Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 41

correction to Info. on Domingo Tibaduiza

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Info. on myself is wrong and I want to make it right by editing the content. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtibaduiza (talk • contribs) 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of your conflict of interest please discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you think should be made. Please make sure that you have reliable sources to support your proposed edits. Hope this helps.  – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt at editing your article got reverted by user:Darius Dhlomo because the edit you made had indadvertently messed up the wikicode. I have put back in for you the information on your Summer Olympics history. I did not quite understand what you were trying to add in the infobox. As Ukexpat said above, the best way is for you to ask someone else to put the information in, either on the article talk page or here. If you were trying to add more medals, you will need to to tell us a source that confirms the information, The Pan American Sports Organization results page does not seem to work. It is a rule at Wikipedia that all facts on articles of living persons must be referenced, so we need a source before we can put it in. The same goes for personal information, it needs to be confirmed before it can be added. SpinningSpark 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

movie reviews

Resolved

 – Not such a good idea. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello I seek your assistance in how I can publish movie reviews please. I attempted to place External Links to a couple fo movies, yet I had a massges stating that they had been removed for some reason. Can you explain? thanks hymie8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymie8 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider reading MOS:FILM#Critical recpetion and WP:ALBUM#Review sites to understand what sort of reviews are acceptable. ^LeaveSleaves 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

commercial links

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the ethical position of referencing an article with links that require you to sign up for a membership, with a fee, before being able to access the information? Rev107 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean. If you mean something like, using a newspaper article as a ref, but it's only available online if you pay the publisher or subscribe to some database for access, I'd just leave the weblink out and cite the newspaper as an off-line resource. As to material that's only available to subscribers... it's questionable in my opinion exactly how verifiable such information would even be. I guess it depends on what the material is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you cite a newspaper as an offline source if the source can not be verified because of registration restrictions? Maybe it's a good source, maybe not. If the only source is inaccessible and the information unavailable elsewhere, it's probably not information and should not be used. Proxy User (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We assume good faith on the part of the person providing the citation to a non-online source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Most peer-reviewed journal articles are also behind subscrition walls if you are not in an academic institution. Newspapers are acceptable offline sources because they can be checked in libraries, online or in microfilm if the worst comes to the worst.ChrisPer (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gonzales Weekly Citizen article

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Gonzales Weekly Citizen" has been flagged. I would appreciate any help on getting it improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtortorich (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the good news is that Gonzales Weekly Citizen has not been nominated for deletion, it is tagged for lack of notability. You can find the notability guidelines at WP:NOTE. We do not have specific guidelines for newspapers, but I suggest you read the guidelines for websites and books which will give you an idea of what's required. Fundamentally, you need to find reliable sources that are independant of your newspaper with significant non-trivial coverage. Involvement in notable historical events will help, as will any significant independant awards. SpinningSpark 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it to The Gonzales Weekly Citizen per naming conventions. I have also removed the present and past staff lists as I don't think they are encyclopedic. The article is not out of the woods -- it will need further references in case it is proposed for deletion or taken to an AFD discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

edits in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

sorry to bother someone with this but i feel i am getting a bit of harsh treatment

i made an edit to the plot synopsis section to try and make clear that the end scenes of the film are in fact much earlier, thus giving a time reference for the "object falling..." as being much earlier than the body of the film from the party onwards

this was edited out, and so i posted this on the discussions page :-

synopsis

Knulclunk removed this :-

(This is, however, many days before the start of the film and shows the two main characters on Coney island before they meet again at the start of the party).

his reason was "i dont think this is right"

well it is right so i have put it back

opening sequence dated "APR 27 6:41AM" (1min30secs into film) shopping before party dated "MAY 22 6:43PM" (3min58sec) party scene start dated "MAY 22 7:20PM" (5min16sec) end seq (fairground) "APR 27 6:17PM" (1hr13min14sec)

and don't edit this out again thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

for this reason i reposted the comment back into the synopsis as being correct and yet again knulclunk took it out, this time as he considers it "not needed"

i have added it again with slightly different context and am looking for a way to keep this in without someone editing the page as their personal opinion is "its not correct" when my evidence shows that it is indeed correct .

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is always difficult for uninvolved parties to decide who is right and who is wrong in a factual dispute. The solution on Wikipedia is to provide references - the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. This may sound strange if this is the first time you have heard this, but that is how it has to work here, other editors have to have a means of checking the facts that you insert. Any statement that is not referenced can be deleted by an editor if they do not think it is right. Before you put it back, the onus is on you to cite your sources. SpinningSpark 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

many thanks for your prompt reply

i understand the need for references and of verifiability, i too am a person that believes that truth oftentimes has to be evidenced as fact by reliable reference.

the main problem is that in 50 lines of text of this synopsis there are only two references, the rest of the material is un-referenced and it is unlikely that i would be able to find a reference to that one particular point.

however i do not wish to cause any problems over this small issue, it just seems strange that an editor would do that without any reference to dispute resolution, i do not know whether he read my comment on the talk page, but after finding the edit back in he did not respond to my comments with a discussion nor helpful hint. I would have perhaps accepted a comment [citation needed] and him explaining the reasons for his actions.

it would be a shame if one had to accept that editors can choose to ignore simple discussion and reasoning and can just take out someones contribution with the reason "i don't think this is true" and when they find it back in they simply remove it again

anyway i have taken up enough time and consideration on both your and my behalf on this now lol

thanks again for taking the time to reply

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. happy landings !

To SpinningSpark; your reasoning confuses me. I just got finished watching the movie myself. It is done as if it is filmed on a hight-tech video camera. As such, many of the scenes have a date stamp right on them. As such, we know that the Coney Island scenes happened well before the 'main' events of the movie. Lots42 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request assistance in edit war

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a number of contibutions to the BLP page "Donald Luskin". Someone with the user name "Gamaliel," who I believe is some kind of "administrator" at Wiki, keeps re-editing the page in a way that disparages the BLP subject Mr. Luskin by (a) adding emphasis to negative elements about him, (b) removing positive elements, (c) putting "fact" tags on sky-is-blue statements that make the whole page look unreliable. This is an attack on Mr. Luskin's reputation, and I have reason to believe it is politically motivated. Mr. Luskin is a high-profile conservative, and judging by the picture of Barack Obama on "Gamaliels" page, he must be a liberal. Wiki is not about politics. It is about facts. "Gamaliel" is abusing his position as an "administrator" or whatever he is by using Wiki to disparage Mr. Luskin's reputation in a manifestly unfair way.

I am not a Wiki power user -- I barely know how to use it. "Gamaliel" appears to have all the power, and he's not afraid to use it to get his way. I would like to pursue some kind of mediation in order to make him stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscod (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this user has been previously blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry. He has refused talk page discussion and has been consistently rude and insulting. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There'll be some talk page discussion here shortly, because I'm going to full-protect for a week and demand that there be discussion before any further changes are made. That's an egregious edit-war, with a total lack of willingness to discuss from one side. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a second set of eyes

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been having issues with a user, and it came to the point I requested mediation, which he refused. I want a second opinion on how I could have handled the situation better. I honestly didn't want it to come to that level, and thought I was doing it right, but obviously I wasn't. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted entry: Socioblogging

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I and other publishers added content to a new entry entitled "socioblogging". The entry included internal and external links as well as a robust description of the concept. As it is a relatively new concept in cyber space, there are limited references in which to point to. I appreciate this article being undeleted or if there is specific further information you need, please let me know. I imagine this concept will be defined much further over time.

Thanks and best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.117.197 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the article was deleted because it was not supported by reliable sources. You are of course free to recreate the article once the concept is in wider use and can be cited from reliable sources. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to ask User:SchuminWeb, the admin who deleted the article, if they would undelete it to a user subpage so you can work on it.Strike that per Tony Fox's message below. Keep it deleted.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, as this was deleted by a proposed deletion, an editor could challenge that PROD and have the article restored to go through an AFD. I'm hesitant to do so, however, since looking at the deleted revisions, it was edited exclusively by three single-purpose accounts, and featured prominent mentions of a certain "socioblogging" site that shares a name with the article creator. Looks like it was a neologism set up to provide some promo for that site, at my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an editor on the E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) article. I frequently ask people to discuss changes and not to add unimportant/trivial info. Still some people edit sections and only cite unreliable sources. On the discussion page of the article (Talk:E=MC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)#Concerns) I created a section dealing with the problems some users obviously have with this article. Some of them responded, others kept reverting/editing without arguing or giving any reason. So I warned them/invited them to discuss it, but still no response, some of them just blanking their user talk pages. (e.g.: User_talk:JuStar#E.3DMC.C2.B3, User talk:89.214.232.135, User talk:88.203.66.194) So I tried to revert their edits and got banned (3RR) although it says here:

What is not vandalism: Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing

My question is: What can I do to make people talk about their edits or accept it when they're wrong? One administrator said I should read this: Dispute resolution, but I can't see how this should help me. Reidlos (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You should ask for outside help. If there are several uninvolved editors who have commented on a situation, it gives weight to a consensus version of an article, and users who repeatedly refuse to abide by consensus can be blocked for disruption. However, as long as it is a two-person back-and-forth, its simply an edit war, and both sides may be blocked for perpetuating it. The dispute resolution page contains several options for seeking help in stopping an edit war; you may want to try WP:3O or WP:RFC or in the worst cases WP:MEDCAB may help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to American exceptionalism by User:Gregorik.

Stale

 – --Gregorik (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate the help of other editors in confirming whether or not the plethora of citations recently added to American exceptionalism are or are not original research or synthesis of unpublished research. I would appreciate the assistance of other editors in verifying cited sources.

I believe that several of the sources added have been added in a deliberate attempt to push a POV and use sources that do not verify the information given.

User:Gregorik stated yesterday regarding my tagging of his assertions that they are "easily refuted; also, anon edits are not to be taken too seriously in a case like this, sorry." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_exceptionalism&diff=267363076&oldid=267362550)

I have credible reasons to edit anonymously. Since others have usernames, I would appreciate if they could potentially look into whether my tagging was valid or not.

Thanks for looking into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.226.132 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An important point: the previous anon request is outdated. The article changed much since then; this is the current, arguably more balanced state: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_exceptionalism&oldid=267501719 Gregorik (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the article should not read either as a conservative or a liberal manifesto. Please ignore recent anonymous edits and look at the current revision, thanks. Gregorik (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Anon user is still requesting editor assistance into investigating the diff, as well as the subsequent edits. User:Gregorik shows a pattern of tendenicious and abusive editing practices. This request is not outdated, and Anon intends to pursue the dispute resolution process, if necessary.72.70.247.168 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors, please judge for yourself on the basis of the current revision; this is a truly controversial article, but its current state (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_exceptionalism&oldid=267844355) is arguably more balanced than before my edits. I was the one who added the article to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias in the first place.[1] Gregorik (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

dispute re: occupational title Dr. Phil

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has to do with whether or not it is correct to describe Phil McGraw as a psychologist.

On the discussion page, under Not a psychologist?, I have discussed the issue at length, essentially arguing that he is not a psychologist. It is a title with a specific meaning.

The discussion has essentially involved myself and one other editor. Consensus has not emerged.

On one occasion, I edited the main article, removing the title "psychologist" as his occupation. I did so in good faith, assuming that would generate discussion leading to consensus. Otherwise, I have confined myself to discussion; this is not an edit war.

The other editor says that I am simply repeating the same argument. In fact, I have continued the discussion by bringing new information to the table, in response to his having introduced new points of dispute.

The discussion has become somewhat caustic, on both our parts.

In brief, Dr. Phil does not and cannot use the title "psychologist." The other editor says that "The issue is what are the criteria for calling him a psychologist on Wikipedia."

I am requesting assistance to resolve this dispute.

Thank you. Pgm8693 (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the other editor. Pgm8693 and I have an honest disageement. The biggest problem I have is that he basically has repeated the same argument (with some variations -- but very little new information) over and over and over. I have encouraged Pgm8693 again and again and again to read WP:CON and pursue suggestions there because two editors who disagree do not make a consensus. I'm glad he finally decided to address the issue somewhere beyond Talk:Phil McGraw because for a very long time it appeared that his approach to consensus was to repeatedly try to convince me to change my mind using basically the same argument each time. As I said, it's an honest disagreement, and I think we both are reasonably informed on the matter. The issue is not adequate sourcing. There are reliable sources on both sides of the issue. The issue is deciding the criteria for determining whether Phil McGraw can have the title of pychologist in the article. Pgm8693 has repeatedly tried to persuade me that the contents of Wikipedia's article should depend on state laws and professional ethics, despite that fact that numerous other Wikipedia articles on psychologists do not have that information in their articles. I have no problem if the consensus is to remove the title in McGraw's article. What I have tried over and over to get Pgm8693 to understand is that this is an issue of consensus, that consensus is not achieved by two editors on opposite ends of the issue, and that repeatedly trying to convince me to change my point view is not the proper way for him to proceed. He needs guidance in dispute resolution and consensus. I don't think he wants to hear that from me because I am the one opposing his position. I'm happy to discuss this further with anyone involved in the dispute resolution process. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved via compromise. Goodwill restored. Pgm8693 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

World War II Online dispute

Moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

 – SpinningSpark 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the World War II Online page, specifically on the criticism section. Could we get a moderator or a third party? Thanks! DocVM (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A moderator has also been requested at the Mediation Cabal. It should only be dealt with at one place. SpinningSpark 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kate Tucker is redirected

Resolved

 – SpinningSpark 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Search for Kate Tucker leads to the page for the band HANSON, with this message:"(Redirected from Kate Tucker)". As far as I know there is no connection between the two. Is there a Kate Tucker page somewhere? Is there a way of turning off the redirection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TouristInTheCity (talk • contribs) 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. When the search redirects to Hanson, there is indeed a small message below the title, and the link to Kate Tucker is clickable. That'll show you the actual redirect and you can also see the history as well as editing the page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• There was an article, but it was only a short stub[2], The content was merged to Zachary Hanson, which was later merged to Hanson (band). Part of this has now been split to Zac Hanson, so I've changed the redirect, it now points to Zac Hanson#Personal life and has the appropriate redirect templates. —Snigbrook 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is another person with the same name that Wikipedia should have an article about, the redirect could be moved to a disambiguated title, possibly Kate Tucker (model), and a new article could then be created with the title Kate Tucker. —Snigbrook 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

HotBasic Page

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support,

This page is full of claims that aren't even close to reality.

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

Please review and restore the notability request that was deleted by the author of HotBasic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.255.86 (talk • contribs)

I have put notability and citation templastes in the article and put a note on the talk page requestion action. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS When posting comments, always sign by putting 4 tildes at the end. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

After nomination for WP:PROD, which was removed by User:HotBasic, subsequent WP:AfD, threats by User:HotBasic, the article has been speedily deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Champneys

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ptreadaway (talk · contribs) is editing Champneys‎ using text from the official website, claiming that their "company is responsible for looking after the online presence of Champneys Health Resorts". They have been given info on what to do in regard to releasing the website text under the GFDL and have been pointed towards the guidelines at WP:COI. My concern is that, even if they do have full permission to use the text, the article will end up looking like a brochure for the resorts. I would appreciate an extra eye or two on what goes into the article (ie. opinions on whether the changes made have been appropriate), or advice on where else to take this. Thank you. – The Parting Glass 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne has cleaned it up considerably already, although some references are still needed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw the request here and have had a go at removing some of the advertising and large amount of non-notable contents. Left a note on the article talk page and at Ptreadaway talk page asking him/her not to edit the article but to use the article talk page for comments and observations. It does need some independent references and citations. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you. – The Parting Glass 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gun_politics_in_Australia, rewrite for accurate neutral view

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
as i'm new to wiki and to have some arbitration with the finished product, i wish to request assistance in rewriting this page to present a balanced position, while working with 3 or 4 people
i think someone with writing skills and who is able to perceive australian gun politics though australian or european general gun culture would be needed,
thank you Jack v1 (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has attempted to kick-start discussion at WikiProject Firearms about this, and it also looks like there's a bit of discussion at Talk:Gun politics in Australia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor who is reverting Jack v1. I agree with him that the article has tended to have NPOV problems, but that is only because the pro-control partisans tend to be drive-by editors. The specific reverts that bothered him were because his edit removed the point of the sentence.

Jack v1 asked if the 'government position' should be regarded as the neutral ground; it is a major stakeholder and actor on one side of the politics, and NPOV is better handled via neutral and fact-based language than adopting one party's line. Happy to have all assistance in improving the article, especially if editors are willing to actually cite better sources which we need. The talk page at Gun_politics_in_Australia is active, please visit.ChrisPer (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Still hoping for editors to drop by at Gun_politics_in_Australia and help with NPOV. The editor Jack v1 who initiated this request has not been around for a little while, but I would be glad of your help. ChrisPer (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No editors have stopped by to help make the article more NPOV as yet. One editor apparently from Gun COntrol Australia inserted a section displaying fairly extreme NPOV problems, which I moved to use in the article as an example of their thinking. Still want assistance or suggestions to improve NPOV and quality of the article. ChrisPer (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lily Kempson

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An article I researched, wrote, and contributed (about 2 years ago) has been deleted. Its title was "Lily Kempson". By whom? On what grounds? Why was I not notified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkbakayaro (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by Renata3 (talk · contribs) per CSD A7 (article doesn't assert notability of the subject). You can contact the deleting admin on his/her talk page and then ask for a deletion review if necessary. –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nearing edit war on Stephen Gostkowski article

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor (from 83.31.*), a few days ago, decided to add this note to Stephen Gostkowski article immediately after the pronunciation: "however, in Polish, this pronunciation is improper." Attempts to remove this have resulted in reverts; with the claim that "this is important." Given how unusual it is for an article to state how a name "should" be pronounced, I've asked the editor to explain why such information justifies such prominent placement, to no avail; moreover, the editor has said "don't reply on my talk page." Samer (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if he refuses to communicate then I guess WP:3RRN is the way to go. –Capricorn42 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I struggle to see what your problem is. The IP editor is from Poland, this is a Polish surname and it would be pronounced with a "K" in the original language like "(pronounced "gost kov ski" in Polish) then by compromising in this way a) you add value to the article and b) you get rid of the edit war. Speaking of which I'd say you are just as guilty of 3RR as the IP editor. --TimTay (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The IP editor is not adding the actual Polish pronunciation to the article, just the phrase "however, in Polish, this pronunciation is improper" in reference to the English pronunciation. [3] Even if the original Polish pronunciation of the name were relevant to the article, which I don't think it is because the subject was born in the United States and has spent his entire career here, that's not useful information. The IP editor would arguably have been helping if they had added a sentence stating what the original pronunciation of the name was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Author Biographies

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of authors of Oxford Children's Books, I'd like to start new articles containing their biographies, bibliographies and some images. However, I am not sure how to achieve this without infringing verfication or original research policies, as the information that I have is straight from the authors. How would I reference the information for these pages?

Also, I would like to link each author page to our Oxford Children's Book website, but am unsure whether this would fall under conflict of interests - please advise.

Oxford Children's Books (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that another editor has already noted on your user talk page that your username appears to be problematic, so won't get too deep into that. However, as you do work for the company in question, your creating articles and editing the ones already in place that represent authors under that impression is very much against our conflict of interest guidelines. Generally, an author who is notable enough for inclusion will have an article created by a person independent of the company. I suggest that you first consider a username change or start a new account under a new name, then consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature and offering suggestions there - I'm sure the editors participating in that project would be happy to discuss your suggested additions. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue against the username change, solely for the fact that you are advising companies to sign up as a "un-affiliated user" when they really are, still confused about policies, and editing as if they were. This makes identification of such users harder. I'm more of an advocate of "have a editor guide said company/person in determining notability, and through wikipedia policies on a few articles, lessening the learning curve, and then, they hopefully will become a beneficial contributor to the project. I endorse going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be at odds with WP:SPA which argues against single purpose accounts and clearly contrary to WP:UN. – ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not contrary to WP:UN. Company names are not forbidden, it is a problem if it is being used for promotion (url of a website for instance) but is not specifically against policy. I am with Noian, it is better to have peoples affiliations out in the open. It is quite against Wikipedias' interests to have them forced to hide them. SpinningSpark 01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd debate the point, but it's moot, as another admin has blocked the account and requested a username change. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DAVID DOMANICH

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ON THE LIST OF PEOPLE HE PRODUCED / WORKED WITH, A VERY IMPORTANT ARTIST, FREDDIE FRY IS DELETED,, DAVID DOMANICH, PRODUCED " RESONATOR" BY FREDDIE FRY HE ALSO PLAYED DRUMS, MELLOTRON,, AND DID BACKGROUND VOCALS ON THAT EXCELLENT CD , WHICH FEATURES MIKE DALY , FROM WHISKEYTOWN ONE OF RYAN ADAMS' LAST BANDS BEFORE GOING SOLO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.135.187 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm.....content dispute? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell what article this is in reference to. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has never had an article titled David Domanich, so I don't know what we are supposed to do about this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a request to create David Domanich or add his name to other articles? Hard to tell over the SHOUTING! – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's "Stranger in Moscow" and Sega's "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" ending credits theme

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have some advice on how to best incorporate the "fact" that Sonic the Hedgehog 3 featured a version of the song Stranger in Moscow two years prior to it's official release on Michael Jackson's HIStory album. This is pretty much straight forward and can be concluded with a quick search on youtube.

See Stranger in Moscow and my Edit, which got undone. I provided a source which proves the claim but it has been tagged as an unreliable source. The Sonic the Hedgehog 3 article on wikipedia mentions this fact.

PabloGS (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; a fansite is generally not considered an "exceptional source". If it's a credible claim rather than a fringe theory it seems likely that mainstream gaming and music publications would have carried it by now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sonicretro.org is a very well reputated Sonic related site on the net. If that is not reliable enough, take a look at the Sonic 3 ending credits which lists Brad Buxer, Bobby Brooks, Darryl Ross, Geoff Grace and Doug Grigsby which all also worked on HIStory. Also, a quick look at http://www.musicpowers.com/cirocco.html would reveal, that composer Cirocco was working with Michael Jackson on the Sonic soundtrack. A quick search on youtube would also reveal that the songs are technically the same just at different pace and pitch. And I believe this deserves attention and is noteworthy since Mainstream media like YouTube or AOL video cover a broad variety of subjects regarding Michael Jackson's involvement in Sonic 3. PabloGS (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't use any of that technical evidence; it's original research. As to the musicpowers source, I'm not sure. You might want to ask the people at the reliable sources noticeboard, or maybe at the fringe theories noticeboard; the people there are more experienced with these sorts of cases. I may not be a specialist, but it genuinely doesn't look like the Sonicretro website qualifies as a reliable source for this sort of claim. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the talk to the Talk:Stranger_in_Moscow page. It is more appropriate there for future reference. Thanks for the Info! PabloGS (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing‎ and Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing‎

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Background

In WP:TE, editor Colonel Warden made a revert (18:36, 13 January 2009), undoing my own edit 04:21, 10 January 2009 and a new shortcut added by Inclusionist. Colonel Warden's edit summary indicated he objected to the new shortcut.

I reverted Colonel Warden's edit 19:00, 13 January 2009 , requesing that he join the discussions on the talk page.

His response was to start a new discussion 20:12, 13 January 2009 without addressing the actual discussion on the edits he was reverting here or the related discussion here.

I found his response to be a personal attack that did not actually address the merits of the information he restored, so removed the attack and left an uw-npa1 note on his talk page 20:30, 13 January 2009 .

At issue

Since then, two WP:SPA ip's have begun editing Wikipedia. Their sole edits to date are identical other than the edit summaries, and consist of restoring Colonel Warden's edits to both the article and the talk page. I've reverted these edits, and warned both ip's about our WP:NPA policy.

Request for assistance/advice

At this point, I'd like some advise on what to do if this continues. I'm going to avoid reverting, of course. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like WP:ANI is the correct place for this. – ukexpat (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

IS there seriously tendentious editing going on at WP:Tendentious Editing. I don't know whether to rofl or cry... Surely this is WP:LAME-worthy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When "reliable sources" aren't: proof that FactCheck is lying deleted from Obama talk page

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a section to the Barack Obama talk page that you can see here. It was quickly deleted by SHEFFIELDSTEEL; see the note here. I'd like to know which rules my comment broke, and, if it did break any rules, how to bring it into a form where it can be kept on the talk page for further discussion designed to improve the Barack Obama article.

I realize this is a very contentious issue and many people are unable to accept that FactCheck would lie. And, unfortunately, many people have been more or less trained to discount any discussion of Obama's birth certificate. However, if you review my comment with an open mind you'll see that I'm correct.

What this boils down to is the FactCheck statement that The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. However, if you review the statement from that director (PDF link at hawaii.gov, cached here) you'll see that she did not confirm where he was born. Then, take a look at the Hawaii state law that allows those born outside that state to get valid Hawaii birth certificates (link at hawaii.gov). That law - established in 1982 - means that FactCheck is making an assumption that - per Hawaii state law - might be false. That doesn't mean that Obama was born outside Hawaii. However, it does mean that those who definitively state that the HI DOH statement shows he was born in Hawaii are lying.

It's difficult to find what Wikipedia considers a "reliable source" to point that out, since many "reliable sources" other than FactCheck have been lying about this issue. See the full discussion and a list of the "reliable sources" that have lied here. LonewackoDotCom (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a review of WP:OR is all that's needed here, though WP:BLP applies as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm no expert but that explanation looks like original research (synthesis-wise) Untwirl (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the FactCheck page misstates the Hawaii release, I think one would need to evaluate the page as a whole to ascertain whether its conclusions are still viable. And even if they aren't, what reliable source is there for the (loaded) assertion, as fact, that FactCheck "lied"? Unsourced; POV; OR. JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted this request, my username (LonewackoDotCom) was blocked due to an apparent violation of naming rules; it was suggested I choose a new name, which I did. For proof it's me, see lonewacko.com/zxy4931-my-new-wikipedia-username.

As for my assertion that FactCheck is lying, I haven't yet mentioned that in December 2008 I emailed FactCheck and asked them for a correction. I later verified over the phone with Jess Henig from FactCheck that their editor, Brooks Jackson had received my email. She told me he would contact me, but he never did. So, I personally have absolutely no qualms about saying that FactCheck is lying, but Wikipedia can feel free not to go that far.

While the fact that FactCheck is clearly at the least misstating Hawaii's position and has no interest in correcting the matter doesn't necessarily negate everything else on that page, it certainly doesn't boost the credibility of what else is on that page.

And, the bottom line is that the Barack Obama article is relying on a FactCheck page that contains what any objective person would consider a false statement. Which is more important, a strict adherence to WP:OR, or keeping Wikipedia from spreading disinformation?

Please tell me exactly what I need to do to get the truth about this matter into either the Barack Obama article itself, or at least the talk page. ZXY4931 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Since you seem to be the one proposing an idea that is not supported by any reliable mainstream source on this, perhaps you should be finding source that positively confirm your interpretation of events. Merely having a source which you choose to read in a very specific way different from someone else does not mean that the people you disagree with are lying. Obama's citizenship is no more in question than any of his predecessors in the Office of President, and any claims to the contrary simply do not have any positive evidence to support them. If there were such evidence, it would be more than a statement by the Hawaii register of deeds refusing to release private medical records... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my argument. This has nothing to do with the "Hawaii register of deeds", and I never mentioned them. Further, I haven't argued whether or not Obama is a citizen; my argument is as stated above. Nor am I making an "extraordinary claim". Please read my argument thoroughly, read the links at hawaii.gov, and endeavor to understand my argument. It really isn't that difficult at all: FactCheck is misrepresenting what the state of Hawaii said. As for those "reliable mainstream sources", I already provided a list of some of those who've lied about this issue in my first posting here.

So far, it looks like all of Wikipedia's rules are stacked against my attempts to make sure that the Barack Obama entry is not relying on a "reliable source" that's spreading a false statement. And, Wikipedia is enabling them to spread that false statement.

Hopefully an editor who cares about Wikipedia's credibility will tell me what my options are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZXY4931 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is that your concerns seem to be shifting. This section, which you created, complains that an editor removed your commentary concerning "proof" that FactCheck had "lied". You had, of course, provided nothing of the kind - and what you had written was OR to boot. As the discussion has progressed, your concern has narrowed - it's no longer about FactCheck actually lying, or whether Barack Obama is a citizen (if that's not the concern then why all the fuss about this birth certificate?), or whether the FactCheck site still can reasonably be said to establish the thing it's cited for, this inaccuracy notwithstanding - but simply that Wikipedia has cited to a link with a factual error in it, and thereby is "spreading disinformation". If that is where you now in fact find yourself, I would start by figuring out what your actual point is, and then making it dispassionately and credibly on the Talk page of the article in question. You may have a bit of repair work to do in that regard - I hope you can appreciate how most editors would react with skepticism when evaluating your initial effort, which was after all a pretty obvious OR, POV and FRINGE complaint from someone with the user name "LoneWacko.com". JohnInDC (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid wasting everyone's time, please do your best to understand my argument. My argument has not "shifted". I say that FactCheck is lying based on them refusing to print a correction to a false statement. Anyone who examines the issue in an objective fashion will be able to see that they aren't telling the truth. How exactly Wikipedia wants to phrase that is part of the consensus I'm trying to reach; Wikipedia can say they're lying or simply that they aren't telling the truth or whatever.

As for the supposed "narrowing" of my argument concerning "whether Barack Obama is a citizen", please re-read what I wrote. You won't find me arguing for or against that or even mentioning whether he's a citizen or not.

As for your issue with my former domain name and username, I'm sure everyone recognizes that for a childish ad hominem.

Let me try this again: Wikipedia's entry about Barack Obama is prominently linking to (fourth footnote) and based in part on a page from FactCheck that contains a blatantly false statement. Whatever rules Wikipedia has, Wikipedia is enabling FactCheck to mislead people.

In order to improve the Barack Obama article and keep it from being used to mislead people, how do I change my original comment on the talk page into a format that's compatible with Wikipedia's rules? Surely, if Wikipedia wants to avoid helping mislead people, that must be possible, right? ZXY4931 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statements that FactCheck are your opinion only, unless you have reliable sources that have covered the similar statements. Your opinion is not enough to get the article changed. It's got to be something that has been covered in a notable, reliable outside source - a third-party reference. Unless you have that, and can prove unequivocally that there is an issue, then there's not really much that can be done. Verifiability is the key. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea references

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor User:Inwind and I have been helping to improve North Sea. Inwind has removed some references from a section I had worked on (see diff), saying that he had moved the references to another page and a wikilink to that page was sufficient (User_talk:Inwind#North_Sea_3). I disagree and feel that those references are critical to establishing and verifying that there are potential ecological and wildlife effects from the use of wind power in the North Sea. I don't read anywhere on Wikipedia:Citing sources that references should be removed from one page if that information might be in another. That means a reader would have to know exactly which link to click (in this case Environmental effects of wind power) and have to search for that or similar information just to find the reference for material they read on the North Sea article. I believe articles should be able to stand alone in terms of verifiability. Is this correct? --Jh12 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you are looking for is Wikipedia:Summary style#References, citations and external links. Where there is a more detailed main article on a sub-topic, the section of the more general article should be a summary of the sub-article and there is no need to repeat all its references except where a specific fact in the summary needs to be supported. I have to say, you have one impressive list of references in that article - 215 currently, and that's after a swathe have just been deleted. The specific sentence you are referring to had two references, are you sure you need them both for just for a summary? Can I also offer the advice that the article is a bit too long, it takes ages to load and could do with breaking up into smaller articles. SpinningSpark 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are absolutely needed because the environmental impact (particularly for migratory birds) of wind power is extensively documented in news and reports, but it is cited nowhere else on the North Sea article. The environmental impact on wildlife ecology is summarized in only one sentence on this article and referenced with one citation for above and below the water, respectively. It says at Wikipedia:Summary_style#References.2C_citations_and_external_links that "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." It does not say there is no need to repeat any references and I also believe the sentence is on a specific point that should always be referenced per Wikipedia:Verifiability policy --Jh12 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_18#What_if_you_used_Wikipedia.3F --Jh12 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not the issue here, it is not about using other Wiki pages as a reference. SpinningSpark 00:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is the issue. Every claim of every sentence I have worked on is supposed to be verifiable to a reliable source. If it is not written in another source, I do not include the material or I add a fact tag. Simply stating that there is an "environmental impact of windturbines" requires a reference. If the statement in question is excessive information, then I have no problems with removing it. But as written, it is an insufficiently referenced sentence. The archive link I provided by User:Blueboar says "Each article should stand on its own, and things said in each article should be verifiable to sources outside of Wikipedia." --Jh12 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spinningspark, it's a case of too much info can spoil a page. Many times it is better to try and add a simple sentence, such as "The environmental impact of windturbines is discussed here (and then put a link/links to the pages) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jh12 is right, a summmary article must contain citations for all non-trivial statements, even even if they are expanded in other articles that contain relevant citations.

There are a few things wrong with ""The environmental impact of windturbines is discussed here (and then put a link/links to the pages)":

• "Each article should stand on its own, and things said in each article should be verifiable to sources outside of Wikipedia." (cited above)
• It implies that there significant of worrying environmental impacts, and that needs at least 1 citation.
• For about the same number of words the article could say, e.g. "The use of wind turbines round the North Sea has aroused ecological and wildlife concerns", which is much more informative - but requires citations. --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Berger - football player

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mitch is an old friend of mine, I played minor league baseball with him and graduated in the same class. His dad coached baseball with my father. I used to work where his mother worked. So when I went to his page and saw that it said he attended Tyler Junior College, I edited the page stating that he had graduated from Colorado University. My edit was erased. Please research it before you just dismiss it. He may have transfered from Junior College but he graduated from Colorado. Want proof - check any of his football bios. I remember his mom had a University of Colorado bumper sticker on her car. This is not very vital - I realize, but I am disappointed with how I thought this site worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.6.149 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Berger did attend Tyler Junior College as well. I'll check his page. Thanks for letting us know! Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban Request - 172.162.29.86

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

172.162.29.86 - This IP has been seen consistently vandalizing pages.

For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pay_It_Forward&curid=577152&oldid=264567046

They just blanked this page (which was restored by a bot). Check their contributions page for more info.

--Sc0ttkclark (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They've only vandalized one page since 2007, and have been warned for that. Behavior should be watched, but if it progresses beyond a final warning, WP:AIV is the proper venue to report the IP's vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

also, contribs link: contributions —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in results for the marathon results for the Guam team at the Seoul Olympics

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was a member of the Guam team at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. I ran the marathon in a time of 3:25:32 finishing in 63rd place. Mariana Ysrael of the Guam team finished 64th in a time of 3:42.23. Other information is shown on your

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics

Can this be corrected?

Thanks,

Lourdes Klitzkie

(redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.220.35 (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2009 (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.

The reference (Official report) backs up what you claim so I have amended the article. --TimTay (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Border Television

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm the Managing Director of Border Television, a UK media company. Earlier this week, I carried out a number of edits on the Border Television entry to reflect accurately the current state of the company, which I bought this week. I have worked for Border Television for around 30 years, and have intimate knowledge of its history. In comparison, I'm not sure who the user RobinCarmody is, but if that is his real name he has not had a direct involvement with Border Television during that period, and his expressed views can only be based on second-hand information.

My changes were quickly undone by the user RobinCarmody. I have worked for Border Television for around 30 years, and have intimate knowledge of its history. In comparison, I'm not sure who the user RobinCarmody is, but if that is his real name he has not had a direct involvement with Border Television during that period, and his expressed views can only be based on second-hand information.

I sent him a message explaining that the updates I had made reflected the current position, and suggested that entries related to ITV Border which had been posted on the Border Television page would be better suited to a page about that company, since they were irrelevant on a page about Border Television. The message I sent was:

Hi Robin

I notice you've edited the Border Television page, and whilst I'm sure you did it in good faith, your comment that you've restored reality is incorrect.

You are confusing Border Television with ITV Border. Much of the content I removed from the page was relevant to ITV Border and should be placed on a page about that entity. I worked for the original Border Television for nearly thiry years and am now its owner and managing director. I therefore have intimate knowledge of its history and am in the unique position of understanding what the company is currently doing.

I had suggested in one of my first edits that a new page be created for ITV Border so that material relevant to that company be placed there. This is something you may want to give consideration to. However, such information has no place on a page about Border Television.

If you'd like to discuss this I'd be happy to chat it through with you. If you go to the company website at www.border-television.co.uk you'll find a number to reach us on.

I'll look forward to hearing from you, but for the moment I have reverted the entry to the current, accurate representation of the history and present position of Border Television.

Best wishes,

Ian Fisher Managing Director Border Telvision

His response was to undo my corrections, and to describe them as vandalism. His comments on the changes he made are:

Undo vandalism. Recent edits factually inaccurate. A new company 'Border Television' referred to in edits not same company as (or share history of) the Border Television now trading as ITV Border

I have made a reasonable attempt to explain the situation to RobinCarmody, and his response has been to ignore my approach for dialogue and re-edit the entry to what he believes is the correct position. I am therefore asking for your advice and help in proceeding. The problem is compounded by searches for ITV Border being redirected to Border Television. This is plainly wrong.

A summary of my position is:

1. As Managing Director of Border Television, I am in the best position to understand what the company is and does when it comes to facts rather than opinions.

2. There can only be one Border Television. The name Border Television is the sole property of Border Television Ltd, and only this entity has the right to use it. Robin is confusing Border Television, and its history, with ITV Border Ltd. which is a separate entity. In the same way, ITV plc is not the same entity as Granada Television or Carlton Television despite being formed by their merger in 2003, and both of the original companies continue to exist in their own right. Similarly, Granada and Compass Group are separate entities, despite being once a single entity.

3. Since ITV Border and Border Television are separate entites, searches for ITV Border should not direct the user to the Border Television entry.

Proposal for resolution

I suggest that the redirect on searches for the term ITV Border be removed and a page established under that title which can provide information about the current channel 3 franchisee. Since my version of the Border Television page accurately reflects the position of the company, the user RobinCarmody should agree that he will not further modify it unreasonably. I am sure that his edits can not be described as vandalism, and are simply being made through a misunderstanding of the current position, but his unwillingness to enter into discussion on the issue reflects badly on him.

I'd be grateful if you will let me know what you think.

Best wishes

Ian Fisher

Calfofman (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The original Border Television, established in 1960, was renamed to ITV Border in 2006, and a new company Border Television has now been established; I can't find anything verifiable that connects the new company to the original Border Television. You could discuss on the article's talk page whether it should be moved to ITV Border, and add it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. If the new company meets the relevant guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, then an article can be created. The title would probably need to be disambiguated, with either a disambiguation page or a hatnote – people are more likely to be looking for information about the original company, and it is mentioned by its former name in many articles. —Snigbrook 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snigbrook. Creating a new company (registered in the past few days) called Border Television ltd does not allow you to assume the history of the company that is ITV Border. The current Border Television ltd has been in existance for less than a week. That is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. The only way Ian Fisher's edits would be factually correct were if he had bought Border Television (now ITV Border) in 2006 and ITV plc had set up a new entity called ITV Border ltd. This however did not happen, ITV Plc simply renamed their subsidiary Border Television ltd to ITV Border ltd. It is very sad that ITV Border will disappear from our screens shortly. I realise you have worked for the company now trading as ITV Border ltd for 30 years, but that doesn't allow your company to assume the history of another company unless you bought the company from ITV which you have not. 86.17.90.72 (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with two previous posters. The new company has not established notability and it were to do any article about it should have a title such as Border Television (2009 company) that clearly and unambiguously differentiates it. Calfofman'S edits do look like vandalism to me. This is not discussed anywhere on the article talk page. That is where the talk should start.Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I think Calfofman should be declaring conflict of interest in any edits made and on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian pengő

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried numerous places, but have yet to recieve any meaningful input, so I'll try it here :

The exchange rate for the pengo to the forint is given as 400 octillion = 4×10 ²⁹ in the article Hungarian pengő. However this figure is not sourced. The only source for an exchange rate I could find is the Encyclopedia Britannica (online at [4]), which has a different rate (400 quintillion = 4x10²⁰). However since the Wikipedia figure is very widely quoted by other, mainly private sites on the internet, I did not want to remove it without further input. Unfortunately a request for additional sources on various related pages has not yielded any results. Further info on the problem at Talk:Hungarian_pengő#Exchange_rate_for_forint Passportguy (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't want to dis Britannica, but they are only an encyclopedia. This google book search turns up numerous textbook references for the 4×10²⁹ figure, including [5], [6], [7] and [8]. SpinningSpark 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In this article we are having statement: "Pavelić's Ustaše regime was the most murderous, in relation to its size, in Axis-occupied Europe" which is confirmed by 2 books.

I have tried to delete this statement because Wikipedia:Manual of Style is saying that we can't user word most in statement about anybody. After my deleting I have been reverted with statement that we can use this word and that statement is confirmed by sources. Because there are no answers on this question on Neutral point of view noticeboard......

Can somebody please tell me if we can use this sort of statements or not ??--Rjecina (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the article and the talk page where there seem to have been sevral disputes about this. I think that the description of the regime as murderous is clearly supported by WP:Reliable sources, but it should be expressed with a WP:Neutral point of view, e.g. this source described "Pavelić's Ustaše regime was the most murderous ......", thus maintaining NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help--Rjecina (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem in the Siege of Leningrad article, where I'm in a low level edit war with couple(?) anonymous users. I have tried to point out weaknesses of their edit and requested sources for the claims they are trying to add to the article, but they have not answered to those requests in talk page but instead they have copied (three times) a list of citations of which only two have any relevance to the siege and even those doesn't have any connections to the claims in question.

These actions have quite similar feeling like one year ago, when an anonymous user from the same area tried to add similar kind of additions to the article, but when the meditation process was started, the user faded out. The nonymous users in this case are User talk:130.166.34.165, User talk:12.34.80.73 and User talk:137.159.37.226. --Whiskey (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a lot of history to this and it is hard work for outsiders to go through it all from the year dot. What would be enormously helpful is a few diffs highlighting the specific issues. Involved editors often want to go through all the twists and turns of the dispute from the beginning: please don't do that, you are much more likely to get a response here if you give us less work to do. Limit yourself only to issues that are still a problem right now and only those of them that you feel you cannot resolve between yourselves. SpinningSpark 09:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In the article Siege of Leningrad they keeps on removing and altering sourced statements:[9] Line 14: Glanz doesn't provide those figures, see my reply in [10], Line 39: Changing sourced "one barge" to "barges with food" contrary to Juutilainen and Ekman, also the operation Iskra produced permanent breach to the siege, not temporary, Line 56: Removed "dubious" (See reason for that in [11]) without providing any reasoning, Line 111: Although not sourced here, simple check of 7th Army and 14th Army shows that those were never in the city, Line 117: Changed numerous places Finnish participation to opposite as several sources, including given Vehviläinen and Carell, state. It has been impossible to discuss with them in the talk page of the article, see [12], [13], [14]... Oh well, see the whole Talk:Siege of Leningrad And it is now five or six times they have added that list of pages from Vehviläinen's book...

Oh, and their pet peeve, that I'm in conflict with Britannica, see edit [15]

I have pointed out specific places, occasions where their edit doesn't conform with the sources, but they still repeat their edits, even adding more mistakes. There seems to be no possible way to find a solution via a discussion between us.--Whiskey (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, my take on this is that this revolves around emphasis and misunderstandings of motives rather than any really substantive disagreement over the facts. There might be a whole host of minor disagreements on facts in dispute, but the broad brush of what happened at Lenigrad does not seem to be an issue. Part of the problem is that you are coming actross to the other editors as an apologist for the Finns. Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying you are an apologist for the Finns, just that that is how you are being perceived and possibly nationalist feelings have got people hot under the collar about this. A particular phrase that seems to be causing problems is saying the Finns did not actively take part in the siege. I cannot comment on what is, or is not, said in Glanz as I have no access to the book. But another book I can get to online by Leon Goure confirms my understanding of Finnish participation - that they were there but declined to actually attack Leningrad or aid Germany in completing the encirclement. Did no active part come from a source? It seems a bit of a misrepresentation of the situation, merely by being there the Finns were taking part in the siege. Sieges are by their nature passive affairs. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible to state the facts of the Finnish actions without using that phrase. I think if you make an effort to reassure the other editors over your motives it might be possible to move forward and this is one thing on which compromise could be reached.

Another difficulty I see from the diff you gave me is that the article is being reverted backward and forward, their version, your version and back again. This is not good, in fact, it is edit warring. Reverting en-mass a whole stack of edits with a large number of different issues is never going to resolve anything. A better plan is to address one small issue at a time. This is much more managable, everyone can understand what is going on, the arguments are more transparent. It will take a long time, but that is much more preferable to endless your version - their version and will ultimately produce a well researched and well referenced article.

On Brittanica, I can only agree with you, they are not infallible. More to the point, like us, they are an encyclopedia and as such are a tertiary source. We should be looking at the sources of Britannica, that is, the secondary sources, for our information.

Where you really cannot reach agreement it might be worthwile asking the other parties if they would be willing to abide by some form of neutral mediation, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. But before getting other parties involved it is best to crystallise the disagreement into a very specific factual issue. This makes it so much easier for outsiders to get to grips with it. I hope that this has been of some help.

SpinningSpark 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole stuff has certain reminiscent to the happenings almost one year ago, when an anonymous editor User:130.166.33.54 tried to enter same kind of edits to the article [16]. When I requested third opinion Talk:Siege_of_Leningrad#Content_dispute_Third_opinion, he answered first, but refused to operate constructively, so he was blocked, see User talk:130.166.33.54.

I have tried to present reasoning and sources in Talk:Siege_of_Leningrad#Dubious and Talk:Siege_of_Leningrad#Glantz_and_numbers but no avail. I really wonder if he is willing to co-operate at all, as he is changing referenced entries to something those given sources don't support; I've got a feeling that they are just pulling my leg for fun. --Whiskey (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting unreferenced articles

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm helping clear the back log of articles that require copy-editing. However, there are many article that require proper referencing. In my opinion, it is not worth it to copy edit articles that require this as that information could be challenged/deleted. My current temptation is to un-tag the article and fill in an edit summary asking for in-line citations. Does anyone see it differently? Bladeofgrass (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then when someone comes along and provides the refs, the article will still need copyediting but be untagged. What then? Seems to me if you personally only want to work on articles that are tagged with copyedit, but not tagged with unref, AWB can quickly build a list of such articles.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issue with American Airpower Heritage Museum

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CAFAirpower and I are on the verge of an edit war over the name of the museum described in American Airpower Heritage Museum. As you can see by his user page he works for the museum itself, and stakes a claim of ownership of the article in question. He claims to know that the museum has changed names recently to "CAF Airpower Museum". However, there is no reliable reference to this fact (no published press release, the museum website has not changed, very few Google hits, etc.) I have reverted his changes a couple of times, but do not wish to continue an edit war over it. I did create a redirect page at CAF Airpower Museum in an attempt to satisfy his concerns, as the name "CAF Airpower Museum" is apparently used as a casual nickname for the museum. However, apparently this hasn't been enough.

Declaration: I did create the page and write the basic article based upon information found on the museum's website. However, I have no more interest in the article other than to have it remain accurate according to known public references. At such time as the name change is announced to the public and can be referenced, I would be happy to see the article updated to reflect that and will help move the article to the new name if needed.

I understand that User:CAFAirpower is fairly new here, and has edited very few articles. I have advised this editor to visit wp:introduction, among other WP guides, to show him that Wikipedia is not quite what he thinks it is. Perhaps if others tried also, maybe he would understand why I've reverted his edits.

The other possibility is that I am completely wrong. If so, please tell me.

Thank you for you time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest change by User:CAFAirpower but note that the user has now been blocked from editing by another admin as a role account with a conflict of interest in the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am a little shocked that the entire account was speedy-deleted, but I guess it did meet the criteria. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be shocked - it was clearly a role account as indicated by the now-deleted user page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just hope the user(s) understood that. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to maximize clarity, the role account was given a handcrafted message when the account was blocked, rather than the spamusername template message. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zanesville (novel)

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered if anyone would be willing to look at this article. When I copy-edited it, it read like a one-sided review of the book. I tried to keep it NPOV. I raised the concerns on the other editors talk page, but my edits were reverted. I looked at the references again, and updated the article and commented on my updates. Perhaps I was a little curt here. But then my edits were reverted, and I got an e-mail which I've copied to my talk page. Could anyone give me a third opinion? I'm a bit of a newbie. Bladeofgrass (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You got at that new plot summary just seconds before I tried to post my version. Yours is much better anyway. The editor user:Tornado Girl seems to have a bad case of WP:OWN. I have left a note on her talk page. SpinningSpark 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :). Is there a more appropriate place to raise issues like this? Bladeofgrass (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you are looking for. If you are after some informal advice and help from other editors, this page is good. For formal dispute resolution there are various options at WP:Dispute and for administrator action against specific policy violations there is WP:ANI and the other pages listed in the template at the top. But I don't think you really need anything like that in this particular case. SpinningSpark 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Eunectes murinus

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, at the article Eunectes murinus an editor named User:Jwinius keeps moving the "also known as" from the first sentence, and floats it over the article. Would you please intervene. I believe the AKA should be in the first sentence, not floating on the top, that is where the "disambiguation" should go. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other examples of this, in for example Special:Contributions/Jwinius and there's also a debate about taxonomy and nomenclature at WT:NC. I'm not sure that either approach is wrong, although the floating line is fairly novel, but it seems like a consistent approach would be helpful to casual readers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The user also seems be using redirects in a very unconventional way - example. Again, hard to label this as being actually wrong, but it is certainly very confusing for those who are not in on the scheme. This ought to be discussed but I don't think this is the right venue. Village pump? SpinningSpark 07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen an earlier thread about this. I don't have a better suggestion than village pump. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Branch Davidian Article

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to do a major renovation on the article titled "Branch Davidians." I anticipate some real opposition as the article is currently "tagged" due to disputes over POV and facts. I have most of what I want to change prepared in a word processor file. I need some help with a few of the technical steps in doing the edit because some may be attacking my revisions as I am making them. What I have is well documented and referenced. It is written from a factually neutral point of view, but those facts are not to the liking of some.Is there some way I can get some protection while editing the article and shortly thereafter? Two of someone(s) recent edits involved an unfair chracterization, and a name change that is wholly unfounded. I think I may even need an administrator to oversee the edit.

Thank you,Anyone77 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps put it in a WP:Userpage? then come back here and ask someone to take a look and offer some thoughts? If you then feel able to publish it, the usual process will ensue. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy!‎ "Sushi Bar" set

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to remove fancruft/weasel words from this article related to a nickname given to a particular set used on Jeopardy. For example:

Its purple-backlit gridded walls and wooden accents earned it the nickname of the "sushi bar" set amongst fans.

The reference attached to this line links back to a fan newsgroup.

Other editors of this article claim that this is a "common nickname" however the term is not used within the general populace and is not found outside of fan pages. Sottolacqua (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As the editor on the other side of this argument, I think the above characerization is objectionable. The subject matter of the article in question is a game show; everything in the article relates to the subject matter. Is it not paradoxical to discount sources that relate to the subject matter on the grounds that they relate to the subject matter? This logic would exclude reference to the nickname "The Jake" in the article for Progressive Field for the reason that they are Cleveland Indians fans who use the nickname. (Certainly after the name change from "Jacobs Field", no official copy is going to reference the old but still-used nickname.) Google the string literal "sushi bar set" and those results that do not refer to Asian cuisine are links relating to Jeopardy! and that particular set. ([17][18][19][20][21]) Wikipedia includes nicknames throughout--for biographical subjects, nicknames are almost always included in the lead--and it is a function of any encyclopedia to offer reference for a nickname so that someone unfamiliar with a term can associate it with the person, place, or thing it refers to. In this case, the fact that the nickname is used by fans is mentioned in the text and it is this usage which the citation is evidencing. A few words about the larger issue here: Any good encyclopedia article offers not just a superficial examination of its subject but also introduces readers to "terms of the art" that enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. Regardless of how unfamiliar the terms may become in an article, their inclusion deepens an article. The above message misuses the word "fancruft" as alarmist hyperbole when what is actually going on here is the useful inclusion of a common term. (List of Star Wars planets this is not.) Finally, I simply don't see it as an extraordinary breach of Wikipedia guidelines to include one line of text that provides helpful information, and it seems evident to me that the article is slightly weaker with the text omitted. This being the case, if the stickler says it must be removed, this becomes as good a case as any to refer to WP:ignore all rules. Robert K S (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bel Air Presbyterian Church Article has inappropriate neutrality comment

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The objection to neutrality was entered for the amusement of the commenter and it was not truly a comment on neutrality. Can it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbslocum (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Really the entire section needs to be rewritten or removed as inappropriate - it is not formatted as a quote if indeed that is what it is, and the reference does not function so it's impossible to say where it came from. As it is it is worded as a set of claims in the first person with no context as to what they represent with respect to the subject of the article in question. It either needs to be written into prose with "The church" as the subject of the sentences, or quoted out and correctly attributed/referenced. Mfield (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the two sections as on further inspection they are worded entirely inappropriately for WP. The article should not be written from the POV of the church, it (as all WP articles) should be a neutral and unbiased objective article about the church and should be a world view of the subject. Hence their theology can be discussed but only in balanced discussion and certainly not written out as a series of "We believe..." statements. Mfield (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

links to Wikepedia

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to link groups to specific articles in Wikipedia

And have received the following message for including a link to the following

http://www.fashionistas.me/group/canali

the site provides news updates and images for the subject.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Canali. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Versageek 04:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the link falls within the policies of Wikepedia specifically

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

What should be linked Shortcut: WP:ELYES

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Can you please confirm that it is within Wikepedia policies and how I should go about including the link

Thank

Sanjiv

Sanjiv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiovani (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You won't get these links included. A - They seem to be be spam aimed at promoting the site in question. B - You can't even see the groups in question without registering - so there's no way of telling if the link is relevant (it's unreasonable to expect people to register before they can see the info.) - please do not readd them. Exxolon (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

some one is vandalizing my article

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some one is persistently vandalizing my article and I need help from the editors to either give warning to this person or block his/her IP address. Please see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias_Kifle&action=history

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the vandalism yourself, which is the appropriate thing to do, especially with a BLP article. You can also warn the IP yourself using an appropriate talk page template. – ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The templates are here by the way. SpinningSpark 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Matrial Artists issues/Hack

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

up to 20 or 30 Mixed Martial Artists pages have been hacked of sorts with messages such as "Headlining Text" and "youtube sucks" on pages like Brock Lesnar, it shows no last revisions on these errors and im frustrated being that most of the pages hacked were created by myself. PLEASE HELP!User:Sepulwiki 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing that on the page you mention. If there are pages vandalised then please post the pages here or simply revert it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was on that many articles it was almost certainly template vandalism, which has probably been reverted by now. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was probably caused by this edit to Template:0expr, which is now semi-protected. —Snigbrook 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You can usually see which templates are transcluded in a page by clicking the "edit" or "source" tab and scrolling to the end of the page. —Snigbrook 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the opposite of a sockpuppet?

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten into a long-running slow edit war (well, some others and myself) with User:DrJamesX. Today, I tried taking it over to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if I could get some more eyeballs on it and to see what other people think. Since I posted that (here), there have since been nine edits, all to make a single response to my question.

Those nine edits break down to:

• Three from User:DrJamesX
• Four from User:64.95.122.34, which is registered to Visual Data Corporation in Pompano Beach, FL
• Two from User:75.61.68.68, which is registered to PacBell in Long Island, NY

all of the above within about one hour, and all of which claim to be the same person.

A sockpuppet is when one person is claiming to be several. What is it when multiple people are claiming to be one person? And is this against WP policies? I'd appreciate the feedback. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think meatpuppet is what you are looking for. Grsz¹¹ 04:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of MEAT is that it's when you have several unique editors, all of whom come in on the side of one editor to appear that he's got community support. DrJamesX isn't doing that, or at least not so as I can tell. It doesn't appear to be a TAGTEAM either.

Does it fall under NOSHARE, maybe? Then again, it's not as if he's trying to hide that he's coming in from two widely-distant places. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't necessarily mean that it's a shared account – there are at least two other possibilities. One is impersonation by IPs. Another explanation: the IP-geolocation site I've looked at shows 75.61.68.68 as in California, which is where most of the suspected sock IPs are (although one is in Canada), and just because Visual Data Corporation is based in Florida doesn't necessarily mean users of its IP addresses are there (it does appear to provide services to organisations based in various states including California, and the geolocation fails for 64.95.122.34 on the site I use). —Snigbrook 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "suspected sock IPs" you're referring to—I haven't mentioned any IPs other than the two above, and I haven't accused anyone of being a sockpuppet.

For geolocation, I'm using the service that's linked to at the end of each contributions page: see Special:Contributions/64.95.122.34 and Special:Contributions/75.61.68.68, which link to http://www.ip2location.com/64.95.122.34 and http://www.ip2location.com/75.61.68.68 respectively. I've been pretty statisfied with their results overall; it's just that these in particular confuse me. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case was Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DrJamesX, which was closed due to lack of evidence of sockpuppetry. I'm not sure about the IP locations, but I was surprised by the difference between the results on two different sites – I used www.ip-adress.com. IP-geolocation services don't always appear to be accurate – once I looked at my IP on various sites, and it was showing various different parts of the UK. According to ip-adress.com I'm in St Helens, Merseyside, ip2location.com thinks I'm on the Isle of Man, and I'm actually in Lancashire. —Snigbrook 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed help

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Could Somebody please help me with my articles, Apparently they violate G12 and G16. South Bay (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Criteria for speedy deletion, G12 is for copyright violations. There is no G16. – ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional "spaming"

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a liink "eatinoutinsomerset" not fully understanding the implications relative to Wikpedia. It will not happen again!! I am agfraid thast I did not familiarise myself with the restrictions within Wikpedia!There was no interntion to be disruptive in any way.

Can you email me a reply to (email address removed SpinningSpark)

Best regards

Jeff Harris Jdavidh (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we cannot reply to email and it is not a good idea to post your email address on a public forum where it can be collected by automated spammers. Thank you for responding to the warnings. You can read about what are acceptable links to Wikipedia at WP:EL. Thankyou. SpinningSpark 09:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Geber

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In Geber a user deleted sourced materials, deleted a whole section, reverted large portions to an old version and other changes, here. I made a mistake by violating the 3RR rule with him, both of us were blocked for 31 hours. I told him before the block when he accused me of putting my POV that if he mentioned any unsourced addition I made, I will delete it. Now he is back giving the reason "Exceptional Claim" for his edit without any discussion in talk page . What should I do. Dy yol (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I have the capability to sort out for you whether Geber is the same person as Jabir or whether he is Latin, Arab, Persian or mythical. But what I can say is that this edit was not a very smart thing to do less than 24 hours after being unblocked for edit warring - especially as you persuaded an admin to unblock you on the basis that you would stay away from the article for 31 hours. All the involved editors seem to be contributing to the discussion on the talk page, admittedly not always with good humour. What on earth is wrong with arguing your case there and presenting your sources? Why is it so important that your version is on display while the debate continues? If there really is no agreement amongst the sources, it is not for Wikipedia to judge who is right, but both sides should be presented and attributed. SpinningSpark 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The 31 hours start from the blocking not the unblocking. I wrote about the edit in the discussion. I'm not saying that Geber is Jabir or he is not him, that would be an original research. All what I am saying is that no sourced material should be removed without a good reason. Dy yol (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It really does not cut any ice with me whether your revert was within the 31 hours or not. That is just wikilawyering. The point is that you felt that it was a higher priority to restore the "right" version of the article rather than first come to an understanding with the other editor. That is the kind of behaviour that got you blocked in the first place. It is to your advantage not to do that. If all the disruptive behaviour is on the other side then only one of you gets blocked next time. Anyway, the suggestion you have currently laid on the talk page of request for comment after both posting a version is a good one. There is no possibility of edit warring if you have both agreed a version before it is posted. I hope that works out for you. SpinningSpark 20:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've put a new proposal in the talk page, can you give your thought. Also, if you can help me in the general question of how to deal with reverting multiple edits. In the Bold, Revert, Dicuss you are supposed to make a bold edit then wait for someone to revert it and discuss your edit with him, if no body reverted you move to the next edit and so on. But what if you did 50 edits without objection then suddenly somebody came and reverted all of your edits? I find that very disruptive. It is not the case of "my version" Dy yol (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, you said "If all the disruptive behaviour is on the other side then only one of you gets blocked next time". The problem is that if only one side reverts, no admin will intervene because nobody will break the 3RR rule. This is what is happening now. Dy yol (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not get too focused on the 3RR rule. Administrators will take action against disruptive editors whether or not the 3RR rule has been broken. Hopefully we will not need that to happen if everyone keeps a cool head. I would also advise against getting emotional about mass deletions. That version still exists in the history and can just as easily be restored. The trick is to get everybody to agree it should be restored (or deleted as the case may be). There is no point restoring it just to have someone else delete it again. You are doing the right thing by starting discussions on the talk page. I have a couple of suggestions that might move things along a bit. Firstly, what sometimes works is posting a block of text on to the talk page and asking for opinions. Since it is not in the article people tend to discuss it in a much calmer way. They can also post their own version and gradually you might arrive at a version everyone can live with and post it in the article. I would recommend limiting this process to one issue at a time (or perhaps one paragraph at a time). If you post too much you will never get anything agreed. My second suggestion is to make a direct request to the involved editor(s) on their talk pages to take part. Perhaps you could phrase it as a request for their opinion after making the post on the article talk page I suggested above. If you find there are issues that you really cannot agree on then there are dispute resolution processes available to help you, but for now, your best way forward is to try to come to an understanding amongst yourselves. If there is disagreement, the solution is always to go back to the sources to see what they say. Hope that is of some help, I know it is painfully slow to get things agreed sometimes but in the end it makes for a better article. SpinningSpark 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ava Gardner Bidet link

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

```` I linked to Wikipedia entry for Bidet that wa mentioned in the entry. Many people do not know what a bidet is. Ward3001 thinks it's overlinking, it isn't.```` s2grand

My biggest objection here is that s2grand repeatedly reverts without discussing on talk (and seeking consensus if needed), despite several requests that he do so. If enough editors agree with him, I have no problem with his edit. It's his refusal to discuss that is problematic. Ward3001 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see from the edit history that you have reverted s2grand seven times recently. Your complaint is refusal to discuss that is problematic. Oh dear, I don't seem to be able to find your name on the talk page discussing anything, in fact it hasn't been edited by anyone since October. Really, I think an editor who has been around since 2006 and ought to know that much. SpinningSpark 20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And "oh dear", Spinningspark, take the time to look at something before throwing around information to create a false impression. Some of what you call "reverts" were unrelated to the issue s2grand raised here, and some were simply adding "citation needed" tags (last time I checked, it was acceptable on Wikipedia to add those). And it is s2grand who wishes to change the article. If he will begin the discussion on talk, I'll be happy to respond. Now ... let me take a look at your edit history and see if I can cherry-pick some of your edits out of context and discuss your editing habits. Ward3001 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I counted the edits that you had described as "revert" or "undo" in the edit summary. What makes you immune from discussing your reversions on the talk page while s2grand must discuss his edits first? Oh, and all comments are welcome on my edits, especially the bad ones, please do go ahead and carry out a review. SpinningSpark 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you might want to brush up on your counting skills because there were not seven reverts about the issue that s2grand describes above. And I find it interesting that s2grand took the time to write about his concerns here, and you took the time to selectively pick some of my edits to create a false impression, but neither of you seem willing to discuss on the talk page of the article in question. And, don't worry, I'm watching your edits, collecting one here and there (out of context, of course), and waiting for just the right time to compile them into a list the next time you disagree with someone's edits. Now, feel free to continue wasting everyone's time on this useless discussion if you wish, but I personally don't intend to respond to you any more on this inappropriate venue (even though I'm sure you'll reply to this anyway in hopes that you can stir something up). Bring it up on the correct talk page, and I'll discuss as necessary. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like add an an entry , would appreciate some advice

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nd84/leisurecorp

Please view the link above for the initial draft of my article I wish to post.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd84 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have completely reformatted your references and added full citations. This is a big stumbling block for new articles. The article needs fleshing out, with more independent sources (as opposed to press releases) verifying the content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And it's also rather spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

incorrect citation- what to do in light of policy

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This regards articles on written works of fiction. As I understand it, policy does not allow for removal of cited/referenced material. However, may an editor remove or revert an edit done with a misleading or unrelated citation? There is a critique referenced on a novel's page, which actually belongs to a film review site and is clearly a review of the director's work on the adaptation if the footnote is consulted. May I remove it myself, or does an editor need to step in for this type of thing? I see a work (for example a Charles Dickens novel) as being separate from any adaptations or alterations of it.

I sense that someone is doing this to insert their own opinion on the work (violating neutrality), but that's probably another issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GingerSnapsBack (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If a reference is clearly inaccurate, misleading etc then it, and the material to which it relates (assuming that it's likely to be controversial if unreferenced), should be removed. – ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Its neutrality is disputed

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

My username is Kashmirian and in Jan-2009 I add some informations about the political party (UKPNP) and my home country (Kashmir) and Party leader (Sardar Shaukat ali Kashmiri)

I have added my party under heading of UKPNP (Abreivation) and also tried to add under the heading of FULL PARTY NAME: (United Kashmir PEOPLE'S National party and United Kashmir PEOPLES National Party). My aim was to facilitate the users for search with any of name and that time I had no idia that it gona be under investigation and will be marked as "Its neutrality is disputed".

I am sorry for that and learned from this and in future will be carefull for to adding an article with two names.

My articles are correct one and if need any more references, I can add to verify.

I need your help to clear my user name and IP address from investigation/block to add some more informations in future.

Thanks<e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is "under investigation" - the tag just means that another editor is of the opinion that the article does not have a neutral point of view and asking that those issues be addressed. The best place to discuss these concerns is on the talk pages of the articles. I suggest you create an account to avoid falling over IP blocks that are unrelated to you (if indeed they are). – ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Joe Shell - links to conspiracy blogs of questionable veracity - request for semi-protection

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article on Joe Shell, a California politician of the 1950s and 1960s, contains information from a conspiracy theory oriented blog, http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com, which provides highly dubious information about Richard Nixon sabotaging Shell's plane and how Ronald Reagan destroyed Shell's career in California Republican politics, without any sort of confirmation from a reputable news source or an interview with the late Assemblyman Shell, his family, or his staff. Said blog's main focus is to elucidate a conspiracy between the Bush family, Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, and even the Wall Street Journal to destroy the U.S. It is clearly an inappropriate source for Wikipedia and that is why I request that said page be at least semi-protected to guard against unreliable sources being used for information. I would suggest that the article on Shell be at least semi-protected. 71.106.212.211 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend sending this case to WP:RFPP Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Black_Eyed_Husband

Resolved

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this deletion tag as this is the only article about a movie starring famous porn actress Francesca Le --Bziona86 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article has been deleted for " real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 19:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Illuminates of Thanateros

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Would someone like to have a look at the recent history of Illuminates of Thanateros? I'm disagreeing strongly with what 67.177.27.74 is doing and I'd like a proper discussion of the matter rather than just go to and fro with him. Thanks! 217.234.215.248 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...apparently, 67.177.27.74's biggest disagreement is about your "politicized "insider" knowledge"; would you care to include another, if not better, reference? Your current reference (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/icewars.html) appears to be questionable. Try to talk to him on his talk page; the editor in question appears rather dubious, with all his vandalism-warning templates... BTW, you and him might want to read this Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong age of person...

Resolved

 – Fleetflame 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Marilyn Miller, She was 37. She died in New York City on the morning of April 7, 1936 which is stated on this page. and this info is also found at

http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=68326. thank-you for your time Jhasara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhasara (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed[22] – it looks like the article had been vandalised. —Snigbrook 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on page: King Adamtey I

Stale

A user has continually removed the birth date (1 April 1956) of Dr. Kingsley A. Fletcher (King Adamtey I) from his Wikipedia article. This information is publicly available in a number of books published by Fletcher. It is not a secret, and there is no reason to omit it from a biographical article.

Mikhailovich (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would concentrate on providing some sources for that article instead; it's a mess, and entirely unsourced. We would be far better served if somebody would create an article on the Se, a/k/a Shai, who are part of the Ga people group of cultures, rather than on their ruler. (Full disclosure: as it says on my userpage, I'm an anti-monarchist.) I've done some cleanup, removing dead links and NPOV violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The method of finding the "Poverty level" of article that title, is NOT neutral Nor ACCURATE

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am an actvist against poverty in Maine. I know poverty,Classism Hunger, homelessness,first hand and from empical research. For some reason, I am listed in Whose who in America. Poverty the cause of Hunger, Homelessness,Violence, and Imposed Silence, is held firm by MYTHS. It Is time to expose those myths Poverty Level is neither neutral, Nor Accurate.

The author of the "Poverty level" article does nothing more than hold firm a false belief. As someone working to end Poverty,I challenge the writers promoting of this false belief that all expensives were accounted for in poverty level. That is what we call a livable wage today.

The false idea simply is

Mollie Orshansky of Social Security Administration, in 1965, released a study on the American poverty level. IT WAS based upon the FOOD COST ALONE, not transportation, health care or rent.----- It was Not a Needs based assessment as the author mis-guides the reader. Rather than being all inclusive the poverty line was determind only the price of food. No Rent, health care, transportation, phone was included to say nothing about either savings or recreation.

In fact, Mollie, boss Ida’s Merriam, wrote in 1967, that "It is easy to observe that poverty in the U.S. today cannot meaningfully be defined in the same way as in the U.S. of 1900....obviously today's [poverty] measure, even if corrected year by year for changes in the price level...should not be acceptable twenty, ten or perhaps even five years hence." Bold text

The 2009 does not carry the cost of inflated rent either. This Is not what Molly did. Mollies own boss said Mollys calulations would have to be redone in 2 to five years-it was not.

Inccorect lines in Wikipedia.'Italic textDetermining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year. This approach is needs-based in that an assessment is made of the minimum expenditure needed to maintain a tolerable life. This was the original basis of the poverty line in the United States,'Bold text whose poverty threshold has since been raised due to inflation. THis Was NOT the Method. The information is false. The author is citing a Livable wage methodogy, Calling it a poverty Level. This Is middle class standards prevailing. What we have from 1965 until 2009, is a Defective, and flawed Poverty Level. Jan Lightfoot

Our current federal poverty level, is Mis-measure of Poverty. By Nicholas Eberstadt http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3930481.html

THIS IS A MAJOR EDIT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janshouse (talk • contribs)

This is a collaborative project so please be bold and edit the article - if you do so, please bear in mind our guidelines about reliable sources, neutral point of view and original research. It may be a good idea first to discuss on the article's talk page the changes you want to make. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice on new Page

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very new to wikipedia and want some advice on a page that I have created, but have left unpublished. I'm a volunteer for Friends of the Earth and want to create a neutral Friends of the Earth Europe page. Article can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dunkind

Is this acceptable?

thanks, Dunkind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkind (talk • contribs) 10:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple of issues: You have a conflict of interest and, although there is no rule against it, you are strongly advised not to edit/create related articles; second, the draft article is heavily promotional in tone and would probably be speedily deleted or heavily cut back into a stub. Is there any reason why a short section on FOE Europe cannot be added to the main Friends of the Earth article? – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Philip Hayton

Stale

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking for some advice regarding recent edits which were made to the article concerning the BBC journalist Philip Hayton. A section was added yesterday regarding an incident which allegedly occurred on September 11, 2001 where the collapse of WTC7 was reported some minutes before the event actually occurred. I removed it because the subject's controversial nature and because most of the references came from blogs. However, I've re-posted it on the talk page and opened a discussion there. The section has since been added to and while some of the information appears to check out, I'm not sure exactly what is and what is not appropriate here. Therefore I would appreciate some help and advice from someone a bit more experienced in natures of this matter. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You were absolutely right to revert it and open a discussion on the talk page. I am not sure that this rises to the level of a BLP issue, but it is controversial and the sources may be thin, so to the talk page it goes to reach consensus. If that fails then there are increasing levels of dispute resolution. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Waingels College article

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was browsing the Waingels_College article, and there are some sections which are slightly controversial and completely unsourced - particularly the refurbishment and sports day history section. I don't want to edit myself as I'm an employee so I guess would be considered conflict of interest? But what should be done. It's a fairly insignificant article, so I thought posting on the talk page wouldn't attract a lot of useful comment.

Thanks. tanc (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The talk page is the correct place to start. If it does not generate any replies after a few days, I would go ahead and make the changes with the appropriate references of course, noting same on talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one unsourced statement from the article, and added a {{citations missing}} template. —Snigbrook 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll do as suggested! tanc (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)