Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 11

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

Revising the Public-access television article

Stale

– Involved editor has not edited since Dec 28. Pastordavid (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate the perspective of a level-headed editor in the dispute regarding the Public-access Television article. I have tried to contribute and pose respectful questions, and Hu12 is reverting and being a bit of an ass. You can read the discussion, which I posted prior to any deletion in an effort to be up-front about my edits, as well as teh discussion below.

Even if I am wrong (which I very well may be), i would appreciate a constructive conversation on why this list is not permitted, why it was permitted for so many years, and what would be the best course of action to keep the information available to the world, even if it doesn't belong on WikiPedia.

See the message Below from Hu12:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Welcome. Perhaps your unfamiliar what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I did not revert even ONCE, let alone 3 times. I felt the section was lazily and hastily removed, and I copied SOME of the deleted content and replaced it. Then, when you deleted that section, I spent an hour cleaning the spam from it, improving the information, verifying the stations and their channels, and revising it before re-posting it.

Your behavior is very discouraging for someone trying to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive and responsible manner. I have not reverted or un-done anyone's work. I'm trying to contribute and am clearly stating my motivations. I'm not going to debate with you, but I think more explanation is needed than a pompous, disrespectful statement that "wikipedia is an encyclopedia". I can show you hundreds of articles in wikipedia that contain lists of examples... and yet, I'm still open to hearing some reasonable explanation of why that list was not removed long ago, when it was reviewed for a featured article, and while rejected, no one referred to the list of stations as a problem with the article.

````Tony Shawcross, Denver, CO you can reach me via e-mail at deproduction.org

Two administrators (myself and User:Beetstra) have removed directory entries on Public-access television, which in this case^[1] clearly do not abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Merely being informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I welcomed the anon, and get called an ass?, would another editor kindly remind this person of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of you throwing around policies very recklessly and loosely. I suggest you read Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY again, noticing that both allow for lists like this one. I also read CIV and NPA, and there's nothing that applies. This list was hastily removed, you have gotten no support for the removal, and I've worked hard to get this list clean and clear of any spam or self-promotion.Deproduction (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"'...another example?". I'll AGF, however it sounds like your suggesting you operate altenate accounts? If so please disclose. There are certain things that Wikipedia is not, such as;

Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY ; "Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia'.

Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY ; "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc."

clearly Public-access_television#Public_access_organizations (directory) does not abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines. This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Guidelines such as those mentioned above are generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.

Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition.

deproduction/70.59.33.63's tendentious editing has continued on the article, Public-access television in pursuit of a certain point, despite opposition and discussion on the talkpage from one or more established editors. This edit warring appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force.--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On his user talk, User:Deproduction identifies himself as Tony Shawcross. His email address is at a company that sells production services to public access groups, the type of group that this article is about. See the web site http://www.deproduction.org. (His statement about his email address at deproduction.org is higher up in the thread we are in now. A web search will yield more info). Deproduction appears to stand for Denver Evolution Production Group. Under these conditions, I believe that Deproduction has a conflict of interest in editing this article, and he should be advised to limit his participation to the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language equivalents

Resolved

– Editor seems to have moved on to contributing in different subject areas. Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wakablogger (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) I'm having trouble with the edit of an article, Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush.

The main problem is that I want to add the Chinese equivalent, but Jimfbleak keeps undoing the addition. Her or his objection is that this is the English Wikipedia, so Chinese is inappropriate.

It took me a great deal of time to find the Chinese name for this bird, and I wanted to save others from the same trouble. Animals in particular are frequently inaccurate in dictionaries, so a reliable source such as Wikipedia is important for people to find foreign language equivalents.

Because I don't speak Chinese, I can't create a Chinese article, and because Wikipedia has strict rules against creating extremely short stubs, I can't create a single-line entry.

While I have explained that to Jimfbleak, s/he does not seem interested in discussing the issue, but simply undoes my edit.

For the time being, I have created the page Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush (in foreign languages), but it is set for speedy deletion because it is a stub.

Can you please assist with this issue?

Have you pointed out any precedents in other articles, especially on birds, but even on Chinese subjects such as dim sum or even Chinese-American, Vincent Chin? I can see the value of alternate names for such a bird with such a wide range that a name in another language may otherwise suggest another species. Other justifications can include: China has more English speakers than any other country in the world, and that the Chinese written language is dialect independent, meaning that technically, the font could be read as English written in Chinese. That is how I navigate a Chinese menu, sticking to the characters for beef, pork, shrimp & chicken, and staying away from dog :). Otherwise, you sound like you're in the same boat I'm in. Be conscious enough of the 3RR to avoid it, but also enforce it. MMetro (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Today East718 deleted my page Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush (in foreign languages) without consultation or discussion. I spent a LONG time finding the equivalent of Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush in Chinese and believe others like me would benefit from that information. There is NO drawback to including a section with foreign language equivalents. If people don't want to read it, they can skip it. I have contributed in minor ways to Wikipedia over the years under various names, but this is absolutely the end of the line. It seems ridiculous that Jimfbleak and East718 are granted the power of god to delete information which is useful AND relevant, and I'm tired of writing these silly messages trying to defend what is common sense. Please advise. Wakablogger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakablogger (talk • contribs) 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused here. The article was not deleted without explanation or discussion, there was an explanation, a discussion, and consensus was developed - and you participated in that discussion. User:East718 was just closing the discussion, and deleted the article as that was the consensus. Useful and relevent are nice things, but they are not the same thing as encylcopedic and notable which are the two key ideas for understanding why some information winds up on wikipedia and some does not. Travel information is useful, and relevant to me, but it is not encyclopedic, and so you will find much information deleted with the explanation that wikipedia is not a travel guide, but an encyclopedia. Please do not take it personally, just move on to something else -- there is plenty of information to edit here! Pastordavid (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Garden & Gun magazine

Resolved

– asked and answered. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am an employee at Garden & Gun magazine and recently published an article on your website about the magazine, as instructed by the marketing director. The site was flagged for "speedy deletion." I am not one well versed in wikipedia editorial, but am curious as to why the article is no longer there. And could I get it back? Do I need any approval? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garden&Gun (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the circumstances, I would have tagged it for G11: Blatant advertising (you can see all the criteria here), but it was actually A7: No indication of importance or significance. Wikipedia generally doesn't accept articles written like an advertisement, and I understand you were just filling your superior's request, but try to explain to them that unless there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. That is the general notability guideline on wikipedia. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 17:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jat people & Noun Etymology of Jat

Resolved

– Per note below. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On New pages patrol I came across Jat people & Noun Etymology of Jat and I am stumped. I've not seen an article quite like it but I suppose it is okay to keep. The title though seems inappropriate. Any thoughts about article and/or title? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That article seems to have spun out of the Jat people#Noun Etymology of Jat section. Sorry, what's inappropriate? Is it the ampersand? I'd tend to agree that the ampersand doesn't belong, but I'm not convinced that is to what you are referring. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't put my finger on what seemed wrong (or I might have gone ahead and moved it). The ampersand, the length of the title, the phrase "noun etymology" (what is noun etymology as compared to just etymology?), the extraneous capitalization, ...? Maybe just "Etymology of Jat" would be simpler. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the caps and the "noun" part bother me too. "Entomology of Jat" and "Jat people and etymology of Jat" would both be fine titles. WP:TITLE probably says something about title names. I suggest you propose one or both on the talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Etymology of Jat. It may, however, still be a candidate for WP:AFD as original synthesis. At the very least, it should be chopped and merge with the dab page Jat. Anyone care to persue this further? Pastordavid (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You might go ahead and mark this as resolved. The new title is okay by me. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere but it doesn't seem terrible where it is. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanent Makeup page problems continue

Resolved

– Article was full protected for a week. If problems persist now that the protection has lifted, please start a new section. Pastordavid (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems there has been considerable vandalism to the permanent makeup page and I don't know quite how to get it back to where it should be when editor Ciaccona fixed it back on at 07:17, 25 November 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permanent_makeup&oldid=173642355)

If there is a way someone could put that back to the way it was then, I would be able to have photos put up and the page would be quite informative instead of all this current self-serving mess. I would spend more time monitoring it to be sure it was not hacked up so badly again. Thank you so much for any assistance. Tatt bratt (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're trying to do is called a revert. Basically, to do what you're trying to do, click on the link you provided above to the version that you like. Click on the edit button, put a descriptive message in the edit summary section (ex. "reverting back to last version by Ciaccona in November because I believe that the recent edits are ..."). Ignore the errors that say that you're saving an old version. Click save without changing the content.

Be careful though. You're telling me that you want to stomp out dozens of edits (most/all of which aren't actually vandalism). Make sure you don't accidentally remove warranted information. Or, if you do remove good information, make sure you go back and re-add the stuff that belongs. In other words, be cautious when reverting. Sometimes it's best to discuss these sweeping changes on the talk page or at least give a summary on the talk page of what you removed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not so much removing but wanting to add back many important links and references that are not at all self-serving - it seems they all got lost in the shuffle of these "conflicts". Thank you for the advice. Tatt bratt (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good I guess. For more information, there is an archive of your previous discussion about this article. You might want to read some of the good advice there: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 8#Dispute at the Permanent makeup page. As I also suggested, they suggested that you go to the talk page. I see you've tried. Sometimes it can be hard to bring discussion to the talk page, but it's always more productive to find compromise and consensus there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This has continued. This unnamed person even deletes my posts under discussion and continues to revert. There are many reasons to keep references as they were - the one article link she keeps cutting points to critical history in the permanent makeup industry. At one point someone sabbotaged it and changed the name from George Burnett to some "Molie Forster." An event that occurred in Australia is NOT a clear example of worldwide trends or legislation. In fact, I have talked to several people there and insist it is a travesty and many are fighting to change it. It is an embarrassment to the industry and what this person is doing is worse. I would request that this user's IP address be blocked from further changes. Thank you for any help or recommendations you could provide. Tatt bratt (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT WAR continues....I am not proud of this but this unamed person continues to remove my discussion posts and changes the entire "flavor" of the permanent makeup page. Can someone PLEASE help here. I have made suggestions to her as to how to include her Australian (isolated) court case information but she continues to revamp the entire page. Furthermore, rather than finding an historic link to her liking, she omits the one (not placed by me, incidentally) and demands I FIND a more suitable reference when this is the only one to George Burchett available. It should be up to her to find something if she does not happen to like the article. Thank you so much for your time.Tatt bratt (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the intervention. Tatt bratt (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilisation/Self-published article as a reference!

Stale

– The edit war here appears to have ceased, and at least a cease-fire has been attained on the talk page, if not a full resolution. Pastordavid (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I request mediation to convey a neutral and fair view in this article. The help may not require an expertise in this area since the topic of contest is about an inclusion of reference.

I was trying to make some corrections to the article named Indus valley civilisation. The correction is at the Historical context section of the article. The article goes "Alternatively, Proto-Munda, Proto-Indo-Iranian or a "lost phylum" are sometimes suggested for the language of the IVC (see Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit)" and referred to an article published by Witzel. Witzel has published this article in a Journal called Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies in which he is the Editor-in-Chief. It almost qualifies to be called self publication. In addition to that, the claims of Witzel has been contested by Krishnamuty (Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju., "Dravidian Languages", p38., Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN: 0 521 77111 0).

All that I am suggesting as a correction is to tag this claim either unrelaiable so it can be referenced to more reliable sources or add one sentence which would indicate that Witzel's claim was contested by Krishnamurti.

The reason I believe Witzel's claims are unreliable is because

1) It is published in a Journal headed by him

2) I guess it is an exceptional claim because it proposes a contaridctory proto-mundan and proto-Indo-Iranian origin belief in contrast to the widely believed proto-Dravidian.

3) According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Exceptional claims require exceptional source, certainly not an article published somebody in his own journal..

I believe that just stating Witzel's extraordinary claims based on a publication which he did in a Journal headed by him and not including krishnamurti's denial to accept his claims lead to misunderstanding and misconceptions about Indus Valley Civilisation in the minds of the readers which I believe is not in the interests of Wikipedia.

I have been trying to discuss this issue with administrators Mr.Dab and Mr.Rudra and I havent succeeded in convincing them. I would need the assistance of some neutral editors to resolve this issue.

I would certainly would like to share more of my opinions and important issues with the editors to put forward my concerns in a more comprehensive way if required.

Thanks vcpk (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit Unusual Coffins section of Coffins article

Stale

– Editor has not contributed since Dec 30. When archived, please leave a note on editor's talk page Pastordavid (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a custom coffin maker with a web site (vintagecoffins.com). I've been building coffins for fourteen years and have sold to customers all over the United States. Over the years I've built several unusual coffins which I believe would enhance the Unusual Coffins section. For example, I've built a coffin for Santa Claus, a Steamboat coffin for a feature film by the Public Broadcasting System, a Beer Bottle Coffin commissioned by Maxim magazine and, recently, a toe-pincher style coffin with glass shelf inserts for a mixed martial arts coach who will use it as his liquor cabinet. My work has been featured in local and regional newspapers, the Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) and Gannett papers across the U.S. including USA Today; on the Internet at E!Online, Fox News Online, ABC Online, BBC in London, CBC (Canada); countless radio interviews across the U.S.; and in films and videos for The Learning Channel, Kentucky Educational Television, and RFD TV. This would be my first attempt at editing a page and I would appreciate your advice on how to approach it while staying within Wikipedia guidelines.

1. Should I begin with adding an external link and, if so, should it be to my web site or to a published article, video, photo, etc.?

2. Or should I attempt to add a small amount of text to the Unusual Coffins section and insert photographs? I'll need your advice on citing and verifying sources.

Thank You, Roy Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffins227 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually pretty cool! You could add a link to your site in the external links section, but some might view this as self-promotion, so that's your call. You should start by finding some reliable sources - online or print - on your work (taking a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources will give you an idea of how to give attribution to these sources; enclosing these statements in <ref></ref> tags will automatically add them to the reflist), and start writing about your work. If you make a couple minor mistakes, someone else can fix them. If you need help uploading pics of your own coffins, you can go here. If you want my help in checking your work before or after you make the edits, just contact me on my talk page. Let me know if you have any more questions! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to check out these suggestions for writing your first article. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

drug abuse

Resolved

– Nothing to do here. Pastordavid (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi My name is Steven, and I am a very grateful recovering addict... Welcome to my journey into recovery! I walked into the doors of Narcotics Anonymous on July, 8 2003. That was the day that life began to change for me. I'm taking this new way of life one day at a time and I hope you'll join me. "Together" I think we can figure out this thing called life! What I have found that is working for me is the faith in a power much greater than myself and a 12 step program. But without you, I am left alone to my own devices, so I NEED YOU! I know one thing for sure........ I can't, but WE can!

i was hoping maybe you can display a link to my website so i can help and give back to pepole cause they help me

http://fdaonline.net fight drug abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.229.61 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, do you think it could fit into an article somewhere? Wikipedia isn't for self-promotion or advertizing. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Selmer Company / Malcolm Parkin

Resolved

– WP:COI editor notified. Pastordavid (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes made to The Selmer Company on 27 December 2007 by a user identifying himself as Malcolm Parkin raise a number of potential issues: the material is not written in an encyclopedia-like style, it may have conflict of interest and neutral point of view issues, and it might be original research. However, the "assume good faith" principle makes me question whether simply reverting those changes is the best approach to dealing with it. I'm hoping another editor will be able to clean this up while helping to familiarize Malcolm Parkin with Wikipedia's policies. JNW2 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal commentary deleted, and I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page to use the article talk page next time. Probably the best we can do. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed an error, that's all

Resolved

In the article on French actress Emmanuelle Beart it says whe was born in 1963. In the article on her father, it says Emmanuelle was born in 1965.

Have a good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.106.212 (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my name is Mark Nolan, upstate New York —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.106.212 (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Here I see it says 1963, so '63 it is. Malinaccier (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

repeated vandalism

Resolved

– asked and answered. Pastordavid (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article regarding our nonprofit organization and the article about me personally have been subject to repeated incidents of vandalism. The most current round has been perpetrated by user SirDecius. The Glenn Hagele article was recently deleted. The Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (USAEyes) article has had competely inaccurate information added and a link to a website that is unlawfully using our trademark (in arbitration at this time).

This appears to be related to two lawsuits I have brought against individuals who have defamed me, invaded my privacy, and published my personal identity, including Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc., on websites they control.

The user SirDecius is clearly more knowledgeable about the methods to use Wikipedia to vandalize and delete articles. How do I protect the USAEyes article? How do I get the Glenn Hagele article republished? How do I get the true identity of SirDecius?

04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

a) For protection, you want WP:RFPP, b) For restoration, you want WP:DRV, but there are no guarantees, it could stay deleted, c) You don't. If this is clear cut vandalism, you'll want to go to WP:AIV. SirDecius is not an admin, so he can't personally delete pages. The community decided for deletion here. The actual deleting admin was User:Kurykh, but it's not their fault, they were just enforcing consensus. It seems as though you have a legal issue on your mind, and I want to remind you that you could be blocked for making legal threats. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll follow up on this information. Ghagele (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Let me know how it goes. Happy editing! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Waterboarding

Stale

– Or maybe resolved, as far as this page is concerned. Has moved on to AN/I and is currently a request for arbitration. Pastordavid (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The article has become a political battleground. We need calm editors to join the talk page discussion and ongoing RfC to help sort out the problem. This page is very high profile and the issue is a major concern in the United States presidential election, 2008. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

jennifer ellison page

Resolved

– article appears vandalism prone. Has some watchers, but could probably use a few more if someone wants to add it to their watchlist. Otherwise, resolved. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

a number of lies have been posted on her page including she was a member of atpic kitten she definitely was not theres also rubbish aboutm her being on a celb show with Jordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.14 (talk • contribs)

Then be bold, remove the lies. Marlith 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Violations by IP Address

Resolved

– New thread opened below. Pastordavid (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

This morning I saw a warning from you indicating that my IP adress has been warned many times for violations and stand a chance of being banned from using Wikipedia. I have never actually posted a message or edited any material on the site except reading them. I remember early on when I joined Wikipedia I saw such a message and contacted Wikipedia who apologised for such a mistake and said the message was not intended for or directed to me. I am again today faced with such a similar problem. Knowing very well that many other people use this same particlar IP address why do you not contact the ISP to track down the person(s)abusing the Wikipedia rather than blanketly warning every one using the same IP address.

Kind regards.

DR CLEMENT AKATENG MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRCLEMENTAKATENG (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to avoid problems is to do exactly what you apparently have done, which is to create an account. Then you don't have problems with other editors looking like they are you, as happens when you're an IP editor. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

portal request

Resolved

– asked and answered on user's talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am wishing to post a mini portal regarding to a University informations,or better saying making a wiki with university informations.

Can you guide me how to make it possible?>

Hope to hear soon from you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupi-01 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2008

Replied on user's talk page. See wikia:request:Request Wiki:Request a Wikia Dorfklatsch 11:47, January 6, 2008

Sorudo

Resolved

– AFD appears to be headed for delete. Pastordavid (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like an experienced opinion on this article as I'm not sure whether I'm following the correct course of action or not. The basics (as I see it) are that the Sorudo article (about a vernacular term apparently used within the games community) was created with no claim to notability, and no sources to prove verifiability. I marked it for speedy deletion under CSD G1 (nonsense) - perhaps it should have been a PROD instead, but there we go. The speedy delete tag was removed by another user and a slightly acromonious dispute took place (see the Talk:Sorudo page) with me trying to explain that WP requires verifiability and none had been provided, and a couple of other users saying that I was being unreasonable. It's ended up with them basically asking for time for further comments etc, and me just re-tagging the article as unreferenced for the moment. What I'd therefore like to know is - 1) was my original action in tagging for deletion correct, 2) was my response (on the talk page) sufficiently reasonable and 3) should the article itself be left to grow, or be marked for deletion (PROD or AfD) ? I obviously don't want to start edit/revert or any other type of war, so I'd appreciate one (or more) experienced views. If nothing else, I can learn from the feedback. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. To answer your questions, 1) No. Please check Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, 2) Yes, it was very calm, civil, and true. They don't seem to understand what the policy is saying. They seem to want to provide sources only if they need to. But they are acting in good faith. I've noticed that some newer editors seem to take offense at having the article they wrote tagged for something, I don't know why. They should provide sources, but 3) The article should go to AfD, per WP:DICDEF. I can set it up, if you need. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response ! :-) Yes, I'd appreciate it if you could set it up for AfD - that way it will hopefully show that it's not just my opinion. One quick question - if I shouldn't have tagged it as CSD G1, what should I have done with the article ? Regards CultureDrone (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Well, WP:DICDEF isn't covered under CSD, so you could have either PRODed it, but that would probably have gotten removed pretty quickly, or you could have sent it to AfD. You are welcome to comment on the AfD if you like. I offered because I have twinkle and that makes AfDs go through a lot quicker. I'll note that the nom is in your behalf. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll wait for the screams of 'unreasonable behaviour' from certain parties then ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's all ready. All we have to do now is sit back and let the discussion go through. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Crocker Motorcycle Page

Resolved

– Page is full protected for a week, and an AN/I discussion happened around the article. Pastordavid (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Crocker page has had correct information until someone started using it as a forum for a fight. The new information is not accurate or true. I have reverted the page back to December 29th when the history was correct but the vandal keeps putting up the new text. Is this allowed, and if not how can it be stoped permanently?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.16.223 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to talk to the people at WP:RFPP for a full protection to sort this all out. Malinaccier (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fenerbahçe managers

Resolved

– Problem fixed. Pastordavid (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an editor please check this category - it seems to be recursive -
[–] Fenerbahçe footballers

[–] Fenerbahçe PAF footballers

[–] Fenerbahçe footballers

[–] Fenerbahçe PAF footballers

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CultureDrone (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. Category:Fenerbahçe footballers was indeed recursively included in Category:Fenerbahçe PAF footballers and vice versa. I removed the inclusion into Category:Fenerbahçe PAF footballers from Category:Fenerbahçe footballers, so Category:Fenerbahçe PAF footballers is now an unambiguous subcategory of the parent Category:Fenerbahçe footballers. Dorfklatsch 17:10, January 9, 2008

Repeated deletions of notable comments by notable person re Bhutto assassination

Stale

– conversation appears to have died down since Dec 31. Pastordavid (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article "Benazir Bhutto" are sections on her assassination that include domestic and international reactions to the assassination. Some editors have taken it upon themselves to exclude any and all international reactions that do not emanate from heads of state.

Consequently my contribution on US presidential candidate and former US First Lady Hillary Clinton's reaction to the effect that the Pakistani military might be responsible for the Bhutto assassination and that aid to Pakistan should be limited to humanitarian purposes has been excluded. This, despite the fact that my contribution does not violate any wikipedia rule whatsoever nor is it disruptive of the page. My attempts to restore the vandalized text have been met with threats about the 3-reversion rule. Here is the text:

On December 29, 2007, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated that Benazir Bhutto might have been murdered by Pakistani troops and urged diversion of all US aid to Pakistan away from the military to social and humanitarian programs.^[1]

---

No actual reason has been articulated for the removal of Clinton's reaction; only the personal POV of the offending editors that Wikipedia should exclude international reactions from non-heads-of-state has been mentioned, and that's not a reason, that's just their personal opinion of the way that they would like to see wikipedia operate.

The facts are that Clinton is a notable person and her statements on the Bhutto assassination are notable and currently displaying in over 3,500 google news entries. Other excuses (not reasons) that were articulated included that the views of other presidential candidates were not mentioned; that the item is "clutter"; and that Clinton has no personal knowledge of the assassination. None of these have anything to do with either Clinton's notability or that of her remarks. No good faith has been shown on the part of the offending editors, who have yet to come up with a single legitimate reason why the item should be excluded.

I want Clinton's reaction restored to the international reactions section of the Benazir Bhutto assassination section, as well as the notable international reaction of any other notable person, whether head of state or not. I want the unwarranted threats of 3-reversion blocking rescinded. I want the editors involved to learn that vandalizing an article is to be taken seriously, and that, yes, their actions ARE vandalism.

Mothra (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This would open the door to thousands of comments by public figures, which might make the article a tad unwieldy. Unless Hillary Clinton has some inside info, her opinion on the matter has no more notability than that of Britney Spears. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not dependent on "inside info", but is demonstrated by widespread distribution. If over 3,500 google news items display Britney Spears comments on the Bhutto assassination, then those should be included too. Mothra (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you take to be the minimum standard for the number of Google hits for the exact same quotation, for it to be considered "widespread"? 1,000? 500? 50? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Red herring. 3,500 independent google news sources meets the "minimum", whatever that may be. Mothra (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whose minimum? What if I think it should be 10,000? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's minimum, which is defined as "sufficient sources". I strongly suggest that before commenting further that you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Mothra (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that writeup that indicates a notable person's comments on a notable topic are necessarily notable themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another red herring. Notability means "worthy of notice". A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Clinton's reaction is both worthy of notice and in fact has received significant coverage in independent sources. Mothra (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor that 3,500 qualifies as "widespread". As was pointed out on the original page, there are 892,000 Google hits on "flat earth". Thus, the flat earth concept is 250 times as noteworthy as Hillary's comments on this subject are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. There are only 57 hits for "flat earth" on Google News (not 892,000 as you claim) and many of them deal with some bread product. Bear in mind that I'm talking about 3,500 independent articles from reliable sources on Google ***NEWS***, NOT on Google Web: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+clinton&btnG=Search+News Mothra (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the figure of 3500 cannot be substantiated. Searching for Clinton and Bhutto on Google News does produce over 3500 "hits", however, searching them leads to the articles being exhausted after about 740 articles. That's about 80% of the argument gone. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar considerations apply to all the people whose reactions that have not been censored. Hillary stands at about 3,500 while these are the numbers (sometimes quite meager) at google news for the others:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,031 for bhutto UN Security Council http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+UN+Security+Council&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 4 of about 5 for bhutto Amr Moussa

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Amr+Moussa&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 427 for bhutto Manmohan Singh

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Manmohan+Singh&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 872 for bhutto Gordon Brown

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Gordon+Brown&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for bhutto José Manuel Barroso

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Jos%C3%A9+Manuel+Barroso&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,411 for bhutto george bush http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+george+bush&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 2 of about 34 for bhutto Tarcisio Bertone http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Tarcisio+Bertone&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 116 for bhutto Pope Benedict XVI

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Pope+Benedict+XVI&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for bhutto Qin Gang

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Qin+Gang&btnG=Search+News

Mothra (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that many media outlets parrot something Hillary (or any notable figure) says does not make what she says notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, significant coverage from reliable sources is PRECISELY what makes what she says notable. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mothra (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, where are you quotes from Huckabee, Obama, etc., on the same subject? I'm sure they also had something to say about it... unless... unless... you're specifically trying to push Hillary's viewpoint? Here you complain about alleged "partisan POV whining." [2] Yet you don't appear to be interested specifically in any candidate's comments except Hillary's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another in a long series of red herrings posted by baseball bugs. If bugs wants to post some notable comment by some other candidate, then by all means do so. Add to wikipedia, not detract from it. And by the way, I'm opposed to Hillary's election. Mothra (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think they should be there, so I'm not about to do that work. If you think candidates' comments should be there, then you need to do the work to find all of the candidates' comments, lest you further paint yourself as partisan, i.e. POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the lack of good faith by the vandals has been fully documented, it is once again time to ask the ultimate question: When, where and by whom was the decision taken by wikipedia to exclude international reactions by non-heads of state? I've already asked this question at least twice without getting any response. Mothra (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You began the "lack of good faith" by bringing up the accusations of vandalism, partisanship and censorship, when in fact it's a content dispute. And I say again, if you're going to publish one candidate's irrelevant and self-serving public comments, you need to publish all of them. Stop hassling us and get to work looking up that info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is dodging the question. Again. Neither he nor his tiny band of self-appointed censoring thugs have any authority to delete what is clearly legitimate material. He has failed to cite any wikipedia policy at all that would allow deletion of notable comments by a notable person regarding the Bhutto assassination as part of the international reaction to the assassination just because the notable person in question is not a head of state or happens to currently be a candidate in a US election. The numerous dodges, red herrings and outright dishonesty in defense of vandalism by this troll are a textbook case of what wikipedia should NOT be. Mothra (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And now we're thugs. What policy compels us to include random comments from random public figures who have neither any first-hand knowledge of an event nor any authority (at present) to influence the event? His original complaint was that the comments by some guy named Calhoun were still in the article. That guy's comments are equally irrelevant and are gone. The user Mosura appears to have some personal reason for insisting on including only Hillary Clinton's comments and not being willing to provide some fairness and balance by providing other candidates' comments as well. Why is Hillary any more notable than any of the other Presidential candidates? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cayra

Resolved

– Deleted at AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Could someone look over Cayra, including its edit history and the talk page discussions? We're having a dispute over the notability of the article topic. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to be covered in multiple independent sources, which would make it presumably notable. I don't think it needs a tag for notability. However, it does need to be re-written removing any OR, and inline citations need to be used, influencing the context. Please stop (both parties) reverting each others' edits, you might violate the 3RR, and administrators have been notified at ANI. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. However, the issue is whether there is even a single independent source that meets WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Help editing the wikipage for cayra

A third party is requested for help editing the wikipage for Cayra.

The issues are well documented on the talk page. Essentially what we have is a refusal to engage in the talk sections or justify radical edits to the page on the part of one editor. I have repeatedly attempted to engage this editor in reasoned debate, which he avoids.

I am asking this editor to justify his complaints against this wiki entry. Again, the details are on the talk section. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Wikieditor9999 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

I made a post at ANI on this, as there seems to be an edit war. Just a notice. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The ANI has been refused: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Notability_issue_at_Cayra --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my bad. I've replied at the Cayra talk page. Since we can't seem to agree on the sources, let's just try to find new ones. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways ArbCom

Resolved

Is there any way I can get some assistance? Maybe I'm just a "nice guy", but I'm not keen on presenting offensive evidence of "this person has done this" etc. Should I be doing this, and possibly escalating the dispute further? Is behavior like [3], at least if repeated, something that can be presented and acted upon? Thank you. --NE2 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I had sent you here, not realizing that there was a request for arbitration pending. Usually one of the clerks can answer questions about active cases. However, if the request is likely to be rejected, then this venue is probably correct. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your case is active. You could add your evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence in your own section. When a case is pending, it is almost certainly best to keep the dispute in one place. I am sorry for having sent you here by mistake. If you want informal advice about the arbitration process, contact the clerk for your case, User:Coren. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Coren said that any advice would be inappropriate: User talk:Coren#Highways... again --NE2 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved in the case. I can give you general social media advice based on my own experiences here. People tend to dislike complaints and unnecessary drama. You may help your own cause by not complaining unless the matter is serious. Does that answer your question? Jehochman ^Talk 04:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The matter was serious for ArbCom to accept... --NE2 06:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Resolved

Hi. I disagreed with an design decision on a template. A sequence of edits since then has me fit to be tied. Would someone here be willing to give me their advice on how to ask another editor to please leave me alone? Here are a few links. First said hi, then edited template, problem started here: first discussion. Now on three users talk pages back in the history, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, a couple on my talk page, and I may have missed a few. I will let the other editor know that I asked about this here. Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In what sense do you want to be "left alone"? Are you being harassed? Barrylb (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Barrylb. Thanks for the very prompt reply. Would it be possible to make a friendly agreement to let each other enjoy Wikipedia in whatever interests us? That would be nice. And no, I don't think this is harrassment. Over the past few days I found myself and the other editor at odds—in particular they posted to a third party's talk page that they were snubbed, which I found inexplicable because I have been replying to this editor in other places this week. Wikipedia is a big place and I think there is room for everybody. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be left alone, I would recommend you cease involvement in any discussions or editing for the part of Wikipedia you don't want to be involved with. I don't think you should worry about someone's comment about being 'snubbed' - best not to escalate any arguments. Just continue doing what you are interested in. Barrylb (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. And that is the advice another person gave a while ago. What do you suggest I do when the other editor is commenting on the areas I am working on? That has been my experience today and this week (one is an FA I have edited off and on for a year, the other was a DYK I started just before the other editor and I crossed paths). I hope an amicable solution is possible and would think so. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Barrylb. I think you can mark this resolved. The other editor replied and thought he or she was being "whimsical". So I am moving on and hope this person will find other interests. Thanks again for your help. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help :) -- Barrylb (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MacGuffin: Problems With MacGuffins

Stale

– Both editors still editing article in question, but neither of them posted anything here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Was going to post this into request for mediation, but this sounds faster, could lead to something more effective.

Involved parties

MMetro (talk · contribs)
ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

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

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Attempted editing of NOR/POV.
After revert, posted a citation needed for the dissent from the original ciation.
Requested discussion on ILike2BeAnonymous' talk page
Created section for discussion on article talk page
Waited several weeks for any sort of response

Issues to be mediated

The way the citations are used in the section Problems with MacGuffins has been misused since its original creation on May 13, 2007 by Neale Monks. This user lists the citations, but then proceeds to disagree with it, even though both examples are from highly regarded members of the film community. No contributor has offered any citation to support the idea that these members are in disagreement to the industry consensus, or if there is indeed a problem with the definition of a MacGuffin.
The Ebert quote is also highly unusual in that it tells fans of Transformers who would otherwise flood his inbox with so-called enlightenment, to check out Wikipedia's entry on MacGuffin.
I, MMetro, seek to eliminate the section entirely, since stripping the contribution's dissent removes any point to the section. The quotes have already been moved to the Description section. ILike2BeAnonymous has reverted two attempts of editing the Problems section so far, duplicating the quotes in the process.
As ILike2BeAnonymous has not offered any more response as can be found in his edit summary, discussion on the topic has reached a lull, and the need for WP:NOR objectivity by a third party not affected by fandom, mediation is requested as to whether the citations and synthesis were proper.
The creator of the controversial section is unavailable until at least after January 1st. If he can understand my problems with his section as he made it and can successfully answer them through rectification or justification, further mediation may not be necessary.

In any case, thank you for your time, patience, and advice. MMetro (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has taken a while for anyone to respond to you here. There are not many of us carrying the workload here, and it occassionally takes a while for us to respond to requests. I have looked over the article, and glanced at the talk page and history. The point of conflict is not immediately obvious to me (I can be dense at times). Could you please post some specific diffs that illustrate what you are talking about? Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Template: Timeline of iMac models

Stale

– On and off I help mediate the issues on the talk page in question, but discussion here has ceased. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been some dispute going on the Template: Timeline of iMac models for a while between me and another user. Basically, I made some changes to Template: Apple hardware since 1998 and the objection raised in regards to my edit (that changed a consensus on what naming convention to use) was overturned by a new consensus. With that consensus established, I attempted to apply the same naming convention to the iMac timeline, where Kaomso has decided to use a different scheme (which he has provided sufficient and solid backing for). I've had the article locked as we were in edit war mode and we're getting no where in discussing, as we're both adamant that our own position is the correct one. There's quite an extensive argument on the talk page.

Assistance from a neutral party would be appreciated, as there is no Wikipedia guideline for this, only community consensus. We need someone to judge which scheme to use or propose an alternate scheme. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied as you requested. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't supposed to tag that anyways. I'm continuing discussion; sorry (again) for my late response. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor may be needed, as the opposing editor continuously refuses to accept the situation as it is. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected, and it appears that Arachnid is helping you sort through the dispute - which is good, because the talk page immediately confused me. Any further help on this one needed? Pastordavid (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Endocrine disruptors

Stale

– Requestor did not return to clarify request. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Request mediation, or guidelines on neutral point of view. I have had referrenced de-bunking sections deleted twice, with no counter referrence. One of the major scientific papers underlying the concept of endocrine disruption has been withdrawn, and the author prosecuted for scientific misconduct. I feel that this needs to be mentioned in an article about endocrine disruption. Neutral does not mean "biased in my favor" There are several articles in peer-reviewed scientific journal questioning the validity of the concept. Pustelnik (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what article you are needing help with. Can you provide a link? Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

what is required to keep an article on wiki...and survive the editors?

Resolved

– Asked and answered. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

In short, I'd like to know what is required for me and others to create a wiki entry on "Phoon" or "Phoons"...and not have it rejected by the powers-that-be in the Wiki organization.

In the last few years, several people (fans of phoons.com) have emailed me, the webmaster, wondering why there isn't an entry in wikipedia on "Phoons." I sigh and tell them what has happened: I wrote up a wiki page several years ago, and it disappeared. In the last year or two, my brother wrote up another page (not knowing that my earlier attempt had been deleted), and his page was shot down by Wiki editors. He asked what needed changing--he would do whatever was necessary--so that the page could remain. They denied his request.

Does the topic need to have worldwide reach? I can demonstrate that this topic does. If you search Facebook or Flickr, you will find groups devoted to displaying photos of Phoons. If you search for Phoons on Google, you will find that people mention it in their blogs and web pages. You will find online articles around the world about Phoons and phooning. So, it is EASY to demonstrate that this has worldwide reach.

But the prime proof of the worldwide reach of Phoons is the more than 3000 photos taken by individuals around the world and submitted for posting on http://phoons.com.

Things I would want to write about: (1) history/origin of phooning and the web site (see http://phoons.com/cgi/questions.pl), (2) description of the pose (see http://phoons.com/cgi/tips.pl), (3) history/evolution of the website (e.g. http://phoons.com/o/wayback.html).

So, what can I do to satisfy the editors? It struck me that the coincidental reviewers of the wiki articles we wrote happened to dislike phoons for some reason. Rather than work with us to establish validity or worldwide reach, it seemed like the notion was shot down just because people didn't think it was cool or something. But I now appeal not on coolness--skip that!--but on history/definitions/facts. If you have looked at facebook or Flickr or Google, you have confirmed that phooning has definitely been part of the internet and is just as valid of a topic to capture in the Wiki as many other topics that are fully supported. (The wiki has articles on specific companies' video graphics cards; it has articles on episodes of TV cartoons. Why, then, would an article about a real-world world-wide-activity not be allowed?)

Thanks for your consideration and help, John

Javawriter (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)javawriter

The general notability guideline is that Phoons "is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unfortunately, Blogs and other self published sources don't usually count. If you can find an independent, reliable source, it might work. Please read through the deletion policy, and then you can take it to deletion review. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The article in question was previously deleted by consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoon, in October 2006). If you have, as noted above, the reliable sources to re-create an article that clearly establishes notability, you can consider recreating it. I would be cautious about doing so, however, and be sure that you have good, indisputable sources first. You may also want to read the following essay on writing your first article. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wristwatches

Stale

– Content dispute is ongoing. I mentioned this thread on the user's talk page, the user responded but did not return here for further discussion. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently found myself developing a minor interest in wristwatches (though not to the tune of buying anything fancy). This is a subject about which I do not claim to know anything; however, I do hope that I have retained two things:

1. My wits. It seems to me that a wristwatch is either a device for telling the time (reliably and accurately) or a fashion accessory or something in between. Yet a number of articles on wristwatch brands make grand-sounding but opaque claims for technological wizardry, or allude to looks (while avoiding terms such as "fashion accessory"), while spending as much space as possible on which celeb has been an "ambassador" (which seems to mean "shill"), or is said to be an "aficionado" (wearing the watch without being paid to do so?), and which movies have "featured" a particular toy. (WP seems to be backing up corporate advertising here: Company X pays a pile of moolah to the producer of Movie Y to provide close-ups of Product Z, and WP then writes this up as if it says something significant about Product Z.)

A number of other things about watches are skipped over rather quickly. For example, how many of the members of Category:Watchmakers actually make watches, and how many merely repackage movements from elsewhere? (I also wonder about other things, such as the percentage of people paying more than such-and-such who are grotesquely rich, and the percentage who are insane -- but I realize that my curiosity about this is unlikely to be answered in an encyclopedia.)

All in all, the material in en:WP looks less like encyclopedia articles, more like fansite articles.

2. My editorial standards (reflecting my perception of en:WP's editorial standards). Over the past couple of weeks, I've applied my editorial stiletto to a number of these articles. One has been Rolex, which has led to amicable disagreement here in Talk:Rolex (maybe even agreement), and my threat (yes!) immediately below this. More concretely:

I littered the article with {{fact}} flags
Another editor removed all these, saying that each claim is explained somewhere within one or other of the sources listed at the bottom
I politely threatened to revert that second editor's edit
[no response]

Sanity check, please. Where's the problem: somewhere in the articles, somewhere in me, or a bit of both? Have your say in Talk:Rolex and perhaps also (if it's in me) my talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Including diffs would be nice. I'm looking at the Rolex article, and it seems to be pretty active. You're probably referring to your edit where tags were added and edit 1 by Tasoskessaris and edit 2 by Racklever where tags were removed. It seems like some of your tags were readded by Tony1. Since then, some of the tags have been re-removed (bad) and some of them have been sourced (good). Let me know, either way, if recent changes have satisfied your content dispute. You might want to see the policy on adding unsourced material. You should explain yourself on the talk page and in edit summaries, but often times the rule of thumb is: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:V) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer request for assistance

Stale

– Users content disput is ongoing, but discussion here has died down. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia.

I am a subject matter expert, recognized by the U.S. Department of Energy as the top in my field.

I believe that non-renewable, unsustainable, bad-habit, obsolete energy sources are contributing to serious worldwide problems, like global warming, energy insecurity, and fighting unpopular oil-related war.

After decades of successfully demonstrating cost-effective, sustainable, alternative energy energy solutions (primarily solar heating and COOLING) I wish to return to society from the bountiful gifts, talents, skills, and experience I have accumulated in three decades as a second-generation energy research scientist.

A number of the Wikipedia articles need significant updating, such a "Passive solar building design." I've spent days entering public-domain information I've developed for the U.S. DOE, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Building Technology group to several potentially-valuable Wikipedia articles.

Two editors in particular (Dymonite and Anastrophe) have performed many major undo's of almost everything I entered, even though some of it has proper authoritative Wikipedia-style citations, etc.

All of my professional life as a successful scientist, I have gladly submitted to peer reviews and style editors who have helped me a great deal, but these two just delete my generous contributions without being at all helpful to a newcomer subject matter expert. It flies in the face of Wikipedia's Welcome credo, inviting people like me to offer uncompensated stae-of-the-art information contributions. Their resistance to the new information I offer is emotionally frustrating and highly de-motivational. Why should anyone suffer at the hands of unhelpful, unfriendly, uncomplimentary Wikipedia editors.

One thing especially gives me a problem. I have updated weak paragraphs that have no citations at all. Some of my updates contain citations, some are not. The editors have undone almost all of my valuable input (with and without citations) because some of my lines had no citations. BUT they leave the previously- existing lines with no citations at all in place. What kind of biased editing is that? Why delete MY input, but leave existing content (of lower quality than my own) in tact? They are violating the original spirit that launched the popular article in the first place.

I am indeed frustrated, but willing to try again, if I can find some friendly assistance to overcome anonymous self-appointed editors who apparently know very little about the subject matter, but want to inconsistently enforce issues of "style" over valuable new "content."

I agree that my Wikipedia knowledge and style need improvement, but I claim to be among the world's foremost authority in my specialized area of expertise.

I have read what the Wikipedia helps say - sounds good to me. Now I turn to you for much-needed assistance with my improper style (but not content). Please scan my new profile Escientist (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. For future reference, try to be succinct when describing a situation. Also, try to include links to edits you're referring to. For example, you're probably referring to edits like this one: diff. When there is a conflict regarding material that is un-sourced: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (verifiability) In other words, since you are trying to add material, and someone else wants to remove it, it is your job to source it. Also, discussing the details of a content dispute is encouraged. This discussion often happens on the talk page of the article in question or on the talk page of an individual user. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Escientist allegations about me are incorrect. I have not been involved in deleting large sections of his contributions. I added some editorial comments about my concerns about the style of his entries. Being a scientist he would understand the issues in publishing an article in a peer reviewed journal written in the same editorial or rhetorical tone. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the content or his credentials. Much of this subject material can be found at credible sites such as eere.energy.gov, energystar.gov, greenhouse.gov.au, ornl.gov. But in contrast, the language used at these site are written in a neutral, unbiased and well referenced manner.Dymonite (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

* For the documented proof of my allegations of biased wholesale material deletion, please see the detail of long lists of weeks of large deletions by Dymonite and Anastrophe in the History of "Passive solar building design" and other future-energy-solution articles. Major portions of what I laboriously entered were completely DELETED, not just "editorial comments" as is falsely stated above. It certainly contradicts the Wikipedia Welcome credo of trying to be helpful, not destructive with total impunity.

The above Dymonite false denial of the "undo" deletions of major portions of my generous Wikipedia input material (that I developed for U.S. DOE and ORNL) is beyond a shadow of a doubt a provable untrue statement. If this statement is clearly false, how can we believe other invalid statements by an apparently-biased "volunteer" anonymous editor? If my perception is wrong, please help me understand the hard documentation.

As a second-generation research scientist, I have always invited and appreciated CONSTRUCTIVE criticism peer reviews, but I’ve been quite frustrated by un-negotiated mass deletions of my Wikipedia contributions.

Since being a Wikipedia editor is an uncompensated volunteer position, I am quite curious about how some editors can obviously be deleting new material for perhaps 10 hours a day, all week long. (Check the time stamps.) If Wikipedia is not paying them to do this, then WHO IS?

Special interest groups (like the fossil fuels industry) pay 35,000 Washinton D.C. registered lobbyists to buy influence that corrupts legislators to vote for things like $14 billion in oil company subsidies, (while they are making more net profit than all other companies). Although Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and present both sides of important controversial issues, some FULL-TIME editors appear to be paid to bias Wikipedia content in favor of their special interest group.

Since legislators’ staff often begin their gathering of Internet knowledge about a subject with a glance at Wikipedia, a paid, biased, anonymous Wikipedia editor can influence legislators for less money than registered lobbyists spend to buy clandestine subtle influence. Hiring a full-time Wikipedia editor to biased critical content, could be a subtle new media manifestation of information corruption that costs less than advertising or lobbying.

Biased Wikipedia editors seem to allow the material they want to remain (regardless of non-compliance with Wikipedia rules), while they stringently apply Wikipedia editorial rules as excuses for deleting valuable material that does not support the message that they are apparently being paid to project. Anonymous editors with hidden agenda make this difficult to prove, but it seems to be the only reasonable explanation for very-biased editor behavior (other than possibly over-inflated egos of young people with nothing better to do than demonstrate their power over the more-qualified content contributors). The name of their mind game seems to be “consolidate power and influence with editorial style that trumps alternative viewpoint content.” IMHO

This behavior is driving away valuable subject matter experts, who are not paid to spend 60+ hours a week learning subtle Wikipedia editorial games, and fighting with editors paid to bias special interest group Wikipedia content (or simply boost their geeky ego). Who knows?

I would still appreciate basic assistance with an unbiased editor who is interested in future energy solution subject matter. Frustrated Escientist (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. "For future reference, try to be succinct when describing a situation. Also, try to include links to edits you're referring to." I'm sorry but you're ignoring my suggestions. I kind of need diffs so I don't have to sift through all of Dymonite's and Anastrophe's edits. You also didn't talk about any of this on the talk page. Please talk this over on the talk page (try to be more succinct there too). "FULL-TIME editors appear to be paid to bias Wikipedia" You need evidence or you need to assume good faith (please read that link). More importantly than all of this, is you can't add material that unsourced especially when other people disagree with your additions. Thanks for editing, Wikipedia needs more subject matter experts. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i can't speak for dymomite, but i'm certainly not being paid to edit here. are you familiar with argumentum ad hominem? you seem far more interested in impugning the character of other editors than in editing wikipedia. have you clicked the "help" link to the left, which i've pleaded with you to do on several occasions? learn the basics of editing wikipedia. familiarize yourself with the most important policies, which are - for lack of a better term - set in stone here. Verifiability. Reliable sources. No original research. No synthesis. Neutral point of view. these are just a few of the core values of wikipedia, and all edits must conform to them. add material that meets these criteria, and your edits won't be reverted. Anastrophe (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Escientist, before careful about jumping to conclusions about the motives of other editors. I have independently examined the edit history of Passive solar building design and it appears the editors you mention are acting entirely properly. The content they cleaned up was not written in the neutral point of view and style required for Wikipedia and it appears they did their best to salvage what they could of what was there. Also, a lot of the content was moved to separate articles where the topic could be fully explored, so I hope you realise that is the case. As an expert, your contributions are highly valued but you MUST have a look at how our articles are written and make sure you write appropriately. Barrylb (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ian Schrager Entry

Resolved

– Asked and answered. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I represent Ian Schrager and am having a very difficult time keeping submissions intact. It seems some people are letting their personal opinions effect their editing. As I see other entries of similar personalities, it does not appear that this entry is being fairly treated. For comparison's sake, please see Andre Balazs and Martha Stewart.

I need some assistance in working out a compromise of the entry and then placing some-sort of partial lock on the entry

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annachase (talk • contribs) 18:54, January 2, 2008

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Any submissions to Wikipedia will likely not remain intact. As it says whenever you edit a page: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. ... If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." That being said, you're more than welcome to argue your points on the talk page for that article. Try to keep your conflicts of interest in mind and out in the open. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

danger of edit war

Resolved

– Appears to be getting worked out through other venues.Pastordavid (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i request guidance as not to slip into an edit war, which i have no experience in. please look into what is happening at "cuba in angola". thank you. Sundar1 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page, asking for details. Since he is a German native speaker like myself, I ignored for once the rule not to use another language on talk pages. This is not because of any intention to collude or conspire with the user, but because native speakers can usually exchange info far more efficiently using their own language. I will of course provide detailed translation of any relevant comments on request. Dorfklatsch 17:31, January 9, 2008

Contact Us

Resolved

– nothing particularly to do here. Pastordavid (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikepedia

Thank you for your response. I hope you may be able to catch up with people who are abusing your site using the IP address you sited by my suggestion that you should contact ISP - AOL. It is not long ago that I got to know thast AOL is using Proxies for its customers. However, one suggestion I would like to make is for you to try to make easy access to "Contact Us". For today just as the last time I contacted you, I had to go through a long path. The very first time I contacted you after registering was much easier. The reason I am saying this is because not all the FAQs contain the answers and people might get frustrated and fed in their efforts to reach you. If access to you is easier you would be able to give help to many more people.

My sincere thanks to you because your site Wikepedia is helping me a lot to know many more things than I would otherwise have known all by myself. It is a useful site and abusers should not be allowed to misuse the site. Once more my sincere thanks to the staff - men and women of Wikipedia.

Kind regards.

DR CLEMENT AKATENG MD.

P/s: Please could you also change "Save page" to "Submit page" for it is not clear as it stands that saving the page would actually get to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRCLEMENTAKATENG (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. FYI, please try to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). To address to your suggestions, there already is an ongoing attempt to contact ISPs regarding non-logged-in extreme vandalism. Also, there is a "Contact Wikipedia" link on the left of every page underneath "interaction". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance,links on the article Easy Listening and Beautiful Music

Resolved

– No further edits from original requester. Archive, and link on user's talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

We am trying to find a way to incorporate links to our personal hobby broadcasting internet radio streams. A few times now,we have added links only to have them taken away. We just don't know what to do. Only the AM/FM radio stations are mentioned and none of the internet radio stations. Can you help us. We are very new here and really don't understand how this website really works. Incidentally,for a good period of time,the links were active. Then we discovered they were taken away. We put them back and within an hour they were gone.

Can you help us with our message ? We are talking about deletions made on these two pages. Thank you again.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Sincerley, RJMB (User name: Ryanjames)

Where will you respond to us ? We just don't know how this all works. I guess we click on "my talk" right ? Ryanjames (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan. Thank you for editing Wikipedia. To find out more about why someone has removed text, you can always click on the History link at the top of every page. There you will see who made the change and sometimes why it was changed. You can always ask that person why they made the change (try to be polite though and if they're short in their response, try not to take it badly). In your specific case, you've just been adding too many links (all of which also happen to be commercial sites). Please read the article on adding links and you'll see that concentrating on adding links is usually not helpful. The suggestion there is to add content, not links. If you have any more questions about external links, ask here and I'll reply here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NT2

Resolved

– Pastordavid (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone take a look at the revision history for this dab page - specifically the comments made on 16:00, 3 January 2008 by Limetolime - is it 'common knowledge' that 'NT' stands for 'National Treasure' ? I certainly wasn't aware of that over this side of the Atlantic... CultureDrone (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea. It probably should be a redirect. It's in official usage for the first one, and at best, vernacular in the other. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored it as a redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding external links on stereoscopy

Resolved

– Links removed, watching page. Pastordavid (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Short version: Do stereoscopic galleries belong in on the External Links section?

After the links just kept growing, it seemed to me as if they didn't so after posting my thoughts on the stereoscopy talk page, I removed almost 10 of them, plus a handful of product catalog sites. One fellow (most recently MrAdventur3) seems to have used a few different accounts, to get his back, and continues to be quite insistent. Please let me know what's what!

Thanks, Jeff / JeffJonez (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest being bold and making the changes and arguing your case on the talkpage of the article. Marlith ^T/C 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing for two weeks, and that one gallery link keeps popping back up. If I made the wrong call and crufting up the external links with personal gallery projects is fine, then I've got a few of my own to add! :) Since MrAdventur3 has flat out said he doesn't consider my opinion valid, someone higher up the food chain needs to make a call. JeffJonez (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the links again, and warned the user. I also watchlisted the article, and will help to watch it. Pastordavid (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Flavor of Love

Resolved

– Pastordavid (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm contemplating deleting a section of a table titled "Notable facts" (under the Contestants section) on the Flavor of Love (Season 2) page. The content is unsourced and virtually impossible to verify (I tried). Would it be too bold to delete that section? I don't think any of the "facts" are that notable or encyclopedic. I'd propose this on the talk page but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion going on there. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like there's a conflict to resolve here. State your intentions and reasons on the talk page, then do the deed! JeffJonez (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Just wanted a second opinion. Thanks! Pinkadelica (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help concerning external links

Resolved

– Links removed, watching article. Pastordavid (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered an editor who insists on placing external links to performing artists, shows, tours, etc. on an article about a performing venue. I have tried to explain to them that the links don't belong since they aren't directly related to the article's subject.

Specifically, User:Sh1955 keeps adding such links to Nashville Municipal Auditorium. You may see their contributions here. I have tried to show them that the links don't belong on the article, but I can't get through to them. Help! -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the links, watchlisted the article, and given a warning to the user in question. Leave a note here or on my talk page is the problem resumes. Pastordavid (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - finding engagement

Resolved

– appears to be settled. Pastordavid (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another user (User:AgnosticPreachersKid) and I seem to be at loggerheads over the appropriate content for the article Friendship Heights. The particular dispute (whether the article should include a list of high-end retailers found there) is beside the point here. The immediate problem is that the user appears to resist any meaningful effort at good faith discussion; I commented at Talk:Friendship Heights but received mostly sarcasm and a revert in response. I attempted to take the testy dispute off the public page directly to the user's own Talk page but the user deleted my comments from there and reverted the main article again. At this point I'm just trying to figure out how to reach consensus where another user won't engage in discussion. Thoughts / comments? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I already changed the article back to the way YOU like it. Quit complaining. All I did was add a few examples of the high-end retailers in the area because other articles on wikipedia have done the same thing when mentioning a high-end shopping area. JohnInDc has decided he doesn't like that and added his own little sarcastic comment that "this isn't the Yellow Pages." Thanks, I know that. I was simply trying to help the article by letting people see some examples of the stores in case they want to visit Friendship Heights. I asked him why he kept removing the retailers I mentioned, but has failed to remove the mentioning of other retailers (Bloomingdale's and Whole Foods), especially since they are discussed in relation to a development that has a business link in the article. It appears to be self-advertising to me. Maybe he works for the company? I'm loving the fact how you play victim here and come to tattle like we're in school. I didn't realize Wikipedia was like this.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding "changing the article back to avoid giving a certain person a conniption" and "Arguing online is like running in a Special Olympics race. One person may win, but they're both still retarded. I don't want to be one of those people, so revert to your little heart's desires." You may think Wikipedia is stupid and the contributers are stupid, but we ask you to focus on the contributions not the contributors. In other words, argue your point about why the sentence should be there and leave it at that. (more information). I looked at the edit that was reverted back and forth about 10 times. It's a short unsourced sentence. If it were me and I wanted to compromise I would at the very least remove the word "upscale". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. JohnInDC (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations vs. neutral facts

Resolved

– Original requester indef-blocked as a sock puppet. Nothing else to do. Pastordavid (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing conflict among editors of the subject "September 11, 2001 attacks".

An illustration of this conflict appears already in the first paragraph which states that these attacks "consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda on that date upon the United States of America."

There are a number of factual allegations in this phrase which are disputed because they are not properly substantiated:

There is no evidence in the public domain that what occurred on 9/11 were "suicide attacks". This is an allegation made by the US government and echoed by mass media. Yet, there is no hard evidence to substantiate this allegation. The events were certainly no accident but a deliberate action intended to destroy and kill. It was thus a massive crime. No one disputes that it was a crime, an act of mass murder. In such cases, the accusers (the government in this case) bears the burden to prove who committed the crime and how it was committed. It is the view of many, including myself, a researcher in international criminal law, that this burden has not been discharged. The names of the alleged perpetrators do not appear on authentified passenger lists; the boarding cards stubs have not been shown; no person has testified to have seen the perpetrators board on the planes; no CCTV recordings document the boarding process; and the DNA of the alleged perpetrators have not been identified from the crash sites. In short, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the 19 alleged perpetrators have boarded the planes they are accused of having crashed. If any editor finds such evidence, it would be of course welcome to disprove the above allegations. But absent such evidence, it is simply impossible to include in the wikipedia unsubstantiated allegations, even if people apparently believe in them. At most it can be stated "The US Government has alleged that individuals A,B,C...Z, have boarded onto four planes, hijacked them and crashed them in a suicide operations. This view is widely held. However, a number of independent researchers have pointed to the lack of evidence supporting the allegation that these individuals boarded the four planes that crashed on that day. The existence or absence of such evidence is a crucial issue in seeking to determine who committed the crime and how it was committed."

Those who oppose a neutral, objective, formulation maintain that "everybody knows that Al Qaeda did it" or that the alternative view constitutes an absurd "conspiracy theory". However, such objections do not address the factual issue.

I wonder how are wikipedia editors willing to settle this dispute.

Many thanks,

--Sannleikur (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The allegation that the 19 terrorists listed in the article were not on board the planes in question is false, just as are the claims that there is no evidence to support it. In fact, Terry McDermott's book Perfect Soldiers includes the original flight manifests for the planes in question, which put the terrorists on board — this reliable source is specifically cited in the article in question to support this claim. Other news sources have reported this, such as the Boston Globe, and these manifests have been published into the public domain at Zacharias Moussaoui's trial — in addition, investigators recovered Mohammed Atta's passport from the rubble of the WTC. The claim that there is "no evidence" to support these claims is both untrue, and the claims in question have, in reality, been sourced to reliable sources in the article. This is a facile attempt to push a fringe POV on this issue, which is at odds with our policy on neutral point of view and undue weight. --Haemo (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Sannleikur, might I suggest you read our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. In essence, if it is reported in reliable sources, wikipedia reports it the same. You may personally disagree with what the sources report, I a may disagree with it, but that does not matter. Please also check out the guidelines about fringe theories. Pastordavid (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, Need Assistance

Resolved

– Protection has ended on the article. Start furhter requests in new section. Pastordavid (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been blocked from editing a page. The information the other party is posting is factually incorrect and has been proven so. I did not know a thing called 'Edit warring' existed and now I (of all people) have been blocked. How can I get unblocked and follow the rules about 'edit warring' in the future.

~ObscureData —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscuredata (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not blocked, and never have been. You were, however, warned to stop edit warring. An edit war is when two or more people continually revert each other back and forth in a dispute over article content. As you can imagine, this is quite disruptive, so there is a rule known as the three-revert rule to prevent this. For more information, see Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.

As for what to do now, you can continue to edit the article you were previously edit warring over; however, please do not continue to reinsert the disputed content. Instead, you should discuss it with other editors on the article's talk page. Once you have come to a consensus, you or another editor can make the agreed-upon changes (if any) to the article.

Remember, there are a lot more articles than this one on Wikipedia, so it's best not to get too caught up in one page! Keep your cool, take a break if needed, maybe edit some other articles—there's always something else needing work—and don't make a big deal out of one page no matter what ends up happening. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see there's already a discussion on this at Talk:Oxford Round Table#Revert war. You should join this discussion so that you can talk over the disputed content. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello: Thank you for the response, but I am still blocked from editing the 'Oxford Round Table.' How can I get unblocked so I can go back and discuss various edits. Is there a process I can go through to get unblocked? I really didn't know that false information had to be discussed and not simply just changed. Is there a process I need to go through so I can be unblocked? User:Obscuredata 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an administrator protected the page from editing for a couple days. This prevents everyone but administrators from editing it until the protection time expires. So until then, you can't edit it, but neither can anyone else. (Technically, admins can, but they're not supposed to edit protected pages except to fix spelling, grammar, etc.) What you can do is edit the article's talk page, which is not protected from editing. On the talk page, you can discuss changes to the page and explain exactly why the information being added is factually incorrect. Remember to back up all your statements with evidence, preferably in the form of reliable sources stating otherwise. Hopefully, you'll be able to come to a consensus on the talk page which can then be implemented in the article once it's no longer protected. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow!! That was really helpful. I will wait a couple of days and check back. Your assistance was greatly appreciated and I hope we are only blocked for a couple of days so we can get this sorted out. Best, Obscuredata (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I notice the page is no longer protected; just keep in mind that you should still discuss it on the talk page rather than going back to reverting each other. Otherwise the page might end up locked again, and that really doesn't help anyone. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

^ Glenn Thrush (2007-12-30). "Hillary: Pakistan troops might have killed Bhutto". Newsday. Retrieved 2007-12-30.

[1] Glenn Thrush (2007-12-30). "Hillary: Pakistan troops might have killed Bhutto". Newsday. Retrieved 2007-12-30.

[1]