Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rotary International Dispute

Stale
 – Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this long running dispute, see this and it's talk page. I would like to improve the article but am unwilling to get buried in the contest. How can I (we) get the contestants to stop??? Ariconte (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Wead

Stale
 – Please open a new thread as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello I am a personal representative of Doug Wead, and I am trying to remove some information from the Doug Wead page at his request. The information is incorrect. As a result I have received warnings? What should I do? Aaron Aarondm (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, It's not really clear what you're trying to remove, from looking at your edits. There's some wordsmithing about the marijuana thing, but no clear removal of unsourced material. You could try;
  1. Discussing on the talk page. Click the discussion tab at the top of the article, state your concern, and indicate your verifiable sources. Personal discussions with the subject won't be very persuasive, because there's no way for anybody else to verify that.
  2. Adding material if you can also show reliable sources to go with it.
  3. You might also read our policy on conflicts of interest. We generally discourage subjects from editing their own biographies, since they tend to have, even unintentionally, a point of view. We prefer articles to have a neutral point of view.
I know there's a lot to read there. Starting a conversation on the talk page is probably best. Feel free to come back with questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the facts cited on the page (Doug Wead "has now written more than 27 books that have sold 7 million copies in 30 languages") are supported by nothing more than references to http://www.dougwead.com/doug_wead_biography.html, which is presumably self-published biography. Are such things deemed reliable sources for anything beyond the plainest biographical facts, like "born in Indiana"? JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Not even that. The relevant guideline is here. Strictly speaking, we don't even know that dougwead.com is operated by Doug Wead. But assuming that it is, we can say that he says he was born in Indiana, claims to have sold 7 million books, etc. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Intercrural intercourse/sumata

Resolved
 – Perhaps? RfC seems to be the best route. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have suggested Sumata be merged into Intercrural sex. An IP user on the latter's talk page claimed it was a stritcly (male) homosexual act. I countered that argument by saying the Japanese page for Sumata deals with both hetero and homosexual variations of intercrural sex. In the light of the above, I really see no reason sumata cannot be merged into Intercrural sex. It'd only be a matter of explaining the importance of intercrural sex in Japanese soaplands and health massage parlours as a way to circumvent the 1956 Anti-Prostitution laws. Further information from the Japanese article could also be translated into the english version.

Since this matter's been dragging itself for over two months now, I thought it was about time we made our minds about it. -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like what that IP said is the only discussion that has occurred, so you might want to try a Request for Comment. IMO, I don't think the merge is a good idea, as Sumata (according to the article) refers to some actions that aren't intercrural. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been erased

Resolved
 – Deleted via AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Im an author of 4 books- all have been legitimately published by 'real' publishers- My bio was erased off of Wiki- Im am not much of an editor and I honestly dont know the culture- but I was there with multiple links one day- gone the next

???


No one can give me a straight answer why- most have told me that I should legitimately be in wiki- conspiracy theories and vendetta rumors abound- Im confused

I mostly think that my books add to the world and would like them represented- as well as the online magazine Ive been editing for 5 years. But Im not obsessive about it. Ive been a fan of Wiki for years- but the odd and arbitrary way I was erased gives me real pause-

Just curious

Denny Sargent


BOOKS PUBLISHED:


Heal The Earth, An Environmental Textbook, Dawn Press, Japan 1991

Global Ritualism, Myth and Magick Around the World, Llewellyn Publishing 1994 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/globalritualism.html


The Magical Garden, (with Sophia), Andrews McMeel Publishing 2000 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/magicalgarden/


The Tao of Birth Days, Tuttle Publishing 2001 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/taoofbirthdays/


Your Guardian Angel & You, Redwheel / Weiser 2004 (out now) Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/YourGuardianAngel/

Clean Sweep, Banishing Everything You Don't Need to Make Room for What You Want, Redwheel / Weiser 2007 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/cleansweep.html

Editor and Publisher:

Silver Star - A Journal of New Magick (online Journal, 2003-present) Site: http://www.horusmaat.com/silverstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.98 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no conspiracy theories to be had here. The article Denny Sargent was deleted on November 2, 2007 by User:JzG as a speedy deletion - his comment is that it did not assert notability. Looking at the deleted article, I'd agree. However, having said all that, if you feel that the article should have been retained, you can request a deletion review and see what other editors think. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Although an admin would have to list a copy of the page for the other editors to comment. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny sargent
Articles
Accounts
Aion131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
72.244.206.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why am I unable to login ?

Resolved
 – Appears to have been a glitch. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Since about an year from now, I have signed up in Wikipedia, using my username Lutfullah and have made a few contributions on talk pages and corrections on grammar and syntax (if seen) on main article pages.

Since yesterday June 03, 2008 I am not able to go beyond pointing my cursor and right-clicking onto the Log in/create account radio button. The moment I do that, an error message pops up with a bang, telling me that my Internet Explorer can not accsess this web-page and I am removed totally from your portal by my browser.

Please be kind enough to find out and tell me, here in this talk page, why this is happening. Have I been removed from your login access for any uncouthed behavior on my part, which I am yet unaware of? Is there any other reason and if such is, what remedy can I avail? It shall be very kind of you if you could find some time for me to drop a line in my Email address <removed>

Thanks and regards. 59.180.122.229 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

Hi, I don't see anything that would indicate that you've been blocked. I don't mean to be patronising, but right-clicking doesn't sound like it would be needed; a regular (left-) click should be fine. Or, does your browser have the password feature enabled? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Lutfullah (talk · contribs) seems clear of of any blocks. could try the simple stuff, like caps lock, wrong pass, refreshing or deleting your cache...--Hu12 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Consulting page

Resolved
 – at Dornier consulting talkpage Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have just made a handful of changes to the above named subject. I would like to know if these are sufficient or if there is more that needs to be changed. If so, please be as specific as possible so that I can resolve them. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unserwikikonto (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Submit article/entry

Resolved
 – Asked. Answered. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How do we submit an article/entry to be posted? Do we provide content or is it written by your editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.73.218 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We're all editors! You, me, everyone else too. First, you should read our five pillars to get a sense of what is likely to be acceptable. Then, many people find it helpful to browse, make some smaller edits, and get the hang of the place first. After that, if you have something to add then jump in! Oh, and please register an account. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia:Your first article may help, too. Mangostar (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
To answer you bluntly, two ways: A) if you register an account you can do it yourself after four days; B) submit the content to Article for Creation, where editors will review it and, if it's acceptable for Wikipedia, will create it for you. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

photos

Stale
 – Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am receiving an error message "Internet Explorer cannot open the internet site http:...... whenever I try and click on a picture to open it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.145.33 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is happening on any image you click on, it could be that your internet connection is timing out. Try disconnecting and then re-connecting. Pastordavid (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Celtic FC

Resolved
 – Fixed. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody messed up the shirts on the page,don't know how to fix it(wasn't me) ,please can anyone fix it.Thank you.YXN —Preceding comment was added at 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit has fixed it, not sure if the supporters section needs to go back though. Pahari Sahib 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to edit the history of my changes in a particular contribution of mine

Resolved
 – The article history must stay in place, GFDL. Pastordavid (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting that an administrator delete the history of all MY changes to a wikipedia article that I wrote about an uncle of mine: Fritz Kachler. Of course I am NOT requesting that the history of anyone else's changes on this articles be deleted only mine. I ask this to simplify the history of the final product, most changes being very minor. Thanks in advance. Georgehwk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgehwk (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't really remove the history of edits; it has to be recorded for the GFDL. Or are you asking for your edits themselves to be reverted? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

article disappeared in part

Resolved
 – Explained and fixed by Matthewedwards. BelovedFreak 10:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I made considerable updates on the page "HIV/AIDS in Pakistan". after the last update all I see are the first 2 paras. The rest can be seen in edit mode but not on the regular view. Can someone help.

Thanks

Adnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnkhan (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the references wasn't closed properly. When making a reference, write <ref>website to be referenced</ref>, making sure that in the closing tag, the / is used. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoted For Truth

Resolved
 – Disambig page QFT now includes link to List of Internet Slang Abbreviations#Q. Resolved by Baseball Bugs. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not currently contain an entry for "Quoted For Truth"

QFT is an acronym commonly used on internet forums, which inexperienced readers may not understand. A Google search for the acronymn QFT returns wikipedia as the number one result, however a defintition for this acronym (in relation to it's use on internet forums) is not forthcoming.

This seems bizarre and nonsensical to me. I wrote a definition for it, and it was almost immediately deleted. Any advice on how to improve my article on 'quoted for truth' so that it meets wikipedia's standards would be appreciated.

Xman80

How about posting your definition here? I am an inexperienced reader, so I haven't the vaguest idea what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks that expression is supposed to mean. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs, can I get access to the article I created which was deleted by Wikipedia user Jimfbleak, or do I have to write another one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman80 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have admin authority. But can't you just say here, in one sentence, what the definition of that term is? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It's when you selectively quote some text from someone else's post on an internet forum and post qft after it. It means you strongly agree with what they said. Xman80

OK, so what does "post qft" mean? Keep in mind you're dealing with an ignoranimous here. [This was a dense question. Sorry. See below.] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's when you reply to someone else's post on an internet forum and you selectively quote some text from their post and add qft to it. It means that you strongly agree with the comment that you're quoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman80 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Now explain why it needs an article. It sounds like that one sentence could be incorporated into an article that lists other internet abbreviations like LOL, WTF, IMHOTEP, and other such stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If I see something on the Internet I don't understand, I will Google it. A Google of QFT returns Wikipedia as the number one result, yet a definition for "Quoted For Truth" is not available here. I was not aware of the Wikipedia article on Internet abbreviations. Maybe the page which lists the various definitions for QFT should link to the Internet abbreviations page?

I'm not insisting that Quoted For Truth is deserving of an article, I'm saying that people who arrive at Wikipedia via Google looking for an explanation of QFT should be able to get an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman80 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You could add it to the list of internet-isms, assuming such an article exists here, and then set up a redirect page to it. That should cover the bases. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I looked up IMHO and the article consisted of pointing to IMHO in wiktionary. I then found that QFT is also listed in wiktionary. [1] You could follow the same procedure with QFT as was done with IMHO. Be aware that QFT has vulgar meanings as well, in fact those vulgar meanings are probably what QFT "really" stands for. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The IMHO article has kind of a "form letter" inviting starting a real article. However, I wouldn't think there's enough notable material to form an article about hardly any internet abbreviation of that type, although LOL has one just because of its widespread use and variations. It would be hard to justify for IMHO - or for QFT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Baseball Bugs. This is my first attempt at Wikipedia.

Can I get the red text for Quoted for Truth on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QFT to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_Slang_Abbreviations#Q

Then people who search Google for QFT relating to a post on an internet forum can get a definition from the number one search result page.

I am not aware of any vulgar meanings for QFT. I have both used and seen "QFT" many times on internet forums, and I never intended or detected any implied vulgarity in relation to it's use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xman80 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Look at QFT and you'll see how I did it. Meanwhile, click on that link from one of my earlier comments, and you'll see what I mean about the vulgarities, which could easily be substituted for your version of QFT, but I have no idea which came first. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, so the bot program won't have to keep doing it for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's better! Cheers, Xman80 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Film soundtracks ?!

Resolved
 – Question answered & problem fixed. --BelovedFreak 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes - while I'm here, why does this page (Editor assistance/Requests) have a category of 'Film soundtracks' ? Does WP now have a soundtrack option ? ;-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone had accidentally linked to the category using [[Category:Film soundtracks]] instead of [[:Category:Film soundtracks]]. It is fixed now.--BelovedFreak 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Help on Glitch City Template dispute.

Resolved
 – The article in question has been deleted & redirected SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm in a dispute of sorts about a template that has been added to a page up for deletion. It is an "in-universe" template that I feel is inappropriate, and it will contribute a negative bias to those viewing the article who decide whether to delete, merge or whatever.

The article is about a famous bug in a computer game. [2]

I've tried to reason this with the person who wants the page deleted (he nominated it for deletion), but he has simple threatened me with warnings and reverted any change I make to the template.

I am aware that the article does have problems, and is on the border of deletion or merge (which I'm against.) However "in-universe" isn't one of them. Though it does discuss fictional monsters and places, it would be hard for the article not to mention these, and it doesn't descibe it from a fictional POV, but instead it says "the player," which clearly indicates it is not in-universe. And it states that the effects are a computer bug from the very first sentence.

Any help resolving this would be most appreciated. MKULTRA333 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Philip S. Porter article

Resolved
 – Section removed. Please re-list if there are further difficulties SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I have long used Wikipedia as a resource but had never joined before. I searched for "Philip S. Porter" and was pleased to find a well-written and accurate piece about one of my mentors, a living person who is prominent in the martial arts. Unfortunately somone has added a section at the end of the article entitled "Controversies" which contains inaccurate and potentially libelous information, at odds with Wikipedia policy.

I set up an account for myself as "Soothsayer12" and attempted to edit this erroneous and damaging information. Included in the orginal "Controversies" section were innuendos of wrongdoing without substantiation, global ad hominem attacks of the sort that state that "everyone" in the martial arts world knows that Mr. Porter is a fraud, etc.. This is patently untrue; reading the preceding sections of the article make it clear that he is a legitimate and important person in the martial arts. Unfortunately the martial arts world is full of bad politics (like the rest of the world!) and a few bad apples. These libelous comments have no place on Wikipedia and no place in polite discourse, either.

My edits were an attempt to neutralize the "Controversies" section with accurate and balanced information. I did not delete the section. However, my edits have both times been reverted. As a student of Mr. Porter, a member of his organization and a martial arts teacher myself with 35 years of training experience, I'm requesting that my edits be restored in order to present a fair picture of the man. If this is not possible for some reason, at the very least the "Controversies" section should be deleted in total, as it is inaccurate and potentially libelous, per Wikipedia policy.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soothsayer12 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article in question, Philip S. Porter, is sadly lacking in references; I've tagged it and made a note on the talk page asking for more sources to back up the Controversies section especially. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone else removed that whole section, and rightly so. It was completely unsourced. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Coming

Resolved
 – although not everyone is intelligent enough to understand why SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A few different times I have attempted to add an entry in the Second Coming (of Christ) dates section in reference to a book entitled The Elusive Paradox. I am the author, however, there is no money in this publishing effort for me as my royalties have evidently been consumed by big business interests. The dates in my book are more detailed and documented than any that you show. I know you probably get so many people attempting to use you encyclopedia for self promotion that it is staggering. However, if the intent is genuinely to provide universal information to the masses, then perhaps The Elusive Paradox deserves a mention. Of all the books and preditions about the second coming, one and only one will be correct. Mine will be closer and more correct than any in existence. How is this possible? This is the essence of understanding the paradox. Most will never grasp it, as it goes beyond the comprenhension of most PhD's. If you are interested please contact me at -- REMOVED -- If not then you might want to read the book as to date no one has been found that is intelligent enough to understand it. Therefore, if you think that you are smart, or well educated The Elusive Paradox tends to humble the egos of even the elect. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.123.2 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for coming here for help. "to date no one has been found that is intelligent enough to understand it". You might want to read Wikipedia's section on reliable sources. I'm sure you would agree that any book that was able to be understood by nobody (by the author's own admission) would not qualify as a reliable source. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I bet the Time Cube guy could understand it.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't here to promote books, no matter who publishes them or what their Amazon sales rank is. According to the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, we should not document subjects unless multiple independent reliable sources have already done so. Based on that, I don't think this information has any place in Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism question

Resolved
 – Anon. IP was subjected to stale irrelevant vandalism warning; advise to create an account and/or ignore the warning - User:Jaysweet 17:31, 18 June 2008

I have just been warned for vandalising the site, but as far as I am aware, I have done nothing wrong. Can you tell me what I have done wrong so that I don't do it again in future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.184.18 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone editing from your IP address vandalised a couple of articles on the 31st of May (see contributions). The warning was left for whoever did the vandalism. If it wasn't you, you haven't done anything wrong. To avoid seeing messages that are meant for other people, you might want to register for a user account.--BelovedFreak 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) It would be someone else on your IP address - the only way to stop it is to create an account. Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do NOT sign in articles....... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That was the 31st of May from last year by the way ;D Almost certainly not the same person.
Anyway, yes, create an account, and don't sweat the warnings, it's not your fault :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lee Jong wook

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited this article Mar 26/08 and a major contributing editor to the article Pju0353 would like an explanation for my deletion of material. I have not yet replied to him/her as I am unable to come up with a better explanation than my original edit "Removed Election section and Margaret Chan para as of no real consequence; not TIMES (engineering}" and I fear that repeating myself will not satisfy this editor. Might you come up with some wording of a reply (if you agree with my edit) or critique of my edit to help me with this. Although the article required insubstantial grammar correction you will see in the posting by Pju0353 a substantial problem with English that makes it difficult for me to understand aspects of his argument and will probably be a major problem in my communication with him unless I keep it simple.

I removed the whole of the "Election" section and don't know whether any part of it merits inclusion. The material is very poorly written also. I can see that the section "Campaign for Secretary General" that s/he alludes to for Ban Ki-moon has merit. --User:Brenont (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Troy Southgate Article

Stuck
 – Dispute resolution probably needed SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Someone keeps removing the controversy section of the Troy Southgate article and I suspect it is Southgate himself. I requested protection but was denied. The criticism is a direct quote from a Sunday Telegraph article about Southgate.

Here is the link: Troy Southgate

Please advise as it has been taken down 5 or 6 times. I am new to editing so please help.

Thanks,

EVOLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evola (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is more than a one-on-one dispute; I'd say file a Request for Comment to get outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As AndonicO told you on your talk page, you need to find more sources for the section before inserting it. Also, 98.217.67.42 (whom I assume to be you) said, "I will just keep adding the Controversy section on this page. Ask for protection if you like." This is not the attitude to take. I would definitely try to attempt a discussion on the article's talk page and see if you can reach consensus on if or how the section should go in. Fleetflame 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of article

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the anonymous user Yopie is abusing the article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha. How can judgments from Italian courts be "self-published sources" ? Or expert opinions ? Guy Stair Saintys accusations are all unverified, he does not offer a single shred of evidence in support of his claims. To refer to his criticism therefore violates Wikipedia principles on Verifiability and Reliable sources.PeTom (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First, just to correct your usage, they're not an "anonymous" editor, as that refers to edits from IP addresses. It looks like a dispute that would need to go to Mediation Cabal or a Request for Comment. It looks, though, like someone has tried a new version that's a compromise edit; you might find that one a bit more neutral. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest Yogi Bhajan

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The page titled Harbhajan Singh Yogi contains information that is almost exclusively written my members of this man's cult who continue to promote his "work". If you visit http://yogibhajan.tripod.com/id23.html You'll see that this person's life is riddled with controversy and yes immorality and crime. There should at least be referrals to web pages of former cult members. I am a former member of this organization. There are hundreds of lives that were irreparably damaged by this group. A neutral person editing this page can do a service to those lives and possible prevent future victims. A fair and balanced edit should at least state that there is controversy surrounding many of Bhajan's claims to authority. Including claim to be "the Siri Singh Sahib Chief Religious and Administrative Authority for the Western Hemisphere", claim to be the only living "Mahan Tantric, White Tantric Yoga Master" and claims to be a "Master of Kundalini Yoga" none of these claims can be substantiated outside of his sphere of influence. Just the opposite. The following is a quote from the formerly referenced web site. the Monterey District Attorney pointed out that I was a member of a large crime family complete with sex, rape, drugs, smuggling, murder and more and that this 3HO Organization had nothing over on the Mafia.Hue many (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially in biographies of a living person, we must be careful that any material added be from a highly reliable source. In the interest of neutrality, this applies to positive information as well as negative. However, self-published pages from those who knew the person would probably not rise to the level of reliability required. Are there any independent sources regarding the subject? If not, it may not be notable or suitable for an article at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User Cquan and my article for "Steven Chayer" (I don't care if the article is removed at this point I want this guy to be more civil)

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User Cquan [3]. He's mean and on a power trip and he knows it because I pointed out how mean-spirited and unnecessary something he had on his user page was and he did the following:
A) Deleted that comment I made about his callous, smug User Page in the Articles for Deletion discussion [4]
B) He then edited his user page to remove the stuff I had pointed out as mean and needless.

We have discussions over this article on both AfD [5] and the article's talk page [6]


Thank you for reading,

Drewhamilton (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Citiation requirements: Newspaper article not available online

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have recently attempted to make some changes to a Wikipedia page which were reversed by an Administrator due to a lack of a proper reference (pertaining to a statement about a living person). I received a temporary block as a result. I was wondering what Wikipedia would accept as citable evidence? My reference is a newspaper article which was printed last week in Perth Western Australia, but the newspaper article is not available online. Will Wikipedia accept this article as a reference without it being available online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightcorruption (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally this wouldn't be a problem. However, in this case you are much less likely to get such a citation accepted, on the basis that you've already added controversial and unsourced information to a biography of a living person - a violation of one of our strictest policies - not to mention that your username implies that you may be a single-purpose account and/or possibly have a conflict of interest with the subject. It might be a good idea make some less controversial edits for a while and see if any other sources also publish similar material. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing your contributions, I think that the non-neutrality of your prose might be an issue too. Take this diff as an example. I think that you should read Wikipedia's neutrality policy very carefully. Good luck, and happy editing! Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Information Related to My City

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres an abuse of the info related to my city, as an istanbulian i kindly request to keep the info i provided below and not let to be edited Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul

Goldeneye1980, Istanbul


{{Infobox Settlement |official_name=İstanbul |settlement_type= |established_title= Founded |established_date=667 BC as Byzantium |established_title1=Roman/Byzantine period |established_date1=AD 330 as Constantinople |established_title2=Byzantium period |established_date2=until 1453 named as Constantinople and various other names in local languages |established_title2=Ottoman period |established_date2=starting from 1453 named as Istanbul by Ottoman Empire |established_title3=Turkish Republic period |established_date3=Istanbul since Ottoman Empire

Quoting from tr:Konstantinopolis: "11 Mayıs 330 tarihinde Roma İmparatoru I. Konstantin Byzantion'u imparatorluğun yeni başkenti seçmiş ve Yeni Roma (Lat.: Nova Roma) diye tekrar isimlendirmiştir.". And from tr:İstanbul (şehir): "Ancak; devlet işlerinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Konstantiniyye ismini kullanır." Please get your facts straight.  --Lambiam 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My biographical information on Wikipedia

Resolved
 – Editor directed to OTRS SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

TWIMC: I just noticed a “conflict of interest” sticker on my page bio page. I identified myself and made some changes which were factual and not editorial or opinionated. What should I do to take off the citation on my page? I have no problem waiting until things are checked out, but am just curious as to what my next step is, if any. Thanks for any help you can give me. I know that I am not supposed to put an e-mail address in here, but my address is already public because of my public blog. If one of you would please call or contact me I would really appreciate it. I have a lot of difficulty navigating your “rules, regulations, directions and editing” etc. pages, so hope I'm doing this right. Thanks again, Charles Laquidara 808 268-1525 charles@radiowaveX.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laquidara (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can start by contacting OTRS to verify your identity. Per your edits, 1) make sure they're neutral, and B) it still needs to be cited to a source of information. It looks like a lot of the inaccuracies were uncited and have since been removed anyway. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton page

Resolved
 – Editor's questions have been answeredSHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to edit the Hillary Clinton page. I realize that political pages are a hotbed and they have their own cadre of people on both sides patrolling them. I was browbeaten because my edit did not conform with somebody's conception of "verifiability" but as all intelligent people know this is a relative thing and just about nothing is perfectly verifiable. I pointed out the incongruousness of Ms. Clinton seeking Obama's VP slot in light of her disrespectful treatment of him during the campaign. That just seems common sense. I am not a heavy wiki person; I had written and edited a few articles to do with Latin and Greek mainly. So the Clinton page has been locked down by her people. Is that what Wikipedia is for? I know because of the non-professional ethic (not unprofessional) of wikipedia for the unpaid editing staff there's only so much you can do in these kinds of situations. I wish I knew more about editing wiki but I just don't have time. My edits are quick and dirty and I think substantially accurate. Thank you very much. Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyodysseus (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first edit, here, was in the manner of an editorial comment, and not an encyclopedic addition; it was not backed up by reliable sources, and therefore was quite rightly removed from what is a high-traffic and highly visible article at present. Your second edit was a personal attack on the editor who had removed the previous edit. Personal attacks are bad things. Verifiability is not an option here; it is a policy, and must be followed. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, the page hasn't been locked down "by her people". See WP:Protection policy, it was locked by Wikipedia administrators in order to prevent WP:Vandalism. Those who have an account older than four days can still edit the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's especially problematic by the weasel words, e.g. "people have said". A) Something like that isn't really useful to the article, and B) you'd need some kind of source for it (e.g. newspaper editorials). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sernio article and help with other editors

Resolved
 – Other editors are looking at this article; please re-list if further assistance is neededSHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could some other people please have a look at this article. I'm trying to work on getting it cleaned up so that if the subject actually is notable enough for inclusion the article will be legiable and coherent (as well as formatted properly). I've been attempting to AGF and have suggested improvements and tried to enter into conversation with the "current" main editor without success. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request: How to code dates

Resolved
 – Questions answeredSHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is about the dates in an article. For example...

Say the article says, "In January 1956, I bought ..." Would the month and year deserve an internal wiki link seperately? Just the month? Both together?

"In [[January]] [[1956]], I bought ..."
"In [[January]] 1956, I bought ..."
"In [[January 1956]], I bought ..."


OK, a whole date. "... was born on March 27, 2001, and ..." Now, the Month and date together get a wiki link, but what about the year?

"... was born on [[March 27]], [[2001]], and ..."
"... was born on [[March]] [[27]], [[2001]], and ..."
"... was born on [[March 27]], 2001, and ..."


And finally, what if there is a date and no year? "Each March 23rd we celebrate..."

"Each [[March]] 23rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March 23]]rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March 23rd]] we celebrate..."
"Each [[March]] [[23]]rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March]] [[23rd]] we celebrate..."


Thanks for your help. Feel free to strikeout the incorrect lines and maybe highlight the correct lines. I have read the wiki guidlines on the subject, but receive conflicting response from other people (both admins and non-admins alike). --Noxia (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My non-administrative 2c would be to follow the principle of Only make links that are relevant to the context. So, frequently, no link is needed. If the context requires an explanation of the date, then a link would be justified. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I (and our manual of style) agree with Andrew. There's no reason to link dates unless relevant to content unless it is a full date. Full dates should in most cases be linked but for display, rather than context reasons. Dates come in various formats all over the world (mm-dd-y, dd-mm-yy, etc. Wikipedia lets registered users set date display preferences for their accounts, which only works with linked full dates. With a linked date, it doesn't matter how the user has written it; if properly linked, it will display for users however they are used to based on the setting they choose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Actually, linking dates like March 23 (not March 23rd - we avoid -st, -nd, -rd) is also helpful. That way it comes out 23 March or March 23, depending on user preferences. Mangostar (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalker

Resolved
 – Editor has apologised SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve an issue with Iblardi...but he continues to stalk me. His actions continue even now. I have tried to make light of it so as not to give him the satisfaction of an angry reply. I do not want to get into the long-winded, verbose, never ending conversation that he does. But...I can not do ANY editing without him coming behind me and undoing them...in reverse order the articles are... 1) White Bass. 2) Fremont, Wisc. 3) Desiderus Erasmus. 4) Hans Brinker and the Silver skates. 5) Tim Moore. 6) Low Countries 7) Belgium 8) Dutch customs and ettiquette.

There are more. But these should show a preponderance of action that is contrary to Wiki-Standards. Earlier ..before I left for work...I was ready to move on and leave the Low Countries to Iblardi and his ilk. It wasn't worth the aggrevation.....Please respond ASAP. --Buster7 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I did it right....ie...I just submitted a formal request for a dispute resolution.--Buster7 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I am reluctant to do anything on Wikipedia because the stalker will just revert it. Time and time and time again he has hunted me down and reverted my efforts. His interferance is tedious. At least I have an editing record, albiet a short one, built on good will and friendliness. He now begins to present this Trojan Horse of a defense; that somehow my editing is questionable or unusual or non-encyclopedic...and that's why he follows me around like some braying mule! Perhaps, at times, it may have a hint of some of those "newbie" qualities. Afterall, Ive only been at this for A MONTH!!!! It is a defense that he has created out of thin air to cover-up his improprieties. I have had disagreements with other editors. But there was always a meeting of the minds and we moved on. But, to anyone that looks at all the facts and the history of my involvements with Iblardi, they will see what I see. Iblardi is full of Hot Air!!! His previous history with other editors he has stalked should be proof enough. Iblardi is what I call a Right Fighter. He has to be right! This all started when I wouldn't sit still and let the "Belgians are stupid" joke exist on the Dutch page. He is probably surprised that I am NOT as stupid a Belgian as he first thought. BTW...when this is resolved, I would like to find out about a new account or something like that. No matter how it turns out, a bully like Iblardi will not let it die. His continued vandalism proves it! Please advise whats going on and how to proceed ASAP...--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Buster7 is neither a Belgian, nor a 61-year old, nor a newbie. He is an internet troll, possibly trying to make the point that it is too easy for vandals to hide behind policies as Don't Bite the Newcomers. I am now reverting his last edit on Erasmus, as it has reinstated previous vandalism. Iblardi (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that you refrain from making comments that could be construed as personal attacks as they aren't constructive and could lead to consequences --Firebladed (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for the provocative accusations above. I merely observe that this user is putting up a masquerade. Normally I am not at all quick in accusing other editors. Just for the record, how can I be a "Right Fighter"? I engage in factual discussions on talk pages all the time (for instance [7], [8], [9], etc., including with the above user ([10], [11]). I am generally a cautious editor ([12], [13]). I do help newcomers ([14]) and I correct myself at times when it becomes clear that I made a mistake (removing my own contribution after a talk page discussion: [15]). User:Buster7 also created an article of questionable notability (probably taken from the cover of the book he was using for his edits on the Low Countries: [16]), which I didn't touch since I saw no factual inaccuracies. Hardly an editor who "has to be right" at all costs, it seems. Iblardi (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my Jesuit teachers was an ex-marine. He taught us, his students, calmness in the face of battle. All the facts on my user page are just that---FACTS!--Buster7 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that someone who is genuinely concerned with this issue does not post frivolous reactions like this one: [17]. And this explanation [18] about a "brother" who allegedly has been checking all of this user's contributions and has done so for years (while the user professes to be a newcomer) doesn't sound convincing to me. And even here -- a Jesuit teacher who is an ex-marine? How plausible is that? Iblardi (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I am responding only for the benefit of any administrator that might read our "banter".
  1. 1)My response was jovial, not frivolous. You offense is very serious so anything to do with it is certainly not frivolous. As I state elsewhere, to others, I will not let you pull me into an angry respose. My response may seem light-hearted but the intent behind it is very serious. Stop Doing What Your Doing! Leave me alone.
  2. 2)You should read content better! My brother has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I guess you would call him a customer. I placed my edit, called him on the phone, asked him to give a "look-see (he is my fishing partner..On the Wolf River in WIsconsin) and let me know what he thought. Strictly as a consumer not as an editor.
  3. 3)You assume that I was refering to editing at Wikipedia. How limited an outlook! I didnt just start writing a month ago. Ive been writing journals, short stories, correspondence and letters for many, many years, again, having nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. While they are in the drafting stage, I use spaces to sigify that I'm not sure of the word I want...this allows me to move on with the thought and not get stuck on searching for the "right" word.

(Whatever story you made up about what I wrote or who I am, is Your story. It really has very little to do with me. Like your interpretations of my edits they are far from the truth)

  1. 4)As to the Jesuit Marine. I dont know what to say. He didn't show us any references. He looked like a priest and he said he had been a Marine. Now that I think about it...I remember a tattoo...USMC...on his bisep. Is that sufficient proof?

This is my final talk with you. At such a time when an administrator gets involved in our "situation", I will respond to any and all claims that you make. But until then, I will not respond to any request to talk. About anything. So, dont bother to ask.--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to send you an e-mail. Maybe I have been a little mistrustful. Iblardi (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't work. I apologized to the user on his talk page. Reading this I realize that I got carried away by my own mistrust and over-interpreted his words and actions. Iblardi (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Recurring problems with an unconstructive editor (reposted from User talk:PhilKnight)

Resolved
 – Useful suggestions have been made and the original poster seems happy - please repost if not. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am posting here because of problems I have had with an editor who has, in 2 lengthy discussions with myself, refused to debate constructively, leading to many hours of wasted time and much wasted effort. I believe that if he is not made aware that his behaviour in the debates was unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the future, he will continue to conduct himself in a similar fashion in the future and many more hours will be lost. I originally posted this message on User talk:PhilKnight to seek his assistance, but he was not sure what to suggest and recommended I copy and paste the message here for someone else to take a look at. As such, that is what I have done:

(begin reposted message)

Hello PhilKnight,

I arrived on your talk page via Wikipedia:Editor assistance, because of your discription: "Reasonably experienced in dealing with edit wars and the dispute resolution process". I have, on 2 seperate occasions now, had lengthy discussions with a particular editor (LeaveSleaves (talk)) in which this editor has employed counterproductive debating techniques. I believe that this editor does attempt to make good faith edits, but whenever his position is challenged or mistakes are pointed out, he refuses to read, take note of and address the points raised in any replies. Instead he sticks to his original position no matter what arguments are put forward or evidence presented, and seems to take it as an insult if I explain where he is mistaken (with reasoned arguments, links etc) or why I disagree with his opinions. I have also taken issue with his excessive haste to nominate an article for deletion, rather than addressing any concerns he had with the article on the talk page or by editing the article itself.

Although I have no current dispute with the user, I feel certain that I will have to deal with the user's editing and discussions in the future, and I would like it made clear to him that his counterproductive debating techniques are not acceptable, so that I, and other users, do not have to waste valuable time and effort in the future dealing with similar behaviour. I have little experience in dealing with dispute resolution, so I am unsure of the protocol for dealing with such users, both initially and if they refuse to modify their behaviour, and as such your input into this would be valuable. Having said that, there seems little point in me ever trying to reason with him about his conduct, considering the obvious animosity he now feels towards me. I will now detail the history of the disputes fully, to allow you to judge for yourself the conduct of both of us, and so that you can make an informed decision on how to proceed. I should note that both of the disputes were cricket-related, but the conduct to which I refer is not.

The first dispute

This dispute started on the talk page for the 2008 Indian Premier League article, a cricket tournament that has just completed its inaugural season. The season and its corresponding article were both then at an early stage, and I had created a template, (since then improved by having nicer looking icons but essentially the same) to improve the presentation and clarity of the score summaries for each match in the tournament. LeaveSleaves very quickly objected to my edit (and all 3 of the major aspects of it) and a lengthy discussion ensued. I moved the discussion to a different talk page at the suggestion of LeaveSleaves in order to facilitate a discussion, despite my (continuing) belief that the discussion was only relevant to the original talk page, something which I stated in the discussion. As such, the remainder of the discussion took place on the new talk page. The complete discussion can be seen (under 3 headings) here: 1st heading, 2nd heading and 3rd heading.

During the discussion there were a number of occasions where he did not address the points I raised, but continued to insist that his own opinion should hold sway. Some of the links he provided (which were supposed to prove his viewpoint) I subsequently investigated and demonstrated in the discussion in fact contained information in opposition to the viewpoint he espoused. As you can see from the discussion, of the 3 issues, the main focus was on the issue of which of the 2 teams should be listed first in the scorecard (an important consideration for a cricket scorecard). I advocated that the side listed first should be the side which batted first, while he stated that it should be the home side. Incidentally, my edit had still managed to retain the information showing which side was the home side by adding an (H) symbol in an appropriate place. During the discussion, not only did he not refute any of my arguments as to why the modification was an improvement (some arguments of which I had to repeat multiple times), but he repeatedly claimed that my edits should be reverted because he knew that the consensus regarding cricket articles was for the home team to be listed first. I was initially unaware if this was true or not, but I took his claims at face value. However, whenever I asked him for specific links to relevant pages showing this consensus, he would ignore the request and continue to advocate his position. I eventually discovered, through my own efforts, that the overwhelming consensus in fact supported my format and opposed his. As you can see, I wrote a post to state this information (with multiple relevant links) and to tell his to not engage in such obviously unhelpful debating techniques in the future. I posted an extract from this post on his talk page, to inform him that his conduct was not acceptable and should not be repeated in the future, and this extract can be found here. After this post he ceased his participation in the discussion and the modifications that I had made continued in existence.

The second dispute

This occurred only over the past day or 2, and concerned the newly created article for 2009 Indian Premier League. The discussion took place on its talk page As becomes clear from the discussion, since well before the 2008 (and inaugural) season of the Indian Premier League, yearly editions had definitely been planned to occur in 2009 and 2010, not least because the players were already under contract to play during the 3 years from 2008 to 2010. There had already been an initial thread dealing with the specific dates in 2009 that the IPL was to occur, and the lack of a reference for these claims. Before LeaveSleaves posted on the page, 2 Template:fact tags had already been placed in the article to deal with this. However, LeaveSleaves proceeded to enter the discussion with a new thread in which he proposed the deletion of the article, and slapped a Template:PROD tag on the article itself, with the added text "Based purely on speculation, no official or other substantiation". In his talk thread he had posted 2 links, which he claimed demonstrated there was "no indication anywhere as to when the next season is or what are the possible changes taking place". In fact the 2 links had referred to another proposal by the IPL chief, where it was mooted that there be 2 IPL seasons inside a single year. It was this proposal that had been shelved for the next few years at least, and not the plan for a single IPL Season in 2009, which was still definitely planned to go ahead. When I saw LeaveSleaves' post I explained the situation and removed the deletion tag from the article. However, the user evidently did not give my post due consideration and instead claimed that I had agreed with his assertion that the wikipedia page was "invalid", something which I definitely did not do, and that I was contradicting myself by opposing its deletion. I attempted to explain again, and after that once more, what the articles were referring to, including extracting specific quotes from one of the articles, but still he refused to consider my arguments or reread his own links. By this time he had become quite annoyed that I might try to explain his mistake, and I myself was starting to become frustrated by his unwillingness to engage in rational debate. After this he put the article up for deletion and opened this discussion, closing the discussion when another user had added what he considered to be an adequate link. As you can see from the remainder of the discussions, all my other posts on the topic proved fruitless, and my attempt to reprimand him for his conduct was met with a tit-for-tat reply calling me "condescending and pedantic". The argument about whether a 2009 season would occur or not was cleverly avoided in his statement:

  • "And for the last time, the reason I entered those links was only to point out that the information about the next season (again, the details not occurrence) is extremely hazy and unclear"

The thing which was in fact somewhat hazy was the dates within 2009 for the 2009 season, not whether the next season would occur in 2009 or not. There was also another issue raised about whether the article should be merged with another article (he proposed the merger and I opposed it).

This is the current situation with regard to this second dispute, and I have not replied to his most recent post, as I think there is no point in me doing so.

My main concern out of all this is not to do with deciding any of the issues regarding the content of particular wikipedia articles. Rather, it is so ensure that LeaveSleaves is put on notice that his debating techniques were counterproductive and to ensure that he will not be allowed to engage in such conduct again without reprimand and sanction. Considering that I (and other users) are likely to encounter him again in dealing with cricket-related, and specifically IPL-related articles, I think this is a matter of high importance.

Assuming that you decide to take this matter on, I thank you for your assistance. Juwe (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again PhilKnight, but I notice you have been editing recently and are presumably still online. I know my post is a bit of a long one, and the story somewhat complicated (I tried my best to summarise the key points) but (will you have)/(have you had) a look at it at some point? Just a simple yes or no answer would be appreciated. Thanks Juwe (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Juwe, sorry for not replying earlier, however, after think this over, I'm still not sure what to suggest. If the problems were more severe, I would recommend a request for comment on user conduct, but in this case, that would probably be excessive. Perhaps it would be better if you copied your message onto the request page of Editor Assistance, and someone else handled this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(end reposted message)

I am sorry for the length of the post, but I have tried to be as concise as possible, while ensuring I don't omit any important details. I greatly appreciate anyone's assistance with this matter.

Thanks, Juwe (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no-one has responded, and that this issue does appear a tricky one for an assistant to intervene in (given that there don't appear to be any deliberate acts of bad faith, even if the editor should know that simply ignoring arguments put forward , and evidence given for those arguments, is a bad faith practice), I might just let this one slide. Assistants, feel free to archive this request. Juwe (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. You could have cut down significantly on the noise in that post. Essentially: you wanted to add an (H) symbol to signify the home team for the readers, and he resisted this and ignored your arguments, claiming consensus. Did I miss anything? Please tell me if I did. Note that I didn't bother to read the second. One important point that you left out: where was this overwhelming consensus? Brevity, which consists of attention to relevant details -- your evidence -- cannot be emphasized enough. By the way, you will encounter this often. PhilKnight actually basically [[endorsed this type of "I have consensus and I don't need to explain myself" behavior when I raised a Wikiquette alert in a similar incident with Jefffire. So get used to it. Sorry for the rant. Now for the solutions: use a WP:3O template the Talk page where you have the trouble. If necessary, do a WP:RfC (and please check them out; they are highly neglected). Also, check out WP:DISPUTE, where all your options are listed. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about the noise. You will notice that I didn't originally post this request on this page anyway, I merely copied and pasted from another talk page after that was recommended. I'm afraid also that you missed much in your assessment of the disputes, the "(H)" issue was only 1 of 3 issues in the 1st dispute, and not even the main issue. The listing of ordering of teams is also not as unimportant as it might seem, as incorrect ordering will often fundamentally misinform the reader about what happened in the match itself. There were also issues relating to the 2nd dispute (which I acknowledge you didn't read), but I don't think it fruitful to elaborate further. I haven't yet read your linked discussion, but the problem (in my dispute) wasn't even that he refused to explain why consensus was with him, it was that it turned out that it was unequivocally contrary to his position (something which unfortunately took hours to discover). My evidence for the "overwhelming consensus" was contained in the discussions which I linked, and specifically in my reprimand to him that led to the conclusion of the first dispute. I will point out that the tournament pages I linked to there are for the highest-profile recent cricket tournaments in the world, and that the template I linked to is similarly mainstream.
Maybe, having seen this, you will appreciate why I inserted the "noise", as without it the dispute can't be properly understood (as your post aptly demonstrated). Once again though, I now acknowledge that this was an inappropriate forum for such a lengthy and detailed post. As for the "get used to it" line, I appreciate you don't want people whinging to you about their (often self-made) problems with editors, but as you can see, I actually didn't call for any outside intervention during the first lengthy dispute, and tried to engage the other editor multiple times in the second dispute before bringing the issue up in a separate forum. My own personal view, and why I indeed brought this issue up, is that if unconstructive editors are not informed that behaving in such a way is not acceptable, not only will they continue their improper conduct, but that many other "victims" of the editor (ie frustrated constructive editors) will be driven away from wikipedia. Maybe you disagree with my assessment, but I hope you appreciate where I am coming from.
Thankyou, firstly for taking the time to consider my post, and secondly for your suggestions about resolving such issues. I will check them out, although for this issue I might just let things be. All the best, Juwe (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "get used to it" comment is just to prepare you. It's not meant to impolite. I'm sorry; I skimmed your post very fast. It is very low on my priorities (as are articles on sports, and most other information which doesn't do something to help aid our troubled world or help me somehow). What matters is that you had a disagreement and couldn't figure out how to resolve it. I agree that these people are a major problem. I personally think that Requests for Comment on Users should be displayed on all Userpages, along with other major decision. The biggest problem with WP is that so much time and energy is wasted in bureaucracy, and many things get rehashed over and over because the earlier problems are not displayed prominently. Plus, there's not much transparency in editor quality -- people count edits, but those are pointless. I've suggested a couple times that we need ways to sort through edits by size, on particular articles (see the persistent proposal). Also, getting outside input is a good thing. You may have trouble getting it, however, because surprisingly, out of the (at minimum) 500 million English-speaking people, apparently only a very small handful are interested in getting heavily involved in a free encyclopedia (and many of those appear to have been driven away by its ridiculous bureaucracy and resistance to positive change). ImpIn | (t - c) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

May also want to consider mediation (likely at the mediation cabal) if it's borderline behavior/content. It's a more open process, if anything. I know a guy who's been wanting to pick up sports cases, although there's no guarantee he'll pick it up. Just a thought. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry ImpIn, I didn't take offence to your comments. Considering that there is no current dispute with this editor, I might just let this one go and move on. Thanks (to Xavexgoem as well) for your suggestions though. Juwe (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Stale
 – No further contribs from this IP SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what a sockpuppet is. Why am I being accused of it? I do not have an account here. I use Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. I am a real person and do not spam or hack anyone's site or email.

Blocking IPs on the web is a useless remedy for any problem I have encountered yet. The "bad guys" know how to forge the IP and use perfectly innocent IPs, such as the one I am currently assigned.

This practice is egregious and ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.148.28 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/User:Hdayejr
See WP:SOCK
--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight edit-war with Clamp (Manga Artist) article

Stuck
 – Talk page discussion has started, but isn't making progress SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some ongoing dispute (albeit at a low level) whether the fact that Clamp is an "all-female" (or simply female) mangaka group is noteable enough in the article.

The JP:Wiki article does contain this little tidbit but it has been constantly removed from the EN:Wiki article as "not noteable" without any explanation as to why it is not noteable.

All of the users that claim it as not noteable did so without a wikipedia username, thus making it difficult to discuss with them their reasoning or an explanation.

A talk entry was raised but no one seems to have replied to it.

I was planning on raising a RFCBio but that may be just a tad overkill for a one-word description.

Any help on how to resolve this kind of issue (or an explanation on noteablility) would be welcome.

Dasmarinas71 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's only been the one IP, this one, that's removed it three times now, with edit summary comments. That IP looks to be static, to me, so you may want to drop a note on its talk page and ask for dialogue to take place on the article talk. I'd suggest finding a couple of good sources that state the group is all-female; I'd say that's a defining characteristic of Clamp, myself, so should be mentioned in the lead. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. Unfortunately for me, I haven't found any 'hard' sources that explain Clamp being all-female (the most were in short articles about their work that stated 'series X' was created by Clamp, an all-female mangaka. This made it a bit hard to try to counter that IP's edits. I'll try to continue hunting down some info but any help would be great! :) Dasmarinas71 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know some very hardcore anime geeks whom I'll consult this evening. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried leaving a message on the IP's talk page. Although it's only been 2 days, hopefully I can get a reply from the user. Thanks again for the help, Tony! Dasmarinas71 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tour Dates for Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

After numerous anon IP vandalism to Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour article, I provided references for confirmed tour dates

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

However, Crackers2007, feels that dates in Mexico, Brazil and Montenegro have been confirmed by Live Nation (as he or she states in the edit summary as "promoters"). I warned him or her three times on their talk page about adding unsourced materials before he or she provided reasoning for the edits. The references that are provided (as stated on my talk page, not within the article)

  • [24] Entirely in Spanish thus I cannot navigate through the site to find information. When the link is clicked, the page opens and does not mention Madonna
  • [25] This is in a language I do not know.

I have already reported him or her to be blocked from editing the page. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That second link is a .hr domain, which is Croatian. Google can translate it, the result is here: [26] If the translation is right, it seems to say that she will not appear there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

William L. Palminteri

Resolved
 – Explanation and links providedSHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My article "William L. Palminteri" has been removed. I have no idea why or who did this. Please advise. Thank you, William L. Palminteri —Preceding unsigned comment added by William L. Palminteri (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, looking at the deletion log for the page it seems that an editor proposed that the article be deleted because there was no assertion of notability and references to reliable sources had not been added. Since the content of the article is in your userspace, you can work on it there to improve it before trying to add it to the encyclopaedia. However, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is strongly discouraged that you write articles about yourself or people close to you. You should wait for somebody completely unconnected to you to write an article, and even then you should exercise extreme caution when editing such an article. --BelovedFreak 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First conty in the U.S. to endorse Senator Obama

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the following to the Senator Obama Presidential Campaign section under subject "Barack Obama": Senator Obama did not have to wait long for an endorsement. On January 31, 2007, the Democratic Party of Christian County, Illinois under the leadership of Chairman Jack Mazzotti, became the first county in the United States to endorse Senator Barack obama for President of the United States. The endorsement was recorded by Christian County Recorder Linda Curtin February 16, 2007, #2007R00725.

I am a first time editor and would appreciate your assistance in editing the above record into the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign section per your lead on the appropriate insertion location. Questions can be directed to: 72.9.124.95 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC) email address removed.

Do it yourself. Fleetflame 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to insert an academic article into Ozzy Osbourne

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to add a reference to an academic article[27] into the Ozzy Osbourne article under the heading "Controversies." The article in question discusses Ozzy's controversial portrayal in the media, and compares it with that of occultist Aleister Crowley. The connection stems from the fact that Ozzy sang a song about Crowley, called Mr. Crowley. The article makes some argument about the perception of both Osbourne and Crowley in the light of the Christian Right.

I have been repeatedly blocked from adding this reference by a few other editors. They have argued that the author of the article is not notable, however I argue that the reference does not highlight the author but the article itself, which is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. As an academic journal, it confers authority on those articles it publishes.

One editor argued that there was a conflict of interest, suggesting that I was in fact the author. I stated in Talk responses that I am not the author. Even if I was, however, the wikipedia rules seem to indicate that academics can cite themselves when necessary, so the editor here has it wrong regardless.

I have posted messages relating to this issue on the Ozzy Discussion forum, on my own Talk page, and on the Talk page of the Admin. Scarian, but aside from the initial arguments against my insertion, there has not yet been any response to my arguments. I need to know 1) if there really is a genuine problem with this article, because I can't see one, and 2) how I can get the thing listed online as it seems to me that it would be of general interest to readers.

ThanksWikigonish (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide a link or reference to the article in question, as your question is very difficult to answer without the specifics. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added some links (see above) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I re-inserted the articles in question assuming that silence equals consent since there have been no further rebuttals to my arguments. I note that the latest attempts at posting the articles have not been "undone," and have actually been defended by other editers so far. Am I correct to assume that the last word in an argument posted on the discussion lists is effectively the last word, and so the "winning" word? Wikigonish (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The aim should never be to get the last word, but to achieve a consensus, a solution that the editors contributing to the discussion will consent to. Unanimous support isn't necessary, and compromise is often but not always involved. Discussion is key. There's more to read at Wikipedia:Consensus. Hope this helps :-) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I understand that there is effectively no "last word" per se as "consensus" is subject to change. Now that my edits have remained un-challenged for many days, I take that to indicate that they have been accepted, to a degree. On the first day one of my edits was made, another user "undid" it, to which I responded by reverting, followed by their "undoing" it again, which led to my being warned of being banned for engaging in an edit war. Given that I have entered into discussions and have achieved the last word there, can I take that to indicate that the edit war is over and I need not worry about threats of my being banned? It seemed to me odd that I was being threatened with such a sanction where my opponent(s) seemingly were not. But, as I said, since it appears to have ended in silent consent to my edits, the matter appears resolved.Wikigonish (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zonjati Ferero Roch Holsteiner Warmblood

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Zonjati Ferero Roche Holsteiner Warmblood bread by Mrs S Voigts 2006 in Namibia. Ferero is registered with the Warmblood Breeders' Society of Namibia also registered with the SAWHS http://www.sawarmbloodhorses.com/ Sire of Zonjati Ferero Roche is Consuelo Imp Holsteiner, background of the Sire breading: BREADING:

Corofino I: was rewarded buy the judges with a 10 at his licensing test for his spectacular jumping abilities. As four year old he qualified for the Bundeschampionat and achieved 9.6 in other show jumping test. He was internationally successful under Valerio Sozzi. Corrado I: winner of his licensing and started a sky rocketing career as stud stallion as well as an international competitor under Franke Sloothaak. He won Aachen and Frankfurt and the German masters in 1994. Capitol, Farnese, Lord and Ramiro all produced world class horses. Landgraf I: was the first Warmblood sire who’s progeny turned him in a 6,5 Million DM millionaire making him one of the most successful sire Romantiker grandson of Ramzes, the outstanding sire that produced sport horses in all warmblood breeds. The Ramzes-line was identified as nick to the Achill - line. Farnese: the most outstanding representative of the Achill-line. The only Holsteiner line that can be followed right up to the early beginnings of the Holstein horse as a breed. Jumping ability and a correct foundation is the trademark of the Achill-line. Anna Tevka; GB A-Grade showjumper under Dirk Hafemeister, mother of Grannex by Grannus, a halfbrother to Consuelo Active

www.cordez.co.za info@cordez.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordez (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You might like to read WP:Your first article and then, if you have some reliable sources, you could create this article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over content of NWFP article

Resolved
 – Dispute resolution in progress; please re-post if needed. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute over the content of the North-West Frontier Province article, it only really seemed to be me and another editor who disagreed (from the start of this month). So I asked for a third opinion however this was removed on the basis that there were more than two editors involved. I think the ip contributor maybe a banned user (I am guessing he was banned along with an opposing editor by looking at his contribs). However I would just like an uninvolved editor to look at the page and give an opinion or advise on the merits or either edits, if possible. Pahari Sahib 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion is indeed for one-on-one disputes. For more people, you have two routes. A Request for Comment will bring in outside opinions; a Mediation Cabal case can help you reach a compromise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks :-) I have asked for an RFC. Pahari Sahib 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you request an article be split?

Resolved
 – Question answered. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me the tage to request an article be split, or tell me where there is a list of common tags so I can read them and find it? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at the instructions and guidance at Wikipedia:Splitting. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over Sybian article

Stale
 – SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to restore a link on the sybian article that was posted in January but recently was deleted by user Ronz. We have had a back and forth link dispute over a video that shows with the Sybian is and how it works. Ronz's explanation for the deletion is "wikipedia is not a how to". Is this a correct assumption? I find all kinds of information on Wikipedia including how to do certain things. I could be mistaken, but I didn't think wikipedia had a policy against posting any sort of how-to. Buttysquirrel (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not looked at your particular case but suggest you read What Wikipedia is not which discusses that articles should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Would this video be considered a how-to? www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEYNtIuw_Wg Buttysquirrel (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from anything else the video you are wanting to link to advertises the same porn site that you have previously been warned about. Given the singular nature of your contributions, you do seem to have a conflict of interest here, especially looking at what a quick google search of your username turns up: "Wanna learn how to ride the Sybian? Check out this link I pulled from Wikipedia:". So really, this link should definitely not be included in the article.--BelovedFreak 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_24&oldid=1044636827"