Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 16
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Mass editing all articles of WP:Hockey without consensus
StaleI'd like to know exactly what I should do when a few people aligned with WP:Hockey have edited all player pages in the project without the consensus of the group (especially because there are a fair number of us that object to the new changes). I would just like things like this put to a vote before they are done, since the debate that continuously spurs them (has been going on for months/years) will most likely never be resolved. I'd just like to know exactly what I should do now that all of these pages have been edited without consensus. Thanks. Hazelorb (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- They've all been reverted already until such a time as concensus can happen. (if it ever happens). -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) When you say 'the group', you mean WP:Hockey? An important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and (I don't want to sound bitchy when I say this, but...) WikiProjects don't own associated articles.
- Having said that, if the changes are against consensus on the article, then they will be reverted by the community. If they are against the consensus of the WikiProject, I am not competent to advise you, BUT I don't know of any policy which allows the conventions of a wikiproject to over-rule independent consensus on particular articles. In other words, if the consensus on the article's page by the article's editors is in conflict with overarching WikiProject conventions, as long as they are within WP policy, I don't think you (the WikiProject) can impose your values on the article. But, I may be wrong, and I look forward to others' input. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the group (WP:Hockey) is divided in two so there IS no consensus. There was a compromise, or so I thought, but apparently it is not really well liked by either side. Hazelorb (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, got it. Well, I'd suggest you ask for editor input, from places like 3rd opinion, Request for comment, or if there's a WikiProject Sports? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Anchoress, and like to reiterate that Wikiprojects have absolutely no special authority over any article. One Wikiproject was already disbanded (by deletion) because it was being used for bloc-voting and coordination of reverts to in effect own articles. Wikiprojects are meant to be tools for collaboration, not competition, and one certainly need not ask or agree with the Wikiproject to edit articles in the area. Mediation can also be helpful if the dispute is beginning to degenerate into bitterness or edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, got it. Well, I'd suggest you ask for editor input, from places like 3rd opinion, Request for comment, or if there's a WikiProject Sports? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the group (WP:Hockey) is divided in two so there IS no consensus. There was a compromise, or so I thought, but apparently it is not really well liked by either side. Hazelorb (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedThis article appears to be a simple copy and paste of the history section from Midway Atoll - is there any reason this should exist as an article in its own right ? CultureDrone (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you look in the edit history, it's easy to find the person who created the article (it was only a few months ago and there have been only a few edits), so I'd suggest first discussing it with the article creator. If you think the article shouldn't exist, you can also nominate it for deletion. It appears that the creator of the article was trying to deal with a red link somewhere. It does seem like an article that's worthy of its own existence, but perhaps it needs to be expanded beyond what's there. Just MHO. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have redirected the duplicate article back to the relevant section of the main article. If it needs a spin-off article, it can be done better than by just copy-pasting. Pastordavid (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
dispute over adding new theory about Mid-Atlantic Ridge
Staleuser: vsmith who has admin powers has blocked me unjustly from adding content to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page after I started adding content which he did not approve of. He cited several reasons including fringe theory and neutral point of view regarding why my content should not be considered. I cited references for my addition and countered him by posting excerts from wp: fringe and wp: npov on his talk page to demonstrate that my addition conforms to Wiki guidelines. I am still blocked from the page and he refuses to post any info regarding my additional content on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page. I am looking for assistance in how to handle this issue. I want to have all the relevant theories represeneted on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page. Thank you.--68.251.40.176 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with User:Vsmith here. A creation science explanation, citing to a "Grizzly Adams Production" program on the putative discovery of Noah's Ark, is properly excluded from scientific discussions as "fringe". (See the Grizzly Adams website, http://www.grizzlyadams.tv/, to gain a sense of that production firm's approach to scientific inquiry and method.). JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On user:vsmith's talk page, I reference a book by Dr. Walt Brown about his Hydroplate theory[1] whereby Dr. Brown explains in detail his scientific theory and he has posted that book in its entirety online [2]. Dr. Brown is putting forth scientific evidence and his work is open to scientific criticism if anyone in the scientific community disagrees. It is his book and his work that is referenced in the "Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark" by Grizzly Adams Prod. Grizzly Adams isn't the source of this theory. I simply referenced the movie because I figured someone else would do further research into getting the sourced material. So now I've done the research and posted it on Vsmith's talk page. Instead, Vsmith simply blocked my from adding this info which is why I appeal here. What do you suggest I do?--68.251.40.176 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you are out of luck. The creation scientists might be right and the mainstream scientists might be wrong but that is something that only God can know. And for our purposes it doesn't matter.
- From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
- Dr. Brown's book was published by the "Center for Scientific Creation" and within Wikipedia that won't be considered a reliable source. Had it been published by a well-known mainstream company, then it could be considered a reliable source, but would still be considered a minority view, if not a fringe view. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
wp: fringe theory: "Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court, give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia."
Is this not proof enough from Wikipedia's own manual that this creation science theory deserves to be posted under the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page? How are people supposed to know about emerging science if the encumbant science is treated to an unnopposed election? We seem to think in our 21 century minds that all has been discovered and no further scientific hypothosis is needed. The prevailing theories about the Mid-Atlantic Ridge have been held in the mainstream scientific consensus for a little over 50 years; not very long at all. There are still scientists today putting forth new theories and publishing these theories. Regardless of the publisher's credibility, the theory has been published and is available for any to read. It is not a half-baked theory; it has been thoroughly thought out and is available to be criticized. The author welcomes any scientist to debunk his theories in an honest discussion. This is a relevan theory and deserves to be noted on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge page. --70.89.194.153 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you have missed the point of the entry you quote. It says that, in spite of the fact that Creation Science is viewed as pseudoscience by the overwhelming majority of scientists, the topic itself is notable and thus - itself - appropriately the subject of a Wikipedia article or articles. It does not say that pseudoscience is appropriately included in scientific Wikipedia articles. I concur with the assessment of User:Sbowers3 above. JohnInDC (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Falun Gong
StaleA dispute has arisen over my attempts to insert a paragraph into the article about Falun Gong. Despite serious attempts on my part to achieve consensus, my edit keeps getting undone. Could an admin please have a look? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
- Your insertion might be true but that is almost irrelevant. What matters is whether the facts are referenced and verifiable through reliable sources. If you add true facts without any reliable sources then your edits likely will be removed. The other editor clearly explained why he removed your edits: Your first statement did not match what the source said; Your second statement was from a source that might not be considered reliable under Wikipedia's definition of reliable source; Your third statement did not have a source.
- If you can find reliable sources for all of your statements then you almost certainly can include them. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- And further, on the topic of Administrators: unlike the units called 'Admins' on many other sites, our Admins don't act as moderators. They are not mandated to weigh in (with authority) on content issues, only procedural issues. Any opinions or actions they take editorially are as fellow editors, with no extra weight or authority. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedMy name is Vikki Pruden and I represent the Eugene Debbs Potts Foundation. I am writing in regards to your entry about Eugene Debbs Potts. I am concerned about References 9 and 10, as well as External links to Historic Pottsville. We received a judgement against Mr. Shannon Fain in May of 2007. Linking any article or reference to his web pages is a direct violation of the judgement. He is not allowed to represent the Foundation as an officer or as a director which his web site continues to do. We would appreciate if you would delete any references or links to debbspotts.com or that of Mr. Fain. He does not have permission to use any photos of Mr Potts or of Pottsville. Mr Fain should not be allowed to edit or contribute any information concerning Mr. Potts or Pottsville. I will be glad to fax you a copy of the judgement for your records. I hope you can help us in a timely manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikkipruden (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ms. Pruden - Wikipedia doesn't have a central authority who can act on a request like this. By and large anyone can add anything to a Wikipedia page, provided that the addition meets the various tests for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset to gain a general sense of how things work. Likewise an editor may link to anything, provided that it is pertinent, reliable and so forth. The upshot is that so long as Mr. Fain follows the rules of Wikipedia, and his websites are appropriate to the articles that link to them, he will be left alone and the links to his sites will remain undisturbed. The converse however is also true - if you or anyone you know wants to take a crack at the Eugene "Debbs" Potts page and rewrite it in a manner that removes the disputed material, please do so. Just take care to explain the changes, and more importantly, to preserve the page as a viable entry - *edit* it instead of simply excising material. If the changes appear to gut the page or introduce a particular, non-neutral point of view, the page may be changed right back to the way it was.
- More broadly, however, from the sound of it, the judgment is one against Mr. Fain personally - in which case your remedies lie against him and not against entities or persons who had nothing to do with that lawsuit (i.e., Wikipedia and its many editors). If either Mr. Fain's editing of certain Wikipedia pages or the content of his website violates a court order, then ask the court for assistance in enforcing the order. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There is continuing discussion about this issue at Talk:Eugene "Debbs" Potts. Some advice from experts on Wikipedia and the Law would be most welcome. Katr67 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My edits are being reverted on the basis that I'm not providing a source for a consesus
ResolvedOn the article for the Nintendo character Ganon I noticed that someone had placed a lead image. Looking at the discussion, no one has mentioned a lead image yet that image was left on (I haven't been active on Wikipedia for months). In any case I removed the image and left in the edit comment that the community had discussed this before and we should not have a lead image.
Having said that, I was reverted immediately for no adequately explained reasoning other than "I can't see that discussion". Mind you it's on the article's discussion page (not archived).
Here's the link to the article page's history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganon&action=history
Here's the consensus that was reached, the same discussion he says does not exist and is the basis for his reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ganon#Image
What exactly should I do now? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Like I said, there was no clear-cut consensus on the grounds of removing the picture, most are thoughts on which depiction of Ganon should be utilized. Regardless, I've asked someone to step in because it's not worth warring over. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here is proof that no agreement by the community was decided. I now ask that HeaveTheClay's undiscussed change be reverted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The previous consensus was to leave it without an image, you can check that discussion for yourself in the archives. Someone added an image despite the disagreement on everyone for which should be the lead image. If we can't agree on an image, then we'll stick to the previous agreement of no image. Reverting my edit, which is going back against the previous consensus, is a fanboy and over-zealous judgment on your part.--HeaveTheClay (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you dare call me a zealous fanboy, see WP:CIV. And consensus does not mean one side has more votes then the other. If pretty much everyone is indecisive, there is no consensus, hence, no compromise. This is the point I'm trying to make. BTW, your unconstructive edit was undone. Again, please do not battle over the image's depletion. Use the talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is actually no consensus, but as far as I know, the main contributers of the article support the Ganon OoT image. I don't really care which image is in the infobox, just as long as there is one. The article will never be able to reach GA or FA status without a lead image, and that's why we need one there. Whether the image is appropriate or not can be discussed on the talk page, but for now the image stays. The Prince (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
George School repeated reversions, no discussion, then blanking page
StaleThe page for George School has been repeatedly re-edited with blog-like entries, then blanked, by (presumably) the same person using multiple aliases. The person has not participated in any discussion on the discussion page. Help!--Natcase (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Georgetown, Washington, D.C. - silent edit war
ResolvedI could use a bit of 3d party assistance. A couple of weeks ago I reverted an addition to Georgetown, Washington, D.C., explaining my thinking in the edit summary. A week later my reversion was reverted by user Wikihw, without comment. (The original contribution came from an IP and I have no idea whether Wikihw is the same person.) I re-removed it, with a plea to take the dispute to Talk, where I made an entry amplifying on my reasoning: Talk:Georgetown,_Washington,_D.C.#Hollerith. Two days later the same user reverted my change to restore the entry, again without comment. I removed it again (3d reversion) with another plea to discuss the addition along with an entry on the user's talk page. User_talk:Wikihw#Hollerith_in_Georgetown.2C_Washington.2C_D.C.. The same user has again today restored the change, again without comment or response to my message. Another reversion would be my fourth. I don't want to engage in a silly edit war, which this is about to become; but at the same time it doesn't seem quite right simply to acquiesce in a change because the editor indefatigably reinserts it while refusing any attempt at discussion.
Thanks for any assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Another editor, presumably in response to the foregoing, removed the disputed content a couple of days ago. This evening, Wikihw restored the content for his fourth time, again via simple Undo and again without responding to the message I'd left on his Talk page. (These four reversions are his only contributions since January.) I've put a 3RR warning on his Talk page. Is an RfC the next step if these measures (as I now expect) prove unavailing? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This item can be archived. The original problem was not really resolved, but a couple of other editors have undertaken some welcome changes and updates to the page which (one hopes) will moot it. And if not, well, there are plenty of eyes on it now. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Murder of Eve Carson
Resolvedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Carson "The medical examiner said that Carson had not been sexually assaulted.[1] Police also revealed that the niggers who allegedly killed her were both former parolees for violent crime and weapon possession.[12]"
(12) http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/03/13/unc-students-killers-were-both-on-parole/
(Note that the word "nigger" finds no place in cited article.)
Although I am very upset about the horrible killing of Eve Carson, I do not believe that it is appropriate to use the word "niggers" to describe the defendants. They are African-American (Black), not "niggers." Also, without knowing Eve Carson, I believe that a woman with her education would also be disappointed in this wording. (It may help you to know that I am Caucasian and am not decrying your wording for reasons of bias. I am unbiased and offended. Bigotry/racism is a disease, and I am disappointed that you are tainted with that disease.)
Likely the author of this article was very angry, and I am too at this senseless tragedy; but I cannot condone the use of racial slurs as a means of backbite or hate...and neither should any professional reporting agency.
Gildeon Kravitz (G.K.)
- Hi Gildeon. You really need not spend any time convincing us that the use of this racial slur is utterly inappropriate. I actually would have put it in stronger terms than you used if I was operating under the misapprehension that you appear to be that the word choice was a proper part of that article and in keeping with our editorial policies on Wikipedia. That is not the case. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit just by clicking "edit this page" which appears at the top of every article. We get a great deal of useful content in this way, but there is some bad mixed in with the good; what we also get is vandalism—intentionally destructive edits. What you saw was an edit by a vandal that was unfortunately not caught for 27 minutes. When it was caught, though, it was not just reverted (removed from the article) but the person who made the edit was warned as follows:
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Murder of Eve Carson, you will be blocked from editing.
- So as you can see, this was lamentable but is not in any way a reflection of what we consider proper for the encyclopedia. Most vandalism is caught more quickly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I should also mention that if you are still seeing that disgusting edit in the article, then that means that your computer's cache memory is showing you an older version. If so, please bypass you cache, which can be done on most computers by clicking ctrl+F5.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyone that can help me here ?
ResolvedIs there anyone that can help me here ? I want to post an article but it gets deleted, I have no idea why. Its really frustrating to use WikiPedia even to get some help ..
Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibraltar123 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I took a quick look at your Talk page, User_talk:Gibraltar123, where the rationale behind the page deletions was set forth (the very short of it - the pages looked like nothing but commercial links). Similarly your edits to TinyURL, introducing the same links. I confess that they do look like nothing but link spam, given the heavy dose of ads that greets the user who clicks on them. (The ad-copy text accompanying the links in the article didn't help). That looks like the right assessment to me. See Wikipedia:Spam and WP:COI for more info and guidance. JohnInDC (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Editing a Category Page
ResolvedHello,
I notice that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States wrongly lists the avowedly non-partisan Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting as a "conservative organization."
But when I click "edit this page," it does not allow me to change the listed groups. How can I see to it that this is looked into and that the wrongly categorized group is removed from the list? Thanks, Gni (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- The actual entries for categories are determined by data on the entries themselves, not on the category. So if you want to remove and entry from the category, you need to edit the entry itself, and remove the listing for that category, rather than somehow editing the catagory. Look towards the end of the entry. Categories are generally one of the last things on an article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Help with project to find and resolve style guideline contradictions
ResolvedI haven't asked for help here before, but ... all your signup statements just seemed so darn nice. Lots of people, in various ways, are combing through the style guidelines trying to fix places where one obviously contradicts another, or something is unclear and often gets misinterpreted. It's a lot of work, and help would be appreciated. If some of you want to sign up as participants at WP:WPMoS, that would be fantastic, and read the talk page for pages that might need some help. If anyone wants to read my proposal WP:VPP#Throwing several consensus-gathering projects into one basket and comment (yea or nay or anything in between), that would be nice too ... several of the discussions that are "stuck" depend a bit on what's going to happen as we approach Version 1.0, and my proposal is that we try to group together all similar issues where there is broad consensus and not a lot of heated discussion. Thanks for watching! - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Request to review the Al Lutz page here at Wikipedia and review one Paragraph
StaleHello, There is 2 different opinions on this Paragraph... Al_Lutz:
Tom Sawyer Island
On October 3, 2006, Al Lutz published a column revealing plans within Walt Disney Pictures in Burbank to transform Disneyland's Tom Sawyer Island into a playground area based on Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which made its debut in the park as a ride in 1967[6]. The story was picked up quickly by national media, such as the Los Angeles Times[7], which has frequently turned to Lutz as a source for Disneyland related news, and the local Orange County Register[8] The story prompted the Times editorial board to plead in their opinion section to keep the island's original theme of a playground based on the classic American literary work The Adventures of Tom Sawyer [9]. On January 26th, 2007 Disney did announce "Pirate's Lair at Tom Sawyer Island." which opened on May 25th, 2007. [10] [11] <<
Some of us says the Paragraph is sutiable, relevant to the page, and has been verified with multiple references. Others have been deleting the entire paragraph saying things like its not relevant. Could you please let me, and maybe the entire group by posting at the talk page of the Al Lutz page of your poinion of if the paragraph is proper for a Wikipedia page. Thank you in advance. 76.168.181.42 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)76.168.181.42
Anonymous IP editing of Electrical Sensitivity article
ResolvedHi, could I get some advice from someone regarding the following...
An anonymous editor has been repeatedly editing (mostly reverting) this article Electrical sensitivity against the grain of conversation. This editor appears to be editing through some type of anonymous proxy, which I do believe is banned by wikipedia, and multiple IP addresses which have been used by this editor have subsequently been banned by wikipedia due to vandalism to wikipedia's pages. The IP addresses which have been used by this user since March 1st are:
68.40.51.236
77.37.16.189
72.44.35.170
83.157.218.201
66.229.169.21
89.131.198.74
84.16.252.126
72.43.122.208
88.84.144.193 *
81.209.59.212 *
88.80.200.138 *
88.80.5.3 *
The last 4 have been banned by wikipedia due to vandalism. This user has also accused me of being a 'sock' and repeatedly accused me of 'vandalism', yet he/she has not attempted to discuss the topics on discussion despite many requests to do so.
Any idea's what to do in this situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Lake Norconian Resort
ResolvedI am new to Wikipedia and was quite surprised to suddenly have some one petition to delete my entry, The Lake Norconian Resort. I addressed the concerns of this rather odd challenge and was curious of the past criticisms made by this individual. Challenged previously were many very prominent issues and topics and one could tell the authors were not pleased with such, well, an ill-informed questioniing of subject matter. Is there a way to limit such behaviour?
Kevin Bash, Norcobash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norcobash (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is because you are new to WP that you are surprised. There is a LOT to learn about how WP works. The nomination to delete The Norconian Resort Supreme is not uncommon. Each day almost 500 articles are created and a great many of them don't meet WP policies or guidelines. It appears that your article will in the end be Kept.
- Your article needs a lot of work. If it were formatted better so that it looked like a normal WP article, then perhaps it would not have been nom'd for deletion. I urge you to work through the Wikipedia:Tutorial to learn a little more about formatting. I'll be doing some work on the article myself. Other editors most likely will jump in over time.
- Also, please don't assume that decisions are based on individual personalities. The deletion nomination was based on interpretation of WP guidelines. If you read closely, the nomination includes a WP:N. As a new comer you don't know what that means but it is shorthand for Wikipedia:Notability. If you click on that link you'll read about one of WP's important guidelines and you'll see that the best way to dispute a deletion nomination is to add references to the source of an article's information. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Editing of Pages and Vandalism by other editors
ResolvedIn the past two months, I have performed a major editorial update to the Quality Management page and a smaller update to the PDCA page. The aim is to bring a wider perspective to the topic, provide alternate methods and techniques and viewpoints so that readers can further research valid, serious methods for Quality Management, improvement and alternatives to PDCA. Another editor is in my opinion engaged in WP:Vandalism, and WP:Edit_warsand not engaging in proper discussion or reasonable negotiation practices as required by Wikipedia policy.
In the same timeframe, a user of a methodology I am associated with has created a page about this methodology (twice) and been subject to WP:Vandalism via rapid deletion, again without discussion or fair and reasonable negotiation. This user has an obvious interest in the methodology and sought my permission to publish her views about it. She has no commercial interest with me and is not acting as an agent on my behalf. How can we resolve these issues given the other editor is not engaged in fair and resonable behaviour required by Wikipedia policy?--Hanvanloon (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
- You added lots of information to both articles, but none of it is verifiable. You have not provided any sources to your information. It appears to be based on your own knowledge, not on reliable sources. It may all be true, but without verifiability it will be deleted.
- You also added two "links" to STARS. I put links in quotes, because they are what we call redlinks - there are no articles by those names. They are not true links. Both of them will be deleted.
- Wikipedia has LOTS of policies and guidelines. It is hard for a newcomer to learn all the details. I've added to your talk page a Welcome note with links to some helpful material.
- I would be happy to work with you to properly add your material to Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or drop a note here. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to have received some excellent help on your talk page and the article's talk page. I am going to mark this resoved, but please feel free to open another thread if you need more assistance. Pastordavid (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
EDIT ISSUE: Changing the headline/name... I made a mistake I can't seem to fix SImple when you know the answer to something huh?
ResolvedI would be VERY grateful if someone can assist me with what may be a small isssue. I made a wikipedia contribution for myself, Matt Sullivan, Obooe. I made the mistake of not spacing between Sullivan and oboe and now no one can look up the name Matt Sullivan, oboist. A little dash would do it... how would I go about doing that? CHEERS!!! Screen name for wikipedia is: Matt Sullivan Oboist. removed personal information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Sullivan Oboist (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well actually your page has been deleted because of the criteria for speedy deletion, number A7. Pages about people (biographies) are generally only included if the subject is notable and important.
- If you make an article in future and it has the wrong name, use the Move button at the top of the page which will allow you to change it. You must have been registered for a few days before you'll see the button. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for deletion and deletion of references at Michelle Ferguson-Cohen
ResolvedI received a notice about the deletion of an article I had made contributions to at Michelle Ferguson-Cohen and I have a newbie issue. It took sometime for me to understand how to respond to this, but I studied the Wiki standards and contributed references that I felt would address the editors claim of "non-notability" as per Wiki's criteria. I don't know if Balloonman is an administrator, but his only contribution to the page appears to be a request for deletion and appears as though he has the final word. He seems intent on deleting the article and is ignoring any input from other editors as irrelevant. He could be correct for all I know, but he's made some unsubstantiated claims about the subject matter in his request for delection and some of his comments seem rather inflammatory. He has also edited my comments on the delete page and deleted or edited references under my signature, which has raised a couple red flags. Is this standard for Wiki? It doesn't make any sense and its over my head and frankly, he seems to want to engage on a personal level that I'm uncomfortable with. Though I don't really have the time or the expertise to debate him, I hate to abandon the article without leaving it in capable hands. Can you please make a recommendation and provide your objective advice? Thank you for your help! --JSane (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded at the AFD. I'll also respond at user's talk page. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. It appears he's removed the AfD, albeit begrudgingly. Thanks for the guidance and help with the Wiki training and for contributing your expertise to the article!
- However, I did a Google search to pull up the page using the author's name and it appears that his unfounded accusations that "Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is a non-notable person who has been spamming the Military Brat article" are viewable to anyone doing a search on the author. It seems unfair that a childrens book author should have to suffer such slander because of a random person on Wiki. Is it typical for Wiki to allow comments like that to be archived and searched?
- He has also now made unnecessary rude remarks under the discussion page suggesting that he is "not convinced" the author is notable. It's my understanding there's no need to personally convince editors, but to meet criteria? Is his subjective assessment an acceptable part of the article now since he was unable to delete it? Also, several unsubstantiated remarks about citations on the discussions page, that are far afield and make me question if he has read the references.
- I'm shocked at the amount of time I've spent on this. I should have been reading manuscripts this weekend, but I, frankly felt guilty abandoning the article once I responded to the deletion notice, and I still do, since I can see he is committed to deleting it despite Wiki standards. But this person appears to be taking this very personally. He has posted on my user page and every page where I go harrassing me, until I am afraid to contribute anything. I can't make other contributions if he is going to follow me around this way. (I deleted my post to your usertalk site because he followed me there.)I don't want to put other authors at risk of what's happened here. Some of them have lower Amazon rankings and fewer references. This whole thing has put me off Wiki. --JSane (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- UPDATE: The Google issue appears to be resolved. Thank you!
The AFD has now been (incorrectly) withdrawn and closed. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- On a side point, once someone has made a deletion nomination, it's open for the community to decide whether they want the article to be deleted. It is not just the nominator's decision - an administrator will see after five days or so whether a consensus has been reached and act on it. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the nominator should close an AfD that he opened himself if Delete votes from others are already on record. Anyone who is sufficiently concerned about this can open a WP:DRV. I notice that the above comments about spamming the Military brat article seem to be well-justified. The Military brat article doesn't seem to meet the burden of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The brat article's Reference #3, from the American Forces Press Services, uses "military brat" in quotes, suggesting that to them it's not a generally accepted word, just an epithet used by a few people. Most of the references cited in the Military brat don't seem to use the phrase 'military brat', so the article should perhaps be kept but under a different title. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I'm not disputing the Military Brat article has been spammed or making any judgement on its use of the term Military Brat and its references, I'm unsure how that relates to the authors bio in question Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. The rerference from the American Forces Press Service aboved is from the Military Brat article and not found anywhere on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen.--72.229.10.154 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Er, no, this is not a neologism. It is an accepted term within the community. There has been plenty of discussion on this point at various stages of the articles development.Balloonman (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the nominator should close an AfD that he opened himself if Delete votes from others are already on record. Anyone who is sufficiently concerned about this can open a WP:DRV. I notice that the above comments about spamming the Military brat article seem to be well-justified. The Military brat article doesn't seem to meet the burden of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The brat article's Reference #3, from the American Forces Press Services, uses "military brat" in quotes, suggesting that to them it's not a generally accepted word, just an epithet used by a few people. Most of the references cited in the Military brat don't seem to use the phrase 'military brat', so the article should perhaps be kept but under a different title. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have ZERO problem with somebody reopening this case. I was trying to extend an olive branch to SJane, but instead she has decided to come here and elsewhere laying accusations against me. I am not fully convinced that Michelle is truly notable, but Sbowers3 provided enough that I recognize the posibility of it. Again, if somebody wants to reopen it, I will be fully supportive of the move!Balloonman (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Baloonman No olive branch required. I'm not at war. I don't know you, I don't know the subject matter of this article and this is not a personal issue. This is an academic debate on the article. Respectful and cited disagreements are appreciated. Thoughtful responses to factual contributions and discussion of the criteria are welcomed. Calling the subject matter "vain", "laughable", accusing her of "spamming" another article and stating she has sold "one or two books" without citation, aren't comments that initiate or substantiate a productive debate. "Non-notable" is an acceptable critique and criteria and several people have worked very hard to make their case on that, but you insist that feature articles from indpendendent verifiable news sources provided from Fox News, Knight Ridder, Stars & Stripes, Bergen Record, and Colorado Springs Gazette are "press releases" and that academic papers and statements from psychologists and medical professional recommending the books are not "sources" but "trivial". It's really very difficult to know where to go from there.--JSane (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now it appears the article has been hit with a Conflict of Interest Banner. Claiming Michelle Ferguson-Cohen was a contributor to the page and there is a Conflict of Interest. I can tell you that out of the 4 editors names, one of the usernames was mine and the other IP address was definitely mine. I just wasn't logged in. So I know those two are definitely not the author. --JSane (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted my largely sourced material, accidental error?
ResolvedI have a problem in the article "Illyria". this is what i added in the article
title of the section: Illirians as Albanians
Content of the section: "A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians."
it is largely cited with the biggest repectable encyclopedies (britannica, encarta, etj) and well-known scholars, if you need to check the sources, i writed them in my last post in the talk page of "illyria" called "Illyrians as Albanians". the user "The Cat and the Owl" deleted what i writed without talking in the talk page (talking just after i contacted the assistance) and considering it "Irrilevant" in according to the other user "Megistias". the reason given from Megistias was "Remove it moon, its Irrelevant among other things mentioned above.This is on Illyria and not Origin of Albanians". Other users had problems with this 2 users, but i think this last issue should have attention to the administrators eyes, they are dening me to cite sourced&referenced material, saying me this material must go in the "History of Albania" and not here.
it is sourced&referenced&related
now the problem seems to be: wich rule of wikipedia denie me to write sourced&referenced material in relation to the argument? We are talking about Illyria? so why i can't write there is a big supported theory that connects illyrians with the Albanians? i tried with the "Deletion review", but they were unable to help me because it wasn't the apposite section. i was reading this from the rules of wikipedia:
"You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#What_is_tendentious_editing.3F) thanks for the attention. respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- PelasgicMoon, I have reviewed the issue and I would tend to agree with Megistias and The Cat and the Owl (CatO). First, the source you have given does not properly reflect the entry you have made, and I also question its relevance to the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See: WP:INDISCRIMINATE for more guidance. Furthermore, both Megistias and CatO have suggested that if your entry belongs anywhere, it would be in the Origin of Albanians article, and I concur. Yet, make sure you properly source any edits where you are making a claim or you will otherwise run into the same obstacle elsewhere as well. Cheers! — Dorvaq (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ok but, why in encarta in contraddiction of this is cited in the first words the name of they're modern ethnicity? why i can't do the same? so, in according to this, i can't add a paragraph called "Illyrian Ethnicity" to enrich the article? where i'm going wrong? PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here at Wikipedia, the Illyria article seems to be more about the ancient kingdom and the geographical region of Illyria — not its people. Perhaps a better place to add your information would be in the Origin of Albanians article as mentioned above or even in the Illyrians article. I hope that helps you. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pelasgic Moon, why you continuing that? After your request for arbitration you complaining here... Anyway, as I have said before: That section was irrelevant to the article. Furthermore, a simple comparison between your edits and the source you providing, allow us to assume that you are just trying to push your POV in Wikipedia. Because "A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians" is one thing and "the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian" is a completely different thing... Why not adding your entry in the Origin of Albanians?? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"The Cat and the Owl", the request for arbitration was rejected, No prior dispute resolution steps have been followed, this was my error, and, i was contacting the editor assistance, i can't ask further suggestions? Dorvaq, ok, "illyria" speaks about kingdom ant the earth, but if i try with this in the article
"About 1300 bc, Illyrians, people of Indo-European stock who are considered ancestors of modern Albanians, settled on the northern and eastern coasts of the Adriatic Sea", as the "illyria" is presented in encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564668/Illyria.html), you think it would be acceptable?
i just followed the method of encarta encyclopedia, for you i fall in error if i try with this? (of course whithout copyng the text from encarta, encarta was an example) PelasgicMoon (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're not necessarily in error, but keep in mind that we are Wikipedia and not Encarta. We don't have to copy exactly what other encyclopedias have nor do we wish to. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"or even in the Illyrians article" Dorvaq, i added the part in the article "Illyrians" as you said me it should work, and this Greek users of wikipedia deleted my source, now i suppose i need your help as an administrator of wikipedia. PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Megistias, just for notifiyng you, you left the section in the origin of Albanian article because you had not another change, for you it was impossible to demonstrate the controverse else you had to go in contraddiction of all the encyclopedie of the world. PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
but i am here in the editor assistance to speak with an administrator of wikipedia, PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- PelasgicMoon, my friend, the information you are trying to add is already found in the article. I apologize deeply for I didn't notice that the information was there myself when I first suggested you migrate your entry there. Also, I am not an administrator; I am a simple editor helping out another editor like most other wikipedians here. :-) — Dorvaq (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
correction of facts resolution
Resolvedregarding the entry for Paul Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Wonderful People - Thanks for the opportunity to discuss a facts problem with you. In the Paul Wall page, there continues to be reference to his date of birth being 3-30-1980. This is not true. I am his birth father, and I was present at his birth. Not just present at the hospital in Georgetown Texas, but actually present in the delivery room when he was born. The birth date was 3-11-1981. I have a certified copy of his birth certificate. I also have the papers which I had to sign to relinquish my parental rights, almost 10 years after his birth. Somebody keeps changing the birth date on the Paul Wall page. This cannot be a correction since I have his birth certificate and the correct birth date (3-11-1981). I don't know how to resolve this ongoing dispute with the person who keeps changing the date. I pray for relief in this matter. Thank you and Bless you. OtherBrotherGideon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherbrothergideon (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This seems a bit of a mess. The cited source for his birthdate, All Music Guide, has it listed as March 30, 1980. IMDb has him listed as born on March 11, 1981. Most of the other bios I run across have no date mentioned, or are mirrors of the AMG bio - or our article, with the March 30 date. SO CONFUSING. I'd suggest pointing out the discrepancies on the Talk:Paul Wall page, and ask other editors familiar with the topic to help sort it out from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm checking IMDB's entry on Paul Wall and there it is, the claims that "otherbrothergideon" has kept putting in the article. A lot of sites (e.g. IMDB, even his own Myspace!) say 1981! Still this is something under dispute. Meanwhile, AllMusic.com, a site that Wikipedia trusts as a reliable source for info on musicians, says 1980, dunno where they got it. But in general Wikipedia doesn't highly trust IMDB because of its more "open" nature of adding info. I mean check the "update info" box on the bottom of the Bio entry at the Paul Wall IMDB page.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Modifications on KARE page
StaleThe following two paragraphs were added by me, but have been continually changed to reflect a bias toward competitor WCCO-TV, as well as a clear attempt to minimize KARE's positive aspects: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KARE-11 and WCCO-TV have traded the 10 p.m. ratings crown in households periodically for the last 20 years. After the departure of Paul Magers however in December 2003, KARE has struggled to hold its ratings position it had previously dominated in the past. According to local Nielsen ratings released for Novemenber 2007, KARE came in at No 1. with adults overall 25-54 at 10 p.m. However, for the first time in more than two decades , WCCO won the key demographic of women 25-54 in this same time slot. WCCO also won overall for both it's 5 and 6 p.m. shows.[1] In February 2008, KARE fell to third overall in late-night ratings. [2]
KARE-11 has been recipient of the "Station of the Year" (large markets) award by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) in 1985, 1995, 2000, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Additionally, it was announced that KARE photojournalist Jonathan Malat was chosen as runner-up for the 2008 Ernie Crisp Television News Photographer of the Year award. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1) "KARE has struggled to hold its ratings position...." is a modification followed in the paragraph by another modification stating "for the first time in more than two decades, WCCO won the key demographic...." This information highlighting WCCO is misplaced on the KARE page. It is also questionable, because it was simply based on a comment posted on the twinicities.com website. The link to the reference cited does not work. Furthermore, the same information cannot be found either on WCCO's website (press releases) nor any other official media report. If this "historic" information is accurate, there should be numerous sources available. Apparently, WCCO nor any of the Twin Cities media writers received this information.
2) The last sentence regarding KARE's status in third place regards the total household numbers--not the prime demographics which are the numbers deemed important in the industry. The placement of this sentence makes this unclear. The first line of the paragraph, as written by me, was simply an attempt to make note of the strong competition between KARE and WCCO-TV. I had another sentence, which has been deleted, stating the household ratings are ultimately determined by the popularity of network programming. A clear effort has been made to diminish KARE's current status, while unduly calling attention to WCCO's household ratings progress on KARE's page.
3) The second paragraph originally stated "KARE has been proudly honored with...." and has been replaced with the generic "has been the recipient of". The award is a great distinction among many competitors across the United States. It is also a rarity for one station like KARE to have won this award so many times. In contrast, WCCO has never had this distinction. "Proudly honored" is a statement reflecting this important achievement.
I tried reverting this information back several times (as originally submitted by me) and was ultimately blocked from editing for 24 hours. The person responsible for these alterations continued to needlessly change my information, in a clear effort to praise WCCO at KARE's expense--on KARE's own page! What can be done to prevent these misguided changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsegg (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be receiving some good input from other editors on the talk page - please continue to talk it out there and work toward a consensus. As an aside, it is an article about KARE, not KARE's page. Pastordavid (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal information not in the public domain
ResolvedMy daughter came across the article on this site which contains personal information about a person and her family, all of who are minors. It is a concern given the information is not factual and it contains personal details on minor elementary school children. We posted a note to AngelofSadness after attempting to edit, only to find ourselves not able to access Wikipedia (blocked). Please advise how we should proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricane2008 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- It took me a while to figure out what happened but User:Errolockerby has been deleted as an attack page by User:Fred Bauder (see [3]) - is this the page you refer to? It's difficult to find out which account you have used because the IP addresses that were used to raise the issue don't appear to have been blocked (perhaps you are on a dynamic IP). That said, I highly doubt you were blocked for raising this issue (just that it's difficult to track down why you were). x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Furry Lewis
ResolvedI tried to link My Furry Lewis Videos into the Furry Lewis page. I evidently placed them in the wrong Place. Would you Please include the following links in Furry's page? http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8D19E44050B0D4F0 The embeded code is ...This is a playlist which will be added to as I produce more videos..... <object width="530" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/8D19E44050B0D4F0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/8D19E44050B0D4F0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="530" height="370"></embed></object> These are MY VIDEOS that I have produced with WPA pictures from the Libary of Congress and are not right protected. I would really like to see the embeded player if Possible? I am A Fury Lewis fan and also the owner of his MySpace page....http://myspace.comwalter_furry_lewis Furry Lewis Live....these were captured off the internet and Rights status is unknown on the following http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=50A9B0DDE336F880 Embeded..... <object width="530" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/p/50A9B0DDE336F880"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/p/50A9B0DDE336F880" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="530" height="370"></embed></object> Thank You for Your Help with this Issue and Thank you for Wikipedia!! Dan Chlipala —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlipala (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- (ec'd by a damn bot!) Hi. As I mentioned on your talk page, I removed a number of the links from the Furry Lewis page because they were placed in the lead and body of the article, instead of the external links as is best done with YouTube links that are examples and not references (and, I should note, I believe the consensus at present is that YouTube doesn't represent a reliable source). The other articles you placed the links into were similarly a problem, and I moved links to the External Links sections on those pages where applicable, removing one because there was already an example of the song in question available. Wikipedia doesn't use HTML markup, so YouTube videos can't be embedded into the articles themselves. I'm personally not sure that linking to a playlist of your videos in the Furry Lewis page is a good approach, rather than linking to one particular example, as has been done; I'd be happy to hear other views on that, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
spam
ResolvedI don't know why you listing me as spamer when I added my name between my competitors. Please reply and remove me from the spamer list <remove email and spam name>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.176.5 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Without any links, and with nothing on your talk page indicating what you are talking about, it is not possible for us to tell what you are requesting. Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
External Links to Screenwriting Section
StaleI am not understanding why you deleted the links to Script Magazine and Final Draft. I reviewed your guidelines, and understand why StoryLink was eliminated. Will you please explain the deletion of Script and Final Draft? I am especially confused about the deletion of Script magazine, as there is a link for Creative Screenwriting. Many thanks for your assistance.
Debra
Deckerling (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what guidelines you read but please review Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided and it should become quite clear why these links were removed. As for a link existing to some other magazine, first thank you for pointing this link out, I have removed it, second, Wikipedia is a work in progress. The fact that some other thing is present that shouldn't be is not in any way an endorsement of the type of thing but just another example of something inappropriate that hasn't yet been addressed. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF by analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Major Vandalism
ResolvedI looked at the Battle of Delhi page earlier today, and it has been obviously vandalized, citing personages that did not actually participate in the historical conflict. I tried to post a warning on the page, but thought that I had better leave well enough alone. I have no experience editing Wikipedia pages, but I would like to request that someone capable fix this article asap. A person doing historical research and knowing nothing about the conflict might take the vandalism for fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesia3 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt Johnston
ResolvedI would like to request that if a person sees the name Matt Johnston on Wikipedia in an unusual place, it is probably vandalism. I have noticed this on several pages. Please be on the alert.
Help for two IPs engaged in an edit war
ResolvedI am seeking assistance for dealing with two IP address editors envolved in an edit war at Hendersonville, Tennessee. You can see the article's talk page for the conversation (or argument) so far. The war is over a football player (James Wilhoit) from the city who may or may not meet notability requirements. One IP keeps adding him to a list of notable residents, and another keeps removing him. The name continues to be added and deleted at least once a day, but never frequently enough for a violation of the 3RR.
I have tried to point out that the issue should really be over James Wilhoit's notability and not his inclusion in the list. The IP that keeps removing him from the list displays uncivil behavior and an unwillingness to discuss the issue. I have suggested that he prod James Wilhoit and if the article was deleted, then the name should be removed from the list. For the record, the editor that has been adding the name seems more willing to cooperate.
I hope that an editor with more experience in content disputes can set these two straight or help me to do the same. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
posts by Vicon
ResolvedVicon is removing competitors from Motion capture and replacing the information with false and inflated claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.4.196.183
ResolvedI would like, if you sent my e-mail addresses and my telefon number to Mr Mick Jagger, an Monsieur Nicolas Sarközy. / <remove e-mail and phone number>. Thank you very much:Moíra
- Er, we don't actually have contact with these people. At least I don't. (I wouldn't mind; maybe Mick could loan me a few pounds.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
comments on my core energetics article
Resolvedhello there
I have had some comments and I want to amend the article accordingly
a) I don't think it looks like an advertisement in fact I have been as critical as I thought I was 'allowed' to be on it,(I think is a 'suspect' therapy actually but was just adding entries for all the psychology models on your site as part of my Psychology research for my degree). What is making it look like an ad and I'll remove it,I did try and give a balanced account of it even though I am suspicious of this therapeutic technique!
b)I have tried to put a contents box,but it won't come up and now am not sure how to do one.
c) I am not sure what "Sections should be added to this article, to conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please discuss this issue on the talk page." means, the article has three subheadings, what else should I do? I have read the bit on Sections and am none the wiser?
thanks very much for your time,sorry if there's a help bit on the pages that covers some of this but I am a Wiki entry creator novice, I have tried to keep in the guidelines and if I have acudentally done something wrong I apologise :( SIX —Preceding unsigned comment added by SIX Gabriel (talk • contribs)
- Perhaps a place to look for ideas on how to improve the Core Energetics article would be at other good-article or featured-article rated pseudoscientific articles such as Intelligent design.
- As for the table of contents, Wikipedia will generate one automatically as soon as a fourth heading is inserted in the article. Otherwise, you can use the _TOC_ magic word. More on that here. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made a small edit to give it a lead section and then removed the tag for same. The sections are quite long and should be divided into smaller sections. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The Aroostook War
ResolvedI have concerns about the content of this entry. There are considerable inaccurate facts and some relevant facts are omitted. Im not logged in or registered because my computer skills are very rudimentary and the attempt is very difficult for me. By nature I am a researcher and historian. I have no difficulty having my email address or website listed because I welcome all comments.I have been researching archives, newspapers, personal histories etc for many years and could write volumes on this conflict. But I am not a writer and I am reluctant to post because I sincerely feel that I would overwhelm some, while failing to submit some relevant, but at this time, unknown fact that should have been added-it's the inductive nature of my thought processes. Please advise me what I should do to correct the information on this article. Sincerely Roberta Williams
- Hi there. If you don't feel comfortable with editing the article directly, you may want to go to Talk:Aroostook War and provide comments there, then other editors can respond to any concerns and work on the article using any new references and information you can provide there. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Roma people
ResolvedThere's a discussion going on about whether to move Roma people to Gypsies (which I oppose, but that's not important here). Anyway, a user has moved the article to Roma people (gypsies) without any discussion, and then retroactively suggested it at Talk:Roma people. Can an admin revert this move until consensus is reached? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's happened again - moved to Gypsies (Roma people) without discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed again. Pastordavid (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's happened again - moved to Gypsies (Roma people) without discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Offensive Profanity Graphic on an Admin Userspace
StuckI edited a userspace User:Jayron32 today that included a large graphic with the word F%^$ing in it. An admin reverted it back without any regard to my complaint and my facts that I precented. I was polite and specifically stated and showed the user where the Wiki rules state that profanity should not be used if it doesn't serve a purpose. This user is apparently a Wiki admin and plainly told me without discussion, "dont touch my userspace again". No discussion why he reverted it back or anthing. Another admin joined in named User:Keeper76 and the two of them started into bullying me and making light of the situation. Pretty much acting like a bunch of drunk college kids. You can see the whole conversation at [4] and [5]. I need another opinon on why this user (Admin) should be allowed to keep offensive profanity on his Userpace when it directly goes against Wikipedia rules of profanity? --RipWinkleVan | Talk 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Ripwinklevan's first edit was to alter a user's page. They have made no mainspace edits. Their first 24 edits were to user or user talk pages. Their 25th edit was this one above. All these today. The graphic is linked to from more than 20 other user's pages and an essay. That word is present on more (prob. way more, I stopped there) than 1500 pages here. Why this user and not that user, or some other user? WP:A!GF and WP:POINT would seem blindingly obvious here. Shenme (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- First I would like say that I am a new user to Wikipedia and I do not know how things work around here and I did not realize this graphic was linked from somewhere else. If I knew that I would have worked this edit from the original person that uploaded the image. With that said User:Jayron32 should have told me that from the start instead of laying into me along with User:Keeper76. I am not sure what everyone's idea of bullying is but when two people go back and forth mocking you and making fun of the situation, that is considered bullying. You two very well know that Admins are here to help people, not here to immidately start accusing people of vandalism. The numerous edits that your making sound like vandalism are comments I made on your discussion page about the edit, so don't there. This is very unprofessional. The two of you from the start had an attitude that you didnt care what my opinon was, because your Admins, and you actted like you had the ability to do whatever you want on here. Second the way I ran into your Userspace was from the fact that I was doing research on Civil War stuff and specifically the Gettysburg Cyclorama and noticed you made alot of comments on the discussion page so I looked on your Userspace to see if there was anymore info there about the topic I was researching. So this notion that I signaled him out is rediculous. --RipWinkleVan | Talk 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The responses above are innappropriate as were some of the responses this user received to his edits. Telling him to fuck off in an edit summary was way out of line, though there was a later apology. Yes, there are hallmarks of a sock but nothing so clear that we must throw AGF out the window; especially since we can remonstrate more effectively without ever needing to make these accusations and let the facts speak for themselves. A polite rebuff with a careful explanation was what should have transpired and was far more likely to avoid the drama now evident. Now as to you, Rip, I apologize that some of the treatment you've received has been shabby, but you are not in the right as to your edits, nor does any of this excuse any personal attacks on your part. Your edits were not proper and were properly reverted. It is the only the manner of reversion that should have been tempered. From our guideline on userpages:
The use of profanity is contextual. The use here is in a graphic we may characterize as a political cartoon, and a Wikipedia-related cartoon. It is miles and miles away from something that is "pro-pedophilia advocacy"; it is not likely to give widespread offense; it is not extremely offensive, and as quoted, we give users wider latitude on such manners in the userspace. Furthermore, from the same page:There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. pro-pedophilia advocacy) — whether serious or trolling, it's not what user pages are for. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.
So, at best, if any action on this material should have been taken, you should have politely asked first and not plunged in, guns blazing to remove it. In a poll, or mfd, a question at the help desk or here, where you raised whether this user can have this material on his userpage, I would wholeheartedly endorse his right to keep it there. Furthermore, as a new user, don't you think it would be wise to edit with some circumspection until you know a bit more and have a less shaky place from which to speak? Editing someone's user page, be they admin or not, while having little experience and no edits to the encyclopedia proper, and not to remove something highly offensive but mild and ribald, is something you should predict will raise drama and leave you looking like a schoolmarm bull in a china shop.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit...by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others...In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission...best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so.
- Thank you for your thoughtful analysis Fuhgettaboutit. Yes, I was clearly wrong in my edit summary, and I am truly sorry that I had such an incivil response. It was clearly wrong of me, and I have no excuse. Regardless of the status of RipWinkleVan, I would hope he returns to building better articles at Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32, You made this comment
As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit...by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others...In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission...best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so.
This is what it really says
As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:
Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are. Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others. Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not. In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.
It specifically states here that if you don't want users to edit your Userspace and is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia that you place it on a personal website.
In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a proper place for content unrelated to Wikipedia. You might also want to consider Wikia for wiki-style community collaboration. Alternatively, you can download the MediaWiki software and install it on your own server if you want full control. [[6]]
Your also using your Userspace as a soapbox [[7]]
Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
There are two comments in this graphic that I find offensive. This is how they look on the graphic: [[8]]
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png){kind=link}
- "Bush is teh gay LOL"
- "Stephen F$%king Colbert"
- Just these two items alone violate numerous Wikipedia policies. If you can't see how they do there is probably no point in discussing this with you anymore. Do you think calling people gay is funny? I don't find this funny. Its extremely offensive. --RipWinkleVan | Talk 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the summary and analysis by User:Fuhghettaboutit above was spot-on, particularly the discussion about what material may be deemed so offensive that it may be removed on sight. This does not qualify. JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rip, you're really missing the point entirely; you're not contextualizing. Why does the graphic say these things? Is it advocating for them or against them? Is it proclaiming these things itself or repeating what others have said to make a point? Well I submit to you that is is crystal clear clear that it is not advocating these statements at all. It is a graphic intended to highlight some of the problems we currently face with Wikipedia. One of those is that we are subject to a great deal of vandalism and ignorant crap that ultimately remains in place for too long. It is advocating that it is a bad thing that such ignorant crap is a part of Wikipedia, and provides examples of typical juvenile vandalism we see added to articles on a minute-by-minute basis for the express purpose of advocating against it. To hyperbolize slightly, you are now playing the part of the person involved in a conversation against the use of some racial epithet, who can't get past the use of the epithet itself in the conversation against it. A great example is the small group of people (who do exist), who condemn Mark Twain for the racist content in Huckleberry Finn, when that book is an ant-racist, anti-slavery tract. Jayron has apologized unreservedly. We are now only left with the issue of the material itself, whether it is highly offensive such that it should be removed, whether you were correct in doing so unilaterally, without discussion and so on. In those regards you're off target and I'm not going to repeat the policy/guidline-based arguments I already made. Please move on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- So what your saying is your using Wikipedia as a soapbox to make fun of the people that vandilise this site? If you look at the creator of the image he purposely created it so people can use it as a type of graphic that people can sound off on. I 100% believe in the freedom of expression on the internet but my argument is that Wikipedia is not the place to be posting satire for any purpose. It is all of these: Unencyclopedic, Soapbox, No Neutral Point of View, Not Verifiable, Original Research. These are guidelines that Wikipedia expects all its users to follow. These are in the Introduction website. Please explain to me how graphic satire of any kind is not any of these: Unencyclopedic, Soapbox, No Neutral Point of View, Not Verifiable, Original Research. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of material. If you want this satire on the internet put in on Myspace or your personal website. This is not the place for it. You keep giving me reasons why you think it should stay but you still have not addressed the 5 Wikipedia areas listed above. Please stay on topic and address them. Please try to keep your personal opinion out of this. If we went on just opinions and not the rules of the website, Wikipedia would turn into Myspace. --RipWinkleVan | Talk 15:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh. Most Wikipedia editors are not Notable in any Wikipedia sense either. Really, user pages should be banned altogether. JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rip, I am a disinterested third party who posted here in response to your initial post. You are apparently not looking at signatures to see who posted what. In the same vein, you do not appear to have read my substantial analysis of the matter or are ignoring it. The policies you are quoting such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are inapposite to this user page content (from WP:V:
"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."(emphasis added)). Nor does this material fall within the spirit, much less the letter of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Your reasons for removal of the material have been addressed at length and your complaints over mistreatment have also been addressed. Again, please move on; devote your time to some constructive encyclopedia building activities. Rehashing this issue does not qualify as that—not even a little bit. At this point I'm going to ask you to please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rip, I am a disinterested third party who posted here in response to your initial post. You are apparently not looking at signatures to see who posted what. In the same vein, you do not appear to have read my substantial analysis of the matter or are ignoring it. The policies you are quoting such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are inapposite to this user page content (from WP:V:
Please ban this IP (198.150.162.17)
ResolvedEditor has been pointed to the correct place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This user has, from what I can see, only made obnoxious changes to articles. In the lemonade article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lemonade&oldid=201349091) he changed the quote "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade" to "If life gives you semen, make babies". Many of the other changes he makes are just plain valdilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bank_robbery&diff=201214745&oldid=201124888), (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watermelon&diff=201175261&oldid=198028581). He hasn't contributed one good thing to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.251.252 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not the place to report vandals. If you have a vandal to report, please leave a note here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
defamatory info in google cache
ResolvedWhen you google search "vic porcelli", an old defamatory, erroneous site comes up in the "show cached", so it is still "live" somewhere in WIKI....I have edited the original page, but how in the hell do I remove this from the google search? I have tried contacting them, but that is no help either.
any help would be appreciated
Jessica Traveljess (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The "show cached" feature has nothing to do with Wikipedia; it's a feature of Google, where Google takes a "snapshot" of the webpage for people who cannot get access to the live site. The page is not still on Wikipedia, it's just in Google's cache until they update it. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The cache entry is shown by Google as captured "Mar 10, 2008 21:12:52 GMT." That is, the version of the WP article at that time was captured and saved by Google in their own database. Looking at the "13:27, 5 March 2008" revision of the article shows that same text. User Traveljess has made
changes just recently (today). Since there is no direct link between WP and Google, we must wait for Google to notice Traveljess' changes. Shenme (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
To have a biography published in the The Free Encyclopedia
StaleDesmond ayim-aboagye (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Please I would like to know how to go about it if one wants his biography to be published in the Free Encyclopedia.
Please advise me what to do or whom to contact. And it is free or I need to pay for it being published in the Wikipedia?
Sincerely yours, Desmond Ayim-Aboagye, 6th June 1959
- Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article. To sum it up, having a biography here is free, but all of our articles must conform to our policies. The most important ones are:
- WP:Notability-the subjects of our articles must be notable
- WP:Neutral Point of View-all Wikipedia articles must be unbiased and neutral
- WP:Verifiability-all Wikipedia articles must cite reliable third party sources
- So if you are notable, just start a new article (instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Your first article). --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- "his biography" sounds to me like an autobiography, which is discouraged by WP:Autobiography. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons is probably also worth reviewing. JNW2 (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit Auenbrugger
StaleI am not to skilled in computer..... so that I find your instruction complicated..I have just tried to EDIT the Page "Auenbrugger", completing it, but I fear without success. I am: Sergio Stagnaro MD, www.semeioticabiofisica.it, My DATA are Stagnaro/Trigoso
here it's: ............................................ Really, at the end of last century, Auenbrugger's great discovery reached its highest level with the birth of Biophysical Semeiotics, www.semeiotica biofisica.it (((((....although Wikipedia does no like it....))))))),which at November 2008 became QUANTUM BIOPHYSICAL SEMEIOTICS, demonstrating that Auenbrugger was right!
If you consider my comment interesting, OK! On the contrary, cancel it.... person info removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagnaro (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Testimonials
ResolvedI added a testimonial to the Mark Trombino page a while ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Trombino). It's sourced to a well respected (and independent) radio station website, and includes an audio link. I thought the comment was quite newsworthy, which is why I added it to the page after reading it. It is clearly listed as an opinion, and is a direct quote from someone who has worked with Trombino.
Another user continues to remove the testimonial without reference to the Wikipedia policies. I looked into the policies to make sure the quote was ok. I believe now that it is verifiable, and that while it is potentially biased, that it is attributed, and that this satisfies the "Neutral point of view" policy.
I was hoping someone could shed some light and let me know if I'm doing the right thing to keep it there. Cheers. Mikenosilly (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would note that (although it is not marked as such), this individual appears to still be living, which means that the article must comply with the guidelines for biographies of living persons, which are somewhat more restrictive that the general biography guidelines. Also, personally, I don't see what adding the opinion to the article adds - especially when the article is so sparse on facts. Pastordavid (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, please note the comment on the article talk page that the info was removed because of an OTRS request ... so it is best to just leave it. Pastordavid (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)