Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 39
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
On-going disagreement with Damiens.rf
ResolvedI have an article up at the wikipedia page about Dwight Lauderdale. This is the second article I've created and because of WP:BLP concerns I requested a review at a few areas. I got a reviewer, however, he and I are not in a disagreement of sorts. He repeatedly places a template on the page stating what he believes to be wrong with the article, he also took time to write in the talk page (at my request - to be fair) what he found wrong the compressed box at the bottom. I looked it over and answered his feedback (which was mainly - "Not referenced", which is not true, as evidenced by the article). I left him a the same response on his page and removed his template and collapsed his comments into a box. Since then, he's been repeatedly placing the same template on the article page and he has been reverting the collapsed box accusing me of "hiding the problems" not just once but again. In all fairness - I had to revert myself on the talk page because I violated WP:CIVIL (in the very least - no cursing mind you, but smart-aleck comments that pretty much attacked him!). I've been removing his template off the page as well, because I belive it's not correct, nor warranted. He's been reverting with edit s ummaries like "Address the concerns and don't hide them" (which was done right away, and can be seen on the talk page of that article) and "Don't hide the article issues, discuss on the talk page" (as I mentioned, I responded to his first critique both on this page and on his and he issued no response - a discussion requires two people :) ) His best comment was his most recent "(You didn't let me fix the article, didn't fixed the article yourself and didn't find anyone to fix the article. LEARN that you don't own it!) (undo)" To be fair, yes I have been reverting his template with "RV trolling" as I belive he really is trolling because, first, when I answered his original critique, I invited him to fix what he thought was wrong. This invitation has been standing since 11/17/2008. He has done nothing even remotely resembling any editing on the article except to place that template. Second, his claims have no merit at all (IMHO). I'm requesting Editor assistance, first to see if damiens.rf's claims have merit, and second, to see if he really is trolling, or if I"m the one in the wrong. Feel free to comment on the talk page or my page. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded on the article talk page, and attempted to begin some cleanup on the article. BradV 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- From the sounds I'm seeing at Talk:Dwight Lauderdale, things are pretty well resolved at this point? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism?...
I saw User:Edwardsully add the semi-protected tag to the List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" after he recently edited it with false edits like this.
He likes to make changes to numbers and such without citations such as an addition here and a change of a number here. Should I assume good faith or are his legitimate edits like this only a coverup for a sort of numbers-vandalism? Themfromspace (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The page has been semi-protected since May (see the log), so you shouldn't have any trouble editing it. Regarding the other edits, I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. If you believe those numbers to be wrong, perhaps you could find a source and change them. BradV 04:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a more obvious remedy: either remove material from the page which isn't reliably sourced or cn tag improperly referenced text. Most of it seems to be sourced from blogs or web sites without clear editorial responsibility or accountability. The AfDs on this article contained Delete votes complaining about the lack of reliable sources, and many Keeps said that this is an editorial problem and can be fixed through ordinary editorial process, it's not a reason for Deletion unless nothing is left after material without reliable source is removed. So ... I really wonder that this article has survived as it is, for so long. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Most everything in that article is sourced. The problem was that in the edit I pointed out, the user had changed a sourced number (228) to a seemingly arbitrary one (300) that didn't fit with the reference. Themfromspace (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a more obvious remedy: either remove material from the page which isn't reliably sourced or cn tag improperly referenced text. Most of it seems to be sourced from blogs or web sites without clear editorial responsibility or accountability. The AfDs on this article contained Delete votes complaining about the lack of reliable sources, and many Keeps said that this is an editorial problem and can be fixed through ordinary editorial process, it's not a reason for Deletion unless nothing is left after material without reliable source is removed. So ... I really wonder that this article has survived as it is, for so long. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Revert it if it goes against the source and leave notes on the article talk page and the user's talk page about why. The way it is, it looks like that figure is supposed to be attributed to the given source. It reflects poorly on an article to have figures that are disputed by its sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedHi. I've just dramatically rewritten another article by the same author (The Loser (novel)) due to massive violation of WP:OR, as well as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PLOT. Before I tackle this one, is there any opinion as to whether I'm being fair and correctly adhering to the policies ? I obviously don't want to spend time editing an article if there's nothing actually wrong with it as it stands. I notice that he's talked to another author about this article, using phrases such as "The fact is that I liked the Di Piero review very much, because it caught the subliminal themes of Sebald's book: so, I took the core of his article and paraphrased it, rewriting some of the passages.", and "The rest stays, as it's only a synthesised commentary of excerpts. OK ?" - surely that's immdiately indicative of violation of WP:OR ? Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Vertigo (book) certainly has multiple issues. These include original research in outlining the editor's feelings while reading, a lack of sources and peacock words ("beautifully written", "this extraordinary, unclassifiable book"). While some direct quotes are acceptable, the inclusion of such large slabs of direct text would start to come close to a copyright problem.
- Your copyedit to Loser (novel) has certainly improved it, though in my totally subjective opinion the plot summary is overlong. Either way, I'd say you're on the right track and your improvements to "Vertigo" would be more than welcome. Euryalus (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Chocolate News: unsourced
- Chocolate News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 169.235.40.153 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
This is a mostly neglected article, but the paragraph being added by an IP user isn't sourced, is full of weasel words, etc. I've reverted twice, so I'm not touching it again. Anyone? tedder (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've warned him/her for edit warring, and added a weasel words tag. Does anyone have an idea how the show actually did rate, and what the critics said about it? That would allow the weasel words paragraph to be transformed into something more useful. Euryalus (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I dumped some articles that review the show at Talk:Chocolate News. Hopefully that'll help anybody who has time to look into it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Use of photographs in company articles
ResolvedHi. Can anyone point me in the direction of any guidelines or rules on the use of photographs of people within articles about companies - specifically whether photographs of the CEO etc. in an article about their company is appropriate, only appropriate under certain circumstances etc. ? Thanks CultureDrone (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you're only thinking of images of people, especially those who are alive, the prevailing consensus is that non-free images are unacceptable. Here's the text: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images". In short, the image needs to be either public domain, or licensed under some other free license. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- So what's the position if an article about a company has been written by the CEO and includes a photo of himself ? Does that cover the licensing issue and is it actually appropriate (self-promotion/advertising etc. ?) I'm specifically referring in this case to GOODE Ski Technologies. CultureDrone (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although it is not desirable for an article about a company to be created by the CEO due to conflict of interest, if the company is in fact notable under the notability guidelines, the article can be kept but is required to conform to a neutral point of view. In this case, it appears that the CEO/founder of the company is claiming that he owned the rights to the photo of himself and has now released that photo to the public domain. If that is correct, it is acceptable to use the photo in the article about the company. (If, in the exercise of our editorial judgment, the consensus is that the company is not notable enough to have an article, or that the photo is not useful for the article, then I don't have a problem with that. But otherwise, the article is acceptable and so is the use of the photo.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree - the photo maybe appropriate for a bio of the CEO, but I don't think it adds very much to the company article. A pic of a product for example is much more relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, a picture of the product would be better, but do we have one? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, note that this pic may require contacting to verify release OTRS as it appears to be a PR image, available here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- And it's been nominated for speedy deletion as it lacks evidence of permission. Whomever released that image needs to give evidence of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, note that this pic may require contacting to verify release OTRS as it appears to be a PR image, available here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, a picture of the product would be better, but do we have one? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree - the photo maybe appropriate for a bio of the CEO, but I don't think it adds very much to the company article. A pic of a product for example is much more relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although it is not desirable for an article about a company to be created by the CEO due to conflict of interest, if the company is in fact notable under the notability guidelines, the article can be kept but is required to conform to a neutral point of view. In this case, it appears that the CEO/founder of the company is claiming that he owned the rights to the photo of himself and has now released that photo to the public domain. If that is correct, it is acceptable to use the photo in the article about the company. (If, in the exercise of our editorial judgment, the consensus is that the company is not notable enough to have an article, or that the photo is not useful for the article, then I don't have a problem with that. But otherwise, the article is acceptable and so is the use of the photo.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- So what's the position if an article about a company has been written by the CEO and includes a photo of himself ? Does that cover the licensing issue and is it actually appropriate (self-promotion/advertising etc. ?) I'm specifically referring in this case to GOODE Ski Technologies. CultureDrone (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Because all users from Balkan (I am from Balkan) are biased about this I am interested to hear comment of non involved users about section Living conditions. We are having small dispute on talk page about this section. In my maybe wrong thinking this section is writen against Wikipedia:Coatrack rule and it is POV pushing because "living" condition in all extermination camps have been very similar. All in all my thinking is that this section need to be moved to article Extermination camps or we need to have tags in article in question until problem is solved.--Rjecina (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
USA article
ResolvedMy changes to the etymology section of the USA article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) are being undone repeatedly. I believe that my contribution is valid and I have used appropriate supporting evidence. What is Wikipedia's policy on other users undoing someone else' justified entry? I would also like you to monitor the article. I do not believe it fair that my contribution should be totally removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuusha (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would appear that the problem is that the edit, while referenced, violates WP:UNDUE. Being published is a neccessary, but not sufficient condition, to add information to a Wikipedia article. Lots of things get written down all the time, but there needs to be evidence that the information is at least considered a serious minority viewpoint. Being a viewpoint of one does not count, really, and mention of this material would require a citation to multiple sources that consider it valid, given that it is a minority viewpoint. The greater issue, as well, is that in adding this minority viewpoint, you have also removed lots of sourced text yourself. As a third point, it is never proper to edit war at an article, even if you are right. Being "right" and participating in an edit war gets you the same block as someone who is "wrong" would. So please stop and take it to the talk page It is MUCH easier to convince others of your viewpoint with a rationed arguement than by attempting them to force your version by reverting to it multiple times. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with someone who deletes talk page discussion
ResolvedI added to elected official Paul Strauss' article how he was caught drunk driving, citing sources such as NBC Washington and Roll Call. Another user deleted this mention and tried to change the content to make for a more "positive" image not provided by the sources given. I reverted and gave reasons why. Then it was deleted again. After reverting I tried to initiate a talk page discussion, but what I wrote on the talk page was deleted as was the content in the article. How can I deal such a user? Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've readded the material, and also tried to restart the talk page discussion. It seems to be properly sourced, and at least worthy of discussion before removal. Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Would love some third opinions on this article as it seems to be fairly unwatched and talk page discussion is not attracting any third opinions. We are debating the usefulness of a lot of very similar images and whether they should all be included if they convey no extra information. I tried to simplify the article by switching the top image for one with higher enc value and stripping some images that are merely posed party shots(in this version) but it got reverted. More opinions would be welcome. Mfield (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that some of the images deleted include the "Intel Insider" Conference and it seems to me that images are not causing any cluttering or squeezing problems. I have been responding to an {{update}} tag that was placed on this article. I have contacted about a dozen flickr users to request licensing consent for their images and the images included represent the positive responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Stephen B. Zwickel
This page was probably created by one of my university students. The content is OK, but my name is Steven with a V and apparently that is something I can't edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfSBZ (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the page is now up at AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Katon Dawson article
I think some admin needs to watch this article. Dawson is a possible candidate for the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Recently he resigned his 12 year membership at a whites-only country club after he says he tried to change their membership rules. This information is being changed/deleted or burried. Hopefully, someone who knows better than I can monitor the page to make sure that all relevant facts that are verified can be included. Remember (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
High-definition television in the United States
Hi,
I am looking for guidance about whether to post an edit to this article. My local cable tv provider (Comcast in Michigan) has informed me that basic channel service will no longer be available at the current rate after Feb 17th. Basic service now costs $8.95 per month through them. After Feb 17th, a new package will replace this service and the price will be a hefty $49.95 per month. I do already have a receiver from Comcast and they have informed me that I will not have to change any hardware - the signal will change and be handled by my current 'box'. If that is the case, I am unable to explain the additional charge, as the law mandates that users become able to receive digital signals instead of analog. If I am already able to do this, why would an additional $41.95 per month be required?
Any direction as to legal alternative to paying this fee or the legality of the company for charging it would be greatly appreciated. This appears to be an excuse for the company to make a lot of money from something that is supposed to be a public service.
Best Regards, Kaymeeha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaymejia (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place for your personal gripes with Comcast . – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't consider this personal, nor is it about Comcast. The issue is that some channels have been presented free of charge as a public service in the past (channels such as NBC & ABC for example). These channels will no longer be free of charge, but this discrepency is not addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaymejia (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, so long as your edit maintains a neutral point of view and is appropriately referenced, it should be OK. – ukexpat (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to add it into the article. It's more of a question that you have. The article isn't really going to answer it, because well, we don't know, and its probably just the companies making more profit. Logically it won't matter as cable already sends it in Digital (*duh*)/ converts it back to Analog. Also, you don't *need* your box for tv if you are basic with Comcast (trust me, I got more channels than my family ordered, lol) if your tv can view digital. Its just taking advantage of confused consumers. (note this statement fails under WP:OR, so not able to add to article, just my speculation) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
need tips to prevent being blocked again
ResolvedI need a good list of tips to avoid being blocked again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hintss (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 December 2008]
- Take a look at the blocking policy. That should point you in the right direction. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement with Unique user name
ResolvedUnique user name has been continually editing the Vreel article to include non-encyclopaedic content as well as assuming bad faith on my part. I'm rather unsure of what do do at this point as I already warned him on vandalism and reverted his edits due to PoV and Original Research but he seems to believe he's right and I'd rather not end up in an edit war over this. Bios Element (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- And he just reverted my edits again. So yeah, I'm sick and tired of this. A pointless waste of time. What do i need to do to get some other editors to look this over and help explain this to the guy? Bios Element (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just stopped over, and it looks like ukexpat has as well.
We each have reverted him once, andI just warned him for 3rr. If he keeps reverting without discussing he can probably be reported to the 3rr noticeboard. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)- Unique user name has been temporarily blocked for edit-warring. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that UUN may be editing from 62.24.204.7.—/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC) struck as incorrect —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)- And has admittedly been editing from 82.42.231.64, which was shortly blocked. Both IPs have been editing Vreel lately. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unique user name has been temporarily blocked for edit-warring. – ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just stopped over, and it looks like ukexpat has as well.
Prod tag removed from Blog house
Can someone more "delicate" than me pop by the Blog house article and figure out what to do? I posted a prod since the article was a repost and had my prod tag removed by a pretty obvious sockpuppet (brand new account) of the OG . Thanks! --Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it's not a PROD, it's a Speedy deletion nomination. In fact anyone (except the article's creator) can remove the template, in which case AfD is probably the place to go unless it is clearly a re-creation of the same content. – ukexpat (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Brian Ritchie/Ken LaCosse/'Taimu'
I was editing the Brian Ritchie article, and noticed that a couple of links for the para mentioning 'Taimu' link to CDBaby and the advertisement for the creator of the flute. The creator of the flute would appear to be none other than Ken LaCosse, who's is not only mentioned in the same paragraph, but has his own page of similar commercial feel to it. I'd feel it'd be more NPOV if there were a separate article describing this 'Taimu' method, that cites these two artists (and others) as well as mentioning other styles of flutes, but am unsure how to go about doing this. In fact, the entire opening paras of the Ritchie article seem non-NPOV, as does the entire Ken LaCosse article. Personally, I'm far more familiar with the WoWWiki editing policies and procedures than here, and really need a 'hand' to walk me through these kinds of corrections without stomping on lots of toes as I'm liable to do. I've done some editing here before, but nothing beyond basic reverts and adds. If someone can help me out so I know in future how to more correctly edit stuff to be more NPOV would be grand (I'm so 'new' I have no idea whether my request for assistance should go here or on NPOV noticeboard! Bleeter (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The entry for List of Computer System Manufacturers. Seems to be a war on what companies should and should not be included in this list. Should this list ONLY be OEM computer system desktop, notebook and server manufacturers. Many Personal Computers are assembled from OEM parts from other companies ie CPU's, Motherboard, Harddisk drives, RAM chips etc. Where do we draw the line on what company can be included. I noticed that several have been changed to "NOT NOTEABLE". For example http://www.ruggednotebooks.com manufacturer "Rugged Notebook Computuers" their product is unique and original... why should they be changed to NOT NOTEABLE?
There are many others that have been changed to "NOT NOTEABLE" that i think should be included in the list.
Robert—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.130.16 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Problems like this are precisely why, IMHO, most lists like this are inappropriate and unencyclopedic. If the scope of the list is too broad, there will never be agreement as to what should be listed and what should not, resulting in continuous edit warring. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Electric Cabaret (album)
ResolvedSomeone keeps removing the reviews from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Cabaret_(album)&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z33k (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you are mistaken when you say "someone keeps removing the reviews". It looks like the reviews have only been removed once, and that unexplained deletion has been reverted (by yourself!) There has been very, very little edit activity on that page. I'm not sure what sort of assistance you are requesting, but I'll watchlist the page so we can have more eyes on for the purpose of vandalism fighting, but that's about all I can think to do (anyone else want to watchlist it as well? I'm not particularly active as of lately).-Andrew c [talk] 15:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust Article
ResolvedHas been vandalized, I dont know how to fix--Woogie10w (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Where? You need to point out the vandalism so somebody can fix it if it's there. Grsz11 02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I am redirected to a bizzare page, the vandal got into your system, the prick hacked in--Woogie10w (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed, per Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Holocaust Article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Trouble with user
Resolved. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 09:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)G'day, I am having trouble with a user over the removal of controversial section from an article. I am assuming good faith and pointing the user in the correct directions of Wikipedia policies and procedures, but the user is continuing to bug me and threaten me with we will seek third party resolution and request a block on your editing priviliges as well as other non-constructive comments to why he wants a section and image removed or moved to the very bottom of the page. I have offered mediation on the subject, is there anything else I should be doing? Cheers - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Warned for WP:3RR violation. As you're close, I'm templating you too, just to be fair to the other party. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- For context, the other party is Wesmanbigmig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article is Anglican Church Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Note that I've also restored the image in question, as had Master of Puppets before he was reverted by Wesman. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll mark this resolved, as there's not really anything (forseeable) left to happen. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 09:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- For context, the other party is Wesmanbigmig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article is Anglican Church Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Note that I've also restored the image in question, as had Master of Puppets before he was reverted by Wesman. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Mark Roman
ResolvedHello. I recently uploaded a bunch of files from the NFL game I went to back in September, among them File:Mark Roman 9-7-08.jpg for Mark Roman. However, I've tried various tricks to attempt to have the file show up/work in the infobox on the page, but it is simply not happening. The same 'replace this male' image just remains and I can't seem to change it at all, no matter what I do. Please help in figuring out the problem. All of the other images I uploaded and placed worked fine. Thanks, --Victortalk 07:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed it; you needed to remove the other "image=" argument from the infobox. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - sorry for not realizing such a simple error. --Victortalk 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Bot Reversing All Links
It's come to my attention that there is a bot reversing all links from coming from cityfile.com, regardless of the nature of the link. I was wondering how I can get this changed? I've read the guidelines for reliable sources and external links and don't think they're issues here. I believe the links first started getting blocked because there was an issue with sockpuppets, but that seems to no longer be a problem, so I'm wondering if someone tell me how to go about blocking the bot or getting the links re-instated? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniferwilder (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 December 2008
- That site doesn't appear, at first glance to be blacklisted, but it's possible that a bot is running as you suggest. Could you perhaps identify the bot, or some pages that have been so edited? thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find any info on cityfile.com on Wikipedia myself. Judging from the content on that site, however, I think it's possible that a user believes it's just a blog and thus not a RS. I'm not entirely sure myself what to make of the content, so I could see someone making the assumption it isn't reliable. It'd help to have articles where it's been removed to help establish the circumstances and reasoning as to why the links are getting reverted. If it's a RS issue, the reliable sources noticeboard might be a better venue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. An example of where the bot took out of a link would be Richard S. Fuld, Jr. article. From looking at that, it looks like the name of the bot is XLinkBot. Thanks again for all the help. All advice is much appreciated, as I'm a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia. (Jenniferwilder (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- The site was added to a blocklist because it was being spammed by sockpuppets (which, as you note, stopped when the site was added to the blocklist). See here. Do you have some connection with the site? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The relevant discussion is archived here. I think WP:RSN would be the best possible place to discuss whether cityfile.com does or does not qualify as a RS. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Delicious carbuncle, yes I am affiliated with the site, although I have no intention of posting anything on Wikipedia. I only came over here after getting a number of questions from our own users asking if I knew why all of their cityfile links were being deleted from Wikipedia. In response to Mendaliv, thank you for the advice. I'll head over to that board for further help.--Jenniferwilder (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- The relevant discussion is archived here. I think WP:RSN would be the best possible place to discuss whether cityfile.com does or does not qualify as a RS. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The site was added to a blocklist because it was being spammed by sockpuppets (which, as you note, stopped when the site was added to the blocklist). See here. Do you have some connection with the site? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. An example of where the bot took out of a link would be Richard S. Fuld, Jr. article. From looking at that, it looks like the name of the bot is XLinkBot. Thanks again for all the help. All advice is much appreciated, as I'm a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia. (Jenniferwilder (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
Need help with cycles articles reinstatement
As explained on my user talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RayTomes#Need_help_with_regard_to_cycles_articles I need some help. Please read the material there. In essence, articles relating to cycles are being deleted when they should not be. They may have needed tidying up, but once deleted it is very hard to get things put back right. Having someone work with me on thsi would be useful. There was a previous person as you can see on that page. Ray Tomes (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- May I recommend adoption? That might fit well with your request for longer-term help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Linking to existing Wikipedia pages is done by placing doubled brackets around the name of the page. Thus, [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia. A useful expansion of this is done by separating what you want linked, from what you want displayed, with a pipe character ("|"), to create a "piped link". Thus: [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]] produces encyclopedia, with the displayed text linking to the article, Wikipedia. You can link to internal sections of pages thusly: Wikipedia#name of internal section of that article. By contrast, for external links: http://www.example.org produces http://www.example.org; [http://www.example.org] produces [1]; and [http://www.example.org example] produces example. For more information, see Help:Link and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Hope this has helped. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Cypriot British
Resolved{{unblock}}. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)User:Pankration2008 is persisting in replacing well-referenced, verifiable material at Cypriot British with unverified claims, with edits such as this. I've warned the user on their talk page and discussed it on the article talk page but they persist. Appartently I "don't have any understanding of the subject matter or the data". Can I get some advice/help? Cordless Larry (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- See also this subsequent edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Block has now expired, and he seems to be going right back into the fray at Cypriot British, and has also gotten into a possible dispute at Greek Britons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gave the user one last, detailed warning (not templated, I actually wrote it out so there can be NO ambiguity) and informed them that they needed to take up discussions at the talk page and to stop edit warring. If the user refuses, and returns to their same behavior, they may be blocked again. Lets see how he/she responds to the latest warning. If it does not go well, let me or another admin know, either here or at WP:ANI or at my talk page, and this will be taken care of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The editor has now resumed reverting at Greek Britons, re-introducing material that is unsourced. In the process, they have accused me of racism in the edit summary and called me an "ignorant racist bigot" on their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I gave the user one last, detailed warning (not templated, I actually wrote it out so there can be NO ambiguity) and informed them that they needed to take up discussions at the talk page and to stop edit warring. If the user refuses, and returns to their same behavior, they may be blocked again. Lets see how he/she responds to the latest warning. If it does not go well, let me or another admin know, either here or at WP:ANI or at my talk page, and this will be taken care of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My ARTICLE WAS DELETED
i SPENT ADECENT AMOUNT OF TIME STARTING AN ARTICLE, AND YOU GUYS DELETED IT BEFORE i COULD CORRECT IT. wHY DON'T YOU GIVE PEOPLE A TIME FRAM TO FIX THINGS BEFORE THEY'RE DELETD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftinafish (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the article Screams for Tina. It was deleted because it was essentially advertising - it was entirely a promotion for the band and needed a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. It also didn't explain why they were notable, and was unreferenced. More details are available at WP:WMD, which gives some general explanations for article deletions.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into writing it, and have created a copy of your text at User:Sftinafish/Screams for Tina so you can go on improving it before returning it to the mainspace of the encyclopedia. You might also want to have a read of this as a guide to article layout.
In passing, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages so people know who to respond to, and not use all caps. Euryalus (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- It might be worth noting that the subject and creator's username seem to be related. I'm not sure if this is a case where the user should be blocked as being obviously promotional, but it's worth thinking about. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also note that the article, Screams For Tina, has been created but may be eligible for deletion via AfD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Query: Inappropriate page
I'm new to the Wiki pages, and biographies.
I was recently sent a Wiki of the cartographic historian and theorist, Denis Wood, of North Carolina (http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIG_enCA303CA303&q=Denis+Wood+Wiki).
The page seems to me both incomplete and ... slanted. It neither acknowledges the critical place of Wood in modern cartography, and in its focus on his arrest for "unnatural acts" (same-sex sexual relations), seems designed by a professional detractor to diminish Wood's general standing in the greater community.
It's use of excerpted newspaper quotes assists in this. In looking at the IP I cannot find the author to initiate a discussion. I would like to submit another, more balanced piece--I'd be glad to sign it--to rectify the to me unbalanced, incomplete, and unfair presentation of this page.
How do I do that?
Tom Koch, Ph.D Prof. Geography (Medical) University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada http://kochworks.com email: (redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkoch (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Simply add your content, properly sourced of course, to the article. Hopefully the additional material should redress the balance. --TimTay (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've redacted the email address above. Also note that the content Tom above is complaining of was added very recently by an IP editor. It is sourced (though should probably be sourced more considering this is a BLP). We would (or at least I would) be glad to help improve the article. If you don't feel comfortable editing it yourself, Tom, I'd suggest that you put some information about his contributions at Talk:Denis Wood, the article's discussion page. We usually don't do out-and-out replacements of articles, and signing articles isn't done either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've been in touch with Tom since, and he's uploaded an alternative version of the bio to his userspace, viewable here. It needs some work before it's necessarily appropriate for inclusion. However I believe it would serve as a better article once that work is completed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexandros Grigoropoulos
Need help for revert war at Alexandros Grigoropoulos. Thanks. - Ayeroxor (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- The page has been protected. You (and the anon) clearly violated WP:3RR, so be glad that you weren't blocked. Here is my words of help, go to the talk page and try to work out your differences and reach a consensus, and in the future try harder to not edit war yourself. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 14:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Tha Carter III: The Rebirth
Myself and another editor have been arguing back and forth on the proper format for this article. Can someone please take a look at it and help us with this situation? --HELLØ ŦHERE 06:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cubfan789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just violated 3RR on this article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- ... and he head already reported JpGrB to 3RRN about this dispute. I've warned Cubfan789 for 3RR. Apparently he's had a 3RR block previously. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I've posted a Manual of style quote at Talk:Tha Carter III: The Rebirth which should help with the list versus prose debate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- ... and he head already reported JpGrB to 3RRN about this dispute. I've warned Cubfan789 for 3RR. Apparently he's had a 3RR block previously. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
help posting information regarding ponzi scheme/ pyramid scam
Hi
At your convenience, please contact me to assist me in learning how to post information regarding a topic of interest to me.
I attempted to post some information to the article "ponzi scheme" and later noticed that the bulk of my post had been deleted
I now recognize that the bulk of the material I had posted could perhaps be better placed in another location on wikipedia
It would be great to get some guidance on how and where to re-post the material and further tune it up as necessary to meet wiki standards
As a professional investor with a global practice and specific information regarding various investment scams and strategies and scam artists, I have some valuable information to contribute that I believe could greatly assist other less sophisticated or less experienced investors and thus help a great many people
I await your suggestions to improve my ability to contribute to Wiki
Thanks --Wiki4jb (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Look at all the other information posted on Ponzi scheme and you will see that much of it is backed up by one or more references from trusted sources - see WP:REF. You should do the same for any information that you have. Posting information that is your own knowledge, things you know that are not published elsewhere by trusted sources, is class as original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:OR. I suspect your edits were being reverted because they were not properly referenced. Hope this helps. --TimTay (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
iphone problems
I am an iphone user. I posted the problems I have with my iphone in the iphone article, and they keep getting deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danalpha31 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because your edits were completely unsourced, see WP:RS. I just reverted them again for the same reason. – ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you are going to provide sources then post one which is reliable. Macblogz - an Apple rumour site by its own admission - is not a reliable source. If reliable sources have reported chipset problems then reinstate the information and cite them. --TimTay (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Disputes at Threshold (online game)
ResolvedI've been accused of being a "disgruntled ex-player" of this game by another user with a possible COI. His/her primary gripe appears to stem from my deletion of a good deal of content that is either non-notable or unverifiable. There's currently a discussion underway at Talk:Threshold (online game). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Shocking* that Mendaliv is accused of such things. Looked over it, can't really tell much, can you provide some diffs Mend, and maybe specify exactly what was contested? Also, I do feel that the parts of the article might fail WP:REPOSITORY or related in some ways, we're not a wiki on the game.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose this was the first major revert, with the edit summary of "removed massive amounts of vandalism". This turned into a short revert war which hit the edge of 3RR. Another editor did step in and restored a good deal of content here, though I disagreed with what was restored, and reverted requesting discussion (which didn't occur from that particular editor). What followed was an attempt at discussion that resulted as you see at Talk:Threshold (online game). (note that I'm assuming Cambios and the IP in question are the same editor, going by behavioral correlations)
- Just today the IP flatly reverted my more conservative trimmings of the article (as can be seen through even the inconsequential changes to the infobox get reverted). It's of note that those trimmings had followed another editor's intervention in the discussion (at my request) as he had been previously involved in editing the article (see here).
- Kind of a hornet's nest I've stirred up. What's really struck me as frustrating is the outright removal of article maintenance boxes (such as
{{unreferenced-section}}) when it's blatantly clear they belong. Any advice on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)- I've started an ANI thread on this matter, which is getting a significant response. I suppose this one has become superfluous. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which has coincidentally just been resolved due to the help of a few good people. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which section is it in coincidentally? Want to see how it turned out ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which has coincidentally just been resolved due to the help of a few good people. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've started an ANI thread on this matter, which is getting a significant response. I suppose this one has become superfluous. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I want a music article edited
I don't know the steps to take to get an article I'd like to submit to wikipedia edited. I'm guessing this is the first step —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.153.140 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not trying to pass the buck, but why don't you register a username then get someone to adopt you and give you help - Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Good luck with your article and thanks for taking an interest in Wikipedia. --TimTay (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- An article you write can be edited as soon as you submit it.
- You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
- Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
- If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Help with red links
I just finished data mining and importing a rather large collection of article titles from the Stanford quiz bowl archive. The results are linked from Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers. The result is a large list of red links to articles we should have. But I could use help cleaning it up, making redirects, etc. Any assistance that can be provided would be very welcome. Raul654 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
article deleted
several of our donors started an article for our non-profit, Healing Waters International. they wanted to describe what we do. the article has been deleted twice. i read one post and it was very short and simply a descriptive of who healing waters is, how it started, etc. no calls for donations, only a link to the home page. why would it be deleted?
dan brown CMO (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deelby (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The log shows the page has been deleted twice, once as blatant advertising and once as being insufficiently notable for inclusion. The former is addressable but the latter is more difficult. Until your organisation has received multiple, non-trivial, independent coverage, it will be difficult to show that it is yet a suitable topic for inclusion here. I hope this helps to explain the situation. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Kaplan College entry
Hi, I represent Teammazur and last year we posted an entry on the Kaplan College page that was subsequently deleted by an editor. We've revised and posted to the discussion page (per editor direction). What is the next step to getting it approved so it can be posted to the page?
Thanks, Teammazur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teammazur (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who or what is Teammazur? We require editors to edit as individuals, not as corporate bodies. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Bir Hakeim
I was researching this battle for a novel I am writing and noticed that the coordinates you have listed with google earth are incorrect. I was able to find the old turkish fort on google earth and it is several dozen miles north of your noted position. If you zoom in close enough and let your eyes relax you can see the outline of the remains of the fort even though it is the same color as the sand.
Here are the actual coordinates as per google earth:
"bir hakeim" lat=31.5937060711, lon=23.4801112214
Hope this helps, when I get published I can donate more than my time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.138.143 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for this - is there a published source from which this can be verified? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Determining if article is ready to mainspace
I'm starting to get slightly gray-haired about this. I'm fairly certain the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion, but other editors have expressed their concern that the intro of the article is overtly promotional. I fail to see this (though I've been known to be wrong at times ;) ), and would very much appreciate it if I could get some more opinions on the subject. And maybe even some help with the article? Cheers! — Twinzor Say hi! 04:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Notes for those reviewing: the article has been deleted twice in the past via AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitally Imported and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitally Imported (2nd nomination)), though the first one was overturned (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- So it has. The reasons were notability and lack of sources, both of which I feel have been addressed properly. But like I said, since it's been AfD'd twice I wont move it to mainspace until there's somewhat of a consensus. — Twinzor Say hi! 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you are only asking about the intro (as that's all I read), then the last part of the intro doesn't need to be there, and actually, I feel the intro can be condensed a bit, which might alleviate the "promotion factor" concern. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Leonard Cheshire
Page 3 of 5 does not print; its blank.
It took me ages to get here to report it!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.255.86 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Need more info - what browser, what operating system, what printer? I just printed the article Leonard Cheshire on my Macbook Pro using Firefox to an Epson inkject and a Lexmark laser, and it worked perfectly for all five pages. --TimTay (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you trying to print the printer-friendly version at this link (available by clicking the printable version link in the left-hand side toolbox of the Leonard Cheshire article)? – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Help with template.
ResolvedI created the Latest stable software and Latest preview release template pages for rTorrent and set it to Frequently updated in the infobox, but it seems like I didn't do it properly, as the infobox doesn't show latest version, can someone familiar with the templates fix it? The reason for it, is so that editors only need to update the template, and it will update the main page, along with other pages (such as list of BT clients) Thanks. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed it for you. I fell foul of the same thing a while back so remembered what to do. The "name" parameter in the infobox must match the name given to the sub-templates i.e. rTorrent. If you want the name to be "rTorrent and libTorrent" then you need to change the name of the sub-templates to match. --TimTay (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Zunch Communications - COI, etc
Resolved71.97.105.106, Jgs1129, 71.164.208.252, 96.226.13.146 reported by sc0ttkclark
- Page: Zunch_Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Users: 71.97.105.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jgs1129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.164.208.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 96.226.13.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If you look into the history closely, you'll see that these users are all undo-ing (with or without the undo feature by normal editing) article edits without reason and what looks like to be COI edits. I've added header tags to the article.
I need another opinion on this and to get advise on how to get through to the people associated with this company that these edits aren't allowed.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- This might actually be appropriate under either WP:AN or WP:ANI......did you leave a welcome message/warning message? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a more clear message would be in order, possibly with a welcome template for potential trouble users, I added in some fact and clarification templates. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed a bunch of peacock wording/promotional text. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Noian and Ukexpat for your help on this issue. I'm sure they will much more easily understand everything needed now. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- 71.97.105.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at it again, he just reverted the text changes! What's next? --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Jehochman put db-spam and Speedy Deletion flag on the article and temporarily blocked 71.97.105.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Article deleted, speedily, by JodyB. --Sc0ttkclark (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
editing help
ResolvedHi, I am trying to correct some erroneous info. and I have provided an edit summary but I am getting the following messages:
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to The Greatest RuHits. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Scam (RuPaul song). --Say Headcheese!-hexaChord2 21:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not vandalizing pages, I am simply trying to correct them.
How can I get my corrections to hold?
How can I delete a page altogether? There is no such project: "The Greatest RuHits"; it is completely false and the whole page should be deleted There is no such song: Scam (RuPaul song); it is completely false and the whole page should be deleted
How can I correct the following page: "Give It One More Try" - is not correct. The only releases were US as follows.
1. Give It One More Try - 3:17 2. Give It One More Try (RedTop's Radio Edit) - 3:26 3. Give It One More Try (Chris Rosa Remix) - 4:22 4. Give It One More Try (RedTop's Club Vocal Mix) - 7:13
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snacky212 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- This user might be completely right; I hope editors hold off on the warnings until this is sorted; the pages Scam (RuPaul song) and The Greatest RuHits are completely unreferenced. I can currently only confirm the existence of the single Give It One More Try via the albums ReWorked [2] and Red Hot [3] --Jh12 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I think the reason you're being accused of vandalism is that you're removing content, and even blanking a page, without always giving an explanation. If you think a topic is falsified, then try using {{hoax}} or request speedy deletion. If that doesn't work then you can try going to AfD. It would be helpful too if all the editors involved cited some sources; I haven't seen any sources cited for any version of the pages in question. Please bear in mind our requirement of verifiability.
- Only admins can delete pages. Any editor can request speedy deletion or nominate pages for the AfD process. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The pages Scam (RuPaul song) and The Greatest RuHits have been deleted as unsourced. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Request for Wikipedia Editor help
I have an article about biographies of living people that I had written last week, and it was deleted. Is there an editor that can review my article (about myself) and help get it published correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejaylee (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- We strongly discourage people from writing articles on themselves. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Tamil wikipedia
ResolvedI want to browse Vikipedia in Tamil language, my mother tongue. Is it possible? Please inform me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.60.254 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - just go to http://ta.wikipedia.org --TimTay (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
someone, has been deleting the postings for our church's information. whomever, has, as far as we can tell, vandalized the information posted regarding our Archbishop. and the Bogomil religion. we feel this is some form of discrimination. of a religious bases, or lack of religion.
the postings, would be for, or include.
j. meiers Jerald Meiers or Order of Bogomil Ancient Order of Bogomil.
and such.
This is an Orthodox Order, which is, and has been recognized by the Pope.
of the Catholic Church. And, added to the Catholic Encyclopedia.
So, we do not know, or understand, when real, true, and factual, current information
about our religion is being vandalized, and or Deleted ?
any help would be most welcome.
The Order of Bogomil of the Americas'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cysicborg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, J. Meiers was deleted per criterion A7 of the speedy deletion policy, which means the article did not make a clear "assertion of significance" of the subject. As far as I can tell, Jerald Meiers, Order of Bogomil and Ancient Order of Bogomil never existed as articles.
- I've left a welcome message at your talk page which will point you to some helpful articles on how to edit on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Validity of cleanup templates
StaleOnce one has spent some time working on article issues which are the subject of cleanup templates, especially ones placed at the top of the page, is there then a prerogative to demand that said templates either be made more specific or else no longer be present? Case in point: Talk:Bates_method#Primary_sources_tag. See edit summaries and our user talk pages for more context. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- My own view of it is that in almost all cases, unless it's patently obvious what needs to be cleaned up (
{{wikify}}is one probable case), a maintenance tag should always be accompanied by a talk page discussion which elaborates on the problems as seen by the person placing the tag. Maint tags themselves are not intended to be "badges of shame" for the problematic articles, but rather flags to interested editors indicating what might bear improvement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
vandalisim of the "as of" template
Resolved{{as of}} has been fully protected as a highly visible template now. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)someone has vandalised the "as of" template with nazi propergander. i dont now how to revert it.--Grim23 (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Both lots of vandalism by this user, plus a load more on other articles, have been reverted and the user's IP address blocked for a year. For future reference, click "History" at the top of a page, click "last" next to the revision you wish to revert then click "Undo" - this will allow you to undo another person's contribution. Be sure to put an explanation in the edit summary of why you are reverting the change. --TimTay (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The dual named village in Serbia: JERMENOVCI ( also oficially called as ÜRMÉNYHÁZA )
Dear Editor,
This is a personal appeal requesting Wikipedia to consider creating a new subject title.
There is a comprehensive Wikipedia article, in English, directly in reference to JERMENOVCI, the subject village in Serbia. Yet there is no identical article appearing under the name of ÜRMÉNYHÁZA, te Hungarian name of the same village, which is officially recognised as alternate apellation. ÜRMÉNYHÁZA is in fact has been the original Hungarian name of the village since its foundation in 1817, and had changed to Jermenovci in 1921, following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The bulk majority of the village people are ethnic Hungarian speakers of Serbian nationality.
It would be only "fair" to provide to your readers and that village people with the identical Wikipedia information in English with the 2 photos now appearing under JERMENOVCI to also appear under the ÜRMÉNYHÁZA which is not directly referenced by Wikipedia at present.
Attila Ürményházi
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilau (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've redirected the page Ürményháza to Jermenovci, so the article is now accessible via either name. When conversing on Wikipedia talk pages please always sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically produce your signature & timestamp. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 14:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism Labels suddently attached to many of my contributions
ResolvedI have discovered that all of a sudden, there are numerous Vandalism labels attached to many of my contributions (I have made 265 to date), on my contributions page.
That has happened only during the last few days. Some are part of reversions (actually, wholesale deletions of what I wrote).
I have never posted anything in Wiki that can be even remotely described as vandalism, so I am at a loss to understand what is going on.
Is this a result of some new testing of a vandalism software bot?
I would appreciate an investigation as to why all those labels have suddenly appeared on my contributions list.
Thanks much,
EditorASC (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- This actually isn't your edits being flagged as vandalism. I'm guessing you recently installed Twinkle, and are referring to Twinkle's vandalism rollback button. This button is used to revert all the latest edits to and article from one user, and I see you've clicked this button a couple of times, reverting several talk page edits. Please see Twinkle documentation for further information on how the tool works. — Twinzor Say hi! 23:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, actually it was your edits after all being reverted as vandalism, but it was done by yourself as I described above. I've now reverted the affected talk pages, so everything should be fixed now. — Twinzor Say hi! 23:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well thanks so much for that quick bit of information. I turned on the Twinkle, on my gadgets page because it sounded like an increased efficiency tool that might come in handy, sometime in the future. However, I don't remember ever seeing any "buttons" to push to activate it???? So, I have now turned it off, since it seems to want to do its own thing without me being aware of what is going on.
- Twinkle is indeed a very usefull tool. The vandalism label you are referring to is actually the button I was talking about. Why it only shows for certain edits is because the button will only show for edits which are the most recent ones for the articles in question. If you feel Twinkle will be usefull to you you can keep it enabled, it does not do things on it's own, but having it enabled is of course by no means necessary. — Twinzor Say hi! 23:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Request for another eye on a list
Hello. I recently tried to clean up List of Pakistanis by referencing some redlinks, removing blatantly non-notable ones, removing backlinks to deleted articles, etc. [4]. However, User:Shaistakausar.pk continues to add back some of the links to deleted articles to the list [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Two of the entries which he adds has been A7 speedy deleted 3 times each [10] [11]. By looking at this users contributions, it seems that this is a WP:SPA with the sole purpose of getting these names listed on Wikipedia.
I've tried to communicate with the editor [12], but got no response. Since this is obviously becoming a slow moving edit war, which I have no desire to continue, I'm hoping someone else will intervene and either help me with the situation, advise me of a better way to handle it, or point out that I'm out of line if this is the case. I apologize if this is the wrong venue for this, but I'm not exactly sure what to do at this point. I considered going to WP:3PO since there are only two editors involved, but since there is only one-sided communication, I didn't think that solution really fits this issue. Thanks! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Need help renaming a category
ResolvedIs there an editor who has access to an automated tool that could help rename Category:Black hat seo to Category:Spamdexing. Wikipedia uses the term spamdexing to describe the set of practices that constitute black hat search engine optimization (SEO). The current category name is erroneous because it fails to capitalize SEO, and I believe it would be much better to use the same name as the most relevant article, and in the Template:Spamming navigation box. These articles have few editors, and I think the rename would be non-controversial, but if necessary we can have a discussion somewhere. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You should list this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (it does not appear to meet the criteria for speedy renaming). No automated tool is needed I would think to do the actual change as only fifteen pages are involved (it would take me less than 5 minutes).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Gloria Vanderbilt article
Good evening,
Earlier today, I corrected some substantial errors in the article on Gloria Vanderbilt. In doing so, I inadvertently deleted the References section, which I restored to a good degree, but apparently failed to do so completely as the original poster of the article left a none-too-happy message asking why I had "messed up the references." I apologized for my error, explaining I had done so by accident and had tried to fix it.
The problem now, however, is that she not only restored the References section, but the ENTIRE article -- errors and all. This means everything I'd corrected earlier is now there again.
I represent Miss Vanderbilt and we worked hard to maintain the integrity of what was already written while correcting the many errors and adding information that was pertinent to her life and career today. (I added some References to the originals so I believe I was following the rules...not just adding/correcting things on a whim.)
What can I do if someone can just come along and "un-correct" the corrections we made on these entries.
THANK YOU for any help!
And also, how does one make a "Reference" to a piece of information that has come directly from the source....for example, if I interview Miss Vanderbilt and she answers the questions, is noting that the interview was conducted by me on such and such a day enough to qualify as a Reference? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie58 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- You may want to look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, make sure you reference information correctly. Also bear in mind if you represent someone you may also have a conflict of interest. Pahari Sahib 00:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Activity from my company's IP
Hi, I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia. Recently I noticed a message above an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.31.152.102&redirect=no) regarding some vandalism of an article. The IP address 64.31.152.102 is used for all employees from our company's domain. What actions if any should I take to resolve this issue?
NOTE I tried follow the reporting instructions here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot/FalsePositives) but the REPORT link does NOT work.
thanks!
Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpx3155 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Depends what your intended outcome is. If you want to prevent access to Wikpedia by anybody from your company's IP address, you should block the site in your firewall settings. If you want to find out who made the offending edit, that's an internal matter for you and your company. Or, if you want to encourage responsible editing, suggest that anyone from your company who wants to edit creates a user account and always edits when signed in. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one warning for one single edit from that IP address in July 2008. There are no other recorded edits and the one that generated the warning was a childish bit of vandalism but not serious IMHO. If there were lots of edits happening and the IP address was being blocked - thus affecting other uses - then there would be an issue to sort out, but in this case 1 single edit is not worth bothering about. Besides, it isn't even clear from the WHOIS data what your company is called. All the names registered in there are ISPs - Alexia, Level3 and Genuity. --TimTay (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- <KP> TimTay - Thanks. Level3 is our ISP. We do want to encourage responsible editing... if people are going to do any editing. So we will ask that an account is used in the future.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpx3155 (talk • contribs)
- One additional point -- the rule is one account per editor, so you cannot create a single account for all employees to use when editing - please see WP:NOSHARE. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- <KP> TimTay - Thanks. Level3 is our ISP. We do want to encourage responsible editing... if people are going to do any editing. So we will ask that an account is used in the future.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpx3155 (talk • contribs)
Bio for Allen Forrest "Matchstik"
Hi,
I had my assistant add my bio to Wikipedia and we keep getting the deletion error message. I'm an independent artist with about 20,000 fans and I'm making my debuting in the first quarter so we are do doing all the necessary prepping for the surge that is coming. I'm already on public radio in Alabama reaching three states, Internet radio, featured on several major websites, and is the featured artist on a major video coming in in Jan.
If you could email back on how I could get the deletion of my page?
-Allen D. Forrest <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matchstik (talk • contribs) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.- Please see WP:COI and WP:N before creating an article about yourself. If you're truly notable, someone else will create an article about you in time. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Other pages to read: WP:BIO and WP:Spam Also note that per WP:NOSHARE you and your assistant may not share a user account. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Editing assistance in continuation war
ResolvedVandal user is deleting important fact coverd with tons of sources. Articel needs editing assistance!--Posse72 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- My quick take on it, admittedly without any appreciation for the substance of the dispute, is that you're trying to add a lengthy, unsourced, unencyclopedic counter-interpretation of events that consensus has already rejected. I undid the changes. JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- . . . which were rapidly reinserted by Posse72. Additional eyes welcome! JohnInDC (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, here we go again. The Wrong Version (tm), as usual. The huge chunk of unsourced POV text added by Posse72 is an exact copy of the text a long-standing permabanned (but relentless) sockpuppeteer user:Art Dominique has been trying to add ever since 2006. Once his attempts were thoroughly debunked, his arguments degenerated into rather amusing ad hominem attacks against his opposition (primarily, user:Whiskey and myself). That debate can be seen in its full glory here, KGB and all. Since then, he has been randomly attempting to reinsert the same piece of text over and over again, over the last two years(!). Oddly enough, user:Posse72, while sharing the same agenda with Art Dominique, has been much more reasonable and constructive in the past (see the current article talk page, for example). It is quite unusual that he would switch to this behavior all of a sudden. --Illythr (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any additional difs to show that Posse72 is a sockpuppet of Art Dominique? If you have some more diffs, he could perhaps be blocked as an evasive sockpuppet? Additionally, perhaps you could start a WP:RFCU request to establish a more firm connection? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is the strange thing here - their editing style is different and they do not appear to be related other than in sharing the same POV. Posse did revert war a bit in the past, but he had never tried to push this exact text before (although he expressed support for at least part of it, see the current talk page). Judging by Posse's continuing outbursts and characteristic spelling errors, I think he's still the same person as before, i.e., not a sock of Art Dominique. Why did he decide to push this long-debunked version and, once reverted, start to pretend that it is being deleted by vandals (in very much the same way Art Dominique did, see this rambling post for an example) is beyond me. --Illythr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is not inconceivable that an old banned user learns, through trial and error, to be able to cover their tracks and deliberately appear to be a different person. There has been one rather famous case (in the interest of WP:DENY I will not name them, experienced users will know who) where a long-banned user and serial sockpuppeteer worked one of his socks into becoming an actual admin; the plot only unraveled when he began behaving erratically by unblocking some of his earlier obvious sockpuppets. A determined user can cover their tracks for some time and intentionally cultivate new personalities; however they usually come home to roost; which is what I suspect here. I am not comfortable, as an admin, blocking without some further proof beyond this, however if you made a checkuser request at WP:RFCU, it may help to set this situation straight. I will also ask that other admins perhaps weigh in here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, since 2006, an edit war on Continuation War has continued. How ironic. --Russavia Dialogue 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is an option of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions for dealing with such topics. --Russavia Dialogue 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no. In fact it seems that even now and then User:Art Dominique manages to create a new account and tries to add the same debunked section time and time again... And usually Digwuren is used to ban him immediately. But Posse, I don't believe he is the same as Art Dominique, and typically what he wants to add to the article is different what Art Dominique wants. (I'm really surprised that he tried to add first two times that Art Dominique stuff, but at third time he fell back to his typical edits.) I believe that we can calm him again also this time with reason. --Whiskey (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I filed a Checkuser request anyway, just to be sure, and it came out as unlikely. I think it was something of a lapse of judgment by Posse, as his behavior and this particular request strikes me as very unusual. Posse is highly convinced that he is doing the Right Thing, and convincing him otherwise is difficult, but not impossible. Perhaps we can try this first... --Illythr (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no. In fact it seems that even now and then User:Art Dominique manages to create a new account and tries to add the same debunked section time and time again... And usually Digwuren is used to ban him immediately. But Posse, I don't believe he is the same as Art Dominique, and typically what he wants to add to the article is different what Art Dominique wants. (I'm really surprised that he tried to add first two times that Art Dominique stuff, but at third time he fell back to his typical edits.) I believe that we can calm him again also this time with reason. --Whiskey (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is not inconceivable that an old banned user learns, through trial and error, to be able to cover their tracks and deliberately appear to be a different person. There has been one rather famous case (in the interest of WP:DENY I will not name them, experienced users will know who) where a long-banned user and serial sockpuppeteer worked one of his socks into becoming an actual admin; the plot only unraveled when he began behaving erratically by unblocking some of his earlier obvious sockpuppets. A determined user can cover their tracks for some time and intentionally cultivate new personalities; however they usually come home to roost; which is what I suspect here. I am not comfortable, as an admin, blocking without some further proof beyond this, however if you made a checkuser request at WP:RFCU, it may help to set this situation straight. I will also ask that other admins perhaps weigh in here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is the strange thing here - their editing style is different and they do not appear to be related other than in sharing the same POV. Posse did revert war a bit in the past, but he had never tried to push this exact text before (although he expressed support for at least part of it, see the current talk page). Judging by Posse's continuing outbursts and characteristic spelling errors, I think he's still the same person as before, i.e., not a sock of Art Dominique. Why did he decide to push this long-debunked version and, once reverted, start to pretend that it is being deleted by vandals (in very much the same way Art Dominique did, see this rambling post for an example) is beyond me. --Illythr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any additional difs to show that Posse72 is a sockpuppet of Art Dominique? If you have some more diffs, he could perhaps be blocked as an evasive sockpuppet? Additionally, perhaps you could start a WP:RFCU request to establish a more firm connection? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, here we go again. The Wrong Version (tm), as usual. The huge chunk of unsourced POV text added by Posse72 is an exact copy of the text a long-standing permabanned (but relentless) sockpuppeteer user:Art Dominique has been trying to add ever since 2006. Once his attempts were thoroughly debunked, his arguments degenerated into rather amusing ad hominem attacks against his opposition (primarily, user:Whiskey and myself). That debate can be seen in its full glory here, KGB and all. Since then, he has been randomly attempting to reinsert the same piece of text over and over again, over the last two years(!). Oddly enough, user:Posse72, while sharing the same agenda with Art Dominique, has been much more reasonable and constructive in the past (see the current article talk page, for example). It is quite unusual that he would switch to this behavior all of a sudden. --Illythr (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- . . . which were rapidly reinserted by Posse72. Additional eyes welcome! JohnInDC (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Need help with an edit war
Any change I tend to make on this page Slither_(2006_film) seems to end up being considered either POV or vandalism by Special:Contributions/65.100.89.131 even though all the cites I used checked out. And I've made some mistakes in the way I went about this initially but most tries at a comprise now are usually met with I'm vandalizing the page, so much so that the addition of a quote (and even little changes) to the article has led to a previous agreed upon comprise to be reverted out of what I believe to be spite, and I believe if I revert it back, I'll probably get reported as a vandal by him. And if I am wrong about all this I'd at least like an admin or an editor to tell me rather than someone from an IP address. Apologies if this in the wrong place.76.205.67.87 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Continous deletion of the data and reference by 202.74.244.18
An anonymous editor of IP address 202.74.244.18 has been continuously deleting data and references from the articles Raja Ganesha and Shamsuddin Iliyas Shah and reverting my edits without any citation. Please guide me for future editing of these two articles.Joy1963 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- As this is a content dispute, you should first attempt to discuss it with the other editor(s) on the articles' talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
User taken image repeatedly being added
Hi, in the article One Ring user Darth Mike is adding a self taken image to the article. I don't think it should be there so could some admin decide on the relevance of the image please.
thanks
Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? It's an accurate depiction of The Ring, the copyright is not in question... Seems fine to me. Proxy User (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine; while it might not be a pic of the "actual" One Ring, it's definitely illustrative of the culture surrounding this particular fiction. While it might not necessarily be the best choice for the first pic in the article (it would look best in a "popular culture" or similar section with a discussion of people owning such replicas), it's still very illustrative and a good image. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Status of Mug Shots
Resolved{{PD-FLGov}}, answered at WP:MCQ#Copyright Status of Mug Shots. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)What would the acceptability and copyright status of mug shots taken by local and state police departments and distributed to the public and press be? I'm spacifically talking about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeffrey_Epstein_mug_shot.jpg? I recieved a message on my "Talk" page disputing the copyright, and thus having it at Wikipedia. But look, it *WAS* distributed free of charge to the press and anyone who asked the Palm Beach cops for it. Proxy User (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- This question was answered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_Status_of_Mug_Shots Thanks. Proxy User (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Music Box (album)
I would appreciate some advice on this please. As per Talk:Music Box (album), I have researched and found multiple verified sources that state a sales range for this album. I have also tried to specify why the existing reference is not a verified source - alas, other editors do not care what I write, and simply reverse it - to the point I even ended up getting myself blocked for breaching the 3RR rule (was justified - I breached it). But for future reference and guideance, how am I able to stop creating an edit war, what is the best approach to get verified sources imposed vs one that is not? ... or am I infact wrong with my assessment? The article in question states many sales as fact, which are way beyond any other reference and some physically impossible to have achieved. ~btw, I did ask for admin to comment on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but to no avail. Eight88 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Password
StalePlease, help me now! I don't know my password. The User:Julianster changed it for no reason whatsoever. He told me he changed it from (redacted) to a misplacing of the word "(redacted)". I didn't tell him to do or did I ask him to do this. But please I need help. And if you can't find out my password and change it back to (redacted), can I start a new user and get rid of my old one. Please, I am in serious need of help. User talk:Christianster45 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Erm... it's a rather bad practice to give out your password, even if it isn't working as far as you know... you're just asking for someone else to seize control of your account. I do believe WP:GOTHACKED says that an admin is supposed to indef block your account and let you start a new one, since there's effectively no way for us to know who is in control of the compromised account at that point. However, as I don't think there's been any behavior that indicates it's a compromised account (yet), it won't get blocked.
- Short answer, you might want to start a new account. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have look at the above article infomercial and do the right thing? It is a prod I restored upon protest and while searches show the subject appears to have some notability (so I decided against AfD), it probably requires almost stubbifying. To do that well requires a careful read and careful separation of the wheat from the chaff. I do not have the stomach for it. I have nothing against the man but the subject matter is not to my liking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned that is blatantly promotional of the man and his activities so I am tagging it for speedy, G11. – ukexpat (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I considered it, but felt that I never feel comfortable doing so myself once I have become involved. I guess this was my cowardly way of getting the same result but in a way that would allow a third party to make the decision independently.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
LIBELOUS POST NEEDS TO BE REMOVED
ResolvedI just noticed a mean-spirited, libelous posting about me personally on a Wikipedia page. How do I have this removed and find out who posted this, as it is illegal? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FADEINMAG (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- You need to point us towards the article in question, if possible, for a start. If you don't want to do it openly, you can e-mail OTRS and point out the article - take a look at this page for information and links. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The page and edit in question is the Fade In page. It had a conflict of interest statement from an obvious disgruntled person of interest "She also has been known not to pay people and stiff them completely after she hires them." The edit has been removed but how does one find out who the editor is that posted this libel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8ofspades (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The edit has been removed; it was placed by an anonymous editor, and thus can't really be traced. Please note that your main account has been blocked as a role account, and using other accounts to get around that block is a violation of our sockpuppet rules. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Be careful throwing around words like "illegal" and "libel" where the context could imply a legal threat. – ukexpat (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Frank Sinatra page
hello editors, someone has deleted the entire page on Frank Sinatra. at this point in time, the only entry on that page is an AD for mountain dew soda. thanks, sofia poullada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.113.249 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Large number of new redirects
ResolvedUser:YouTubeFan123 (currently banned) created a large number of redirects. His goal was apparently to create one per each mission in Grand Theft Auto (a videogame). My questions are: is it appropriate for me to start cleaning these up (through RfD), or is there an appropriate community process for me to follow? Can I get some assistance in getting these deleted? Is there a faster way to go about this? Thanks. -- smurdah[citation needed] 19:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that YouTubeFan123 is blocked not banned, thus it's not been made clear that all or any of his/her contribs should be treated as bad faith. However, I think your best bet if you want to knock out the redirs is to mass-nominate them at RfD with a fairly good rationale; I think WP:RFD#DELETE #7 may be appropriate to delete, but someone may argue that WP:RFD#KEEP #3 and #5 are also appropriate reasons to keep. I really don't have a strong opinion either way on these. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware of the difference between blocking and banning; I didn't mean anything by using one instead of the other. I'll go ahead and look into doing a mass-nomination. Thanks again! -- smurdah[citation needed] 20:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mixing up blocking and banning is pretty common, it's no big deal, I just thought I'd correct it since there's a significant difference in how blocked and banned users' contributions are treated. Anyway I see you've made the RfD discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 9#Back Alley Brawl → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I'm marking this resolved. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware of the difference between blocking and banning; I didn't mean anything by using one instead of the other. I'll go ahead and look into doing a mass-nomination. Thanks again! -- smurdah[citation needed] 20:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sexually transmitted disease - IP editor not responding
The page Sexually transmitted disease has been subject to edits by what appears to be one user, using various IP addresses (e.g. 190.148.78.88, 207.42.189.210, 65.167.24.131 ) who won't discuss edits. I assume it is one user because they have a similar editing pattern (whole string of edits to make a small change, make some of the same changes, don't use edit summaries), the problem is that they keep reasserting the same edits with no explanation when edits are questioned or reverted, and so far have refused to respond to messages on their talk page or discussion posts on article talk page. Suggestions of how to deal with the situation would be appreciated. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)