Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliable sources

Resolved
 – No new incidents. --Aarktica 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editor--My recent edits to the entry on Martha Nussbaum have been removed by one of the editing patrols on completely absurd grounds (claiming that I did not cite reliable sources). Please note the following message from Martha Nussbaum, who thought my entry an enormous improvement over the original. Best Wishes, Bart Schultz

Dear Wikipedia, I asked Prof. Schultz to help rewrite the entry on me because the existing one was so horrible and riddled with errors, and I was getting tired of people preparing press releases about me based on it. Schultz had written an excellent encyclopedia article about me, which is why I turned to him. His version has my enthusiastic support. It has no errors, and it corrects the most significant errors in the other version.

Yours sincerely, Martha Nussbaum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidgwick (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 June 2007

Please remember to use the + tab (or at least use a heading) and sign your posts. I added an appropriate heading for you. Please take the time to read and digest WP:V and WP:RS. They will tell you why unsourced or poorly sourced material can be challenged and (in most cases) removed. Adrian M. H. 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and COI is relevant to some degree, too. Adrian M. H. 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


There seems to be a misunderstanding about what what a reliable source is in Wikipedia. Within Wikipedia, a reliable source is a high quality source that is verifiable, in other words material that is available to other editors. This is enshrined in Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is nearly an absolute rule. Wikipedia also does not publish original research; the policy document for this is Wikipedia:No original research. These are 2 of the 3 major pillars of Wikipedia policy, the 3rd being Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (or NPOV, as commonly abbreviated). Under these rules, information that you have received privately on any topic is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It must be published somewhere else, accessible to other editors; then that source may be cited when material from it is included in Wikipedia.
There is one other very important policy in Wikipedia that is relevant here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It reinforces the rule about verifiability. However, it also says:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

If there are unsourced injurious inaccuracies in a biography, you (or anyone) is free to remove them. Discussion is not necessary, but in practice it helps keep such material from returning without sources.
The above policy documents also contains a sub-section, WP:SELFPUB, that explains how a biography's subject may produce something that can be a basis for material included in the Wikipedia. Studerby 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

John Love

Resolved
 – Per WP policy. --Aarktica 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please can you advise how we get the ip for the user Carmi70 who posted on the John Love forum. We would like to trace which region this came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Love&action=history

Many thanks Mark Love Zimdude 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it very appropriate to give out any personal information about editors of Wikipedia. In fact, I'm sure that there is a policy somehwere that prevents it. One of the stated benefits of having an account is that there is no need to have one's IP displayed anywhere to anyone other than admins. That an editor added some fairly innocuous information (names only) about John Love's family, which was reverted as unsourced, per BLP, should not be considered a major problem. It was not a derogatory claim or private personal information and is presumably in the public domain already (from where else would he/she have got it?). I believe that the edit was made in good faith. Adrian M. H. 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What Adrian said is correct. Most Wikipedia editors do not have access to that type of information. A very very few Wikipedia administrators do have a privilege to get that information (nobody here though), through what is called a "CheckUser", but the privacy policy is to not normally give out personal information, such as IP address. I believe that IP information is stored for some limited time, not permanently.
You can read the Privacy policy of the Wikimedia foundation for yourself. In particular the section that says:

Policy on release of data derived from page logs
It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:

  • 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
  • 2. With permission of the affected user
  • 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
  • 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
  • 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
  • 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.

Under the circumstances that I'm aware of, I personally doubt that there would be a voluntary release of this information to you. However, you can certainly try. To do that, you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation; email will probably be best. You will need to do this quickly, as I mentioned above, this data is only preserved for a limited time. Frankly, I don't know if it's 5 days, 30 days, 90 days or what. Studerby 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Malicious changing of wikepedia entry.

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time I have found that the URL listed as the official website for London township Michigan has been purposely altered. On the first occasion I found it necessary to replace the entire address to make it right. This time it was clear that the l in html at the end of the address had been changed to a 1.

I would please request that the web address not be editable.

thank you.

Charles L (Chuck) Stoll Treasurer, London Township Michigan 68.41.237.138 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, we do have vandals who like to make silly changes to articles for no apparent reason; that appears to have been the case here. I'll leave a note for the editor who made the change, and put the page on my watchlist to ensure that if it happens again, it's caught quickly. I'm also going to move the website link to an 'external links' section at the bottom of the page, just so you know. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to listing

Resolved
 – Per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Aarktica 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi i was told after editing the section on that i had (vandalised it) all i did was add this listing.

Is this deemed as vandalism by wikipedia i did not reply or start a flame war with this person. this is what he said.

Please do not try to convert the article on to an article about a (your?) website. Such actions are likely to be seen as vandalism. — BillC talk 12:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that he has accused me of vandalism straight away removed the change to the listing and not actually attempted to talk to me in any way, seems like a one sided editor. Also note he hasnt used the wikipedia templates to warn a vandal.

wikipedia guidelines say.

Link vandalism Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site).

I havent modified any links just added one and its a valid link related to the topic.

I WAS WONDERING WHAT YOUR OPINION ON THIS IS AND WHAT I SHOULD DO


Accusations of vandalism should not be bandied about lightly. However, an edit can be "bad" without being vandalism, and BillC was correct to revert it. [[]] is a scientific article about an aspect of electromagnetism, not about companies named Electric Potential. If is notable, it should have its own separate article.
Another good reason for the revert is that it's almost always a bad idea to add a link to (or article about) your own company, and such edits will almost always get reverted. Theoretically, if the company is notable, someone who isn't connected to it will add information about it.
Also, you can sign and date posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) — Demong talk 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
PS: Even if the link were relevant to the article (it's not), it would go at the bottom under an External Links heading. Putting it at the top, as the new first paragraph of the lead, changes what topic the article appears to be about. That is probably the reason BillC said "Please do not try to convert the article on Electrical potential to an article about a (your?) website. Such actions are likely to be seen as vandalism." (Which is true, and not exactly an accusation of vandalism.) — Demong talk 20:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
By putting your addition here ahead of all the existing text, it looks like you are trying to hijack the article. If a link to your site did belong anywhere in the article it would belong all the way at the end, under "External links", but your site seems to be a commercial site as evidenced by the "Purchase" button prominent on the main page; (2) you have a conflict of interest when posting a link to your own page. Perhaps it would have been better had you simply been warned with the following standard spam (not vandalism) template, which I recommend you read and follow its links. --CliffC 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --CliffC 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor keeps adding external links that are self-promoting

Resolved
 – No new incidents. --Aarktica 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I (and others) seem to be having problems with User:Napoleon007 in several articles about blues musicians. This editor has been adding external links to YouTube clips of a short film s/he apparently produced as some sort of thesis project (see Son House, Robert Johnson (musician), and Willie Brown (musician)). These film clips offer no obvious benefit to the articles, and do not even feature the musicians of note--they are simply actors portraying the musicians in a fictionalized biographical setting. While I'm sure this film is a fine accomplishment (the editor claims it has won an Emmy award), I am quite sure this violates NOR, and several other policies. I have reverted the edits several times and others have as well, but if it keeps going I'll myself violate the three-revert rule. Could someone with more experience in this sort of thing give us a hand? Thanks! --buck 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears this editor, or someone else promoting the same work, has posted as 76.171.126.161. --buck 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That editor, Napoleon007, has now backed off a bit, removing the YouTube links. I've just removed the remaining text in the Son House and Robert Johnson articles (someone else removed everything from Willie Brown). We'll see if this settles down. As edit wars go, this isn't even a minor skirmish so far. Also, Wikipedia policy is to not get all hostile at newcomers who don't "follow the rules" initially (see WP:BITE), but instead try to engage them and convert them to be useful editors, taking the time to teach them what they're doing wrong. With some, it's harder than others. Since there's been positive movement so far, let's be patient a little longer. I'm also going to leave a note on his talk page, to try and explain the Wikipedia point of view a little more gently than has been done so far. Studerby 00:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
While I can certainly understand your frustration (and while I've been tempted to break WP:3RR myself several times), I wouldn't carry it out or even threaten to carry it out. All it does is make you look unprofessional in the end and can get you banned. Drumpler 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Help resolving an edit war

Stale
 – --Aarktica 00:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm engaged in an edit war with someone who is using the article on JK Rowling to push his own extreme political agenda. I've tried every avenue possible, but he simply will not back down and admins seem deaf to his abuses. What can I do? Serendipodous 10:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As the case is in mediation, I would recommend waiting to see that process through. Claiming that admins are ignoring the issue seems inaccurate, however, based on the description of the case. Adrian M. H. 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: The request for mediation was denied. --Aarktica 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

'Copywrite'

Stale
 – --Aarktica 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I edited an article, which I worded by myself and did not copywrite and refrenced myself, and another editor deleted it and told me it was copywrite when it wasn't. I spent lots of time writing it, and it wasn't copied from ANYWHERE. I'm fairly annoyed. Is there a way of retriving the text that I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.239.126 (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2007

I have looked at the discussion on your talk page and it certainly appears that the editor in question was working entirely in good faith and was correct to take a strict approach with an apparent copyright (note the correct spelling) violation. If your contribution was not a copyvio, you should do something to prove it by naming your sources. From the other viewpoint, I would quite like to see the exact source that the other editor cited on your talk page, as it was not specified. If you can justly claim that your contribution was your own work, then get together all the material and sources and post a request at WP:3O, where I or another 3O respondent will look into it and give an independent opinion. Adrian M. H. 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Also note that if the text you wrote was from your own knowledge, and not information gathered from sources, it is considered original research and is not considered appropriate for use in Wikipedia. LaraLoveT/C 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions regarding community project of Anemia free govt school going children

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Respected Sir, I want to acknowledge the stand you people as a unit are taking in bringing the knowledge into reality for almost all of us and i sincerely want to thank you for this from my heart and i want few suggestions from your side as i am dealing with one of my community projects of Anemia free govt school children so that they can contribute to wealth and health of this nation and hence forth we can have our economy grow in a positive direction. I want to tell you that i am a pathologist by profession and wanted to do something about the anemia leading cause of morbidity in our society and to detect the no. of cases and get them treated through proper consultation and medication and i have started this project in my area with involvement of fellow pathologists of my area and we have taken a task of withdrawing samples of 25 children / pathologist analyse the samples and give the report to me so that if anemia is there i can arrange for the consultation and medicines for that child. I Need valuable suggestions from your side as well voluntary support from you so that my project of Healthy child can grow really fast. Thanks for sparing your valuable time in reading this text. Please let me know that when can i contact you for this noble cause of ours. Bye Dr. Mudit Agarwal MD,DNB Pathologist 01127116711,9811736210

59.180.42.119 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) I am Dr. Mudit Agarwal a private pathologist having my own set up in Ashok Vihar by name of Nishtha Pathology lab and i am entitled to do the project for this community which can contribute so much in future and actually they are the future of India.

  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not check for nobility, just notability; there is a special set of guidelines for corporations. You are free to create an article on the subject matter, provided it is written in language that is considered encyclopaedic. --Aarktica 12:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console (North America)

Stale
 – --Aarktica 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29 The discussion page is in an uproar, and really needs to be straightened out. I do not know where else to go to ask for help. The arguments are whether or not to merge the tables into one table and whether or not having "Wii Points" listed in the table is allowable. The whole argument has gotten out of hand and needs major intervention. Any help is greatly appreciated. Lamename3000 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To whom this may concern,

I requested last night that the two pages I have created be deleted. Both of the subjects of the articles, Errington and Simpson, have requested that their articles be deleted after learning that they are forbidden by their respective universities. The page for Errington has successfully been deleted, and I would like to request that the page for Simpson be deleted as well. I have been the only one to edit either of these pages, either from my Snowman224 account or without logging in, with the University of Alaska Fairbanks IP address.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowman224 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 June 2007

Did you tag it with {{db-author}}? If so, that should be sufficient and you just have to wait. Adrian M. H. 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
An IP-address user already added {{db-author}}, and several other speedy delete tags, and a well-meaning admin saw notability and removed them all. I think the other tags confused the issue. Try logging in as Snowman224 and adding just the {{db-author}} tag at the top again. You might also embed a short comment after the tag, like <!-- Subject has also requested deletion -->. (The leading and following special characters make it a comment.) Studerby 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User Targeting My Links To Related Subject

Stale
 – --Aarktica 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone is maliciously removing links to my web site from related pages and replacing them with links to their own. Unfortunately this person and I have a past history and I do not believe trying to talk it through on a talk page will help. Also, I would rather not speak about this in public as this person has exhibited stalker-ish tendencies. I would basically like some private advice about what my options are at this point. If someone experienced in this sort of thing could help, please contact me at my Wikipedia name @yahoo and post here that you've offered to help, so others can remove this post.

Markodeelio 06:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably get better Editor assistance if you reveal your "true" username, and explain the situation. --Hu12 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Couple of needed changes, to a thing i have noticed

Resolved

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

Clearly does not have his deceased date... it should be added due to the fact he was a great man.


Casey Collins caseyworkmail@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.97.78.184 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 June 2007

He's not dead. It was a storyline (as the article notes). They've ended the storeyline following the real death of wrestler Chris Benoit and family. Studerby 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Abiotic petrogenesis pov dispute

Resolved

The neutrality of #REDIRECT abiogenic petroleum origin is in question. The page should reflect that abiotic petrogenesis is, at this point, a hypothesis. To label it as a theory gives it creedence that it should not have, and is pov-pushing at this point. Thank you for your time and contributions. Jclark77 16:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you come here with the issue, when you have not even started a discussion at Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin. -- Petri Krohn 16:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
They have started appropriate discussion on the talk page Studerby 03:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion on this link and the resource it points to

Resolved

While cleaning up some spam in Assisted living I noticed one of these links and followed it. I'm inclined to remove them because the manual it points to seems too fragmented and difficult to navigate to be of much use. --CliffC 21:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably OK in that respect and we cannot really object to the content and nature of the website. I'm strict with external links, but I cannot find a good enough reason to remove this one. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything wrong with the external link either. I believe it can remain. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, gents. Maybe all that bright red clouded my judgement. Ouch. --CliffC 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing live events

Resolved


I would like to know something... recently, an user and me got a disagreement over an edition in Copa America 2007. He stated that editing "on time" (meaning, making a edit when each goal was scored) was the correct way. I stated that, per a sentence in Help: Show preview (Saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history), doing that is not against the rules, but it's not a good thing to do.

Is there any estabilished policy about that kind of subject? Garavello 00:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to try to edit that way in basketball. DGG 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not intended to be a real-time journal of events. It's an encyclopedia. Editing "on time" is inappropriate, in my opinion. While not explicitly covered, I think the spirit of WP:NOT applies to this concept. While we do expect that articles evolve as more information becomes available, to update an article about an event with a known fixed short duration before the event is over seems to be using Wikipedia for something other than an Encyclopedia. In my opinion. Studerby 03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"While we do expect that articles evolve as more information becomes available". Yes, the information becomes available as you are watching the event. So there's nothing considerably wrong with editing while the game is in progression. Yes, I can stop editing while the game is in progression, but that does not mean other Wikipedians will do the same. User Garavello was also deleting information as it was being updated, and then complains that editing "on time" clogs the edit list. Well his deletions are doing the same thing. So its common sense to assume that editing ontime is non-preventable and that it will continue. Bladesofhalo 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You can selectively quote phrases all you want, that's fine WP:WIKILAWYERING. However, the point remains that Wikipedia is not a live journal/blog. An article about an event should be a summation of the event; you can't really do a summation of a game that is not yet completed. Wikipedia is not a competition, it doesn't matter who records the final score, it doesn't matter if the result is posted 15 minutes after the game is complete. Studerby 08:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, the article about the event should be written after the event is over and done with. That will also ensure that there is plenty of reliable source material available to use in writing the article (and for sporting events, source material quite often begins coming available less than an hour after the game ends). We really don't need blow-by-blow updates, we'll still have the final score in by the deadline if we wait. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I will stop editing during in-game, and will remove any editing that is therefore done. Issue resolved. Bladesofhalo 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting a review or adoption if needed

Resolved
 – Editor is a very valued contributer who just happened to get swept up in a vandalism patrol.

I need assistance because of a charge of vandalism that I felt was unfair or too broad. Yesterday I said I had not experienced a situation similar to the one I experienced then (see below) But after a night of sleep I remembered that my information was reverted before when I started to write about DeTocqueville's prejudices against blacks and Native Americans. I let the reversion stand - I really did not use "Talk" well and had problems doing the external lines and in-line citations. But later others subsequently made similar comments and now these comments are an acceptable part of that article. I feel that there are people who have sacred cows and desire to maintain particular accounts of persons like DeTocqueville and Johns Hopkins,and too often they are successful. They to me are the vandals who too often get away.

I did link the article to an African American website that I did most of the historical research for, not because I did so but because it cites the president who said he could not follow Johns Hopkins since I knew of no other place where this information could be linked. I was just trying to verify and cite. Sorry if I did anything wrong. And for the statement that Johns Hopkins' grandfather was the youngest of 10 childrens, this information is available online and I could have verified it. Bwyche 

I commented as follows originally:

How can you call what I was doing "vandalism" when most of my edits were just entering inline citations which were requested by reviewers of this article. And when you reverted my edits I was only trying to fix a broken link in the external links section and in the text. I had put the link in earlier and had found out that it was not working. If you look at the history section , you will see that most of my edits were in-line citations, and external links. With the last link I was fixing, I thought I would have been finished when it came to making the inline citations and external links requested. Was I caught vandalizing myself Or, was there another problem ???BwycheBwyche 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC) June 27, 2007

And,if there was only a problem with one edit, why did you remove all of the edits you did? I am quite frustrated as you can see. And, I have been working on this articles and most others I contribute to for a year or two. And, I've never had such a response. Also if I connected to the wrong link or made a wrong comment, all you had to do was to just let me know, and I would have worked with you. But to see all that work, all those inline citations, references, and text changes gone ???? BwycheBwyche 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC) /* Johns Hopkins */ Comment-- goodbye for now I was locked out and could not put in most of the above comments. Please help me even adopt me if needed, BWycheBwycheBwyche 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the rv by the previous editor. It would appear to have been a mistaken rv when the editor was on vandal patrol. That's really the only conclusion i can find. you edits were fine, and some of your sourcing far beyond what Wikipedia expects. I have never seen 10 seperate sources quoted in one paragraph before!

I can only apologise for what has happened and hope that it has not left you so frustrated. Mike33 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

West Highland Free Press

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 19:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On one of my on-line browses I stumbled across wikipedia and, to my surprise, found an entry on the West Highland Free Press, a newspaper based on the Isle of Skye. This entry, posted during December 2004, was inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically poor. It also, in my view, infringed on the intellectual property of the West Highland Free Press.

I therefore edited and updated the listing to one which was, not only accurate and grammatically sound, but also a verbatim repeat of the Company’s “Official” corporate identity statement: an identity the West Highland Free Press is proud of and jealously guards.

However, this listing has been edited several times by a user in wikipedidom to something other than we, ourselves (the entity to which the article refers), posted. Now this edit isn’t dreadful and mercifully it’s grammatically sound, but it is not how the West Highland Free Press wants to be listed.

If, as a legally recognised entity, we cannot control our identity and intellectual property, we would prefer not to be listed at all. Moreover, I would think this situation provides wikipedia with a moral and legal dilemma over its content and editing policy. --Whfp 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am the wikipedidom user referred to above. Please have a look at my talk page for a discussion with the above editor. All the best. Mmoneypenny 14:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you need to understand how Wikipedia works: No one owns an article; this is not the place for any "official corporate identity statements"; and no one has any say whatsoever about how their company is presented. This is an encyclopædia, not an advertising portal, promotional tool, soapbox or freespace, and no one gets to say whether their company is mentioned or not. WP:CORP does that. The history of the article shows that NPOV was violated as well. Adrian M. H. 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Encyclopedia indeed! I thought your well researched and written article on "masturbation", the indispensible "masturbate-a-thon" entry and the intelligent, but quite possibly discriminatory, "queer studies" guide, are well worth being listed beside.
Keep up the good work and keep exercising that tight editorial control.--Whfp 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So now you don't like the fact that Wikipedia is not censored??!! I will assume that by "your" you actually mean Wikipedia and not me, since I have not contributed to any of the named articles. You have confused editorial control with policies, guidelines and consensus, by which Wikipedia is run, and by which all of us (including you) must work. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

connexion technologies

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to post a brief description of connexion technologies today, but my post is being deleted by overzealous editors. Our main competitors have extensive wiki advertisement-like pages complete with graphics and links. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon

I tried to post two paragraphs with company facts and a link.

Why am I being deleted when our competitors are allowed to have pages? --Mfk9019 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a WP:WAX argument, and the use of "our" shows clear COI. Those editors are, I have little doubt, not over zealous, but are applying important policies and guidelines. For example, the article to which you just linked, Verizon, was edited by someone calling himself Verizoninternetemployee14004 and this edit was reverted. The COI could not be more obvious in this example and the added material looks like biased unreferenced advertorial. And look at the edit summary that said employee used: talk about trying to take ownership. If you see any advertorial on Wikipedia, please tag it accordingly or clean it up to meet the required standards. There are not enough good editors to keep on top of this sort of thing. Adrian M. H. 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, here is a post left on your user talk page, which I think is pretty helpful on informing you with the reasons your article is being deleted.
One, the article you posted is a copyright violation, which is strictly forbidden. Two, it reads like an advertisement. Three, it does not assert the notability of its subject. All of these reasons make it ineligible to appear in an encyclopedia. -- Merope 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Pay careful attention to points one and three. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This short article was in no way a copyright violation. It contained only few sentences that stated facts about the company. I modeled the paragraphs after content from competitors of this company who listed far more extensive company information. Notability is very subjective is this case. Is it not?

The text is reprinted below. I added the last sentence to overcome the lack of "Notability".:

Connexion Technologies, is an American fiber optic amenity company. It was established in 2002 and formerly known as Capitol Infrastructure. The corporate headquarters are located in Cary, North Carolina.

Connexion Technologies serves single family, multi-family, highrise, resort, and hospitality communities primarly in the southeastern states. Services include telephone, television, internet and home security. It is also certified by the ftth council.

Connexion technologies is one of the top three providers of FTTH.

Mfk9019 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you have written is borrowed from here: Connexion Technologies website.
Yes, notability is subjective, but wikipedia still has notability guidelines you can refer to, to help you determine if your company is notable enough to merit an entry into wikipedia. Adding an unsourced statement such as, "Connexion technologies is one of the top three providers of FTTH" will not suffice. Especially because I couldn't find any reliable mention of this over the internet and the statement comes from a company insider making it potentially biased. Again, I would invite you to read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Mfk9019, if you have not read the aforementioned WP:CORP yet, I suggest that you do so. If the shortcomings that currently affect your contribution in respect of key policies/guidelines can be overcome, then that contribution will be welcome to remain... Adrian M. H. 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone has nominated my article for deletion

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 18 months ago I created a short biography of myself (stub) on Wikipedia (Jill Neimark). Wikipedians have been very helpful--someone found the ISBN #'s for my books and edited my bio for me, someone else voluntarily resized my picture, and others have helped from time to time. At one point I discovered it was an orphan and read about how to link it to and from other articles that cite me. I see that my bio has been classed as supported by the arts & entertainment group at wikipedia.

Now someone who has never posted on wikipedia before and only joined today for this one post has nominated my article for deletion suggesting that it is self promotion. Can someone please help me? I'm not sure what to do and how to properly deal with this. I have been reading on Wikipedia but I can't figure out where or how to respond. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenbooks13 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 June 2007

We do try to discourage writing an article about oneself or one's own company, but it's not explicitly prohibited. The best thing you can do to prevent an article's deletion is show that significant amounts of non-trivial, reliable source material exists that was published by someone independent of the article's subject. If such material does exist, I can certainly help you add it to the article. If such source material does not exist, the article probably should be deleted. (By the way, I edited your comment to wikilink to the article in question. I hope you don't mind, but if you do, please let me know and I'll certainly put it back the way it was.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi--I will write you on "Talk" and I have looked at reliable sources. I have been quoted and referenced a lot recently on blogs and other websites in particular for my autism article, and for other articles in the past. Are those considered reliable sources? IE for a bibliography? I really am not sure how to do this and I don't want to create an inflated bio. I would like to keep my bio up there, and in the past it seems to have met with wikipedias approval and help. So I would like to create reliable sources if that helps. Plus I'm not intimately familiar with how to create a bibliography. I think I would rather do that and add footnotes to the line about the autism article, if that is okay, but I may need help with the formatting--Jill (June 23, 07:19)

Per WP:RS, blogs are not reliable sources. Content needs to be attributed and any that is not can be considered OR even if the contributing editor knows, or claims, it to be true. Adrian M. H. 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you--Seraphimblade has also answered me on my own talk page but I'm not sure how to post there and am trying to figure out :). Would a discussion of my autism article by bestselling author David Kirby who is also a columnist on Huffington Post (where he discussed it) be considered reliable? Would the Autism Speaks website be reliable--they are a $100 million foundation that supports autism research? There was an article in the Columbia Tribune by a PhD that is online, I see. Other citations include blogs by PhDs and doctors but if those are not reliable sources, no problem. I don't want to make changes on my own that are incorrect. Can someone tell me how to respond to Seraphimblade on my talk page? I will also try her again on her talk page. The use of Wikipedia is still a little hard for me sometimes. Thanks. She said to put four tildes and my name and date stamp will show up so I'll try that. jenbooks13 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS answers those questions. Obviously, oversighted and fact-checked editorial content from a reputable newspaper can be considered reliable. And it obviously depends on what it contains and what you expect to ref with it, just like any source. Blogs are out, as are fora. If it is published by some unknown person and/or has no oversight and fact-checking, then it cannot normally be considered reliable. Also be wary of the potential for bias, such as some corporate websites (promotional agenda). Adrian M. H. 13:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

user:VanTucky

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This user VanTucky has made incredibly snide remarks in his Discussion with me, all the while couching everything in Wiki-ese. A typical case of "I'm right, you're wrong and I'll interpret Policy all day long until you give up." I've contributed to many many pages, have never gotten into an altercation of this kind, and don't need to take this kind of behavior. And yet He's the one complaining against ME, and is threatening to have me blocked. What recourse do I have?Matthewdkaufman 06:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Recourse to what exactly? Users can't "have" other users blocked. If he complains, you will only be blocked if an impartial administrator finds you are committing a blockable offense. Note that blocks are used to prevent future disruption, rather than punishing past infractions. — Demong talk 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If this is between the two of you only and it involves a specific article, post it at 3O. I have to say, though, that I have had prior contact with VanTucky and he appeared to be courteous and civil. Adrian M. H. 12:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's between multiple editors on the Toupee article. If you read the discussion about a contentious List of known toupee wearers (that I removed several times bc of BLP libel concerns, and was totally ignored and simply reverted by Matthew and anon IPs) you'll see that not once did I threaten Matthew with a block nor did I place template warnings on his talk page. I did tell an anon IP that they could be blocked for personal attacks as they continually called me "arrogant" for arguing my case. I admit I got pretty heated up, but not more they either of them, and I never threatened Matthew or anyone with a block for simply disagreeing with me on content. VanTucky 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

hello

Resolved
 – Not enough reliable sources yet

I submitted an article, and it was denied on grounds that didnt seem to actually fit into what was being said, I contacted the Editor that denied it and in 2 days go no reply, from the first they said it was the sources could not be proven, then added on me redoing the article that it was now unnotible, could you please look into it, I find it is Bias and Unfair of this person to be one sided to an article of interest, Vince Ciampi, Blue Tiger, here is the page and article is Blue Tiger ( band )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-06-26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathsee (talk • contribs) 06:13, 29 June 2007

thanks for the info. It would seem that you are just not well known enough. Wikipedia is a worldwide site with 1.8million articles in English alone. A band going far back as you do must be popular, but it has to be guaged on the scale of do people in Buenes Aries follow you? You did provided sources but when making decisions it often falls to the person doing it to consult google. If you get 10,000 hits your in etc.

your sources were

Sources Official Site and Reference

I would also agree that the band is not yet famous enough. In a 6 months I might well be dreaming I never wrote this. Mike33 07:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See the criteria at WP:BAND. It lays out clear criteria that have to be at least adequately met to warrant inclusion. Adrian M. H. 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandworms of Dune ARC

Resolved
 – Almost all content removed Mike33 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I need assistance with the Sandworms of Dune wiki entry. The book has yet to be released and only Advanced Reading Copies (ARCs) are available. Spoilers on the wiki site are in violation of copyright law, similar to if the last Harry Potter book's spoilers were posted. Please assist. Thanks. Unsigned

I know of no particular policy on wikipedia that would exclude its inclusion. But having said that it is very poorly written and it's impossible to know that it true. I shall remove the section for now, but can't guarantee that it will reappear. Mike33 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Who decides?

Resolved
 – Refer editor back to WP:NOT

Mike33 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently, I posted an article about a Mexican dish created at the restaurant I work at, which was removed as "irrelevant." Who's to decide what isn't relevant? If you are going to use that logic, I should also be able to say that any article already on Wikipedia is irrelevant and undeserving of being in an encyclopedia. PorkSalcho 05:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just checking your Talk Page there hasn't been much interaction. Wikipedia editors rely on tags, when we should really be explaining a little more helpfully.
However, The article Pork Salcho fails the primary policy of wikipedia What Wikipedia is not...Original Research. A new invention or recipe may be groundbreaking, but it is essentially Original Research. A new recipe could oneday become a Chicken Balti or Waldorf Salad, but Wikipedia is not about guessing future trends. Wikipedia is here to reflect society provided that it is mirrored in respectable journals or books. Mike33 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing assistance Homosexuality

Resolved
 – That does in fact clarify the opening sentence. Made the change

--Hu12 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure of how to go about asking for an adminstrator to edit the homosexuality wikipedia. I have just one change that would make the fist sentence in the wikipedia definition correct. The sentence is "homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation". However it should be noted that it is not gender but sex that should be in this sentence. You can clearly see this distinction on the wikipedia entries for "sex" and "gender". For proper (and informationally correct usage), the two terms are not interchangeable and mean very different things. Sex is the biological make-up of a person and Gender is how a person behaves based on socially created roles (or sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears for a more simplistic differentiation). Thank you.

sjkolt Sjkolt 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there is a Wiki about homosexuality; I take it that you actually mean an article? Admins just have extra tools, and you don't need those tools to edit an article or give someone advice. I suggest that you be bold, as long as you respect the key tenets of verifiability, OR, and NPOV. Adrian M. H. 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuality page is semi protected, which reasons with the request. --Hu12 15:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
To edit an s-protected page, a new editor needs only to wait the requisite 96 hours, just as with moves. Adrian M. H. 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for changing the earlier homosexuality post; however, I believe that the sentence as it reads right now, "Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender, or to a sexual orientation." is still incorrect. It should read, "Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same sex.

I looked at the history and I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not really sure how that works, but I saw that a change was made, "Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same sexual orientation." Again this is incorrect since a heterosexual person whether male or female has the same sexual orientation as their differently sexed partner. So it is not the same sexual orientation, but the same sex in the last part of the sentence. Thank you again. Sjkolt 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefuly you've added the page to your watchlist so you can tweak the wording once the time to "wait" has elapsed. Enjoy and Welcome to Wikipedia.--Hu12 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War, more like edit warfare..any changes I make seem bothersome despite accuracy

Stale
 – --Aarktica 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How should I deal with the issue? I have a problem with two demographic sections about living people that contradict the numbers and scientific literature. Yet they are presented as fact. Certain studies are even deemed "debatable"...also, are users allowed to remove { {npov } } from certain pages!?!? if I know for a fact that a page is inaccurate and that it is being protected unfairly, can I not voice that concern without having it removed? Mariam83 15:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Links to articles in question, and diff links would help.67.40.31.115 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing Homeopathy

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited and added some data in Homeopathy under the contributor name Frenchmango. I do not see the changes and I do not know if that was edited, remeoved or if I did not upload properly.

Regards,

Dr.Clement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmango (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2007

Several points.
* In talk pages and other discussion spaces, the convention is that users "sign" their postings by putting four tildes "~~~~ at the end of their postings. These get automagically expanded to username and date.
* Each article page has a "History" link at the top, clicking it gives you access to the history of the article - who edited it, and what (if anything) they wrote as an edit summary.
* Clicking the Homeopath history link shows that your changes were saved, and later another editor reverted the changes. The edit summary says: "v - non-notable, see Talk"
* Each article also has a "talk" page (which is often labeled as a "discussion" tab), there's further information there.
* A direct link to the relevant "talk" is: Talk:Homeopathy#Cytokine_Expression where you will see that 3 other editors are discussing the appropriateness (or not) of the material you added. Feel free to join that discussion.
Hope this helps Studerby 03:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chitra Ramanathan

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 12:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to confusion caused by some previous user entries, the Biography page and links for Chitra Ramanathan has been affected. I, the artist request that the page to be please be restored for contributions by future qualified users.

Thanks

208.70.43.99 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted and salted. Adrian M. H. 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting My Submitted Photos

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to editing and submitting and uploaded several photos and did not cite proper sources and license them properly. I do not want to be blocked from editing and contributing and would like to know how to simply delete the photos I have uploaded. I will, at a later date, take my own photos of the subject in question and re-submit properly. Thank you for the help. The page in question:

Murray, Kentucky

Thelatchkeykid 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If the nom'd images can be licensed appropriately, you can go ahead and change the licenses. Adrian M. H. 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe they are copyrighted and I was unaware of that when I uploaded them. I am not sure I can get permission to use them. Do they just get deleted on their own or what? I just want them off so I can stop getting warning messages.
Thelatchkeykid 16:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
An admin will delete them after the set period. By the way; it is not good form to blank your talk page. Adrian M. H. 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
While most "old hands" on Wikipedia don't think it's good form to blank one's talk page, it is explicitly permitted by policy (or was a few weeks ago). Studerby 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is permitted (for some unexplained - and possibly ill conceived? - reason). It is still bad form. Whenever I have witnessed blanked talk pages, they have had criticisms, warnings or deletion notices, which is why it may reasonably be construed as an attempt to obfuscate one's history. Pages full of nice comments don't get wiped, as a rule. It should be discouraged, I believe. Adrian M. H. 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for information.

Resolved
 – Thanks Adrian! --Aarktica 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across an article whose only content is an infobox. Is this considered legitimate? --Aarktica 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would warn the creating editor that it needs content ASAP, then tag it with {{Db-empty}} if there is no change after, say, 48 hours. Adrian M. H. 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User/Contributor Profile

Resolved
 – Charm ©† 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To the Editor:

I'm a new member. Do I need to enter a User/Contributor profile into your system? Please advise. Thank you.

Louis Soffer, Ph.D., R.S. <e-mail removed - please do not post e-mail addresses> Louis Soffer 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Which editor did you want to contact? There are 47,350,207 of us!
The short answer is: no, you don't need to. The longer answer: it is helpful to place some relevant info on your user page. I won't go into the consensus on credentials here. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
lol nearly fainted when I saw that figure think its around 40,000 Editors on WikiEN [PROJECT STATS], {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} is a list of individual IPs that have edited the site since 2001. :-) Mike33 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know. They are all editors, though not all of them are regular (or constructive)! Adrian M. H. 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome. I have replied on your talk page. Charm ©† 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Linking issues within Wikipedia

Resolved
 – Charm ©† 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors

I am having trouble making links appear in my Sandbox practice entry. I have entered brackets around the words I want to link, which looks like this [apples] and [pears] but only some of the words have linked/are displayed in red. What am I doing wrong? This is an example of my entry which produced no links:-

'After a growth in Company profits and the launch of an in-house IT [infrastructure] to manage its specialist products, Pavilion listed on London’s [Alternative Investment Market] on 17th June 2004'.

Any assistance as soon as you can would be greatly appreciated

Regards

Bellance 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)<Bellance>

You need double brackets at each end of the word like this: [[infrastructure]] → infrastructure. Good luck and welcome! --CliffC 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Single brackets are only used to add URLs when either a link number [1] or a title The English Wikipedia is required. That is in addition to the square bracket's original intended use, of course! Adrian M. H. 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for long-term IP vandal blocks, protection of target articles

Resolved
 – With requestor's permission. --Aarktica 00:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following request at WP:AIV on 25 June. I don't know whether any action was taken, but the vandalism seemed to quiet down for a few days. However, yesterday and today the same nonsense vandalisms began to be reposted to some of the same articles, namely (so far) 690, Outsider art, and Greaser (subculture). I spend a lot of time chasing anonymous vandals; I don't seek them out but when I see them I revert, warn, and try to track down their other vandalisms. I can't speak for the other editors who have run across this small band of vandals, but I am personally dismayed and disappointed that these very few users and very few articles are not yet under control. As a non-admin, I've done all I can. Thanks for any help. --CliffC 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a collection of characters (or maybe only two or three) who repeatedly deface certain articles with the same cut-and-paste nonsense - usually about greasers, squares, honey-roasted peanuts, or the advantages of smoking dope. Most of these edits are made with deceptive, or confrontational, edit summaries. Most IPs have received last warnings but not all; that seemed pointless since they operate as a collective and just pop up somewhere else. A week or so ago I requested a range block at WP:AIV but as best I can tell the block was granted for only part of the range, and only for a few hours. Other editors have IP-protected some of the usual victim pages for a day or two, but as soon as the protection was lifted the vandals were back at it. I have kept track, with commentary, on my talk page here (a section named and started by one of the vandals), but for readability the IPs and the pages victimized are listed here. Thank you for looking into this. I know I'm not the only editor these guys are wearing down. --CliffC 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal IPs
Regularly vandalized pages
I think CliffC does speak for a number of other users, including yours truly. Some forceful adminstrative action is overdue in this case. BTfromLA 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I would press the point over at WT:AIV. The automated processes for reverting vandalism (i.e. bots) has come a long way, but there is still a need for involvement from editors. The last thing we need is one more wikipedian resigning in frustration. --Aarktica 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do that. Several vandalisms last night in the usual style to the usual targets show that nothing's happened yet. --CliffC 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks like someone over at WT:AIV is beginning to address this request, so please feel free to close it here. --CliffC 00:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Overused image/self-promotion?

Resolved
 – --Aarktica 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that this image has been popping up on several pages. I admit I'm not familiar with the gentleman in the photo, but his article leads me to believe that he is relatively unknown (non-notable?), other than for playing an unusually-designed guitar. Granted, he does appear to be a talented musician, but could this be an issue of self-promotion? This editor's nickname name implies that he is writing about himself. And even if the article is valid, is this image being used appropriately? I feel it is not, but I don't want to just start deleting things. Maybe someone could look into this for me. Thanks. --buck 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it to AFD if you want to. Adrian M. H. 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (double ec) Your suspicion per WP:COI seems legit to me; my suggestion would be to consult other editors at WT:IFD for additional insight on this matter. --Aarktica 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the use of that photo in each of the articles appears appropriate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton

Resolved
 – I have posted the dispute on WP:BLP/N. Mike33 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My entry Greg Felton is conitnually under assault by someone who posts libelous, untrue statements about me. I remove them and put accurate info in their place, but the problem doesn't go away.

Can you block whoever is sabotaging my entry?

Thanks. unsigned by Voxveritatis 05:45, 11 July 2007

Response from clpo 13

Hi Clpo 13:

Hi fully appreciate the nateure of Wikipedia and that anyone may edit an article, but according to Wikipedia's own standards: "a user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to:

  • persistently making personal attacks…

Whoever is tampering with my bio is making a personal attack. All I want is for this indiviual to be blocked from bastardizing my page. I have had queries about my beleifs based on the disinformation that appearsa on my page. Surely, you want to uphold the reputation and credibility of Wikipedia.

Please tell me what you can do.

Regards,

Greg Felton unsigned by Voxveritatis 09:11, 11 July 2007

This seems quite complicated for a new article (it was only created on 21st April). I have therefore raisedthe matter at Biographies Noticeboard for more editors more aware of the subject to take action. Blocks are not unrare, but are a last resort. Editors should discuss what troubles them on talk pages and find sources. Mike33 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lost the original history file doing moves - can it be found and reattached?

Resolved Resolvedthanks Mike33 — Demong talk 01:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I screwed up somehow doing page moves over the last 24 hours or so to change an article's title, then change it back again. Somewhere along the way I lost the article's history file, which goes back perhaps one year. The pages involved were:

Willie Turks is (and was) the main article and is now correct, as is its talk page. What I'd like help with is reattaching its history file, which seems to have gotten lost in the ether. It's not the end of the world if this can't be done, but it would be nice to get back the history back so we can know who the contributors were. Thanks. --CliffC 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found your History it's at -
I presume you were tired when you were doing the page moves. Mike33 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope, just drunk.  :) Good eye, Mike - I could have stared at my edits all night without catching that. --CliffC 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John Dunne redirects to John Donne

Resolved
 – created new disambiguation page John Dunne Mike33 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If I search for John Dunne, the contemporary author who passed away in 2003, the result page is for John Donne, the metaphysical poet. Granted, John Dunne usually went by John Gregory Dunne, and users might misspell the poet's last name. But wouldn't it make more sense to send the user to a page for clarification rather than redirect to the poet's page? Or at the top of the poet's page state: If you are looking for the 20th century author John Gregory Dunne... Spinaltap27 17:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)spinaltap27

You're looking for WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. Post again if you need assistance with it. Adrian M. H. 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John Dunne

It isn't a disambiguation problem, John Dunne just isn;t famous enough. I have searched and searched and can't find a single link to a Scottish Poet. If you have any sources please take over the redirect page, but please be aware other editors may question your sources. Mike33 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggested disambiguation because I would expect to see a mention (sans wikilink) for John Gregory Dunne the author. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
K I stand corrected lets make a disambiguation page John Dunne. Dunne is the current disambiguation page. I have created a disambiguation page for John Dunne. (failed my RfA today :-() Mike33 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, Mike. If I had known that you had an RfA going, I would have !voted in favour, for sure! Adrian M. H. 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam article is not NPOV

Resolved
 – No new developments. --Aarktica 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The article Islam was today's featured article. Given the distortion and misrepresentation of Islam in the Western media (I am not a Muslim myself but a student of comparative religion) it is of concern that the concensus edit was biased towards misrepresentation and according to more than one editor somewhat Islamophobic. The lead was particularly noticeable. It defines Islam as meaning surrender or submission to God but this is only half of the story. The word Islam is derived from the same root as the Hebrew shalom (Arabic: Salaam) which means peace. It means to enter into a condition of peace with God through allegiance with him. At the moment the lead remains misrepresentative. In order to attempt to correct this I made an adjustment citing an authoritative reference (The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, edited by Professor John Bowker, 1997) but a certain administrator by the name Moreschi reverted the edit twice and has not answered my request for a valid explanation. Therefore a front page featured article remains without a NPOV lead. Can anyone advise me? Thankyou. Langdell 20:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I haven't spoken to Moreschi. I'm Jewish but have always understood S(h) L M to be a submissive term and I understand SLM works in the same way in lots of other Semitic languages. I can't really comment here until I can find Moreschi to comment. Mike33 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You've got me right now. There's some discussion of this on Talk:Islam and some on my talk page. Basically, I'm quite willing to thrash this out, but yet another edit war while Islam is TFA I cannot stomach. Moreschi Talk 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Dunno, it seems pretty NPOV to me. Isn't this kind of forum-shopping? — Demong talk 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to have better AfD dialgoues

Stale
 – --Aarktica 18:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have a problem trying to reasonably discuss AfDs in order to persuade fellow editors. In this and this and this AfD discussion I have struggled with communicating with fellow editors. Any advice or wisdom would be very appreciated. – Freechild (BoomCha) 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

mmmmm Xfd should only be used as a last resort. I really have no sympathy for any editor who moves an Xfd and the consensus is against them. The particular list you raised List o Standardized tests seems a work in progress, I dont like lists but this particular one gives much more information than others. The Template I can't comment on without seeing the template.
Xfd is a difficult place, at the moment it is running at 80 new listings a day. Emotions get high and editors will often resort to petty arguments to try and gain consensus. Influencing other editors is about stating reasons and responding to their difficulties in understanding your reasoning. Filling an Xfd with reasons that are bigger than the page being discussed will not help consensus. Mike33 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

what happened?

Resolved
 – editor to source items before contributing to long standing articles.

I posted an explanation of "callsign." It was up and running fora short while, but now is gone. What happened? unsigned by 70.181.202.64

Your edit to Aviator call sign was good intentioned, but the regular editors there didn't think that lengthy paragraphs about Top Gun really helped the article. If you can find other sources apart from an unamed book it would be great, but please until then don't edit the article without firm sources. Mike33 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Permutation prank.

Resolved
 – Aricle A.n.prahlada rao deleted by FisherQueen NN Mike33 23:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across A.n.prahlada rao, and decided to move the page to A. N. Prahlada Rao, when I discovered that the target was once home to the article in question.

The article contains little in the way of substance; however it occured to me that there is nothing stopping the article creator from re-creating the article at A.N.prahlada rao, A.n.p. rao, A. P. Rao, etc.

Is there a way to keep from playing whack-a-mole here? --Aarktica 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but most articles that play games will get redirects, you can watch articles that haven't been created in the same way as you can with articles that have been created. Think of as many possibilities as you can and instead of creating articles just add to the watch list. Mike33 01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was very vague there for example click on those red links above - wiki will tell you that it doesn't exist. Find the tab watch and if it is created it will appear on your watch list - redirect or Spd it. Its probably used more for "current" articles where lots of editors want to be first with a breaking story, but it works in the same way with recently SPds and Afds. Sandbox any likely renames click on the redlinks and watch. Mike33 01:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the procedure for "sanding" deleted/recreated articles? --Aarktica 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Salting or stopping articles from being recreated is a last step measure taken by administrators if the continual recreation of the same article is disruptive to the aims of Wikipedia. Mike33 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I will prod the article and see what happens... --Aarktica 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Restore Summary for Chitra_Ramanathan

Resolved
 – Interested Parties should take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion_review

UNDELETE_ITEMIZED NOTABILITY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY VERIFIABILITY POINTS PROVIDED BY ARTIST HERSELF Due to confusion caused by some previous user entries, the Biography page and links for Chitra Ramanathan has been affected. I, the artist request that the page to be please be restored for contributions by future qualified users. Please refer to the following just a sample few links that indicate notability/verifiability regarding my art career. These links laready have Summary pages in wikipedia for verifiability purposes. I will be happy to provide more links. My apologies for the incorrect usage by random users. I have no intention to contest your deletion policies. However, because of recent happenings at wikipedia I am compelled to jump in. Please refer to the following selected links that indicate notability/verifiability regarding my art career and which have Summary pages in Wikipedia:

Beginning with the most recent:

  • 2007 I am a current committee member for the Committee on Cultural Diversity Practices of the College Art Association, New York (CAA News | College Art Association (http://www.collegeart.org/news/newcommitteemembers.html...Cultural Diversity Committee | Committees | College Art Association, Chitra Ramanathan, Indianapolis Art Center (2007-2010) .... Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research. (1992): Vol. 34, No. 1. (Charland) ... (http://www.collegeart.org/committees/diversity.html). A contributing member of College Art Association (http://www.collegeart.org) since 1997, I have also served CAA's Services to Artists Committee from 2003-2006. Earlier this year (2007), I was selected as a candidate for CAA's Board of Directors for 2008-2011, which I declined.
  • 2004 the MGM Mirage commissioned me to create two 4 ft X 6 ft paintings bearing my signature, a rare privilege for an artist from the organization. The paintings were based on two of my 1999 and 2000 pieces, and are on permanent display in their Cafe Bellagio, Las Vegas since October 2004. (mirage las vegas The Artist Chitra Ramanathan Has Recently Completed a Major Commission ... mirage las vegas the mirage wikipedia the free encyclopedia ... http://www.bouldercitynev.com/mirage-las-vegas/archive_02_2007.php)

2007

Recent publications that have featured a cover story on my art include:

  • The Indianapolis Business Journal, "Women in Art" April 9-15, 2007 (http://www.ibj.com/html/indianapolis_business_journal.html-"Creative Pursuit of Happiness" 2007-04-09 With permission from Pacheco, Della, Marketing Editor: Copyright IBJ Corporation Apr 09, 2007 (c) 2007 Indianapolis Business Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning.

I would very much appreciate your assistance in restoring the Summary page.

Thanks,

Sincerely,

Chitra Ramanathan

UserChitra 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Article History Chitra_Ramanathan[Logs] Talk Page Afd

The Article failed Afd on 20th June 2007. The Afd has been blanked subsequent to that and a similar billet-doux to the one above sits in place of Afd discussion because Ms Chitra sent sent a ticket to m:OTRS (contemptuous disrespectful language). The article is protected from recreation. Interested parties should raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion_review explaining why the Afd was wrong. Mike33 04:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I confirmed the AfD results. The only WP:RS information I could find was for apparently unrelated individuals. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Need sombody who knows the ins and outs of a new article.

Resolved
 – work in progress :-) Mike33 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I managed to add a hyperlink on an article some time back. I'm not sure how I managed that feat. So, now I finally finished an article about Captain Vielle of Albany's 1st expedition down the Ohio Valley in 1692 and the aboriginals he might well have met along the float trip. It's about the English claim on the old frontier and New York's desire to trade with the far-west Native Americans.

The best I can hope for is for an experienced Wikipedian take the article, proof it and do the Wikipedia thingy. Credit is not an issue for me. Edits are certainly OK by me. This, with the biblio, might be worthy of Wikipedia.

Thankyou for considerations. unsigned by Conaughy 14:13, 11 July 2007

Are you referring to West Virginia? It helps a lot if we don't have to carry out any detective work. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You've got me stumpted - I've found the guy you refer to (Arnout Cornelise Viele 1640-1704)), but not a whisker about him on Wikipedia. If you post it in your sandbox, we'd be glad to comment. Mike33 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou kindly. The West Virginia edit was rather easy. No Sir, it's an entirely new article outlining Vielle's expedtion. I've not placed it on your server because I haven't learnt to create a new article. The sandbox you mention seems to be the ticket. I've looked that over once. The People he met, I placed in the West Virginia Prehistory and now will not be include in the Vielle article. Thus, the viele article will be half the original size. In time, maybe I'll undestand the control syntac of the sand box. Thankyou kindly.

Thankyou again, I'll try to put it in the sand box as you suggest and then it will be on your servers for you to accept it or not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Conaughy (talk • contribs) 11 July 2007


You can create a new page just by going to the "namespace" where a page doesn't exist already, and editing it. There is no submission process in Wikipedia, where content is reviewed before it's posted. Just click on Arnout Cornelise Viele, paste your article in the empty box, hit Save Page, and you've begun the never-ending process of progressive refinement!
It is relatively common for a user to create a "sandbox" page in their own user namespace (User:Conaughy/Arnout Cornelise Viele works), and post an article there for comment/revision, before adding it to the main namespace.
PS: You can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~), which will be converted to your username and a timestamp, like this: — Demong talk 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to sink in, thankyou. Your outlines in the help is becoming clear. It's shameful to have used Wikipedia for look up and not look at the system itself. Best wishes to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conaughy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 July 2007

Re: Josh da goodfella

Resolved
 – complete and utter nonsense Mike33 12:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MR Frisher

I have recently done an artical about a newest member of the colombo crime family, Josh da goodfella. I keep getting messages that he isn't a real person when he is!

I have met him and his family twice and they are very nice people

Officialmafia 09:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

obviously without having to accept an offer I can't refuse, it wasn't the best article ever written. The tag on the page does leave a lot to be desired. I would have tagged it as nonsense and we wouldn't still be here. Mike33 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The page has been deleted twice so far, variously tagged as nonsense, copyvio and non-notable. Fuhgeddaboudit. pablo ::  ... hablo ... 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Post Resolve Note Officialmafia blocked indefinately [see here] Mike33 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_3&oldid=1138434617"