Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Redirect/dab question

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a question more than a request. There is a lot to learn about Wikipedia style, so I continually try to educate myself. I came across something and I wonder if it is the proper style or if a different way of doing it might be better.

There is an existing page called Uluru. Today someone added For the band, see Ayers Rock (band). At first glance it seems strange that an article named Uluru would have a link to a band named Ayers Rock, but then it turns out that Uluru is also known as Ayers Rock and there is a redirect from Ayers Rock to Uluru. So it makes some sense.

Another way to have handled it would be to leave the Uluru article alone, and change Ayers Rock to be a disambiguating page with a link to Uluru and a second link to the band.

What do you think, is one style better than the other? Sbowers3 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sbowers! Generally speaking, disambiguation pages aren't made unless there are more than two possible uses of the term, so in the case where there are only two, a hatnote is used, to direct readers to the (only) other use of the term. I think in this issue, that's sufficient, as it is likely that someone looking for the band would go to Ayers Rock, which would direct them to the band. (And, as you might have noticed, no hatnote needs to be placed on Ayers Rock (band), as someone looking for the band specifically, would be typing (band) and not need to have a link going to the actual geological feature.) The pages covering this are Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Hatnote, if you haven't already read them. Hope this helped! Ariel♥Gold 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:UE, I would expect to find the article at Ayers Rock with a redirect from Uluru, not the other way around. Surely, the English-speaking world commonly knows it as Ayers Rock? That would be the ideal solution, but I am sure that any attempt to implement it would prompt a response from those who would rather ignore the guidelines, and there are plenty of them. If you don't wish to stir up a debate that has in all likelihood occurred before, then leave it as is; a disambiguation page would only work well if there are more than two topics or occasionally when notability is comparable (which they almost certainly are not in this case). Adrian M. H. 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both. I am not going to risk stirring up a debate but the page would look better if titled Ayers Rock. Right now, you see the title Uluru, then a hatnote (I didn't know that was what it was called) for Ayers Rock, then a lead sentence starting "Uluru is ..." So the hatnote for Ayers Rock just looks as if it is in the wrong article. Of course, if the user got there by typing Ayers Rock (quite likely as Adrian suggests) rather than Uluru, then the hatnote seems not quite so out of place. Well at least I have learned the word "hatnote". Sbowers3 23:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to call it a "headnote" or maybe a "leadnote", I think. Adrian M. H. 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always wondered where that name came from, lol. I immediately think of hats when I see WP:HAT, ~*Giggle*~. And yes, I agree that the whole naming thing is strange, but I think this is a pretty isolated case. There seems to be a rather lengthy and heated history of the naming of the article, and while I think the more likely search term is Ayers Rock, I also can understand wishing to name it by its proper name. But, you're correct, this results in a strange few minutes of realizing what's going on for anyone searching for "Ayers Rock Band", lol. Ariel♥Gold 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with Get (conflict) article

Resolved

 – Full protection for the article and an indefinite block for Sagbliss. Adrian M. H. 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of new additions to the Get (conflict) article by Sagbliss which look a lot like WP:OR and WP:POV. This individual has also been very aggressive with other editors. See User talk:198.23.5.73 and User_talk:Savant1984#Talk:Reform_Judaism and User talk:24.225.137.164. In additional to combining a lot of unverifiable material from court cases around the world, this person is reshaping the article "to highlight the plight of the agunah." Since he or she claims to be part of an active Canadian court case related to the topic, this could also fall into a conflict of interest.

I, and another anonymous Wikipedian have tried to educate Sagbliss (who's probably Bruker from a key Canadian case) on taking a more measured approach to the article. Essentially, Sagbliss ignores the advice and has made broad changes to the article without proper verifiable citations. It may take a while, but read her contributions to people's and the article's talk pages to get a taste of what she's up to and her {willful) misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works

We might also want to seek help from wikipedians who are legal experts. Bruno23 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• You could consider soliciting a third opinion on the matter... --Aarktica 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

An administrator has put a temporary block on editing the article while we try to work things out with Sagbliss. Bruno23 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know how he reported you to the "Executive Staff" of Wikipedia. Does he mean the sysops? They are by no means the executive staff. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One editor brought up that point on the Sagbliss talk page. It has gotten stranger since. Sagbliss has been lashing out at many editors, including the Admin who put the block on editing the article. Bruno23 15:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing assistance with a revert

Resolved

 – No further activity since talk page discussion. Adrian M. H. 15:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently noticed that the user Tdjohnson reverted a section I had created on the Peru State College entry. It was a section about controversy regarding the student newspaper, or rather the dismissal of two advisers to that newspaper under questionable circumstances. The user commented the revert by saying "Removed speculative and unnecessary information regarding student run newspaper".

Now the information wasn't speculative, as I had several cited references supporting the information posted. I also did my best to keep the information neutral, which was definitely not the easiest because I am not only an alumni of Peru State College, but I also worked on the student newspaper in question as well, though I had already graduated by the time the second incident took place.

Now whether the information is unnecessary is up for debate, and I would like to hear another editor's opinion on that matter. I feel the information should be posted on Wikipedia, and if not on the Peru State College entry, then it should be somewhere. If there already is a place for information of that nature, please point me to it.

I also believe that the user in question may have removed the information to preserve an image that Peru State College, and its president, is attempting to build, and this kind of information would probably tarnish that image. I feel that Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum for accurate information, not a marketing front, and right now much of the Peru State College entry looks like it was copied verbatim from the school's web page, though I've been working to change that to replace it with verifiable, cited information.

Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Arcturis 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is kind of a refreshing change from what I often read, by which I mean that this addition should not really have been reverted! It was, in parts, well referenced; where it fell short was in its lack of a couple of really crucial refs for the most controversial statements, such as the first para. Additionally, use of the phrase "appear to coincide" was a bad idea; it's not properly verifiable (synthesis) and it's "weasely". Rather than be reverted, it should have been cleaned up and given fact tags as necessary. Discuss it on the article's talk page before trying to add it again. Adrian M. H. 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Help With Resolving Editing War - UST Global

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would sure appreciate your help and input.

I was the original founder of a company today known as UST Global (previously known as US Technology Resources)

I recently initiated arbitration against the company for payment for my ownership interest and won the arbitration. One of the points in the final ruling from the arbitrators was their recognition that I founded the company in 1998.

Every time I enter several factual points that are based on a) tax records of the company b) company records c) the Arbitrators final ruling, an employee of the company immediately removes these posts.

I have tried writing to this employee, usually without response. I did finally get 1 response (which he then used UNDO 2 minutes later) to state that he is simply taking orders from someone else and only doing his job.

The posts I keep trying to insert are:

- That I founded the company in 1998. - That a company named Magnecomp invested in the company in 1999, and at this time a gentlemen named G.A. Menon became the company's non-executive chairman.

Within an hour or 2 of posting these factual points, this individual clicks the UNDO button.

Can you help me to try to resolve. The company is large and is probably going public. I would like to try to resolve without arbitration. Also, they do not respond to my repeated requests for a discussion.

Thank you for your reply.

Sincerely,

Stephen Ross Stevejross 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I need to ask a couple of quick questions first in order to get a better picture: Did you observe the requirements of verifiability by citing your sources? Did you know that editing any article about a subject with which you have a connection is discouraged because of the handicap that it can place on neutrality and verifiability? Adrian M. H. 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adrian,

Thank you for your response. Someone from Wikipedia has stepped in and resolved the issue as there was a conflict of interest.

I thank you very much for your help and assistance.

Sincerely,

Steve Ross Stevejross 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Steve. Adrian M. H. 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Boatshed Listing

Resolved

 – through speedy deletion. Adrian M. H. 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

We placed a definition of Boatshed.com on wikipedia some months ago with a description of the new methods and techniques we have introduced into the boat and yachsales business.

Our posting was subsequently removed by an editor, we recieved no notification of this or the reasons why.

A new company that has entered the market and is try to establish itself using many of the ideas we have have been using for many years does have an entry and this has not been removed.

Can you explain and offer any help how "RightBoat" has managed to retain an entry whilst ours does not appear.

Any assistance you could offer would be gratefully received and thank you for your ongoing work and efforts on your vert informative site.

Best Regards

Neil Chapman MD Boatshed.com The world's largest Yacht Brokerage Company

"Life's better on a boat"

boatshed24.144.120.77 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a CSD A7 to RightBoat. First time I've ever done, so perhaps other editors can tell me if I was correct.

Most likely the reason your article was deleted is the same reason that RightBoat should also be deleted. There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is notable, and there are no references to verify the information. If your company is famous enough that newspaper articles have been written about it, then it may meet the requirements of notability. And in that case you can use the newspaper articles as references so that other editors can verify the information. Sbowers3 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

<start rant> Misuse of Wikipedia really gets my hackles up. This is, as it says in the tagline, an encyclopædia. Which means, among other things, that it is not here to provide free webspace for advertorial. We are here solely to build a verifiable, factual, and neutral compendium of the notable aspects of academic, scientific, historical, and cultural knowledge. Incidentally, if those of us who regularly nominate articles for speedy removal were to notify their creators every time, it would double our workload: we have no specific obligation to do so. The number of article deletions per day are in the four-figure region.<end rant/> Adrian M. H. 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of images dispute in Boxer (dog) Article

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I went in and edited the Boxer (dog) article, which was glutted with images. I removed all the seemingly extranous and redunant images per WP:IMAGE. Since then, one particular editor continues to insist on putting them back Medusa911 (140.168.69.130). I remove again, he puts back. First under his IP, now under his new user account. The first revert I let go and reexplained again why they were removed in the edit summary. I've since left vandalism notices after each revert. Now he's reverting and leaving vandalism notices on my page as well. Even as I type this, he's done another one (which another editor undid)

Now, on reading up more tonight, I realize his reverts, while annoying, may not have been vandalism by the Wikipedia standard, so those notices may not have been appropriate. Moreso, I admit that on my part I've let myself get into a day long revert war over this. It's tiresome and childish, so now I'm asking for assistance on this issue. Is the article glutted with images, or are they all appropriate and relevant? If the removals were correct, how do we deal with this editor who seems determined to keep putting them back? Collectonian 04:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not too bad. I often see far worse ratios than that. Of the three images in a row (in the previous version), you could keep one or two of them and possibly keep the last small image (of the dog jumping). The jumping pic looks a bit out of place down there, so a bit of repositioning would be welcome anyway. As for vandalism warnings, neither party should have applied any. I hope you didn't break 3RR either. Adrian M. H. 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts, I agree images should be added when they significantly increase a reader's understanding of the article, and provide context that can't be given otherwise. In the case of the images you removed, I think that at least two could (and should) be added back, the image of the white boxer, which illustrates a coloring not often seen in boxers, and the brindle male at 18 months, which shows quite nicely the conformation of the dog (which the image in the infobox doesn't do well). The black and white image of the row of dogs does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the dogs, and the jumping dog doesn't, either. The image of the ear taping, well, I guess that's debatable, it does show the method used to make the ears stand up, so would classify as increasing the reader's understanding. I too, prefer to not see images used as purely decoration, but in this case, I do think that those two (or three) images serve a useful purpose in the article, especially the white boxer image, as I think the majority of readers think "boxer" and think of brown colors. I'd prefer to see those images replaced, right-aligned for uniformity and default image size. Just my opinion, of course. Ariel♥Gold 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the white boxer image. I probably wouldn't have gotten so insistent if I hadn't let him push my buttons. Though he has now admitted on my talk page that the only one he really wants back is of the 18 month old boxer because it was HIS boxer that died. Collectonian 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks good now. I noticed that another editor reinserted the B+W image, but I agree with his rationale about its relevance. It's not the prettiest image, but worth keeping. Adrian M. H. 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

editing dispute between ntb613 and CJCurrie about John_Tory

Stale

 – No further edits to article. Adrian M. H. 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

he reverts what i edit but doesn't even explain why? could you help

--Ntb613 03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ntb, The information you're adding has several problems with it. First, it is not cited with reliable, third-party sources to prove that it is not just your opinion. Realize that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, diatribes, editorials, or other items relating to how you may personally feel about an issue. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is neutrality, and you have not written that passage in a neutral tone. All these things combined, I'm afraid, will result in the removal of this kind of thing. Now, adding to all of these issues, is another extremely important policy of Wikipedia, the biographies of living persons policy. Basically this says that any and all information about living people must be sourced, cited, and verifiable, and if it is not, it can be removed, especially controversial or potentially defamatory information. You are basically accusing John Tory of antisemitism and discrimination, and that's your opinion, not a quotation that is cited by a source. That must be removed immediately, to avoid legal issues. Please review all of these policies quite carefully, as they are all very important parts of Wikipedia. If you'd like to take those two paragraphs to the article's talk page, please do so, and you can discuss them with the community there, and possibly get help in re-wording it, finding sources, and then it could be added to the article if it were appropriate. I hope this helps explain why your edits are being removed. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks here is the official un website saying it Decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee

and here is alink to wikepedia site saying the same thing (look under education)

and here is another one from wikepedia

and the fact that dalton mgcinty is a catholic you could see on this wikepidia site by his biografy

what do you say to this? and actualy i am not acusing john tory, you mistaken the names with dalton mcguinty. as you see its not just my opinion but something that UN said and is quoted on wikepedia. waiting for your reply!!! --Ntb613 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable, third-party source and cannot be used as such. As for the UN website, that does not say what you edited into the article, in fact it does not even mention John Tory (which is the article you edited, but the document does not mention Dalton McGuinty either). As I said, your edits were quite opinionated (non-neutral), and bordered on defamatory (mentioning antisemitism, etc). Please review all the policies and guidelines I've given you (click on any blue words) and I think you'll understand the issues. I ask you to again look at your edit, here it is again, and read through it. You see how you use multiple question marks, you ask rhetorical questions, and you make comments that are your own personal opinion? Those are all things that are not done in encyclopedias; an encyclopedia states facts, backed up by verifiable sources. That edit, however, would be appropriate for the article's talk page, to get discussion from the community and perhaps allow others to help word the issues you bring up into something backed up by sources, neutrally written, and cited. Ariel♥Gold 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

so you think non of that should be there? did i understand you corectly? --Ntb613 06:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Ariel appears to be a lone voice in criticising your edit, I can confirm that she has accurately summed up those three core policies of neutrality, verifiability and OR. We all have to try to leave our biases and beliefs at the door when we edit articles. Your edit was unacceptable, not just in light of these policies, but because of its inherent incompatibility with the requirements of an encyclopædia. Adrian M. H. 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance requested

Resolved

 – -ish. Article deletion is one way of fixing it, I guess. Adrian M. H. 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I made an article for my virtual flight club the Massachusetts flying club, a while back. On september 4th it was edited to display untrue and malicious information about my flight club.

It was edited by a user by the name of FSTG . FSTG (FSTopgun) is also the name of the server which hosts my flightclub.

I have spoken with the owner of the server who's name was edited into the article, and he has said that he cannot do anything without a name or an IP. If we could get the IP of the user FSTG, or even the first two sets of mumbers if Privacy is an issue, than we could solve this issue privately with the Transition gaming server.

Thank you

68.239.12.96 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're talking about the Massachusetts flying club article? And I think your request is that we give you User:FSTG's IP number, (correct me if I'm wrong). However, this is not something we can do, for obvious privacy reasons, and while I can check, I'm pretty sure not even the first few numbers can be given out. I'm sorry that the article was edited negatively, but in the future, you can ask someone to revert the changes (if they are not sourced, cited, and neutral), or you can do it yourself. However, you may wish to review the conflict of interest guideline, since you say it is "your" flight club. A conflict of interest arises when editors close to the subject edit the article, as it is rather difficult to remain neutral. It may be a good idea to have a neutral, non-involved editor work on any future major editing of the article, to avoid any potential issues with COI. Hope that helps explain things, Ariel♥Gold 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. We do not provide IPs of registered editors (obviously, non-registered editors have their IPs listed in the history, which is required to meet parts of the GFDL that require some form of attribution). We have a system in place that allows certain trusted admins to cross-check IPs in certain specific circumstances, but this is not one of those cases. Adrian M. H. 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at FSTG's edits, he seems just a garden-variety vandal who should be reverted and warned. --CliffC 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing references

Resolved

 – Marking resolved in absence of any further contribs. Adrian M. H. 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded information to the John Dillinger topic, and the references I cited were eye-witness reports. The eye-witnesses were myself and another man who witnessed the event in 1953. I am unable to cite any other references. These references were not accepted, and I do not know what to do. The item refers the the so-called "myth" that John Dillinger's unusually large penis was at one time exhibited in a museum. My friend and I know that this is not a myth, since we saw for ourselves the specimen in question, labeled as such, in the Medical Museum of the U.S. Navy, then a separate part of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. I would like to have this material published in the Wikipedia to set the matter straight. Over the years numerous articles have appeared in various publications, claiming that the story is not true, yet we know it to be true. In support of this information I am willing to undergo a polygraph test.

Here is the material as I uploaded it:

Dillinger's large, preserved penis was seen in the summer of 1953 by Charles Wiedemann and Gregory De Lorenzo of Clifton, NJ. The young men were aged 17 and 18, and had recently graduated from high school. They traveled together on a vacation trip to Washington, DC, where they visited many historic sites, including the Medical Museum of the U.S. Navy, which at that time was in its own building, part of the Smithsonian Institute. The museum displayed numerous medical specimens, such as the uterus of an elderly woman who had died with a dead fetus in her uterus, and other medical curiosities. The most striking and memorable exhibit was a glass container containing a very large penis. The tubular jar-like container was lying horizontally on a shelf. Next to it was a card containing this information: "Preserved penis removed after death from the body of criminal John Dillinger. It is said that the size of this organ caused harm to several women with whom Mr. Dillinger had relations. This preserved penis is in its flaccid state, but it is known that a large penis does not increase much in length when erect." Neither Dr. Wiedemann nor Mr. De Lorenzo, who are now in their seventies, can recall the exact size, but they believe it was in the range of 14" to 16". They remember that the information on the card explained how the Navy came in possession of the organ, but they do not recall the explanation.

References: Dr. Charles L. Wiedemann, eye witness and author of this report. Current address: (Home) 135 Kings Hwy, Hackettstown, NJ 07840, (Office) 110 Mill Street, Hackettstown, NJ 07840. Mr. Gregory de Lorenzo, 15 Homestead Street, Clifton, NJ. No other references can be cited, nor are they needed, since these two people are eye witnesses who remember the details given in the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaweedy (talk • contribs) 06:28, 29 October 2007

Please read WP:V and WP:OR. These two core policies will explain in why you cannot use yourself as an eye-witness source and why original research is not accepted. Then read WP:RS to understand what are and are not reliable sources that can be used for verification. Those three pages explain this better than I could here without writing an lengthy essay. Adrian M. H. 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and WP does not do polygraph tests! Adrian M. H. 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of Axis and Japan's official status in ww2.

Stale

 – Editor has not taken this to RSN. Adrian M. H. 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia pages titled "Axis Pact" relates historically wrong and undocumented information in regards to Japan and the term 'axis' itself and related topics such as Tripartite Pact.

I have posted on the 'discussion page' shared by these topics, identifying the incorrect statements and using respected documentation to prove them.

There has been no response nor dialogue. Even when I edit the page using documentation where the original author does not, it is my work that is deleted instead of theirs

You can't ask for more proof, and convenience for that matter, than word for word quotes including page numbers from the same respected encyclopedic assembly of ww2 historical sources:

"The Oxford Companion to WWII" General Editor I.C.B. Dear Consultant Editor M.R.D Foot Oxford New York Oxford University Press 1995

Please advise. Befuddler 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You should always examine edit summaries and page history. I don't know whether you did that or not, but if you had, you would have seen perfectly acceptable rationales for two reversions here and here. I have just reverted your second addition to Tripartite Pact for its inappropriate style and absence of citations. It is, for better or worse, OK to edit while still a novice (though it always preferable to learn abut policies, guidelines, and process first) but one should not complain if those edits get reverted. On an open wiki such as WP, any and all material can and will be edited without mercy. Straighforward reversion doesn't really tend to warrant much, if any, discussion; but since you mention it, the editor who reverted your edits raised the issue on your talk page and I don't see a reply there. Anyway, I left you a "welcome template" to provide some important and useful reading material. Incidentally; I refactored your comment here by moving your sig to the end of the post, where it should be. Adrian M. H. 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC

Thank you Adrian. I hope to find time to learn how to more properly use the edit feature. As for my 'talk page', I'm not sure what you mean by that. Where? I have engaged in the 'discussion' section for the topic "Axis Pact", although there has been no sourced 'debate' so to speak, to counter my proofs. Only comments that because something is commonly repeated it must be so.

I am hoping to learn how to prove to whomever does the edits for said document under search for 'Axis Pact', why the existing document is a deliberate undefined misleading of omitted historical points and facts to make the reader assume a contrary over-simplification of the topic. No less than that which leaves so many today still believing Iraq was behind 9/11. Just because so many repeated the same original mistake, did not make it true. Any help would be appreciated. Am looking for tutorial section now. Apparently using actual encyclopedia quotes to prove existing commentary undefined, incomplete and deliberately misleading is not permitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 October 2007

Original synthesis of existing information is indeed not permissible. If you believe you've found flaws in a historical document, see if you can find, for example, scholarly or critical writings which have been fact-checked or peer-reviewed which agree with you. You may then certainly use that material, attributing that viewpoint to the writer. You also have the option, if no such material exists, of submitting your own findings to relevant journals or the like for peer review. What you may not do, however, is publish your conclusions on Wikipedia if they have not been published in a reliable publication. Find (or make) peer-reviewed and published material first, then and only then may it be used as a source here. That is a fundamental part of our verifiability requirement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is not actually quoting from a most well-known ww2 encyclopedia considered fact-checking the edits offered? For example. When discussing ww2 in terms of Germany, Russia and Japan, we pointed out that the 'Soviet-Japanese Friendship/Neutrality/Non-Aggression Pacts' had to be included no less than the 'Anti-Comintern' and 'Tripartite Pacts', yet it keeps getting deleted out. It's not like we made it up, we proved it was an actual treaty of the period and that it was not only politically but strategically critical to how ww2 went. Yet it keeps getting deleted out. Same thing with proving word for word quotes from numerous sources including encyclopedias, the reason even western historians agree was why the Japanese Prime Minister took the drastic measure of dissolving his own government to ensure that Empire did not attack Russia. None of this was conjecture. None of it coming from any disputed revisionist author or source.

I don't know how much more 'peer-reviewed' you can get in regards to ww2 than The Oxford Companion to WWII Encyclopedia which lists untold numbers of the most respected (western/english at least) historians.

Even when I tried to point out the Wikipedia distinction between 'attack' and 'defense' military alliances, something put up by Wikipedia itself as a definition, it is also inevitably deleted, obviously because it prove it is the author, not the editors, who were making unsubstantiated comments.

When addressed in the discussion areas, all we get is 'well everyone we know says its so'. By that logic wikipedia should take down all it's exposes on historical corrections we've lived through through the centuries. By that logic wikipedia should not point out the Vikings were in fact the first Europeans to 'discover' the Americas eventhough the vast majority of books still in print say it was Colombus.

This has gotten so bad, I am one of the last teachers in my school division permitting students to use wikipedia as a source for their school-work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Befuddler (talk • contribs) 01:52, 3 November 2007

I think you should take this to the more appropriate venue of WP:RSN. Please remember to sign your comments. Adrian M. H. 08:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor needs either handholding or something

Resolved

 – No new activity from that IP address. Adrian M. H. 11:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here may not be the appropriate place for this comment but the Help desk didn't seem appropriate and neither did an administrator noticeboard (at least not yet), so maybe someone here can address it or suggest a better place.

On vandal patrol I came across an IP (User talk:71.238.68.127) who might turn out to be a constructive editor or might be headed for a long-term ban. His latest edit [1] is not vandalism but is totally inappropriate even for a talk page. Some of his past contributions were vandalism and he was blocked. Some of his contributions appear to be good faith edits but fail due to POV or lack of references.

He is often uncivil and needs a good lecturing for that. He has been given some advice on providing sources for his edits but still doesn't do a good job.

At first glance he is a newcomer so WP:BITE would apply, but there are indications that he has been around a while and might just have a new IP address. If that is the case, he might conceivably be a WP:SOCK of a previously banned user.

This IP needs early intervention and I don't know how to do it. Any ideas? Any volunteers? Sbowers3 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I don't think that there is very much that anyone can do in marginal cases. Perpetual and serious problems are actually easier to tackle with blocks. I would suggest that you keep half an eye on it for a little while, although it is impossible to say how long it might be before a new IP is assigned if his ISP account is dynamic, as most are. Dynamic IPs make long-term monitoring of talk page warnings and blocks impossible. Any further bad edits are likely to be reverted by someone anyway. Adrian M. H. 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

From his contribs he appears to be a static IP. His record goes back about a month and his edits are all in similar areas. I'll keep an eye on him. I just wish I knew what to say to try to correct problems before they occur instead of reverting and blocking afterward. Sbowers3 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

Stale

 – No activity from this editor since this section was made. Adrian M. H. 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have put up some pages for various religious scholars yet have run into some issues. I was wondering if you could help me resolve them to prevent page deletion. I am having issues with 5 of the pages I have put up

1. Anne C. Klein 2. Peggy Levitt 3. Rev. Dr. Deborah Little 4. Linda Barnes 5. Lou Cristillo

The problems that exist are

citing notability ( what does this mean?) conflict of interest as well as copy and pasting issues

could you help me to fix these issues?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgandco (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 October 2007

Briefly: Notability is a core guideline that all articles must meet. COI is an editorial guideline of which all editors who have any connection with a subject must be aware. Adrian M. H. 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To expand for Adrian, and to explain perhaps the most important issue you mentioned, the copyright policy is quite clear: You may not copy and paste any portion of another website or page to create (or add to) a Wikipedia article. This is for legal reasons, which I'm sure you'll understand when reading the copyright policy (click on the blue words to read what they are about). Now, to expand above: Conflict of interest is when you create, or edit, an article about yourself, your family, company, product, or friends, as you would likely be unable to edit neutrally. Neutrality is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, as is verifiability. Verifiability means that any information given in an article must be verifiable with reliable, third-party sources. Reliable sources are not: Blogs, forums, fan site, personal sites, MySpace, etc. Reliable sources are: News article, professional journals, magazines, TV news websites, or websites that perform fact checking to verify the items they report, to name a few. Without sources and verifiability, information is classified as original research, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Additionally, there are many notability guidelines, that cover everything from people to music, to academics. Basically notability means that something is important enough that the media has taken an interest in it, and has written about it, in more than one news article. Most important people are written about and reported on, so when notability isn't an issue, the sources to cite are quite easy to obtain. Hope this helps explain the issues! Ariel♥Gold 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hydraulic Torque Wrench" - Persistant Spammer

Stale

 – No activity from this editor since this section was made. Adrian M. H. 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

USER - Industrial Torque Wrench repeatedly removes administrator suggestions for clean-up and reverted the entry to initial marketing commercial website and blocking competitor photos limiting the entry to proprietary and commercial pictures of his company's product.

User CONTINUES removing pictures of competitor products and limiting the photos to a single manufacturer of the product. Photo has also been replaced because user inserted a picture with a trademarked name on a banner implying endorsement of their product. User has also been reported for link "TTT (to the top) bouncing" to place their commercial website at the top of the reference page. User's reference link is a commercial website promoting a product that he is affiliated with and not an educational website or example showing how the product functions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smigler (talk • contribs)

What makes you think that this user is intentionally adding images of his/her product? I've looked at the photos and it's not obvious to me what company the pictures are of. Try to give users a little leeway when assessing their intentions. As for the reorganization of the references section, you've got a good point. It seems a little odd. Just move the reference back and explain what you've done in the edit summary. A few side notes: I noticed that you weren't signing your posts on User talk:Industrial Torque Tools either. Use four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Also please don't ask other users to reveal their name. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Video game#Platforms

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has progressed to this level yet, but I want to resolve this as quickly as possible. This has arisen after a short edit war. SharkD 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a normal and largely civil talk page debate about how to improve an article, so I'm not sure where the issue is. If you are seeking some form of DR, it doesn't need it. Adrian M. H. 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Bank of Scotland - 'The Oil and Gas bank'

Resolved

 – No further issues; new revision was kept. Adrian M. H. 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently attempted to add a controversy section to the RBS group page (as well as reference to it from the RBS page), but it was swiftly removed by user Harami2000. I added comments to the talk page to discuss the addition, and freely admitted that the tone of my additions was not unbalanaced, but that I expected them to be edited, not simply deleted. There has been no response. I think details of RBS's large investments in fossil fuels are worthy of appearing within the article, especially since this topic has been so newsworthy (numerous protests in October, 2007), but mainly as Wikipedia is meant to be a source of unbiased info, and potential RBS customers should be able to see where there money may be going. Presently both RBS pages are like corporate brochures. Templetongore 10:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My $.02 for what it's worth: Your controversy section was fairly well referenced, which is a good first step. Your second sentence has problems with WP:Weasel ("seen by many"), NPOV ("overwhelming"), and is unreferenced. The whole section might or might not have a problem with undue weight - has this controversy had enough mention to be worth including or was it just one isolated protest that garnered little attention? Your sentence in the lead of the RBS page certainly suffers from undue weight. It might be worth including somewhere in the article, but not in the lead. Sbowers3 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The protests were certainly well covered in the UK press, but even if there were no protests, I feel that an article about a financial institution should include at least a mention of it's investment profile, especially when the investments in question are of the type that certain people may wish to distance themselves from. People like to know what their money is being used for, I think, and Wikipedia can help provide this information. If a company invested in, say, animal testing or arms, people would want to know. Oil and gas are certainly not in that league, but ethically minded consumers would want to know. For this reason, I made a reference to the controversy from the RBS article, but I agree - it was too prominant. Somewhere else would be better. Templetongore 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to pick up on your comment about what people would like to know, largely for the benefit of any new editor reading this. As an encyclopædia and nothing else, WP is not here to inform the public about consumer issues and to do so in any way risks making WP inherently biased. Whatever a company may be responsible for, we can only report what has been reliably reported elsewhere – per WP's requirements of neutrality and verifiability, and its position as a tertiary information source (like any encyclopædia) – and crucially, our reason for so doing must be solely encyclopædic and must be given the least amount of space that is required for the bare facts. Whether there were protests or not is not the primary point; the most important factor is that the issue/controversy must have been reported in independent (from the subject) media sources; with the emphasis on the plural when any kind of controversy is at work. We often say that WP is not a news service (in fact, that's official) but is here to collate information that will be relevant and informative in 10, 20, even 50 years' time. My waffle is not aimed at criticising your edit, however. It was a good faith addition and Sbowers has explained its issues very well. Adrian M. H. 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. WP should not offer any judgement on any issue. However, as a financial organisation, the RBS group invests money - that's what they do - so surely the manner in which they do it is valid in an article about them? The Triodos Bank page includes information about their investments, as does the Co-operative Bank article. In fact, this is featured right in the introduction to both articles. Banks invest money to make money, the way they invest it seems, to me, to be an important piece of information. I agree that WP should not be judgemental in any way - many people think that there is nothing wrong with investing in oil and gas, and that is fine - but just because something may divide opinion surely does not mean that it should be omitted? If this was the case, WP would be alot smaller than it is now. To answer your other points, the status of RBS as the 'Oil and Gas Bank' has been reported in independent news sources ( The Herald and The Scotsman - two highly respected papers in the UK) and I am pretty certain that, not only is the issue of fossil fuel extraction pertinent today, it will almost certainly be of historical importance in 20 or 50 years time - either as the source of great social conflict or as an issue whose importance had been previously vastly exagerrated. Templetongore 09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point to some degree. You have oversimplified the issue of inclusion, which is complex. I won't bother to go over that in full because it would double the length of this page, but I recommend that you re-examine your addition and do some more studying; look at what was acceptable about it and what was not, compare it to how things are reported in some controversial FAs (I know there are a few), read the essays (some of which are particularly useful), guidelines, etc. I would expect the Co-op's investment policy to be mentioned given how noteworthy and well reported it is, but it still has to be handled in the right way, of which neutrality is just one facet. Those sources are fine, but they must be used properly and carefully. Have a go at rewriting it, even if you just do it in a sandbox or something to avoid any premature reversions. Adrian M. H. 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try again when I find the time. It just seems a little uneven when additions that cast a negative shadow over an organisation or individual come under such scrutiny (as I believe they should), while those that are more positive are rarely contested - this is only based on my own experiences, of course. Templetongore 12:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Most things come down to references. Statements with valid references are harder to delete. So add a reference to your second sentence. (Also remove the NPOV "overwhelming".) And perhaps add a second reference about the protests to demonstrate more notability. With solid references, other editors should not delete it. Sbowers3 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken your suggestions and changed the paragraph and added some more references. Templetongore 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits keep getting removed

Resolved

 – Has also received an explanation from another editor on his talk page; has not reinstated the links. Adrian M. H. 11:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to post links to a site that is a great resource for biographical information and links to specific works of various artists. But whenever I add it to a relevant link, for example I added a link to Magritte's original sketch of the pipe, and his biography under the posting about his painting, "The Treachery of Images" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_Of_Images).

Why was it removed? Thanks! jk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkcollection (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that your edits [2] [3] [4] [5] are being removed, because combined with your username, it would possibly seem to others that you have created an account solely for the purpose of adding links to advertise your site, http://collectionnewyork.com/. The URL itself doesn't really say what the purpose of the page is, other than to have links to images of some artwork, so it doesn't provide a lot of explanation as to the purpose of the link. While I would not go so far as to say the links are completely unhelpful, but with regards to the Magritte page, the explanation for reversion was "(it's not a sketch for the painting, which was painted many years earlier)", so it appears an editor doesn't feel the link provides anything the article itself cannot. Please review the external links guideline, and Wikipedia's SPAM guideline. I hope this helps make it a bit more clear why it is likely your links are being removed, and I'd suggest that you post on article talk pages, giving the link to the page, and explaining what you feel it adds to the article's context/content that isn't already there. This will allow other editors to review it and give input. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Ariel♥Gold 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Gnome Economics

Resolved

 – Dealt with at ANI. Adrian M. H. 11:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of this guy and I no longer feel like engaging him. He patronises me and insults me [6] and blanks my own talk page: [7]. OK, maybe I'm not without fault here myself but I am working hard to write an encyclopedia. This account has only been around for a few days but it's clear the editor knows the ropes. I wonder why he apparently needs a sockpuppet account. I'm not well and don't feel I can deal with this on my own. I am not infallible, but he seems to behave as if every other editor should be. I find this unnecessarily confrontational and in breach of WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is being handled at the cross-post site, WP:ANI#I feel harrassed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Help

Stale

 – No further response from IP. Adrian M. H. 11:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

i am unable to find any place where i can ask question about article editing, so i ask here if someone could maybe point me into the right direction or could even answer my question.

I want to add something like hints to an article, somthing like the standart contents box on every wiki article, where i can click hide or show, to make text pop up or dissapear. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.169.122 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2007

Without details or the name of the article in question, it is hard to give you a direct answer. First, I'd point you to the manual of style, the layout guide, article development and how to edit. All those aside, it would depend completely on the type of content you wish to add, and if it would be relevant, or even appropriate to the article. Generally the table of contents should not be changed from standard, unless it is outside of the mainspace (i.e. your userpage, or an essay you've written). There is a "show/hide" box, but again, these aren't generally used in article space without a very good reason, if at all. I'd suggest that you post on the article's talk page the ideas you have, and allow those familiar with the subject give you input on what may be the best way to go about doing what you've got in mind. Without knowing details, I'm afraid I can't give you much more advice than that. Hope that helps somewhat! Ariel♥Gold 14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

thx for the answer, but i am not talking about any specific article. I just wanted to know how (technical question) i can add sutch show/hide boxes into an normal wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.169.122 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2007

There are probably only two good reasons for applying collapsible JS in mainspace: collapsing very long data tables or stacking groups of navigational templates at the bottom of articles. Either way, we already have established ways of doing that. We are not going to start adding pop-up comment boxes all over the place. Technical questions such as this can be asked at the Village Pump Adrian M. H. 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NPR story about Wikipedia Vision map

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 11:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard a story on NPR radio 11/1/07 talking Wikipedia Vision online map - said "Wikipedia Vision is a new online map which spins across the globe, tracking the changes people make to the encyclopedia. You can see what was edited, when and where."

I cannot find any reference to Wikipedia Vision map on Wikipedia.com. Does it exist? If so, where? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.232.116.202 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2007

From what I understand, this is in no way affiliated with WikiMedia, or the WikiMedia foundation. The software works by tracking IPs on a map similar to Google Maps, but obviously only shows edits made by anonymous editors. The software (use at your own risk) can be found here Ariel♥Gold 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neat! Almost mesmerizing. Sbowers3 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What comes after an Rfc?

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 12:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I opened an Rfc for the pictures on the solar energy page. I found one picture in particular rather boring and figured it didn't deserve to be on the page let alone have the lead. Four out of five respondents to the Rfc also had a poor opinion of the picture. This is a relatively low volume of response but I figure 80% shows a clear consensus. I removed the picture from the lead but it was replaced by an anonymous editor who put the picture in the lead to start with. This editor has been a hostile observer of the page for the last few months. I'm sick and tired of the guy but the quality of the page has improved in spite of the harassment and thanks to some professional editing help.

I nominated the solar energy page for GA status today. The last time the article was nominated for GA status we failed due to over editing. I'm worried this situation could happen again because of picture switching disputes. I went through he Rfc process and it seems to have failed. What should I do next? Mrshaba 06:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A picture in a Wikipedia Article is allowed to be in that article as long as it has relevance to the article, or the section, in some cases. The image you wanted to remove had great relevance to Solar Power. 199.125.109.56 has the right to place it back into the article. That being said, you also had the right to remove it in the first place. The real decision comes from the reason. You removed the picture because it was "boring". 199.125.109.56 restored it because it was relevant to the article. Wikipedia aims to become the largest source of encyclopedic information on the planet, and if the image added to the encyclopedic content of the article, it should not have been removed. I'm sorry, but 199.125.109.56 was right about this one. If you need more help on the matter, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Vistro 20:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion. The picture under discussion is not only boring but many find it confusing and there are captivating and appropriate pictures to take its place. There are three reasons to replace the picture. Boring, confusing and outranked by good material. I'm not sure a picture with these qualities adds to the encyclopedic content of WP.

Again - I went through he Rfc process and it seems to have failed. What should I do next? Mrshaba 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take the IP to WP:ANI, as fighting consensus could be considered disruptive behavior. While sometimes those who go against consensus claim to have policy on their side, this seems like a clear cut case of WP:ILIKEIT. People think it illustrates the point clearly, which is OK, but it isn't backed up by policy or guidelines. Also, the IP seems to have the wrong idea about consensus, saying that "Consensus means either that everyone likes it or no one likes it." That rarely ever happens, so we go by an overwhelming majority system. If unanimity and consensus were synonymous, we'd have no admins, no crats, and we'd all be in need of a regular software upgrade. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mrshaba 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here to help! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Prostate Massage

Resolved

 – Article seems to be free of spam at the time of writing. Adrian M. H. 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is too cool -- However...

The entire Prostate Massage page reads like a commercial for the Aneros brand massager product, but there are many other types of prostate massagers, including a revolutionary EXTERNAL design called the Prostate Cradle. However, each time I try to add information to the page it is immediately taken down. Who is taking my posts down and why? Surfclaw 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfclaw (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 November 2007

You can view that in the history, but would it not be better to aim for no product placement of any kind? Start a discussion on the talk page. Remember; if it is not neutral and verified, it does not belong here anyway, so be bold. Adrian M. H. 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't even want to imagine product placement for a prostate massager. I am also worried about the mental health of people who watch that page so closely that info gets immediately taken down. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As always, the place to start is the article's talk page. Ask there why your posts are taken down. Then you and the other editors may find a mutually satisfactory answer. Second, you can click the article's History tab to answer your question of who and perhaps why. Most editors will leave an explanation in the edit summary. Once you know "who" you can ask that user to respond on the article's talk page with an explanation. At first glance, your information might be appropriate in some form or some place, but not the way you did it. Sbowers3 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

lenticular lens

Resolved

 – Links have not returned as yet. Adrian M. H. 12:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been removing (repeatedly) the external links section from Lenticular lens. Several IP based users (who I do not believe are related, as they have different TLDs) have been reverting the link removal. I would appreciate some comments as to what to do in this situation. I cannot revert these changes any more, without teetering towards 3RR (although it does span more than 24 hrs). Thanks User A1 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not too keen on the commercial aspect of those links, either. Seek out a small number of non-commercial websites that offer some useful/interesting information that meets EL guidelines and swap them in. Lead by example and they might accept the rationale behind it. One hopes. Adrian M. H. 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good non-commercial websites on the subject appear few and far between, I found one, and inserted that. The patent appears to be too old to be in the USPTO database as far as i can see, Anyaway I will see how it goes, if this continues I might ask for further advice. Thanks. User A1 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Stale

 – No reply since 2 November. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to clean up the page for Young Americans for Freedom. I noticed that the national organization does not seem to exist anymore. Its website has not been updated for years, and there is no record of it having done any action whatsoever. Traditionally the national body throughout the 60s-80s was very involved.

Today, a number of college students have started campus organizations carrying the YAF name. These are independent and take no directions from a national body.

There are a few things I find problematic about any claim that a national YAF still exists. On the blog of Michigan State University YAF's president Kyle Bristow (www.spartanspectator.com), he has claimed that the national YAF's board of advisors includes people such as Vice President Dick Cheney. However, MSU-YAF has been invovled in a number of extreme events that are incompatable with the views of many of these so-called advisors. For example, Bristow recently brought a known holocaust denier to campus along with a professed skinhead and racist. Normally, a national body with prominent individuals, who could be damaged by association with this, would have issued a condemnation or denied that MSU-YAF reflected the views of Young Americans for Freedom and its advisory board. However, there was no such action and I find this to be yet another sign that no national body exists anymore.

Some individual at the IP address 64.25.200.19 has been reverting all of my edits. At first, he suggested that my edits were POV. I therefore spent time going through the entire YAF page and removing any POV references. Yet, he still reverts my edits. His IP comes from Michigan and I think he's probably a YAF member since most YAF activity comes from Michigan Universities.

Anyway, I have made my edits NPOV and this individual keeps deleting any reference to a national body not existing. This has gotten to the point of vandalism. He continues to furnish no proof that the national body exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwb (talk • contribs) 22:28, 31 October 2007

This boils down to a conventional and fairly simple case of verifiability and O.R.. The usual problems, then! Points to bare in mind when dealing with issues like this:

1. Be strict and consistent: use {{fact}} or {{dubious}} where they are applicable, and tags like {{refimprove}} if needed as a means to encourage citations to appear. Treat your own claims as you would anyone else's.
2. Remember that the responsibility for referencing lies with the editor who wishes to keep the content (which includes you if you add or change any content).
3. Discuss uncited claims if sources are not forthcoming. If they are still not forthcoming, get rid of them. Follow Jimbo's oft-quoted advice about that. Unverified material does not belong here and if we cannot include verified information, then we just have to leave it out.
4. If the counter-claim is not backed up by RS, it is no better than the original claim or any other uncited claim.
5. Absence of activity is not enough; it needs a source (preferably more than one) that explicitly states what you are claiming. Same goes for the counter-claim.

Hope that helps. Make sure that you read those two policies thoroughly, plus their talk pages if possible. Adrian M. H. 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Note: This was created as a separate section, but this deals with the same dispute, so I moved it here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a major dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Young_Americans_for_Freedom

One user, Adamwb, is ignoring policy and continues to vandalize and edit with unsourced information and when he does provide a source, it's from a personal blog with a biased political agenda. He will not listen nor compromise.

64.7.187.207 02:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems Adamwb has violated the 3rr, and has been warned as such. If he reverts more than 3 times in the next 24 hours, let us know. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mobarak Hossain Khan: Musicologist, Music Researcher, Musician and Writer

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mobarak Hossain Khan is a music researcher, music expert and musician of repute. He plays 'Surbahar', a string instrument, meant for classical music. He comes of the great family musicians of Bangladesh, which produces a galaxy of illustrious classical musicians, like, Ustad (Maestro of Music) Dr. Alauddin Khan, Ustad Ayet Ali Khan (his father), Ustad Dr. Ali Akbar Khan, Pandit Ravi Shankar, Ustad Bahadur Hossain Khan, Ustad Khadem Hossain Khan, Ustad Abed Hossain Khan, Ustad Mir Kashem Khan, Ustad Phuljhuri Khan, Ustad Khurshid Khan, Ustad Shahadat Hossain Khan, Annapurna, Reenat Fauzia and many others.

He has written more than 100 books, three of which are in English (published from India). His recent publications on music are: i. Sangeetsadhak Abhidhan (Dictionary of Musicians). ii. Amar Sangeet Swajan (My Music Kindred). Bangladesh Muslim Sangeetsadhak (Muslim Music Devotees of Bangladesh). He is the third son of Ustad Ayet Ali Khan and nephew of Ustad Alauddin Khan. He has been decorated with the highest State Awards of the country¬'The Independence Day Award' (Shwadhinata Padak) and 'Twenty-first February Award' (Ekushey Padak)and 'Bangla Academy Literary Award' for his commendable contribution in the field of music. He has also been adorned with quite a number of other wards. His article on 'Music of Bangladesh' has been published in the Swedish Encyclopedia. He has also contributed to the 'Banglapedia' (the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh) published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. He is the former Director General of National Academy of Fine and Performing Arts (Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy) and former Chairman of Nazrul Institute named after the Poet-Laureate of Bangladesh Kazi Nazrul Islam. He is also the President of the Bangladesh Chapter of International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM), the headquarters being in the U.S.A. and also the President of Ustad Ayet Ali Khan Academy of Music. He has served Radio Bangladesh and former Radio Pakistan for long 30 years. He is also the Secretary General of the International PEN Bangladesh Chapter, headquarters being in London, U.K.

He has visited many countries including U.S.A, U. K. China, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, North Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, Kuwait, Iran, India and Pakistan as a leader of cultural delegation and also as an expert on Radio, Saarc and Unesco.

He is a visiting lecturer of College of Music and associated with the Department of Drama and Music of Dhaka University and Rajshahi University.

He is an M. A. in History.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobarakhossainkhan (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 November 2007

Two of Wikipedia's most important policies are notability and verifiability. A subject must be sufficiently notable to be worth including in the encyclopedia and that notability must be able to be verified through references to reliable sources.

Put simply, if there are newspaper articles with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those articles can verify the information in the Wikipedia article.

If you cannot find newspaper web sites that provide information for an article, then the subject is not notable or verifiable and almost certainly will be deleted. So your first job is to go find references. Sbowers3 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He has gone ahead and ignored your advice about verifiability and references. Adrian M. H. 11:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sending an article of a reknowned person for inclusion in wikipedia

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia,

I would highly appreciate if you could kindly attach the following article on the above mentioned subject in your esteem 'wikipedia'. Your quick and immediate response is solicited. Thank you and warm regards

Tareef Hayat KHAN

---

Mobarak Hossain Khan: Musicologist, Music Researcher, Musician and Writer

Mobarak Hossain Khan is a music researcher, music expert and musician of repute. He plays 'Surbahar', a string instrument, meant for classical music. He comes of the great family musicians of Bangladesh, which produces a galaxy of illustrious classical musicians, like, Ustad (Maestro of Music) Dr. Alauddin Khan, Ustad Ayet Ali Khan (his father), Ustad Dr. Ali Akbar Khan, Pandit Ravi Shankar, Ustad Bahadur Hossain Khan, Ustad Khadem Hossain Khan, Ustad Abed Hossain Khan, Ustad Mir Kashem Khan, Ustad Phuljhuri Khan, Ustad Khurshid Khan, Ustad Shahadat Hossain Khan, Annapurna, Reenat Fauzia and many others.

He has written more than 100 books, three of which are in English (published from India). His recent publications on music are: i. Sangeetsadhak Abhidhan (Dictionary of Musicians). ii. Amar Sangeet Swajan (My Music Kindred). Bangladesh Muslim Sangeetsadhak (Muslim Music Devotees of Bangladesh). He is the third son of Ustad Ayet Ali Khan and nephew of Ustad Alauddin Khan. He has been decorated with the highest State Awards of the country¬'The Independence Day Award' (Shwadhinata Padak) and 'Twenty-first February Award' (Ekushey Padak)and 'Bangla Academy Literary Award' for his commendable contribution in the field of music. He has also been adorned with quite a number of other wards. His article on 'Music of Bangladesh' has been published in the Swedish Encyclopedia. He has also contributed to the 'Banglapedia' (the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh) published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. He is the former Director General of National Academy of Fine and Performing Arts (Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy) and former Chairman of Nazrul Institute named after the Poet-Laureate of Bangladesh Kazi Nazrul Islam. He is also the President of the Bangladesh Chapter of International Council for Traditional Music (ICTM), the headquarters being in the U.S.A. and also the President of Ustad Ayet Ali Khan Academy of Music. He has served Radio Bangladesh and former Radio Pakistan for long 30 years. He is also the Secretary General of the International PEN Bangladesh Chapter, headquarters being in London, U.K.

He has visited many countries including U.S.A, U. K. China, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, North Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, Kuwait, Iran, India and Pakistan as a leader of cultural delegation and also as an expert on Radio, Saarc and Unesco.

He is a visiting lecturer of College of Music and associated with the Department of Drama and Music of Dhaka University and Rajshahi University.

He is an M. A. in History.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobarakhossainkhan (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 November 2007

See previous. Sbowers3 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryke Geerd Hamer

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have a problem with user:Zo'orIon, who made edits to the article Ryke Geerd Hamer, that contained threats or comments like "Added november, 1st., 2007:"... Furthermore that user complained about an edit by user:Huangdi ([8]), although in my opinion that edit just enhances the phrase. Then there r many little changes by that user, that r unsourced and therefore questionable... I would be glad, if somebody could stop this upcoming edit-war before it begins. Maybe I should add this about my interests regarding this article: I personally wouldnt use Hamer's approach; I dont see, why his approach should be described in such a questionable way, and why mentally healthy adults should be protected against Hamer (my psychiatrists even enforced, that questionable people with questionable interests talked to me, while I was "psychotic"...)... --Homer Landskirty 08:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, while you were right to revert comments such as "There are more than 160 dead victims...", the article is very poor. It gives highly undue weight to his claims by describing them in such detail. Given that they are extreme fringe beliefs, and not accepted by mainstream science at all, they should be described once, and briefly. I'll work on cutting later if I get the chance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... I am happy to read, that I wasnt completely wrong... A very short description of his ideas should suffice (if somebody really want to know more details about it he/she can just read his website)... --Homer Landskirty 16:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I compactified the article... Now I am interested in a second opinion... :-) --Homer Landskirty 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Dispute

Resolved

Hi all, This is not really and edit war yet but I would like to avoid it so I looking for some advice. Somebody posted a video on the article University_of_Florida_Taser_incident which was a youtube video and extremely biased in my opinion so I removed it with an edit summery. Another editor reverted my edits with the edit summary "Why is is biased?" which I think was wrong for a start. So I have reverted his edit and asked him to look at the talk page where I have started a section describing why I think it was wrong. Could somebody please look at the article/discussion to put my mind at rest? Many thanks DoyleyTalk 12:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the video is very NPOV. It is an opinion piece rather than a simple factual recording of the whole incident. Sbowers3 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add also that for the most part, YouTube should not be linked in articles, per the external links guideline, which states: "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media." (and this article clearly is not about rich media). Additionally, copyright policy applies, and videos that are copyrighted by other organizations may not be linked to via Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that helps a lot! DoyleyTalk 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet#On_Line_true_spreadsheets

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Last week I (Rene Pardo) provided additional details regarding the world's first spreadsheet which I co-invented in 1969.

My background is on www.renepardo.com

I still have of course, the original manuals, including the presentation which I gave to 18 vice presidents of the budgeting operations of all the U.S. operating telephone companies in 1970 - which enabled AT&T, the Telcos, and Long Lines to standardize on our spreadsheet for their entire budgeting operations across the U.S. Reference the article written in the AT&T news bulletin (1971) http://www.renepardo.com/articles/spreadsheet.pdf

For some reason, the example I provided illustrating the logical functionality (i.e. allowing for IF a certain calculation in a cell, is equal, less than or greater than another calculation, then if True, then place this calculation into the cell; if False, place this other calculation in a cell) functionality that the world's first electronic spreadsheet LANPAR provided for, was deleted.

PLEASE, My question is : who decided to remove it?

a. if it is Wikipedia, then that is fine

b. if it is a party not wanting the industry to know that this functionality existed in 1969 (because of current patent litigation issues, or professional jealousies and dishonesty), then I need to know who requested to have it removed. It may affect patent litigation that has or will be taking place by others making claims to I.P. rights.

I would very much appreciate speaking to the appropriate person in your organization.

my email address is removed for privacy

Very best regards, Rene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.82.161 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 3 November 2007

If you click the History tab at the top of the Spreadsheet article, you can scan down to find who made the change, then contact that editor on his talk page. It turns out that the editor is fairly experienced, has edited a wide variety of articles, and was cleaning up your contribution to confirm to Wikipedia standards. As to the removal of your example, only he could give his reasons. Sbowers3 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your personal information for your privacy. As for the content, "Wikipedia" is the sum of millions of editors, so without going through the history, it would not be possible to say who removed the information about which you inquire. Some of the core policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. Your personal website (www.renepardo.com) is not a reliable source. Unless this information was written up by news publications, etc., if it was deemed unverifiable by reliable sources, that may be why it was removed, as it would then fall into the area of original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can provide some reliable news sources that detail the information, feel free to post it on the article's talk page for review. However, I'd also request that you take a look at the conflict of interest guideline, which would discourage you from editing any article about yourself, your products, your company, friends, or family, as you would likely be unable to edit neutrally, and neutrality is another of the core policies of Wikipedia. As for the information you did add to the article, I would suggest a review of the manual of style, and citing sources pages, as that entire section is in need of some cleanup and repair. Naked URLs should not be placed into article space, as has been done with your personal site URL. Additionally, using words like "landmark" to describe a court case, should be qualified and attributed to a secondary source, as that is not a neutral term. Now, I realize all of this may come across to you as negative, and I wish to assure you that is not my intention, but the medium of text is rather imperfect at conveying inflection. I wish to assist you in understanding some of the underlying issues at work, and to understand why the information may have been removed by another editor, and why it risks being removed still. I hope this information is of some help, at least in assisting you to understand why the information may be removed, and why it may not be appropriate unless it can be verified. Feel free to ask any further questions if I have not sufficiently answered the question! Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral" Assistance for writing an article in Wikipedia for SearchJohn.com Limited

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ok,

I was told that there was a

1) "Conflict of Interest (COI)" Is there a "neutral" instance that can write about SearchJohn.com Limited. We can send this person all necessary documents.

That would then rule out the second thing that our entry was 2) "Blatant Advertising", because obviously this person is not involved in the company SearchJohn.com Limited

I was told that the company

3) SearchJohn.com Limited was a "failure", and that I did not mention that point. Well my only comment is that we are working on the company day and night and we have built up a considerable portfolio of websites, some of which have been deleted again...(I can put the details of these websites in as well...no problem...

4) I find it strange that someone makes a judgement about weather an internet company is a failure or not, in particular if noone has had a look at the financial situation..... YouTube.com made a loss of one million US$ a month.....does that make it a failure????? A few days later that company was bought for 1.65 Billion US$.

We have 20 websites running and if we look at all the traffic we get from all these websites and who links to our websites we dont think our company is a failure....maybe not a huge success....

5) I did spent about 3 hours to write an article for Wikipedia and I did not make a backup of the stuff I uploaded....can I have a copy of the article I wrote please....suddenly it was gone.... I could not even stop it otherwise I would have been blocked!!!!!!

Cheers Tom Krieg, SearchJohn.com Limited —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchjohn (talk • contribs) 02:12, 4 November 2007

To be totally honest, we do not care if your company is a success or failure; there are three things that we care about, and those are notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Oh, and good quality encycplopædic articles, of course. So make that four things. If that reads harsh, it is not really meant to, but serves to indicate how jaded we all are with non-notable, unreferenced, non-neutral advertorial. I gave up New Page patrolling because of it. Apart from the potential for a COI to produce biased and OR-derived content, it matters little who writes an article; how they write it matters a lot. Adrian M. H. 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at the Permanent makeup page

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Several of us have spent a lot of time updating this page to make it unbiased and report current truths and trends in this industry. User:Dbsunde continually adds article links that end up recommending her own personal website and links to a private company's group. Discussion throughout the article is also sabotaged by this poster. When corrected, it continues to be reverted on a daily basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatt bratt (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The place to start is at Talk:Permanent makeup. Explain the policy about external links. The link that Dbsunde is inappropriate, but I think the two examples are appropriate - but probably should be turned into descriptive text with a reference link. If after you have explained the policy, the user continues to revert, then first warn {{uw-3rr}} about reversion policy, then report to WP:AN3 if necessary. Sbowers3 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am having a problem with a someone named Tatt Bratt who has taken it upon herself to erase all my postings, which are factual and meet all the Wikipedia Guidleines. Please check the history of Permanent Cosmetics and you will see that she is the one erasing all my posts. Will someone please look into this and put a stop to it. If she continues to do this, she should be blocked

Could someone please contact her and tell her to stop it please

NOVEMBER 4, 2007 - 7:06PM DBSUNDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsunde (talk • contribs) 4 November 2007

Note: the comments by User:Dbsunde actually concern a dispute at the page called Permanent makeup, to which Permanent cosmetics is a redirect. EdJohnston 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the heading which included the term 'vandalism' per WP:TALK since it was non-neutral in the dispute. Dbsunde, please try to edit the Permanent makeup article in a collaborative fashion; it appears that both you and User:Tatt Bratt have something to contribute. The links that were removed generally violate our guidelines at Wikipedia:External links, which are intended to keep Wikipedia from being used for advertising or promotion. There are many editors here who would have been just as quick to remove those links. Links should be as neutral and informative as possible, and links which are intended to sell or promote some cosmetic treatment are not likely to be found appropriate. EdJohnston 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you EDJohnston - Dbsunde's posts are self-serving and although recommended she not post those links, even in text fashion they still post articles that point directly to her own business. There are hundreds of other articles out but she continually removes my additions so While she so accuses, I have been unable to spend the time to post them due to vandalism by Dbsunde. Tatt bratt 11:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Further information - It is important that Dbsunde refrains from altering the second paragraph, first sentence: Most commonly called permanent cosmetics, other names include dermapigmentation, micropigmentation, and cosmetic tattooing[1] As you see I have posted the reference in support of this information and it should remain as posted here. Medical micropigmentation is a misnomer - tattooing is not a medical procedure. Tatt bratt 14:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

unclear dispute

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Following the steps of dispute resolution, I'm posting here with regard to what may or may not be or become a conflict with another editor. As of right now, I'm not even sure what this is all about, since asking the editor (DR step 1) and disengaging (DR step 2) resulted in the user removing my posting to his/her talk page without replying. My posting was related to a comment the user had made on another user's talk page with regard to myself. I tried at AN/I but was redirected here. Any input would be appreciated, as I'm not sure how to best resolve the issue (which includes determining what the issue really is in the first place). I went directly to DR step 3, as I believe I already unsuccessfully tried the other steps. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. You yourself state that it "may or may not be or become a conflict" and you're not sure how to determine "what the issue really is in the first place." It seems to me that you and perhaps lrpen are reading a lot more into each other's statements than is warranted. Nobody did anything wrong that I can see, and you're both a little too suspicious about the other's intentions. Don't worry about it. Sbowers3 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit worried. He bookmarked my non-existent RfA page "just in case" and suggested that another user does so, too. He also made a remark regarding "that admin material" editor and talked about similar patterns, as if I was a sockpuppet or somesuch. When I tried to contact him about it, he removed my posting, calling it an "obnoxious rant". — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't do any good to worry about something that you can't do anything about. lrpen didn't do anything wrong so nobody can do anything about it. He wasn't helpful and friendly but he wasn't uncivil. I don't know what else to suggest. Sbowers3 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I do however regard it as somewhat uncivil to label that good-faithed question of mine an obnoxious rant. Maybe our perception largely diverge at that point. Also, how much would you appreciate it if a User:ExampleX told User:ExampleY that he had bookmarked you non-existent RfA page and suggested to User:ExampleY to do the same? Not replying is one thing, removing a well-justified question with such an edit summary is simply not compatible with WP:CIVIL. In my humble opinion. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do remove nonsense from my page as I see fit. The user just continues with his unspecified unhappiness and just won't let it go. He was pounding Mikka for a while and then switched to me. --Irpen 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense? Unhappinness? Pounding? You're not making much sense. Why not simply answer to my question? — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Blanc

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a message at another section of the Village Pump and I was told to ask for help here.

I'm not sure how to resolve this issue, although I stopped editing the page so someone could take a look. As I mentioned, I had included in the edit summery that I was currently working on it although I'm assuming there's a template I could have used. I'd already lost some additional text I added to two edit conflict caused while the other editor reverted my changes so my version came out pretty jumbled.

This editor's complaint basically boils down to the fact that I misworded a few statements that could easily could be been corrected. For example, a source I used stated he was one of 16 foreigners held in Indonesia for drug trafficking. He removed the statement and the surce because it was published in 2005 so it wasn't accurate. I tried rewording the article as best I could based on his points from the talk page such as adding "as of 2005" to the sentence.

I would have checked the page, especially the references, after I'd rewritten the article but I don't feel I was given a chance to. I'm not looking to cause trouble, but I was perfectly nice to the guy unti he starts making bizarre accusations of me adding false references on a completely unrelated topic.

I don't mind someone pointing out if I'm being careless or if I've made a mistake, but I think he was way out of line when he calls me a liar. I spent the time to attempt to rewrite the article, which included a lot of research on my part, and he completly disregards any changes I make and claiming I'm just making up sources. Several of these article's were found on LexusNexus.com and apparently won't allow these me to add these articles because they don't exist online. I've created several articles through Wikipedia:Afc using news articles from LexusNexus.com and I don't see why I'm suddenly not able to do so for this particular article.

I'm not trying to make a federal case out of this, but when he starts claiming I've "fraudulently used references in the past" (I've only been editing since September) I think I'm justified in being a little concerned. 72.74.220.188 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ray Heindorf To the Editor.

Resolved

 – -ish? Adrian M. H. 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I recently joined you and entered a search for Ray Heindorf. I saw an edit button on info on Ray and entered info that I run a FREE Ray Heindorf Society and inviting people to contact me if they needed to knoe any info on Ray Heindorf as I personally knoe members of his family. This is NOT advertising at all but free info. I received a stroppy message from a Nohah telling me to STOP Spamming or I would ne blocked from using the site. Who is Nohah? What is the site for if I cannot contribute? Why was the info on Carol White and Ray Heindorf removed that I took the time to add on? What is the point of all this aggro whe you have asked for contributions? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.208.147 (talk)

Hello, and thanks for your question. I've removed your personal information for your own privacy, and formatted your question so it is viewable (on Wikipedia, you can't use tab/indent features). That being said, I realize Wikipedia might seem confusing at first, (please click on the blue words to read the policy/guide they refer to). Wikipedia is not like other sites you may have come across. First, it is an encyclopedia. What this means, is that it is not MySpace, or FaceBook, or a place to host personal webspace, or a place where editors can make articles about anything they wish. Wikipedia has Core policies, such as neutrality, notability, verifiability, etc. What does all of this mean? Well, it means that any article on Wikipedia must demonstrate notability (meaning it must be note worthy, covered by the media, etc.), and have reliable, third-party sources (such as news media articles, magazine/trade journal articles) written about the subject, and the information given in the article must cite those sources to verify it is true. Additionally, Wikipedia is not for advertisement, or promotion of a company, product, service, or website. It is not a directory of website links, or random information. Your edits were removed because they were what is considered spam, and it contained your email address, which is not done in article space (see the manual of style). After looking through all of those policies and guidelines, I hope you understand the reason your edit was removed, and why the article is not the appropriate venue for you to request correspondence. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

One Guideline ArielGold left out is quite relevant to this issue: Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. This involves making edits about yourself or those closely associated with you. You may use the COI noticeboard for help making edits to the articles. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pointless Edit warring on the article Amon Amarth

Stale

 – Some edit warring still occurring despite PhilB's efforts to calm them.Adrian M. H. 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I need a bit of support because I don't really know what to do,

I have caught User:Twsx and User:Scipo reverting each others edits on this article and was wondering if there were certain templates that I should use to warn them etc. and whether I should get an administrater to give them a ban or somthing as, Cheers (from a slightly confused) PhilB ~ ^T/_C 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that Twsx has posted a RfC for Scipo before (see below)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Scipo
• User_talk:Scipo#Dear_Twsx_and_Dear_Scipo.2C
• User_talk:Twsx#RfC_for_User:Scipo

Hi Philip, thanks for your question. First, a couple basics: Users are not "banned" except in extreme situations, after long deliberation by the community, or by request of Jimbo. Blocking is done for disruption, and if the editors are violating the three-revert rule, (more than 3 reverts in 24 hours) you can report them at the noticeboard for 3RR violations. However, what I'd suggest is what you've already done: request the two editors on their talk page to not edit war over it. You could also start a posting on the article's talk page, saying you've noticed the disputes, and ask both editors via their talk pages nicely, to come to the talk page to try to work out the differences. Normally this is all it takes to get things going, and as long as they both can remain civil and discuss the problems, agreement normally can be reached. If either editor refuses to discuss it, and continues to revert, you could warn them on their talk page with {{subst:uw-3rr}}, but I'd suggest that you only do that if they truly have gone beyond 4 reverts in 24 hours, and are unwilling to discuss the issues with the other editors. The issue, as I see it, seems to be that the two disagree on capitalizing the word "Viking" in "Viking metal" music genre, and the separating via a line break of the two genres in the infobox. From someone who has never even heard of this type of music, the capitalized version would be the proper form, per the music standards set here on Wikipedia: WP:MUSTARD. I'd suggest that page be pointed out gently to User:Twsx, as he is the one that is removing the capitalization. As mentioned, if the edit warring continues, feel free to use the warning, and if it continues still, report to the 3RR board. Hopefully, the situation would not escalate to that point. If you are unable to get to a solution, another avenue to go is by requesting a comment on the article's talk page, via the {{RFCbio}} template, allowing others to come give input. Hope that helps! Ariel♥Gold 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolving Disputes at the Gayatri Spivak Page

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing debate on the talk page for this article about whether to mention a certain op-ed that is aggressively critical of the subject. At this point, the debate seems to be over how it should be discussed in the article: with two versions having been presented: my own, and that of a fellow editor which currently appears on the page.

Seeing eye to eye on the issue does not seem possible, but I think we're all tired and want to move on. As such, any input from outside could be very helpful. JrFace 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to presume that the absence of a response to my initial entry has been due to its lack of specificity. Whatever the case, at this point it seems that the editing conflict I mentioned has been more or less resolved. Well, perhaps not resolved, but over. JrFace 20:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page "Singing Sand Dunes"

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, madam,

My inquiry deals with the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Sand_Dunes. The topic of singing sand dunes received a lot of media attention after a series of scientific papers came out recently (Andreotti (2004), Douady et al. (2006), Bonneau, Andreotti et al. (2007), Vriend et al. (2007)). The popular media (Nature, Science, Discovery Channel, ScienceNews, etc.) described the controversy that is present between the different explanations of this phenomenon.

I never contributed to Wikipedia, but I do use the encyclopedia often. The originally entry of singing sand dunes was written in 2006 in response of the article by Douady. Currently, the entry is changed again to favor the paper by Andreotti (2004). Should scientific controversies by fought over at Wikipedia? Is it not the idea to display the sources and a summary of all views, such that the reader can make up his/her mind? I find this very disturbing, but I do not want to engage in this "Wikipedia war". However, I do not agree with the one-sided view that is presented now at the page. Would it be possible for you to write this "summary" entry, instead of the constantly changing entries by the various authors?

This is a recent overview of the media attention:

• Larry O'Hanlon, "When Sand Dunes Go Boom", Discovery Channel News , September 19, 2007.
• Sid Perkins, "Sonic Sands, uncovering the secret of the booming dunes", Science News 171, 149 - 150, September 8, 2007.
• Philip Ball, "The Dune Chorus", Nature 449, 10 - 11, September 6, 2007, doi:10.1038/449010a.
• David Cohen, "The Music of the Dunes", NewScientist, Short Sharp Science, August 24, 2007.
• Richard A. Kerr, "Looking Inside a Dune for its Boom", ScienceNow, daily news, June 19, 2007.

The links to these popular science news articles can be found on: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmvriend/research/publications.html

Thank you.

With kind regards, Nathalie Vriend

I checked the page, and it doesn't appear to be biased. What are specific ways we could help? Also, it's always encouraged to be bold, and edit it yourself. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Tell "Wildhartlivie" To Stop Vandalizing The Article On Karyn Kupcinet

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A contributor with the screen name "Wildhartlivie" is vandalizing repeatedly the article on Karyn Kupcinet. This person relentlessly removes any and all sourced information about Dr. Harold Kade, the Los Angeles coroner who did Karyn's autopsy. Dr. Kade resigned under the threat of firing three years after he did Kupcinet's autopsy. I said in the article -- neutrally -- that his downfall might or might not undermine what he said about Karyn's death. Wildhartlivie objected and removed that, too. He/she claims that is an act of me doing "original research," which Wikipedia prohibits.

But how is it original research ? I merely said Kupcinet's autopsy was performed by a man who lost his job in disgrace despite him having finished medical school. I sourced it with the front page of the Los Angeles Times of January 4, 1967. It belongs in the article with the disclaimer that it might or might not have to do with Kupcinet. When I said neutrally that some Los Angeles sheriffs' officials believed that Karyn's death could have been an accidental fall or murder, Wildhartlivie said that was just "police gossiping." That is absurd. They were sheriffs, not police. And law enforcement doesn't gossip.

Please help. Wildhartlivie often threatens to have my editing privileges suspended. In fairness I should have the chance to present my side of the story before I am suspended. How do I present my story to the "arbitration" people ? I gave you the screen name of this unstable Wikipedia contributor. My screen name is Dooyar, and I am giving my sign on now. Thank you for your attention. Dooyar 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please back up your explanation with "diffs". Go to the history tab, click on the "diff" links of a few edits you believe constitute vandalism, and copy and paste those links here. Looking at the recent history, I can't find any vandalism. Remember to assume good faith, stay cool, and be civil. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am simply responding to say that I am in no way vandalizing this page. I attempted on more than one occasion to edit the article to be in agreement with WP policy on style, while also disagreeing with the above editor over issues in the actual material being covered. In doing so, I reminded him of specific policies, that included WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY, as well as WP:SYN, which appeared to be what was happening, as well as WP:CIVIL. Rather than look at specifics, the above editor would revert the entire article back. I would refer anyone checking to the article talk page for a review. I have made no threats but have commented, and considered, submitting a RfC regarding the above editor's conduct regarding this and another article. Thank you. Wildhartlivie 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not have to go very far into the diffs and user talk pages to see that the above editor has not even come close to vandalism. This needle has been prompted by a commonplace content disagreement on one hand and a resentment of warnings on the other. Responding to a genuine 3RR warning with an ill-judged counter-report is just being pointy, as is making unfounded accusations here. User talk:Dooyar says it all, really. I would suggest an RFC, but I have doubts about its likely effectiveness in this instance. Adrian M. H. 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I wrote a article abbout Haloism (religion of halo) and got this messages;

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Original essay If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.Prod, concern: Original essay This template was added 2007-11-06 04:09; five days from then is 2007-11-11 04:09.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy.

I was wondering how do I go about fixing my page so it isnt deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egothrasher (talk • contribs)

The page at Haloism has already been speedily deleted (twice) - once as patent nonsense and once as repost of deleted material. To be acceptable, an article must be verifiable using reliable sources; it must be about a notable subject. It appears from the deletion log that this article was not notable or verifiable. I'll leave a note and welcome message on your user talk page with some links to help you create acceptable articles in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing Problem

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have editted CoffeeAm.com article which is blocked through speedy deletion. How to recover the existing article page? Can you please help me...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtanveerahmed (talk • contribs)

Hello, and welcome! I realize Wikipedia might seem confusing at first, (please click on the blue words to read the policy/guide they refer to). Wikipedia is not like other sites you may have come across. First, it is an encyclopedia. What this means, is that it is not MySpace, or FaceBook, a place to advertise your business, or a place where editors can make articles about anything they wish. Wikipedia has Core policies, such as neutrality, notability, verifiability, etc. What does all of this mean? Well, it means that any article on Wikipedia must demonstrate notability (meaning it must be note worthy, covered by the media, etc.), and have reliable, third-party sources (such as news media articles, magazine/trade journal articles) written about the subject, and the information given in the article must cite those sources to verify it is true. From those sources, information is summarized, paraphrased, condensed, and worded neutrally to make an encyclopedic entry (information cannot be copied from other sites). See Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, how to edit for assistance, as well as the company and website notability requirements. After reading up on these policies and guidelines, if you still feel your website is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and you have 2-3 reliable third-party (not associated with the company in any way) articles that discuss the website, feel free to place those URLs here, or at articles for creation. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has gone to AFD, which is generous considering that it is a G4 candidate. Adrian M. H. 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim Karygiannis

Stale

 – No obvious outcome. Adrian M. H. 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Many people with political agendas are trying to block the truth about this MP. There is a general consensus that this MP used a racist term "Skopjan". Many Greeks and other racists are trying to block the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 November 2007

Wikipedia has Core policies, such as neutrality, notability, verifiability, which means that biographical information must be cited to reliable, third party sources, written neutrally, and comply with the biographies of living persons policy. Any negative or potentially defamatory material cannot be added to an article without being properly sourced, attributed to the source, and written neutrally. If the MP used such a term, then find reliable news media articles about it, word it neutrally (or ask on the article's talk page for an experienced editor to help word it neutrally) and provide several sources that can be cited. I'd suggest going to the talk page to engage other editors to assist you, remaining cool and calm while discussing it. It is not a matter of "blocking the truth", but a matter of adhering to Wikipedia's policies. Ariel♥Gold 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Archiving" a Talk Page

Resolved

 – Talk page has remained intact now. Adrian M. H. 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a heated debate over the Boxer (dog) article over the number and quality of the images in the article. After I dropped out of the argument because I knew I'd end up violating WP:Civil if I kept in it, user Loudenvier decided to "archive" the talk page by removing all the discussions except for ones he approved of and felt were important. I undid his archiving and installed an auto archiver instead. We're now going back and forth with his insisting he is archiving appropriately while I think his archiving of discussions from just a day ago is pushing his own view and agenda so that editors will not see the past discussion over the image issue. Can we get some cooler heads to this issue? Collectonian 16:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages are often archived when there is a need, i.e. when they become more than 100kb in length, making it difficult to load or read, or when conversations are completely off-topic to improving the article, etc. Before archiving an article talk page, it is a good idea to make a post asking the community if they mind, if they think it is a good idea, etc., rather than just dumping the entire page into an archive, as that's likely to upset some folks, especially if there are recent discussions, or resolved conflicts that get archived. Looking at the page, I'm sure that the posts from 2006 could safely be archived unless there are dispute resolutions outlined, but I'd suggest asking others their opinions prior to making big archives, (and suggest this to other editors, as well). Loudenvier has posted a rather civil comment on the talk page, and I would encourage everyone to discuss their concerns nicely, and remember to assume good faith. Just my thoughts. Ariel♥Gold 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request about a useful link in mandala article

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1 I am speaking of this link which carries to this other link in the article Mandala.

2 This link has been several months there and, as per their comments, many senior people has find there my web and discover in this way the benefits of to paint mandalas.

3 Recently the link has been deleted and controversy has born. Please read in the annex my reasons to keep the link, copied from the "Discussion" of the article; and the reasons of the person who is deleting the link and tell me your oppinion and what to do. Thank you.

Valvanera 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My resons to keep the link

Talk:Mandala#About_this_external_link_Free_Mandalas_ready_to_print_and_coloring_for_senior_people

In this page to go to the mandalas click at the link "to the mandalas" at the end of page

Day by day will be there a big collection of mandalas, whose scheme of color has been chosen so that it does not cause confusions to the senior people, because there are not too similar colors.

This Link is not spam, is a sincere and serious supply to those who perhaps needs it more. Valvanera it is a real 89 years lady, who has been filling of sense part of her time coloring more that 200 mandalas, and want to share her positive experience. We, her relatives, do not agree with the deletion of this link because it has a clear social and cultural function. (unsigned comment by User:62.57.136.100 on 1 March 2007)

For information about what is and is not consider spam on Wikipedia, please see WP:SPAM. Please note that this is not a matter of anyone's sincerity or seriousness or their positive (or negative, for that matter) experiences, but rather one of whether the link belongs in an encyclopedia—which I believe holds true for the other links on that page as well, many of which I also think should be removed! Wikipedia is also not supposed to be a link farm.

Surely there are more appropriate places on the Web where you and your family can reach your intended audience and Ms. Valvanera's works can be better appreciated. Good luck and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry so much, but I am not in agreement with your interpretation of which it says the guideline with respect to Spam with external links.

There it says:

"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."

This is not the case. This Link don´t tries to promote neither a Web nor a product. This Link tries to contribute with information on the way to find a specific type of mandalas : mandalas easy to be colored by senior people ( I do not see in this Article another Link with that information ).

I was thinking that in the flexibility of its inhabitants resided partly the greatness of Internet, and it seems that wikipedia share with me this thought when in the first paragraph of the guideline says :

"This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Mr Lockhart let me tell you that, imo, perhaps the first mandala in the world was the earth itself... where we have to live all together ;).

I don't want to revise my thoughts about the Net, please be a little flexible. Thank you.

UPDATE : Nov, 6th 2007: Based on the origin of the visits to this page and their comments, thousands of people have benefited from finding this link here. Why deprive future visitors of this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.139.153 (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The reasons of the person who is deleting the link

First time :

22:59, 16 October 2007 TheRingess (Talk | contribs) (19,260 bytes) (→External links - removed commercial links and links to art websites see WP:EL) (undo)

Second Time :

14:24, 6 November 2007 TheRingess (Talk | contribs) (19,283 bytes) (Undid revision 169566779 by 62.57.139.153 (talk) removed link spam, see WP:NOT) (undo)

Third time :

15:58, 6 November 2007 TheRingess (Talk | contribs) (19,283 bytes) (→External links - removed unnecessary link, Wikipedia is not a search engine or link farm, the link cites no reliable sources, nor adds any new information to the article) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valvanera (talk • contribs)

Are you trying to add a link to a website that you own or administer? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other editor. Both links are against WP:EL guidelines (specifically Links normally to be avoided #12 - one is a personal site, the other a blog), and were rightly removed. They also appear to be your own sites which goes against #4 and your re-adding them can be considered spam. Collectonian 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to understand all those reasons, but also there is a fact: during all those months where this link has been there, thanks to it, thousands of aged people have benefited from the discovering of the activity of to coloring mandalas. I am sorry for the ones who comes next, but now, this is not my decision anymore.Valvanera 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP is not a help service; it is just an encyclopædia. If links do not meet the letter and/or spirit of any relevant guideline, they deserve to be removed as soon as anyone spots them. I'll mark this resolved for now, as it has been well covered. Adrian M. H. 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Ann Spencer

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I don't think the girl in this article is notable but rather it should be "Cleveland Elementary School Shooting Incident" or something similar? What do other people think? Thanks DoyleyTalk 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you decide whether it meets BLP1E, but it certainly fails to prove its claims of notability. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits on article about the Lord of Mann

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A user, Theisles, appears to be engaging in an edit war with me over verifiable (and verified) information I have added to the article related to a claim by David Drew Howe to be the de jure King of [the Isle of] Mann. Can you help us in resolving this? 216.143.251.162 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is actually very easy to resolve. Both sides were wrong. Wikipedia:Verifiability states clearly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There were no reliable sources on either side. I removed the contentious material. Sbowers3 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sbowers, I saw what you did and agree with it; it is a fair resolution to the issue. Thanks, again, for your help. 216.143.251.162 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars in the world of X-Men...

Resolved

 – article history suggests that it has quietened down now. Adrian M. H. 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Over the past few months, there have been several back and forth edits, by several users (myself included), to the article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X-Men_teams

Basically, what the edits concern are the codenames of several former "X-Men" characters, all of whom recently became members of a completely different superhero team, the "New Warriors." For example, former X-Man "Jubilee" is now the New Warrior "Wondra".

Many people, like myself, feel that since this article is a list of X-Men team members, it would be incorrect to list these characters by their New Warriors codenames, and that their X-Men codenames should be the ones which are primarily used, leaving their New Warriors codenames to be mentioned in the footnotes. Others however, believe that since their New Warrior codenames are more current, albeit almost completely unrealated to their tenures as X-Men, that those names should be used.

I tried to start up a dialogue about this quite a while ago in the article's discussion page (titled "Wondra & Decibel"), but for a long time I got no response, and the edit wars were continued by other miscellaneous users. I recently got a response from another user, on the opposite side of the debate from me, and we've been writing lengthy arguements and counter-arguements to one another in the discussion page for the past few days. Thus far it's remained mostly civil, though a bit heated on both sides, but I fear that it will soon escalate to something a bit more than a heated discussion, and that the edit wars will just stupidly chug onward, if some official third-party perspective isn't offered soon.

There are clearly several users on both sides of the arguement participating in a massive multi-person edit war, and all I want is some sort of official resolution, so this can hopefully finally end. Is there anyone out there that can offer some assistance, or at least help me point this article in the right direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.225.126 (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2007

Perhaps listing the members of their respective team under their current name (for chronological purposes), and making mention of their name change would work. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's kindof the meat of what some of us are arguing against. We don't see it as logical to list them under their New Warriors personas, because said personas never were members of the X-Men (which is what this is a list of, afterall.) For example, we don't think it makes sense to list Jubilee as "Wondra" on an X-Men list, because there never was an X-Man named "Wondra". If someone picked up a back-issue of X-Men looking for Wondra, they wouldn't find squat. If someone unfamiliar with the New Warriors changes were to come to the list looking for information on the X-Man Jubilee, they wouldn't easily find it, because all her information is listed under "Wondra" and for all intents and purposes, anyone unfamiliar with the New Warriors wouldn't even know that name existed. Conversely however, anyone who -was- familiar with the New Warriors, and Wondra, would be looking her up on a New Warriors list, and would have no problems because her name on that list is appropriate to the team/comic book being discussed. They would however, potentially have problems if ther reverse were true and she were listed as "Jubilee" on a New Warriors list. What we're saying is we think the sensible thing is to continue using Wondra as the primary listing on the New Warriors list, where it's appropriate, and leave her listed as Jubilee on the X-Men list with a footnote about the Wondra change, to avoid confusion amongst people who are only familiar with one team/comic book but not the other.71.201.225.126 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but I think it would be better to list them as their current name and just make quick note of their former name, with an explanation of the story behind the change. Also, I examined the discussion. All I could find was two editors involved. If this gets into a he said, she said thing, you might want to bring it to WP:3O for a third opinion. Remember to keep cool. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed two involved in the discussion, but if you check the edit history on the page itself, several different people have edited the names back to back and forth. Frankly I wish some of them would come ot the discussion page and offer their 2-Cents, but they don't seem to be doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.225.126 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2007

Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance--serious error in Wikipedia entry

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 01:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal-Wallis_test> contains a serious error. As of 3:15 pm Mountain Standard Time on Nov. 7, the page states that "Population variances among groups do not have to be equal--unlike ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis does not require Homoscedasticity". This is incorrect. To quote from the original paper in which the test was developed (Kruskal and Wallis 1952, p. 586), "If the samples come from identical continuous populations and ni is not too small, H is distributed as..." Later in the paper, Kruskal and Wallis elaborate on the theoretical justification for their test by considering a simple example comparing just two populations. They say (p. 591) "The null hypothesis is that these two samples come from the same population. The alternative hypothesis is that the samples come from approximations of approximately the same form, but shifted or translated with respect to each other." As the quoted material indicates, the assumption of the Krukal-Wallist one-way analysis of variance is that the samples to be compared were drawn from "identical continuous populations" (i.e. "populations of approximately the same form") which differ, if at all, only with respect to "location". The median is one measure of the "location" of a distribution, which is why the Kruskal-Wallis test is sometimes described as testing for differences among medians.

Last night at approximately 9 pm Mountain Standard Time I edited the page to correct this error. The incorrect text has now been restored. Since the error is entirely straightforward to check, I believe it would be appropriate for an editor to assist.

I note that the incorrect statement on the current version of the page has a footnote indicating "citation needed". A citation has not been given because no citation exists. No citation exists because the statement is false.

Here is a link to a pdf file of Kruskal and Wallis 1952, the original source for the test, which will allow confirmation of the correctness of my quotations, and the incorrectness of the current webpage. <http://homepages.ucalgary.ca/~jefox/Kruskal%20and%20Wallis%201952.pdf>

Jeremy Fox Asst. Professor Dept. of Biological Sciences University of Calgary (email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.225.113 (talk • contribs)

Math makes my head asplode, so I can't say much about the actual edits; however, the revision history of the article indicates just one edit since July, that being from an IP last night. You may need to clear your cache to see the change. As it stands, the change appears to have been made. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are 100% correct and, after having reviewed the paper you've cited, it's abundantly clear that homoscedasticity is an underlying assumption of the test. In looking at the page history, I see this edit which, having come from Calgary, AB, at about 21:00 MST, I presume to be your edit. Thereafter, I can see no reversion. The next and only other edit is this one, where User:Sbowers3 simply inserted the same link to the PDF you've provided, above. As Tony suggests, I think it's almost certainly an issue with your cache needing to be cleared. I hope this addresses your concerns and I want to personally thank you for taking the time to correct that surprisingly elementary error in the article. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs)

Australian Federal Election 2007

Resolved

 – Settled down now, it seems. Adrian M. H. 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift9 undid my paragraph repeatedly on the grounds that it was "a campaign for or against the worm" then "Because it is irelevent[sic] meaningless commentary. There is sufficient detail on the worm." then "An IP reverting. How cute."

I actually put forward arguments of why the paragraph should be included whereas Timeshift9 just reverts it.

This has put me off registering and becoming a wikipedian. If anyone else wants to fight this guy then please go ahead: Talk:Australian federal election, 2007#New turn in worm saga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.222.1 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2007

Your edits seem to violate Neutrality guidelines. Right now it seems like the problem has been solved. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute over the content and title of the Nobel Prize in Economics article, which is reflected in the history and talk page. One content issue has to do with whether or not the prize is a Nobel Prize, which the Nobel Foundation and the Secretary of the Economics Prize Committee have refuted.[9] [10] This hasn't changed the opinion of those who believe it is one. There is also another content issue related to completely removing edits I make to the article (and the Nobel Prize article that is now protected for a different reason), regardless of the fact that my edits are sourced from reliable sources and regardless of whether or not they are related to Nobel Prize issue. I am requesting assistance with how to deal with these editors (primarily Vision Thing) who have reverted edits and removed cited text:

• without explaining why [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
• with incorrect claims of original research and WP:LEAD [17]
• with claims of compromise versions that were never discussed [18] [19]
• or with claims that text can't be changed if there is no consensus [20], even though there is no consensus to keep the current text

Asking in the talk page why the facts were removed has either resulted in a bad faith rationale, or more commonly, no rationale at all about the text unrelated to the Nobel Prize issue (see threads started on 2007-11-03, 2007-10-30 and 2007-10-26).

If this is not the appropriate forum for help related to editors removing cited text without explaining why, please let me know where to take this issue.

–panda 22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're in the right place for assistance in dealing with disputes; Go here for help with resolving them. If talking things out and having both sides explain their story doesn't work, you should take it to the Administrator Incident Noticeboard for assistance from the administrators. They can take action such as protecting the page or blocking the disruptive users. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution article, which is how I found this article, but I'm not sure what is the next best step. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts -- does removing text with no explanation quality as a breech of WP:CIV? Wikipedia:Third opinion doesn't seem to apply since more than 2 editors are involved. WP:RFC/U? I would then need to ask another editor to certify, which is possible, but the RFC/U would be specifically directed at a single editor. And attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page ends with no reply from the opposing parties about why the cited text was removed. –panda 02:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider leaving no explanation a violation of civility guidelines (but it is a breach of wikiquette), and 3O and RFCU aren't appropriate because there are too many involved. I suggest starting a normal RFC for articles (not the involved users), taking it to The mediation committee, which is an official group, or the mediation cabal, which is basically an EAR group aimed for dispute resolution. Requests for a mediator can be found here. Since this is a full blown dispute, this page might not be able to handle your request in the way you need. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I can try an RFC first, but it would be very very detailed since the dispute is about the entire first paragraph of the article, plus some other minor issues. Did you mean that the involved editors should not participate in the RFC or just that it shouldn't be an RFC/U? –panda 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an RfC/U. The involved editors are allowed to participate, but the main goal of RfC is to get an outside opinion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! –panda 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Feel free to archive this thread. –panda (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, panda. Adrian M. H. 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We need your help BADLY

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

Hi, it's me from the Toto page from a month ago. On the page for the "Barenaked Ladies", there's one poster who won't stop using sources that are not reliable. He's using only 2 sources for the entire page and they are from 2 alleged tv specials even though there's no evidence that these tv specials actually aired. Please help, can you look over the page and talk to the poster TheHYPO. I've told him he needs more sources and better sources. He's just ignoring me, he has a bad attitude. You are always great help, I trust you 100% with these situations. Writer1400 Writer1400 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that about half of what this poster has just said is inaccurate:

• The two sources are not "alleged". Quick yahoo and google searches can prove their exisitance rather fast if this user had bothered to do them
• They are not the only sources on the page (though the other two sources are fairly specific to relatively small facts), these two sources are bios of the band - of course they will be able to be widely citable; that said, more than 2/3s of the article exist below the last citation of either source
• I have not ignored Writer1400. We have discussed the issue in edit comments, and on the talk page of the article. But, because I disagree with his concerns and haven't deleted the citations, he (I will use male pronouns though I don't know the user's gender) has taken that to be "ignoring" him.
• Wikipedia policy does not require me to provide online copies of offline sources, nor do I believe that if a simple google search confirms the existance of the program, do I need to provide "proof" of their existance (since Writer1400 has said that the "proof" he wants is links to video clips in the article, which would surely be copyright vios)

Thank you TheHYPO 17:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, while it may not be Wikipedia policy, it would probably end this dispute. Even giving links to the pages you find with the google search would be evidence enough. I also think the only way we could get involved in copyright violations is if we used the actual information, word for word, without attributing authorship. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said to TheHYPO to put up video links, I know it's against the rules which is why I told him we can't. I'm well aware that the band was on "Behind the Music" but how do we know what information was actually said in that tv special? We don't. For all we know, TheHYPO or anyone else for that matter can just make up information and credit it to the "Behind the Music". The bottom line, we don't know what was said in that tv special so all we can do is go off what TheHYPO is saying and I don't think that's a good idea. Writer1400

Nothing cited from the episode is even contraversial. I've asked you six or seven times now if there's anything cited that you believe I may have made up and you refuse to reply to that. Until there are BETTER sources, I don't see why we should revert the article to an unsourced state just because you can find a copy of the program I've cited. "The bottom line, we don't know what was said in that tv special so all we can do is go off what TheHYPO is saying and I don't think that's a good idea." First of all, who is "we"? You're the only person who has complained so far. Second of all, I've never seen anyone citing a book ask others to read the book to before citing the book, so that more than one person are known to have read the book and agreed on what the book says. If there is a dispute as to the contents of the show, that should be raised on the talk page of the article, but unless someone actually thinks I'm making crap up (which I'm clearly not), I don't see why the article should be limited. It's an article on a band, and a good portion of bios and interviews of bands are performed on TV. Should be limiting articles by suggesting a policy that bans all video not online? All articles on TV shows or movies would have to be deleted or seriously limited. I've never suggested that the article is all done, and I in fact have left the "we need more sources" template atop the article. But until I have time to sit around with the band's written bio (which you won't own a copy of, so you can argue exactly the same that it shouldn't be a source, since you can't verify it yourself) or scour the internet, I don't see why sources should be removed in favor of a completely un-sourced article. I see the point that in an ideal world, all information would be readily available to all readers so they could see exactly where all info comes from in the comfort of their desk chair, but we don't live in that world. Newspaper articles that aren't online are citable. Books that aren't online are citable. Magazine articles that aren't online are citable. Why should TV shows and interviews that aren't online be banned? Again, it's one thing if someone would like to contest the accuracy of the source, but you refuse to tell me any facts you think are wrong. If you don't dispute the facts, why waste time disputing the source when I have no reason to make it up?

EVEN IF the info cited was not actually in the source (which it is), I think in the grand sceheme of wikipedia, an article that says "Abraham Lincoln was the 15th president of the USA" and cites a source that didn't actually say that is significantly better than an article that says "Abraham Lincoln loved to knit" and has no source (In this case, I'm assuming it's not true that he loved to knit, although I haven't looked into it). That's where you should spend your time cleaning up wikipedia. Not on an article that has true facts cited by a real source that you can't see without a little research.

Finally, I respectfully disagree, J-ftan, that edits should ever be made just to appease a dispute. Either the source is acceptable, or it is not. As of 5 days ago, most of the band's origin, while told in at least 500 interviews on tv, newspapers, podcasts, etc, was not cited. I have cited it with two sources I had access to. I believe that having a citation that points people to programs they can look for if they want to find the source of the facts is significantly better than having the story sitting there uncited. At least this way, there is a place to look to find the information. Again, I'd love to see 10 citations for the origin story, including one from their bio, and some from online sources. But I have a life, and researching wikipedia is not my full time job. When I have time, I'd love to try and add citations, but I don't see any plausible reason in Writer1400's argument why the existing sources should be removed just because he personally doesn't have a copy of the episode. And J-ftan, I'm not sure if you're suggesting removing the citations to end the dispute, or what your suggestion is; but Writer1400's comment was that if it isn't online to verify, it should be removed - and since he knows (as is policy) that any online video other than authorized by the creators on an official website, would be copyright vio and wikipedia doesn't do that (hence, no youtube links), that there won't be any online video linkable. I think that if a user believes that a citation is from a non-existant source, they are under the obligation to at least do the minimal effort of a google search themselves before making a baseless allegation that the source doesn't exist. I don't think it needs to be linked (wikipedia likes to avoid outside links anyway, and since all the outside link will do is verify that that episode actually exists, and not any of the content of it, the link seems silly.) Behind the Music in the citation already links to the article on the show, which lists Barenaked Ladies in the episode list, and links to the show's official website. I think that's sufficient proof or link to a location where proof can be found that the episode exists. TheHYPO 06:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said I think anyone of the information in the bio could be wrong, I said it COULD be wrong and how would anyone know? Using books as sources is completely different because with books, we can actually GO OUT AND BUY THEM at bookstores or on online. Your telling me that if I don't believe the info from the tv special, I should just "watch the show", well I don't get Vh1 and alot of people in the States and almost no one in Canada gets Vh1 and besides that, how do you know if Vh1 is ever going to air the episode again? YOU DON'T. I can't believe your comparing a tv source to a book source. Now if VH1, were to release a DVD of all of their Behind The Music specials including the Barenaked Ladies one, then there would be no problem here because then, the special would be accesible to anyone. But currently, the special is not accessible, it's on tv airing and you can't get it anywhere.

TheHYPO, your saying I want the source gone just because I personally haven't seen the video. WHAT ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE? What are outside readers going to think when they read the article, how are any of them going to know if the source is reliable? I'm doing this for everyone. I made a mistake about the "small bits of information", I got it mixed up with something else. So, no the source should not even be used for small bits of information.

J-Ftan, what i'm saying is that we should get rid of the source. It's not reliable. We have no absolutely no way AT ALL of knowing or even finding out what was said in that tv special. Please help. Writer1400 Writer1400 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"I never said I think anyone of the information in the bio could be wrong, I said it COULD be wrong" That's flawless logic. I would argue that many people other than Americans and Canadians would have little access to a good deal of English language books that are cited in articles. I'm sure obscure books are sometimes used that even north americans would have a hard time finding. I think outside readers are going to think "Ed met Steve at Harveys restaurant, that is interesting." You think outside readers are going to think "Ed met Steve at Harveys restaurant; That came from a TV special I haven't seen. That must totally be made up." It's one thing if the TV special said "The band members are all communists and support murder" or something, but there is nothing contraversial in there. Facts have been cited that have stood in the article for months or years under the scrutiny of many fan-editors who would know if the non-contraversial, very benign information was false because they have seen the special. You cannot forbid TV shows as a source, nor can you limit the amount of material that can be sourced from it. There is no wikipedia policy approving that. The show many not be "legally" available, but it is existant on the internet and other people have copies. Someone even commented on my own talk page who has seen the episode and supports the edit. I'm done arguing this point with you. You refuse to show me any policy that supports your position, and you have no problem with the information in the article (apparently). If you have any substantive issue with the factual content of the article, please bring it up on the article's talk page and we can discuss that issue. Otherwise, I'm done responding. There is no policy for a mass declaration of any TV show uncitable that isn't on DVD. To quote wikipolicy: "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." The program cites the most benign subjects of how the band met, where their name came from, and how their success began. As I said earlier, it would be different if it was some rare obscure facts being cited that could not be found anywhere else and was in dispute, but this is just adding some credible citation that facts noone has had issue with for years of the article. TheHYPO 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

J-Ftan, what do you think? I'll leave it up to you. I am done arguing this. I've explained my stance to TheHYPO.

(indent reset) First of all, it's J-stan, with an S! Has no one ever heard of a Long S? Secondly, how do you have access to those sources, TheHYPO? Is it possible for someone else to access the sources for proof? Personally, I think that the source is fine. It only has to be reliable and verifiable. If all sources had to be easily accessible, we wouldn't have half of the print sources that we do. Finally, what source exactly are we talking about? I want to see if I can find it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, for another opinion, you could check the Reliable Source Noticeboard. I can still help here, but they seem to be suited for this exact need. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about your usename J-stan. The sources are two programs: VH1's Behind The Music on Barenaked Ladies - a show that must have re-aired at least a hundred times in the US since its original airing. I have it recorded (personal recording) on DVD, though to my knowledge VH1 has not sold the series or program. It is a well known series that I'm sure thousands of people have seen the episode of. The second is admittedly rarer simply because it is Canadian-produced. It is called Distinguished Artists, and it is basically like Inside the Actors Studio, but Canadian, and not specific to actors. An episode featured Ed Robertson of the band and it was very thorough. I also have this on personally recorded DVD, though it is not sold. The series still airs and reruns weekly in Canada as far as I know. I have also added citations for the band's live DVD released today, which includes a 12 minute interview, including portions of the "origin" story, so that Writer1400 can run to his local record store, buy it, and verify at least that part of the article asap :) TheHYPO 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Marked stale in the absence of any feedback. Adrian M. H. 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PRESENT! And those sources seem quite reliable. Maybe even a transcript or a video site link (such as YouTube, or a Canadian equivalent :) ) would be helpful. I think the sources should be kept. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Roswell UFO incident page

Stale

 – Adrian M. H. 18:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I need assistance in dealing with another editor who, while not a vandal, is borderline in my view and aggressively seeks to change several pages from what I feel are fairly neutral takes on UFO incidents to ones which are the equivalent of on-line shouting matches.

The modus operandi with User talk:Dr Fil (he has no user page), is to without notice or discussion, insert substantial new material and considerable re-writes, then when I revert the insertions which are POV, irrelevant or adding too much extraneous information while requesting a discussion, he re-inserts, typically ignoring calls for discussion, then does the same a few days later.

This his been his pattern in the past, and he has repeated it on the Roswell UFO incident page over the past week.

The article stood at 88,000 bytes before the start of this, he expanded it to a shade under 100,000 bytes without notice or discussion.

He started this on October 28, making 10 edits. [21] Later that day, I reverted much of the information, though I left intact some new information he had included. At the end, the article was back to 90,000 bytes. He almost immediately, the same day, again without discussion, re-inserted the material. I reverted again, directing him to the discussion page where I laid out my reasons for the deletions of much of his added material. [22] He reverted the changes within the hour.

I reverted again and again requested a discussion on the appropriate page, and he this time responded to my reasons for reverting most of the material on the discussion. And I responded to his comments. We are now on to October 29th. This time, he let the revert stand, but made no further comments to my response to what he felt was "arbritary censor[ship]" by me. It wasn't "arbritary" as I made pains to note.

On November 1, he again reinserted a lot of material, adding about 4,000 bytes to the page, without notice or discussion, adding new material which he identified as being relevant. I reverted much of that material (but not all) and stated the reasons for this action on the discussion page. He did not reply. He re-inserted the material once again, including some more new material, and I reverted most of it again directing him to discuss these changes. I warned him on the discussion page that I would seek a block or other sanction if he refused to enter into discussion about changes he was contemplating. He ignored that request, suggesting he had to balance "POV" material in the edit summary.

On November 3, he informed me [23] that he was warning me that I was violating the 3R rule. I responded to say that he was not operating in good faith when he proceeds to insert massive amounts of new material to a page which was the result of a laborious edit process and then states he'd "consider" editing what he has inserted post facto.

Clearly, we have a problem. Even if I am wrong about the changes I reverted (and I don't believe I am), his tactics are not ones which seek consensus, they seek to impose material which he should reasonably expect to trouble some of the editors on this page. Further, he has made reference to his expertise on this subject in the past, said he has been published on the topic, yet refuses to identify himself so we can be assured that he is not one of the very authors who he feels must be defended against what he calls biased attacks.

I feel that from past experience with this editor, and the nature of his changes here, he seeks to insert a bias into this page which has been removed since the edit process described below started here more than a year ago.

Dr Fil has contributed to the Roswell UFO incident pages, though he has recently stepped back. About a year ago I started a rewrite of what was a very one-sided account of this controversial topic and changed it into a relatively balanced account, I feel, of what the various sides assert.

It should be noted that about a year ago a group of editors cited the page for clean-up and largely adopted the new approach to the page which I had initiated. And when Dr Fil tried these tactics described above to reinsert the old approach to the page, he was immediately shot down by these other editors.

The old account started with the premise that an alien incident happened in 1947 and the government has been covering it up, clearly a POV approach. Mention was made of government reports which suggested otherwise, but much more space was left for rebuttals of those reports than the reports themselves. Other skeptical comments were also present, but always with lengthy and detailed counter-arguments.

After a lengthy redo, it now reads as a re-creation of the event as initially reported, followed by the evolving accounts by pro-UFO authors (there have been significant changes to the pro-UFO accounts over the years), followed by critiques by skeptical researchers. Since most of this happened by about 1997, those sections cover that time period.

A significant fall-out happened after several government reports in the mid-90s, as several prominent UFO researchers felt that no aliens were involved after all (in part due to the new information found in the reports), and some researchers were caught claiming "cover up" when basic claimed research to back those claims were discovered not to have been done.

It is here that he seeks to insert "context" and "balance," countering the revelation that a pro-UFO author was caught lying about his Roswell research and credentials (revelations which caused many even within the UFO community to doubt the incident's veracity and therefore pertinent to the page) with accounts of various skeptics who made exaggerated personal claims or engaged in odd activities (one said he had a very high IQ, etc, another was involved in a cattle mutilation hoax). None of the accounts of skeptics he cited made mention of any claims or research related to Roswell, so I therefore deleted them as these accounts were irrelevant, spelling this out on the talk page. Indeed, the changes seemed designed specifically to disparage certain authors to "balance" the revelations about the pro-UFO author's research. The author had been publicly disowned by his co-author. Dr Fil wanted to insert a line saying that that co-author despite disowning his old partner nevertheless accepts aliens had landed, a line I omitted as I felt that it was clear that many still accepted the alien premise and it was about a controversy, not what various authors now feel about it. I admit that this was a borderline call.

Where several UFO believers suggest that upon hearing new revelations they feel no aliens were involved, he inserted for "balance" a lengthy account of a skeptic whom he suggest changed HIS mind. I saw no problem with doing that until I read the text he inserted which described a skeptic who once believed nothing happened and now believes a nuclear accident occurred and was covered up, NOT that aliens were involved. I therefore deleted it as it was beyond the scope of the page, a page which focuses on an alleged UFO incident, not an alleged nuclear accident. I underlined this point in the discussion page.

A further section brings us up-to-date with the latest developments, including precises of several new pro-UFO books on the subject. These largely describe what new claims have been made, for example, as spelled out in the latest book on the subject.

He saw fit to insert an extremely detailed account of the latest book which expanded the section on the book into the biggest section of the entire page, even though the original account of the book mentioned quite plainly that a particular witness described seeing aliens etc and this witness's full account was on two separate pages, one of which is devoted to the individual in question. I reverted to the original account as mention was made of the alien claims from said individual and reference was made to the several other alien claims made in this new book. He said he was open to reducing that witness's account, but all the others needed to be in. I told him that he should use his "internal editor" as mention that these accounts existed - with more detail found on a separate page - was sufficient for the scope of the page.

I have repeatedly has clashes with Dr Fil who ALWAYS attempts to cast his preferred scenario in a better light. I might add that, despite the fact I wrote almost all the material which spells out the pro-alien side of this, he has not sought to make any changes of substance to those sections, thus casting into doubt his claims of a pro-skeptic "bias" on my part. His decision to label the page in such a way as to leave the impression that it remains a biased article leaning too heavily towards a skeptical viewpoint was done AFTER his changes were largely reverted which begs the question: Why wasn't this done BEFORE the changes so new items could be discussed on the appropriate page?

In my view it is not up to him or me or anyone else to "balance" a page with pro and con arguments, it is our duty to fairly present an argument without engaging in endless point-counterpoint discussions. I believe I fairly present both sides and have avoided inserting "yes, but..." sorts of discussions every time one side makes a contested claim. In this way, while the various viewpoints are seen to be directly opposed, we nevertheless have a fairly unadorned account of what each side actually asserts, something which was previously lacking.

Since he doesn't feel the need to enter in any serious discussion with me as he sees me as a debunking skeptic, and I don't feel these sorts of edit wars are productive, I am posting this here in hope that someone can mediate this situation and suggest a better route. Canada Jack 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been more than a week since I posted the above and so far, I've not had any response to my request for assistance. Dr Fil has proceeded to do something similar to another page, Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident, adding lots of content without any discussion, including seeking to "clarify" the the remarks of one witness by suggesting he lied about his involvement. This is probably the fifth or sixth time he has employed this POV tactic despite my repeated requests to keep the accounts here unadorned and unencumbered by editorializing comments. While I have no particular objection to added content here, as there are new accounts in a new book, I do object to his repeated efforts to paint one of the few witnesses on the page who dismisses an alien explanation as a liar.

And his nonsensical "neutrality" and "factual accuracy" tags remain on the Roswell UFO incident page. I'd really appreciate some input here. Canada Jack 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The lack of response is due to your failure to follow the posting guidelines. I, for one, have not got the energy, time or patience to read that essay. I'll wait until tomorrow, then mark it as stale. Adrian M. H. 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, for your benefit, is something shorter: One editor, Dr Fil, refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion on massive insertions he repeatedly puts into articles, particularly with the above-mentioned. Despite my patience in describing why much of what he inserts falls outside the bounds of the page in question, he re-inserts, and ignores, save for one exchange, my requests for discussion. The most recent example of his tactics are described above, but this is his modus operandi, he has done this on numerous occasions previously.

How can I effectively deal with this person? Canada Jack 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try once again.

This is a subject, like 911, like the JFK assassination, like the North American Union, where there are what some call "true believers" utterly convinced that the American government is complicit or covering up knowledge of what actually happened. Dr Fil is someone who strongly believes that the American government is covering up the facts as it pertains to Roswell, specifically the fact that aliens were recovered. I don't share his beliefs, but I respect his opinion.

And, as with the other mentioned controversies, prominent mention is made of the claims from those who see nefarious government activity. But the approach there, as here, should be simply to present what those people believe. However, Dr Fil seeks something else - to change this and other pages into those which effectively argue FOR the view that the government is hiding things. I have patiently explained to him many times that it is not the function of wikipedia to endorse particular viewpoints, just to present what people claim and do so in a NPOV fashion. Since he was largely the author of the page when it presented a strong "cover-up" case before, his contributions now have to be heavily scrutinized.

My PROBLEM here is that he is has demonstrated repeatedly that he is incapable of being objective about the use of material and seeks, repeatedly, to insert material which seeks to disparage other points of view, and he does so almost always without consulting or announcing what he is doing. In his mind, if this material is removed, that smacks of the very sort of "censorship" and "coverup" he believes the American government is engaged in in this case.

He has now stuck a bunch of tags suggesting the page is biased when I believe it is not, and he has been employing these tactics for in excess of a year, particularly on this page.

I need another editor to confirm that my approach is the correct one and to convince Dr Fil to proceed in good faith here and to cease accusing those who disagree with him as being something somewhat akin to government agents suppressing the "truth" here. And to get rid of those bloody tags. Canada Jack 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential edit war on inappropriate section in article Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

On new page patrol I came across the article The myth of December 25th created by User:Lulu Margarida, which was later speedily deleted for being a copyright violation. I also discovered the same user had added an identical copy of the text to the article Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira several days earlier ([24]). The section (a translation of http://somostodosum.ig.com.br/conteudo/conteudo.asp?id=6728 and therefore a copyright violation) is basically a list of various religions and mythologies that share similarities to elements of Christianity and the Jesus story, and nothing whatsoever to do with the singer the article is about. I removed the section from the article, but it was quickly replaced by User:Lulu Margarida, claiming that it was relevant because she (the singer) was born on December 25th and is very religious. I explained why the section was inappropriate on User:Lulu Margarida's talk page, then added a second comment when the penny dropped that the section was a copyright violation and needed to be removed anyway. Apparently the user has emailed the author of the webpage for permission to reproduce, then reintroduced the section to the article Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira again. I cannot revert again because of WP:3RR. User:Lulu Margarida has already violated 3RR on the article in a short period (reverting another anonymous editor's correction), but I feel that given it is only this revert that pushes it over the limit it would perhaps be a bit churlish to take it to the 3RR incident board on that alone. I would like some advice on how to proceed, as I don't appear to be getting through to this editor. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the only problem with the article. Cruft ahoy! It needs to be pared down and edited for tone (it's very congratulatory right now), most of it is unsourced, and the trivia section should be yanked entirely, IMO. Can other editors take a look and see if that's their take on it? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Ewww...I yanked the trivia section and some inappropriate ELs. It still needs some massive clean up and decrufting. Half the "references" are just trivia type side notes. Matticus, the WP:3RR does not apply in the case of vandalism which his repeated attempt to put in copyvio stuff (see Exceptions section). Collectonian 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I only realized it was a copyvio after I had removed it twice already (around the same time I clocked the copyvio in the "myth" article and tagged that for deletion), so I wasn't sure where I stood and erred on the side of caution. I have to add that even as a staunchly non-religious person I found the idea of adding what borders on being anti-Christian propaganda (yes, I've seen those YouTube videos which propound the same ill-researched "conspiracy" drivel) under the excuse that it's relevant because the subject of the article is a religious person rather distasteful. And I note even as I type this, User:Lulu Margarida has reverted the removal again. Anyone want to make the 3RR warning official? ~Matticus ^T_C 20:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a 3rr warning and note as to the problems with that section; we'll see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do anything hasty with the article, I'm hoping for more details on the subject's being "Born eight months prematurely". :-> --CliffC 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this article needs more eyes than just mine. It's a hash, and the creator doesn't seem to recognize that sourcing to a fan site and glowing turns of phrase aren't going to cut it. I could take a shot at editing it, but there wouldn't be a lot left afterwards. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary archiving of article talk pages

Resolved

 – J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New user TheNightmareMan has arbitrarily archived several article talk pages that were neither busy nor full. I asked him to revert a move he made yesterday with "It makes no sense to archive this page, it's not that busy or full - let's keep information readily available to readers. Please contact an administrator to undo your action", but he has (apparently) ignored the message and archived another talk page today. I'm wondering if someone can have a word with him before he makes too much of a mess. I see no actual contributions beyond these page moves and fiddling with a template, for which he was warned twice. --CliffC 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page for the Borat article, added an auto archiver, and left him a warning. It is inappropriate, especially removing recent comments. He is either vandalizing or has no clue how to archive as he is doing them all as redirects, making them a pain to undo. Ugh. An admin may need to go undo them all to get the article histories back in their correct places. Reported to admin for intervention. Collectonian 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Work Permit Reverts

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

Hi,

My discussion on Work Permit keeps getting deleted by the same person. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.65.207 (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2007

Discussion comments should not be edited by other editors except under certain specific criteria, per WP:TALK and WP:REFACTOR. Adrian M. H. 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent it from being edited? 67.168.65.207 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the editor. Adrian M. H. 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the link and left a uw-spam2; it's just spam to sell us a book. The link was deleted a few times by anons but he was never warned. --CliffC 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

After two further removals of the anon's comment, I have issued a final warning. If he removes it again, can someone make sure to raise it at AIV? Adrian M. H. 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like that spam's getting posted to Immigration to Germany as well 67.168.65.207 04:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought the problem here was simply one party's concern about losing sales on a $24.99 e-book but now I don't know. Maybe an administrator should take a fresh look at the whole of Talk:Work permit. There are non-specific (although the complainant has been asked) allegations of copyright violations and now the phrase "will be taking appropriate action" has come up. FWIW, I googled a few phrases from the article but didn't see anything that looked like a violation. There are several editors (not sure if they are different people) involved in editing Work permit, Green card and Immigration to Germany. A fresh partial deletion of another editor's talk-page comment here.--CliffC 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Doug Lamborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) dispute

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

Another fellow and I are going back and forth on Doug Lamborn's page: I post referenced, relevant information, and he removes it. Is there the possibility of my edits being somehow locked, or is the other fellow within his rights to be removing entire sections and referenced facts?

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.83.223 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2007

Looking over just some of your edits to the article, [25] I'm concerned that you're not editing neutrally, and I'd point you to review the biographies of living persons policy, because this is a serious policy. You have added references, yes, however some are not reliable, third-party sources, such as blogs. You added a blog (http://www.politico.com/blogs) as a reference to the statement: "In an unusual step, the Colorado Republican Party announced it wouldn't endorse Lamborn, in part due to the acrimony still lingering from the primary." Another section you added: " One of the most controversial came when, just before the election, the Christian Coalition of Colorado, which supported Doug Lamborn, sent out mailers claiming that Jeff Crank supported the "radical homosexual lobby." " could be written with a more neutral tone, giving proper attribution to the source, and I'd say that more than one reference could be found for this. While I think overall, your intentions are good, I think that you have entered into what seems to be a fairly ongoing, rather controversial content dispute with multiple anonymous editors warring over wording and other items. At this point, honestly, my thought is perhaps protecting the article would be a valid move, to allow editors to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and deal with the items that are a source of contention. There are a number of three revert violations, going back for weeks, and not a single entry on the talk page to discuss things. I'd again really encourage you to review the neutrality and the WP:BLP policies, as those are the key issues here, presenting information that is cited to a reliable source neutrally, without any personal opinions entering into it. Additionally, you may wish to review how to make footnotes, because you use the ref tags on the same article more than once, and this can be done by creating a link to an existing reference, using the naming function. Additional items that may be helpful are words to avoid, and weasel words. I realize this is probably not what you want to hear, but it is just my impression looking over the article's history. Ariel♥Gold 06:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Green IT vs. Green computing

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

Hi there,

I'd like to request some assistance. The Green IT article was merged into a Green computing article. I would like some outside opinion on this, as there seem to be two major factions, one which I represent - who want to keep Green IT and Green computing as separate articles. The basis for this is that Green IT relates the greening of the IT industry and the business clients it serves and Green computing is defined as: "using computer resources efficiently". It is not directly related to the field of IT nor is it the same as "using computers resources efficiently".

The second camp, led by EagleOne, wants the Green IT article merged into Green computing, which is an article largely developed by EagleOne.

I would like an outside opinion to help resolve this conflict of opinion. Thank you! Kimberlylaura 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would urge you to continue to discuss the issue on the Green computing article talk page, as a request for comment has already been filed on the issue. The best way is to take part in the discussions, and abide by the consensus that is reached. Since this is a somewhat technical and specialized area, I'm not sure that this general help board would get you the opinions that you are looking for, as some of us may be unfamiliar with the subject matter. Generally this board is for assistance with editing or using Wikipedia, and not really the best place to bring content disputes. Perhaps others will have more to offer, but it seems that the process of discussion is underway, and that is usually the best way to handle content disputes, by discussing it calmly with the editors involved. As someone really not that familiar with the two articles, my thought would be that if there is not sufficient content to justify two articles, merging one into a sub-section of the other is a valid effort. Green IT could be presented as a sub-section of Green computing, as it could be presented as using computer resources more efficiently, in the field of the IT industry and its clients. But that's just my own personal opinion, as I didn't look into the state of either article prior to the merge. Ariel♥Gold 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for help dealing with an abusive editor

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007)

In the article on Alger Hiss, I just posted an image of an FBI document illustrating the dissemination of FBI reports on Hiss. An editor calling himself RedSpruce immediately deleted it. He called it unsourced, illegible and propagandistic. I sourced it "Federal Bureau of Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential file #34," which is where it can be found. The document is the product of generations of carbon copies, mimeographs, photostats and Xeroxes, so legibility is limited. But it is accurate and verifiable, so I don't see how it can justly be labeled propagandistic.

I have posted thousands of pages of formerly classified FBI documents online, and am using them to update Wikipedia articles. RedSpruce is stalking me, reverting every edit I do.

I have so far assumed good faith on his part, but he recently relieved us of that obligation when he broke his word not to revert my edits until we got feedback from another editor ("Lying" is listed as an exception to the requirement to assume good faith.)

Now I will speak plainly: RedSpruce is not operating in good faith. He does not care about the credibility or reputation of Wikipedia. His only concern is to make Wikipedia mirror his own point of view. To this end he removes any information that balances his point of view, without regard to how well it is sourced, or to its accuracy or verifiability. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia editing and NPOV policies.

I have submitted a couple of disputes with him for third opinions, but the reaction seems to be nearly total apathy. I have disengaged from him repeatedly, but he never stops. I am not interested in an edit war or revert war. His harassment and abuse of the revert function for purposes for which it is not to be used border on vandalism.

If someone in authority does not reign RedSpruce in, Wikipedia will lose my assistance. Mark LaRochelle 21:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have encountered that editor before, during a 3O. I found him to be.... a little difficult, unfortunately. If you have demonstrably disengaged and kept your cool and civility, but he continues to try to push his point with you, politely remind him that this is outside behavioural guidelines, then ignore him completely. Down the line, if it remains unresolved, consider RFCU. If there is genuinely strong evidence of wikistalking, you should take that to ANI. As usual, try to keep cool, continue to AGF as much as possible, and you will be doing your argument no harm at all. Note that my advice here is based on the information that you have given here and my assumption of accuracy and good faith; I have not had the time to study diffs, contribs and talk pages. Adrian M. H. 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The account Mark has given above may not be doing full justice to the opinions of all the participants. At Talk:Alger Hiss RedSpruce has argued he is defending NPOV, and there is some logic to his view. Normally one would begin at the article Talk page after your edit was reverted by User:RedSpruce. I didn't notice you have raised the matter yet on that page. You added the image Image:FBI-Hiss-chart.jpg for which the image source is given only as "Federal Bureau of Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential file #34". I wonder if Wikipedia's image minders are going to accept this as an adequate source line. (The image, it seems to me, needs a more complete description of its provenance). The detailed writing in this image is not readable even at the highest resolution to which it could easily be expanded. These facts suggest that reasonable people might disagree on the value of the image for this article. RedSpruce's edit summary calling it 'unsourced, illegible and propagandistic' is a more terse way of giving the same argument I have just offered here. The point *could* have been made more diplomatically. EdJohnston 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Adrian M. H. and EdJohnson, for your helpful comments. I have improved the sourcing and legibility of this image. See Talk:Alger_Hiss (Scroll down to "FBI chart"). If you have specific pointers as to how further improve on these issues, or if you have any other issues, please let me know. Thanks again for your help. Mark LaRochelle 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing questionable content

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

I'd like to get another editor's opinion on the content of an article. The article isn't new or particularly controversial and there's not a whole lot of activity on the talk page so, I think a consensus would be useless. The content in question is in the notes section. The reference cited is actually a link to the film's IMDb board and that's not exactly official. Also, the info seems sort of useless to me (but that's just me). I'd like to remove the entire section, but I don't want to see it put back again because some else believes it is relevant. Any constructive opinions would be greatly appreciated. Pinkadelica 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hack it out. Rumors do not belong in the article, and certainly nothing from an IMDB discussion board. I'd also cut out the tagline section, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion (it has not entered popular culture nor is it notable on its own). Collectonian 15:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Pinkadelica 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the IMDB ref to External links, and added four reliable, third party sources to verify the information. IMDB is not a reliable source, so any information attributed to it would need alternate verification. To this end, I have removed a statement that could not be verified, that the film did the scenes while classes were in session, I searched and could not verify this, and it is not integral to the context, so I removed it. Ariel♥Gold 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

anyone can help me get my article online = Proofread Article in Sandbox

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia, I have put a brief and to the point article about SearchJohn.com Limited into the Sandbox.

1) I have trimmed down all things that might be considered "blatant advertising", by reducing the data the absolute encylopaedic minimum ....(I can reduce text data even further, no problem).

2) I have really kept it brief and short and therefore reducing the change of "Conflict of Interest, COI" problems (we are the publisher SearchJohn.com Limited ourselves, so I took extra care just stating facts here....)

3) "Notability and Verifiability": I tried to make the point that my company (and its numerous websites have made a notable and verifiable contribution, e.g. I quoted that Golfhighway.com (one of the 40 websites SearchJohn.com Limited ran (now 20 websites in total) have been linked to from the National Golf Association of the Phillipines on the Front Page with a Banner of Golfhighway.com .....we reckon that is very remarkable indeed, because Golfhighway.com is NOT an international Golf Association that has been hanging around for 100 years, so I must be that fact that Golfhighway.com has made a significant contribution to the Golf Industry, otherwise an official Golf Association would NOT put our banner for free on their Front Page for years!!!!! A little comment here: Anyone every tried to become a member in a prestigous Golf Club? Good Luck!!!!!!!

Tom Krieg, Manager SearchJohn.com Limited--Searchjohn 00:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to User:Searchjohn/sandbox. I have to say that this is not going to be an eligible article any time soon. Where are the necessary independent sources that can be used as references to verify the material and prove its notability? It is still written in an inappropriate style, with a whiff of advertorial bias; the author's connection to the subject is obvious to any experienced eye. I think that you may have to accept that, unless and until your company becomes notable by WP's definition and someone decides to write an article about it here, it will not be a part of WP. Adrian M. H. 01:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To this I would add a request that you review the conflict of interest guide, which discourages you from creating or editing articles about yourself, your company, product, family or friends, as you would likely be unable to edit neutrally. As your name matches the company name, and you call it "my company", I'd suggest that you refrain from adding it. If the company were indeed, notable, then multiple reliable, third-party sources would exist, and it would likely already have an article here. If you can find reliable sources, consider requesting it be created through articles for creation to avoid any possible conflict of interest, and neutrality issues that arise from COI. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Searchjohn spent the 14th removing his own comments from his talk page, strangely, which I assume is his way of saying that he's off and not coming back. Adrian M. H. 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Couger/Black Panther

Resolved

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

Hello.

I was driving today from Redmond to Bend Oregon which is 14 mile distance, halfway, in a pasture I saw a large black animal, first I thought it was a goat, no not a cow either, after looking again it had a long black tail, large cat! Was not a house cat I can assure you, and was no other animal in the field other than it. It was to me living in Oregon, could only be Black Cougar! Been reading that they are non existant. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.122.174 (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your personal information for your own protection. As your question is not related to how to use Wikipedia, I'll suggest the following: Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Ariel♥Gold 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Protocol

Stale

 – I dorftrottel I talk I 20:45, November 22, 2007

I was looking through Category:Wikipedia maintenance and had some questions about protocol, specifically for {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} but probably for other tags/categories as well.

The inuse box specifically says that if the tag has been there for a few hours go ahead and remove it. Is that still the right protocol or should I leave a note for the editor who added the tag to remove it?

For underconstruction if I see an article that doesn't have a snowball's chance of being accepted (e.g. a small company) should I place a CSD tag, put a note on the article's talk page, on the creator's page, advise the creator to move it to the user's sandbox page, or should I just go away and leave the article alone?

Sbowers3 22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to leave {{inuse}} in place if it appears that the editor is making actual progress on the article. If you sense that he has become too busy to finish his work, then removing the tag would be OK.

For an article that appears to be deletion bait, having an exchange with the editor is probably good, since you can explain reliable sources, and get his thought process started. New editors are often baffled by our sourcing rules. EdJohnston 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's over 9000

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone create a page on the internet meme "It's over 9000"? It is a quote from dragonball z, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMickle (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 November 2007

Go to WP:AFC and post your request there. You will need sources as to why it's notable. Please also check Wikipedia:Notability (web) to make sure it is suitable for inclusion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to post here for a while, but I can't help sticking my oar in ; ) AFC is specifically for editors who do not have (or wish to have) accounts. It will, of course, be rendered redundant shortly, but that's another story. The most applicable guidelines here are WP:NEO (2nd para) and WP:WINAD. Adrian M. H. 00:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:WEB! And are we really going to allow anon page creation? All us Twinklers will have to register bot accounts for all the tagging we'll be doing. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...heh... this is all a bit complicated... Well I checked the page that says if it should be on wikipedia, and it met one of the criteria, as it has been repeated in many places and parodies have been made (Type it into youtube). If this is the wrong place to request this page, which is the definite place to put it? (I noticed a little discussion about the WP:AFC place). -JMickle —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMickle (talk • contribs) 11:39, 14 November 2007

All the gory details. Registered editors do not need to request articles; there is no direct equivalent to AFC other than RA, which is basically just a list of possible article titles with a perpetual backlog. Registered account holders are expected to understand key policies/guidelines, which anon editors (except the minority of experienced regulars) virtually never do. Which is why re-enabling anon page creation is such an incredibly dumb idea. Adrian M. H. 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just waiting for an IP to throw in their anonymous 2 cents, and then my wish was granted when I saw this. Take a look if you have a slow day. The RfC seems to show no consensus. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE JUST MAKE THE PAGE, PLEASE!

You can do it yourself, you know. It would be better to make it a section of the main article, though. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Other

Resolved

 – Speedied. Adrian M. H. 09:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recently written an article that I cannot find.

It doesn't violate any laws, contains truths and a starting point for others.

Can you validate it allow it to be accessed by others ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark tolan (talk • contribs) 00:38, 14 November 2007

First of all, please ensure that you always format new sections with a heading (another editor added this L2 heading) and sign your comments. You will find edits to existing articles in your contribs. Deleted articles can be checked in the logs, in which an exact title search will reveal a certain amount of data and history. Deleted articles are not viewable by anyone other than admins and those ranked above them. I found the article that you created, but I had to stick an SD nom on it because it was very, very far from acceptable. WP:WMD will explain further. Adrian M. H. 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi my acoount has been banned

Resolved

 – Adrian M. H. 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

help me dunno whats going on I love this game and got a lot of stalls and 1 shop help me tell me whats wrong????

(:(:(

Bif from viridian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.68.249 (talk • contribs)

I may be wrong, but I think you may have posted this to the wrong website. WP does not run a game. Adrian M. H. 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, miss, I speak ... in this case, unless I miss my guess, Puzzle Piratese. Original poster: drop by this page and e-mail the Support folks for assistance if it might be a glitch of some sort. Or, alternately, use the banpleading address if you feel you have actually been banned. (Does this page have a note at the top saying "for Wikipedia issues only"?) Tony Fox (of Midnight) (arf!) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rude Exchange with User OrangeMarlin

Resolved

 – Editor states the request has successfully been addressed. Ariel♥Gold 18:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I recently had and incredibly un-pleasant exchange with user Orangemarlin. I'm looking for editor's assistance in determining what to do about it.

(Note: I don't know Orangemarlin's gender, but herein I will refer to the user as 'he' for simplicity.)

I'm probably taking Orangemarlin's exchange with me too personally (though, granted, he did engage in personal attacks against me) and perhaps I should just let it go ... However, he's threatened to ban me, which I don't want to happen, and I'm also concerned that if he regularly engages in this kind of boorish behavior, it's going to harm the Wikipedia community. I'm no Wikipedia veteran, but if I were more of a n00b and got a message like this I would certainly not ever bother with editing an article again. ... Try to make an edit in good faith and then having the f-bomb thrown at you is hardly a very rewarding experience.

In any event, without a doubt, I'm sure his portion of our exchange violates the Wikipedia:Civility policy.

What I'm hoping is that Orangemarlin's violation of the civility policy can be recorded somewhere so that if he engages in this type of behavior in the future with other users, a pattern can be easily identified and dealt with appropriately. Is this possible?

Thanks.

An overview of our exchange follows:

Background

As the Objections to evolution article currently stands, the final sentence of the introduction reads "However, these arguments have been rejected by biologists and are not accepted by the scientific community". This sentence is followed with a citation footnote to a PDF document at the URL http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf. (Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)).

While I personally agree that a consensus of the scientific community rejects these arguments, the PDF document given as a reference for the statement does not support the claim of the sentence. My understanding is that claims made in Wikipedia articles need to have citations, so I edited the page, putting the this sentence and it's citation in a HTML comment (<!-- ... -->) and added a note that for this sentence to be included a more accurate reference needed to be provided.

The goal of my doing this is that someone would go out and find a more accurate reference. Orangemarlin, however, apparently assumed my goal was to change to the POV of the article. He reverted my edit and edited my talk page, indicating as such. I then edited his talk page attempting to explain my rationale for my edit. His response to my explanation was rude, contained foul language ("Learn to fucking sign your comments too"), and accused me of being a "creationist", a term he used pejoratively and assigned beliefs to me ("You are flatly wrong, but most Creationists are.", ".06% believe in your crap.").

(I don't even "believe" in Creationism!!!!)

I was just temporarily trying to remove a claim without a legitimate citation until a legitimate citation could be provided. *SIGH*.

User-talk page thread with OrangeMarlin's Incivility

Additional note on OrangeMarlin's "VacuousPoet" accusation

I'm not sure how a traceroute would reveal something like this. If I have the same IP address as someone used to have, please be aware I'm accessing Wikipedia from home via a cable modem. I've only had this current IP address since October 15th, 2007. (I access my home computer regularly from my workplace, so when my IP changes, it causes me a lot of headaches, which is why I know this.)

In any event, I'm not VacuousPoet.

74.67.180.75 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I removed the duplicated thread you pasted here and left a link to your talk page where the discussion exists. I've taken a look at OrangeMarlin's comments and the guideline you refer to. The guideline under "Reducing the impact" gives many suggestions like "Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict." and "Ignore incivility." and "Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled." If you choose not to take any of those suggestions, there is a whole set of choices in the dispute resolution areas. As for OrangeMarlin's actions, I'm not sure which way to proceed so I would defer to the other editors that read this page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this belongs on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not here. Let admins take a look at it, if you think it's useful. |dorftrottel |humor me 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Arichnad and User:Dorftrottel, thanks for weighing in. Per Dorftrottel's advice, I did in fact note this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([26]). I don't know what the procedure is to close one of these requests, but please consider this request successfully addressed. Thanks again. 74.67.180.75 (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted page

Resolved

 – J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I posted a page describing a new class of pharmaceutical products called a " "tarmogen" and it was apparently deleted. This is something that has been published on in major journals such as cancer research and nature medicine. I don't understand the wikipedia site or process well enough to figure out what or why it happened. Can you advise? Thanks. Former_ski_bum (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)kirk_christoffersen

According to the deletion log: 18:28, November 14, 2007 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tarmogen" ‎ (copyvio). Which means the text was copied and pasted into Wikipedia, which is against copyright policy. For legal reasons, we cannot accept information taken word-for-word from other sites. Information must be summarized, paraphrased, condensed, and then can be submitted, if properly cited with reliable, third-party sources, because without them, there is no way to verify the information, which leads to original research, which is also not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Additionally, it appears you may be somehow connected with the product, judging from your image upload log, so I'll also direct you to the conflict of interest guideline, which discourages editing or creating articles about yourself, company, product, family or friends, as it would be difficult to edit neutrally. Neutrality is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, so it is often best to allow someone uninvolved create articles with which you may have a personal connection. See Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, and how to edit for further assistance, and if you'd like to allow a neutral editor to create your article, you can submit it to articles for creation, explaining that you are connected to the product, and thus, would like another editor to create it so there is no risk of COI. If you choose to do that, be sure you cite multiple, reliable third-party sources (company websites are not reliable sources, nor are blogs, personal websites, etc., and generally press releases, are also not considered to be a third-party source.). I hope that helps explain some of the policies and guidelines here. If you have any other issues, feel free to ask here, or at the Help Desk. Welcome to Wikipedia! Ariel♥Gold 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Ariel :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage

Resolved

 – No further action required. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Savage encouraged his listeners to burn Mexican flags to counter a pro-immigration group that had burned American flags.[29]"

This was not a pro-immigration group. It should say, "...to counter a pro-illegal alien group..."

There is simply no mass movement against (legal) immigrants.

Then say that, and source that specific wording. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

Resolved

 – No further action required. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How do I report or handle excessive editing of a discussion page? Another editor insists that my comment must be place at the bottom. And if that is how he feel about it then fine. However their solution is to delete the comment rather than move it. Gkochanowsky (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Technical_and_format_standards. |dorftrottel |talk 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with reporting excessive editing? Gkochanowsky (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I noticed that only later, and contacted the user about it. However, I also found s/he had provided you with a link to our Talk page guidelines, and yet you kept posting at the top of the page. Let's just say you both could've handled the situation a bit cooler and regard the situation as resolved. |dorftrottel |talk 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider it resoved. However the editor did not supply the guideline until after they had deleted the comment several times. And the guidelines do not forbid placing a comment at the top of the page. Especially if the comment is very germaine to the article. And nothing could be more germane to an article about pseudophilosophy than a qeustion regarding the existence of a demarcation problem for philosophy. As if philosophers were not already very fond of making pronouncements about how to demarcate pseudoscience from science. Gkochanowsky (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline Dorftrottel provided clearly says in bold: Start new topics at the bottom of the page. And archiving discussions is preferable to deletion, so I understand what you're saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)

It also says "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." Gkochanowsky (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, yes, I suppose it does. How does that apply here? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question certainly did not ask my permission and deleted my comments not once but several times. Gkochanowsky (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, which editor are we talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)

Misodoctakleidist Gkochanowsky (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems Dorftrottel beat me to the punch. Misodoctakleidist has been warned not to repeat that behavior. Let us know if he does. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I seem to be getting a lot of criticism here, I would like to explain my actions. The guidelines allow deletions of someone else's comment if it interrupts another comment. Gkochanowsky's comment was pasted over part of the comment that was previously at the top. I removed it and wrote in my edit summary "new comments go at the bottom," however Gkochanowsky twice reverted my edit without explanation. I consequently left a message on his talk page informing him of the reason for deleting his comment before doing so again. He once again reverted my edit, but this time demanded to see a rule to support my edits which I provided before my fourth and final deletion of his comment. Perhaps I could have moved it rather than deleting, but I was worried about making a mess of the talk page if I did it wrong so I went for what seemed like the simplest solution. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It has subsequently come to my attention that Gkochanowsky reverted my edit again even after this before Dorftrottel finally appeased him by archiving the rest of the page. I find it hard to believe that I seem to be receiving the blame for this situation. Gkochanowsky has even admitted on this very page that the reason he initially moved his comment from the bottom of the page to the top was because he thinks it is more "germane" than the other comments. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Misodoctakleidist, you should not have deleted Gkochanowsky comments without explaining to them (through more than a quick edit summary). Gkochanowsky, you should not have placed your comment at the top in the first place, regardless of relevance to the subject (all comments should be relevant to the subject, anyway). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Echo J-stan. In addition, I'd recommend to both of you to stay away from each other as far as possible for the moment. Focus on the discussion itself. If you need help with anything, post here or contact J-stan or myself directly on our user talk pages. |dorftrottel |talk 14:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)