Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by .

Disputes on Frot with Flyer22

Resolved

– Things seem to have settled on the talk page. Danger (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing about a series of wide raging disputes that I have had with Flyer22 on the Frot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Basically, we disagree on where to place and what to call what is currently called the Comparisons to Anal Sex section of the article. This has all been documented at length on the article's talk page starting here; however, the dispute essentially centers around whether men's motivations and feelings about practicing frot should be considered factual content or perceptions and opinions and listed and labeled accordingly. Flyer22 supports the former, while I support the latter. My primary concern is that the main sources cited at length in the Debates subsection see the act of frot as a way of negotiation gay masculinity and therefore situate it in a network of perceptions about anal sex and its relation to masculinity, effeminacy, monogamy, promiscuity, and AIDS that are beyond the scope of the article.

My secondary concern is that, given my edit history, Flyer22 interprets the bulk of my edits to be supporting an "agenda" and continually claims that I am "hindering the article" or "tampering with the article". While little can be done to actualy alter Flyer22's opinion of my edits, I feel the repeated claims constitute a personal attack as they attack the contribution through the contributor and not the contribution alone.Mijopaalmc (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to wade through the Talk page debate between you and other editor, but it's heavy-going. I'll restrict my comments to two areas: your complaint about "personal attacks" and the article generally.

Flyer's comments are pretty tame as so-called attacks go on Wikipedia. Would it be better if she avoided words like "agenda": In an ideal world, yes, but in the context of the continuing debate, I'd hardly call it an attack.

As for the article, my view is it generally strays too far from the topic of frottage and into the political arena. The issue of the frot advocates and the anal sex defenders is a bit much. The article collapses into a gay political debate with health ramifications being thrown in to spice it up. Some examples of inappropriate material (in my view):

"Gay activist Bill Weintraub, who runs the sites HeroicHomosex.com and Man2manalliance.org, is one of the more vocal frot advocates,and insists frottage is "hotter" because anal sex "cannot give you the same experience as direct genital-on-genital sex."
"However, frot can still transmit other sexually transmitted infections, such as HPV the viruses causing genital herpes and genital warts, either of which can lead to serious health problems." (the last phrase about serious health problems is medical speculation, even if it's true).
"Others who enjoy anal sex argue that gay men who dislike anal nonetheless have an obligation to defend the practice against purely homophobic attacks, especially so long as sodomy laws continue to be enforced in many countries." This sentence is in the Debates section, almost all of which I think should go.

The article should concentrate on a description of the sexual practice, its history, and how it's practiced. Also, any relation to other animals (no matter how amusing). The rest of it should either go or be summarized in a very brief section. It would be a topic for another article, or a redirect to another article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to wade through the wall-of-text that is the Frot talk page. While I understand that Flyer22's comments about my having an "agenda" that "hinders the article" or "tampering with the article" are very tame, I still feel that it obstructs consensus on the article, because it focuses on me as an editor rather than my edits themselves and poisons the well against me for other editors. Given the above, I called it a "personal attack" because WP:PA is summarized as "[c]omment on the content, not on the contributor]]. It may have been a tad hyperbolic, but it seems an appropriate short-hand.

As for you concerns about the article itself, the second one is actually factual, but it illustrates the difference between fact and perception-opinion that I feel pervades the Debates section. In particular, the CDC mentions:

Genital ulcer diseases include genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid. These diseases are transmitted primarily through “skin-to-skin” contact from sores/ulcers or infected skin that looks normal. HPV infections are transmitted through contact with infected genital skin or mucosal surfaces/secretions. Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infection can occur in male or female genital areas that are covered (protected by the condom) as well as those areas that are not.[1]

It is therefore a fact that both HPV and HSV can be transmitted through frot. However, to go from facts about disease transmission to value judgments about sex acts is a statement of opinion based on a perception of what an acceptable relative risk is. The problem with the Debate section is that it is rife with such transformations of fact into opinion. In fact, the central issue that the Debates section discusses arises from the transfer of fact about the insertion of the penis in to the vagina or anus during sexual intercourse to perception-opinions about gender roles during intercourse and their translation to gender expression outside of intercourse and to interpersonal, sexual relationships. In particular, the frot advocates cited in the Debates section based their opinion of "analists[2]" or "gAys[3]" on the perception that a man who is anally penetrated is treating his anus like a vagina[4][5] and therefore becomes a effeminate and promiscuous "pussy boy[6]" or "man-khunt[7]". Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved section

The placement and content of the Debates subsection of the Comparison to anal sex section of the Frot article has been discussed at great length on the Frot talk page. While the current placement of the subsection is a compromise, I still question that general relevance of the subsection to the article. For instance, the general notability of the movements that provide the bulk of the source material for the Debates section has been questioned by the editor who maintains that the Debates section relevant to the article, when it was proposed that the Debates section be split off into separate articles, so I question the notability of the opinions themselves. Moreover, an editor on the Anal sex article has mentioned that the "frot vs anal sex" dichotomy gives undue weight to frot in the Anal sex article, which consequently lead to the rewording of the paragraph containing the information on frot in both the Anal sex article and the Frot article, so I question why the elaboration of opinions of questionable notability in the Debates subsection does not also give undue weight to those very opinions.

My edits and comments expressing concern about the general tenor of the Debates subsection and its appropriateness to the article have been met with suspicion and hostility on the part of the regular editors of the article, so I wondering if I could get several fresh pair of eyes to look at the article. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mijopaalmc tried to engage the community in a discussion above about this article. The last thing I said in the above section was to ask for other editors' comments, but, unfortunately, no one responded. I've looked at the Debates section in the article more closely, and my biggest problem with it is its citation to what, in other articles, would probably not be considered reliable sources. For example, one source, which is cited SIX times in the article is a fluff-opinion piece from Out magazine ([8]). A good example of the tone of the magazine article is the phrase, "but when talking with our friends about our sex lives". Yet, this type of article is used to support various assertions, including the opening sentence of the section: "A charge often leveled against male/male anal sex by frot advocates is that in comparison to the "equality of frot," anal sex tends to introduce a "non-equal" dimension to sex (i.e., one man is the "top" and the other is the "bottom")." Another source, used twice in this section and three times in the article ([9]), is a so-called "policy paper", an "essay" about anal sex that is clearly an opinion piece.

Part of the problem is the overall article itself because I'm not sure what it is supposed to be, a scientific article about frottage, a scientific article about health issues, a political article about gay sex? All of the above? Even articles like this should be held to the same standard as other, less controversial articles on Wikipedia.

Again, I'd really like to hear what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied above as well, and do not see why another section was started (other than urgency for support) when the above section covers all of this. Short note is: I and others disagree with Mijopaalmc. The discussion he mentions at the Anal sex article shows me proving an editor wrong and then us compromising. That editor also said that the in-depth information regarding frot vs. anal sex should be in the Frot article...as the word "frot" has a lot more to do with the debate. And as for the sources, Out (magazine) or its website qualify as a WP:Reliable source. And as a reliable source on gay topics, it is quite appropriate to use for gay men's opinions about why they do not engage in anal sex. It is not as though it is only one gay male speaking for all gay men (and men who have sex with men in general). It encompasses some gay men's views about the practice of anal sex, by their own admission. Are we expecting scientific sources for gay men's opinions as to why they don't engage in anal sex or choose frot over anal sex? Only scientific or otherwise academic sources can be used, really? As for man2manalliance.org, I did not add that source to the article. I only moved it around to what it actually supports. I have expressed concerns about those sources (the frot advocate websites) as well, in the past on the talk page, and have recently removed some from the Debates section...along with their POV. And, yes, the Frot article is "all of the above"; nothing wrong with that. In fact, the three main sex articles -- Sexual intercourse, Anal sex, and Oral sex -- articles which I have either fixed up or partially fixed up, are "all of the above" just like that. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, I merged the two sections (your speculation as to why two sections were started is probably spot on) to keep this all in one place. Not perfectly linear, but it was the best that could be done to keep the dialogues together and approximately chronological. I don't think I've lost any of your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming initial section

Without responding to Mijopaalmc's most recent comments, I'd like to hear from other editors about the article overall. Obviously, if the Debates section - or at least most of the content of the Debates section - shouldn't be in the article in the first place, that would moot at least some of Mijopaalmc's concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mijopaalmc, the least you could have done is let me know that you started this discussion, so that I could have weighed in too. Doing this, reporting without alerting me of the discussion, is sneaky, I feel, and more reason that I do not trust most of your edits on the article. I still do not understand your problem with the views, other than that these views are expressed in the article. You act as though you are okay with the titles and then come here and complain about it? There is no need to have the word "Perceptions" in any title of the article. It is clear that these are the perceptions of men who have sex with men (MSM). You get all bent out of shape just because these men state health effects associated with anal sex, or how they feel about masculinity associated with anal sex. Well, that is the reason some MSM do not engage in anal sex, which should be mentioned in the article. I even made the masculinity issue more neutral by providing information from experts that a sex position/role among MSM is not necessarily indicative of one's masculinity or lack there of. These are MSM's opinions about frot and anal sex, and it is clear that these are their opinions. The title Comparison to anal sex is neutral, and has neutral subheadings (Preferences and Debates). Furthermore, two editors have agreed with my edits...feeling that I have actually improved the article.

And, Bbb23, thank you for weighing in. I do not feel that "the issue of the frot advocates and the anal sex defenders is a bit much." Choosing frot has largely been about an aversion to anal sex, and a lot of the time is about a preference for it over anal sex. It is not all or even mostly political. It's mostly about preferences, and the debates in relation to those preferences. The article does concentrate on a description of the sexual practice, its history, and how it's practiced; it just so happens that the sexual practice has a lot to do with preference for it over anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the Comparison to anal sex section, which includes the Preferences and Debates subsections, should be eliminated or drastically reduced. Much of it is political, many of the sources are from political advocates, and many of the sources would not be permitted in another article as they do not qualify as reliable. Your view, Flyer, that "the sexual practice has a lot to do with preference for it over anal sex" may have some validity, but mostly it is an outgrowth of the contraction of HIV. In any event, to permit literally a debate of the two sides to remain in the article makes no sense. Frot is not a political phenomenon but a sexual practice. If you want to do a short comparison between it and other sexual practices, fine. The rest opens up an inappropriate can of worms.

I should add that I don't necessarily agree with Mijopaalmc that the section is POV. Whether it's precisely balanced, if such a thing is possible, it's hard to say, but my objections to the section are on other grounds (as above).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the Comparison to anal sex section, which includes the Preferences and Debates subsections, should be eliminated or drastically reduced. Most of what is in the Preferences section is not political, and all the sources I added pass WP:Reliable sources. I am not understanding where you are drawing the conclusion that most of the information in total is political. Political about what? HIV/AIDS awareness? There is brief mention of that. Generally, the sections are about why some men who have sex with men prefer frot over anal sex and why. Why should there not be a section specifically about that? It is not my view that the sexual practice of frot has a lot to do with the preference for it over anal sex; it is evident through the reliable sources I added. This is also why the article has covered it for so long, and the talk page (past and recent discussions) is littered with the very topic. You may be thinking of frot as just the male-male practice of frottage, and, yes, the article is clear that it is about that as well, but the term "frot," at least by gay males, originated to specifically disparage anal sex. This is why a well-sourced section about frot vs. anal should be in the article (not to mention because some men actually do prefer it to anal sex for all the reasons mentioned in the Preferences section). The Anal sex article touches on it as well, with agreement on the talk page there that only a bit should be covered in that article...while the Frot article should cover the in-depth material on it. The term "frot" is also why Mijopaalmc tried to get the article title changed, and to have the article merged. Mijopaalmc feels that the term "frot" specifically signifies an anti-anal POV. And Mijopaalmc is right that "frot" has a lot to do with disparaging anal sex, from what I have read anyway. All I did was fix up a section that debated these stances, added reliable sources to it and made it worth something that should be mentioned in the article. Three editors agree with me regarding these edits, one even awarding me a barnstar. As for the unreliable sources (the frot advocate websites), I did not add those, and have recently removed them from the Debates section, along with their POV. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the article states: "The term "frot" was originally popularized by gay male activists who disparaged the practice of anal sex." There is no citation in the lead, and I see little support for it in the body of the article. Indeed, in the Debates section, the article states: "Others have at times disparaged frottage as a makeshift, second-rate form of male/male intimacy — something better left to inexperienced teenagers and "closeted" older men." The citation for that assertion is an article from Out magazine, which states a claim by a sex columnist that he "coined" the word "frot" because he thought that "frottage" meant any kind of "erotic rubbing", whereas "frot" "is always phallus-to-phallus sex." So, the entire thrust of the article appears to be based on an unsourced (even contradicted) premise.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was recently put into the lead, per this discussion: Talk:Frot#Should "often signifying de-emphasis on anal sex" be added to lede graf?. The infomation is delved into further in the Concept and etymology section, but the information is attributed to Bill Weintraub. This has been the biggest issue with the article -- the fact that "frot" has a lot to do with him; the term, not the act of male-male frottage. The columnist of the Out magazine source you cited is not claiming to have coined "frot." Bill Weintraub is. If the term "frot" comes up, Bill Weintraub is there being interviewed...and by reliable sources, such as this and this. These reliable sources were missing before I added them, and everything he stated was only attributed to his own websites. But as can be seen from the sources, he has gotten some attention from the gay media. Also seen in those sources is his stance on anal sex, which is also attributed to the men who take part in his websites. This, and men who simply prefer frottage to anal sex, is why I state that the term "frot" is not just about the practice of frottage and has a lot to do with anal sex, and why Mijopaalmc tried to get the article moved or merged (see Talk:Frot#Rename page "Frottage" and Talk:Frot#Is the term "Frot" POV?). I have extensively agreed with Mijopaalmc that the term "frot" is not notable outside of Weintraub and his followers (see Talk:Frot#Terms/synonyms for Frot), but the practice of male to male genital rubbing is. This has been the main issue with the article all along, whether the article should even exist under the title of Frot. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination). Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you two come and discuss the article on the talk page? Mijopaalmc (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with discussing on the talk page, Mijopaalmc, of course. I was just answering Bbb23 here. What I don't understand is why no one from the LGBT WikiProject will weigh in on the article when we post something about it there. Heck, I don't understand why we hardly ever get any assistance in working out the issues regarding that article. I mean, I know it's not a highly-watched article, but when we go to places like RfC, you would think at least one outside editor would weigh in. Then again, RfC, and asking people of relevant WikiProjects to weigh in, hasn't been working that well in regards to any article I've been at these days.

My plan to balance out the Debates section, as I stated before, is to add more pro-anal sex information to it. To me, that is all it needs. I just haven't been able to find a lot of pro-anal sex information in regards to gay males/MSM...either on Google Books or Google Scholar. Every time I type in "gay males and anal sex" or some variation of that, I get information that not all gay males engage in anal sex, and some of the same information that is already in the Frot article. I wonder if I'll have to go to a local library or something to gather some pro-anal sex information for gay males/MSMs. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack; slander; unwillingness to discuss; requested citation deemed frivolous.

Answered

– Requester directed to other resources; this is too wide a conflict for this board. Danger (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has called me a "known POV pusher" , "who has been banned before" (I have not been banned, nor am I a POV pusher, known or otherwise) I have attempted to discusss the article's content rationally but this editor (after I have requested 3 years ago that the editor refrain from attacking me on my talk page) The issue is over an unsourced assertion of fact, which the editor in question refuses to acknowledge, dismissing the request as if it were frivolity to request a cite for the assertion as fact.

I have at all times been unable to get a rational response from this editor, and since this has recurred 3 years after it first happened, this has ceased to be a case wherein it is possible to assume good faith. I consider this behavior to be chronic, rather than anomalous. Editor in question maintains a single-purpose account for the purpose of owning a single article. User:Pedant (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps other editors can figure out what you're saying and what it is you want, but I can't. You accuse another editor of calling you things, that the other editor has a single-purpose account, and that the problems with this editor began three years ago, yet you notably do not identify the editor or point to any of the pages that support the other editor's supposed remarks. Perhaps in another context this would be easier to figure out, but this in the context of a controversial article and your Talk page, which is one long battle (and doesn't have any of the quoted remarks in it). And even assuming you identified the editor, what do you seek on this forum? Do you want the editor blocked? Sanctioned in some other way? This isn't the forum for that kind of relief.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be the editor where Pedant's reply was "Do not bugger sheep.". I'd advise not making such comments. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that unfortunate comment, but I couldn't find any evidence of that editor making the kinds of comments Pedant is accusing someone of.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was in response to being told not to do something I don't do haven't done and never intended to do. It was an analogy, to advise Tarage not to bugger sheep, something I believe he has never done or intended to do. It was on my talk page where I reserve the right to employ more flamboyant speech than is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and particularly do not intend to be civil to someone engaging in a 3-year-long grudge against me since making similar forays against me and being rebuffed here. The editor, Tarage seems unable to or unwilling to understand that all assertions of fact, challenged or likely to be challenged need references, or are subject to removal. I requested a reference over a year ago for the assertion that 'hijackers intentionally flew the planes into the towers' (the word intentionally is the one in question) the only sources provided as references are quotes of the same text, but no source is given in the reference, so the reference is in effect a primary source. User:Pedant (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am being attacked by the same author I banned from using my talk page years ago, and he's got some help from another admin, both of them making threats against me to frivolously impose sanctions on me without regard to process. User:Pedant (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack in question: "The person who added it is a known POV pusher who has been banned before for it. Ignore, move on. --Tarage (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)". This statement contains two false allegations. User:Pedant (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to what I am seeking, I want to edit Wikipedia without being slandered or threatened. I want references for assertions of fact that have been or are likely to be challenged. I'd like references to be verifiable references from reliable 3rd party sources. I was threatened by Beeblebrox with sanctions if I do not employ 'formal dispute resolution processes. I have been through the stages of dispute resolution to this point assume good faith; calm civil discussion; leaving a good edit summary for edits likely to be questioned; making small edits; attempting to reach consensus through discussion ... at this point the process fails in a flurry of "everyone knows it's intentional and no need for a cite"-type remarks; and threats of banning me for disruptive behavior, accompanied by stern warnings to engage in a more formal DR process. I hate to waste the time of other editors on one more bit of process, especially since the applicable consensus guideline is so clear, there is only one appropriate avenue available to a good editor: remove the assertion or provide a quality reference, from a reliable third party source. The policy is being ignored and I am being attacked for suggesting that we adhere to it. I am here asking for help because I have been threatened by User:Beeblebrox that not to do so will result in my being banned. Any more details you need to work on this? User:Pedant (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, thanks, Doug was right. For anyone who is interested, the comment is here. So, now you've identified the editor and the comment (putting aside your references to "another admin" - Tarage is not an admin, and you don't identify the admin, although I have a fairly good idea who you mean), what is it you want?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The admin is Beeblebrox. I assume he's an admin, since he's threatened me with sanctions. So the dispute is "I challenge an assertion of fact and maintain that all assertions of fact need references, if they are challenged or likely to be challenged. I have been described by Tarage as a 'known POV pusher' and Tarage says I have been 'banned for it' before. Both statements are untrue. I am being threatened with sanctions without being told what my 'crime' is. This has escalated from a single word edit, to attempted discussion, which was met with uncivil behavior and ridicule. No substantive discussion has ocurred. I bring the subject up and Beeblebrox closes it with unresolved questions still pending, stating that the discussion has finished." I would like some help resolving this dispute and eliminating the unwarranted personal attacks and persecutory behavior from both Tarage and Beeblebrox. If possible, I would like Tarage to be banned from editing the 911 attack articles, since he maintains a single purpose account which he is using to WP:OWN and control the content of one single article. He has been disruptive to all attempts at rational discussion on this subject, for over 3 years. User:Pedant (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is beyond the scope of this board.. I'd try suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or WP:ANI. Rehevkor ✉ 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 –SJ + 19:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future it would be nice to notify me when I am being talked about. Otherwise it's all taking place behind my back. --Tarage (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for me too. I never said I would have you banned, I said you may be subject to sanctions as permitted by the ArbCom decision on 9/11 articles. I will repeat that for the billionth time here: Pursue proper channels of dispute resolution, or let it go. Ignore that advice and you can expect to be sanctioned. I also suspect this entire affair is far outside the intended scope of this page. You're not asking for assistance, you're asking that another user be subject to a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on a title of an article

Answered

– Danger (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

My name is Arnaud Masson deputy project scientist of the Cluster mission at the European Space Agency. There are two articles on wikipedia in English related to the European Space Agency/NASA Cluster mission.

One is "Cluster mission", the other one is "Cluster (spacecraft)". However, the Cluster mission article redirects to Cluster (spacecraft) one.

This does not make sense, I strongly suggest to do it the other way round. Namely that the "Cluster (spacecraft)" being redirected to the "Cluster mission" article.

I tried to do that but didn't do it the right way and don't know how to do it.

Thanks to help me out.

Dr. Arnaud Masson Deputy project scientist of the Cluster mission European Space Agency ^{[details removed]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masson75 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article names with something added in parentheses are very common in Wikipedia for disambiguation. The page history [10] shows that Cluster mission was moved to Cluster (spacecraft) per WP:SPACENAME. If you disagree with the move then you can request a new move. See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Never make a cut-and-paste move. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your email addressto protect your privacy -- John of Reading (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed with Banana Equivalent Dose

Stale

– Request unclear. Danger (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to have some savvy help with dispute resolution at Banana Equivalent Dose. There is some disagreement among editors as to the content of the article and placement of some of that content within the article. This is being worked out in the Discussion section, but I believe we may also be having some trouble with Disruptive Editing and/or a Sockpuppet which is making resolution needlessly difficult. Being a fairly new editor who is still learning the ropes, I'm having trouble finding and applying appropriate Wikipedia policies that can be applied to this situation. Thanks in advance. Belchfire (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you haven't had more of a response for a couple of reasons. First, you aren't really specific about the problems. I looked at the article and can imagine you are complaining about issues of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE etc, but am not sure. Also, this is highly technical material which not all of us are competent to deal with (I am not). You may find people at the Fringe noticeboard who have more useful knowledge on this kind of issue. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article about the author Aleksandar Obradovic

Answered

– Danger (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Aleksandar_Obradovic]

Dear colleagues, a few weeks ago I wrote an article about a writer and painter Aleksandar Obradovic and put it on your portal to be reviewed from one of the administrators. Cause I didn't knew the conditions necessary for publication of articles, I repeatedly changed the article, but after the precise instructions that I received from the administrator named Chzz, I have attempted to set and credible source of information or a link after each data. So, after the date of birth, I put a link to the municipality in which the author was born and where you can check the information, after the information about his studies - the link to faculty where he studied, after the data about his first employment - link to the company Radio Television Sarajevo and after citing the published book - ISBN numbers and a link to the National Library of Serbia, where it is possible to check the information etc. You must bear in mind that all these sources are not on the technological level as in America, so if you want to prove some of information, it is necessary to contact the institution by phone or by mail. In the countries of former Yugoslavia is not possible to establish another form of data verification, because the computer system is still based on undeveloped technology. Newspaper articles from the past can not be obtained through web pages or internet. Few days ago I spoke with Aleksandar Obradovic and I wrote the information about his activities in Sarajevo, Frankfurt and Munich. If I, for example, cite the fact that the author worked as a cook in Frankfurt and at the same time as a source of reference I list an address and telephone number of the restaurant "Schwarzwald Cafe, " that means that the restaurant doesn't have its own web page and that the only way to verify information is via phone call. At the end of this letter I want to say that for such an article don't exist another credible sources of information and if you want to have as a collaborator somebody who has over twenty years of journalistic experience, you should give a little more detailed look at the mentioned article and accept my arguments about data sources. Yours sincerely Nobelovac (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our reliable source rules for a better understanding of what can be used in Wikipedia. Articles cannot be based on your personal knowledge or on interviews with the subject, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. They can, however, be based on foreign language and off-line sources, so the fact that Yugoslavian newspapers don't have websites is not really an obstacle. References must be in-line, after each statement, using ref tags. Click edit to see how I did this ^[1], or see WP:REF. The "reflist" tag is then placed at the bottom of the article and your footnotes automatically show up under it as a result (you don't need to type them there as you apparently did in the revised article). I also note we already have a bio for someone named Aleksandar Obradovic who seems to be unrelated to your subject, so if your article is moved to article space it will need to be named something like "Aleksandar Obradovic (author)" to differentiate it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to edit but it disappears after some time

Answered

– Danger (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

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

I am trying to edit the page of Hubli(Industrial & Business development paragraph). We need to add our companies name (It is established in 1978 and which is India's no. 1 company www.basantbetons.com) 'Basant Floorings Pvt Ltd' in your listings and 'high quality concrete products mainly for landscaped areas'. I am able to edit but it disappears after some time.

Paragraph after editing will read as below:

Hubli is a developing industrial hub in Karnataka after Bangalore, with more than 1000 allied small and medium industries already established basically located in Gokul Road[4] & Tarihal[5] regions of Hubli. There are machine tools industries, electrical, steel furnitures, food products, rubber,leather industries,tanning industries and high quality concrete products mainly for landscaped areas. With the establishment of K.E.C, Bhoruka textile Mill, Universal Group of Industries, Microfinish Group, Apace Life Sciences, N.G.E.F, K.M.F, BDK Group of Industries[6],Murudeshwar Ceramics[7][8],Basant Floorings Pvt ltd. It has gathered momentum in industrial development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.115.243 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappearing because someone is removing it, likely because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a business directory or a place to advertise companies. See the guidelines on conflict of interest, external linking and neutral point of view for details. - MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbut V' Torah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stale

– Time heals all wounds? Danger (talk)

Please see this edit.
An SPA is reverting the article back to "his" version and remaining silent to requests for discussion both on the article talk page and on the user talk page. I'm tried requesting that this user be blocked until some discussion can be had as to the nature of the edits and concerns I raised on the talk page (POV, ADVERT, WEBHOST, OWN). For some reason my request was dropped from the RPP page so I may have posted in the wrong place. Perhaps someone can help me out with proceeding. For the moment I have not reverted his edit again so as to avoid warring. Thank you. Joe407 (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Defence League

Answered

– Danger (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the description is fully sourced. If you still feel it is wrong, then the place for such discussion is Talk:English Defence League. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Petesm has engaged in an edit warring procedure because he does not like what he reads and which has been the subject of a general consensus in the talk page for some time. The fact that what he doesn't like is correctly cited does not seem to bother him. Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

I was recently blocked for 24 h because of my posting on another user's (LedRush) talk page without his consent; furthermore, I was recommended to act "as if he didn't exist" in the future (this recommendation by the administrator who blocked me, the whole thing punitive rather than preventive). We were in dispute on the Led Zeppelin talk page, and now, after my block has expired, and after I wanted to contribute to the same discussion, he keeps bringing up the dead issues we had, in a condescending discourse, reminding me of my block, both on the article's and my own talk page. He has done the following: he thinks I should stay away from the entire Led Zeppelin article because he thinks that it is synonymous with staying away from him; he makes up theories about why I post, believing I have a hidden agenda; he deletes posts I make on the talk page; he repeatedly posts on my talk page, both before and now after my initial block, imploring me to stay civil and stop attacks I haven't made. I have repeatedly told him to stay away from my talk page because I don't want anything to do with him. I have also reminded him several times that he keeps bringing up a dead issue. I feel that I have been mistreated and that he grants himself too much freedom with what he can accuse me of because of his better orientation with WP policy and regulation. Revan (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious how new sections keep getting added and dealt with while mine remains uncommented on. Revan (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your queries have been answered on the article talk page. Your own incivility doesn't seem to be helping matters. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insert weblinks for John M.Florescu page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I sent you a while ago a message regarding to add some links to complete the page for John M. Florescu - executive producer. If I send you the links to the materials- articles are you willing to add them as references ?

Thank you, Wait for an answer from you, Dana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana83art (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article certainly needs more references. You can either add them to the article yourself (see WP:CITE for instructions), or dump them at the bottom of the article's talk page, which is Talk:John M. Florescu, for other editors to see.

Your use of the word "you" makes it look as if you think Wikipedia has some kind of editorial board, but in fact there are only volunteer editors - and you are one of them. So I can't promise that anyone will get round to improving the article if you don't do it. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the wikipedia page

Hello,

Regarding the previous message that I have send it to you - for example if I send you links, as this one, for example :

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/40103250.html?FMT=ABS&date=Mar 29, 1999

are you willing to make the connection to the link, please, for the readers ?

Thank you, Wish you a beautiful day, Wait for your answer, Dana Gliga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana83art (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous answer. (And yes, thank you, it's a beautiful day here in sunny Reading) -- John of Reading (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Spring" appropriateness

I've felt for awhile that it would be useful to create a page listing the times that the term "spring" is used in a political context to referred to a period of political liberalization, ie, Prague Spring, Beijing Spring etc. I added these events onto the Spring (disambiguation) page but another user removed it saying, quite rightly, that no one searching for just the word "spring" would be interested in all of this. I just created a new article, Spring (political liberalization) which at this moment is merely the same listing of events I had put on the disamg page.

However, I am not quite sure if the article as it currently exist meets Wikipedia standards. I've just been upgraded to a Wikipedia:Autopatrolled status and do not want to jeopardize it by adding a non-encyclopedic article. Where should I put this listing? Combine into another article? Create a "spring" category? Open to suggestions.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me to lean towards original research, with a side order of WP:DICDEF. If no reliable source has written about the trope of "PLACENAME Spring", then it's probably WP:TOOSOON. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more to me like a list of particular usages at a notable intersection. If the sources didn't all use the word "Spring" it would be original research. A one para article which simply says that "(Placename) spring means a political liberalization" would be a dictionary definition. Since this is is a list pointing to articles with historical/political content we solve that. I think its a useful list and would keep it as is. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did take the time to find sources for the use of "spring" in some of the more obscure cases, but thought that would be inappropriate in the original disamb page. I could add them now, but first i want o make sure the article is encyclopedic and won't be deleted soon. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are onto a list that is useful. You probably should consider having "List of" in the title or move the article to Spring (political term).(political term) The page is not clear as to what "political liberalization" means. Are the movements trying to liberate people from existing powers? Also, the page needs some context as to why "spring" is attached to other terms to create such political terms. Is it about movements against existing powers that have finally experienced a season of growth? Is it that they are moving forward by leaps and bounds against existing powers? Is the event so named because the movement against existing powers has returned to its original position after being pushed or pulled or pressed? Does it mean that the movements against existing powers finally developed into a distinctive entity? Are the movements acting like a natural flow of ground water to nurish the people in the face of existing powers? Does it mean that these movements finally are bouncing back after being pressed for so long? Does it mean the movements unexpectedly and suddenly have sprung into action against existing powers? Someone somewhere must have a writting on the topic and you might want to search Google books.political term spring In the mean time, you can find more such spring articles by looking through this search. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NEWTON-IN-BOWLAND AND SLAIDBURN PAGES: POSTING OF FALSE INFORMATION

We have a problem with these two pages. Dr Martin Cawley (Neautone), an American citizen, has recently purchased what he believes to be the "manor" of Newton-in-Bowland, Lancashire from a company called Manorial Auctioneers. Unfortunately, for Dr Cawley, the "manor" does not exist. All manorial rights relating to Newton-in-Bowland were subsumed into the Manor & Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton after 1399. The Manor of Slaidburn was bought by the Assheton family out of the Second Schedule of the 1885 Towneley Estates Act in 1950. The current Lord of the Manor and Liberty of Slaidburn, West Bradford and Grindleton is Thomas Assheton, nephew of the second Baron Clitheroe. Mr Assheton owns the manorial rights relating to Newton-in-Bowland.

This can be proved by reference to HM Land Registry documents from 1950, 1977, 2003 - copies of which are held by Ingham & Yorke, land agents to the Clitheroes. The claim made by statutory declaration upon the "manor" of Newton by Lord O'Hagan and his agent Manorial Auctioneers is a false one and the sale to Dr Cawley was invalid. Dr Cawley is a victim here but unfortunately, refuses to accept the facts. He will not look at the evidence or engage with the experts in the area.

Dr Cawley is repeatedly amending the Newton-in-Bowland and Slaidburn pages to demonstrate that he is "Lord of Newton". This is a misrepresentation and cannot be allowed to stand.

For the record, I have no relationship with the Assheton family. I am an academic and a historian of Bowland based at the University of Cambridge. I co-authored the definitive history of manorial Bowland with local historian CJ Spencer in 2010.

I need help to protect the integrity of the pages for Newton-in-Bowland and Slaidburn.

Manorial (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one quick note. Remember to link that pages you are asking help for: Newton-in-Bowland and Slaidburn. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Pinto - Assistance

Answered

– Article getting eyes now. Danger (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. Need assistance from curious non interested parties.

The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ?

Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news was discussed at some length on the article's Talk page (including your comments), and a consensus was reached as to what should be added to the article, and it was then added, along with a citation to The Jewish Daily Forward you mention. It's problematic that you post your message here as if none of this happened. You apparently just disagree with the consensus. Happens to all of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a little forum-shopping going on here. Versions of the above request have been posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, an RfC, and on four different user talk pages (all today).

Request for Confirmation

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is is possible that one of you hear can confirm my name so that I can upload images to Wikipedia? If so that would be very helpful Michael Power 2011Michael Power 2011 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela Power 2011 (talk • contribs)

Handling it at user's talk page. Amalthea 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New concept with no references

I developed a new concept concerning authors. Can I submit an article describing what it is and who practices it? I am the originator of the concept, so there are no other references available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharoncjenkins (talk • contribs) 01:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:OR. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:N and WP:COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want the full details and pictures of RAF Dhubalia during Second World War

Answered

– Astray. Danger (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want the full details and pictures of RAF Dhubalia during Second World War. Please send this to my email --redacted-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aritrac4 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.9 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Danger (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice on COI and self-promotion issue with Mudflap article

I'm fairly new to Wiki (and I apologize in advance for posting from an IP), but I somehow ended up on Seaphoto's user talk page and then wandered over to the Mudflap article and tried to help it, but the user Avgjoejohn316 is having some problems with COI and self-promotion issues and keeps putting what I would say is irrelevant and frankly false information in the article. Seaphoto got on this first and has posted on User_talk:Avgjoejohn316 as have I (along with the article's talk page and Seahoto's talk page), in an effort to resolve the problem, but seemingly to little effect. We've tried to explain the issues and I've tried to post evidence to refute Avgjoejohn's claims, but he just keeps on going. :)

I don't really know what to do at this point, and don't want to get into further reverts, so I thought I'd look for some advice. Could you look at the article and talk postings and see what you think? Thanks. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just removing misposted text from below request... 96.238.148.17 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just have to see how this plays out. Not much has happened on this today, as far as I can tell, so let's keep an eye on the situation. Danger (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of Victor "Transport" Maghakian from the list of Historically Notable Marines.

Answered

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted several times to include Victor "Transport" Maghakian on the list of Historically Notable Marines. However, it is being removed without clear or neutral explanation as to why.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historically_notable_United_States_Marines Victor Maghakian (aka Ear Banger Maghakian) is the first Marine ever in history to have his blood shed by a Japanese sword in China long before the commencement of WWII. He is also one of the most decorated Marines in WWII history and one of the first of the Carlson Raiders. The United States even made a movie about him called Gung-Ho! Tashjian, James H. The Armenian American in World War II. Boston: Harenik Association, 1952, p. 34-43. Apparently, the Marine Corps wants to exclude him on the list because of these historical factors to include his last name. This cannot be tolerated as it violates the neutrality requirements of Wikipedia. Monte Melkonian (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below reply at #Exclusion of Harry "K-Barr" Kizirian from the list of Historically Notable Marines. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You state see below, however, you have deleted the inquiry. Why have you done that? Is it because his name ends in IAN? Semper Fi Macbeth.Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted anything. The link I made #Exclusion of Harry "K-Barr" Kizirian from the list of Historically Notable Marines. goes right to your similar post below and my reply to it. I didn't want to repeat the same reply here. Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith and stop with your conspiracy nonsense. Nobody is out to get people with Armenian names ot whatever you are hinting at. You appear to have strong feelings about Armenians but try to keep objective. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5W Public Relations

5W Public Relations users are violating previous talk discussions and agreements for years of many users and making vandalism and inaccurate edits. Please assist. Need eyeballs and fair users. Emetemet13 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that request, but for different reasons. The article bounces back and forth between a crap promotional piece posted by SPAs, and a controversial slam job. It would be nice to have some neutral editors take a look. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive for some relevant history of the sockpuppetry and other shenanigans relating to this and other pages. RolandR (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of Harry "K-Barr" Kizirian from the list of Historically Notable Marines.

Answered

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted several times to include Harry "K-Barr" Kizirian on the list of Historically Notable Marines. However, it is being removed without clear or neutral explanation as to why.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historically_notable_United_States_Marines Harry is the first Marine ever in history to have the Marine Corps bayonet named after him the "K-Barr." He is also one of the most decorated Marines in WWII history and one of the first Marines ever to be awarded the Rhode Island Cross for valor. Tashjian, James H. The Armenian American in World War II. Boston: Harenik Association, 1952, p. 108-113.Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Apparently, the Marine Corps wants to exclude him on the list because of these historical factors and because of his last name. This cannot be tolerated as it violates the neutrality requirements of Wikipedia. Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to start an article on him first. An established article would make it easier to show that he belongs on the list. GB fan (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are jumping to conclusions because you don't yet know how Wikipedia operates. Many lists in Wikipedia are mainly or only intended for subjects which already have their own Wikipedia article. The list can link to the article and most details about the subject can be mentioned in the article and omitted from the list. For example, Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller has a detailed article at Chesty Puller. List of historically notable United States Marines formerly had a few red links (meaning entries without their own article) but they were recently removed. The people you want to add to the list don't appear to have their own article. Victor "Transport" Maghakian and Harry "The Killer" Kizirian, or any variation of their names, are currenly red links. You are welcome to write such articles if they satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). See Wikipedia:Your first article. After creating articles, you can add the subjects to the list with a link to their article. Wikipedia editors are volunteers from around the world and there may not be others currently willing to put in the work to write articles about these people. That does not by itself imply they are considered non-notable (as in Wikipedia:Notability (people)) by Wikipedia. If an article is created but later deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability (people) then it may be a sign they are not considered notable. Anybody can edit Wikipedia. Somebody editing articles about the United States Marine Corps or other topics may or may not have any affiliation with it. If they do then they should watch out for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I understand it, you have not included these Marines because they don't have their own articles. That is extremely disturbing as an American. Why hasn't the Marine Corps done articles for these individuals as they did for some other Marines like Chesty? Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Since you are a volunteer, why haven't you done an article on these extremely notable Marines? What is the problem? Based on these, why shouldn't sharpen my K-Barr? Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Marine Corps has created articles for any Marine? The articles on those Marines were probably started by someone interested in the person, probably not by the Corps itself. Since we are all volunteers, we work on things that interest us. You are a volunteer also and you can start the articles on those Marines since you have an interest in them. Here is a link to a good page about creating your first article, WP:FIRST and here is a wizard that will help you create the article, Wikipedia:Article wizard. GB fan (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You answered your own question there, as a volunteer, creating articles is entirely voluntary - no editor is required to create any articles, neither are the Marine Corps (in fact they would be advised not to, as they would have a conflict of interest). There are thousands if not millions of "notable" subjects out there that do not yet have Wikipedia articles, the simple reason they do not exist is that no one has gotten around to creating them. You may need understand that this is an "English" (language) encyclopedia, not an "American" encyclopedia - it has no affiliations or obligations, patriotic or otherwise. As PrimeHunter pointed out, you are continuing to jump to conclusions because you don't yet know how Wikipedia operates. Rehevkor ✉ 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I am[reply]

sorry you feel that way. But, I think I have strong evidence of these facts. Why have these heros been eliminated from your collective memories if any? The other thing I noticed on the film credits by doing a search on the movie "Gung-Ho!", Victor's name is not mentioned or erroneously listed as some other person. The other thing I noticed, is that Netflix has the only credit score for Victor. These are some extremely disturbing coincidences, if you will. Maybe some English speaking American, such as the Marine Corps, can volunteer to put this man's name where it rightfully belongs. Don't you? Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have the ability to do it, so instead of complaining here, write the articles and fix the articles you have a problem with. The basic requirement is that your changes are refereenced to reliable sources. GB fan (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Danish and have no military affiliation and limited interest in the US Marine Corps although I recently enjoyed watching The Pacific. If I increase the around 3.6 million current Wikipedia articles then it will be about other things of more interest to me, for example prime numbers (the reason for my username in case you thought it was something more dramatic). These people may be legendary to you but it's a big world. I and most others have never heard of Victor "Transport" Maghakian and Harry "The Killer" Kizirian. How many Danish soldiers can you name? I can actually name many American for a country on another continent. These two may be notable but if you do start writing articles then note that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Millions of soldiers around the world have fought heroically but relatively few of them satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to implying there is some sort of conspiracy here. Good luck with that. I am British born and raised and have little interest in creating these articles for you. Best way to fix this "issue" is to do so yourself, as others have suggested. Rehevkor ✉ 03:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I used the word conspiracy. I rather use names and facts. Particularly, that cursed name Macbeth. If the facts lead you to treachery, then don't be surprised if Macbeth sticks Harry's K-BARR (affectionately named after him as the Angel of Death) into you. If you ever see the Marine Corps silent drill team, and Harry's K-Barr slices an ear off, then you will know who is cursed. Monte Melkonian (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in prime numbers and solving mathematical problems, then you should have figured out by now in your theorem that I am a 1.5 er. Semper Fi Mac....beth.Monte Melkonian (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here. I'm sure we all hope our advice will assist you now and in the future. Rehevkor ✉ 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Monte Melkonian :) Just to summarise, before adding them to the list, it's best to create an article about them. The article might not exist yet for a number of reasons: either nobody has gotten around to creating it yet, or there might not be enough reliable sources to create an article about them. If you can find enough reliable sources, feel free to create the article, then re-add them to the list. If you need any more help, feel free to ask on my talk page [stwalkerster|talk] 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of WIne

I have several times attempted to resolve or discuss the issue of the origins of wine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine The page states that it originated in modern day Georgia without stating that the territory was previously ancient Armenia. Moreover, there is a lot of confusion and contradictions as to the origins of wine. I have attempted to remove the wild speculationsItalic text of Georgian paid scholars. Speculations should have no place in Wikpedia once the archeological evidence contradicts them. Yet, the editor insists on maintaining those speculations. The Georgian language is neither Indo-European nor Semetic therefore their language was not used to pass on the technology to other neighboring tribes. The editors are misleading readers to believe that some how this technology was passed on to other tribes by the Georgian language. I have several times attempted to include the latest archeological discovery in Armenia of a wine making operation dating back 6,100 years ago as the first origin which contradicts the speculative Georgian origins. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12158341 However, it continues to be deleted because the editor believes that the "BBC" news report was "shady." Moreover, the editor continues to delete the Indo-European Armenian word for wine "Gini" (pronounced Keenee) without explanation. This conduct cannot be tolerated as it violates the neutrality requirements of Wikpedia. Monte Melkonian (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the discussion on the Talk page between you and another editor where you trade barbs. Her comment about "shady Armenian sources" was absolutely uncalled for. Your comment about the devil and Stalin was over the top. In any event, although I know nothing about the subject, the BBC report was of a respectable study that has been published in archeological journals. See also this article from the National Geographic. To the extent there's an inconsistency among experts as to the earliest indication of wine-making sites (the Armenian site that apparently dates to some 6,000 years ago and the Georgian stuff that apparently dates to some 8,000 years ago), that's not up to her to draw a "mathematical" inclusion. In any event, I think her math is wrong and the article is wrong. The source that says 8,000 years ago does NOT say 8,000 BC, which would be 10,000 years ago. So, the article per the source is incorrect.

Your information is reliably sourced and should be included, in my view. You should both tone down the rhetoric.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin sent 25 million people to their deaths. Why shouldn't I put him with the likes of the other Devil Adolf Hitler? I'm sorry you feel that Stalin deserves higher stature. But, when Jesus Christ said "this is my blood," I am sure he wasn't talking about Stalin's Georgia. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any rhetoric. Stalin's deeds are historical facts. Please don't insult our intelligence. We lost a lot of our families because of Stalin. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone tries to help you, and you respond with irrelevant, inflammatory comments? I wasn't saying anything about the acts of Stalin, the devil, or Hitler. On the Talk page of the article, in response to one of Comtesse's comments, you said, "Thus, I see a lot of misinformation and obfuscation from reality. Nobody is going to believe you. Not even the Devil himself Joseph Stalin." No one, including me, is addressing Stalin's deeds. You could have easily made your point without the last two quoted sentences. The proper thing for you to do at this point would be to apologize to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to apologize to me for stating that I went over the top when I said "Stalin is the Devil himself." You need to do a lot of research on Stalin and Georgia before you ask me to give you apologies. Don't you ever say that I went over the top regarding the Devil himself and Goergia's Stalin. Monte Melkonian (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 is not saying anything about Stalin or his deeds or whether he is the Devil. He is commenting on your post [11] where you replied to another user ComtesseDeMingrelie by saying: "Nobody is going to believe you. Not even the Devil himself Joseph Stalin." Bbb23 (as I interpret him) is saying that it was over the top towards ComtesseDeMingrelie. I agree. There is no need to bring the Devil and Stalin into a discussion about the origins of wine. You could have made your point about ComtesseDeMingrelie without doing that. See also Godwin's law. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you interpret me correctly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to consider reposting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. The WP:WINE is an extremely active project run by knowledgeable wine historians and professionals, and you can be sure that they will look into it. --Kudpung (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly an expert, but I did change the article to be 8,000 years ago rather than 8000 BC - per the source cited. I also noticed that there is already information in the article about the Armenian find from 6,100 years ago, although Monte's source appears to me to be better than the current cited sources. So, all that has to be done is to add the source(s) to that portion of the article. If further tweaking is necessary to make clear what is going on, that can also be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please in the future, do not delete my comments about the Devil himself Joseph Stalin and his beloved Georgia. I find that kind of conduct deceptive and to be extremely insensitive and disingenuous. Be very careful with regards to glorifying Stalin's Georgia or Adolf Hitler's Germany. Monte Melkonian (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is full of you and nobody else talking about Stalin. I haven't deleted anything and haven't noticed others deleting anything. Please stop your ridiculous accusations. Nobody here has said anything positive about Stalin or Hitler. Apparantly you assume that if people here don't want to discuss the evils of Stalin and Hitler with you then it must be because they glorify them. That is absurd. Wikipedia is not a forum and this is not the place to rant about Stalin. If you continue then I may actually start deleting it or collapse and close this thread as unproductive. It was supposed to be about the origins of wine. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal attacks. That no place in this forum. You either haven't followed the preceding comments, or , you have purposefully mischaracterized them. Monte Melkonian (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've provided our advice here, and this is not the place to continue an argument. Please either continue your discussion on an appropriate talk page or take it to a dispute resolution board. I will be shortly closing this thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unfounded accusations. Moreover, I am not done yet with attempting to resolve this matter through discussion. Therefore, don't close the thread just yet. I will have to weigh all of your so-called suggestions with other neutral bodies to determine whether indeed it has been neutral. These discussions will have be considered on either arbitration or mediation to be determined relatively soon. Monte Melkonian (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species-specific wikipedia pages

Hi. I'm considering contributing to wikipedia some knowledge I've gained while doing my PhD in malaria, and in particular the cell biology of the parasite (and its relatives). It isn't clear to me what the best practice way to present species- (or more generally, lineage-) specific information is. For instance, if I contribute something about the parasite's nucleus, then should I create a new section in the nucleus article dealing with the nuclei of my parasite? This doesn't seem scalable - as more species' nuclei are commented upon, the nucleus page will get too big, I think. On the other hand, creating too many species-specific pages will mean that it will be harder to understand because the information will be spread out over too many articles. Am I making sense? Any ideas? Thanks in advance. BenJWoodcroft (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you're getting at. In general, you would put any details about the nucleus of a particular species on the page for that species, like the Plasmodium falciparum article. If the information is relevant to the whole group of organisms, you would put it on the genera page Plasmodium. And so forth, on up to "cells have a nucleus" on Eukarya. However, if the nucleus of this group is widely used as an example of some feature or has significantly atypical features, then you might add that on the Nucleus article. (Like, you'll probably want to talk specifically about snakes and caecilians in an article about amniote body plans.) If you're unsure, ask on the talk page of the article or on WikiProject Tree of Life. --Danger (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I still remain somewhat skeptical though. Seems there is too many articles, and too few editors for many biology articles, especially species-specific ones. Oh well, I'll just write stuff where I think it fits best. BenJWoodcroft (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think biology is the area of Wikipedia that relies most on eventualism in it's philosophy, at least of the areas I'm familiar with. Thankfully, Plasmodium-related articles have a lot of eyes compared to other areas. --Danger (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, §1!

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should fix the message it gives you when you register. Sindragosa (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe this problem started March 18 and has now been fixed by [12] (but I'm not creating an account just to test it). The source code should contain $1 which is replaced by the username, but it accidentally contained §1 which is not replaced. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over criminal nature of Contempt of Parliament

This is my frist request for assistance. I hope I use the correct format.

This edit has gone back and forth, and I am tired of having to make the same correction. I notice now that the edits are coming from IP addresses without user accounts, making it difficult to discuss the page and reach a resolution.

The substance of the dispute is about the nature of the law of Contempt of Parliament. I contend that it is a criminal law, since it is a law made under S. 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, or simililar statutes in other jurisdictions, which brings with it the power to fine or imprison individuals who are found to have violated its provisions.

Hopefully we can reach a resolution to end this ping-pong editing. I look forward to hearing from you and learning more about the Wiki disputes resolution process.

KBillie (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Smith - Article Bias

Hello,

Despite editing the odd Wiki page here and there, this is the first serious attempt on a forum, so I apologise if I am in the wrong place.

I have come across the article below and have the suspicion that as it contains no references and several key words that this has been written either by the subject or a representative. What can I do to prevent this page from being in this state on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Smith_(psychic)

--Alliebobz 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliebobz (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads up. The article is pretty messy. It now has more tags than information (put there by various editors). I did a little clean-up, but it needs quite a bit more. You're, of course, welcome to improve the article yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting this out. Is it wrong that these types of article enrage me so? Ha ha!

Alliebobz (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yeshiva University

This article has a list of notable alumni. Until recently, each name either had no description or a brief description as to the person's occupation. As I stated on the article's Talk page: Avunculator added Baruch Goldstein to the list of notable alumni with the following description: "physician and perpetrator of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre." I removed the information after physician as "unnecessary". After Avunculator reverted and I reverted back, an IP (not sure if the IP is connected to Avunculator) added the information back. Three different editors reverted, but I believe the central basis of those reversions was that the information was unsourced. The IP then sourced the information, which was already in the Goldstein article anyway. My reason for reverting was it was more information than any of the other notable alumni had.

No one except the IP has responded, and not only has the perpetrator information remained in the article, but the IP decided that physician shouldn't be there because "He is not known for curing people, but killing people."

The characterization is inconsistent with the other entries and therefore jarring. It also gives undue weight to the massacre, as opposed to its aftermath and controversy, which, of course, is covered in more depth in the Goldstein article. It also seems that the IP (and Avunculator, if they are not the same individual) may have an agenda that doesn't include improving Wikipedia.

One possible solution is to list the names without any qualifiers. What do editors here think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you really trying to suggest that Baruch Goldstein was more notable as a physician than as a mass murderer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: 'I removed the information after physician as "unnecessary"'. The list is of 'notable' alumni. Notability does not imply notability for positive actions.

As for listing the names without qualifiers, I'd suggest that the best guide to this would be similar lists of notable alumni. To treat this list differently because of the notoriety on one person in it would seem a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, when I said unnecessary, I was just trying to be consistent with the other alumni with qualifiers as all they listed was the occupation. Regardless of whether Goldstein is notable as a physician, that's what his profession is, and that's what his article says he is. As for your comment about other lists, that sounds appealing, but without even looking, I know I'll find little consistency, which means that it's just an editorial judgment for each list and not NPOV. However, to make you happy - if that's possible - Harvard University has a "list" in which the title/occupation/profession is listed. Yale University is simlar to Harvard. Oxford University categorizes its alumni by prime ministers, international leaders, saints (I kid you not), etc. UCLA is kind of a hybrid of categorization and occasional longer descriptions of particular alums. So far - and I'm stopping - no one lists killers. But Yeshiva University could certainly be a first. After all, notability is notability, positive or negative.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not generating much enthusiasm here, so I'll leave the article as is. If Oxford can boast about alumni who are saints, then I suppose poor Yeshiva University can boast about alumni who are non-saints.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article meet notability requirements?

Hi there,

I received feedback on this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graduate_researcher/Sheila_Cavanagh) and have, in my opinion, sufficiently edited it to meet notability requirements. I would like to now transfer it out of my userspace. If someone could please confirm that it does indeed meet notability guidelines (or alternatively, provide additional feedback) that would be great. I have posted requests on the Wikipedia Feedback Request Page, as well as on the talk pages of editors who've looked at my article before, but have not had any responses (it's been at least a week).

Also, how does the transfer process work? Do I simply copy and paste into the new page?

For further context on feedback I've received, see my talk page.

Thanks, --Graduate researcher (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that she meets WP:ACADEMIC. Also, the writing does not meet WP:MOS (not a sine qua non, but it would read more neutral if you followed the MOS, e.g. by not repeating the academic title every time you refer to the subject). If you think it's ready to move, the best way is to simply rename the article via the "move" option in the interface. I don't know if everybody can do this now, but you should be able to find a friendly admin to do the renaming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are auto-confirmed, you should be able to move the page yourself, following the instructions here. Please don't copy and paste the text. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your assistance! --Graduate researcher (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a new term I want to include

There is no citation for it anywhere yet. I am uncertain how to proceed, as I feel this term is a genuine contribution to the ongloing endeavors here. New things require indentifying terms; as I have searched extensively for any referent term for the subject matter it is intended to describe, and found nothing, it is my hope this new term can be accepted without a citation available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinDan (talk • contribs) 06:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, Wikipedia articles have to be on topics that have already been written about. Have a look at the guidelines on notability and neologisms. I've left you some other introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New contributor creating numerous quasi-historical articles

User Chasteroue has added a number of new articles in the last two days, most of which have "Genocide" in the title. I checked some sources none of which use the word "genocide" so I am sensing a big original research and neutrality problem. Each of the articles isolates a single alleged instance of Arab against Jewish violence. A lot of attention is needed here: some of these articles probably need to be merged or redirected to articles on the underlying wars or controversies; others may describe notable incidents but need to be much better sourced and copy-edited for neutrality. And it goes without saying that nothing should be called a "genocide" in the article title unless there is a reliable source characterizing it as such. The user has also been incredibly busy wikilinking his new articles into others on genocide, Palestinian nationalism and the like. Other eyes would be appreciated, as this is a very big clean up job. Thanks....Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These have all now been PROD'd. Thanks to those who jumped in to help. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the PRODs have been removed, other articles have been merged. The user has created several similar new articles. These use very unreliable sources (advocacy sites, citations to unavailable books, even novels); misquote the sources whenb they can be checked; and add highly POV unsourced assertions. Some of the articles are only one sentence long, some are duplicates of existing articles or sections, some are clearly POV forks. The user has also been adding links between these articles, and from other articles. The articles fail to substantiate the claims made; but clearing this up may be a long job. The user has almost completely ignored talk pages; their very few comments appear to be abusive descriptions of other editors as "antisemites". RolandR (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION OF ARMAN MANOOKIAN FROM THE LIST OF HISTORICAL MARINES

Answered

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted several times to include Arman T. Manookian on the list of historical Marines. Inexplicably, the discussion and his name are being removed from the list without response. Just recently as I asked again regarding the discrepancy, it was moved all the way on the bottom of the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_historically_notable_United_States_Marines. Please see page 9, first center incomplete paragraph of this article.http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf The editors of the Historical Marines page continue to violate the neutrality requirements of Wikpedia. Arman does indeed have his own Wikpedia page and no valid grounds for exclusion. Monte Melkonian (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK first of all calm down and don't SHOUT. This is not a conspiracy, but a community project where we work by consensus. Ranting on the list's talk page and here will not do any good, calm discussion is the way to proceed. I suspect that Manookian was removed from the list because you formatted the link incorrectly and your description of him was less than encyclopedic. The proper format for the link is [[Arman Manookian]], rendering as Arman Manookian. Note that Manookian is at List of notable United States Marines because his notability as an artist isn't directly related to his service, hence he does not fall within the inclusion criteria for the List of historically notable United States Marines. See the lead to that list: the Names in this list are notable for actions made as a Marine; individuals whose notability is unrelated to service in uniform can be found at List of United States Marines. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And note that new questions always go to the bottom of the page; that is where they are supposed to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no one is shouting and no body at this point is alleging a conspiracy. That was an unreasonable and unprofessional characterization on your part perhaps to instigate a belligerent response. Secondly, your statements made no sense. Note that Arman is listed, as cited above, a Historically Notable Marine by the father of the Marine Corps History himself, Maj. Edwin N. McClellan. Please respond appropriately and succinctly to the questions posed and don't skirt the issue. If you try to skirt the issue, then it leads people to believe that indeed you are part of that so-called conspiracy as you stated. Semper Fi Mac..beth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Arman Manookian article, and I agree with his removal from the List of historically notable United States Marines. He is known for things outside of the Marine Corps, which is why he is part of the List of notable United States Marines, but his being clerk to Edwin North McClellan does not make him notable, as there are thousands of Marines that have served directly under historically notable marines, this does not make them notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. He did nothing during his time as a marine to warrant inclusion in the List of historically notable United States Marines. Names in this list are notable for actions made as a Marine; he is not notable for any such actions, and to include him would be against the list's guidelines. Please take a moment to read the list you are trying to include him in, and hopefully you will see why he is not and should not be included in this list. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article cited above, and I quote from it: "As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf [p.9, first incomplete paragraph, Maj. Edwin N. Mclellan]. Are we reading the same articles? How do you justify this glaring inconsistency with your statements? Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note something that has become glaringly obvious. It seems to me that these so-called volunteers have a particular bias for Marines who volunteer for suicide missions or ended their lives in suicide and having their last names ending in IAN. Do you see the same pattern? I consider myself an expert at recognizing trends and patterns. Do you agree with my observations? Semper Fi Macbeth.Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then in the context of the first Marine Corps Artist in Marine Corps History, what does this quote mean? "As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf [p.9, first incomplete paragraph, Maj. Edwin N. Mclellan]. Are we reading the same articles? How do you justify this glaring inconsistency with your statements? Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's stuff like this that makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I see no reason to suspect the editors of that list of anything you hint at. It's a short list of a few selected members of an organization where probably at least a million have served. Arman Manookian may have been a fine artist but he doesn't sound to me like an appropriate addition to such a short list. Edwin North McClellan isn't on the list himself, and his biography says "He was the first director of the Historical Section of Headquarters Marine Corps, a historigraphical organization now known as Marine Corps History Division." Manookian served under McClellan to make drawings and upon hearing of Manookian's death, McClellan said nice things of him as your reference shows. Speaking kindly of a recently deceased former subordinate (or anybody you knew) is very common and I think you put too much emphasis on it. On the Internet, SHOUTING refers to using all capitals for no reason (except possibly to draw attention) like your section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people English speaking Americans? Your bias is really inappropriate. As I read the article, The Genesis of The Marine Corps History was with Mclellan. Those weren't just merely nice words about Arman T. Manookian. Please read the article again. Moreover, please indicate your level of education with regards to English so I can determine your level of expertise on the subject of English, Art and History. Do you really think people will not read the article cited at page 9? I quote from it: "As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an English speaking Englishman, I find your suggestions of bias inappropriate, and hardly indicative of a high level of education - or at least, of making proper use of it if you have one. You have been making endless allegations of 'bias' and 'conspiracies', with no evidence to back them up. You have ignored any attempt to explain to you how Wikipedia works, and what you can do to change things. Frankly, I think you are wasting your time here. Insulting people is rarely a successful means to encourage cooperation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Englishmen, with regards to Marine Corps History, are truly inappropriate experts. Moreover, it is common practice in our Anglo American scheme of fairness to test the credentials of so-called experts opining on these pages. I am sorry you feel that somehow you have been offended. But, in America, we always ask for credentials and don't believe in biased opinions. In the future, please provide your credentials. I can tell you this, I majored in English as an English speaking American. So, is there an American Marine, with an English, Art and History out there who can tell me what this quote means? '"As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian

Monte Melkonian, I think you might have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Since we're all essentially anonymous to one another, and we have no means of verifying most claims about credentials, we judge each other according to adherence to the norms and collectively-agreed-upon policies here. That's what leads to our emphasis on verifiability, for example. There's really no such thing as a credentialled expert here, only volunteers with respect for a calm and well-supported approach.

In this case, you've tried, several times, to add names to a list. Other people who have an interest in that list have explained the criteria they have agreed to use in defining that list. I imagine they would be happy to have a calm discussion about whether a particular candidate meets those criteria. They'd probably be willing to have a calm discussion about adjusting those criteria, too. But instead, you've accused people of having biases, without giving much evidence, and you give the impression of having assumed that other editors have acted in bad faith. That might not have been your intent, but I think you could be read that way.

You wrote "But, in America, we always ask for credentials" - but not on Wikipedia. May I suggest that you step back from this particular issue for a while, allow some time to become familiar with the way things are typically done here, and perhaps find another way to contribute? If you have questions about how to do that, then you're in an excellent place to ask. Best, --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a suggestion for you. Why don't you apply a little common sense and realize that your statements are totally out of line. If you don't have proper knowledge regarding Marine Corps History, you then should follow your own advice and stop giving baseless opinions as to what the speaker had in mind when he made the comment. So, my question remains the same. Namely, is there some one out there, applying the plain meaning of English, who can tell me what this quote means? '"As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC). [reply]

How are my statements out of line? You came here, presumably for help, and that's what you've been offered by several editors. Yet you ignore our suggestions, and keep posting the same link and the same question, along with a changing selection of dismissive remarks. Deliberately or not, your behaviour is trolling and I don't think we're going to make any more progress here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The context can be just as important as the literal meaning. This is an officer commenting on the work done for him about Marine Corps history by a recently deceased former subordinate. I wouldn't expect him to say: "He did shitty work. I'm glad he's dead and hope he will be forgotten." I think List of historically notable United States Marines is more intended for marines who made history than somebody who drew it afterwards without having been there. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I am deeply offended by that comment you just made. Moreover, by your comment, it is evident that you didn't read the article completely. McLellan made that statement long after he left the Marine Corps. His comments pertained to Arman being the first Marine Corps artist in Marine Corps History. It had nothing to do with his work after he had left the Marine Corps in which he received acclaim as well. So, my question remains the same. Namely, applying the plain meaning of English, what does this quote means? '"As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis of that quote is "completely useless fluff--a throw-away comment, or at best an introductory sentence to some more-detailed statement that explains what it's talking about." By wikipedia policy, it is not for any editor to judge or try to determine what a source has in mind. WP:V says we must rely (and cite) other reliable sources to make that assessment, in the context with which they are speaking. Nobody is allowed to use "inside knowledge" of an organization to interpret sources--all interpretations are still subject to those same policies. Any decent scholar would know that "plain meaning of English" of an abstract sentence is irrelevant if there is no context. DMacks (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, in the context of Arman being the first Official Marine Corps artist/illustrator for the Marine Corps Historical Department, what does this quote mean? "As far as Marine Corps History is concerned, his name and fame are intertwined in it."Italic text[Emphasis Added] http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Fortitudine%20Vol%2029%20No%202.pdf Semper Fi Macbeth Monte Melkonian (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there is no requirement of inside information as alluded to in your comment. The entire article that I keep citing to on Mclellan and Manookian speak for itself if one simply reads it carefully. The frustration is instigated when one does not read it carefully. Semper Fi Macbeth. Monte Melkonian (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from top to follow convention Why do you have this discussion alleged to have been Answered when there is a pending question? Monte Melkonian (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained already in this thread, new posts go at the bottom. Your question has been answered; you need to discuss this at the relevant talk page, as you have, and then read the answers. If you keep posting the same questions and ignoring the answers you get, then other editors will simply stop responding. You might not always get the answer you hope to get, but that's quite different from getting no answer. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it needs to said that your tone and accusations are verging on disruptive. – ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumshore and Peak oil again

Regarding Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_98#Platinumshore_and_Peak_oil, apparently this editor has not stopped editing. They just waited some time and then reinserted the same text yet again.[13] Still no/non-RS/non-supporting refs. Would appreciate oversight assistance on this article. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details are at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Platinumshore_reported_by_User:206.188.60.1_.28Result:_.29. 206.188.60.1 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to the article on the Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising

The article Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising recently moved to a new article name without mentioning the issue in the article discussion site. This isn't necessarily a problem. Nonetheless, as it appears that the article has been receiving a considerable volume of changes, it appears that it would benefit from the recurrent attention from a set of administrators in order to make sure it avoids vandalism/abusive editing. -- Mecanismo | Talk 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, or sysops, are just ordinary editors like you but have access to tools such as deletion, page protection and/or blocking, they are not policemen. Sort it out on the talk pages. If you can't achieve consensus, then request a request for comment. If editors are violating policy, then consider reporting at [[[WP:ANI]]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reported comments by a New Zealand politition.

Hello

The personal reputation section of "stuart nash" article is consistently being removed.

Can you please check whether the content is appropriate. I believe it is, as it repeats what has been reported by a national sunday newspaper (the link is referenced).

Thanks very muchMossymanwgtn (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the information belongs either. A single source making allegations does not make it widepread. It gives undue weight to a single person's opinion. I have removed the information from the article. Please don't readd it your self, continue to discuss it to get a consensus. GB fan (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Men's Lax Div I scoring data left me out

Please refer to your page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Lacrosse_Records

My scoring data was left out for the year I played at Cornell in 1974, and at Penn State for 1971. I contacted the NCAA records office and have made sure they updated the data. They did the updating by contacting Cornell and Penn State athletic departments, and using Sports Illustrated as a source, and will include the updated data in 2012 edition. The 2011 edition has already been finalized. The person I contacted at the NCAA Records office was a Ms. Jennifer Rodgers.

If you need copies of my emails to the NCAA, please advise.

Jim Trenz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.175.89 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until the corrected data is made available in a reliable source that can be verified (personal e-mails don't count) we cannot add this information to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Black MBA Association

The information on the site is outdated. Yes, I am affiliated with the organization, but who else would know what the accurate information is? Its ridiculous that the page keeps getting changed back to the old version. I'm sure you want the information on the site to be current. If not, what would be the point of having the page at all? I understand the copyright information issues, but I don't want that information to be viewed by others as accurate reflection of our association. None of the information I posted was advertising, selling or aggrandizaing our association. It was just factual data found on our PUBLIC website.

Either allow me to edit it or delete the page. Its wrong to have information up there that is wrong. ~~NBWrite~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by NBWrite (talk • contribs) 17:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI and then use the article's talk page to discuss the changes that you think should be made. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Francis, Olavo de Carvalho

Paulo Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olavo de Carvalho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My edits in the two articles have begun to be mutilated by an editor who appears motivated by his political sympathies onlyCerme (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted to discuss this with the other editor? – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my point of view it is completely the other way around, this editor (who appear to have a Left-leaning tendency, judging by his edits) reverted several of my edits in the first article (Paulo Francis) and proposed the second one (Olavo de Carvalho) for deletion under a false pretext (claiming the article "had no sources"). I request assistance in dealing with this situation. RafaAzevedo ^msg 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what I know from the above signed editor (his cantankerous tendencies), here and at the pt.wiki, advise me not to attempt discussing with him - neither do I want to, under any circumstances. It would be a waste of time and I would like that the editor please to avoid edit warring. My political sympathies are fully known to anyone who has taken the effort to follow my contributions, just as the editor, with the difference I use facts and reliable sources in support of them Cerme (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the editor above abuses this space to spread infamies and insult me, he now has taken to edit-warring and compulsive reversions in my edits in these articles - therefore I call once again to the attention of the administrators the inappropriate behavior shown both above and in these articles (especially worth mentioning are his use of false excuses to try to delete an article - something which thankfully an admin has already reverted - and the insertion via edit-warring of disputed content in another, even though a discussion on the subject was opened). RafaAzevedo ^msg 22:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's enough to read carefully the message above to see that the editor above is addicted to unbalanced behaviour and wild charges, since I do not remember interfering with his activities before - unless he considers interfering having a less then laudatory opinion about some of his idols - an opinion, I daresay, backed by fact. I will refrain myself from responding and will please ask other editors to offer a solution to the issue. For the time being, I rest my caseCerme (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you want us to do? If you can't assume good faith and contain incivility, there is nothing else for us to do. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. Unfortunately, the editor has a long record of provocative behaviour, which led me to (a) avoid a direct discussion, and (b) to give early warning to the other editors. For the time being, I want nothing to be done, only to make a general public record as a warningCerme (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the editor (who doesn't even know me, according to his own words!) (ab)uses this space to attack me. I have no other solution but to show this behaviour to the administrators and request his punishment (or at least a warning). RafaAzevedo ^msg 11:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Moving - technical difficulties

Hi there,

I moved this page out of my userspace over 24 hrs ago. The move seems to have been successful except that the userspace page is still showing up on google and does not redirect automatically. When I try to move it again, it reverts to the new page. i.e.:

(old page, which is still working without redirect message, and showing up on google) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graduate_researcher/Sheila_Cavanagh

(new page, which also works) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Cavanagh

Is this just a temporary glitch? If not, how do I resolve it? Graduate researcher (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a temporary phenomenon; Google crawls sites every 24 hours or so and updates its index accordingly. The mainspace page should show up after their next update. Nothing we can affect here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Not a glitch. Google had the old page page cached, see this. The page move was successful and automatically created a redirect page to the new title. Google has now referenced the new page already you can see this because the cache page is displaying: (Redirected from User:Graduate researcher/Sheila Cavanagh). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks to you both! Graduate researcher (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia use titles?

For example, on the article Western Economic Diversification Canada, honourific titles were added by User:Western Economic Diversification Canada and later by User:Wordiness. Should those be there? I don't see them on most other articles. --198.161.203.93 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:HONORIFIC. I've removed them from the article. The first user you mentioned was banned. The second user you mentioned has only made one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on policy regarding posting screencaptures?

I wish to contribute to the page on the English Defence League, using many further links and sources that I have collected.

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

The question I want to ask is whether or not it is permitted to post images taken from Facebook discussion threads and groups that are publically viewable? For example, if I take a screencapture from a post written by a prominant member of the EDL, can I use that screencapture in the article?

An example of a screencapute that I would consider using: http://twitpic.com/49ofpz

Thanks

Likeanyotherman (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likeanyotherman

Generally speaking no. Wikipedia:Image use policy gives further details. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in case you were thinking of using those posts as sources, they would not be considered reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

amorpous metals

International Welding Technologies has been working with Caltech for the last two years to develope a method for forming part from amorpous metals using capacitor discharge technology. Currently, Caltech has two such unit built by IWT for such purpose. The viability of this technology is widely known. Why can it not be listed in the article? What expertise in this technology do the editors posess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrlw (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because your edits were unsourced. You need to supply a reliable source so the information can be verified. GB fan (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit summaries in the page history at [14]. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since you apparently want to add information about your own work. You can post a suggestion to the talk page at Talk:Amorphous metal. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of format.

Answered

– Wrong venue. Danger (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have quotes in the Word of the Day on Wiktionary. Saw the Homer quote. No. That's the last thing anyone needs is a confusing messeage. NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena George (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is a separate project from Wikipedia. To comment on the Word of the Day on Wiktionary, go here. --Danger (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle matter

Could someone please remove my name from User:AzaToth/morebits.js? I believe that this thread has resolved the matter. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd do better with an {{adminhelp}} request on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Thomson birth date

I have tried to edit the incorrect information, but am constantly blocked. The source for 1960 is cited as The Daily Record. This is unreliable. The Daily Record used Wikipedia as its source. Please feel free to confirm that with them. There is no source whatsoever for 1959. Both dates are wrong. i can supply various newspaper articles giving different dates. Why does one contributor constantly block any corrections when no reliable suorce for the incorrect information exists? Surely this calls into question the reliability of wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTLT1 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the same request on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, and it is being dealt with there. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Renaming Issue/Question

I have no experience with article renaming. There was an article for "leap week calendar" recently renamed to "week calendar". I've posted a question to the user who did the change as well as to the talk section, inquiring of the purpose of the rename. I'm waiting for a reply. Meanwhile, I did attempt to undo the rename, but it was unsuccessful, so I presume this is some sort of special edit that has different rules.

So this request is specifically about the rules about renaming articles (citation to a reference may be sufficient by way of reply). If someone wants to weigh in on whether that specific article should be renamed, this thread may not be the best place for it. Victor Engel (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure about your specific case, but as for policies: Wikipedia:Move#Reasons_for_moving_a_page and Wikipedia:PRECISION#Precision_and_disambiguation seem the most pertinent. Hopefully someone else can give you an opinion on the specific move. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to move it back but you beat me to it. Leap week calendar appears to the the most appropriate name. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. That's my first move. And now there's a redirect from Week calendar. I have no problem with that. Victor Engel (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avi (talk)

I have made repeated attempts to politely discuss with the editor in question my proposals for changes in the article: "Mordecai Tendler." As could be seen on the discussion page, I presented a multitude of newspaper articles that directly contradict the current content and tone of the Wikipedia article. The current content is clearly biased and one-sided against the subject of the article. The editor (User: Avraham) has simply chosen to ignore the facts (presented in the form of newspaper articles), and instead is insisting on mantaining the article in it's current biased form. In addition, please see on the discussion page where the editor clearly implies that he has a personal connection to the article in question. It would seem that if that is indeed the case, he should immediately recuse himself due to personal bias. Thanks in advance for your attention.

Koltorah (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the specific comment you believe indicates that Avi has "a personal connection to the article in question." Beyond that, there has indeed been an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, and there appears to be a consensus about the article's content that you don't agree with. I don't see anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: Avi: "" Tendler is currently fighting to regain that position, perhaps, but the shul has had at least two rabbis since then, and I think Tendler has a minyan in his own house as wll, so to state he is the current rabbi now is factually incorrect.""

Koltorah (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at least your inference isn't way off base, but I don't think you can fairly conclude from that sentence that Avi has been in Tendler's house.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XM Satellite Radio

No comment on its truth or purpose, but the only source cited was indeed not a reliable source, so I have removed the entire section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, for the record: I did not write the section of the article in question; I was on vandalism patrol at the time these actions came to my attention.

However, you are absolutely correct, Demiurge1000, the source does not meet the standards set forth in WP:RS. I reverted Sresendez's first erasure of the section (on 2011-03-22) because it had NO Edit Summary and looked like typical, blank-out-some-stuff vandalism. Since his account was new (created, I believe, earlier that week), I warned him with a uw-delete1 template on his Talk page.

The next day, 2011-03-23, he removed the section again, this time saying, in an Edit Summary, "This description of customer care is debatable and serves no purpose but to disparage XM, equally positive ratings could be sourced." He in no way questioned the reliability of the source of the material.

From my perspective, I saw a user, apparently on a crusade, mass-deleting sourced information, so I restored it. I again encouraged him, in my Summary, to add the positive ratings.

On 2011-03-30, Sresendez added a note to the article Talk page, saying "This description of customer care is debatable, equally positive ratings could be sourced, and serves no purpose but to disparage XM and should be removed." Again, no mention of sourcing.

A little later, I replied to him on the Talk page, saying "As I thought I (or someone else) told you ten days ago, you are welcome to locate such material--carefully applying the standards of WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:RS--and propose it be added to the article. Thank you, BTW, for not attempting to delete material with which you disagree, as you did a while back!" (My recollection of the time frame was a bit off, BTW.)

He then came here to complain, on 2011-03-31.

Frankly, I don't know what more I could have done to keep him happy, other than delete the material, which is factual. So, I've re-written the section, citing verifiable, reliable sources such as Reuters, Fox Business News and the BBB and will insert it into the article in a few minutes. Please take a look at it if you have time and let me know if anything seems amiss.

I'm also interested hearing if you can think of anything--within the rules of and guidelines--I could have done differently. Thanks!

And, Sresendez, I encourage you to add properly sourced information to the article that will refute or negate the criticism. This is how the encyclopedia gets better! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure Project Dr. Steven M. Greer

I tried to edit a very small portion of the article on the Disclosure Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Greer and both times I saved the page and later found the article returned to the original. The first point I have is that it should read "Dr. Steven M. Greer" to properly represent this individual as he has earned the degree of Doctor of Medicine. The second important point is in the article where it reads "Greer convened the conference with more than 100 other contactees offering testimony and arguing for investigations into a UFO conspiracy theory. Such arguments were met with by derision by skeptics and spokespeople for the U. S. Airforce who maintain that there is no convincing evidence for the speculation that UFOs are alien spacecraft." The chief problem here that I tried to remedy is the seemingly deliberate attempt to hide the FACT that most of the "contactees" were former military personnel and high-ranking U.S. government officials. Merely labeling them as "contactees" doesn't lend them the credence and credibility they deserve as American heroes that choose to speak up for the American people and the truth in general. I find it hard to believe that the author/editor is not serving an agenda to down-play and manipulate representation of this crucial disclosure of information. If this article was to be more factual and fair, the sentence in question should read something like: "...more than 100 other contactees, mostly comprised of former military personnel and high-ranking government offficials, offering testimony..." This is precisely the edit I saved yesterday only to find the article returned to the misrepresentation and literal ignorance of the facts of the event. I hope someone with a conscience can help represent the truth of this matter instead of an official agenda to hide it. Thanks!

^ The reference is inserted inline right here

[1] The reference is inserted inline right here

[1]