Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 27

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

References

Resolved

– Or durn close; question was answered. Fleetflame 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

When describing the beliefs of a particular religious group, is it acceptable to use the group's website as a source, and list the website as such? In this case there is little published material to use. Rev107 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would personally doubt it, but you can ask here where the assistants have more experience determining this sort of thing. Fleetflame 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think it would be okay, but it depends upon the use. See WP:SELFPUB. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tricky question. On the one hand. who else should you believe? On the other hand, not all churches are monolithic groups of people all sharing identical beliefs. It may be that many practitioners believe things rather different to what the people writing the website believe. In general, an independent reliable source is the best bet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends what information you are using the source for. From Wikipedia:No original research, info backed up by primary sources should:

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

So just be careful that the only information you're backing up is purely factual and descriptive, and use secondary sources wherever possible. --Beloved Freak 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: see here. Fleetflame 03:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions by country

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One editor, Russavia, is creating many categories to group articles about diplomatic missions of a particular country, even if only a few articles exist (eg: Category:Diplomatic missions of Mali). Nothing wrong with this, but he is then then turning these articles into subcategories and adding them to Category:Diplomatic missions by country, crowding out the articles (eg: Diplomatic missions of Mali) that this page was intended to list. On his talk page) four people opposed the change and only he supported it (with no reason provided); irrespective of this Russavia has continued to make his changes, and is reverting back our counter-changes with WP:TW. Seeking some advice here... Kransky (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that doesn't, on first look, appear to be very consensus-oriented. WP:RFCU might be the next step, unfortunately; I think the initial conditions have been met.--AndrewHowse (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:RFC/U, not Requests for checkuser! Nonetheless, you might have more luck taking this to WP:Categories for discussion, since it involves categories. In that setting you would have the assistance of an admin to determine consensus, and you'd also have commenters who understand categories! It's my impression that you believe Category:Diplomatic missions of Russia should not exist. If so, you could nominate it for deletion, and get a proper debate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't believe that Category:Diplomatic missions of Russia belongs in Category:Diplomatic missions by country. It is my believe that Diplomatic missions of Russia should be placed in Category:Diplomatic missions of Russia, with Category:Diplomatic missions of Russia being placed in Category:Diplomatic missions by country. What we have here is so-called concensus by people who clearly don't understand how categories operate, and throw in some vandalism remarks to boot. They have removed the category Diplomatic missions by country from Diplomatic missions of Foo, so that Foreign relations of Foo is the only category existent in category Diplomatic missions of Foo; it makes absolutely ZERO sense. --Россавиа ^Диалог 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who is the 'he' cited by Russavia. I have no opinion on the substance of the difference; I do think it would be better settled by discussion than by insults. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My identation may have insinuated I was responding to you, rather than Kransky. I've now moved the idents leftward. Anyway, I've responded their RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Russavia#Response and am working on a proposal at WP:FOR --Россавиа ^Диалог 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Corina Brouder - singer/harpist/pianist

Stale

– Fleetflame 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Corina has a song on the "Sex & the City" in syndication commercial, can be heard on several inflight audio stations, has been seen on "America's Got Talent" in the US and "You're a Star" in Europe.

She has been featured in countless magazines including Star, VIP and ID and in May was pictured 2 weeks running in "In Touch" magazine and "The National Enquirer."

She was the solo vocalist on John Barry's "Swept From the Sea" soundtrack cd, made a pop album for Universal Music with her siblings, "The Spirits of Gilbride" and is currently working with David Hasselhoff and Frank Wildhorn on David Hasselhoff's new album.

She has performed at the White House on several occasions, Disney, Radio City, Rideau Hall and Yankee Stadium to name a few venues.

Corina's band member, Cornelia was recently seen in a background role in the movie "Sex & the City."

Corina has recently performed with David Hasselhoff at the Wade Hubbard benefit.

She was the vocalist at the tribute service for slain NYPD officer Hernandez where she sang an original Frank Wildhorn song.

Corina has shared the stage with such artists as The Chieftains, Hanson, Enrique Iglesias, the Harlem Boys Choir and the late tenor, Frank Patterson.

Corina was born and reared in NYC, attended the HS of Performing Arts, studied voice at Juilliard, violin at the Manhattan School of Music piano at the Westchester Conservatory and composition at the Febbraio Conservatory. She has a BA from Fordham. She is also a nurse.

She did an off-B'way show, several commercials and is the model for Dan Dooley Car Rentals which runs weekly in the Irish Echo newspaper. Corina was also a several time champion stepdancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinabrouder (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 June 2008

Hi, I'm not sure what your question is. If you need help starting an article, have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Looking at your talkpage, it looks like you have already tried that and it was deleted. You should make sure that your subject meets notability guidelines. Also note that it is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia to write articles about yourself or people you are connected with (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). --Beloved Freak 17:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How to prevent corporate sabotage

Resolved

– I wish I had that right sometimes! Fleetflame 03:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one obtain the rights to designate edits as vandalism and remove them arbitrarily. It appears that this page which I tried to have reflect something other than the fluff put out by a studio about their show has a watchdog whose job is to protect it. I've heard and read many things about corporations manipulating Wikipedia for their purposes - what a shame that one can't actually trust this site for valid information.

If not being done by a minion of the corporation then how does someone who has posted 10 times become a "moderator" and have rollback privileges? She has been a member of 29 days and has this much power. How do I get it.

I know I'm being unduly suspicious that Gail became a member at almost exactly the same time as this page came into existence. I believe her job is to monitor this page on behalf of her employers which means Wikipedia is worthless for real information.

What follows is the message I received from her. Interesting that she seems to be eternally leaving on vacation and not available for talk.

User talk:70.190.233.79 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
[edit] June 2008 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to In Plain Sight has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Gail (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to In Plain Sight constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Gail (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to In Plain Sight. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Gail (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

70.190.233.79 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding your edits to the page In Plain Sight, I would have to agree that they were not constructive. editing from a neutral point of view is an official WIkipedia policy, and statements like "ridiculous and unrealistic writing." are not neutral, and as they are not backed up by reliable sources, they constitute original research.

I'm not sure if you have tried talking about this to User:Gail, I can't see any evidence of that on her talkpage. You can also use the article talkpage for discussion of the article, but it seems as though you have a problem with the television show, rather than the article itself. Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do about that. Feel free to add information criticising the show from reliable third party sources. One final note, User:Gail has made many more than 10 edits, and is not a "moderator" (administrator). Hope this helps, --Beloved Freak 17:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this editor is taking such an aggressive stance. Had he/she contacted me on my talk page, I would have been happy to direct him/her to the neutral point of view policy and formal tone guideline. Thanks to Beloved Freak for replying on my behalf. Gail (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above; the IP's edits weren't remotely neutral or encyclopedic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

how to respond to proposed deletion

Stale

– Fleetflame 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I am a new contributor to Wikipedia.

Last night I posted a new article, and it was proposed to be deleted with this message: The deletion of an article you created, The Wicked Son by David Mamet, has been proposed for the following reason:

Um...what is this article?! But it's probably a copyvio and somewhat biased and borderline vandalism You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 04:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from User talk:Rosedora

I tried to figure out how to respond, and all I could find was to click on Talk, where I posted this answer: do not understand why someone wants to delete this page. I am summarizing the author's points by using quotes that are all footnoted. It is not a biased description of Mamet's words - that is why I am being so careful to use his own words. If the person who wants to delete it is calling Mamet biased, that is censorship. This is a published work by a famous author, whose ideas are already in the public marketplace of ideas. I found Mamet's ideas important and fascinating and wanted to share them.````Rosedora

Retrieved from Talk:The Wicked Son by David Mamet

Today I looked on the dispute page to see where The Wicked Son was listed and what editors were saying. I thought there would be five days of discussion before action was taken. I do not see my entry anywhere - not in Wikipedia, not in the deleted list, not in a discussion list.

I am completely baffled about the process. I am also baffled about the criticism of my article, which was not vandalism (its a new article), nor bias (it's a synopsis, with every statement back up by a quote). I don't understand the copyright rules - I thought brief quotes with page numbers are good, not bad. Help!

(email deleted)

There are several different forms of deletion here, and Prod / Proposed Deletion is one of them. You can stop the process, as you have, by removing the tag. I think the substance of the issue is that your article looks more like criticism than an encyclopaedic summary. It appears to include your own analysis, which we can't have since it's original research and can't be sourced. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, Glengarry Glen Ross, btw. By way of comparison. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the information in the article needs to be neutral, verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. Then, the style needs to be consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. As AndrewHowse says, take a look at Glengarry Glen Ross and other similar articles, including the David Mamet. There are other issues with the article that can be sorted later (such as layout) but neutrality and verifiability are the most important. Also, have a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Your first article for more help. By the way, I have moved the page to The Wicked Son per naming conventions. --Beloved Freak 12:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jozef Brandt

Resolved

– editor directed to reference desk. --Beloved Freak 11:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a very old 32 by 19 Jozef Brandt print on board . It has been in my attic for 40 years and was owned by a family member for at least since the late 1800's . It was framed , please let me know asap because i did take it to someone to give me a price to do all of that work. no amount given as yet. glass was broken I took the glass off and its just been sitting in the attic - now in very dirty condition. it is a battle scene and right now looks like its been through one. Is it worth the $ to have it cleaned ???? a new mat and glass all restored ???? kim s. howard (email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.43.36 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly does that have to do with editing Wikipedia? Try the reference desk instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SEO link of "Search Engine Optimization" first use.

Stale

– Fleetflame 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Please hook up the link for the "First Known Use Spam Message" someone took off the link recently, and may have edited the definition of SEO. Please regress back the definition to the original. At least hook up the most important link to the spam message again. Under History. Thank you.

History Webmasters and content providers began optimizing sites for search engines in the mid-1990s, as the first search engines were cataloging the early Web. Initially, all a webmaster needed to do was submit a page, or URL, to the various engines which would send a spider to "crawl" that page, extract links to other pages from it, and return information found on the page to be indexed.[1] The process involves a search engine spider downloading a page and storing it on the search engine's own server, where a second program, known as an indexer, extracts various information about the page, such as the words it contains and where these are located, as well as any weight for specific words and all links the page contains, which are then placed into a scheduler for crawling at a later date.

Site owners started to recognize the value of having their sites highly ranked and visible in search engine results.They also recognised that the higher their site ranking the more people would click on the website. According to industry analyst Danny Sullivan, the earliest known use of the phrase search engine optimization was a spam message posted on Usenet on July 26, 1997.[2]

SEO is a process not a service, please make sure to see to it no one changes the original definition of SEO to become a service when it is not. There will be trademark issues in regards to service mark "SEO" serial number 77171330. This page is in use in court and the opposition has seen to it to change recently vital pieces of evidence involved in dispute. Please be aware of their scandalous manner in trying to edit this page to their benefit.

All material that violates this trademark should be immediately deleted, or changed back to recent edits that have been made.

Thank you,

Jason Gambert (e-mail address and phone number removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.25.114 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over Red Deer, American Elk, and Central Asian Red Deer pages!!!!!

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia/Wikipedia

I am disappointed with the Elk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk), European Red Deer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_red_deer), and the Central Asian Red Deer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central Asian Red Deer) pages.

Mongo Montana and myself (dlc_73) have tried to keep these pages as taxonomically accurate as possible...including keeping contact with Dr. Valerius Geist (an expert who has written many books on deer and other even toed ungulates).

According to the most recent information that I have gathered from Dr. Geist,

we have 3 species of Red Deer:

European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus wallichi) Wapiti/Elk (Cervus canadensis)

Mongo and I have tried to keep up with the taxonomy of the subspecies within each of the 3 species.

According to my conversations via email with Dr. Geist, the Central Asian Red Deer subspecies are as follows. These are the most primitive Central Asian subspecies who may have given rise to the European Red Deer and Asian and American Wapitis, but are still distinct from both:

Shou/Tibetan Red Deer (formerly Cervus elaphus wallichi) Kashmir Stag/Hangul (formerly Cervus elaphus hanglu) Yarkand Deer (formerly Cervus elaphus yarkandensis) Bactrian Deer (formerly Cervus elaphus bactrianus) MacNeill's Deer/Gansu Red Deer (formery Cervus elaphus macneilli)

However, user Altaileopard continuously overwrites our articles with information that does not really make sense. Dr. Valerius Geist and Christian Oswald (owner of Cervid Museum in Munich, Germany) both have first hand look at the several subspecies of red deer and wapitis.

User Altaileopard is classifying the Shou/Tibetan Red Deer and MacNeill's Deer as subspecies of American Elk/Wapiti (Cervus canadensis), and classifying the Kashmir Stag, Bactrian Deer, and Yarkand Deer as subsecies European Red Deer solely based on one paper by Ludt.

A lot of the writing (probably by Altaileopard) is based on the outdated Ludt paper, and he continues to write information based on insufficient data. Right now there is a transition in classifications of the red deer and wapitis. There is a consensus that the European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and Wapiti/American Elk (Cervus canadensis) are two separate species. The controversy is what subspecies of red deer, under the former one-species classification "Cervus elaphus",belong to European Red Deer, and which belong to Wapiti/American Elk. There is also the possibility of a third species, the Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus wallichi or Cervus affinis).

The problem with some of the Central Asian red deer subspecies is that they are endangered or very rare, and inhabit countries that are politically unstable.

I suggest that the wikipedia pages for red deer, central asian red deer, and elk (wapiti) be labeled as controversial.

Dr. Valerius Geist has written most extensively on deer and has works in English that are found in many libraries and bookstores, and Altaileopard still rejects Geist's works as just theory.

Both Dr.Valerius Geist and Christian Oswald (owner of Cervid (deer) Museum in Ebersberg, Germany (Bavaria Region)) have extensive information and photographs of these deer which are very rare to outsiders. I believe they are MUCH more qualified to talk about these animals at this time. Not other close-minded biologists and people who base their findings on just one research paper, just because it is made public. Unless these other people can see these animals first hand...they shouldn't be making such statements as fact.

Can a neutral party please step in? user Mongo Montana is doing what he can, but he has been bombarded by people lately...people who are ignorant and close-minded, I might say. They are basing classifications on animals SOLELY by DNA and completely ignoring information on the physical appearances of some of these animals and their social mating rituals.

Sincerely,

David L Chen User: dlc_73 <<removed personal information>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.133.40 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Per elk, the only edits I see by the user you named was to replace a cication removed by IP vandalism. On Red Deer, their only edits are summarized in this diff, which is where the Ludt paper is mentioned. On Central Asian Red Deer, they made two sets of changes, these and these. Simply put, while you clearly have a problem with the Ludt paper, that user was replacing uncited information. We can't assume that you actually talk to Dr. Geist or any other expert- if you want to make contradictory changes, you must include citations to published works backing up your claims. Keep in mind that removing cited material constitutes vandalism, so please don't remove those sections if you don't have any sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Artists bio

Stale

– Fleetflame 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Per my last post, we have sighted all the sources (refernces) and the information is accurate and needs to be posted. I have read all the information you said to read, but the information does not really tell me how to upload the data. Also would like to include jpegs of work (permission to use is given by artists.). And I have worked with the click buttons to bold the subjects name but it does not work for me. Do you have a number you can share? So that I can talk with someone. Thank you for your time and help. Mikusart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no source documents cited, so it's not referenced in the way it needs to be for inclusion here. See, for example, Vincent van Gogh where each blue superscript identifies a source document supporting the assertion just made. You need ot add corresponding support to the main assertions in your article, at a minimum. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can refernce a number of sources, but would like to know how to bold the artists name and add photos like in the Jackson Pollock article. Also, what style would you like to cite from a public recording of a talk the artist gave at a show. Thank you for your time and help -- Mikusart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you would benefit greatly from a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Bolface is done by placing three apostrophes around a word: '''bold''' formats as bold. You'll quickly learn this and much more using the tutorial. Once you have, you can use the cheatsheet to refresh your recollection but in no time it'll be second nature. To add photos, please see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, Wikipedia:Images and Help:Images and other uploaded files. For references, please see generally, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, and for a dedicated lesson on using inline citations, see {{Refref}}. Please note, by the way, that citing sources is incredibly important, far more so in the larger scheme of things than making the article look pretty with images. Note that we don't want just any old sources but reliable ones. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The refertnced sources are from main stream sources and I appreciate the need for accurate statments. But the click buttons don't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the buttons across the top of the edit window? I think they work, but perhaps in a non-obvious way. Could you give some details of the references here and then we can figure out how to cite them? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy is important. The references are valid. The photos need to be uploaded and I have permission to use them. Have spoken with the artist. Mikusart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spamming Vandalism Notice

Stale

– Awaiting the outcome of the AfDs....what the hell happened in the second one?! Fleetflame 01:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a faily new user, have an article WebTrain. I had to jump thru the hoops to prove notability, the article survived and I learned much.

I have been in Web Conferencing for 8 years, a software developer for 23 years, an expert developer (7 languages), web, sockets, protocols, ethernet, ssl, networks etc. I am starting to contribute. I understand policy and abide by it.

206.80.0.98 is spamming all articles related to the web conferencing space. They are spamming other vendor articles and anything related to the space. I suspect the user is actually User:Diegotorquemada. They are both related to PictureTalk and possibly WebHuddle. Both of their articles suck, both have yet to earn the privilege to have an article on Wikipedia, yet they do.

They deleted my Web Conferencing contributions as well as 83.254.214.72 Web Conferencing contributions (who seems to do alot on Wikipedia).

They posted a "Comparison" article (gibberish) for the purpose of spamming.

See my comments to User_talk:EdJohnston - Spam - Comparison Matrix Gibberish

Please report to admins, I'm just a bit too wet behind the ears. cheers - GaryECampbell (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided to tag PictureTalk and Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software, I hope I am not accused of a COI because I am involved in this space. I read and re-read policy to confirm, so I hope my actions are not perceived as wrong. Are turkeys like this a problem on Wikiepedia? - cheers - GaryECampbell (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion tags, as I don't think that they qualify under speedy deletion criteria for blatant advertising. I agree that 206.80.0.98 appears to be particularly interested in PictureTalk, and possibly promoting it. People using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is a big problem. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam). However, that doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be an article on PictureTalk. The best way to go, if you genuinely think it should be deleted, is to start a discussion at AFD, which would give others a chance to weigh in. --Beloved Freak 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your measured approach is a bit light but respected. Here's a few tidbits to consider:
PictureTalk is a stub, it's been like that for 5 months (February). It contains little or no information, 0 references, article does not meet notability guidelines.
The stub is being used as a reference to spam articles. There's no other reason for it.
See Special:Contributions/206.80.0.98 - Note non-referenced spamming on competitor pages and other pages related to the web conferencing space.
This is their phoney matrix. This is a real matrix of 39 vendors. Compare the difference. Their article should not be linked in it's present state. Complex comparisons for such an article requires teams of experts to research, test, and verify each matrix point each time a vendor releases a new version. Such an article would require enormous effort to create, much less maintain, it would be COI, vendor altered, and dubious at best. This type of article (created by Wikipedians) would be difficult to monitor and be open to huge abuse as the market is very competitive. It may not be a suitable article. This exact research is provided by Frost and Sullivan, IDC and Wainhouse Research.
Note they are deleting other editor's contributions that required research and discussion. See their deletions at Web Conferencing history.
Please see User_talk:EdJohnston - Spam - Comparison Matrix Gibberish section.
I believe the combined activities should call for an Afd and account review. At the very least, an undo of their spamming and vandalizing posts. - cheers GaryECampbell (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, and I know it's frustrating but the above concerns do not qualify the articles for speedy deletion. You're best taking them to Afd. If you don't feel comfortable with the procedure, I would be happy to do it for you. --Beloved Freak 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. For the PictureTalk article, an AfD review will give it time to improve from it's existing stub. For the dubious matrix article concept, please bring to afd for the various reasons you have already cited plus the appropriate tag when a commercial vendor and puppets are the only authors verifying all vendors and themselves in a product comparison. I'm just too green and wet behind the ears. As far as the spamming and vandalism, I reported their duplicate pastes in the WP: Talk Project Spam area - correct? - thanks, this is and will be a learning curve for me, I'll try to keep up. - cheers - GaryECampbell (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the 2 articles in question for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PictureTalk (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web conferencing software) - please comment there. --Beloved Freak 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Cook County, Illinois/Temp

Resolved

– Per the article page. Fleetflame 01:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re the above article, all the content seems to have been moved (according to the page) to one of two other articles, so the page can probably be deleted, but I'm guessing the GFDL licence requires the page history to be preserved. Any ideas how to proceed ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the full process here should be 'merge and redirect', as per Wikipedia:Merge#Full-content paste merger, so that subpage ought to be blanked and replaced with a redirect to the main page. Does that seem right? The link has an explicit reference to GFDL too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the page content been moved, but that it's been split between two articles. How do you resolve the history updates (preserve the page history) for both articles (do you need to bother ?) - I've no idea if/how you can update a history on its own. The same problem applies to the redirect - which article should the redirect point to ? Maybe there isn't actually a problem, but that's why I'm asking here :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So when the original split was performed, the appropriate reference back to the initial list wasn't included in the edit summary. I think I get it now. How about adding comments to the talk pages that say "For the purposes of tracking contributions for GFDL, note that this page was split from that page on Date"? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

上冯村委

Resolved

– article has been tagged as needing translation.--Beloved Freak 12:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is purely in Chinese (or Japanese - I'm afraid I can't tell) - it's been tagged multiple times as CSD simply because the content is not in English. The author has been warned multiple times, but keeps removing the speedy tags with no explanation or 'hangon' template. Would someone else review the progress so far and see if I/we are adhering to policy ? CultureDrone (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok...tag as needing translation - d'oh :-) Thanks to DeadEyeArrow. CultureDrone (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Informing public of post office looking into Marvel Comics sending pornographic material to kids

Resolved

– He's in the wrong place. Fleetflame 00:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I politely informed people about what is happening between me, Al Quesada, and Geoff Johns. They mailed my young son Avengers 71 in which Yellowjacket shrunk in size and crawled up into the Wasp's vagina. The Postal Service is looking into the matter, and I wanted to let people know that if they had subscribed to Avengers, they should check for the offending issue. I posted this info on Al Quesada and Geoff Johns, but they were deleted. I read your info about legal action, but I still think that this is a valid point. Can you offer any help? Victor Randall 198.105.8.162 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy is forum-shopping, having been rebuffed on WP:ANI. And he's not necessarily wrong about the nature of that comic. The problem is that it's from at least 3 years ago. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's a problem, an encyclopedia is not a proper forum for ventilating complaints. We are not in the business of providing a platform for those issues; in fact we are among the least suitable, because freedom of speech and First Amendment principles do not apply on a privately owned web presence. Please leave it to the Postal Service or whomever, but continuing this campaign here is only going to end in you being unable to do so. --Rodhull andemu 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of my work deleted shamelessly without a real explanation.

Resolved

– The original poster's questions have been answered. Please don't delete this section - it will be archived. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User, Viva-Verdi went into my addition on the entry for "single property web sites" and screwed it all up. I worked on it for about 90 minutes yesterday as it really had no good info, no cites, no links, no examples. He called it "nonsense" which I would call a personal attack. I am an expert on this subject. I have been CITED as an expert on this subject (single property web sites) in the most respected residential real estate magazine (The Residential Specialist).

I gave a reference to that, clarifying myself as an expert. There are NOT a lot of experts on this subject, less than 0.1% of REALTORS use these types of web sites. I do not sell them, yet he said it was self promotion and advertising. I'm not an expert on many things, but I am on this particular topic.

I had requested help in the talk page, I was ignored, he just deleted an hour and a half of work. He did (lol) leave the reference, but deleted the sentences that were referenced, making the footnote worthless and misleading. In essence he hashed the whole thing and then flagged it with everything.

First, it was a work in progress and I was GOING to find more sources on the issues I know for fact (for example, the fact that "for sale by owners" use these sites independently") and so on. How can an editor come in and waste all my time like that, with NO explanation, no help (as requested) and make all these judgements without investigation???? I am an expert and had proved it, as such, I think quoting myself was just fine, and put myself as the reference. Maybe I don't know all the rules, and that's why I asked for help.

Lastly, I hyperlinked to my residential properties sites. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those properties has a "single property web site" which is the subject of the article. Almost no other real estate agent does this (build these single property web sites for EVERY listing they have)....so frankly, this web page is the single BEST example on the entire web for examples of this NEW concept.

How is it "self promotion" if I don't SELL single property web sites??? The original editor did appear to sell these sites as a 3rd party TO realtors. I sell houses, not single property web sites.

I'd like to know first, what is wrong with my thinking here, second, where is the logic in spending time adding to wikipedia if some arrogant editor comes along and deletes it all the next day, and third how should I address this vandal-editor issue?

Thanks much, I'm a little annoyed that all my work was destroyed by some guy who didn't even comment on why or respond to my request for help in the talk page (which would have allowed me a day or two to fix an actual problem or violation, if there was one...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raving Realtor (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions wer eremoved because you have a clear conflict of interest. It is self-promotion to link to YOUR properties websites, regardless of whether you sell the actual websites themselves. It is against Wikipedia policy to come and quote yourself as a reference. YOu are not a WP:RS. He is not a vandal, he properly removed inappropriate content and reverted inappropriate edits. Also, read the bottom of the page on any edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." While anyone may edit Wikipedia, that doesn't mean all edits will be allowed to remain. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Single property website is up for deletion now, (see Articles for deletion/Single property website) so it may be worth waiting to see how that pans out. You are welcome to comment there if you have reasons the article should be kept. In the mean time, you should read some of the policies that people have linked for you and try to refrain from making personal attacks to other editors. --Beloved Freak 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you know this, Raving Realtor, but I just wanted to mention here that all of your revisions are saved in the history tab, so your work isn't lost. There's no reason to get so angry; you should try to civilly discuss it. —Pie4all88 (talk)

Dave meinstein

Resolved

– Article has been redirected to Portal (TV series). Fleetflame 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The content of this article is exactly the same as [2], but at the foot of the nationmaster.com page, it states "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.", which would seem to indicate that it's a copy of the WP article. However, the WP article was created on 8th July, and Google has the nationmaster.com article cached as at 26th June [3], which would seem to indicate the nationmaster version came first. Any thoughts as to whether this is a copyright violation ? (or maybe someone should just rewrite the article ?) CultureDrone (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's strange - as far as being a copyright violation, I have no idea. It should be rewritten anyway though, as it's not exactly encyclopaedic in tone.--Beloved Freak 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Eulia Love

Resolved

– Boy, nothing like CSD to achieve consensus! Fleetflame 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia user seems to be indiscriminately tagging new entries without bothering to go back and amend his 'npov' contention. I would like some assistance in correcting this matter. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadejunque (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, can't find any user matching this name. Please check your spelling. Thanks, →Christian .И 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be an article. Eulia Love. It may require a bit of work to tease out the issue here, however. JohnInDC (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think the article in question is Eulia Love; User:BradV tagged it with {{npov}} and some discussion has started on the talk page. Casadajunque, if you think the neutrality has been fixed then please say so on the talk page. If BradV disagrees then he can comment there too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has been expanded since the NPOV tag was originally added, and tells a much fuller story now. The story needs to be cleaned up quite a bit and its significance and notability better explained, but it does relate both sides of the dispute. Further discussion on the Talk page would probably be helpful, yes. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Van Resistance

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to improve the article Van Resistance. This article has been WP:OWN by couple authors. They constantly revert and claim to continue to revert any edits , even if accompanied with the credible sources. The administrator User:Khoikhoi locked the page for edit. We exchanged User_talk:Khoikhoi#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and User_talk:Seemsclose#Re:_Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance which he advised to to negotiate with these editors. Currently there are two major issues. Third_opinion:_The_infobox_is_inaccurate and Third opinion: The LEAD section is inaccurate. I tried to present my position using credible sources. The discussion turn into a personal attack. There is no single reference presented against my position, presented arguments are based on personal taste, and not based on cited information. They even extend to my language skills. A non sided, WP:Third opinion was asked to look at the sources presented by both sides. After 10 days, there is no resolution and the third person User:HelloAnnyong, asked to be excused. In the current position, they continue to reject any resolution, and I reject their idea of a short is better than a sound WP:LEAD. During this time, as the article is write protected, I continue to develop the article in my own work space. My improvements on the article can be reached at User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎. I provide full citations according to WP:CITE, and use WP:style guide to help other editors to reach the sources. The page is protected 4ever, and my edits are

favored over a person who keeps the article as it is. I do not see how to break this lock.
(A) The current version of article [[4]] is clearly objectionable from Neutral point of view and Verifiability perspectives.
(B) Also content does not presented with an encyclopedic quality and sounds like it was copied from a discussion form. It includes words that does not fit to Wikipedia.

I do not how to solve this problem with users who WP:OWN and do not negotiate on the WP:Verifiability, as I already asked help from admins, and third persons... --Seemsclose (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to request help at a couple of WikiProjects; I think this needs some substantial but disinterested help. The parties seem somewhat entrenched. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Content does not presented with an encyclopedic quality and sounds like it was copied from a discussion form. It includes words that does not fit to Wikipedia" - Is Seemsclose talking about his own proposed alternative page? Probably not, but I wasn't being sarcastic in my question. His proposed wholesale changes do not benefit the article, and in fact all but kill it as a useable entry. Meowy 02:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear AndrewHowse, there is no response to the talk page since 24 June for a "disinterested help" or "somewhat neutral help." I have been working on the copy of the page. Since then there is only one source left, which I will reach soon to validate rest of the citations. Is there anything else can be done? --Seemsclose (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If no discussion is forthcoming from relevant Wikiprojects, you could try a request for comment. I see you have already asked for a third opinion, a request for comment may bring in more opinions. Consensus clearly needs to be reached since the page has now been protected due to edit warring.--Beloved Freak 11:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked over the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The contended issues at Van Resistance do not fall into the problems exemplified in those discussions. The parties in that list brought their opinions with positions which can be argued. This group of editors are against any editing to the article. The best example is Third_opinion:_The_infobox_is_inaccurate. I have presented the issue in question with citations from sources. Instead of working with the presented facts at the source, they became personal and develop attack methods such as in this message that they have recently exchanged. I have spend a lot of time with one of the members of this group. The user Meowy. In his last message he claimed "let some other editor save it". I asked him many times to work cooperatively. He deny to clearly point out what he rejects (what, why, how). He deny to work to resolve the issue, but constantly argue. If you look at the article history the last edit is his and the other editor who was turned out to be a banned user User:Artaxiadisaloser. I personally believe, the problem is their behavior rather than my edits. They think this is some kind of war. They feel to wage against people rather than the content of the article. Meow claimed he did not even read the version that I have been working (User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎), since the original page was blocked. They do not know what they are rejecting. I used a Turkish source to clarify the names, positions, aims of the Turkish people involved. They claim, I'm a form of a spy and I try to cheat them.

Simply; if I go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, there is no person or opposing fact, which I can claim "Please help to resolve this question represented by these sources"! There is no substance presented by this group which I can read and correct my position, or even reject their position. Seemsclose (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Malicious practices??

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

The company I represent, Thumbplay, is consistently being misrepresented on Wikipedia by an editor that is believed to have an unsavory agenda. It appears to be an attempt to generate legal action against our company by an organization with financial motivation to do so: Class Action Connect.

The FTC recently cited Thumbplay as an example of responsible practices. Our organization adheres to the Mobile Marketing Association’s Consumer Best Practices Guidelines (http://www.mmaglobal.com/bestpractices.pdf. We indicate program pricing information clearly and conspicuously in all advertising and also requires a ‘double opt-in’ practice to confirm all purchases. Furthermore, the company does not advertise in print magazines at all." For all of these reasons, we would like our organization to be fairly and accurately represented and we would like to prevent the offending editor from persisting in its misrepresentation.

Can you suggest a way to have the anonymous editor blocked from editing our site? Is there another means of resolution you advise?

Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slietz (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they've cited the statement with a link to a scambuster website. If it were uncited information, it could simply be deleted. In this case, it may be coatracking a bit, but the criticism seems to be verifiable. I do notice that the same IP pulled the company's link off of the page as spam, which it most definitely is not. I'll clean it up a little. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. Malicious

Thanks for your reply, however, they link back to their own site which is an organization that tries to drum up class action lawsuits, totally unfounded and the worst form of ambulance-chasing! It's absolutely coatracking...is there any way to block them from editing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slietz (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can be blocked for the right reasons, but I don't think any would apply. Aside from the fact that these criticisms are cited, the users posted on the talk page asking for input on the section rather than blanking it. They've gone through the proper channels. I don't know the motivation of those running the site, but I don't see anything to sugest that the IP adding it is affiliated with the site. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

changing title of bis article

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I need to change the name of an article from barrat impulsivity scale to the barratt Impulsiveness scale. I found the information on moving an article to rename it but i am unable to find that tab. I have also tried to email the orginal author of the article and have not received a response. If anyone could help that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NRLC (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can find some works referring to it by each of those names, so it's not entirely clear to me which one is correct. If you can cite a source which is obviously (to the layman) definitive then we'll move it; otherwise we have some very fine redirects available today ... how about a nice fresh Barratt Impulsiveness scale? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some other people should have a look at this one- it's a real mess right now. The sources were also removed; I put them back, but not a section that was blanked from the "history" section, since I can't confirm that it was in one of the book references (it's not footnoted). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Luis Munoz

Resolved

– per message on my talkpage. --Beloved Freak 11:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For Luis Munoz I added information and I cited it like the instructions said so and I want to know why only one sentence was accepted. What else should I do because they are all from websites that are real and are cited by other players. I also put a refernce page and it was not accepted. This was what I put and was rejected:

Luis Manuel Munoz, (born January 10 , 1982 in Ramon Santana, San Pedro de Macoris, Dominican Republic) is a [ right hand opening pitcher]] in the Pittsburgh Pirates organization.^[1]. He was signed by his scout Jose Luna as an 18-year old amateur free agent on 7/3/00 and Made professional debut with the Dominican Summer League Pirates in 2001. ^[2]. On October 21, 2007, the Pittsburg Tribune Review article " Pirates make roster moves", it was noted that " right-hander Luis Munoz was placed on the 40-man roster, a reward for a solid season at Class AA Altoona". ^[3].After such good news, Luis Munoz also was married December 22, 2007 to his child hood American sweet heart Barby. Luis is currently on the 40 man roster for Pittsburg and is currently playing in the 2008 season for Altoona and Indianopolis. July 5th, Luis had an incredible game allowing no runs and only 3 hits in his third Altoona Curve game of the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquinop (talk • contribs) 01:44, 7 July 2008

Hello. Just to clarify, the page you are talking about is Luis Muñoz. I don't think that anything you wrote has been "rejected". Looking at the page it appears that you saved it with only the first 2 1/2 lines of what you have written above. Then somebody added some maintenance tags, asking for the article to be improved in certain ways. Then you added some external links which didn't show up because you didnt close a <ref> tag properly. I've closed the tag, so the links show up. Feel free to add the rest of what you wrote above. --Beloved Freak 13:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My edits being reverted

Resolved

– 2 editors involved are discussing issue. --Beloved Freak 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I stop my edits being reverted by someone who is mis-interpreting tabloid articles, to create a false version of the truth?

This is with regard to the actors who have played the character Summer Swann in the UK soap EastEnders.

I know for a fact the current info is incorrect as my daughter played the character before Harry Swash (currently stated as the first actor to play the part) was even born. I spoke to his father about the impending birth on set.

Yet when I try to credit my daughter with her acting role, it is removed, due to someone else's ill informed "truth".

How do I find out who is editting my edits so I can speak to them? I find it rude that my edits are being changed by someone who clearly does no know the facts. This happens immediately after I edit, with no explanation and has happened about 8 time in a couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLVC (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 July 2008

Hi SLVC. The page you are talking about is List of minor EastEnders characters (2007). You can find out who has edited that page by looking at the revision history of the page. Your edits have been reverted by User:Trampikey. You can discuss this on that user's talkpage or the talkpage for the article. I expect your edits have been reverted because they are unsourced. Everything on Wikipedia, especially about living people must be backed up by references to independent reliable sources. That ensures that everything is verifiable. This is official Wikipedia policy so anyone is in their rights to remove any information that is unsourced. You may well know the facts about this, but unfortunately we can't just take your word for it. Do you know any independent third-party reliable sources (eg. newspaper articles) that say your daughter played the role? If you don't know of any, why don't you start a discussion at the article talkpage and maybe someone else will be able to help. We can't just add the information without sources though. --Beloved Freak 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles relating to college sports in the state of Nevada, relating to Nevada and UNLV

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 20:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been disputes in the past, and I fear disputes in the future, as to the proper naming and referencing of a university in the state of Nevada, the University of Nevada, Reno. The school's academic name is the University of Nevada, Reno, but for athletics it is known as strictly Nevada. This is the same naming practice that occurs with other major universities, such as the University of Texas, Austin (known as Texas in athletics) and the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (known as Nebraska in athletics). The main article that is a point issue is the Fremont Cannon, which is the prize in an annual football game between the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the University of Nevada.

All of the categories and articles relating to the University of Nevada, Reno's athletics programs are labelled as 'Nevada' or 'Nevada Wolf Pack', not 'Nevada, Reno', 'UNR', or 'UNR Wolf Pack'. Is there anyway to get and enforce consistancy so that editing wars can be avoided in the future? Thank you very much. Twintop (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: It's been a while since any edit-warring took place (History). Fleetflame 03:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

de Broglie hypothesis

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is now semiprotected after a reference to a (at best) fringe theory had been inserted by unregistered user User_talk:86.83.155.44 (his name is Borgdorff) and removed again, many times, by myself and others. This included self-promotion because Borgdorff included mention of his Dutch translation (which he published himself, 30 copies). I reported this (on advice of nl mod User:MoiraMoira) on meta:Vandalism_reports#Cross_wiki_selfpromotion. The reference has been extensively discussed (in Dutch) on nl:Overleg:Materiegolven, resulting in dissent only by Borgdorff and his advocate. Now the reference has been inserted once again by said advocate of mr Borgdorff, User:Dutch T-bone (who is also active on nl and es, but under different names). I'm a bit at a loss, and would not like being blocked for participating in an edit war. Please advise or take action. Regards, Wammes Waggel (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is POV of said writer WW, who hasn't any notice of "matters" involved and here (as else) keeping accusing me for the right Hon. prof.ing. Vallée to be Nota Bene: "selfpromoting" (sic.). The article is about Material Waves of Prince De Broglie and the outstanding contribution of said René-Louis Vallée excellent French researcher of involved "material waves". Regards et cetera, from D.A. Borgdorff MASc PEng always: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that there's a disagreement here, but it's not clear that there's a right and a wrong. reliable sources are important. Why is there no article for Vallée? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wrote it yet and till now I've been constantly hindred and stalked and blocked up from Holland to do so adequately, but had instead to complain about matters into the Helpdesk recently, see: here and by Cary Bass and Mrs. Gardner. Again faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff - electr. ing. QED by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC) → Attn. mr. Andrew Howse s.t.

Might I suggest that you'd further your case more effectively by (i) staying on point and (ii) making some constructive contributions here. If Vallée is as important as you seem to say, then prove it with a neutral, well-referenced page. That would then be a good foundation upon which to make your case about his work on the de Broglie hypothesis.

The English wikipedia can do nothing about your challenges on nl or es, and bringing them up here simply dilutes your message. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have references delivered about Vallée yet such as: [5] translated from his main work I related to, but those links and refs were constantly removed from all those interwiki lemmata concerned. Unfortunately, though with esteem: D.A. Borgdorff etc. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC) See all those page-histories ... e.g.

Being labeled as 'advocate' by Mr. Wammes Waggel is not correct. I simply agreed with Mr. Borgdorff, that a reference to Vallée is valid and useful in the context of this article, as De Broglie and Vallée worked closely together on theoretical aspects of 'material waves'. Therefor, a reference to Vallée's manuscript is a good reference. A reference might implie several functions: clarifiing texts in an article, giving a source for parts of the text, but also provide the curious reader or researcher with more information to aspects of the article. In this case the latter counts, rather because De Broglie and René Vallée cooperated on the theories in quantummechanical fields, with quite a different approach to the matters involved than those main stream scientists used to do in the '70's and '80's. Besides Vallée was a renowed scientist himself, who published also for Masson & Cie, where alse De BRoglie published. Masson & Cie might be compared in esteem, level and academic quality to magazines like 'Science' today. Just to let you know. What Mr.Waggel did was therefor not correct and frustrated regular talk and editting. Just my 2 cents. With esteem, DTBone (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yawn*. The article is not about Vallee (who is not renowned by the way - not even an article on him). The article is not about his theory. The article is not about non-mainstream theories about quantummechanical fields. The article is not about the publisher of the works of De Broglie, much less about other writers whose work they published. None of my objections have, so far, been answered by anything but whining and irrelevancies. Regards, Wammes Waggel (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever hear of the words "Background Information For Further Studies", or "Additional Information", Waggel? That's what this reference is about! DTBone (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If your level of discussion is *yawing* between *yawn* and *yawp* there is no *matter* of peer review about refences, let alone matter that matters in material waves from the dichotomy in quantum wave functions around this de Broglie hypothesis. Let it be so far, and go on proceeding research if you are able, mr. Waggel. → Meanwhile sincerely: nl:G:DAB = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Simon Binks on Wikipedia

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 09:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Simon Binks.

I have attempted a number of times to correct false information on a page that has been established on Wikipedia under my name.

The corrections I have included are continually erased.

Please advise how I may correct this information about me, published without my knowledge or consent, or how I can arrange to have the page pulled down.

I would rather not engage solicitors and should not have to.

Sincerely,

Simon BinksSimonjbinks (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, a brief look at your contributions to Simon Binks shows that much of what you are inserting is 1st person commentary. This may be one reason it has been reverted as that goes against Wikipedia style. You may find it more effective to post a message to Talk:Simon Binks, which is the talkpage for the article. Simply outline what you find to be inaccurate in the article and suggest changes. Editing pages about yourself tends to be discouraged (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography). Wikipedia is often used for people trying to promote themselves or push a particular point of view. I'm not suggesting that that is what you are doing, but it makes people wary of people who edit articles about themselves. Try and work with the editors who are editing that article.

As far as changing the content of the article, please post your comments at Talk:Simon Binks, providing references to neutral, independent reliable sources. Unfortunately we can't just take your word for it (see Citing oneself). Everything in Wikipedia should ideally be backed up by reliable sources. This is especially so of biographies of living people. You would be justified in removing false information about yourself from the article, but please use edit summaries to explain, and use the talkpage.

Another option would be to email Wikipedia at info-en-q@wikimedia.org with details of the problems. Hope this helps, --Beloved Freak 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links problem in Film poster

Resolved

– advice given. --Beloved Freak 10:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:68.193.242.180 continues a long history of spamming the External Links of film poster with the same site. The link's removal has been discussed in Talk:Film_poster#External_Links and seen by other editors, yet this IP continues to add this site back on a semi-regular basis. They also add this link to a few other articles, and worse still, have made attempts to "hide" their link by editing an existing external link's url but keeping the other site's original title. Since this is an IP, I doubt they have seen the warning on their user's talk page. This appears to be a single use account used only to add their link to Wikipedia. Can someone have a look at this? What is the next step? Appreciate any help/info. --jca2112 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just keep warning them and if they keep it up, take it to WP:AIV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Time Well Wasted‎

Resolved

– Book was not notable; user requested account deletion/posted obscenities/blocked indef. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted numerous times to add to a page. Every time I return to it I find that the edits and additions have been deleted.

What must be done to fix this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshaines (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for coming here for help. You are not posting the material in the correct location. "Time Well Wasted is the title of the fourth studio album released by American country music artist Brad Paisley." I would suggest that you create a new article by a different name (possibly "Time Well Wasted (book)") except that I'm not sure such an article would be deleted anyways. I believe the text you're trying to add here reads like an advertisement. What's more, you've been accidentally deleting text. You might want to look at User talk:Dshaines where another editor has added a response. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have looked at your contribution history i think, since i didnt know the request you placed here. I have been removing the content you added a few times, and have already left you a message On your talk page regarding this. Seems that Arichnad and my advice are identical though :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, User:Dshaines went "off on one" and has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. I'm inclined to mark this as resolved, although it isn't exactly a happy ending. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:PiCo/Noah's Ark

Stuck

– No RfC yet; the talk page has further discussion. Fleetflame 23:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This conflict has been going on for months. The section 'The Documentary Hypothesis' was edited by me in strict accordance with the consensus documented here. PiCo has consistently refused to let it stand, deleting it repeatedly every time I return it to what was agreed on. He has also replaced it with his own text, most of which was specifically opposed by three editors who helped arrive at the consensus (Doug Weller, Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε, and Alastair). He has never given any explanation for this in the Talk page, his edit has never received any consensus, and he has consistently refused to discuss the issue, claiming instead that I have edited this section without first discussing it (false, see here, here, and here).

The section 'Literalism' was edited by me in accordance with the extensive discussion here. Subsequent to weeks of discussion I placed the proposed edit in the Talk page on 1 June 2008, and 16 June 2008. Few objections were raised to the first proposal (which I subsequently amended), and none to the second, so I included it in the article. After that PiCo deleted the entire section without warning or discussion, and rewrote it as a single paragraph including only his own view on what the article should contain, which has never received any approval by any other editor (let alone consensus). He refuses to explain his edit or discuss his reasons, claiming instead that I have edited this section without first discussing it and that I have refused to include any views other than my own (false, see the extensive discussion here, here, and here, and my request for discussion here).

PiCo has also repeatedly accused me of bad faith and POV, and has previously refused to include acknowledged academic WP:RS in the article. Throughout the history of my involvement with this article I have made consistent requests for PiCo to explain his edits and to cooperate with others, specifically to edit existing sections written by others instead of simply throwing them out entirely and replacing them with his own material (see my questions at the end of this section, see also here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and my request for discussion here).

I have sought advice from a third party who has been involved with the article, and I have also asked PiCo to enter into mediation. The third party has offered to mediate between us, and has sent a message to PiCo to this effect. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting. Given that you've asked a 3rd party to mediate, it might be best to let that play out, rather than risking confusion from adding more people to the mix. What do you think? You can always come back here later. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like another editor to review the situation while mediation is going on. Not to take any action just yet, but to observe. While mediation is going on (and it hasn't started yet because PiCo hasn't agreed to it yet), the edit warring is going to continue, and I would like another editor to be a silent observer of what goes on (and perhaps observe the mediation process also), in order to get a good understanding of the issue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The reverts and false charges continue, and PiCo has made no response to me whatever concerning the request for informal mediation. If I haven't received any response from him by the end of today, I'll ask you to formally become involved in the capacity of editorial assistance. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Two other editors have now expressed their support for what I wrote above (it has also been noted that PiCo's edits are also a violation of WP:WEIGHT), and yet the reversions keep taking place. The editor I had asked to mediate pulled out. I am now requesting editorial assistance. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a request for comment or the Mediation Cabal. I'll notify the user of this discussion, too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the suggested conflict resolution process, other steps (such as this), have to take place before WP:RFC and formal mediation. I've undertaken a number of them so far, and this is where I'm up to. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I try and speak my mind rather than the letter of the process (WP:IAR) so I believe there isn't a real line to follow (although, for example, Arbitration rejects a case if there's no previous dispute resolution). But like you say, he hasn't responded so I hope he will tell us of his position here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip in here. Because I am a friend of PiCo, yet sympathetic to Taiwan boi's concerns, Taiwan boi wisely asked if I would attempt to mediate. I thought that a good low key approach that might spare others time. I discussed things in a general way with PiCo, simply as a friend, according to what I understood myself to have promised to Taiwan boi.

It was clear that PiCo is committed to a position in this dispute that is somewhat broader than the specific edits in question. It was also clear that I would be unable to influence either PiCo or Taiwan boi to a compromise or concession in this dispute. I wouldn't say I "pulled out" so much as recognized I would be unable to negotiate a resolution. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair, I didn't mean to slight you by using the expression 'pulled out'. As for a compromise or concession, I have made it clear more than once that I am perfectly willing for PiCo to discuss his edits with others, but he has refused to do so. I have also made it clear that I am perfectly happy to include all of the material in his suggested edit, in the article, but I believe that to include only the material in his edit (deleting all the work of previous editors), would in this case be a breach of WP:WEIGHT. I have also made it clear that I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits with others, and have done so at length, over several weeks. I have also made it clear that I am perfectly happy for editors to make various suggestions for changes to my edits, and in fact over the weeks that is what they've done. I'm still open to discussion over my edits, but the problem here is that PiCo doesn't discuss. I wouldn't have an issue if he simply edited my edits (which is standard Wikipedia policy), but what he has done in one case is delete an edit completely and replaced it wholesale with a completely different edit of his own, all without any discussion whatever. That is not Wikipedia policy. As I have demonstrated, and as a couple of editors have already noted, PiCo's edit to the 'Documentary Hypothesis' section constitute WP:COAT , and his edit to the 'Literalism' section constitute WP:WEIGHT (see especially here). --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But Taiwan boi is accurately representing the fact that I have publically stated my withdrawl. I left both parties (who I value personally as fellow editors) encouragements to go easier on one another and to view positively the inclusion of a third party in further discussion, and one not personally connected by friendship as I am.

By way of "passing on the responsibility of mediation", I would suggest a focus on specific edits will strongly support Taiwan boi having legitimate frustration with PiCo's actions. However, it is my assessment that the core conflict lies at a more ideological level. The most charitable view of PiCo's actions would be to view them as attempts to address a more fundamental issue, very relevant to the edits, but excluded from discussion if specific wording, sourcing and process is the only level of discussion permitted in addressing the conflict.

My non expert advice is that allowing some discussion of the "higher level" issues should expose the real conflict underlying the edit clash. Resolution will need to involve agreement on specific edit process, however, for that resolution to be genuine, lasting and seen to be fair, real engagement with the ideological conflict and resolution at that level should be attempted.

If what I have said is confusing, please feel free to ask for clarification of specific points at my user page. If what I've said is felt to be inaccurate or unhelpful, my apologies. It only remains to say that both editors are real assets to Wiki, in somewhat different ways. Many others like them will have similar conflicts, it is good for the community to become adept in resolving conflicts like the current one. Best regards to all concerned. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it doesn't have to be that complicated. PiCo made one edit today and doesn't appear to have noticed - or has ignored - my message. If it must be this complicated, then I'd suggest an WP:RFC, or perhaps WikiProject Christianity, then mediation. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it isn't that complicated. This is a simple case of Wikipedia policies being ignored, and cooperation being refused. I am not the only editor who has noted this. --Taiwan boi (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that someone's not read the message or isn't responding. I would suggest WP:3O or WP:RFC at this point as there's not much one can do if only one hand is clapping. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that someone isn't responding to you, just as they haven't responded to frequent requests previously. Is it true that according to Wikipedia policy all you have to do to avoid ever becoming the subject of disciplinary action is just to ignore any attempts by other editors or staff to initiate dialogue? If I go to WP:3O or WP:RFC will they also just tell me 'There's not much we can do about it if PiCo doesn't want to talk'? At this point he has refused repeated requests for dialogue on the relevant Talk page, he has ignored requests for mediation, and he has now ignored your request to discuss the issue with editorial assistance. Clearly he's allowed to do all that, so what's stopping him just ignoring anything else? Isn't it true that if he chooses to ignore WP:3O or WP:RFC then nothing more can be done and he can continue his behaviour without hindrance? --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you suspect someone's ignoring for the sake of ignoring, then that's disruptive. In that case, one would go to "drastic measures", or the drama pot, WP:ANI. But I feel there's no harm in trying first as Administrators don't deal with content disputes - but if it's more than just that, then go there. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

After a good two months of this behaviour, I have more than just suspicions. I'll try WP:RFC first, and if I get told 'Well really, we can't comment if PiCo doesn't want to say anything about it', then I'll take it further. I'm certainly discovering why so many people have no respect for the WP conflict resolution process. You can just ignore it, and it goes away because people are loathe to actually do anything. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

References

^ "Player File". Major League Baseball, 2008
^ "Player File" Major Leaguebaseball, 2008, mlb.com
^ "Pirates make roster moves". Pirates Tribune Review.

[1] "Player File". Major League Baseball, 2008

[2] "Player File" Major Leaguebaseball, 2008, mlb.com

[3] "Pirates make roster moves". Pirates Tribune Review.

[1]

[2]

[3]