Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 20

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

Characters in Fair City

Stuck

– Until someone figures out a good solution to the perennial issue of notability in fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice a proliferation of articles about fictional characters from this RTE radio soap programme. On a similar vein, the characters from The Archers are all (by and large) listed in one article - List of characters in The Archers. So, should the character bios for Fair City be condensed and dropped down to one article - e.g. List of characters in Fair City ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture drone - you seem to be hitting on some of the fairly persistant differences of opinion here on wikipedia. The answer to that question would very much depend on who you ask. I would (a) make note of the issue on the talk page of the relevent wikiproject(s), (b) use your judgement as to which characters should be merged, and then (c) place {{mergeto}} templates on the articles as needed to generate any discussion. I would then merge as appropriate, and only as it has not been objected to. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Gemini Thwaite aka Mark Thwaite - attempts to update biography keep being removed

Resolved

– asked and answered. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Both myself and my partner have tried a couple of times to update my own personal biography currently posted on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thwaite. The most recent revisions I made a week or so ago - all factual and pertaining to myself, including some info included from pages relating to the various bands I play in - including wikipedia content - were all removed except for the original header. The comment with the revision said "looks like a violation of copyright from various mirrors". I don't see how telling my own biography - which i ensured was correct - can be a violation of anything. I have spent hours recreating the biography text, refining and updating as required, only to find you guys pulling it down a week or two later, probably because a paragraph here and there may also be featured on a website for one of the bands I play in. Please cite which 'mirror' webpages or other peoples rights I am violating, no doubt they all relate to bands and artists I perform with. I have just 'undone' the edit, restoring my biography and the discography which i had also included on my last revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.224.10 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things, please read WP:COI if you are the party in which this article is referring too, meaning you should not be editing this article if you're the subject. Please also read WP:CITE, none of the information on the article has any reliable sources of information. Alternatively, you can also read the talk page, where the original editor of this article made a copy and paste move from another Wiki or another article [1] That kind of copying and pasting could be a violation of copyright unless you can cite where it was copied from so references or the status of the text can be verified. If it was copied from another article, it could be a violation of the GFDL license Wikipedia runs on. — Κaiba 09:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Resolved

– retail links do not fit with an encyclopedia.Pastordavid (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted a 4 or 5 search links into my website, www.comicartfans.com, on wikipedia today and had all them removed. The reason the other editor gave was because my site was an auction site, and that it was commercial. I operate a free site where collectors of comic art display their collections. The overall site search displays artwork from my members collections from published comic artists. The links I added to wikipedia were on wiki pages about that artist, the title of the link was something like "Artwork by John Byrne on Comicartfans". The link was a straight keyword search on the site that brought up original artwork by John Byrne. I do have a column on the search results page that links to ebay with related John Byrne artwork (for example). I don't see how that classifies me as a commercial website (my site is 100% free to my site users) or an auction site. My site is built around art collectors and the ebay links are seen as something useful to the art collectors. I would be happy to make a special landing page on the site for search results that didnt include these related ebay results if that would correct the problem. My intent was not to promote the auctions but to promote the art. My site has more than 350,000 pieces of comic art on it and has been online for more than 5 years. I've done nothing but promote the artists and the hobby in this time. If you feel my site isn't linkable from wikipedia please let me know. I see links on many of the comic artist pages to sites which sell art books and other things, but the links are to "interviews" and somehow that makes it okay to other editors. I guess I do not understand why my site isn't allowed considering all it has to offer. -Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrcox (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) :http://.comicartfans.com

Here is some additional reading:

--Hu12 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I was linking to a site that is my own, I do not see how the content isn't valuable as a link from Wikipedia. Wikipedia only allows a sampling of representational artistic images, etc. My site could have several thousand examples to view for an artist depending on who it is. And it isn't like I'm selling the art, or profiting from showing it. These are collectors showing off their collections for people who appreciate the artwork. Ah well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrcox (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Its your site, therefore neutral and independent Wikipedia editors get to decide whether to add it, Not you. By making the decision to argue for your own link, is an incompatibility between the aims of Wikipedia and you, the webmaster, because your not neutral. Adding your own site is "promotion" and a conflict of interest. Links to commercial (sales) sites can often be appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your own site site are not. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites, but to neutral editors.--Hu12 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I find out why an edit was removed?

Resolved

– Pastordavid (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fredric_Wertham&diff=207846742&oldid=203328266

I made additions and corrections based on one of the books mentioned on the page, namely

David Hajdu. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. ISBN 0374187673

The book was not quoted verbatim, but my edits were accurate based on the contents. As a new wiki contributor, how do I find out why the edits were removed?

75.38.179.94 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) zdub

You seem to be linking to edits you made, and as of now they haven't been changed. In any event, you can either check the edit summary, or ask the editor on her/his talk page why s/he edited as s/he did. To that general end, please try to supply an edit summary when you edit, and sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tilde characters, thus: ~~~~. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you click the History button at the top of that article, you will see that your edits are the last edits (as of the moment) to that article. One recommendation: When you include material, please include an inline citation to indicate the source of the material. That helps other editors to verify that the material accurately reflects what was written in the source. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mars Volta

Resolved

– It looks like this set of articles has been cleared up. Pastordavid (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently created an account after I viewed some poorly written pages about The Mars Volta. These pages are, for the most part, filled with this user's opinion on songs. Here is an example of one of the pages for the song "Day of the Baphomets".

"It starts off with a mind blowing bass solo from Juan Alderete, who cut his teeth in metal bands such as Racer X. In this solo, he seems to emulate the jazz-rock styles of the late Jaco Pastorius, of whom Alderete is a self-professed fan. The song turns into total chaos. This is the most inaccessible song there is here, mainly because it is complex and very loud. Like Tetragrammaton, it has many changes within the song, but is more coherent; and in Mars Volta style, there are great riffs and solos. In minute 6, an amazing rhythmic riffs blows you away, and it will later come back with a mindblowing guitar solo. Between the space between the two riffs, you have a catchy and fast-paced section with a great background riff.
If any of the lyrics “Baphomets” sound familiar, it’s because Cedric recycled some of them from a previously unreleased Mars Volta song "A Plague Upon Your Hissing" . “Baphomets” also prominently features a percussion solo by Omar’s brother Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez, and a very odd battle of Omar Rodriguez-Lopez and Adrián Terrazas-Gonzálezas the style of bands like "Yes"."

As you can see, the page has absolutely no purpose other than this user (whoose username is Themarsvoltafan) to show his opinion. I tried contacting him and I fixed all the pages, but he ignored me and retyped them back up. I want to get this fixed. I would not like somebody visiting these pages and getting turned off by the poor writing. So can anyone please help me get these pages deleted.

Links to the pages created by this user that have not been fixed, and should be deleted:

Day of the Baphomets (song)
Asilos Magdalena (song)
[[Concertina (The Mars Volta song)

Links to pages created by this user that I fixed for temporary use, but should be deleted because they are songs that aren't singles and thus shouldn't have their own page:

Tollanddrummer (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely in need of some cleanup of the notable ones here, and redirection to parent album of the non-notable. Getting to work here, also have left a message to the editor who seems to be doing most of this, hopefully will help to prevent the problem in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Style

Resolved

– User redirected to appropriate page. Fleetflame 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that well versed with Wikipedia's policies regarding prose, grammar, spelling, structure, etc. I'm looking for someone who *is* experienced with these things to assist me in cleaning up Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Any help would be appreciated. The Clawed One (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you been directed to Wikipedia's Manual of Style yet? It contains lots of really useful guidelines - and if other editors object to your changes, it can help in resolving disputes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Currency images

Resolved

Thai baht has had the ฿1,000 note's obverse and reverse deleted, and the reverse, only, of the ฿20 note. The latter was also deleted from Ananda Mahidol's In memoriam, and the Rama VIII Bridge. Wassup? Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: ฿100 images are gone, too! I guess the whole currency section is undergoing meltdown. Pawyilee (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of automated bots have removed the images because they were not freely licensed and there may have been problems with their Fair Use rationales (see WP:NFCC for more on this). It's always possible that the bots were malfunctioning, but whatever the problem, if this happens again, I suggest taking a good look at the images in Pound sterling and US Dollar. If necessary, copy their wording to ensure that you get the same treatment they do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor refuses to discuss diputed changes

Resolved

– Marxus was blocked five hours after Pastordavid's comment - we hope he learned his lesson. Fleetflame 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User Marxus, often editing without logging in at 67.87.7.132, repeated undoes changes other editors make to the pages associated with Richard Brautigan's books (see So the Wind Won't Blow it All Away" for an example). I have never seen an edit of his with even an edit summary, let alone a talk discussion.

I have requested that he discuss such changes via his talk pages and the talk pages of some of the articles. I have reverted his edits with comments saying that changes should be justified, or at least discussed. None of this generates any response other than a continuation of the same behavior.

This is not major matter, but how does one deal with such rude behavior short of an edit war or just letting him run roughshod over others. Thanks, Rknasc (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For others looking at this request, I believe the editor in question is Marxus (talk · contribs), possibly also 67.87.7.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.151.57.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (correct me if I'm wrong on that).

You appear to be on the right track with this. Unexplained changed can certainly be undone if they are unhelpful to the article. Marxus has been blocked 3 times for his editing style. I would suggest that you also consider using User warnings on his various talk pages whenever you encounter specific problems. This makes it easier for an admin to see that you have attempted to address this problem, and have warned him that it is inappropriate -- thus making a block easier should it become necessary. Pastordavid (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Resolved

– User told what to do (why do so many of these need explanations?). Fleetflame 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have updated the Teachers Building Society page purely with the intention of providing accurate information. I do work for Teachers Building Society, and consequently a potential conflict of interest has been identified. Please advise how I ensure that the content is deemed neutral so that the notices at the top of the page can be removed. Many thanks, Jo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.116.22 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, I'd advise reading the conflict of interest guidelines. You're by no means prohibited from editing the article in question; however, if in any doubt, discuss any changes you want to make on its Talk page, take care to leave edit summaries explaining any changes you make, and be very careful if anyone undoes any of your changes. Do bear in mind that "inside information" cannot be included in Wikipedia: our policy on Verifiability requires us to use only published sources. Polite discussion should be able to avoid any problems before they arise, and once other editors are assured that you mean to work with them, I'm sure that the notice at the top of the page can be removed. You can also get help from editors who're experienced in COI issues at the COI Noticeboard. Good luck, and let us know if you need any advice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropbox template

Stale

In the French Wikipedia article on Association des bibliothécaires de France#Liste_des_pr.C3.A9sidents , I saw this example:

{{boîte déroulante|titre=Liste des présidents de l'ABF|contenu=
*1906-1908 : Joseph Deniker
*1908-1910 : Charles Mortet
*... }}

Is there a corresponding template for the English Wikipedia? --Mikaelbook (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We have many such templates. Are you looking for one for this topic, or for something else? Pastordavid (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited an article

Resolved

– Appropriate instructions were given. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This afternoon, I changed the content of an article, titled "Buster from Chicago." All went well and I logged off. But when I returned to the same article later in the same day, the uncorrected version was still up there. Why is this so? Does it take a day or two before corrected articles appear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukthesis1 (talk • contribs)

HI there. It looks like you pasted your copy in here, then removed the entirety of the article body that had existed prior to your addition. That likely caught the attention of the administrator who reverted you. The copy you entered was not really written in the style that Wikipedia prefers for its articles, and the removal of the previous article copy isn't really the best way to go about correcting what we have.

Might I suggest that instead of that approach, you edit the existing Buster from Chicago article, including a shorter summary of the information you posted? Do ensure that the information you've got is based on reliable sources, as it must be verifiable to remain in the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Licensing for new image version

Resolved

If I take an image licensed under {{PD-USGov-Interior-FWS}} and edit it (in this case, to remove a border), do I license it as my own work or what? Appreciate the help. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert in images, however I would upload it as a new image under the GDFL, noting the original image that it is based on, and the license the original carries. Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Fleetflame 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I represent the actress Masiela Lusha

Stale

– Debate has moved to the article talk page --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

and I have been trying to re-edit her profile on Wikipedia according to what is mentioned and published on her Official website and her official page on IMDB. For whatever reason, every time I make the corrections (I.E she never lived in Georgia, which seems to be mentioned on your article that she lived there before LA) it will only return back to what was previously written without notes or reasons. I'm baffled and am frustrated because I can't seem to express myself even after giving reasons for the edits (with proof). I feel like these important edits aren't taken seriously.

Please advise.

Aaronweinhaus (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, Masiela Lusha is like any article on Wikipedia, we can't stop representatives of articles creating them but:

You create reliable information. As an editor in IMDB, they will carry dates of birth, places of residence without need for citation (I know him/I represent him) being enough.

Wikipedia has several codes of conduct and because biographies can lead to legal issues, the Conflict of Issue/Interest basically stops re-writes to articles you have started, been deemed fit and you start to edit in a way that correcting "facts" either deletes sourced sentences or offers new sourced (and unsourced) ideas you have had a hand in.

You have edited it now. It hasn't been flagged as a COI and I would agree she is notable. You have two options - leave it here to be watched and be evaluated; Mark it as a speedy delete because you created it and you believe you or an other editor could not make it better than it exists now.

I would be happy in the circumstances to take it to our system of articles for deletion on a principle that how many people have heard of her? The decision would fall to simple reasoning without a vote. I shall move the Afd on 10th May.

Kind regards

-- EhsanQ (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted link issue

Resolved

Hello

I would like to add a link in the following section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis#Fortran

My link is http://g95-xml.sourceforge.net/.

When I try yo save the changes, I get the following message:

Spam filter notice ... The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: hxxp://www.viva64.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

I looked in the page html source code, and there is a link to the website hxxp://www.viva64.com/articles/PC-lint.html.

I do not know how to deal with that problem. Could you help me ?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.129.13.90 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the links that were stopping you from being able to edit—you should now be able to add in your link (where appropriate, please be sure to read up on external links guidelines). Thanks for asking for help. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

Resolved

Moved from top of page
In need of a paganini expert to help with new article 24 Caprices for Solo Violin (Paganini). Would also appreciate more individual articles for each caprice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perlnerd666 (talk • contribs)

I've tagged the article for expert help. You might also try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Mahamad

Note - This was copied from conflict of interest

Stale

Not done. Nobody signed or gave opinions. Either Mahamad article will be opend or discussion to be done throughly. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mahamad articles current revision isnt appropiate. The article is redirected to Bhavishya Purana, and the way Muhammad is described is ridiculous plus isn't fair to the other vedas (holy books) that Mahamad is prophised in. This revision would be better [2]

Note - Mahamad is not only mentioned in Bhavishya Purana, Mahamad is cleary mentioned in RigVeda and other vedas, puranas etc... (i have sources/refs to claim that). further Muhammad had successfully completed the prophicies in some Vedas.

Note - Those users have no sources to even claim Mahamad in Bhavishya Purana article and further some users watch that article and do not allow any users to contribute and fix up the inappropiate wording view.

This view is much better [3]. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - Even if them users want to keep Mahamad in that article Bhavishya Purana this revision would be more appropiate [4] cause just the way they mention Mahamad is outrageous and further it says Shiva will destroy when thats false, i could mention why if needed. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a conflict of interest problem to me. Perhaps you would be better taking this to requests for editorial assistance. Howie ☎ 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Mahamad article was very popular at one time (see [[5]] ) after being reidrected many times, right now it needs to be fixed up just look at the Mahamad article and content is (without any support for claims) is just hidious.

--Mujahideen194 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That article needs to be opend up and all those other books that Mahamad is prophised in must be mentioned, and all the prophicies he completed according to the vedas to claim titles must be mentioned as well.

Those prophicies regard an important role. its useless to only redirect to Bhavishya Purana cause thats not fair to all the other books. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - The philosophy of Buddhism in which Mahamad has been prophisied is also highly related to the Hindu scriptures, which describe the reincarnation (process) and whom form it has claimed. that information shold also be merged into that page. Its best to open up that page and line up all the information thats related to it. The current redirect is not fair to all the other scriptures and even Buddhist scriptures, the Hindu script have an part related to the Buddhist script. The current redirect is not enough and the page should be opend up for more information. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

--Mujahideen194 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In Sikhism, Guru Naknak confirmed there was an village of Brahmans at Mecca. --Mujahideen194 (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral part needed on Maemo page

Resolved

– Until another thread posting. Fleetflame 02:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think we are dealing with a WP:TE on the Maemo page. I would like a neutral third party to review this dispute and either block one or more users, possibly myself, from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brontide (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should add more information to give background. GeneralAntilies started a community effort in January to cleanup Maemo and related pages http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=166717&postcount=1 . On or around April 13th a user named meanwhile on iTT stared a flame war about the security under maemo and related technologies http://www.internettablettalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19074 . After two days of trolling the forums he started inserting a security section on the Maemo page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maemo&oldid=205859127. The wording and tone has not changed significantly since that first draft and he insists on inserting it into the page no matter how many editors have objected. The problems are compounded by the fact that he continually does weird editing of posts on the discussion page making it nearly impossible to carry on a discussion with him. Since that time the section has been reverted approximately 6 times, 2 by myself. I have given up trying to revert the text since it's clear that he has more time to police the page than I do.

While backed by some facts, the majority of my complaint and that of others is that the arguments he is making are inapplicable to the maemo platform or they are generic arguments against unix. I had worked up a security section that I believed was NPOV pointing out the maemo specific security concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maemo&oldid=207671119. We have tried to resolve this on the discussion page with almost no success.

I am more than willing to cease editing that page and/or section if I'm in the wrong here. Brontide (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I need more info to be of much help. (a) It appears that you are actually talking about Internet Tablet OS. Is this correct? (b) what, specifically, is the content that is in dispute? Pastordavid (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The maemo page has been moved to Internet Tablet OS, as most of the information on it pertained to the operating system, rather than the SDK. (This distinction is not strongly observed in most discussion, hence the original page title.) Umptious has not made any edits in since 2008 April 24, so the content in question has been gone for some time. A sample may be found in this version of the page. 129.74.64.45 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a little clearer. If there is consensus among other editors - and it is best to have it on the talk page rather just through edit summaries - that this addition represents original research, then just leave it out. I don't have a background in this area, and have to defer to the regular editors of the page. However, I can see how - despite being sourced - it could lean toward being a novel synthesis of information. Can I ask that you open a new thread if the problem editor returns, and we can go from there. Pastordavid (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used for political propaganda

Really, really

Stale

On the Bob Schaffer page, political opponents have added an "Election Controversies" section, most of which is used to post unsubstantiated claims against Schaffer. Simply being able to link to a report of a claim by a political organization which opposes someone is hardly the same as it being real or unbiased information. Most of my attempts to clarify the bias of the information/propaganda in that section get deleted. Then, when I added a parallel "Election Controversies" section to the Mark Udall page, containing two verifiable FACTS (Udall has received contributions from Jack Abramoff, and Udall's wife is a liberal activist with ties to at least one group attacking Schaffer), that section gets deleted. Wikipedia should ideally not allow the bogus "Election Controversies" section on Schaffer's page, but if it is allowed, a similar section on Udall's page...with FACTS that are easily demonstrated...must also be allowed and its deletion must be prevented. --Rossputin (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (Mountain Time)

Well, here are the problems I see here: the section referred to in the Bob Schaffer article is backed up by a number of good reliable sources - media sources, newspapers, etc. - while the section you inserted on to the Mark Udall page did not. (I'm not sure FaceTheState.com would qualify as a reliable source; it appears to be a conservative-leaning editorial site to me.) I see Udall has been protected to deal with the dispute; can I suggest that you seek out references backing up the insertions you'd like to make and take them to the talk page of that article? (I'd personally say that the Bob Schaffer controversies section seems overlong, too; again, something to discuss on the talk page.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict

Stuck

– Still no talk page discussion going on, despite filing for a 3rd opinion. Not much to do until some sort of communication gets going on. Pastordavid (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has been trying to distort facts and reverted my good faith, NPOV edits. See [6]. Tx --AI009 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are both reverting each other's edits without discussion. Start a thread on the Talk page and discuss the matter. Consult our guidelines on dispute resolution for help. Continuing down the path you're on will probably lead to an admin deciding to block you from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

David Haye

Reasonably

Resolved

I have a user that has repeated the same edit the page on David Haye twice. The user is editing the wording from "Kyrenia in the de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" to "Girne, in The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". I would rather not get into the politics of what the city is and isn't called according to which side of the border someone lives on. The wiki article is currently listed under Kyrenia. I don't expect the cyprus problem to be resolved but it doesn't need to spill over to a page about a UK Boxer. GenestealerUK (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the simple solution is to write (known as Girne in Turkish) or just simply (Turkish: Girne)? Howie ☎ 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't hurt. GenestealerUK (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This was edited again despite the change. This apparently remains unresolved. There are two IP addresses that have repeated this change: Special:Contributions/87.84.240.238 and Special:Contributions/90.199.224.114. GenestealerUK (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This user continues to revert the page despite my attempts to appease Special:Contributions/87.84.240.238. Can this user be blocked. His only recent changes to wikipedia relate to this continued revert. GenestealerUK (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the IP in question has edited recently, but not this article. It appears that a fair number of people are also watching it. May I suggest the following: if the IP returns to change the sentence, (1) change it back, (2) start a thread on the article talk page, and (3) leave a polite comment on the IP's talk page. If the IP then reverts without discussing, leave a note here (don't break the three-revert rule, even if you are in the right). (FYI, I edited your comment some to make it a little easier to read, please feel free to change it back if you mind). Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your help on this. At present these edits have ceased but I keep a good eye on the page. GenestealerUK (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

cross reference without ToC entry?

Stuck

– Something wiki markup apparently cannot do. Fleetflame 03:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to create cross references \[\[#xxx\]\] or <a href="#xxx">yyy</a> to an image on the page I'm editing, but there is no reason for it to appear in the page's table of contents. Is there any way to do this? I tried creating a pseudo-heading '======' with a style="display: none;", and that prevented the header from displaing on the page, but it still shows up in the ToC.

Is there any way to accomplish this? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear here. If you are trying to add a wikilink or a hyperlink, then it will not show up in the ToC. If you are trying to create a section heading (with the equals signs) then it will always show up in the ToC. Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a link to elsewhere in the same page, the Wiki equivalent of <a href="testplace">xxx</a>, where the place I'm linking to would be <a name="testplace">. But as you can see when you edit this page, the <a> tags don't turn into hyperlinks, they are displayed as literal text. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To link to a specific section on a page, the mark-up is two brackets, followed by the article name, pound sign, the section name, then two closing brackets. Thus, a link this section would be [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#cross_reference_without_ToC_entry.3F]]. To then give the link a different text, use a piped link - that is, double bracket, article (or article and section), then a "pipe" |, then what you want it to say, then two closing brackets. like this: [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#cross_reference_without_ToC_entry.3F|This Section]]; which looks like this:This section.

If you know html, it takes some adjustment to get used to it. But once you learn it, the wikipedia system of WP:MARKUP is pretty simple. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't want the place I'm linking to to be a section. I just want to point to an image I inserted once, and not have it appear (and take up space) everywhere I want to refer to it. Is there any way at all to do this? Or am I just out of luck? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's confusing. I have no idea what you're talking about, actually, but I'm not that good with markup anyway. You can try asking here or here or here and maybe you'll find someone who knows more about this kind of thing than we apparently do. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Spam Listing

Resolved

– Per User talk:Urbanrenewal, he didn't know how we use talk pages. Fleetflame 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on fixing a series of articles in order to bring them up to Wikipedia standards of notability and objectivity. Additionally, I have been going through the articles adding references and information. An administrator attempted to remove a large group of these articles and then listed them as well as several other articles on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private equity firm Spam articles. After several AfD discussions, these pages are being kept by the wider Wikipedia community and would suggest that the listings on the spam page be removed. I have requested the original administrator (User:Hu12)do this and he has not and has not responded to my requests in any way. Urbanrenewal (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alerted Hu12 to this discussion; see what he says first. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't delete Talk page discusions of record, We archive them.--Hu12 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a very satisfactory answer. Under that logic I could put any person, organization or article on that page and nobody should be able to take it off because it is part of the discussion. There should be some burden of proof on the posting editor. Once those pages have been validated by the larger Wikipedia community then by definition they should not be spam and the user responsible for editing and fixing them should not be listed as a spammer for performing the primary function of wikipedia.Urbanrenewal (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If an error is made on a Talk page, it is customary for the text in question to be struck through ~~like this~~ by the person who wrote it. Of course, you will have to convince them that there's been a mistake. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Winter Olympics stubs

First question

Resolved

and second one

Stale

I just stumbled over Category:Winter Olympics stubs. And that's all I'm going to say for now. Dorftrottel (ask) 07:26, May 5, 2008

What exactly is wrong with that category? Something wrong with include vs. noinclude? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Click almost any random article. Dorftrottel (canvass) 09:21, May 5, 2008

Please tell me there's at least one decent article in there. Please! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd even go one further and say: Please tell me there's one decent stub in there. Dorftrottel (complain) 10:19, May 5, 2008

Oh, my. I clicked on five or six and every one of them is a clear-cut A3. Other than the taxoboxes, the content doesn't do much more than echo the title...and these have been hanging around here for two years. Mass deletion, anyone? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what I was getting at, but I wanted to make sure that it's not just me. Some may say that I'm a bit of a deletionist, although I like to think of myself as an inclusionist interested in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedia and usually, I dislike making broad judgments about the worthiness of a general category of article. In this case however, it's literally an entire category. I've also noticed that all of the pages (at least all that I probed) have been created by one user. Hm. I think now that it's established that others share my concerns, this should be pursued at another, more central venue and the author be notified. I'll do the latter right away, but would appreciate any advice how else to proceed. Post at WP:VPP? WP:AN? I'm also reluctant to sift through the entirety of the ~500 pages in the category all on my own to determine which ones should definitely be deleted. Dorftrottel (complain) 15:42, May 5, 2008

Before you start undoing a tremendous amount of work, please read WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. The WP:WikiProject Olympics team is working on a fairly massive and ambitious project of compiling the complete results for each Olympic Games, and these articles—even in their current state—are part of the "foundation" or "frame" of that project (if you follow the house metaphor). I would say that most of the "builder" attention right now is on summer Games articles, so these winter ones have been sitting as stubs for a while, but of course, WP:There is no deadline. Personally, I had ben planning to do a lot of work on the winter Games articles to rectify that neglect, but probably not until after Beijing is over. I would be very, very, pissed off if these articles were all deleted in the meantime. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright there's no deadline, otoh there is a threshold for inclusion. Please note that I'm not trying (or rather: trying not to) debate what exactly that threshold is. But why not create those articles one by one? Some (most?) of those placeholders have been practically unchanged for one and a half years. Also, I'm most certainly not trying to destroy anything. That's why I first started this thread to see whether it's just me or not, and also why I immediately notified you after it was clear that there is some basic agreement with my concerns. How about deleting the substub portion of the category, but put all the article names on a subpage of WikiProject Olympics? That way, any admin could undelete the stub at request without any work being lost. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 16:12, May 5, 2008

The biggest reason for having all those stubs in place is that there are a lot of cross-linkages across the articles for each Olympic Games, and we think it is better to have a set of stubs than a sea of redlinks. For example, you'll see that every one of those articles has two sets of navigation links—the infobox has links to all of the other appearances of the nation at other Games, and the navbox at the bottom of the page links to all of the other nations at these same Games. Additionally, we make extensive use of templates like {{flagIOCathlete}} on per-sport results pages, which automatically creates links to the appropriate "Nation at the year Olympics" article. See List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing (men) for yet another example where the existence of all these Winter Games stubs dramatically helps. I guess it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here. Before I created all those stubs, we were getting calls for deletion of the navigation templates etc. because of the redlinks, and now we're getting calls to delete the stubs. (But don't get me wrong—I understand your comments here are good-faith.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I was personally unsure whether or not the users in question were aware of all of these, but I see your point. Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose comments sound ok to you. Are you happy with my explanation of the current status and structure of WikiProject Olympics articles, and are ok with leaving the status quo unchanged, or are you ok with Dorftrottel's suggestion of a mass deletion of stubs anyway, with undeletion when editors want to work on them? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Open question to the editors contributing to this thread: what amount of detail would be considered as the minimum threashold for stub status? Right now, a lot of that detail was placed into the infoboxes and not duplicated in prose text (things like how many medals they won, etc.) so perhaps that's why the stubs look "thin" right now (e.g. Switzerland at the 1928 Winter Olympics). I would also say that some of those articles (e.g. Finland at the 1924 Winter Olympics) should have the stub tags removed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Didi

Evidently

Resolved

This limited individual chose to remove a reference to Didi and accused me of vandalism.

CENSORSHIP is supposed to be non-existent in the United States of America and on the free internet, such as on Wikipedia.

So, before I restore the reference, I request editorial assistance to remain respectful to the free-world community.

The uptight, repressed individual's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gary_King#Vandalism.3F

My entry:

The Mistress Didi (http://www.classicfetish.org), an innovator in Fetish Art & Education whose mission is to restore the concept of Fetish as Therapeutic Art to the mainstream from the distasteful, deviant, ignorance portrayed by sensationalist media.

was listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didi

until that guy deleted it.

Glamourdomme (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)GlamourDomme

Glamourdomme, those kinds of pages (known as disambiguation pages) link to other wikipedia pages. Mistress Didi does not have her own wikipedia page, so there's no reason for her link to be there. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of notability. Redrocket (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redrocket, I wrote you a personal thank you on your talk page where the uptight one whined. However, as there is no entry for Mistress Didi. I am going to contact her people and have one added because her work is worthy of standing alone and not having to deal with people who spend too much time online trying to regulate the world instead of living life in real-time.Glamourdomme (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. Thank you. Gary King (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, any wikipedia editor who saw that external link on the page would have assumed it was advertising and deleted it. That happens a lot around here. I'm glad you understand that your best bet here is to prove Mistress Didi is notable, and get her her own wikipage. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

technical question - how do i make a word come up in searches?

Resolved

– Leave it to {{helpme}}! Fleetflame 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

i am just learning the ropes and could use some help!

i added a bit of information about "nikkur" in the "religion" section under "sciatic nerve." how can i make it come up if someone searches for "nikkur"?

if i posted this wrongly or in the wrong place, i am sorry... just finding my footing here!

thank you!

ajax on the double —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax on the double (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Typhoon" page needs an edit

Resolved

– vandalism all gone SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon#cite_note-enso-1

lists "Nearly one-third of the world's tropical cyclones form within the Western Pacific. I like men. This makes this basin the most active"

in the Climatology section.

I believe the "I like men" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire.girl (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You can do it yourself, you know :-) Be bold! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

trying to get an article cleaned up

Resolved

– Article Cleaned. EhsanQ ^(talk) 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The entry for DRS Technologies is written as an ad, and mostly cribbed from their website. I don't know how to effectively (a) clean it up, and/or (b) direct additions to maintain wiki standards. Can someone help? (make sure to check out the talk page and editing history) Tedder (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it under G11 (If it looks like spam it must be). I'm not sure I've ever seen huge lists of directors before or 6 external company links? If it fails speedy D then prod. -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article cleaned of copy vio. -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mouth merge

Resolved

At Talk:Mouth (human) we came to a consensus to merge [[Mouth (human) and Mouth (animal) on the page titled Mouth. In the process, I found out that there is a second disambiguation page for Mouth as well! Mouth (disambiguation).

Here is the list of steps: 1. Add text from Mouth to Mouth (disambiguation), since page already exists. (done)

2. Get rid of duplicate entries. (done)

3. Move Talk:Mouth to Talk:Mouth (disambiguation). (done)

4. Move Mouth to User:Bob the Wikipedian/Mouth so it can be deleted to make way for Mouth (human). (done)

5. Delete Mouth.

6. Move Mouth (human) and associated talk page to Mouth.

7. Add existing text from Mouth (animal) to Mouth.

8. Remove merge template from Mouth.

9. Fix any redirects to point to Mouth instead of Mouth (human), Mouth (animal).

I need some administrator assistance for step 5. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Have at it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have a great day! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)