Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 49

Sloppy & uncommunicative editor - suggestions?

Resolved

 – Per OP (JohnInDC) and user talk page. Fleetflame 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow Scotland ! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Wow Scotland ! has been pretty busy since s/he established an account a few days ago. See here. While some editors are prolific and skilled, this one is not. A good third of his or her edits are, for one reason or another, unsound. (The bulk are not "wrong" as such but on the whole do not seem to improve Wikipedia so much as just rejigger the content. About one edit in six makes actual good sense.) I've been following this editor around trying to keep things clean and have posted occasional, and I confess, increasingly terse suggestions to his/her Talk page, User_talk:Wow_Scotland_!. (That page also gives a few good flavor of the problematic editing.) The editor is entirely uncommunicative and has continued to edit with no real indication of slowing down. It's not "vandalism"; no edit wars have been spawned either - but the user is not improving the encyclopedia, is a bother to police, and is unresponsive. Suggestions for how to deal with this? JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to be unwilling to discuss anything. There really are a lot of messages on the talk page. Usually I dont get involved unless both parties have at least spoken to the other. That being said, they really do seem to be sloppy mistakes, and I'd like to assume good faith. I would advise you to keep attempting to establish contact, and if the user still refuses to communicate, seek higher action, maybe at WP:ANI.Drew Smith What I've done 13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Drew. You've done a great job trying to guide him/her in the right direction, but s/he doesn't seem receptive or communicative at all. Also, I don't think your "increasingly terse suggestions" were inappropriate (or terse, for that matter) at all. As Drew said, give a bit more time, and if the editor doesn't improve, take it to an Admin. Thanks! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my internal editor is better at filtering out the annoyance that I realize! I sure *feel* exasperated. But okay. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm happy to keep this up for a bit and escalate to WP:ANI if necessary. Sometimes a new editor just needs a bit of a jolt to learn that they can't just edit to suit their own tastes, and this might be one of those cases. JohnInDC (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Update. We have gotten past "uncommunicative" and are working on substance. Another editor of far greater skill has taken this one under his wing and is making some very good suggestions. This particular entry can be marked "resolved" for now. Thanks all for the help. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Noahs Ark

Discussion moved

 – An RfC has been started, please take the discussion about this situation to it: Talk:Noah's Ark#RFC re: "mythology" charaterization. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some help at the Noahs ark talk page. Apparently the general consesnus is that the literal belief in the ark is a "fringe" view, and has labeled it "mythology". I think I could have gotten the Pov pushing taken out, however I let my personal beliefs get in the way. That was my mistake, and I have rephrased my posts to merely asking that the POV words be removed, however the editors always return to my previous posts and continue to "dwell on the past". Not to invent any Cabals that weren't already there, but it appears that a group of self proclaimed atheists are controlling the article. I may be reading to much into this, and perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs. However I do not believe this to be the case.Drew Smith What I've done

Odd, I could find no evidence of anybody on Talk:Noah's Ark 'proclaiming' themselves to be atheists. Where did these proclamations take place? Also please elucidate on how Genesis fails to meet the definition of wikt:mythology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

perhaps my judgement is still clouded by personal beliefs ← this. Ben (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew Smith What I've done Has stated that "Every christian in the world believes in creationism, and nearly half the world is christian!" I'd like to see some references for this. The literal belief in the ark is most definitely a "fringe" view. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy clearly isn't well informed about the beliefs of Christians in general let alone at seeing the bigger picture. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a really tough issue. Part of the problem appears to be the POV connotations of the word "mythology" in the layperson's lexicon- it implies something anachronistic, something that no modern, civilized human believes in, and moreover something explicitly fictional (note I'm not saying anyone here is expressing those thoughts). This is contrasted pretty strongly to the anthropological definition of mythology, which in my experience refers to any cultural/folk story that deals with the supernatural, a creation story or otherwise didactic tale which is used to enculturate the people in a society. Libraries pretty much all keep their books on mythology and religion in the non-fiction section. By the academic definition, the story of Noah's Ark is absolutely mythological. Consider also the connection with all the other deluge myths. I am, however, reminded of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation ("Darmok"), in which the ship's computer discusses a "mytho-historical hunter"- implying the character has mythological stories attributed to him, but is also a historical figure. And for the record, I'm Roman Catholic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "mythology" aspect of it has been discussed at length on the page, in RFCs, and there was even an attempt to get ArbCom involved to try to prevent its use, which went nowhere. There's a well-established consensus that in an academic encyclopedia that we can use academic terms and not have to worry. The term also has a convenient wiki link there so if anyone is confused about the academic usage they can merely click it and read all about it at the appropriate article. The complaint is similar to people not knowing the correct definitions of word like evolution, schizophrenia, and so forth being offended when their incorrect definition confuses them into thinking the article says something otehr than what it really does and, again, can't be bothered to click the link to educate themselves. The person complaining above is a fine example of rampant ignorance, with bizarre ideas about the definition, what Christians as a whole believe, and so forth. He's a prime example of someone who should be reading an encyclopedia instead of trying to edit one. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"story that deals with the supernatural, a creation story". Noahs ark is neither. Noahs ark is neither supernatural, nor is it a creation story. Thus "myth" cannot be applied.Drew Smith What I've done 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you even seriously making that argument? The whole thing is a supernatural story. Big supernatural being in the sky threatens rain to wipe out all humans because he's a big old meanie, supernaturally talks someone into building a boat, supernaturally directs two of every animal in the world to come running from all over to go to the boat, supernaturally prevents the animals from eating each other or Noah, supernaturally causes it to rain so much mountains are covered and so forth and so on. And it's also a creation story as it suggests the origin of the rainbow and tribes of humanity and so forth. Please stop wasting everyone's time and make some effort to educate yourself. DreamGuy (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the article called worldwide flood? No. Is the article called Noah? No. Is the article called God puts animals in the ark? No. The article is called Noahs ark, Noah being a possessive noun. So the article is about a big boat. Nothing supernatural, or creation centric there.Drew Smith What I've done 08:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I love the mature way you are discussing this. You must be commended for you ability to avoid biting. You truly are the model of civility.Drew Smith What I've done 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:KETTLE applies here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Give me one example of when I was immature, when I bit anyone, or when I was uncivil. Can you give me any instances?Drew Smith What I've done 08:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please; arguing over who did what is not going to solve this content dispute. To Drew, if you feel you may be acting based upon belief rather than Wikipedia's own rules, I would suggest you take the time to solicit help from related WikiProjects, possibly WP:NPOVN. If you feel it necessary, you can certainly stand down at any time without capitulating your position. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I think we can agree to disagree on the supernatural nature of the Noah's Ark story, but there's no point in going too deeply into my own feelings. I will say that the anthropology community in general do consider it a deluge myth. Anyhow, like I said, the words "myth" and "mythology" are in themselves rather loaded. This might be an issue for WP:NPOVN, honestly- it wouldn't surprise me if this issue has come up before in relation to other topics. WT:RELI might be another source of insight from religion-neutral parties who may have hit this issue before. WT:MYTH is another good place to look. Also, if it becomes clear a wider-reaching consensus is needed, T:CENT might be a good place to grab attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those perennial arguments. Every so often, someone who deeply believes in a wikt:myth and is ignorant of the meaning of myth complains, under the wrong impression that myth in this context infers "false", which it does not. They then loudly complain - although I have to say they are usually not so blatant as the complain that "the article is controlled by atheists" and we have several days/weeks of discussion, after which the complainant is either better informed about the meaning of the word, or else they remain obstinately clinging to their personal misconception, and are instead told NPOV and OR and get over it, or variations of the same, usually with a dose of CON. Must we waste such time again?

Another issue here is that the complainant, Drew Smith, has made several strong statements on the article talk page, and my only interaction with this until now has been to ask for sources, per V. He has ignored me. Now, having failed to provide sources, he is here complaining that it is the Evil Atheist Cabal opposing him - need I say more about this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<---I ignored it and moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs (BTW, I am an agnostic who rebelled from the church as a young adult. I know my stuff, and I know most of it is BS) than on policy. So I switched tactic and addressed the use of terms like myth, minority, and fringe. All which, in the laymans dictionary, have negative connotations. As I said above, if the accepted defenition of myth is "dealing with the supernatural, or a creation story" Noahs ark doesnt fit, as the article's title suggests that the article is about the boat built by Noah. The article on Noah himself can claim myth, the article on the ark cannot. Also, why should we use scientific defenitions vs common defenitions, when in other fields we are told to use common names over scientific names? If jesus had a scientific name, say, Jesusi christae, would the article be titled Jesusi christae or Jesus Christ?Drew Smith What I've done 13:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is Helpful Hint One: Try very hard to edit as though you had no personal beliefs whatsoever. I have been accused of being a Bible thumper and an atheist, a Palin worshiper and an Obama drone, and I consider that a Very Good Thing, something I am proud of. And Helpful Hint Two: Ignore anyone elses' personal beliefs, whether "self proclaimed" or not. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Your charge that the article is controlled by a cabal of atheists is not only not helpful, it is disruptive and can not possibly help improve the article. Cease these attacks and personal comments. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I've been around long enough to know that personal beliefs are just asking for trouble, but this one really set me off. IN MY OBSERVATIONS believing that the ark was a literal object is definitly not fringe. My approach was bad, but my intent was to get a more neutral term.Drew Smith What I've done 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The real problem here is a flawed premise, contained in the phrase "academic encyclopedia". Wikipedia is not an "academic encyclopedia". It's an encyclopedia written by and for "the masses", and "the masses" understand that "myth" and "mythology" are synonyms for "fairy tale". Meanwhile, the assertion that all Christians literally believe in the Noah's Ark story is based on nothing. That's as much of a "myth" as the Noah's Ark story itself. In short: You've all got it wrong. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I say all? Or did I say most?Drew Smith What I've done 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Be it "all" or "most", either way you would need to cite that claim by providing a valid source for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

XD... And round and round we go. Please read all related material before posting as you merely repeated what others have already said.Drew Smith What I've done 14:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So where's your citation? Did I overlook it? And while you're at it, find out how many Jews believe it, since they are the ones who wrote the story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just read the stuff. You really are wearing my patience thin.Drew Smith What I've done 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you can't post (or repost) a simple citation right here, I assume there is none. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ man, read the fucking page! Up there/\ see it? No? Further up there/\! Keep going, did you find it? Good numbnuts, now lets come back down here and have an intelligent conversation without backtracking.Drew Smith What I've done 14:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not Jesus Christ, but thanks for the vote of confidence. And since you can't restate the alleged citation here, I assume there isn't one. In fact, any statistical claim of "all" or "none" is patently absurd because it only takes one exception to dismiss it. I know people who are Christians and who believe in Darwinian evolution. And in fact I'm one of them. So your basic premise is gone. Now, if you can find some stats as to what percentage of Christians (and also Jews and Muslims while you're at it) literally believe in Creationism and/or the Noah's Ark story, then you might have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"moved on because you were right, those first few claims where based more on my personal beliefs, than on policy." If you want to read the rest of it, it is only a few paragraphs above this. Of course you probably won't even look, and just assume the worst about me, which is what you have been doing all along.Drew Smith What I've done 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Except it was chronologically after that "moved on" statement that you denied having said "all" in the first place. So my answer was, "Yes, you did say 'all'." By now, it's becoming unclear just what it is you want here. You accuse others of incivility, yet you resort to it yourself. You make bogus arguments and then gripe that they aren't taken seriously. You would be well advised to find another topic to work on - as I did, when I realized that they weren't budging on the "mythology" question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's where you said "Every Christian in the world believes in Creationism" [1] and that is a patently false statement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So, are we talking about noahs ark or creation? And again, we've already covered this ground.Drew Smith What I've done 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all part of the "mythology" of the 5 books of Moses. You can't separate them out. You don't hear Biblical literalists talk much about Noah's Ark itself, compared with Creationism, because Creationism is the foundation, as it were. Without that, the entire mythology breaks down and much of the Old Testament becomes fairy tales rather than being part of a logical (and literally true) continuum. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

<-----The article is about Noahs Ark! Hence the title!Drew Smith What I've done 14:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Summarize your concerns concisely and neutrally. Whats going here!! Stop arguing! This is not going anywhere so why don't you all take a break, and leave this discussion for a while? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur with Gaia here. There are two issues being conflated here, the content issue, and the civility issue. Whichever issue is truly relevant should find the proper venue. –xeno ^talk 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So what is the proper fucking venue? I've moved this thing around, and searched all over wikipedia. It seems to me that EAR for content, and ANI for civility, IS the proper venue!Drew Smith What I've done 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never been to EAR before, to be honest, but I get the feeling it's more for quick one-off advice here and there. WP:RFC or WP:MEDCAB would be better for content. WP:WQA would be better for civility. WP:ANI is for situations that require immediate administrator action. For what it's worth, I'm sure you would experience less incivility (perceived or otherwise) from the folks you are complaining about if you would provide citations to back up your claims. –xeno ^talk 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God! Another person who doesn't take the time to read the pertinent information. Up there, is a section where I say I was wrong and those claims were based on my personal beliefs. Don't Say It! I know what wikipedia is not.Drew Smith What I've done 15:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure what more is required here. If you are willing to discuss changes to the articles based upon reliable sourcing, I'm sure those about whom you are complaining are willing to work with you in a rational manner. –xeno ^talk 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- Therein lies the problem. Everyone keeps coming back to those first claims.Drew Smith What I've done 15:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe the problem lies in your failure to provide 3rd party reliable sourcing to back up the changes you wish to make to articles. –xeno ^talk 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe the problem lies in your (and everyone elses) failure to read all pertinent information. I made the argument that the term myth does not apply to Noahs Ark, using the definition medaliv provided. My arguments were promptly ignored. All I want is for the article to use a more NPOV terminology.Drew Smith What I've done 15:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then file an RFC. –xeno ^talk 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DoneDrew Smith What I've done 15:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew's followed your advice (sort of) -- but the RFC is alternatively specified as "I was told by Xeno to take the issue to RFC" (inside the RFC template) and "I was told by Xeno to take this issue to RFC. All pertinent info can be found at EAR, and ANI" (outside). I don't think that this is a particularly concise articulation of the dispute, nor one that is likely to elicit comments from those not already involved. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the RFC heading. The RFC should focus on the content dispute. If Drew still wants to pursue the NPA angle, WQA is the right venue. –xeno ^talk 16:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Pre-consensus reverts regarding capitalizing term "Holy Spirit"

Stale

 – Fleetflame 00:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article "Holy Spirit" discusses at least three forms of 'holy spirit': the third person of the Trinity, a godly mindset, and an impersonal numen. For some time, the mindset and numen instances of "holy spirit" had capitalizations/uncapitalizations that were mixed (inconsistent). The inconsistencies only for instances of the impersonal forms were replaced by the uncapitalized form. Suddently, certain editors reverted and insisted upon universal capitalization of the term "Holy Spirit", with no uncapitalized forms permitted.

All concede that "Holy Spirit" is appropriately capitalized when it refers to a person, such as the third constituent of the Trinity.

The issue is whether "holy spirit" can ever be uncapitalized.

A Talk topic was begun and then another regarding whether the term "Holy Spirit" must be capitalized without exception. Certain editors reject completely the idea that "holy spirit" can be spelled without capitals, even if the term relates to something other than a person. Certain editors have explicitly noted that they are uninterested in how other reference works choose to capitalize or uncapitalize the term. Certain editors seem unwilling to wait for a thoughtful consensus to emerge at Talk. One would hate to think that dogmatic theology is influencing their actions.

Experienced editors less influenced by theology are invited to assist in resolving this matter. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam edited Holy Spirit to remove the capitalization from the subject in the article section describing the Jehovah's Witness beliefs. His grounds for this was that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not capitalize the term. It was pointed out to him that Wikipedia does not follow practices of specific religious groups when writing, even in articles relating to those subjects - e.g. we don't write Mohammed (pbuh) even in articles about Islam - and that the change of capitalization looks unprofessional. Two other editors agreed with this stance, leaving AuthorityTam as the only editor advocating the JW-specific non-capitalization. Unable to persuade other editors of his case he has come here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to AuthorityTam, the right step to take is to escalate the dispute through the appropriate dispute resolution channels. And this page is one of them. That said, I really don't know how to approach this issue. Have you made any attempts to ask for help at related WikiProjects' talk pages (e.g., WikiProject Christianity)? Honestly, AuthorityTam, while you may want editors less influenced by theology, you likely won't find editors interested or experienced in theological topics, especially one like this which (on the surface) appears rather nitpicky. I don't mean to call this a case of nitpicking- I understand how serious this issue can be from a standpoint of religious beliefs. I just think that you'll have better luck trying at related WikiProjects and if necessary starting up a content request for comments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if my writing was unclear: I have no objection whatsoever to AuthorityTam requesting additional assistance through these channels. In fact I specifically requested other editors to contribute their opinions on Talk:Holy Spirit. I am completely convinced that a greater number of people taking part in the debate will give a clearer result. I hope it is accepted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"We don't write Mohammed (pbuh)"? Are you sure? Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Well, we aren't supposed to do so except in cases such as quotes and book or film titles, or if the article is actually discussing the use of such honorifics. See MOS:ISLAM#Muhammad. I think a similar approach is appropriate for other topics... provided that is the issue here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You might like this edit which capitalises very nearly every word in the paragraph except "pbuh". SpinningSpark 13:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

AKM

Resolved

 – OP blocked. That was easy! Fleetflame 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AKM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

I corrected mistake about accuracy and post reference to source (Official field manuals).

User Koalorka reverted my edit. He claim that field manuals does not contain such information.

I made page on my blog and post there pages from field manuals to proof my information. I posted link to my blog in article. My blog is in russian. But AKM is russian weapon and all official field manuals are in russian.

User Koalorka still revert my edit.

What i suppose to do? 69.141.140.192 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka has apparently reported this IP for revert warring to an administrator who had previously blocked it. To be fair, it looks like Koalorka is at 3 reverts himself, and I'm not sure if the IP has broken 3RR.

As to the content dispute here, yes, non-English sources are acceptable per WP:RSUE. That said, as it's a primary source, any primary sources of comparable or better quality or any secondary sources which disagree with the non-English source means we prefer the English-language source. While this may imply a bias that could culminate in errors, this is a necessary measure to ensure that our readers have a reasonable chance of verifying the contents of our articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has blocked the IP for edit warring and abuse. When you come back, 69..., please try to discuss your edits if they are reverted once. Simply reverting back and forth along with rude edit summaries will just get you blocked for longer and longer periods. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why resolved? 69.141.140.192 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Chief James Vann

Resolved

 – Discussion ongoing on article talk page. Fleetflame 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

James Vann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently I added biographical and genealogical substantial informaton about an important Cherokee Indian, James Vann (1768-1808). My new text has twice been removed by someone, but my additional reference sources have survived. My information is well-documented and adds more accurate information than the previous Wikipeda entry. I have spent several decades in researching Cherokee history, working with the Trail of Tears Association as well as both the North Carolina and Oklahoma Cherokee tribes. My experience as an archivist with the National Archives and a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation should be considered.

In addition, I have new information about Chief James Vann's son Joseph "Rich Joe" Vann and the latter's steamboat "Lucy Walker". I have compiled a documented account of the explosion, fire, and sinking of the "Lucy Walker" on the Ohio River in 1844, which was one of the most deadly maritime disasters in U.S. history.

What must I do to get my contributions accepted by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.72 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor who reverted your edits, contributions, didn't use any edit summaries when doing the revert... which makes it extremely difficult to figure out what his particular objection was. My suggestion is, as it doesn't appear it's been attempted, try to kick off a discussion at Talk:James Vann about the content. I'll leave a message at User talk:Natty4bumpo asking him to drop in and try to discuss things there as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Chief James Vann (again)

I have added a great deal of documented information about the life and family of Cherokee Chief James Vann (1765-1809). I am an archivist employed by the National Archives and a registered citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. I am a recognized expert in Cherokee history and genealogy. I have also added a number of documentary sources to this page, which have been accepted. The main source of information about Vann and his family is the recently published The Moravian Springplace Mission to the Cherokees, 1805-1821 (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,NE, 2007) which were written in the German language. I assisted (along with Jack Baker, Councilor of the Cherokee Nation) the translator and editor, Dr. Rowena McClinton, in identifing the Cherokees mentioned in the Journals. I also compiled and transcribed from Moravian records the List of Students at Spring Place. I have already successfully added accurate information to the Wikipedia pages for Joseph Vann, Major Ridge, and Charles R. Hicks. Why not James Vann? I am not facile with computers, so bear with my efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.163 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This post originally was a separate, new request. I have collapsed it into the original request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a repeat of the same problem in the above thread; contributions has not engaged in discussion as requested at the end of the last request, though the editor didn't try to start a discussion either. I will write Natty4bumpo again.

To the person filing this request, you need to try and discuss this matter with the editor who reverted your contributions. Please go to Talk:James Vann, which is a page for discussing changes to that particular article, and start a conversation there. I will copy this message to your user talk page in case you did not see the result to the previous request for assistance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the IP editor create a user ID - his edits are coming from different IP addresses, and that may be adding to the confusion. JohnInDC (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No one seems particularly eager to begin a dialogue so I likewise dropped a note with User Talk:Natty4bumpo urging him to explain his thinking on the article's Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

James Vann

I have added documented information about Chief James Vann, but it has been eliminated several times (but my additional reference sources have survived. What must I do to get my changes accepted by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.188.114 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll further up this page to read the advice that other editors have offered. And, please - create a user ID! It is very hard to figure out how to communicate with you given that every time you edit, it is from a different IP address! JohnInDC (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More generally, I would suggest going to Talk:James Vann, explaining the edits you propose to make, and showing how your sources support them. Also be prepared to show that your sources are reliable ones. JohnInDC (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed this thread into the main one, and dropped a note on this IP editor's talk as well as all the other IP editors' talk pages. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Update. The IP editor has posted on Talk:James Vann, describing the primary sources serving as the basis for his edits. I've encouraged him to review Wikipedia's policies on reliability, verifiability and original research and to tie his edits carefully to the source material. (The sources are contemporaneous diaries, translated into English and published by the University of Nebraska press.) The reverting editor contributions has not yet commented on the Talk page so it's not clear whether this will sort out or not. JohnInDC (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/PVS-22

Request unclear

 – More confusing the deeper you go, apparently. Fleetflame 23:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/PVS-22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I AN ASKING THAT THIS POST BE REVIEWED AND WE HAVE PROOF THE LISTED NSN FOR THE pvs-22 IS KAC'S. Being that no proof other than what is listed under the PVS-22 does not support OSTI being the manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rummermail (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, this appears to be a complaint aimed at this edit which removed a sentence saying that a similar device is made by another company.

However, looking at the article, I suspect the topic fails WP:PRODUCT. This is definitely a candidate for redirection most likely, if not outright deletion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Found an additional ref that says OSTI manufactures the AN/PVS-22: [2]. However, as there seems to be no article on OSTI itself... I wonder what should be done here. Yes, two substantial news mentions are typically considered sufficient for notability, but really the news mentions are more relevant to the company than the product. Which suggests there should be an article on the company... though there is not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More interesting- seems there's a bigger dispute at hand. Knights Armament Co. apparently sued Optical Systems Technology Inc. in the past year or two... not sure what it's regarding. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

External Link / Reliable Source Question

Resolved

 – Per OP. Fleetflame 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrolling for blog links, and removing them where there is not an apparent exception to WP:RS or WP:EL, I removed links to this blog - usually linked to either this or this blog posting. This morning I was greeted by this objection on my talk page. I am responding to the User's talk page, but they have already reinserted the link once. Judging by the user page, the editor appears to be the author of the blog in question. I try not to revert other editor's good faith edits, and so am asking for a little input here. Is this a reliable source? The info appears to all be ref'ed to other sources in addition to the blog, so it seems redundant and self-published to me. (I would appreciate if you would please remove the re-inserted link if you agree with my assessment, so that this reversion is by a disinterested editor). Thanks for your time. I have notified the editor in question about this conversation. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted to my user talk.

I am responding here, to get insight from other editors about the policy question. That is, is your blog a reliable source, exempt from the general principle about self-published sources? I apologize if my comment about the link being "tagged on" was offensive - that was certainly not my intent. However, the comment in my edit summary was based on the observation that the link was at the end of a citation to a print reference ecerytime it appeared. The print source is, by itself, an adequate reference. Not all references need to be online. There are a significant sources in the ADHD article, which leads me to believe that there are plenty of reliable sources out there - they just may not happen to be online.

To further the issue, according to your user page, the blog in question is written by you. That causes me to think there is a little bit of self-promotion involved. I have a hard time believing that yours is the only research being done on this topic, and if so - that your research hasn't been published in book or article form somewhere. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so deeply sincere for finaly realizing your compleatly false accusations and the lie it was built upon, maybe we should belive it was an unintentional lie, well... be more careful next time with your false accusations

My self intetrest in the thing was to make the history of ADHD more well knownd, do you find a better and more well written history part with al the references and it all, use it! As simple as that.

Maybe its the history is not so good or whatever, it took me months to write and please don give me that crappy lies that it was just for the poor links sake. Just find a better one, and if you would like to comment it please be shure you know what you are talking about. you erased more than one link and did not bring in anything better.

I can right now give you 1 book relying on unverifiable "truths" and sweet lies. http://books.google.com/books?id=q9Rje9qX9W0C&pg=PA30&dq=adhd+history+hippocrates&ei=TccNSqnWMZTMyQS3wdCoCw&hl=sv

Next time please be more careful with you unintentional lies and false accusations. If you find any person in europe who has written more about the adhd history than me please gimme a call. Yes its on a blog that true, and the reason for that is very simple because we are writing more history and updating it regulary. Isen't that ok with wikipedia fine erase it al, and whynot al the history that is written by me. My intrerest in the thing is to write verifiable history on the subject not to be chatting with involountary liars. IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL doesn't apply to sources. From what I know about WP:EL is that were this link would not be appropriate. Since its being used as a reference it has to pass WP:RS instead, which is iffy in the case of blogs, especially in foreign languages. You might want to crosspost this at WP:RSN for further input if nobody here can answer it. My gut is that this isn't reliable unless the blog's author is an authority on the subject matter. ThemFromSpace 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, themfromspace. I really was thinking of WP:RS, more specifically WP:SPS, rather than WP:EL. To avoid cross-posting, I'll leave this here for a while and see if anyone else weighs in. I don't see any indication of the expertise of the blog author, but I could be wrong. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII, what you have written is not, by wikipedia standards, verifiable history - please see the wikipedia policy on verifiability. In the meantime, please calm down and refrain from personal attacks. I did not lie, I merely described the position of the link within the references. I did not make a any sort of statement about you. And yes, I did remove multiple instances of your link - because it does not appear to be a reliable source. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

someone apparently tagged their blog onto a bunch of existing refs We both know its a lie, so please dont make any more lies and personal attacks. If it was unintentional then it was an involuntary lie. but it's still a lie and you know it. IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone else who's having trouble figuring out what the problem is, Here is the diff that P-O is concentrating on. It does indeed seem that the reference that P-O added is a blog and was placed after another reference in one case, though not in others. The two diffs prior to that are removals by Athanasius of similar references which were (for want of a better phrase) tacked onto existing references. On that basis, it's safe to say that while Athanasius may not have been strctly accurate with the edit comment for that third removal, they should certainly not be called a liar. Assuming good faith - which is required - this was not an intentional deception. The important part of the comment - and the reason for removal of the reference - was that the source does not meet our standards for reliable sources. P-O, please don't make any more personal attacks against Athanasius, please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and please do not insert references to self-published material unless the author is recognised as an expert in a relevant field. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ppl from the blog wrote the whole section, as anyone easily can see. It is not in any way "tagged onto a bunch of existing references" we added the complete history and wrote most part of the adhd history from 1798 and the article about Crichton and so on. And it's easy to see, whynot just look in the history of the article? it is not to hard.

But yes its a blog and we have never pretended its not, its for shure reliable and verifiable, even with photos from the original sources dating back in 1798. If you can find a better and more reliable source i will be happy to know where.

IIIIIIIIIIP-OIIIIIIIIII (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and explain why it qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the link once more from Alexander Crichton. To avoid editwarring over this, I am going to unwatch all related articles. Thanks for your help. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. This is resolved as far as I am concerned - but you may want to see if there is any further response from the other involved editor. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Postdoctoral research: onset of an edit war

Resolved

 – Advised, and other editor self-reverted. Requesting editor considers this resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Postdoctoral research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have substantially edited this article over a period of several weeks, with occasional support from others. The previous version of the article appeared low in quality, representing a personal point of view, inappropriate use of language, and unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "lore of postdoc". This was pointed out in discussions prior to my efforts to improve this article.

Although this article is not perfect, it appeared some progress was made through the series of edits that I had undertaken with support of other. Subsequently the article was reverted twice to a several month old version, thereby destroying recent improvements.

In order to stop this seemingly beginning edit war, could some pls assist and mediate. Many thanks. Mootros (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Before advancing through the dispute resolution process, you need to at least attempt to talk things out with the editor reverting your edits. Judging from Talk:Postdoctoral research and the editor's user talk page (a redlink), you haven't tried this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The other editor in question appears to have shown reason and reverted own questionable edits back to original version. I consider the issues resolved. Mootros (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

An attempt is being made to tag Nazi Crimes in Poland as communist propaganda

Discussion moved

 – There is an ongoing discussion atWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 17#Template:Communist era sources

I ask you to read the following Wikipedia:Gaming the system, I believe this guideline is relevant right here and now seeWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 17#Template:Communist era sources.User:Skäpperöd put a Communist Hammer & Sickel over documented material on Nazi war crimes in the article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany An attempt is being made to tag Nazi Crimes in Poland as communist propaganda. I want people at the top level here to be aware of what is going on.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One, we're not the top level here. EAR is the bottom level of dispute resolution. Two, I'm not really sure where the actual conflict is, or what exactly you need us for. The admins at the AfD are the ones you need to take your concerns too as they are bound to be more involved than we are.Drew Smith What I've done 23:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD Whats that?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the link you posted said articles for deletion instead of templates for deletion. However, the admins at the templates for deletion should be the ones to take your concerns to. AfD is an acronym(sp?) for Articles for Deletion. Drew Smith What I've done 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The complaint here is more about the user of the template rather than the template itself, I would think. I wouldn't call its use WP:GAMING however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Skäpperöd is attempting to discredit documented Nazi crimes in Poland by claiming the source as unreliable because it was published in Poland before 1990. The sources cited are by well known and respected Polish scholars. Gaming the system is relevant here, Wikipedia is not about whitewashing Nazi crimes. Check this out please--Woogie10w (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is gaming the system. If the editor in question has genuine concerns about the reliability of such sources, then WP:RSN may be the right venue to get the advice of experienced editors. As may WP:ECCN if it's sufficiently rooted in ethno-cultural issues. Please assume good faith that the editor in question isn't trying to "whitewash Nazi crimes". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith OK, but he put a communist Hammer & Sickel over a documented account of Nazi crimes in Poland, this is going too far.

we need to look at what the intent is here.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no hammer and sickel tag on the article in question. Please provide links, and if it as been removed, diffs.Drew Smith What I've done 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We took it down, but User:Skäpperöd is pushing to restore it Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 17#Template:Communist era sources. The intent is to discredit an account of Nazi crimes because the source was published in Poland before 1990. Gaming the system in my opinion.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew here is the link with the Hammer & Sickel [[3]] --Woogie10w (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia for almost four years and have never seen such an outrage.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Templates for deletion. Concerns should be brought up there.Drew Smith What I've done 00:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)