinion. Controversy sections should be discouraged, in my opinion, since they often invite sensationalism and recentism. The article can easily be made to be as objective as it needs to be, by careful editing for POV language and by giving proper references. As it stands, the article is not encyclopedic--it is not entirely neutral in perspective and language and needs additional sources to verify the information. The tags are there for the right reason, and they should stay until the issues are resolved, on the talk page for starters. Happy editing, and power to the people, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Prominent Grunge acts

In the Grunge article, I have contested that the supergroups Temple of the Dog and Mad Season do not belong in the "Prominent bands" section in the article, and have listed my argument and facts in support of in the article's respective [page] with little success. Please see my statements in support of my argument on the talk page and advise. Thank you for your help. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On a quick read, this seems to be the same problem what comes up in all taxonomical or catagory debates. In the case of classifying living organisms, or even defining attriubtes of life, you are engaging in original research. I don't see any reason why this would be much different. That is, unless all the authoritative sources in the field have a single list of "porminent groups" they use, you are stuck defining the term in some made-up way either from wikipedia guidelines or colloquial usage. The latter debate can not be settled by appeal to factual material with more precise definition and original research. If you want to use wiki criteria on promience, you end up with things like relative weight of coverage, it isn't so much binary. Personally it seems something like a footnote or explanation or multiple/hierarchial lists may break the stalemate in this "false-dichotomy(" just yes or no please"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to blow up on me. According to JD554 I have gained consensus and have been issued an three-revert rule warning. I'm trying to do the right thing here, but now it seems that I'm on the verge of being reprimanded. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I said there was no consensus (diff). --JD554 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Misread that one, mistook "consensus" as a bad thing, lol. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all a bit silly and has been blown out of proportion. Darwin's Bulldog is the only one pushing for this content removal in the face of long-standing consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone made a list as part of the article, maybe 2 lists, and it doesn't seem there is any established criteria for inclusion. If there are relevant distinctions, then maybe adding details or catagories or levels to the list would help. Sometimes people show up with new detauils to add. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria has long been "bands notable enough to have an article". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add the Rolling Stones. It looks like the Grunge class is the issue. If there is a notable distinction, it would seem to serve the reader to point it out and maybe add a branch to the list or something. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Branch out to what, and what do the stones have to do with the subject matter? No offense, but this isn't making much sense. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK stones have nothing to do with this, earlier poster suggested band with article is all that is needed but dispute seems to be over divisions of grunge. I have no idea how you split this phylum into species and subspecies but species anyway is define generally by ability to produce fertile offspring, if that is any help here(LOL). The OP on this topic seems to have specific reasons those contested entries are different, if they are helpful to topic split list according to some criteria like these. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Koo86 uploads

Koo86 (talk · contribs) has done some fine work improving the Rochester Institute of Technology article, but he/she recently began uploading photos for use in the article. The first one I noticed, I tagged for speedy deletion, as it had no source or license information. Koo86 made no response to this except to remove the image from the article after it was tagged for deletion. None of this user's image uploads have any source or license information, but the user has not edited Wikipedia since my most recent message asking him/her to stop uploading images without source and license. Should I go ahead and tag the rest? If so, is there an easy and/or quick way to do so? Powers ^T 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer on Packers Plus Energy Services Page

The Packers Plus Energy Services page has been rewritten several times to keep it from sounding like an advertisemnt, but the disclaimer is still on the page. How should I rewrite it to keep it neutral?

Egjackson (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The disclaimer doesn't automatically go away. I'd recommend talking to whoever thinks the article has a problem, finding out if they think any problem remains. Once you've got a consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) that the problem has been solved, you or somebody else can remove the disclaimer.

It seems to me like there is still a little bit of a problem. It's not bad, but parts like "created the ... (R) system and the ... (R) system" and "worked in numerous locations including" still sound like somebody trying to tell me how wonderful the company is.

So I'd recommend posting at Talk:Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. (the article's talk page) and User talk:CardinalDan (the talk page for the user who added the disclaimer) to get the discussion going.

I also see another problem in article. A Wikipedia article should reference reliable, third party sources. See WP:RS. That's things like newspaper articles, books, and so on that are independent of Packers Plus (so, not the company website, and not press releases) that were published and that say something significant about the company.

Ideally, every piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be traceable to one or more such sources, which should be cited in the article (see WP:CITE). It doesn't always turn out that way, but, we try.

Having sources also helps establish notability. Notability is what determines whether a subject should, or should not, have a Wikipedia article about it. See WP:NOTE for the details. It's often a problem for new Wikipedia articles.

The article in Oilweek Magazine here that you linked from the original version of the article looks like it might be a usable source.

Also, if you, personally, are affiliated with Packers Plus then you should be aware of the possibility of conflict of interest. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't edit, but you may have to be careful. See WP:COI for an explanation.

I've included links to various Wikipedia policies in my reply above. I hope I don't frighten you into thinking you have to read every one of them. I never have. But they're a good place to look for more information. Others I'll mention: WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:WELCOME. -- Why Not A Duck 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unmerrited Article Merger -- Proposition (Grammar) with Proposition

The Article Proposition (Grammar) which deals with the linguistic use of that term in describing various grammar phenomena has been merged twice today with the overall Proposition article which while also talking about sentences is an article which is primarily about the use of the term in philosophy. My article has NOTHING to do with philosophy and the pages which reference it are linguistic pages and not philosophy pages. To avoid confusion the article is named Proposition (Grammar) because it is about propositions in linguistic analysis of grammar and not philosophical arguments of logic.

I have unmerged it twice and asked on the discussion page that it be left that way pending discussion. This has not happened. Please protect the grammar article until this can be resolved. Drew.ward (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I invite any linguist and grammarian to judge this request on its merits. But let me add that it misrepresents ever so slightly what is going on: editor is trying to draw some absolute distinction between grammar and philosophy, but connecting these two is logic, which he does not mention, and which is in fact takes up a large part of Proposition. "Philosophical arguments of logic" is a vaguerie, and whatever it may denote, it is not what is going on in Proposition. Please see also Talk:Proposition (Grammar). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The page for my company, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCKK, is continually vandalized by an anonymous user. I have tried to block anonymous edits to this page, but the vandalism continues. Any assistance you can provide is greatly appreciated.

KCKKRadio (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Only admins can protect pages, so I have removed the template that you added to the page. I have warned the IP about the vandalism. If it persists you can request protection at WP:RFP. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lend America

For the past two days, I tried to develop Lend America's stub entry since they were featured in the news in connection with a government investigation:

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

However, since English is not my first language, and since this is the first time I am contributing to Wikipedia, I need help with the citations and grammar. Can someone look at these issues? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikobetta (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source, whoever led with that. It would help to start with popular press and back things up with other sources but there is disagreement at this point- I prefer citing primary sources as an aid to reader ( court documents etc) - but it at least has to be something that you can believe as a credible source for whatever you claim. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Made improvements so that entry does not read like advertisement or spam

I recently followed Wikipedia's suggestions and made changes so that this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_College_of_Medicine

would not read like an advertisement or spam. Can you review it and tell me if it's revised enough to have the spam notice at the top of the page removed? If it's not, what else should be changed? Also, what is the process of having such notices removed; do contributors make changes and wait for a review, or make changes and send the revised article to Wikipedia and request a review? Thanks. 128.248.93.114 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) MS

Looks pretty good. Needs a tad of copy editing, and it definitely needs inline citations. Any newspaper articles you could link to? Anything deal with the history of the place? Any big controversies? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a duplicate of College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Belfort spam

A series of editors have attempted to turn [Jordan Belfort] into an advertisement. Attempts to engage the editors in discussion are ignored and a revert war appears imminent. Any suggestions? Splorksplorksplork (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now up to third revert. Have added plea to discuss both on user page of spamming editor and article page in question, no engagement. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)