Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 31

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

site deleted with spurious reason

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a cartoonist in 200 places and do 2 blogs. One is : www.donnabarstow.com/park_blog and I placed it in the Silver Lake, Los Angeles, CA entry. It has been removed twice by someone calling himself Matt Field who lives near Silver Lake and apparently doesn't want info about it disseminated. I can't find the message he wrote to me now, because I didn't have a name here then (and it was quite time-consuming getting a name here, btw, with no help, and no names on the board. Which I will find, anyway.) But he wrote that I was not an attributable author. Does he get his kicks by deleting people here? How did he know I had put it up again so quickly? Is he the one in charge of LA, or gay areas ?(which for some reason Silver Lake is described as.) I would like more info on him. I already wrote to his website with no reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the talk pages at ALL. Am I supposed to sign this? Hottertoddy (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I see a problem above (or below, can't understand what you are doing here) that says blogs are not allowed on wiki except in limited circumstances. There's an enlightened point of view for you. Mine is 24 rated on Technorati, and linked to the LA Times, CNN and many other places.

Hello, Hottertoddy. A writer and cartoonist will certainly be welcome as a contributer on Wikipedia, but you'd better slow down and get to know some of the rules and conventions. Calling fellow editors' motivations "spurious" isn't in the preferred cooperative spirit. Yes, comments should be signed (as it says at the top of this page). If you type 4 tildes, the date/time and your signature will be added. Yes, blogs are allowed in "limited circumstances", a logical and worthy policy though not well described by that terminology. An example of blog entries which are allowed as references are (some of) those on ScienceBlogs, where the authors are recognized experts in their fields. Calm down, stick around and you may find that editing here is fun. --Hordaland (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the page where I previously listed my problem. This is to find that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hordaland: I see no place on your talk page where I can start my topic, and I'm not going to interfere in the other threads you have there. As I said, I don't understand how talk pages work, and I actually designed and wrote html and css for my sites. You're right, I don't consider Matt's actions to be cooperative. How do I even know that he's an editor? As I said, his reason for deleting me on that rather short page seemed to be that I'm not attributed. I'm not presumptuous enough to call myself an editor. Did he become one by deleting me? If just anyone can go in and edit anyone than this is far worse than a blog, which wiki apparently bans.

But I don't want to be hasty, I want to be accurate, so let me see if I understand you, Hordaland. Are you actually saying that only Science Blog writers are recognized as being experts or having any kind of attribution or validity in Wiki? So my experience and credentials as a journalist mean nothing unless I write about science? And anyone who puts up a one-page website - which I also have, although it is closer to 100 pages - is by definition more worthy in Wiki than any blog? What a fascinating blog article this would make. Hottertoddy (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Ironically enough, my blog is an environmental one, that is almost all science, although I'm not a scientist. I am a researcher and journalist in the LA Press Club who writes about science. Matt, who deleted me, looked at my blog for about 30 seconds, according to my tracker, and then deleted me from wiki. Matt is a photographer in Hollywood. I should correct that I have a 24 link rating in Technorati, not that I'm #24. Then I would be in the stratosphere (although still ignored by Wiki, apparently.).Hottertoddy (talk)

` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottertoddy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see the page history by clicking the "history" tab at top of Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California. It sounds like you are one or more of the IP addresses which have edited the article. Click "Talk" links (not if they are red which means no page) next to them to see messages posted to them, for example at User talk:68.121.19.116 and User talk:68.121.241.15 where User:Mfield has posted. Maybe the article is on Mfield's watchlist so he can easily see when it has been edited. Special:Contributions/Mfield shows he is an experienced editor and edits many articles.

Anybody who edits articles is considered an editor by Wikipedia. There is no application or acceptance process to become en editor. Wikipedia:Replies to common objections may be of interest to you.

You can start a new talk page section by clicking the "New section" tab at top.

Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest says: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.". This means you can click "New section" at top of Talk:Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California and suggest your link. Note that Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided says: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (It doesn't have to be about science). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You say you already wrote to Field's website with no response. I don't know whether you refer to an off-Wikipedia site, but discussions about Wikipedia are usually kept here and you can post to User talk:Mfield. I don't know about Mfield but some editors have experienced real-life harassment over Wikipedia disputes and many editors prefer not to discuss things outside Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Hottertoddy. It looks as though PrimeHunter has answered most of your questions.(?) We don't need to take up space here, perhaps. I'll message you on your Talk page. --Hordaland (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hordaland, I think this is rather an important issue, although I look forward to your message on my Talk page. PrimeHunter, thank you very much for answering these questions. I did understand that anyone can be an editor, but apparently there are degrees of editors here, which is not covered in the Wiki pages. Yes, I see that Matt Fields has done a lot of editing. But he also advertises his own website on his user page, and also publicizes his photos (from which he makes a living) on Wiki, according to that page! In what way is that not self-serving? Is this common practice with editors? He approved listing an entire city (Silver Lake) as a gay city (which has been removed in the last 2 hours by someone), and approves an entire section on the music in Silver Lake. (he makes a living by taking photos of bands.) He also approves two commercial projects: a gay hospital, when no other hospitals are listed, and a gay map of Silver Lake and Hollywood called Clubfly that tells you where to find leather bars, etc. But meanwhile, my blog is totally non-profit and covers ongoing pollution problems in Silver Lake and Griffith Park.

Please tell me who at Wiki would be best to talk with or communicate with about this issue of blogs, and the much smaller issue of my blog. Thank you.Hottertoddy (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Does anyone have the phone or email for Michael Snow? Thanks very much.Hottertoddy (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Snow can be contacted at User talk:Michael Snow or Special:EmailUser/Michael Snow, but doing so now over one external link in one of more than two million English Wikipedia articles would make no sense. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. The guideline at Wikipedia:External links can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:External links. And please stop making personal attacks on other editors. Finding relevant images with a license allowing use on Wikipedia is often hard (Wikipedia doesn't pay for images), and editors are encouraged to upload their own images for use in articles. Wikipedia:User page allows editors to mention their own website on their user page which is not part of the encyclopedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, PrimeHunter. Since this is a ripe topic on blogs, I will approach it from that angle. There are over 100 million blogs now. Surely some of them have merit.

Thanks also for the reference to personal attacks. I do not believe I am doing that, as "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." I am talking about Matt Fields actions on this page about that covers several hundred thousand people.

I understand what you are saying: that photos are important in Wiki. However, each of his photos links to his website, and he MAKES A LIVING AS A PHOTOGRAPHER.

Personally, I don't object to him getting great PR that way, but please don't say it is helping Wiki more than his career. And it is certainly different than someone from the Flickr pool contributing photos.

Actually you are misguided here, I only make a small fraction of my living from photography. In addition, I only have one music photograph on Wikimedia, and don't generally upload anything that is directly related to the photography I make money from. I have never got a photography job because of my work being on WP. Mfield (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion to add my blog to the discussion page of Silver Lake. However, as I feared, only he has looked at it and commented. This is certainly not the neutral review I hoped for.Hottertoddy (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I"ve also commented there. Dayewalker (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing to write about this, and look what I found: "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Yet, with my blog, it was a first resort! And no effort at all was made to find a source. When I asked if anyone here had ever heard of Technorati, no one said a word. That's scary. I gave a link in my discussion page on Silver Lake. No one responded to it. Does the LA Times count as a 3rd party source? Mr. Fields lives in LA, so you would think he'd have heard of it. It's a whole new world out there to Wiki people, I guess, if you've never read blogs before. Hottertoddy (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the WP:EL page. However, you need to show why your blog adds reliably sourced information to wikipedia. Simply being an independant source about an area is not enough to guarantee inclusion. I'm familiar with Technorati and the LA Times, please refresh me on why they're coming up in a discussion about your blog. Dayewalker (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they link to me, as well as dozens of other news sources. Check Technorati. I consider them as a reliable source. I'm not going to explain this any more.Hottertoddy (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to explain why your blog deserves special consideration to bypass wikipedia policy isn't an unreliable request. Simply saying you've been mentioned by the LA Times doesn't necessarily qualify you as a reliable secondary source. You need to be more specific about why your blog is a proper resource as per WP:RS. Dayewalker (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This (just a couple of comments ago): "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Yet, with my blog, it was a first resort! is clearly a misunderstanding. The quote refers to an article, a whole "page" on Wikipedia, most often a newly written article/page. What is being discussed in this thread is an external link added to the bottom of an article, which is something else altogether.

Deletion of an unsourced article (page) should be a last resort, after trying (and failing) to find reliable sources for its content. Deletion of a link to a personal website or blog, particularly when it has been added to an article by its owner, is routine. -Hordaland (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. As I am.Hottertoddy (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You've said that several times. Again, please show how. Being a "service" is not enough. What is your blog a reliable secondary source of, as per WP:RS, that would make it a resource for wikipedia? Dayewalker (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to do the right thing on Wikipedia, of course, and so I deleted one link on this page that was broken, and deleted 3 more that are blogs like mine. I know Wiki hates blogs. Now there are only 2 links left for a city of several hundred thousand people.Hottertoddy (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I just talked with Wikimedia. I will continue my discussion with them directly. Meanwhile, oops! In the last minute Matt Fields reinstated the SCARY BLOGS, including the broken link! And so the game that is Wiki continues. Hottertoddy (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a game. You have joined a community and yet you don't want to abide by our consensus rules and policies. That's what communities are. If you don't then feel free to leave but don't complain when everyone else says what you are doing is wrong. There's plenty of reading you have been directed to to explain where you are falling foul of policy. Mfield (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I just talked with Jay Walsh, and he told me about Jimmy Wales. Rules are made to be broken when they don't work anymore. I could care less that the whole lot of you have ganged up on me. That doesn't make you right. Hottertoddy (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, btw everybody, Matt has just given me a warning. Some people just can't resist using their "power" to control others! Now, can someone here help me understand, since we are all EQUAL editors, may I give him one, too?Hottertoddy (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not having further contact with you, please do not contact me either. I have spent 24 hours patiently explaining the way that WP works, only to face personal attacks for my efforts. Other people have tried to explain the same things as I have. I do not have any 'power'. We are all in a position to warn people who are breaking policy, something that I have not done. Be careful with the threats to warn me as inappropriate warnings are not looked on lightly either. I have been editing wikipedia a number of years and I have never yet given someone an inappropriate warning. I will leave it to others from this point onwards as I am worn out with trying to explain the same things again and again. Mfield (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes us right is that a) you want to use wikipedia for promotion of your blog, which is against WP:EL; b) you refuse to actually discuss the matter and explain why your blog is a unique resource; and c) you appear to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point, since policy is against you. I'd advise you to take your discussion to the talk page, and actually make a case for your blog there rather than simply get angry it's not allowed. Until you can do that, I'd wager that any editor who comes across you adding your blog will remove it. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant trivia?

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you guys have a look at the material added to the Tarot articles such as The Hermit and Strength. Is it appropriate or just too tangential? I don't think sharing the card's name automatically makes it viable for inclusion, certainly when it has absolutely nothing else to do with the cards. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally lost

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the article on Barack Obama and I wanted to ask a question in the discussion section. There is an abbreviation used without explanation ("... which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–2002...)" so I logged in and it shows that I'm logged in when I'm on the discussion page. I click the link to start a new thread or whatever and my ID goes away, it says Log In at the top, and the page says I must be a registered user to post. I thought I *was* a registered user.

Then I have to start from scratch and click all over the place and this is getting super frustrating!

All I want to know is what DCP stands for. Can anyone tell me?

Punstress (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Developing Communities Project. It's talked about a bit earlier in the article, and at greater length in the sub-article on Obama's early life. -- Vary | Talk 20:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Geisha Wikipedia Page

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am a college student, and my proffesor gave us an assignment to contribute to a Wikipedia page. I chose to do my work on the Geisha page, but it is currently "semi-protected." I would like to contribute my work to this page because I think it would be helpful since I researched information. It there a way I can contribute on this page? Thanks! Asoriano (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Asoriano

Hi, articles are sometimes protected at Wikipedia to prevent edit warring or persistent vandalism from anonymous users. To edit a semi-protected page you need to have an account which is autoconfirmed. This means the account must be at least 4 days old and have at least 10 edits. So, you'll need to make a few more edits on other articles first. In the mean time, why don't you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. And please make sure that when you start adding material that you have references to reliable sources for anything you add. If in doubt, bring it up at the article talkpage first. --Beloved Freak 10:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Youth_Chance_High_School

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 10:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor, Iam writting to request deletion of this article that was written about me. Please find link below;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Youth_Chance_High_School.

Please let me know what i need to do to have this article deleted because it is defamatory in nature.

I appreciate your help.

Emmanuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelobel (talk • contribs) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. First of all, that page is a talkpage, meaning a place where people can discuss the article Youth Chance High School. The comment was added, it seems, by someone connected with the school who wanted to deal with misinformation in the article. The only comment about you was that you weren't fired, which presumably, at the time (in 2005) the main article said you were. As you can see, you are not mentioned in the article at all now. I have removed the information about you and some others from the talkpage partly per our Biographies of living people policy which demands that all possibly contentious information about living people be sourced, or removed. Not only that, but I don't think that the information is really that necessary for the growth of the article since as far as I am aware, articles about schools don't tend to focus on the comings and goings of the staff. Hope this has helped, --Beloved Freak 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

help understanding and appealing a sockpuppet finding

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been linked to a sockpuppeteer [1]. I do not agree with the findings. I believe they were based on a multistep theory with more than half the steps missing. If this is in fact a linking, I need help finding exactly how this may be appealed as I cant seem to find the info on how to appeal this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with dispute

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a dispute over notability with another user. Please see User talk: Carte Rouge#Congressional Scorecard or Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements to help

The dispute is on an entry with a lock on the talk page. So, the dispute is being played out on Carte Rouge's talk page.

Thank you very much! (Daredevil0405 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Help to follow proper procedures (sock/meat puppets and/or single purpose accounts)

Evidently

Resolved

– Fleetflame 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not remotely sure of all the various policies and guidelines are on the above and I'd like to WP:AGF so without going into details about a specific case I'm asking for advice on how to go about encouraging users of the above nature to contribute constructively to other articles on the project but, also what procedures exist to investigate such matters. (Ideally, I'd like to be able to look into it and only report it if absolutely needed). Thanks in advance for any help and/or advice. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Start with WP:SOCK and WP:SPA and follow other links from there. Remember that having multiple accounts isn't necessarily bad in itself. The problems start when multiple accounts contribute to the same pages, particularly when it creates a misleading impression of consensus. Use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is also problematic. It's not a simple task to persuade single-purpose accounts to branch out into other subject areas; if they wanted to edit elsewhere, they could already be doing so.

Suspected sockpuppets may be listed at WP:SSP without necessarily invoking administrator action, although any admin may choose to act on information posted there. As for disruption caused by SPAs, it depends on exactly what's happening. Links and info at WP:DE might help. Without knowing more about the details, it's difficult to be more specific. I hope this helps! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Input always help. Especially, when it concerns me getting better at helping out around here and/or helping others get better at helping out around here. I won't post details here as I really don't want to get anyone in trouble (and I could be 100% wrong about the whole thing anyway). Thanks again though for the help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

Resolved

– Fleetflame 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, As The Angelina Jolie Article Is Partly Locked, Could You Please Change The New-Born Twins Names To 'Knox-Leon' Rather Than Just 'Knox' and 'Vivienne' To 'Vivienne Marcheline'. Thanks Guys, Appriciate It. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigeh05 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The full names are in the last paragraph of the section Angelina Jolie#Children. If you want to suggest changes to the article then you can click the "new section" tab at Talk:Angelina Jolie. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Daska

Resolved

– Fleetflame 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be grateful if someone reviewed the changes I have made to this article, before i get slapped on the wrist. IMHO, the revision in place had probably been added to over time, with the result that it rambled, included flight times and telephone numbers for the radio station, plus biographies of local people, some of dubious notability. I've attempted to clean it up, but would appreciate someone having a look over my changes to see if they're reasonable.... Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't think you'll have any issues over it. Synergy 11:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Florida 2000 election results

Resolved

– Fleetflame 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

hi - i was looking at the Florida Election results in 2000

the data is clearly wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000_Florida_results

the data shows Bush winning all but one county! in reality the election was reported within a couple hundred votes in Florida so this is clearly impossible - someone has hacked this data.

Look for yourself.

Thank you.

[edit] Results by county County Bush # Bush % Gore # Gore % Nader # Nader % Miami-Dade 328,867 53% 289,574 46% 5,352 1% Broward 387,760 67% 177,939 31% 7,101 1% Palm Beach 269,754 62% 152,964 35% 5,564 1% Pinellas 200,657 50% 184,849 46% 10,022 3% Hillsborough 180,794 50% 169,576 47% 7,496 2% Orange 140,236 50% 134,531 48% 3,879 1% Duval 152,460 58% 108,039 41% 2,757 1% Brevard 115,253 53% 97,341 45% 4,470 2% Lee 106,151 58% 73,571 40% 3,588 2% Volusia 97,313 53% 82,368 45% 2,903 2% Polk 90,310 54% 75,207 45% 2,060 1% Sarasota 83,117 52% 72,869 45% 4,069 3% Pasco 69,576 49% 68,607 48% 3,393 2% Seminole 75,790 55% 59,227 43% 1,940 1% Escambia 73,171 63% 40,990 35% 1,727 2% Manatee 58,023 53% 49,226 45% 2,491 2% Leon 61,444 60% 39,073 38% 1,934 2% Marion 55,146 54% 44,674 44% 1,809 2% Collier 60,467 66% 29,939 33% 1,399 2% Lake 50,010 56% 36,571 41% 1,460 2% Alachua 47,380 55% 34,135 40% 3,226 4% St. Lucie 41,560 53% 34,705 45% 1,368 2% Okaloosa 52,186 74% 16,989 24% 985 1% Charlotte 35,428 53% 29,636 44% 1,461 2% Hernando 32,648 50% 30,658 47% 1,501 2% Martin 33,972 55% 26,621 43% 1,118 2% St. Johns 39,564 65% 19,509 32% 1,217 2% Bay 38,682 66% 18,873 32% 828 1% Clay 41,903 73% 14,668 26% 562 1% Citrus 29,801 52% 25,531 45% 1,379 2% Osceola 28,187 51% 26,237 47% 732 1% Santa Rosa 36,339 72% 12,818 25% 724 1% Indian River 28,639 58% 19,769 40% 950 2% Highlands 20,207 58% 14,169 40% 545 2% Monroe 16,487 49% 16,063 47% 1,090 3% Flagler 13,897 51% 12,618 47% 435 2% Putnam 13,457 51% 12,107 46% 377 1% Nassau 16,408 69% 6,955 29% 255 1% Sumter 12,127 55% 9,637 43% 306 1% Columbia 10,968 59% 7,049 38% 258 1% Walton 12,186 67% 5,643 31% 265 1% Jackson 9,139 56% 6,870 42% 138 1% Gadsden 9,736 66% 4,770 32% 139 1% Levy 6,863 54% 5,398 42% 284 2% Suwannee 8,009 64% 4,075 33% 180 1% Okeechobee 5,057 51% 4,589 47% 131 1% Bradford 5,416 62% 3,075 35% 84 1% Wakulla 4,512 53% 3,838 45% 149 2% Baker 5,611 69% 2,392 29% 53 1% Hendry 4,747 58% 3,240 40% 104 1% Washington 4,995 62% 2,798 35% 93 1% De Soto 4,256 55% 3,321 43% 157 2% Holmes 5,012 68% 2,177 29% 94 1% Taylor 4,058 60% 2,649 39% 59 1% Hardee 3,765 60% 2,342 38% 75 1% Madison 3,038 49% 3,015 49% 54 1% Gulf 3,553 58% 2,398 39% 86 1% Jefferson 3,041 54% 2,478 44% 76 1% Gilchrist 3,300 61% 1,910 35% 97 2% Calhoun 2,873 56% 2,156 42% 39 1% Dixie 2,697 58% 1,827 39% 75 2% Franklin 2,454 53% 2,047 44% 85 2% Hamilton 2,147 54% 1,723 43% 37 1% Union 2,332 61% 1,407 37% 37 (Buchanan) 1% (Buchanan) Glades 1,841 55% 1,442 43% 56 2% Lafayette 1,670 67% 789 32% 26 1% Liberty 1,317 55% 1,017 42% 39 (Buchanan) 2% (Buchanan)

[edit] References —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.133.157 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this problem. The results were changed in a good faith edit (by an administrator no less) who didn't notice that the vote counts in a previous format were listed with the winner of the county mentioned first, and not with the overall winner Bush mentioned first in each county. I have fixed it but the quick fix meant going back to the previous format which doesn't look as good. I will contact the editor who goofed up and may want to reformat it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I indeed deserve the trout wacking on that one. I'll try to redo the table later with better tools than good old notepad :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I keep getting a notice showing up on the pages that says I am vandalizing pages, but do not have an account. What is wrong here?

Resolved

– Question answered. --Beloved Freak 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When I click on the warning, this is what I get... I don't even have an account, so I could not have possibly made any modifications. Please assist. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.145.77.112&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.77.112 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

People without accounts can edit Wikipedia articles in the same way you just edited this page. The IP address you just used to post here has made edits in the past, maybe when somebody else had the same IP address. See Special:Contributions/216.145.77.112 and click the "diff" links to see the edits which are mostly vandalism. The message was intended for the person who made the former edits. Wen you don't have an account, Wikipedia cannot determine that it wasn't you. Avoiding messages intended for somebody else with the same IP address is one of the benefits of creating an account. There is also an explanation about this in the box at the bottom of the page you link to. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia false redirect

Resolved

– Doesn't appear to be a problem anymore.--Beloved Freak 11:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear people,

When I enter "evolution" into Wikipedia search, I am redirected to a series of options that includes "Evolution." But when I choose that option, I am redirected to an empty search page. Upon back tracking my choices, I suspect that somehow, someone has added a "redirect" command to the Evolution page.

Please investigate my complaint, starting with a public Wikipedia search for "evolution" (small E).

N.B. Often searches and links within one's own network work. Meanwhile public internet users experience other consequences. Always use outside computers to test your web page links.

dn Centennial, CO ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.187 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Entering "evolution" sends you directly to the Evolution page. I'm not sure what this IP is referring to. Dayewalker (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also unable to find a problem in a search for evolution. I tried logging out and it still worked. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

this article states that bernie mac has died. according to http://www.lasentinel.net/Bernie-Mac-Death-Rumors-Untrue.html he is in the hospital, not dead! please correct this article.

i am a busy person and i do not have time to fix it myself. thank you! jenn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.144.176 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The part of your link http://www.lasentinel.net/Bernie-Mac-Death-Rumors-Untrue.html which says he is in the hospital but not dead is dated August 2. Later on that page it says he died August 9, the same death date as in the article linked near the bottom of the page: http://www.lasentinel.net/Bernie-Mac-Dead-at-Age-50.html. Our article Bernie Mac also says August 9. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan and Cold War pages vandalized

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 10:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has figured out a sneaky way to vandalize several pages that have links to the Cold War related categories at the bottom of the page. I can't figure out exactly where they've hidden their message. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of how the Categories are organized could take a look and try to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.180.64 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for raising this issue. This is the work of a known vandal and it's been dealt with now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete my name from your website.

Resolved

– to some extent. Advice given, article is now at AFD. --Beloved Freak 10:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Brian Schmitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.245.2 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Brian should email the nice people at WP:OTRS and ask them to help out. If possible, they will do so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, but we don't know if he'll come back here to see it. The biographical article Brian Schmitz has at present so many warnings up about missing refs and sources, that those boxes take up twice as much space as the article text. The history looks mostly like one continual edit war, revert upon revert. I think the article should be speedily deleted. If Schmitz is notable, the article can re-appear complete with very reliable sources, not before. --Hordaland (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

M.I.A. article and claims of LTTE support

Resolved

– Apparently. --Beloved Freak 08:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a edit war going on in the M.I.A._(artist) article. The fight involves information coming from dubious sources and the citing of irrelevant articles with information claiming her LTTE (which is a terrorist organization) supposed support and/or affiliation. These changes strated after a Sri Lankan rapper of Sinhalese ethnicity launched a diss video on youtube in blogs calling her a terrorist. Can and editor solve this dispute as it is important since this is a biography of a living person and there have many, many edits and reverts.

Thanks,

Nickcin2000 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. I've left a warning for the user that was adding the material. If they add it again, post back here and I'll see if there's anything an uninvolved admin wants to do about it. If an IP address makes the same changes, that may be the same editor staying logged out to avoid scrutiny and I'll see what can be done about that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Center for Asian American Media article help

Resolved

– Question answered, policy explained.--Beloved Freak 08:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help with editing our page for The Center for Asian American Media. The original article that was written was recently deleted. I am an intern here at The Center for Asian Amerian Media and am helping them develop Wikipedia information on the organization and its role in our community. This is not being used as an advertisement. It is primarily to be used as a source of educational material. Please advise. Thank you. CAAMwiki (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's copyright policy and advertising policy. Edits must be encyclopedic and cited with reliable third party sources. Copying and pasting from your company's web page is not acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help...getting unnecessarily reverted for copyediting lede

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am being locked out of editing the Book of Mormon lede...I found it to be very choppy writing very redundant and missing some key information, but I'm getting ganged up on by a few of the paranoid people who think every edit on this page is an attack! It couldn't be farther from the truth, I am fixing ugly prose and don't want an edit war...can you help please? Twunchy (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you resolve the issue on the talk page, as other editors are pointing out to you. Synergy 20:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am on the talk page...and no one's giving me anything that I'm doing wrong other than I'm editing their baby. Twunchy (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My take on the Talk page dialogue is that the other editors would like to go over your suggested changes one at a time; your edits weren't that extensive, true, but it *is* a sensitive page, and that request doesn't seem unreasonable. I would not give up on that process yet. JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JohnInDC, here Twunchy, although I think you are in some senses, being unfairly "dismissed". That's not fair to you. You are absolutely and unequivocally allowed to edit that page to improve it. I looked through the diffs of your contribs, and while I can see why some of them may need a consensus to change, I strongly believe they were made in good faith. I encourage you to politely engage the "regulars" on the talkpage. They are "regulars" because they have interest in the accuracy of the article, and the "good faith" position is to believe that they aren't trying to be biased or in attack mode. Please work with them, from what I can see, they seem to be a good group of editors. I understand your frustration certainly, you made a good faith attempt at improvements. Let me know on my talkpage (I won't be watchlisting that article, your talk, or the article talk) if you are given unfair treatment. Right now, it appears to me that you have some good ideas, are perhaps being misunderstood (that article gets "attacked" all the time, making the "regulars" edgy for sure, and perhaps a little bit of "frayed nerves syndrome" is happening. Please don't take it personally). Please don't edit war to "get your way" (they shouldn't either). Again, let me know if you need further assistance, but I encourage and implore you to "use the talkpage" to work out your differences of opinion to make the best article possible. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that at least a couple of editors on that article are a little unreasonably sensitive and not open or able to consider to alternative viewpoints. Good luckCalamitybrook (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Carteret High School, Carteret, NJ

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 08:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Medwick the Hall of fame baseball player and last to win the triple crown in the National League is not mentioned as a famous alum????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.207.105 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the article is protected you should be able to add the information yourself (although you should make sure to include a reference from a reliable source). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on a COI label

Resolved

– --Beloved Freak 08:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I mistakenly started my own Wikipedia page a few years ago (It was an honest mistake!) In any case, it has been edited, and documented pretty well by other people. How would I go about trying to have the COI label removed? If you look at the history, I have not been involved in it since the first posting. Thank you for your consideration. "Zinagoldrich (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)" Zina Goldrich

The best way, I think, would be to post at the COI Noticeboard and ask for the article to be reviewed. The regular editors there have the most experience with this kind of issue, and if there's a consensus that the article is neutral, the tag can be removed without any drama. Reagrds, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Zina Goldrich article, and it seems reasonably neutral, so I removed the COI tag. I'll leave a note on the article Talk to see if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) Zinagoldrich (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Proper role of an admin

Stuck

– Has moved into other venues (WP:ANI). If further discussion is needed, that is the appropiate place. Pastordavid (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, so maybe the answer will just take the form of pointing me someplace. At the ABN AMRO article, there's currently a content dispute going on about whether to use "AMRO" or "Amro." There was a small requested move discussion, which resulted in a consensus for moving the page to ABN Amro. Someone who disagreed with the decision made a post to WP:AN. At that point, JzG, an administrator, moved the page back (diff) and then move protected it (diff) for two weeks. His edit summary for the page move reads, "Fuck the MOS, this is what the ocmpany is LEGALLY called."

Setting aside the issue of the which style is actually better, I'm troubled by three things:

An administrator used his tools to intervene in a content dispute.
An administrator overrode the consensus of a page move discussion and replaced that consensus with his own feelings on the topic.
An administrator used a brute force measure--a fourteen day protection--to enshrine what he wants for the article. If protection were appropriate because of edit warring or something like it, then it should have been protected in its current form. JzG made sure to enshrine the changes he preferred beforehand.

Is this proper conduct? Croctotheface (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The actions of JzG a.k.a Guy have already been discussed in the section you give a diff to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I found and read the comments you refer to. Since the page is still move protected, I take it that his actions are therefore considered proper? Croctotheface (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When the case has already been discussed at an administrator noticeboard I don't think the properness should be discussed further here. The move protection [2] expires 19 August. If you still want the page moved then you could try the full procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves at that time. I don't think the matter is urgent or worth causing more drama if it can be avoided. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: the AN thread is now archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159#ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?. Not a good log entry for sure, though they have a point with the company's own identification being with the capitals. If you really want to make a case of it, I think that admin is in a case at arbcom. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

editor who deletes many things without providing reasons and edit summaries

Resolved

– ish, advice given anyway, no further response from Espoo.--Beloved Freak 10:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right place to go for help in determining if Unclefester89's edits are vandalism or done in good faith? Thanks, Espoo (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually examined the edits but I see there is no discussion at User talk:Unclefester89. Discussing with the editor should be the first step, preferably with links to relevant policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It appears you have tried to talk to the editor in edit summaries but I don't know whether Unclefester89 has read it. The account is only 6 days old and may not know how Wikipedia works. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand enough about the articles edited, but it seems s/he's on a pretty wild crusade (more than 200 different pages in 6 days) to eradicate mention of certain ethnic groups and to add articles to categories. How can I get help from an expert on vandalism detection and prevention? Thanks, Espoo (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Unclefester89 to use edit summaries. I looked at many of the edits and didn't see vandalism. Most of the examined edits looked like appropriate categorization and See also links. There were a few cases with possibly controversial removal of content but I don't have the background knowledge of Iraq to say whether it was inappropriate, for example per WP:NPOV. People at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq would probably be better to evaluate it. If you post there then I suggest notifying the editor about it and providing diffs so people don't have to go through hundreds of edits in search of possible problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PACITA ABAD PAGE

Resolved

– Permission has been granted through an OTRS ticket. Editors are cleaning up self-promotional language. Pastordavid (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Jack Garrity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacitaabadart (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir/Madam,

We manage Pacita Abad Art and are the copyright holder of her work and website.

We noticed that a page on Pacita Abad on Wikipedia was recently deleted based on a request by irisdescent on the basis of blatant infringement of copyrights. An effort to re-create the page caused it to be deleted for the second time.

We would appreciate it if you could let us know if Wikipedia administrator is the one who did the deletions and which part of blatant copyright infringement is involved in her Wikipedia page text, as we own the website and hold the copyright to its content.

Thanks and we look forward to hearing from you. Please send a copy of your response to our email: pabadart@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Jack Garrity Pacita Abad Art —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacitaabadart (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but I'll try to help. I'm not an admin, but it sounds like the article was written in violation of copyright, which is to say it was copied from somewhere else. Wikipedia articles need to be sourced by reliable secondary sources, just like any other encyclopedia. If you'd like to see this subject get a wikipedia article, I suggest you read the instructions for making your first wikipedia article. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I just looked through the website. If everything there about the artist is true (which I have no reason to doubt), she is certainly notable enough to have an article in the encyclopedia. You (Garrity) will have to study Wikipedia's rules and guidelines - or ally yourself with someone who is familiar with them. Merely releasing your material into the public domain and then quoting it, will not be acceptable here. You must have third party references to establish, among other things, notability. With this lady's background, there must be hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles you can cite. Don't give up! Become a Wikipedian or find one who is a Pacita Abad fan. --Hordaland (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You (Garrity) shouldn't be writing the article at all, as you obviously have a COI (conflict of interest). Find someone else to do it. --Hordaland (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hordaland is right, you shouldn't be creating an article that you have a conflict of interest in. You can however post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles so that someone else can create it for you.--Beloved Freak 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A 2-month disagreement with no solution

Resolved

– Disagreeing editors have not changed the page in 6 weeks; an RfC was filed. Pastordavid (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please help find a way to resolve a problem in the Bayt Jibrin article. It's about whether or not the former town was originally called Beit Guvrin and whether or not it had a Jewish population in the 3rd and 4th centuries. I tried to resolve it twice but it ended up in argument and revert wars. See talk. The argument is between User:Gilabrand and User:Ashley kennedy3. Please try to find a solution because it's the only thing preventing the article from passing the GA review (stability). Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you make a request for comment. Hopefully that will pull in more editors unconnected to the article, but who may be knowledgeable about the subject area. You could put it in the "History and geography" section.--Beloved Freak 10:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor assistance with obtaining "Official Wikipedia Permission for Use"

Resolved

– Pastordavid (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request help with obtaining "Permission for Use," as follows: I included Liner Notes from a CD by Magic City Jazz Orchestra. Someone removed them because I had not gone through official Wikipedia channels to obtain permission from the author of the notes, Bob Belden.

I will be happy to obtain official permission. I just need to know how to go about it. Thanks. Allenstone (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Allenstone

Hi, I think the issue is this: You wanted to include copyright information in a Wikipedia page, which isn't permitted unless the copyright owner grants permission under our GFDL licence. If that's correct, then please see WP:PERMISSION to read about this. If not, please repost and clarify. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another issue is that I gather from your username, and a quick search on google, that you have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. You are not prohibited from editing articles about subjects you are directly involved in, but should tread very carefully. In future you shouldn't create articles about subjects you are involved in, but wait for someone else to do so. Edits must be from a neutral point of view and backed up by independent reliable sources. Articles need to be encyclopaedic, not just for promoting particular groups or people. As for the liner notes, even if you do obtain permission to use them, it's not really the convention at Wikipedia to include large sections of text from elsewhere. It's better to try and write things in your own words. Why don't you have a look around at some of the other articles for bands and musical groups to get a comparison? (Particularly these ones.) Also, check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. --Beloved Freak 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)--Beloved Freak 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not grant the copyright permission. To do that, you need to contact the copyright holder, and have them let us know that they want to release the material under the copyright license that we use. Fair warning - this means releasing their exclusive rights on the material, as - with a few caveats - wikipedia can be freely copied. Pastordavid (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan

Resolved

– Someone got confused. Fleetflame 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Hulk Hogan wikipedia entry. I feel that it is just being added to try and embarrass and take an unneeded shot at Hulk Hogan. The content in question are "accomplishments" such as Worst Worker, most Embarrassing Wrestler, etc. He is the only Wikipedia member who has disrespectful posts listed as "accomplishments". I feel that it is only posted because the poster doesn't like Hulk Hogan, and I don't think it's fair or respectful.

Mannis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannis (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other wrestlers have similar entries. Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards contain both positive and negative awards. I examined a few of the listed wrestlers and saw that Mike Shaw and Doink the Clown also have "Most Embarrassing Wrestler" of the year awards in their biographies. You could discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling or just Talk:Hulk Hogan whether and how to include negative awards but if the award is notable within wrestling then it looks OK to me, and creating a separate heading for negative awards could be problematic. A huge number of people have negative information in their biographies, and this is within policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if there are reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See Golden Raspberry Award and the many articles in Category:Golden Raspberry Awards for some negative awards in the film industry. Many of them are mentioned in biographies of actors. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate name exists for an article i want to create

Resolved

Khushnood2 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

i want to create an article on a famous bollywood actor BUT there exists an article on another person with exact same name firstname_Lastname. Do i create this article on the same page with a break in between or what do i do ? THEY BOTH are actors one in Singapore other in India. Khushnood2 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should try to add their middle names. If none, then use "First Last (Bollywood actress)". You may also wish to create a disambiguation page to direct users to the appropriate person. However, please also make sure that all bibliographic additions to Wikipedia meet the standards set by WP:NOTABILITY. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For correct naming of biographical articles, see a list of helpful examples in a page that is part of Wikipedia:Manual of style. E.g. John Smith (biologist) rather than John Bertram Smith, in case his middle name is not widely known and people don't refer to him that way. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How do i delete images

Resolved

– Khushnood2 00:56, 19 August 2008

How do i delete images i have uploaded in Wiki or commons? Khushnood2 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to determine which deletion tag is appropriate. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OR can i move an image that i had uploaded in commons to the Wiki site? In that case i don't have to delete and upload in Wiki again. Khushnood2 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you uploaded a file to Wikimedia commons, then you can use it within Wikipedia as if it existed in Wikipedia. For example, Wikimedia commons has an image called commons:Image:Blutzikade Cercopis vulnerata.jpg. You can use it in Wikipedia, without uploading it, by using the name directly: [[Image:Blutzikade Cercopis vulnerata.jpg]]. Does that make sense? ~a

Threat of legal action

Resolved

– Epicadam 01:36, 19 August 2008

One editor is threatening another editor with possible legal action here. Should anything in particular (warnings, etc.) be done in a case like this? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That user absolutely violated WP:No legal threats, and should be reported to an administrator at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have reported it there. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, someone has completely vandalized the USSR entry

Resolved

– Epicadam 01:36, 19 August 2008

Hello, someone has completely vandalized the USSR entry and posted some craziness about the Zodiac. Can you please look at it and fix it? Please e-mail me to let me know it has been fixed, thanks.

The article does not appear to have been vandalized. If you feel a particular edit was made in error on a protected article, then please place a note on the talk page of that particular article. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this was in Soviet Union, it has been fixed. It's a well-known form of template vandalism which doesn't show in the page history of affected articles. We usually don't reply by email. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help resolving a deleted page issue

Resolved

– Epicadam 19:58, 19 August 2008

The article "Justin Conway" was deleted. The help topics that I have seen say to discuss the deletion with the administrator who deleted it - I don't know who that administrator is and cannot see any way of contacting them. I have seached many of the help articles on this subject and have not found an answer. I would write an article on Justin but I would like to know why the first one was deleted so that I don't repeat the same mistakes and if it was wrongfully deleted - I would like to combine information from that article with my own.

Thank you. Musicvoice (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The deleting admin is Tawker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as shown in the deletion log. It seems the article was deleted as it did not indicate it's significance, please have a look at our notability criteria, the deletion criteria, and if there's anything else, don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Best, Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.221.47 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

resolution of Clay problem/d'Alembert' s paradox

Stale

– Advice give, no further response.--Beloved Freak 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in a dispute about referencing the article "Blowup of Incompressible Euler Solutions" by Hoffman and Johnson claiming resolution of the Clay Mathematics Institiute millennium problem on the Navier-Stokes equations on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness and on the related page about d'Alembert's paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert's_paradox.

The editor Crowsnest keeps on deleting the reference on the Clay problem page without supporting the removal by any scientific source. The reference is published in a refereed journal of high standard. Since the Clay problem is a major open problem of science and mathematics, it is of general interest, and by the nature of an open problem general consensus is lacking. The talk pages for the Clay and d'Alembert pages present the arguments put forward by Crowsnest and Egbertus concerning putting up the reference or not, without consensus being reached. Asisstance is needed. The dispute has several interesting aspects of principal character.Egbertus (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

Two editors are involved in the discussion with Egbertus on the talk pages, and on d'Alembert's paradox both have reverted the material under discussion
I accompanied the discussions of the removals on both pages by, to my opinion, appropriate reliable references. On the Clay Prize regarding Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness the removed paper itself explicitly says it solves another problem then demanded for by the problem statement of the prize.

Crowsnest (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you all need to stop reverting each other. You are edit warring which could lead to any or all of you being blocked, or the pages in question being protected from editing. (See also WP:3RR), but bare in mind that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours.) You need to reach consensus BEFORE making the changes, even if you don't like what's currently on the page. I'm glad to see you are using the talkpages, but you don't seem to be getting very far. I suggest making a request for comment to get other impartial users involved. Put it in the "Maths, science, and technology" and hopefully you will attract users who know about this sort of thing and who can help you reach consensus. But stop just reverting each other, please. --Beloved Freak 10:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow revert war

Stale

– No edits to article in question since August 9th. --Beloved Freak 09:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimclyne seems to be an WP:SPA to thwart the inclusion of Curtis Sliwa being mentioned as an honorary alumnus who attended Brooklyn Preparatory School. He has repeatedly declined to discuss the reason for this repeated deletion. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any rationale for the deletion: Curtis Sliwa has his own article on the Wikipedia and the official alumni site records his award as honorary alumnus and this is cited in the article. patsw (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

new user in trouble

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 09:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am a new user, and already in trouble. Yesterday I tried to create a page to represent Jen Delyth, an artist well known for her original and published work in the Celtic art field. In complete honesty and transparancy, and being a complete novice beginner to Wikipedia, I created a Jen delyth user account, and created the page. I thought this was what you were supposed to do. It then seemed like that was considered "self promotion", so I stopped using that account, and created one under my own name Scott Silverberg (this account). I followed the directions to edit the page, and have spent a lot of time checking other pages of peer artists, and reading Wikipedia rules and regulations. I understand a lot more now about how the community works.

Now not only is the page slated for deletion, but I am suspected of being a "sock puppet".. Which I am not. I'm just trying to understand the system here. I have put the required deletion code on the JDelyth user page, and am continuing only through my own user account. I would also like to say, that creating the Jen Delyth page, is not an act of self promotion, and it is not an unnoteworthy addition to Wikipedia. Jen Delyth is one of the foremost Celtic artists working today, is extremly well known and respected in this country. The reason I decided to create the page is because some other Wikipedia pages mention Jen, and I wanted to link up to her, as other artists are for example the Faerieworlds festival (where Jen is a guest artist, along with Brian Froud, Amy Brown etc. and other notable Wikipedia artists). Also, Jen has created a design which is extremly well known in this country, although often misperceived as an ancient design.. her Celtic Tree of LIfe. We have been asked by many people to created a Wikipedia page talking about the Celtic Tree of Life, and have been afraid to assign the creative commons copyright to the design. It is time to include information about her important symbol in Wikipedia.

If you have any other questions, let me know. Scott Silverberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSilverberg (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a Welcome! message on Scott's User talk page; also a statement in support of removal of the sock puppetry banner on Scott's User page; and a message to the user who posted the sock puppetry banner. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.. I appreciate it. Scott 66.117.128.94 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry accusation withdrawn. I note that Scott Silverberg abd Jan Delyth are husband and wife. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RHaworth should just simply ask what our relationship is.. but we are not actually husband and wife.. the information is out of date by 2 years. But this is irrelevant. I would like to post a grievance in the way I have been verbally treated by RHaworth, on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Celtic_Tree_of_Life. He has been insulting and insinuating rather than being helpful to me as a new user, as I have repeatedly requested. I have made clear that I simply did not understand the policies as a new user last night, and RHaworth has embaressed and humiliated me. I have requested another editor, to help with any language, or needs for substantiation other than the sources and references I ahve taken pains to provide on the Jen Delyth page. Or advice if it really seems I am not allowed to contribute being related to Jen, even if I consider my contribution unbiased, factual, and in line with other artist's pages such as the ones on the Faerieworlds site that made this all occur in the first place!

(Although it still seemed to me in understanding the Wikipedia rules that they are somewhat flexible, if the language and content of a page is appropriate? Many pages on Wikipedia are obviously created by close relations to the person - who are the only people to have the facts sometimes to create "biography" information . Assuming they are good solid contributions, that are edited and monitored by the Wikipedia community, which I was expecting would be the feedback - help in being appropriate, rather than rude acusations. Otherwise its just a game isn't it? inviting people to be sneaky and go around the rules (as I did not, using my clear email domain address and being honest and transparant about htat..) I feel I have been badly treated by this editor, which has not given me the best opinion of the community. Thanks though to Dolphin 51 for your welcome. Scott Silverberg SSilverberg (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If kelticdesigns.com are carrying out of date information about you, I suggest that you contact them, complain bitterly and demand that they correct it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Resolved

– Others are now watching - please open a new thread if further assistance is needed. Pastordavid (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having issues with another editor, User talk:Corker1, about an image caption. I have attempted to contact the user twice on his talk page, as well as placing notes in the edit summary. He/she is unresponsive and I do not have any other recourse besides continuously reverting the edits. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, epicAdam (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you're now communicating via talk pages. That's the best way to resolve it. Please come back and post again if need be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in with a suggestion that, I hope, provides an acceptable middle ground. JohnInDC (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's discussion on the Talk page now but the reversions continue. A couple of extra eyes might help. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A few extra eyes would definitely be warranted. I am not even going to touch the article again until tomorrow morning to fix some of the poor prose and invalid references that User:Corker1 has added in. I know they're good faith edits, but this is like dealing with someone who insists that the Earth is flat. This user also has the unfortunate habit of saving their changes every minute or so, resulting in long strings of edits that are near-impossible to follow. Oh well, such is the nature of the Wikibeast. -epicAdam (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance in handling dispute over pop culture link inclusion in War of 1812 article

Resolved

– editor blocked, no support for including the external links. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I seem to have incited a bubbling edit war by those opposing my (good faith) inclusion of a notable popular culture reference to the War of 1812 in the form of a YouTube video to a popular song. (link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jlFZhprU4)

I do not wish to engage in an edit war with other editors on the [[3]] page. However, I feel strongly that my good faith inclusion is being deleted by other editors without merit and am looking for some guidance on how I can defend my contribution while maintaining civility and good etiquette.

Here is the relevant discusssion [War of 1812 Talk]

Thanks --Digiterata (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Digiterata has been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR, as seen here. [4] I'd welcome any other editors taking a look at the situation. The link he's adding is a youtube link to a song about the subject, which no one else (myself included) feels is notable or appropriate to add to the historical article. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The other users are correct to revert the inclusion of that link per WP:External Links. The only items that should be placed in External Links sections are those to help the reader better understand the article's topic beyond the information provided in Wikipedia. While I believe you inserted the link in good faith, the linked YouTube video does not provide any additional insight, commentary, or additional knowledge to be gained. If the only qualification for external links is they relate to the article's subject, then Wikipedia would be nothing but a link farm. There are a total 342 YouTube clips about the War of 1812, obviously not all of them could or should be included as external links. Best, epicAdam (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happly married

Resolved

– Nothing to do here. Pastordavid (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop sending these pages to me. I HATE them. I also do not use that word lightly. You cannot X out of the pages. I am asking nicely for you to remove my myspace/bliedsusan from your file or I will have to go further in stopping this. I am disabled and can only sit for so long and it takes up valuble time for me.

Thank you for your help, Susan Moore Myers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.122.93 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure, but I think I know your problem. We do have a vandal on Wikipedia, which does this sort of vandalism. It is something that we can do nothing but reverse their edits, and block them from editing. Apologies about this. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Peculiar delete of an article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran

Resolved

– the closing rationale was clear that no merge was done, and that the decision about where to merge still needed to take place. Pastordavid (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested both by an admin and in the discussion board on Samir Kuntar to hold to personal biographical material and to have articles for other important issues in articles of their own. As a result of that 2 new articles were initiated: Nasser Operation describing the event, and Einat Haran about the reason for why this event is noatble as the "worst terror attack ever in Israel". During the tough..discussion, all sides agreed to merge and redirect the article, however it was not agreed where to yet. In the middle of the discussion some admin decided to delete the article and redirect it to the place where the problem actually started Samir Kuntar (making us going on circles again...). He added in the history a message that he "merged" the article, but he did not: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran&action=history, please reopen the page and bring the issue for the admins to vote/decide upon. The article has also been vandalized and therefore I ask you to kindly protect it. Thank you. On.Elpeleg (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking to get overturned an action taken to implement an AFD, even a non-delete action such as this, the proper venue to look for such an overturn is called Deletion Review. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic. Nothing has actually been deleted yet. User:Sandstein closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einat_Haran as a redirect/merge. As noted, he hasn't actually performed a merge; he has redirected Einat Haran to Samir Kuntar. I think the problem is just a misunderstanding. The history of Einat Haran is intact and the content can still be viewed, and indeed merged into a destination article, when that's decided. The task now is to discuss the best destination - probably Talk:Samir Kuntar is the best place for that discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are closed by a single uninvolved editor (usually but not always an admin) after around 5 days. Longer has already passed so it was certainly due. It was decided to not delete the article (which means to permanently delete the content from view by non-administrators), so the matter no longer belongs at Articles for deletion and there is no reason to reopen it there. As SheffieldSteel says, it can be discussed elsewhere how to merge it. SheffieldSteel gave a direct link to the page history. Such a link can also be reached by first clicking the redirecting name Einat Haran, then clicking "Redirected from Einat Haran" at the top, and finally clicking the "history" tab. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The AfD edit summary "Closing debate; result was merge" [5] means the AfD has been closed with a decision to merge. It doesn't imply that the merge has already been performed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox display dispute

Stuck

– Moved on to more appropriate venues. Please take further discussion there. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Infobox discussion at WP:EAR, where this thread might be better located now too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The user User:Wetman and I have been "discussing" the use of infoboxes, specifically at Ponte Vecchio. He has issues with them, and with the data in them. We've discussed this in talk pages and in a Wikiquette alert. Today, he tried another tack, which IMHO, doesn't work well. Why he can't just leave the infobox alone appears to be because he finds it to be clutter. Others find it an easy way to get to information without having to search the article for it. I'm hoping for arbitration to help us work this out. - Denimadept (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very many editors have strong views for and against infoboxes in particular contexts. I doubt if this page is the right place to seek a solution. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have come up with an elegant and simple modest way to keep all the value of an Infobox— whatever that may be, for that is not the issue— without disrupting the flow of informed and nuanced encyclopedia text and the layout of informative supportive illustrations with "Infoboxes" that are objected to on many talkpages concerning art, architecture etc.

An example of a not-particularly informative Infobox taking up prime space at Cellini Salt Cellar. Not bad.

An example of the same article with an infobox available at a single mouseclick: Cellini Salt Cellar. Much improved.

An example of a misleadingly reductive infobox intruding at Ponte Vecchio. Distractingly competitive.

An example of the same article with an infobox available at a single mouseclick Ponte Vecchio. Still fully available.

All discussion of content aside, what could be the objection to this less-aggressive display? And why would it be forbidden?--Wetman (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pope Gregory IX shows a sensible use of an infobox: tabulatable information only, nothing requiring nuanced text. At the base of the page are three tabs, opened at a mouseclick, just as in my suggestion for infoboxes: a perfectly elegant solution to what would be a visual glut of distracting information. --Wetman (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should probably remain per the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges. Of course, it's just a guideline, and an infobox may not be warranted for this article; however, an objection to removing the infobox from this article has been raised, and therefore a consensus is needed to make the change. To me, the hidden infobox at the top of the page is inelegant and aesthetically displeasing, not to mention that it could violate WP:IBX. Further, your objections to the infobox seem to stem from your objection to providing incomplete information; a hidden infobox in no way alleviates that situation. I would suggest trying to update the infobox to be more concise, such as the box at Pope Gregory IX, before declaring it to be unusable. If you still feel like the infobox should just be removed altogether, then I would urge you to achieve consensus first before taking it off the page. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Bridges has no special jurisdiction over bridge articles than anyone else - Wikiproject Rivers or Wikiproject Civil Engineering (if we have one) for instance, or even the author of the article all might have equal claims. Setting up a wikiproject doesn't confer particular special status, so the guidance isn't much use unless it also accords with common sense. Wetman's seems a sensible and elegant solution to keep everyone happy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should remain: no one is deleting anything. The content or suitability of an infobox is discussed on a case-by-case basis at each article's talkpage, but is not an issue here. No "objection to removing the infobox from this article" has been raised: there is no question of removing anything, not even misinformation or misleading reductions. This is simply an issue of whether a show/hide function may be permitted at Wikipedia, as demonstrated in examples above. The infobox remains available at a mouseclick, for those who want to check a fact and don't want to struggle with a lot of text. --Wetman (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My observation is that the solution you promote effectively removes from sight if not deletes the infobox, which is a preference and should be chosen at the user's discretion as are the following:

Format broken links like this (alternative: like this?). Justify paragraphs. Auto-number headings. Show table of contents (for pages with more than 3 headings). Disable page caching. Enable "jump to" accessibility links. Do not show page content below diffs. Show hidden categories.

Adding to those preferences something like "Minimize infobox display by default" would be an elegant solution. I agree with Epicadam that the examples you give are "inelegant and aesthetically displeasing" and am suggesting that even if the code allowed the main text to float left after mouseclick and display it still would reduce the efficiencies created by having infoboxes display by default. WP:IBX stresses: "The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia". As there is no way to count the feelings of casual readers, why not agree that this is best handled as a preference whereby you may enjoy your reading "without disrupting the flow of informed and nuanced encyclopedia text and the layout of informative supportive illustrations" as you see fit? Sswonk (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A preference setting, in the form of a checkbox, say, which defaults to "show infoboxes", would be ideal. - Denimadept (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although there may be tweaks that could be done to the formatting (having infoboxes spread out across the page more, for instance), I think Wetman's contribution here is a good compromise, and, in fact, I think his idea and proposed solution is sufficiently good that I think it might be seriously considered in many other situations where the potential disruptive presence of an infobox on visual presentation and ease of reading can occur. In these cases, perhaps the name "infobox" might be changed to make the shown name more informative for the casual readers. DDStretch (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Having all such boxes collapsible and minimised by default would be a good idea, but needs to be raised in a wider forum. However, building on Wetman's excellent idea, the impact of the "hidden" infobox can be minimised even further by having it right-floated: see [6] That puts the (hidden) box in the place where readers have become accustomed to find it, but prevents acres of whitespace appearing when it is "uncollapsed". No doubt someone can improve the code (put it in a class, or template-ify it, or whatever). -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There we go! Look at the presentation of the infobox at Cellini Salt Cellar now! Since the content of the infobox is unchanged and not at issue, and only the display is being adjusted, in this elegantly simple fashion, what further objections can be raised? Not counting, "it's my infobox and I want to see it pasted at the head of every page."--Wetman (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Better, but not ideal. If the infobox defaults to "collapsed", newbies and casual users won't know what it is and won't get the benefits of it. I suspect it is a rare person, like yourself Wetman, who want it collapsed by default. It would be better if it were dependant on some kind of setting, as specified above. - Denimadept (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! "Infobox" is jargon that a new reader may not follow. DDStretch has made a fine suggestion above. How about a display "Facts at-a-Glance"? Check out the display at Cellini Salt Cellar now. Denimadept won't like it, but perhaps you others will.--Wetman (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"infobox" is for coding pages. A more descriptive name, which helps people understand why they might want to expand the box, makes a certain amount of sense. But I want Ponte Vecchio back the way it was. What you do with articles like Cellini Salt Cellar I don't care. Bridges are my main area of interest on this site, not sculpture or whatever the salt cellar is. We need to discuss this in a more appropriate and wider location, to get a proper consensus. Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a visible infobox, the contents of which reflects a general sense of restraint, is preferable to a hidden one. Two reasons. First, the casual user will never see the "show" button unless it is conspicuously highlighted. I'm *not* a casual user and I missed the button on both the example pages above. An hide / view preference toggle (or a neon 'show' button) would largely fix that problem, but it wouldn't solve the second, which is that once infoboxes can be hidden as a matter of course, infoboxes will - I guarantee it - begin to accumulate cruft and clutter like your crazy aunt's attic. Every time someone proposes adding yet another stray fact to an infobox, they'll defend it in the same way: "*Someone* might find it useful, and, if you don't like the clutter, then just hide it." The only thing keeping infoboxes remotely sensible now is that we all have to look at them. Let's leave them them as they are.

I said two reasons but really it's three. The third is, too many things on line are buried behind hyperlinks already. We click enough as it is. We should just present the text and let the reader simply take in the page, without having to contemplate how they are intended to *interact* with it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This dialectic has gone on to be cross-posted in the Manual of Style, and Wetman has jumped in with a statement separate from it there. I will reiterate that Wetman is not offering anything elegant, but is foisting a personal preference on a well-established, well-used editorial feature of Wikipedia. There is simply no better solution than making the display of infoboxes optional as a user preference, which may help register more users and lower the number of IP edits if many casual readers feel the display of infoboxes disrupts their reading. I seriously doubt that is the case. I don't know how to count the use of infoboxes en masse in the encyclopedia, but a quick look in a dozen project pages shows a large majority of good articles include them. I do care about infoboxes that are included in an article, including in Cellini Salt Cellar, Judith and Holofernes (Donatello) and Christ and St. Thomas (Verrocchio) and find them helpful, even though I may actually bother to "struggle with a lot of text" as well. The arbitrary "elegant solution" at Cellini Salt Cellar is self-serving and borders on vandalism.

The somewhat mocking comment above, "it's my infobox and I want to see it pasted at the head of every page" can easily suffer reduction to "I don't like infoboxes and I am going to zap them down at every page I can't get past the thought of reading with one in my way." That is the statement of a preference, and the viable, proper solution is to have the display set by the user as a preference, with display of infoboxes being the default state. Sswonk (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I figure we could add a preference checkbox under the "Gadgets" tab, "User interface gadgets", to be something like "Show infoboxes by default" with the box normally checked unless specifically unchecked by the registered user. How would we go about adding this pref? Does it require a change to the MediaWiki software, or is there something less drastic we can do to implement it? - Denimadept (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to take an important call prior to the posting by Quiddity below, but would have answered that it involves a software change and would be under the "Misc" tab as are items listed above such as "Show table of contents (for pages with more than 3 headings)". With that, I look forward to finding this discussion where it may land, my suggestion being WP:Village pump (proposals). Sswonk (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss such a drastic change at WP:Village pump (proposals) (and/or at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes or WT:Manual of Style (infoboxes) or Template talk:Infobox), not here.
Hiding infoboxes is considered harmful by a large quantity of editors: Inconsistent hiding/display of infoboxes will confuse most readers. Hidden elements are inaccessible to wiki-newcomers (most readers). And a variety of other reasons (hide vandalism, break page layouts, etc). But again: this is not a good venue for this discussion.

Thanks. -- Quiddity 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, agreed. I'm just trying to be equitable with a few users who, for whatever reason, hate infoboxes due to layout preferences. We've already brought up the issue at WT:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and referred them to this discussion. If we can get a flat out statement by the community on this, Wetman and compatriots may get the message. Or they may look for yet another way around what they were told a month or so ago on this topic. It's hard to say. - Denimadept (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: There are accepted precedents for sections of large infoboxes to be hidden; See Toronto or Bertolt Brecht for examples.
There is probably an easy css/js way for individuals to hide whole-infoboxes by default (ask at WP:VPT for help), but making it the default for everybody is extremely unlikely to gain consensus. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As already been suggested this is a page for requesting assistance from other editors not for discussion of the problems. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wetman, it's your proposal, I suggest you post it and put a pointer to it here. I've reverted Ponte Vecchio until you get a consensus. - Denimadept (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can avoid this kind of edit-warring over aggressive pwning of articles by the list-makers who circumvent encyclopedia text with the boxed equivalent of bulletted lists of statistics. Denimadept's extraordinarily bad manners are outstanding, even by Wikipredia standards.--Wetman (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This version is an excellent idea [7], and yes, I would support it if it's collapsed by default. If people are capable of working a PC and getting to the page, they are quite capable of clicking one step further, especially as the only people wanting the facts in a second are likely to be kids who are far more savvy at these thigs than their elders. Giano (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Winter Deletion

Resolved

– Per posting user. Fleetflame 23:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Staff, I attempted to link Edgar Winter's Discography to a description of a new album of his - Rebel Road (album). It was deleted. I am not sure why it was deleted. My user name is Braddoc310.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Road_(album)

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braddoc310 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Braddoc310 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a bot problem, I think. The problem is related to the MySpace link, which oddly unlinks the link to the album as well. I'll go and see what I can do... x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad. First, let me clear up any misconceptions. There is really no "Wikipedia Staff" (well, there is a stuff, but it's a very small group of folks who maintain the servers, etc.); everybody here is a volunteer. Some us have more experience with Wikipedia than others, and some of us have special permissions (administrators, for example), but other than that, we're all the same. To answer your question, your edits were being reverted by a bot, an automated program that helps maintain pages on Wikipedia. The reason your edits were removed was because you are a new user and added a Myspace link to the page, which the bot thought could be spam. Go ahead and make the Wikilink to the new album, but don't try adding the Myspace. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. Type four tildes (~~~~) automatically adds in your user name and date stamp. Best! -epicAdam (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

epicAdam & x42bn6, Thank you for your help. Yeah, I wasn't sure how to address my request. I figured it would sound rude to just blurt my question out. I promise not to link to Myspace any more. I appreciate the quick response. Newbie Brad braddoc310 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

urgent matters

Resolved

– Per the checkuser and SSP cases. Sock drawer, now blocked. Fleetflame 00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We're from the Madison Wisconsin Regional Areas. We carry pride to editing Wikipedia whenever required or when necessary.

My partners and I were on vacation for part of recent Autism related trips through Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Iowa and my major friends had Marthaerin1812, Standingout, Tropicalstormshirley and Undercovergals-my friends' names, but alas somebody is hackering our Wikipedia Network and using our names when we're not looking, while we're under vacation or whenever we're under lunching break. Isn't this criminal?! The reason for the questioning has something regarding the fact that whosoever used our identities was the same somebody that got us all blocked and accused by other Wikipedia editors over "sockpuppetry" and "vandalizing" when the reality is we would never do any harm whatever to stuff on the Wikipedia system!

Also, my friend Marthaerin1812 got slapped on protect for her talk page for "timewasting", but somehow how could "timewasting" lead to getting protected by their talkpage?

Furthermore the editors keep saying-whenever we do use the Wikipedia-to not edit if source are not cited. But it's rather complicated to find sources which are proper for the articles over Wikipedia!

Help us please!

No trespassing-keep out (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The information at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Undercovergals and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Undercovergals is not easy to explain. If you are one of this group of editors, you've already made your case in numerous places. It's not clear why Wikipedia should have any more patience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Baltasar Garzón

Resolved

– by Jasynnash2, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I need some minor assistance with this article: Baltasar Garzón. I've added reference tags correctly (I believe...) and no refence list shows. Thank you. --MartinezMD (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a references section. In future if you do the tags the way you did you simply need to use the template {{reflist}} for them to show up. You should probably edit the references slightly by adding "| (and the title by which you want the reference to appear in the list". Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the refs there are straight external links, so the pipe (|) won't be needed, just a space and a label, but it would certainly be good to add titles. {{cite web}} would be a further upgrade. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still learning the editing format and commands. I'll update it soon enough. --MartinezMD (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)