Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by .

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Stale

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. We need additional editors to help at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The article has been damaged by a group of single purpose and sock puppet accounts. A small number of editors have been trying to repair the article, but we need more editors to help establish consensus. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested previously that WP:ARB9/11 be applied to continued edit warring over the article's contents. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all been tried, but to make it work, we need more editors to be involved, otherwise there is no consensus. The disruptive accounts have been trying to drive off reasonable editors, and they have been partially successful. If more editors watch the page, this will help counteract any problems. Jehochman ^Talk 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me join Jehochman in the call for more attention, and more practical involvement, in the editing of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and other articles related to the September 11 attacks. My view of the problems is somewhat different from Jehochman's, but I fully agree that a difficult editing process tends to discourage editors, especially those who want to discuss things in a constructive way. As with probably all articles, the talk pages contain relevant information on the editing process, and in this case, on the substance of the disagreements between the involved editors. --Cs32en (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review/Intention of auto-biographical article

Resolved

– to the extent possible --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the editors for assistance in judging whether I am notariable enough to begin an auto-biographical page, and if so, for assistance in maintaining encyclopedic integrity in the post.

The draft is on a subpage of my user page User:Msknight/Draft and I am posting the request here at the instruction of another editor. If this is the wrong place to make this request, I would be grateful for the correct location. --Msknight (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have been given advice but are not actually taking it on board. You need to prove notablity, (click on the blue text to read the notability page}. To prove notability you need to show why the article subject (yourself) is notable.

You will need to provide (ideally) in-line citations to reliable sources for the statements in the article. Check out some other biographies of living persons, e.g. Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet, Amanda Lepore, Audrey Tang. You should also take the links to your home page and others out of the user space before an editor or admin removes them as WP:Spam links.

Your article may well fall foul of original research guidelines and certainly conflict of interest guidelines, so most of the above is academic - you should not be writing this article.

As to whether you are notable enough - I couldn't find much out there apart from your web page. I suspect that notability would be challenged and the article would be swiftly deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a link to this discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michelle_Knight Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- the main problem with the article you're providing is lack of verifiability of the claims it makes, which is especially important for biographies of living people, for which Wikipedia policies and guidelines err strongly on the side of caution to avoid libel.

As to the notability issue... it's more difficult to explain. A good, general explanation of our guidelines is WP:GNG, which says:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

While there are some specific exceptions where people who would otherwise not be considered notable are permitted in the specific guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO), in a deletion debate, the primary question that's going to come up is whether you, the article's subject, have met that level of coverage required to satisfy guidelines.

As to the actual content... I agree with Jezhotwells above- it's chock full of original research, which is extremely hard to avoid when you're writing about yourself, which is why we discourage autobiographies so much. I don't want to discourage you from editing, of course, but I can tell you from having seen this situation before, you're only going to end up frustrated if your only intent is to write about yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the pages are the links to the proof that I have. The pages contain images of the artices published in the quoted magazines. To pictures of the books and magazines that were published that bore my name. In the fast world of television the references to the shows no longer exist, but I have the recordings. The records of my birth and changes ... the documents lie here.

Should a senior editor come forward, I will trust copies of these documents to them for them to see with their own eyes ... proof better than a quotation from any printed biography ... I have it, and can provide it. Should you wish proof of the film script, simply check the copyright logs of the Writers Guild of America ... you will find it so registered.

--Msknight (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is certainly some difficulty when the 'proof' isn't available electronically, but that shouldn't make things completely impossible. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I stumble. The proof of what I am saying, at least the publications, are available electronically. I used in private conversation previously, the example of "Michele Knight," and where the proof was for the assertions made on that page. Where were they taken from? Some of the personal facts stated on that page, as an example, could only have come from someone who was either close to her, read them from biographical material, hear her say them on a TV show ... where would the proof be in that case?

From where I am sitting, the only difference here is that someone else put them on the site instead of her.

Yet here I am, offering documentation and proof, acknowledging that others would have access over the article and there is an argument against which seems to boil down to ... who wrote the article?

From where I am standing on the issue it is a matter of ... who cares who writes the article as long as there is proof available to those who control the content of the encyclopedia? To the person who suggested, on my user talk, that my entry would instantly be whittled down to my name and the fact that I own a web page, my instant answer is that there is already proof about the publications. Also, if that was such a stringent requirement, then why is Michele Knights entry not whittled down to the verifiable TV experiences?

--Msknight (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the major point, which is that there's nothing here to indicate that the subject is notable. Conflict o finterest and neutral point of view don't come into play until notability is established, and it has not been established. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm trying to be clear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHowse (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 April 2009

I refer you, in that case, to how I opened the article here.--Msknight (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I think your question is answered. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed notability insufficient in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? I am the subject of secondary source material, for a start. ie. the articles printed by a number of sources and can be seen by the editors in the external link listed as, "Page containing some of the published articles." which I put there becuase it is an external link and if I put it in the main document could be contrued as self publication.--Msknight (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to cite the sources directly and let other editors verify them. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the publications are right there in the page together with dates of publication. The only other verification you could get which is better than this is to contact the publications or go to a library and obtain a copy for yourself.--Msknight (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try citing them in the article draft; that might help to support any claim to notability. See WP:CITE to read about how to cite articles. However, beware of WP:BLP1E if there is only 1 event to support notability; it might not be sufficient. Please also note that the editors who offer assistance here do so to help other editors in their editing, not to perform assignemnts! --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - the details of the publications, dates, etc. are already in there, just not in citation form. I'm going to take a breather and then return later to change them to citation notice.--Msknight (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But another question - to use Michele Knight as an example again, among things it states, "Michele’s Italian mother, Bruna, was also a psychic and read for many well-known figures, including the late King Hussein of Jordan." - I mean, how on earth do editors manage to verify things like this?--Msknight (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the burden of proof is on the person adding the statement. In that case, if it were challenged, then somebody would need to show a source for it, or else it could be deleted. By the way, I don't think Michele Knight is notable; I've nominated that page for deletion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she isn't notable, then I'm probably not going to be notable until the film is made and out there; we're just starting to hunt finance now (it is a relatively cheap film so should find an investor this year; focuses on energetic interpersonal relationships rather than special effects) but have a director enthusiastically on board with feature films under his belt ... this thing is going to be a reality in a couple of years.

Also, I've got problems with verifiability; I've got copies of things and even the TV shows I've noted I've got electronic copies of and can transmit electronically to a select editor, but if someone else were to try and track them down it would be difficult. I tried to get hold of Eagle Media, for example, and they don't list the works they did for other agencies and that TV show dropped off ITV Central's web page ages ago, and if they go under, verifiability dies without a trace. Also, I pulled the tape for the French Canada show and it doesn't have the station ident on it and I changed my e-mail system a few years ago so I don't even have my conversations with the company that broadcast the series ... but I have the show itself! I've got the documentation and letters of my campaigning with Downing Street, the MoJ, the CPS, etc., my certificates, but I can't put them up for the world to see.

To be honest, I took my template from what Michele Knight had written; that is one reason I'm finding myself bemused by what is being told to me.--Msknight (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem like the best model. Better to look at some Wikipedia:Good articles. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll keep working on my page and come back in a couple of years to ask for another review of notability when the film eventually comes out; it is expected to cause a minor storm in a teacup!--Msknight (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the conversation over to the left again, to ask a question that is still on this subject; with regards to proof, if I put up on my own web site, pictures of the newspaper articles, etc. that are no longer available to otherwise verify, is that acceptable as a means of proof?--Msknight (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, sources don't need to be available online to be basically valid. While there's a preference for using online sources if they're of comparable quality to offline ones, there's no requirement that the offline sources even be easy to view. Though in most cases, when somebody is notable or when the source is actually appropriate for Wikipedia, it shouldn't be too difficult to view the sources. Mirroring them... may help, but may just raise more questions in terms of the content of those sources.

As to verifying certain other things... let me put it this way: you cannot source to things such as unpublished letters, personal documents, e-mails, etc. Period. If you can't find another, appropriate source, then you can't include the information. Unpublished primary sources are never acceptable means for verifying article content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read this correctly, a source that has been published, such as the magazine articles, I can post a picture of them on-line and that is acceptable. With regard other documents and letters, if I publish a picture of the letters on-line, that would also be acceptable. With regards e-mails, they are essentially un-verifiable even if they are published.

So ... to TV appearances where the shows are no longer recorded on-line ... how would that be verifiable? How would I present proof of the show? I've been looking on-line and can find no verification of either TV show.

As to other documents that would prove facts but would not in themselves be publishable. Is there a mechanism for their review?--Msknight (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you technically don't need to republish stuff that's already been published or otherwise broadcast by a third party; just cite the source like you would any other, and if questions come up regarding the veracity of the source, we can address that problem then. Lots of editors (myself included) have access to databases like LexisNexis and EBSCO, and can at least make honest attempts to verify certain things.

As to publishing letters, etc. there's an issue of it being a self-published source. While if you're using such sources to make statements about yourself, it may be OK (see WP:SELFPUB for some more specific criteria), it's likely unacceptable to use such sources to assert any dubious or controversial claims. Self-published sources can be a very tenuous subject on Wikipedia, but in the case of an article on yourself, it's probably quite appropriate to source things such as a birthdate, non-controversial academic credentials and to settle other minor errata that come up. Just keep in mind that generally, secondary sources will be given precedence over anything you publish yourself.

Like I said above, a source that isn't available online can still be a valid article source, as may be the case of this TV show. While it depends on the nature of the show and the claim being sourced from it, you're largely in the clear to use offline sources, provided you reference them properly so that anyone who wants to go fact check the article has a reasonable chance of understanding what the source is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smartmatic

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of Venezuelans in an election marred with problems in Cook County, Chicago, prompted an investigation, on both local and federal levels, about the ownership structure of the company that provided voting machines in said election (Sequoia). Sequoia had been previously acquired by Smartmatic, a company with suspects links to the government of Hugo Chavez.

I have provided WP:RS compliant links, to back arguments. Alas two contributors, JRSP and RD232, both with a history of editing out information that they consider casts Hugo Chavez in negative light, are edit-warring and keep ignoring WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:RS.

Please see history and discussion page. For precedent on contributors mentioned see Special:Contributions/JRSP and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Shellenberger Alekboyd (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. From my perspective, it seems like you're treating the opinion of a Chicago Alderman as truth; having lived in Chicago, I kind of find that hard to swallow. It may be appropriate to say "one Chicago Alderman suggested that a number of Venezuelan Sequoia employees were participating in the tabulation, and called for a federal investigation" with your source, and "However, both Sequoia and election officials have since said that the Venezuelans involved were only present to provide technical assistance, and the conspiracy suggested is "over the top"."

From a policy perspective, you're just in the wrong as they are, if not more so. While you haven't broken 3RR, you've definitely engaged in a slow edit war over this content... which isn't good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It could be argued that Alderman Burke's opinion was "over the top", if the whole issue would have ended there. However it did not, and because of Burke's denunciation Rep. Maloney requested a CFIUS investigation, which surprisingly enough, caused Smartmatic to dispose of Sequoia, instead of coming clean about its ownership structure. The very fact that Venezuelans were involved in an election that resulted in a tallying disaster prompted Burke's conspiracy theory. But Smartmatic's subsequent reaction to CFIUS' investigation did not disprove in any way Burke's "over the top" theory.

Re my edits, I am merely copy-pasting from cited WP:RS compliant sources, for I have read somewhere that Wikipedia contributors shouldn't pass judgment on whether or not what has been published is true, the test being that what's added is verifiable.Alekboyd (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, copying and pasting from reliable sources is not valid on its own. WP:SYN describes a case where reliable sources are used to advance an opinion that they don't support, and I believe it's being argued that you're doing just that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Snowboards History contributions

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Snowboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) So I posted my contributions to the history part of the Burton Snowboards page. I had a nice write-up and all my dates were correct. I happen to know the Carpenters directly and I was just wondering what happened to my page, and who revised it. They took out some information, switched a couple of my years, and re-worded all my sentences. I don't know what the meaning of it was but I just want to know why and what happened.

Hayden Fries (hsf55) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsf55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors came along and continued to develop the page. It looks to me as if most of your major points are still there, albeit phrased in a more neutral and encyclopaedic tone. To see what was done, step by step, go to the article and click on the history tab. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course edit the article again if you wish or continue to discuss changes on the talk page. Note though that personal knowledge is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Noah's Ark

Full protection just expired, so it might be premature to say anything about status. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

What can I do concerning an article that is patrolled by a small handful of people who revert every edit done on that page (they never contribute, they only revert)? They delete everything and then charge me with being involved in an edit war. I placed one sentence describing a minority view. Backed it up with credible sources, including Time magazine supporting that this view was reputable. They delete, delete, delete and send me vandalism notices. Thanks for your help! Blahzzz (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like you've already participated in discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark, which hasn't resolve in your favor. In any case, the wrong thing to do is to keep reverting while discussion is ongoing. You aren't performing vandalism, but you are edit warring, and are close to violating WP:3RR. As to where to escalate the discussion, you've come to the right place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, one of the edtiors reverting is I believe a major contributor, none of them 'revert every edit'. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly believe that waht you claim is true, see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD to have a better understanding of how things work on Wikipedia. If it was, instead, an attempt to mislead others about what's really going on there, it obviously won't work. Either way, you won't get anywhere by insisting that you have to have what you want the way you want it in an article when lots of others edit it too. If you want complete control over your writing you should get a blog. DreamGuy (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United 'On Loan' section

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I recently edited the Manchester United 'On Loan' section, adding the 17 year old midfielder Adem Ljajic, who was signed in January 2009 and immediately sent back on loan to his previous club FK Partizan to gain more playing chances and overall knowledge of the game. I was disappointed and in fact insulted to see this was taken down, as a die hard Manchester United fan I do not understand why this was removed as he is most certainly is a Manchester United player, I even included a news article of the sites preferred sports website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/7754739.stm). Thankyou for reading this, Scullerz (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Scullerz[reply]

The edit summary reverting your edit says it's incorrect and points to the talk page of Adem Ljajić's article, which shows he isn't part of the club, see [1] - did you see that before you added his name? Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, he signed for Manchester in January, had all his press conferences in England, confirmed by both teams and more than likely every single sports broadcaster in the world but you are still not accepting it? Perhaps you should do some research... Scullerz (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Scullerz[reply]

I think the explanation is that he signed the paperwork but that the deal can't go into effect until the player turns 18, under FIFA regs. So, I don't think he's on the Man U books until then. I think the last sentence of Adem Ljajić#Club career has it right. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles

Resolved

– Not notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on making these articles suitable. Believe me, these are not intended for advertisement so much as they are intended to provide as much information as possible.

Anyway, I have a question about "reliable sources" for notability.

These artists have been making albums since 1995, and have enjoyed some pretty moderate success as measured in the business. I do sort of know the composer, but as a fan and only through email exchange over this past year. The thing is, a lot of their notability material is tied up in trade mags and market listings (for instance, placing #1 one week on Amazon's New Age list, and being in the top ten of iTunes downloads - there is no place to actually verify this online or in any printed material; and being written about in trade mags that have since gone out of print - no way to look at it NOW to verify the source...)

Anyway, I am working to make this entry acceptable. Do you have any knowledge about whether these tear pages I am able to use from the artists themselves (their own collection of their media coverage) qualify as reference material, despite the fact that they are not widely available materials?

Also, does this sort of collection count as a "reliable source"? http://apsismusic.com/2007/index.htm (the press kit, reviews and interviews in particular)

- or does it disqualify it that it exists on the page of the artist, even though it is a collection of other people's reviews and interviews? Usagi Jeshika (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tear sheets and such would be poor sources, as would the press kit, since they are essentially self-published. Why not simply cite the original 3rd party reviews? They don't need to be online to be reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That can be done. Can they be referenced even though they are not readily available to the public? Being listed on musical charts and such are actual references, but not something I believe can be accessed from years back for every artist on every major chart listing. I am concerned that the viability of the sources will be questioned because of lack of ability to check on the resource NOW. Is that not necessarily a problem?

Usagi Jeshika (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The standard is verifiability; it doesn't have to be immediately available online. Printed sources can be very good, as long as they're independent and reputable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Minnesota women's ice hockey

Answered

– Please expand question if necessary. Fleetflame 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look over this page for me? It would be greatly appriciated!

Che bella giornata (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Che_Bella_Giornata[reply]

Seems OK. Did you have a particular question? --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just looking for a general look-over, or advice on where to take the article, I think you might find WikiProject Ice Hockey helpful. As I assume this is your first article, if you haven't already, you might want to read "Your First Article" which gives some good advice. I've also posted a welcome template to your user talk page with some additional helpful links. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am A Lonesome Hobo

Request unclear

– This is just an earlier copy of "I Am A Lonesome Hobo". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasted article contents collapsed for brevity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“I Am A Lonesome Hobo” is a song written and recorded by Bob Dylan, released in 1967 on his 8th studio album, John Wesley Harding. The lyrics to “I Am A Lonesome Hobo” [1], where a man openly admits to being a hobo having “tried my hand at bribery, Blackmail and deceit,” yet has “served time for ev’rything ‘cept beggin’ on the street.” Dylan style often leans towards writing ballads where he allows his listeners to get inside the minds of social outcasts, a perspective that every day people may overlook or misunderstand, and through these stories society can relate to and learn from people that are typically socially rejected . This “hobo” has seen it all, once being an affluent yet selfish man unable to trust anybody. As the song reaches its final verse, the hobo offers advice to the common people, asking them to, “stay free from petty jealousies, live by no man’s code, and hold your judgment for yourself lest you wind up on this road.” This man’s warning before his departure holds true to the writing style that Dylan approaches with the ending of many of his songs, offering a story about someone’s reality and ending it with his personal take on the matter introduced. [2]The song also features some of Dylan’s most controlled singing, most likely a rhetorical decision on his part for a hobo would typically be known as a mumbling nobody, yet Dylan almost seems to put this character on a level socially where no one would typically place a vagabond. Looking at the time in which John Wesley Harding was released, some may argue that the songs on the album may have been a reflection of Dylan's life at the time. Having become such an idolized figure in the 1960s counterculture revolution, Dylan's work was closely scrutinized by his fans as he sang of morally unjust occurrences of the era. When Dylan went electric in 1965, his previous fans who nearly religiously worshiped his ability to write songs found him to be a sellout to the mainstream rock n roll and rejected his decision to do so. The following year Dylan was in a motorcycle accident in Woodstock, New York, leading to his decision to go subterranean for the mean time. John Wesley Harding, being the first released album by Dylan since his accident, strayed away from his earlier work on Blonde On Blonde. The lyrics to I Am A Lonesome Hobo could have been relating to Dylan's emotion about his fans feeling betrayed by the turn in his musical approach, leaving him feeling like an artist that no one could possibly relate to. He ends the song telling his listeners not to judge anything unless they themselves have been on a similar road, and of course, they could not relate to being a popular artist and the pressures that come along with it. ^ tells the typical riches to rags tradition ^ The song also features some of Dylan’s most controlled singing http://www.western.edu/faculty/bking/ssna/shows/10.html</references/> Keys To The Rain: The Definitive Bob Dylan Encyclopedia By Oliver Trager</references/>

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.27.213 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added this to the article, and another editor removed the paragraph "Some may argue..." probably because it's unsourced and opinion. How else can we help? --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed copy-pasted article for brevity. I think this is one of those cases where we'd use an "unclear" template. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the article reads a lot like an essay; I've tagged it accordingly after doing some minor cleanup and WP:MOS conformance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble finding somewhere to post article

Answered

– Few edits since post. Fleetflame 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently wanting to post an article about Sunnyside Cottages in Grandlake, Colorado. I don't exactly know where to put my article and would love some advice on a proper place to put it. Thank you.

Boarderbum18 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Brandi J.Boarderbum18 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of article? What are they, and why are they notable enough to have an article about them in an encyclopedia? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious thing to do would be to post the article at Sunnyside Cottages. That said, you probably will want to read "Your First Article" before going through with making one. Not to sound pessimistic or unkind, but judging from the content you put in Grand Lake (Colorado), you shouldn't be surprised to find such an article deleted, perhaps speedily. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always draft up your proposed article in your own user space, for example at UserBoarderbum18/Sunnyside Cottages. Then ask for advice at WP:Drawing board as to whether it meets the standard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaves band

Answered

– Reason(s) for reverts explained below. Advice given on how to proceed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm a member of Leaves and I'm trying to update the bands history. It always gets changed. I do have references but they are not links, would it help if I used them?

The information I was trying to put up was of the same sort as other bands pages I looked at so I don't really see why mine always get edited.

I hope this can be resolved.

Regards,

Hallur Már HallssonLaufskálinn (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you're not citing any references. We don't really know if editors are who they claim to be. The only sure way to check the validity of content is to show references. Please see WP:RS. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you need to cite references for the content you're putting in. There's one or two other minor issues with your edits, but the big one is lack of references. And of course, by references, we mean published references, preferably third-party ones.

On that note, I'd just like to kind of remind you of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which gives advice on editing articles about subjects with which you're associated... in this case, you're editing the article on a band of which you're a member. While this isn't forbidden, it can cause trouble as some editors assume that because they're closely connected with a subject, they have the best possible insight for writing an article. Those same editors may act almost as though they own or have full creative control over the article, which they do not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted Uranium

Short and Sweet: Just want a second opinion on my edit of Depleted Uranium [2]. I posted to the talk page before making the edit to shorten the introduction and got the go ahead to make the change. Change made and now another editor made the claim it violates WP:LEAD but more importantly: he reverted my edit's anonymously on the basis that I have made "slanted ideological edits" before. That's obviously false but I digress. The assumption of good faith has it's limits, and I'm about to give this guy an eSlap. The entire thing smells fishy and fake but all I'm really asking for is a review of my edit to see if it was fair and maybe some constructive criticism. -- $\sim$ ℗ papajohnin ^(talk)^(?) 05:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned because Papajohnin says on Talk:Depleted uranium#Redundant information in intro that he "left the specific health concerns in clearly and provided general context for the health concerns" but in fact he has been deleting all mention of any specific health concerns from the introduction of that article, against WP:LEAD's direction to summarize the controversy. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for this, since the article has been fairly stable for the past year or two with the discussion of specific effects in the introduction. I am not sure what he means by "I'm about to give this guy an eSlap" but that doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. Please see the talk section linked. 207.62.246.65 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a bio..

Hi, I'm a pretty experienced photographer from California. I've traveled to most of the islands of Hawaii, the Fanning islands (Republic of the Kirabati) and Mexico for some of my shoots. I shoot under various motifs and Have made many magazine cover as well as being a published author in photography and have a few books out. My question is, could I be aloud to put my bio on here? I also raise funds for charities and belong to the PSA. I would love to be able to add my experiences to wikipedia. I'd also like a basic rundown of the do's and don't because I don't want to get in trouble with the editors. Thank you for any help... Johnnyswords. Oh, as well as the books on photography, I also have written some editorials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may already know that Wikipedia has certain guidelines for determining what subjects are sufficiently notable for inclusion, and in your case the appropriate guideline would be the one for creative professionals (see WP:CREATIVE). A good rule of thumb, and our most basic guideline for notability, is that if you have "received significant coverage in reliable sources" that are independent of you, then you might be considered sufficiently notable to have an article on yourself (see WP:GNG, which explains the specifics of this). A good example would be if there have been at least two magazine or newspaper articles which focus largely or entirely on your work, or at least two books which discuss you or your work in a substantial manner (or any combination thereof); either of which should have been authored by someone unconnected to you.

That said, it's important to keep Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines in mind (see WP:COI) if you intended to write or edit that article yourself. As you may have gathered from other requests on this page, while it isn't expressly forbidden for you to write or edit an article on yourself, it's frowned upon by the community at large because editors can be very protective of articles to which they are closely related (e.g., removing content critical of the subject or enforcing a specific verbiage). I don't mean to suggest you'll behave in that manner, but it is enough of a problem that it merits preemptively informing you.

While I understand that this doesn't directly answer your question, I do hope it helps explain things somewhat. Please leave a response here if you have further questions or would like a deeper look into this specific request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should think the way to do it is to write the article in your own userspace, here: User:Johnnyswords/Johnny Swords. Take your time, make it look good, and include plenty of reliable sources.

When you have a complete draft in your own userspace, post again here and ask for comment. When and if editors here concur that it's ready, ask an experienced editor to move the material into the Wikipedia mainspace, to avoid conflict of interest problems.

If you need any help with formatting the article while writing it, please do feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your own talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess I'll gather outside references and write it in notepad, then place it in my practice area for editor approval. I Have news paper articles and cover photos, would these be appropriate references? Johnnyswords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are generally good references, yes. See WP:CITE for tips on how to lay out the reference. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aristotle#Ayn_Rand

I think that it should be mentioned in Aristotle#Legacy that Ayn Rand claimed to be strongly influenced by Aristotle and she also claimed to an aristotelian. Two editors disagree with me. I ask for some external feedback.

You can read the disccusion here: Talk:Aristotle#Ayn_Rand.

Thank you for your attention and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue is person A has an interest in topic B: should person A be mentioned in the article that deals with B, where here A is Ayn Rand, and B is Aristotle/Aristoelianism/Aristotle's legacy. I say: no, never, unless there is something about A's interest that helps readers understand the subject matter of B. If I understand them correctly, Wareh says: maybe a few such As are good to include, but we need to have clear limits; and Randroide says: if A is notable, the such inclusions benefit the article on B, regardless of how many such inclusions there are.

I think Wareh's position is the top of a slippery slope whose end is Randroide's position, which in turn I believe would, if generally accepted as good policy, have a deeply pernicious effect of wikipedia.

I do think there is a way out in this case, without a battle over policy: if editing will can be found, an article perhaps titled Aristotle's impact on modern thought could be started, organised into three sections: pure reason, dealing with the impact of the Organon, the metaphysics and the rhetoric, practical reason, dealing with ethics, politics, &c, and science, dealing with what happened to the Aristotelian scientific tradition. I understand that Rand says that her philosophy of rationality was founded on Aristotle's Organon: this I think would make her relevant to the section on pure reason. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Chalst. Could you please present your ideas at Talk:Aristotle#Ayn_Rand. I think it is better to have our debate in one place.

Meanwhile, I shall take the liberty of pasting your block of text (and my reply) there for the sake of continuity. Please feel free to paste my blocks of text here if for whatever reason I ignore you think that the discussion should be also here Randroide (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with anonymous edits

Resolved

– I will open a discussion on the talk page if this continues. Thank you. BuffaloBob (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request guidance about how to resolve repeated reversions to Orchard Park (town), New York from several anonymous IP address. One or more persons operating form the following IP addresses: 69.204.74.6, 72.88.35.23, 74.78.91.204, 204.248.24.161, 69.204.68.248 over the past several months continues to revert to material that is not a neutral point of view, and may even be considered negative and politically motivated by some readers. This material is in the first paragraph of the article. When request have been made for references the references provided are from a blog which supports the same negative views. Is it proper to request that edits to this page can only be made from registered users? BuffaloBob (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's long term vandalism that is continuing right now you can ask for page protection at WP:RPP. Also, if multiple vandalism events come from a single IP within the space of a few hours, you can report the vandal to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I believe it's edits like this one which are concerning BuffaloBob. And looking at the content in there, I think it's right to be concerned. That sort of material really doesn't belong in the lead section of the article. And since the content is only sourced to a Wordpress blog (i.e., not a reliable source), the material should certainly be removed.

I will note however, for BuffaloBob's sake and that of anyone else involved in this article, that from all appearances, these are good faith contributions. What this means is unless you can clearly show that it's vandalism (by Wikipedia's definition thereof), you're still expected to abide by WP:3RR in removing such content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd also recommend that you see if the other editors on the article would help establish a consensus that the material is definitely unwelcome in its current form. While I think it may be acceptable if sourced better (the material hints at actual newspaper articles), since it appears to be good faith, as I said above, you're going to want to establish a consensus that can be maintained by the editors on that article. At that point, someone who constantly goes against that consensus can be considered disruptive. And if the editor(s) in question participate in a discussion, that's probably a good thing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both excellent points. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will to Power (band)

Resolved

– Discussion initiated on article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm hoping somebody can help me with something I've gotten myself snagged into. The musical group Will to Power had a few dance-pop hits in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including a medley of "Baby I Love Your Way" and "Free Bird", which hit #1 on the US pop chart. Before I ever edited that page there had been an ongoing campaign that seems to try and discredit and disparage a former of the group, Suzi Carr. The talk page for the group's article is full of one or two editors screaming in all caps about how untalented Carr is, how she made few contributions to the group, etc. The editors are a few anonymous IP addresses, AKAThe Beast and the newest one, GLOBALCREATOR. I edited the article last summer and added a referenced sentence from a book I own, The Billboard Book of #1 Hits, that indicated a bit about Carr's role in the group. This sentence has been trimmed to omit the reference to her over five times since then, and I've re-added it repeatedly, most recently about an hour ago. GLOBALCREATOR just took it out again. I tried being polite to the original editor, AKA The Beast, leaving a "welcome to Wikipedia" tag on their talk page and answering a question politely. My hunch is that the two users are the same person and that this is a vendetta against Carr, somebody I have never met, although to them I would be considered one of her "cronies".

I wasn't very civil this last time I re-added the sentence and I took it a step further, calling out some of the blatantly pro-Bob Rosenberg info (somebody else I've never met) and trying to trim out what I called "fancruft". I feel like I wish I had never bothered with this page, since I never really liked their music anyway, but now I guess I think if I just let it go then intentionally inaccurate information will be passed off for truth and believed. Maybe I'm putting to much importance onto what exists in Wikipedia, and I'm definitely feeling a bit better having vented some of this out, but I don't really know what to do. The majority of the article, if I can be blunt, reads like somebody was looking for something to do in between snorting lines of coke. One of the editors uploaded a picture of Carr that may have been just to show what she "really" looks like, because the comment mentions how it's not airbrushed like other pictures of her, but when that editor was asked to provide a fair-use license, the new user began editing the page. I just focused on one paragraph originally, and now I need advice. Thanks to whoever reads this, and I'm interested in an opinion from somebody outside of this. Thank you. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted to discuss this on the article's talk page? That's the first thing to do in a content dispute like this. – ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well hmm. I dropped a note at contributions's user talk page asking him to use edit summaries, which seems to be an issue here. I will say however, the spot where you're adding the note about Carr isn't the best place. It seems kind of like you're dropping the first mention in mid-sentence. But let me say this; you've got to at least try to talk things out on the article's talk page. As much as the volunteers here would like to step in for every case, watchlist every article, help clean everything up... it's just not a possibility, and frankly what's needed on that article is a policy- and guideline-based consensus. You can take the first step towards establishing that by assuming good faith of the other editors and trying to start a discussion at Talk:Will to Power (band). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added what I hope is a thoughtful request to a new section on this talk page, although you have to scroll past a whole lot of Suzi Carr-bashing to get to it. I also invited the two editors I mentioned above to participate in a discussion on their respective talk pages here and here. Mendaliv, I hadn't thought about the possibility that I was burying that info inside a sentence, so thanks to you (and Ukexpat) for your input. I admit I am a bit worried about how this will turn out, but I'm willing to give it a go. I want to believe that something good will come from this, and I hope I didn't waste anybody's time on this forum, or post this where I shouldn't have. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it- that's why we volunteer here. Come on back here and drop a message if you need more help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drew R. Smith

Hi, I'm relatively new to wikipedia (under 2 weeks I believe). I have already created several articles, joined a wikiproject, and had one of my articles featured in the DYK section of the main page. My issue is that the wikiproject I joined, WP:AQF is nearly dead. I have taken many measures to revive it, and am doing a fairly good job. I even created a portal for the projet. However, there are still some thing that I just haven't had the opportunity to learn on my own, that need to be done. The newsletter for the project hasn't run since 2007, and I'd like to get a new one up and running. I can create the thing fairl easily on my own, but I'm having problems with delivery. Simply cutting and pasting the newsletter onto every users talkpage is exhausting. And my requests for bot assistance have been largely ignored. There are other parts of the project that I'd like some assistance with, but this is the biggest issue. I'm not asking for someone to do these things for me, but rather to collaborate with me and teach as we go. Thank you for your time.D^rewS^mith 02:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to suggest a solution for newsletter delivery, have you looked into using AWB? It can appear kind of daunting, but it's a great tool for making semi-automated edits. Basically, you'd have a page that keeps a list of participants, and feed that page into AWB, and then automatically append a new section with the newsletter to each user talk page. I'm really not sure what other projects to for delivery though... you'll want to look into that for when/if AQF grows significantly and semi-automated delivery isn't an option.

AWB is a solution from another perspective too; I don't know to what extent AQF puts a banner on related pages, but you can use AWB to quickly add such banners to related article talk pages. From there, you would hopefully get recruits from people reading related articles and having an interest in AQF articles.

Another piece of advice I'd give is to look to related WikiProjects and consult their coordinators, especially if it's a young project. You may be able to pick up some helpful hints. Otherwise, it looks like a lot of the infrastructure for the project is already there. I'd imagine a good way to get the project some attention would be to get a new FA and get it listed on the main page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Some projects have their newsletters delivered by a bot (WP:GM for example), as is the Signpost. Having said that, I am not sure how one makes a request for your newsletter to be delivered by bot, but I am sure one of the other regulars will. – ukexpat (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know what measures you've tried, but you might ask an owner of any of Category:Newsletter delivery bots, or you could post a request at WP:BOTREQ. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted requests on the talk page of bot owners, and been ignored completely. I've also seen the WP:BOTREQ, but it sounds like they discourage requests for newsletter delivery and to talk to bot owners directly.D^rewS^mith 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try USer:Stepshep; I've always found him pretty responsive. Otherwise, go ahead and post at WP:BOTREQ, and somebody will come along and point you to an active bot that can help. Some of the bots have become inactive I think, and it's not always clear which ones they are. Don't worry, only a few of us WP:BITE! --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remove POV words from Coming of Age in Samoa

Hi,

I'm having trouble removing some emotionally loaded words from the Coming of Age in Samoa article, but am meeting with resistance from one of the editors. Can some please take a look at the talk page and weigh in on the dispute?

Thank you!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone else like to have a look at Talk:Coming of Age in Samoa? It seems that both the editor who responded to my request and the editor with whom I am having the dispute are in full agreement that "purported" is an NPOV word, despite WP:Words to avoid. Thanks in advance! Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed purpoted, though in my "neck of the woods" purported doesn't mean the same thing as wikipedias definition. But, after reading the "true" definition I changed the word to something (hopefully) more acceptable.D^rewS^mith 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find "claimed" on the list of words to avoid as well. "Purports to document" or "Claims to document" would only be appropriate if the film in question was a Mockumentary or if the interviews were faked somehow, which is not the case. Webbbbbbber (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can another editor please check this out? Myself and a few others have generally agreed that the article is ok, but Webbbbbbber keeps saying its not ok. I went in neutral, but now I am very much entrenched in this discussion, and a fresh set of neutral eyes would be good.Drew Smith W hat I've done 21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're debating definitions of words, are we all onboard with consensus being different to unanimity? Just wanted to check. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in, consensus means generally agreed upon, and unanimous means everyone agrees? Yeah, I guess if thats what your asking...(scratches head.)Drew Smith W hat I've done 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, was just wondering if one editor was trying to claim that a single holdout was preventing a consensus emerging. I guess it's more evenly balanced than that. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a view at the article talk. Hope it helps out, though it isn't very specific... just gives some thoughts to consider. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Digger Trends Help

I am a first time Wikipedia user and I am trying to submit an article for my writing class. I chose a local band that I am familiar with, and enjoy greatly. I think they deserve a Wikipedia page because they are influencing the local music scene in Boulder, Co, and they are advancing the style of rock and roll to something truly original. I have submitted the article twice and it was deleted for reason A7 of speedy deletion. Any advice on how to make the article stay, or any advice in general would be much appreciated. The article is The Digger Trends. Hopefully you will be able to view the article from this link.

Keithpgleason (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)keithpgleason[reply]

The problem with the aritcle was that there was no evidence or assertion of notability (see the notability guideline and the inclusion guideline for bands). Most bands that have only ever played locally will not meet these inclusion guidelines, and their articles will as such be uniformly deleted from Wikipedia. As this is an enyclopedia, articles are supposed to be on noteworthy subjects; this is not the place to publicise an up and coming band. When it receives coverage from reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.), then it can have an article. Sorry to ruin your school project. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if your school project was to write a Wikipedia article, and there are a number of students who have been specifically assigned to do so, please please refer your teacher or instructor to our page on school and university projects, which includes some very important information they should read before going forward with such an assignment. I've posted this notice to Keithpgleason's user talk page as well, as it's quite important. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

errors and omissions

Request unclear

– Likely in regards to a specific article, but without knowing which article, we can't help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to point out errors and omissions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.50.15 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many readers become editors that way - this is the encyclopaedia you can edit! Or, you can click the "discussion" tab at the top of the article and mention your concerns there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you aren't comfortable doing that, even posting your concern here is appropriate. It's not the best way to do it, as response times here can be slower, but if it's a bad error, it's better than leaving it unnoticed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

resolve speedy deletion attacks by another user

Please help. I created an article about Michel Vulpe and his achievements in the technology industry over the last 20 years, especially his patented i4i invention. Within hours, another user contested it and had it deleted. I also noticed that I can no longer find any references to Michel's company (i4i) on your site. Previously i4i was listed on your articles about drug labels and eCTD, which creates pharmaceutical labels using i4i's invention. Those references are now gone. I wrote a company description and a description of the invention which I intended to use to create pages but obviously this targeting for deletion issue needs to be resolved first or they may also be deleted as soon as post them.

The i4i invention is significant and noteworthy because it is unique, life-changing and patented (issued in 1998, filed in 1994) by the USPTO (who gave it a prestigious quality award after using it). Michel invented a revolutionary technology solution which creates functionality to make regular word processors function as XML editors. It is widely used, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Countless leading pharmaceutical companies have used i4i’s invention to create the pharmaceutical labels which monitor dosage, side effects, drug interactions, etc. The FDA awarded i4i a special commissioner’s citation for the invention's contribution to improving drug safety in the United States. Besides this singificant role, the i4i invention has also been used by govenrments, big and small companies, and such major institutions as US Social Security, the State of Ohio, NASA, US Marine Corps, Airbus, financial institutions, museums, libraries, and universities, to name a few.

Please help. This speedy deletion effort is unjustified. I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your assistance. Winter2009 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Winter2009[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any record of an article under that exact name, nor under i4i. Is there perhaps another spelling, or a character that might be accented? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the i4i references keep getting deleted. It also seems I put a typo in the Michel vulpe post yesterday (small v by accident) but it has been deleted. You can verify his achievements on google or his site, i4i.com or I can send you what I wrote. Please advise. Thank you for your help.

Winter2009 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Winter2009[reply]

Michel vulpe was deleted for being advertising or promotional. If there are sufficient sources to establish his notability, then you could try rewriting it with a neutral tone. It might be best to do that in your userspace, say at User:Winter2009/Michel Vulpe and then you can post here again and ask an assistant to look at it with you. Before any of that, though, you might like to read our advice on writing your first article.

As for i4i, there has never been a page here called i4i. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take your advice, rewrite it and submit to an editor to get input. I had intended to create the i4i page to go with the links that were previously in the wiki pharma pages. I will work on that page after I rework the vulpe article. Many thanks again for your help. --Winter2009

I have created a new draft article and I hope that an editor will help me make it appropriate for consideration for wikipedia. Please review at User:Winter2009/Michel Vulpe. Thank you in advance for your help. I look forward to your feedback.

Winter2009 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to add the references, I think. Adjectives such as "mission-critical" are usually seen as violations of our requirement for a neutral tone of voice. Some of the resume-like material ought to come out too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did an edit, added references and sources, and removed unecessary adjectives and resume-like material. Is it ok now? Thanks, --Winter2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's very short of support for his notability. Gaining a patent is not usually sufficient. Please do read our standard for notability, and for people in particular. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the biased language in your current draft is simply unacceptable. Frankly, the draft as it is in your userspace is probably eligible for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement (though the community is generally less stringent when it comes to stuff in userspace). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links to FindAnyFilm.com

Answered

– External links were inappropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few external links from films listed on Wikipedia to the UK film availability website FindAnyFilm.com. These have all been removed by web editor Crotchety Old Man. I have attempted to ask for clarification from him on why links to FindAnyFilm.com are in breach of Wikipedia's policy, whereas links to Rotten Tomatoes or similar are not, but he has simply given curt and abrupt responses - the last implying that FindAnyFilm.com is breaking copyright which I can assure him it is not.

I would be grateful if another editor would provide me with a courteous and clear explanation as to what the difference is between links to Rotten Tomatoes; which provides an independent aggregation of review information and FindAnyFilm which provides an independent aggregation of availability information. User: DavidFilmFan DavidFilmFan (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was among the editors who removed the links to said site. The reasoning for this isn't related to copyright. It is to see whether the link actually provides significant information about the article's subject. FindAnyFilm.com is intended as a tool to watch, rent or purchase films and does not really provide any information about the film that isn't covered in the article or the commonly used external links such as IMDB. ^LeaveSleaves 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your courteous reply. The key information provided by FindAnyFilm which is not available from IMDB is the legal availability of the films in the UK on any format and on any platform - public service or commercial. This information is not aggregated anywhere else in the UK and FindAnyFilm is a key site in combatting film piracy - which is in the interests of all authors, actors, craftspeople and musicians involved in making films. I would be most grateful if you would reconsider allowing links to findanyfilm.com to be added to films described in Wikipedia - it would be in the interests of all those producers who would like their films viewed by a wide range of the UK audience - legally. User: DavidFilmFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.202.253 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User was replied about my link being removed

Answered

– Reversions were appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add a link in an article for Middle Earth the Wizards, and my link was told it was removed due to policies. Yet other links (for Stores and Trading) are still posted, and was wondering why i was removed and not them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridot65 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your edit was appropriately reverted, and that there could be more cleaning out of links too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, thanks for coming here with your question. Please see the FAQ for the answer to your question (that link goes right to the section). If that is not enough please ask your question again here. Also, when you signed your post you didn't hit the "shift" button so instead of putting "~~~~" you put "````" Further questions? Let me know! Fleetflame 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Time Editor

Resolved

– Article apparently wikified and tag removed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just created my first wikipedia article and at the top it says [This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout.]

I have added as many internal links as I think are relevant or appropriate, and I'm not sure how I can improve the layout. Could you give me some suggestions?

Thank you, 6jew (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the articles discussion page.D^rewS^mith 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure

Editor Popartpete has written a book about the 1984 fire at Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure and asked on my talk page here that I review his recent additions to the article. He and I have a history of conflict regarding the article and I'm not sure I could take a neutral view. Could someone please take a quick look at the changes? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I noticed a lot of problems with this one. First off, its not a real book. Its a short blurb about his conclusions posted on the internet posing as a book. This kind of thing should not be used as a reference. Second, he isnt even trying to use it as a reference, he is batantly puting an ad for his book in the article. Seeing as him writing a book about the fire as nothing to do with the actual haunted castle, it has no business being there anyway. Third, the part about his film should be removed as well. We do not publish original research, we do not advertise. Thats not the wikipedian way.Drew Smith W hat I've done 00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drew; without third party references that speak of his work, none of the stuff on Peter James Smith belongs. The stuff on the book is just gratuitous promotion though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links in navigation boxes

Template:Marcin Rozynek

Hi. Can someone have a look at Nibyja - a navigation box has been placed at the end which has a link to an external site - presumably a fan site. Is this allowed under WP guidelines ? Cheers. CultureDrone (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAVBOX says the navbox should support navigation between articles; putting the guy's website in there seems rather promotional. I took it out. The whole family of articles is a bit borderline too; there are no refs at the page for the singer. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back Of The Y Masterpiece Television

This page is filled with nonsense and some borderline personal attacks. At first I assumed this was complete nonsense and was going to prod it, but further review shows me that it is (or was) a real TV show. The problem is I can't tell which edits are real, and which aren't, and the vandalism is so frequent, old, and intermixed with real edits that it's hard to figure out what older version of the page to revert to. If someone else who has some time could go through this and try to revert all the vandalism, that would be a good idea. --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed a summary revert to a version that precedes much of the recent IP vandalism. I might have wiped off a few good edits and left a few bad ones, but it seems better now. I'll try to get back to this and review sources when I have more time. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution requested for Côte_d'Or_(brand)

Maybe not the most noteworthy article, but still...

The article in question is Côte_d'Or_(brand). On April 21 2009 I reverted an edit by User:Cocoaverification, who had added a paragraph about criticism considering unethical behavior by Côte d'Or (a chocolate brand) and it's mother company Kraft.

In my opinion, this paragraph violated NPOV, as it was not clear to me why Côte d'Or in particular was to blame for those unethical practices, as opposed to the chocolate industry in general. Also, the informationwas unsourced, and finally, seemed out of proportion, given that the rest of the Côte d'Or article is a stub.

User:Cocoaverification then put the paragraph back, slightly rewritten, providing some sources, which however were not useful (they were links to other WP articles that did not even mention Côte d'Or or Kraft). I then contacted Cocoaverification on his talk page and reverted his edit again, now for a 3rd time. I guess it's time for a second opinion.

- Minvogt (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoaverification (talk · contribs) only has 8 edits to date and seems to be a single purpose account. Furthermore, that editor used Wikipedia as a source which is a definite no-no. That being said, you did technically violate the three revert rule when you reverted for the third time, so perhaps it would have been better to ask for a third opinion. ←Spidern→ 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]