Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 35

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

Live Person Bio

Resolved. Article protected. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a dispute with someone regarding biographical information that affects me. The other party will not compromise. Is there a way to resolve the dispute? WikiTrivia (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to provide relevant advice without knowing which article it's on...Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be more useful to point to the page in question and an indication of the issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)--
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Carney_(American_football) Someone appears to be claiming my son as their son and has also posted personal attacks and legal threats against me and changed my entry.WikiTrivia (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's under control at this point; the article's been protected and admins are on it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

re "Mark to Market" entry

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wiki, Be prepared for a lot of activity on this section. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_to_market>

A network radio host, Dave Ramsey, is advocating listeners lobby their congress members toward the technique.

Reading the wiki entry one learns the strategy is what caused many financial collapses in history, so there will doubtless be much discussion and alteration accordingly.

My Best, David Grace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.231.58 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

i want to edit i want to edit

Resolved. More of a comment than a question, but answered nonetheless. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please i want to edit something in wikipedia's topic muhammad please give me authority ...Please...! IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE DO NOT PLAY WITH SENTIMENTS / RELIGION OF OTHERS.

thaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tester.me (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming here for help. Let me start off by answering your question: semi-protected articles (like Muhammad) are only editable by users with accounts that are "4 days old and have made at least 10 edits". In other words, you need to wait four more days before you can edit the article to which you refer. However, I ask you to please read the manual of style because all of your edits seem to be related to "PBUH" and "صلى الله عليه وسلم" and "رضی اللہ عنہا". These edits will always be removed and your time will be wasted. You must follow the manual of style. The manual of style is what we use to decide how names/places will be written. Thank you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, perhaps, WP:MOSISLAM#Muhammad. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One Tribe Creative

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is David Welch and I work at One Tribe Creative [1]. Taking suggestions from editors that have helped me in the past, I have added references to One Tribe Creative's page to help its notability.

Is there any Wikipedians who can improve the writing on the page to foster a removal of the advertisement template?

Also, is there any editors who can review the references to see if the notability/conflict of interest templates can be removed? It would be much appreciated, and if there is anything else I can do, I would be more than willing to help. Thank you and forgive me if I have missed any wikipedia etiquette guidelines. Dreamguru1632 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can attempt to clean up the article you're referring to. Before I do, however, do you have any links to reliable sources that are independent of the One Tribe Creative company? In other words, I'm looking for something that isn't an OTC website and something that isn't a press release or from a promotional or marketing department that I can use to verify the information you've provided on the article. What would be even more useful would be some information critical of the company (or at the very least, neutral). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've briefly looked over a web search, and sadly it appears that most of what I could find were press releases (I found this link especially interesting). I have a bad feeling that this article is probably not going to pass notability guidelines on what articles belong on Wikipedia. In other words, there is a chance that the article will get deleted pending potential future "notability" (as defined by the link above) of OTC. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Assistance Request

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia:

We are attempting to create a Wikipedia Page for Lou Stanasolovich who is founder, CEO and President of Legend Financial Advisors, Inc. in Pittsburgh, PA. Our company Web site is www.legend-financial.com. We are having difficulty once we have created the page, it is being deleted and we are not sure what we are doing wrong. We are putting in descriptive content that uses a neutral point of view and we believe we are complying with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. We are primarily seeking to post factual biopgraphical information about Mr. Stanasolovich. Mr. Stanasolovich is a highly regarded and an extremely accomplished financial advisory professional who is frequently sought after by the national media and industry conferences to speak about various topics. Our goal is to create a short, factual Wiki about him as his name is often searched upon in search engines due to the media recognition he receives. We have noticed that a friend of our in the financial advisory profession, Harold Evensky has successfully built a Wiki article and we were attempting to model Lou's after his but it still got deleted. Could you please advise us as to how we can mold the content a certain way in order to create and sustain the article? Also, is there a Wiki customer service contact person we could speak with directly by telephone if we continue to experience problems? We are excited about being part of the Wikipedia community to provide objective information about one of the most prominent figures in the financial advisory profession. Please advise.

Best Regards,

Christopher J. Kail Legend Financial Advisors, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LFA061807 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, any article must meet Wikipedia's notability standards. In essence, the information provided in the article must be referenced to reliable, third-party sources (e.g. mainstream newspapers, books, magazines, etc.) Second, the Wikipedia community frowns on users creating articles on subjects with whom they have a close personal relationship (see Wikipedia's guideline on Conflict of Interest). In these instances, you may wish to make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for another editor to create the page for you. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

EpicAdam is correct, any article needs reliable sources, otherwise it will be deleted. The article on Harold Evensky has only survived this far because it has citations (although I would question the reliability of some of them).

In answer to your other question about a customer service phone number: I don't believe there is one (since Wikipedia doesn't have "customers"), at least not for the problem you are having. In most cases, reading our policies and guidelines is enough to clear up how Wikipedia works. But I think the page of most assistance to you would be Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. You may find other options for contacting Wikipedia here. Hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous contributor

Resolved. IP user apparently stopped after warned. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've created and edit a page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Really_Simple_Systems. First of all I should declare a conflict of interest, but I've tried to keep the page reasonably neutral. Also, I realised that it is neither "my" page nor the company's, but the community's.

Over the last few months an anonymous contributor has on three occasions placed what I would call negative comments on the page. You can see them in the history. I presume that if there is a question of fact or editorial line then this could be solved by a dialogue between us, but the contributor is anonymous. I've reversed the changed out each time, but somehow I don't think this can be the perfect solution.

What should I do? Is there a policy/protocol/procedure for this?

Thanks! John Paterson JacPaterson (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. If you get into an "Edit War" with a user, he or she could be found in violation of the Three-edit Revert Rule, which can lead to a temporary block. The best thing to do is a leave a note on the user's talk page, even though the user is anonymous. You'd be surprised how many people stop or at least discuss their edits once they know the page is actually being monitored. Of course, negative criticism is allowed, as long as it is sourced. As for the page specifically, I would make sure the article has inline citations. That way, there's no question as to the sourcing or validity of the information. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jayen Varma

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I am deleting the following line from the page Jayen Varma as was informed.

{ He is considered to have invented this unique style of playing bass.[citation needed] }

There are certain private links to prove the fact, but those may not be a solid proof for World's best wikipedia's standerd.

However I am thankful to you for editing the page for me to make it perfect. In this context I request you to please make the page alright by removing the 'editing suggestions' placed there on top of it. I hope that all other details in the page are with enough and more proof.

Thanking you

yours sincerly

Jayen varma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, Kind reference is invited to the following link where a World Record in Bass Guitar is announced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayen_Varma

I wish to frakly admit and inform that I am not familiar to edit it as per the Wikipedia Guidlines. However, this is a World Record already declared. The reference is http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484 This has already been given as 2nd external link in the page. Other links also substantiate the facts. In case of any doubt, I reuest you to please search for 'World Record Fastest Percussive Bassist'.

I am therefore to inform your goodself that I am not proceeding further to edit it since I am not familier with it.

If you are satisfied with the proofs, kindly approve the page after due editing. Otherwise, I have no objection for this page to be deleted. I am glad to inform that the next generation will follow this new technique and methos of playing Bass Guitar, since many Bassists accross the World have already started adapting the new Slap Bass style.

With Due Respect to Wikipedia

Jayen Varma

World Record Bassist

India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

General cleanup and/or tagging on Kotra (producer)-related articles

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bored, I did a search for my name (haven't you? no? ...I guess I'm just vain then) and came upon Kotra (producer). I noticed the article wasn't in very good shape (poorly formatted, lack of citations, perhaps promotional tone), but since my name is kotra, I wasn't sure if I should edit the article myself (whenever I see a person's bio being edited by someone with the same name, it sets off alarms for me). The same problems are present on related articles Kvitnu, Kvitnu Fest, Detali Zvuku festival, Live Reports, Zavoloka, etc (basically, all articles created by User:Miniloka, of which there appear to be many). My request is basically, could someone tag these articles appropriately? Even better if they could be improved, but I'll be happy to just see them tagged so other editors can know they need work. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're pretty safe on this one. As long as your edits are neutral and supported by third-party sources, it would be hard for anybody to claim otherwise. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 03:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I still would feel awkward editing those pages, since I think Miniloka is likely related to the other Kotra. But thanks for your response. -kotra (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with warring edits -- on my own talk page!

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am having a problem with a contributor who has repeatedly vandalized my page, including abusive remarks and putting remarks in rather random places on my talk page. This dispute arises from a similar edit war in the article on "Martin Anderson Controversy" which is under mediation by Phil Knight. At this point, she is now removing posts from my discussion page without my permission. Since her comments, in general, will likely end up being an issue for later mediation, I prefer that her behavior remain visible and documented on my talk page. Is there a way to freeze my talk page or ban her from editing it until the Martin Anderson Controversy mediation is finalized?

Thanks!

billo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billollib (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. I have reported the users actions to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism as this user has received multiple warnings to stop. If the user continues to vandalism your personal talk page in the future, please report it there. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry it took so long to say thank you, but I forgot how I got to this page! In any case, I appreciate the quiet. Billollib (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

slander

Resolved. Mendaliv 02:37, 3 October 2008

Need some assistance as somebody has continually slandered my career on one of your pages. I have gone in and deleted the comments, but I still would like the history erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redguy999 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your contributions, and you don't seem to have edited any pages other than this one. What is the title of the article with the factually inaccurate information in it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The account was created 2 minutes before posting here. You can discuss the problem in private if you want by following links from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been resolved; the article in question was Sandro Corsaro. Vandalism reverted, but not removed from editing history. Looks like FisherQueen handled the user. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating a bio - error message, blacklist?

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to create a biography page about a living individual who is a financial innovator in using tax credits to finance sustainable (green) buildings in low income communities. A small niche, perhaps, but interesting to some.

When I try to start the page, I get the following error message:

Unauthorized From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

I am trying to find out what the "blacklist" is, how the person's name is on it, how to get it removed if it is unwarranted, and how to create this biography successfully.

I look forward to your assistance,

C. Smith Cesmith111urban (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The message is at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit. Note it has clickable links on local title blacklist where there is information and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where you can post a request. What is the title? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The bio I was attempting (this got the error message) is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozano. I tried, alternatively, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorrisLozano. Cesmith111urban (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a blacklisting of those titles. Please copy the exact url in the browser address bar at the time you see the message. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozano redirects to Mario Lozano (soldier). An article about Norris Lozano should include a space and be created at Norris Lozano (but only if Wikipedia:Notability (people) is satisfied). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the work about the soldier, too. The URL that shows when the error message appears is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorrisLozano&action=edit

Is it possible that I'm just entering the address wrong - without a space? All I did was view a page for "Socrates" and paste in Lozano (and the NorrisLozano) in for Socrates' name.

Can you help me understand what to do next to create this bio? I think I just need to get over this hurdle and I'm good to go. Thanks

Cesmith111urban (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to click here and create your article in the window before saving it. This will create an article named 'Norris Loranzo' with a space/underscore. Be sure to have read up on notability guidelines and other help on creating articles. If you are new to editing you would be best to create the article somewhere in userspace (i.e. on your user page or a sub page of it - for example in User:Cesmith111urban/scratchpad) to get the bones of it complete before copying and pasting it into the first link I gave you, else you may risk your work being canabalized/speddily deleted before you can get it into a good enough state to survive the wilds of WP. Mfield (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Cesmith111urban (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Profanity on discussion board by Rationalist22

Resolved. Content dispute taken to article talk page. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go to this article -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abhinav_Bindra#Abhinav_Bindra_-_a_Sikh

The user Rationalist22 had edited content to abuse an individual, his version is

09:07, 26 September 2008 Rationalist22 (Talk | contribs) (21,299 bytes) (→Abhinav Bindra - NOT a sikh) (undo)

Request you to please ban the user Rationalist22. He has been adding unverifiable content to Abhinav Bindra's Wiki. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.121.21.2 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a content dispute than anything else. I took a look at Rationalist22's comments, and while some of them are not very nice, I wouldn't consider the comments to be profane or abusive. The content added to the article Abhinav Bindra is indeed referenced in other sources. I have edited re-added the information along with inline citations to the appropriate news references. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

George Friedman

Resolved. Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's02:31, 3 October 2008

Links were cleaned up, could we please remove the Conflict of Interest banner? --Briantx90 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Briantx90

Any user is free to remove banners. I will say this, however, the article is largely unsourced. Those external links don't appear to cite all the information provided in the article, and some are dead. I would go back through and try to insert in-line citations to reference the facts in the article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has apparently removed the CoI banner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gone Jackals & Keith Karloff Bio

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gone Jackals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi: I don't know why the authenticity of the GJ and KK bios are being challenged. I'd say they're accurate. If you could remove the "Stub" categorization, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Keith Karloff c/o BlueBlack Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.74.160 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the authenticity of The Gone Jackals that is being disputed, as such, but its neutrality. It is an official policy here at Wikipedia that all articles are written from a neutral point of view. I don't know if you have edited this article, but obviously it is very difficult to maintain neutrality when writing about a subject you are personally connected to. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography). If you have edited of intend to edit this article, I suggest you create a user account and declare your interest on your user page. The other big problem with the article is that it is completely unreferenced. It needs citations to independent reliable sources. For example, newspaper articles or professional reviews. Basically, every disputable fact needs to be verifiable, to enable readers to find the original sources used in writing the article. Unreferenced material may be removed at any time. If you want to improve and develop the article, adding sources would be a very good start.--Beloved Freak 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rugby union in 2008 edits from 203.97.240.127

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is several days that from the page Rugby union in 2008 it is constantly erase a game schedule for November 2008.
The game is "Italy - Pacific Islanders 22/11/2008", and is correctly schedule for that day (one source is this: http://www.scrum.com/260_4321.php).
I've already undid it 7 times and try to comunicate with the user in the talk page. Unfortunatelly this edits has been done from an IP Address 203.97.240.127, and I don't know how to procede to make this edit stopped. Thanks for any advice. --Giskard (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Giskard. I can help you in several ways:

I'll look into the issue and see what I can do to work things out between the two of you.
Wikipedia has a 3RR rule, which says that it is best not to undo edits on the same page more than 3 times in a day. It's always better just to talk to the other editor about it. I'll try to help you get in contact with the other editor.

OK, just notice that my 7 Undid has been made across the last 2 weeks.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot: Be sure to also leave a note about the issue on the article's talk page. It is there so editors can talk about improvements to the article. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message in the discussion page of Rugby union in 2008 and I don't revert the last edits, so I'll wait to see what will happen. Thank for you help!! --Giskard (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List discussion of Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood

Stale. epicAdam^(talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a heated discussion regarding whether or not a list for non-playable characters for the article Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood (see here). This is not the first time this group of editors has clashed heads with each other, and given this is regarding Sonic the Hedgehog, I believe this and other issues with this article alone will easily escalate. What else can be done here before climbing up the WP:DR ladder? MuZemike (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina

Resolved

– User:HairyHannah and User:71.200.22.228 are clearly the same person using two single-purpose accounts to attempt to avoid violating 3RR while not obtaining consensus or engaging in discussion. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in an edit war on this page with another user. We've both already been blocked several times for violating WP:3R, and I'd like to avoid a repeat, but the other party has not responded to requests on her talk page or the article's discussion page to explain changes. I am willing to get a third opinion if that's the next step, although I'm not sure how a neutral observer can hear both sides if only one is will to speak. Please advise on how to proceed. BaldPete (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. I have taken a look at your edits and left specific comments on the article's talk page. If another user is unwilling to communicate with you, then the only thing that can be done is to continue to revert the edits, or have other editors do it for you to avoid violating 3R yourself. Each 3R violation will typically result in a stronger penalty. It's possible that continued revisions to an article by adding unsourced material or blanking sourced material could be considered persistent vandalism, which could potentially lead to a user ban. Other than that, there's not much else that can be done. However, do see my comments on the article's talk page as well. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a 1 month block to both User:HairyHannah and User:71.200.22.228 for this behavior. Thank you for looking into the details, epicAdam, and filing a report at WP:AN3. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article/Blurb pages

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what /Blurb pages are - e.g. List of Archbishops of Canterbury/Blurb, List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers/Blurb, List of Canadian provincial and territorial orders/Blurb etc. They've started showing up in WP:NEEDCAT, and I'm not sure how (or if) to categorise them - or even if they should exist.... Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this has been activated yet, but the apparent intent of these pages is to set up blurbs from various past featured lists for display at Portal:Featured content. Each time you visit there a blurb from a different featured list will display randomly. Some information is at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Featuring 'featured' lists. If you need more targeted information, you could contact User:CBDunkerson who is spearheading this. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

alwaystouchout.com

Resolved. More of a comment than a question. -epicAdam^(talk) 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was working on a newly created page, alwaystouchout.com, when an admin (User:Marasmusine) asked me to provide evidence of importance. I had hardly enough time to do this (I was hoping to ask around at a WikiProject I am part of for which this site would be very familiar) and before I even have the chance to work on the page, I find it deleted. This is very bad. The only sense of importance here is the self-importance of this deletion-happy admin. I am not pleased at all. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles which have no sources verifying the information content (not optional), and don't indicate any importance can be deleted at any time if they are about certain subjects within the ambit of CSD A7 which this article was. In this case the admin contacted you, which he did not need to do, and actually moved the article to a subpage of your user space so you could work on it until you had a version that was ready to go live. He provided the link to that subpage on your talk page. The jibe against him is unwarranted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for editing.

Resolved. Merged threads. Article sent to AfD -epicAdam^(talk) 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, Kindly visit the link below:-

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

I had requested on 26th Sep 2008 to help me edit the page as per Wikipedia rules. Now I am thankful to see that the page is properly edited. However the INSTRUNCTIONS/INFORMATIONS to edit the page is still there on top of the edited matter. I once again request to please delete the said instructions/informations, duly approving the page on the basis of the Official World Record reference link already provided. Thanking you Regards Jayen varma India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the opportunity to look into this, and have some concerns that the article in question may not be notable; thus, I've submitted it for an Articles for Deletion discussion. Please feel free to weigh in there. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sirs, I once again find that one more Deletion Notice is posted on the page Jayen Varma ( link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayen_Varma ). I wish to infirm that the page contains only FACTS. This has also been provided with link containing proof. However, If there is concern about this page, I have no objection in deleting the page since it was me who created this. I will be thankful if it is edited by a third person according to Wikipedia rules. IT IS NOT jayen varma THAT MATTERS, BUT IT IS A NEW GENRE MUSIC, A UNIQUE STYLE OF PLAYING BASS GUITAR, A NEW TECHNIQUE IN BASS GUITAR, AN INVENTION IN BASS PLAYING AND ABOVE ALL A WORLD RECORD, THAT MATTERS. Thanks and Regards Jayen Varma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayenvarma (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Resolved

– An admin has reverted to an earlier version and semiprotected. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This had at one time been a fairly decent article. But a number of aggressive IP editors have really trashed it in the past month. Well, I guess I should assume good faith. Let's say that they have substantially altered it. These editors have limited command of English and apparently believe they are descended from Neanderthals. (Unfortunately, I"m not kidding.) They have been eager to rewrite the article so that it's skewed toward the view that Neanderthals didn't in fact go extinct. Their weak English and their use of technical terminology has rendered much material incomprehensible. Consider, for example, this sentence: "Some briging the oposithe debate, as deth and live, endpoints using partialy adequate language to soften the argumentation: as Hybridization which cannot be used to genealogy, fate which is is: unfavorable destiny; doom ) etc. Eg." I enjoy this topic, and really wish I had time to work on this, but unfortunately my work commitments won't allow it. Hoping someone can help. TimidGuy (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

well if this is trash for Wikipedia:

doi=10.1038/363252a0 PNAS
doi=10.1038/nature02690
doi=10.1073/pnas.0510005103
doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.08.010
doi=10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.021
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080807/full/news.2008.1026.html#B1
doi=10.1038/sj.hdy.6800852
doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020105
doi=10.1016/j.gde.2006.09.006 journal=Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev
DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5425.195a
DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5432.1355f
DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5424.31
doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2004.11.016
http://anthropologylabs.umn.edu/Zilhao_2006_Evol_Anth.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908093606
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702214104
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175
doi:10.1086/302052 [2]
doi=10.1073/pnas.0608443103

What is Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.190 (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

query about page being deleted

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi; my page for artsboston keeps being deleted, though artsboston does the same thing that the Theatre Development Fund and TKTS does in New York City. I have read all the guidelines and my revised text had less advertising in it than the TKTS page has. We are a non-profit organization that helps non-profit performing arts organizations throughout Boston and there are many for-profit companies from all over the country with wikipedia pages about who they are, if not

I'm not sure why it keeps being deleted. What do I do now?

thank you, Charles McEnerney ArtsBoston (email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcenerney (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it does not assert its notability; the last two deletions were under that criteria of our guidelines. It also looks to be a little spammy, still, with the list of client organizations (visible to admins in the deleted revisions). I'd suggest that you engage in a discussion with the deleting administrator, TexasAndroid (talk · contribs), regarding his reasoning for the deletions, then develop an article in your own user space (you can create a subpage at User:Cmcenerney/Sandbox, for example) and ask for evaluation from experienced editors - here, through deletion review, or possibly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston where editors familiar with the area can pitch in and help out. Hope this helps. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Advert and Broken Citation Tags for Gridiron Grumblings article have been removed

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the Gridiron Grumblings article because much of it is written like an advertisement and because all of the citations are broken links.

However, anonymous editors have repeatedly removed these tags without changing anything else in the article.

What is the best way to proceed? To me it seems like someone is using the article as blatant advertising, but I'm hesitant to mark the article for speedy deletion since it could be written in a fashion that is more encyclopedic and I'm sure appropriate citations should be found.

Punters (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

it has a section that is pure OR too. I have put a comment on the talk page and tagged the section accordingly. Article desperately needs citations to establish notability and to back the claims. Removing the tags without doing anything to improve the article and without explanation would be considered vandalism and some of the editors that have been removing the tags have even violated 3RR which is an instant block offence. I would be warning them and filing and Admin assistance if it happens again. I am now watching the page and will do the same. Mfield (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Parramatta

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a reluctance to acknowledge Parramatta as a city. Furthermore I have made a series of extensive edits to the article to harmonise it with Wikipedia convention. All of this has been reverted.

This is the version and (wikified) layout that I propose: [3]. This is the old version from which I changed it (and to which editors have incessantly been reverting to): [4].

I have copied all discussion relating to this here (which includes my justifications for the changes): [5]. The relevant discussion is under 'User talk page conversations RE: recent changes to article'.

I believe all of my edits were properly sourced and cited, and were all accurate in the best interests of the article. Please review the aforementioned pages as all is explained there.

I give up on this article and leave this notice here in hope of some sanity. VerseDoorPlace (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

kinds of information about famous people--feminist editing?

Resolved. Advice given -epicAdam^(talk) 15:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think that any article about Frank Sinatra or the Rolling Stones should include not only thier good works but the way they mistreated women. otherwise, I do not feel the piece is balanced and honest. I tried to make edits to another page abouit another famous group and was prevented. why can't I make an offshoot page or add to the whole to provide an honest clear picture? I wonder if it's a feminist issue as what I think deserves to be said is when a famous or popular group or person also mistreats others. when it is verifiable and part of their word-of-mouth repuation, why do we only get to write about good deeds? Please help me understand this or help me learn how to add honest verifiable information to existing pages. thank you, rubyratz (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)supposedlydisposable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supposedlydisposable (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. If you're going to add possibly contentious information to any page, you must back it up with very good reliable sources that affirm the claims made in your addition. The paragraph you added here back in May to The Flying Karamazov Brothers had a couple of problems: one, it was unsourced, and two, you made some assumptions, which falls under original research and which is discouraged in articles. I suggest discussing your proposed edits on the article talk pages before moving forward with them, to have other experienced editors help you along. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignity article written like essay

Resolved. Referred to RfC -epicAdam^(talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor of the article on 'Dignity' persistently insists on writing the article in an essay style. The article is constructed basically as an argument that dignity is a meaningless undefinable term that is used as an inadequate justification for human rights. I have tried to improve this article by placing a reasonable definition for dignity and writing a short history of the use of the term in philosophy, focusing on Pico De Mirandella and Kant. However, the definition is continually being removed by the author and the section on 'Dignity and Philosophy' is renamed 'Dignity and Dogma.' Needless to say, such a label for these philosophers is patently absurd and designed to support this editor's dubious argument which he insists will be the dominant strand of the article.

Please may I ask that this article be reviewed so that we can arrive at a reasonable consensual resolution.

Cicero79 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)cicero79

Hi. This board is mostly for people have specific questions or problems. If you're looking for general comments of this type, I would look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Third opinion. Otherwise, opening the page for peer review might be a good way to get opinions from editors familiar with the topic. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with nominating Article for Deletion

Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam^(talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly brand new here, but I'm not very experienced either, so I'd very much appreciate a neutral 3rd party opinion on this situation:

I noted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockblock for deletion, for reasons described in the AFD page I created, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD (albeit with a few mistakes, because that page wasn't very clear to me).

Now, it seems that I might have been wrong to do that, since apparently WP:OC#SMALL only applies to categories and not articles. Is this really the case?

If it turns out that I was wrong, that’s fair enough, and I apologise for any inconvenience (many many Wikipedia articles do say be bold). But if that's the case, surely the whole situation would have been solved a lot more amicably and much quicker, if someone had just told me that I'd made a mistake at the start of AFD discussion.

It seems that people here take offence and fly off the handle because someone else nominated the same page for deletion a few weeks back - So, now I get called a "sockpuppet", accused of "bludgeon the process" and threatened with being "blocked".

If Wikipedia wants people to help out, then surely encouraging Ad hominem attacks isn't the way to go about it. As I said, I'm not hugely experienced here, but I'm feeling quite dejected that users here seem to be so aggressive to people who aren’t as experienced as they are. Falken365 (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for posting here. It appears that the article has been nominated for deletion and subsequently kept several times now. The reason you are being identified as a possible sock puppet is because you have not made any other edits except those related to the article. I would leave this article alone for the time being and help edit other pages instead. If you have any other questions about editing on Wikipedia, please let us know. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Help creating new page

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been trying to create a basic, informative page for the Mobile Media Institute offered at Santa Barbara City College. I have tried several different names and have been tagged for "rapid deletion" every time.

I have looked at other education articles and tried to follow their format, avoiding the sound of solicitation and advertisement.

Do you have a list of guidelines that I am not following which is causing my efforts to be deleted? Is there any possible recommendations to remedy this situation?

Wikipedia is well-established site for information dissemination, and I would like to post what I think is relevant information to the community at large. Thank you in advance for your time and response,

Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmisoma (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmisoma, could you tell us what the speedy deletion reason was? Prince of Canada^{t | c} 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mobile Media Institute was deleted as a G11 - blatant advertising (here's a line from it, indicating the issue: The Mobile Media Institute offers one of the best opportunities for students to develop their core skills for an exciting future in the rapidly growing industry of Mobile Media.); Institute of mobile media was an A1 no content/context. Mmisoma, Wikipedia is not for promotion, which your article was doing. As well, from your name, I suspect there's a conflict of interest issue to be considered. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A question about continued deletion

Resolved. Asked and answered -epicAdam^(talk) 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am recently new to wikipedia and the person that I am trying to support, but I wish to ask for details on a continued deletion of a specific article. I have been told by several other member that there has been a continued deletion of a musician and internet personality named Doctor Steel. I am very curious to find out the reason for this seeing as he is quite popular, has three cd's, and a very large and dedicated myspace base. I was also told that the increased efforts of his fans have made the administrators here very frustrated. I think perhaps by their characters they were not doing this in a calm and collected manner. As a fan I only want to see a correct and accurate article is in behalf. Doctor steel himself has agreed to provide me with correct information in the hopes that we can together with actual support from the wikipedia team. I am very aware that you time is most likely volunteered and that you do have a hard job sorting through the articles that are real and bogus. It is my firm belief that I have enough evidence to prove the relevance of the creation of this article, and would sincerely like to apologize for what I am sure were the feeble attempts of the people that came before. Any qualms you have with this I plead you to discuss with me, and I would like to request a full report on the situation of this misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreys27 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read our guidelins on notability (which clarifies what should and should not be included) and on reliable sources (which clarifies why what he says himself doesn't matter) and on conflicts of interest (which clarifies why, if you are that close to the subject, you shouldn't be editing the article). Prince of Canada^{t | c} 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it as simply as possible considering the massive amount of discussion that has occurred regarding Doctor Steel here, which consists of a couple of Articles for Deletion discussions, a number of Deletion Review discussions, and general conversations elsewhere, the problem is simple: Doctor Steel is not notable under our guidelines. His fanbase has been built by word of mouth and viral marketing, and not by coverage in reliable sources. It's been determined numerous times that he does not currently meet the notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. He won't until such time as a) he receives coverage in more mainstream media than what has covered him thus far (the coverage he's had has either been trivial or self-referential and uncritical), b) he releases albums on major labels, c) he tours extensively, or d) he meets one of the other criteria above. Unfortunately, his fan base is bound and determined to get him on Wikipedia, I assume for promotional purposes, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Sorry, but at this point he doesn't meet the guidelines for articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanjay Pandey / Bundelkhand ekikrit party

Resolved. Asked and answered. Pages are being watched for AfD removal vandalism. -epicAdam^(talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can you please help with unauthorized removals of AfD for Sanjay Pandey and Bundelkhand ekikrit party. The individuals who have edited these also appear to be sock puppets. I don't know the correct place to ask for assistance on these matters--can you please help? Thanks. -Bongomatic 14:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed warnings on each of the user's pages. They do indeed appear to be sockpuppets. Should their actions continue, they can both be cited for WP:3R or can be reported as just regular vandals. We'll see what happens now that I've warned them. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

COI tag removal dispute

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Having editorial disputes with Delicious carbuncle on 'The Genius Club', 'Fakin' Da Funk', and 'Tim Chey'.

Can you PLEASE help us?

Thank you.

Wikiusernewyork (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. The "Conflict of Interest" tags were placed on those pages because a the main contributors to those articles were directly tied to the PR firms that publicized the movies and director. The article needs to be rewritten with objective sources by someone not connected to the films before the tags can be removed. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a persistent problem with vandalism to User: Gary Jacobsen

The vandalism takes the form of substituting a clown photo for an actual photo, false and misleading statements in the text and other problems.

Most recent vandalism: 13 Sept 2008 by IP 98.218.163.131

Also: 2 Sept 2008 by IP 98.218.163.131

27 Dec 2007 by 68.34.47.13

(date not known) Nov 2007 by 68.34.47.13

I am not a technical person, and it is not clear to me how I can properrly bring this information to Wikipedia. I've read the instructions, but they are Greek to me.

Grant Gary Jacobsen [email address removed as anti-spam precaution] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggjacobsen (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to report users for consistent vandalism, the proper place would be WP:AIV. However, I suspect that a more effective solution for you would be to semi-protect User:Gary Jacobsen. Semi-protection would allow you and other established editors to edit the page, but protect it from anonymous IP editors (like those that are vandalizing it) or new editors. For more information about semi-protection, see WP:SEMI. To request semi-protection of that page, you can file a report at WP:RPP, or I can do it for you if you prefer. You can reply here or on my talk page. Hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

John Edward Tang article deleted

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

The article on John Edward Tang (J.E.T.), who is a French author with more than 20 books published, has been deleted. It had been published on Wikipedia during more than a year before this act of "vandalism" happened. How can it be restored ?

Thanks for your help.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John D. Light (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The John Edward Tang (author) article actually lasted a grand total of six days after you created it before it was deleted through this Articles for Deletion discussion, where the editors felt the article was either a hoax or about a non-notable author. You're welcome to go to deletion review and ask for opinions there, if you feel the deletion was incorrect. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on image policy

Resolved. Discussion moved to copyright board -epicAdam^(talk) 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia. Please click the following link to view the image. Tinbin (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jiangyuyuan.jpg

The image is a screen capture from a Hong Kong television show. I have read the policy on uploading image but don't really understand the policy. Could you tell me whether this image fits the image policy requirement and can be used on Wikipedia? If yes, what description do I need for the image? Tinbin (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tinbin (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. Typically, images of living people must be in the public domain or have a free copyright. Screen captures from television are still protected by copyright and would typically not be allowed on Wikipedia. The only time that copyrighted images are permitted under fair use on Wikipedia is if it would be close to impossible to find an image that isn't protected by copyright. If you would like, I would also recommend posting at WP:IMAGEHELP, as the editors on that board can give you better tips on how to claim fair use of an image. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can articles in one Wikipedia (i.e. in another language) be notable but not in another Wikipedia? Surely there exist articles in other language Wikipedias but not in the English Wikipedia and vice-versa. MuZemike (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. I don't think there's any way to enforce consistency across different-language versions. There might well be articles that exist in other language Wikipedias that haven't even been created here, so the notability of such pages would be undetermined, too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think not, so long as we are using the general notability standard defined on this Wikipedia. That standard is "being the subject of significant treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That is an objective standard that does not vary regardless of which Wikipedia has an article on the subject, or indeed whether any Wikipedia has an article on the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the consistency of notability guidelines across languages. For example, English Wikipedia might have a more exclusive WP:BAND guideline than another language, or the other language might not have WP:PORNBIO. However, I believe the general notability guidelines are going to be fairly consistent across projects, at least in the spirit of the guidelines (as opposed to the specific wording). Was there a particular subject you had in mind? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that on ja:Wikipedia, they don't usually allow articles on current events (they wait until it's clear the subject has lasting historical notability). Here on en:Wikipedia, we have uncontested articles on everything from Tropical Storm Edouard (2008) to University of Florida Taser incident to Diet (Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode). So there are differences in the specifics of notability across Wikipedias, but probably not the generalities. -kotra (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse by Wiki administrator "Prince of Canada"

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In examining the Wikipedia postings regarding evolution vs creation, I noticed an extreme and apparent discrepency in apparent favor of evotion, and an obvious omission (ie, intentional editing out) of points regarding creation or intelligent design. It became readily apparent to me that someone (or a number of people) was very dedicated to biasing the Wikipedia toward the evolutionary concept rather than presenting an unbiased and fair presentation of both sides.

Well, that's the wikipedia. I set about making some factual changes in contest of questionable claims being made (for example, that "the scientific community" discards the concept of intelligent design... an overtly blanket and fraudulent statement).

What I did not expect were the activities of "Prince of Canada" in immediately reversing every single entry I made... even a very factual entry regarding the controversy regarding the writings of Sir Fred Hoyle.

I then began receiving threatening messages from "Prince", telling me that I was leaving "incorrect" information and to stop doing so. The information I left was very factual and was not at all incorrect-- except in his personal opinion. This person appears to believe that "Wiki Nazi" is a proper style for editing the Wikipedia and he has very obviously applied the position he has on Wikipedia to prejudicially and in a biased manner promote evolutionary theory. His activities quite apparently extend to editing out ANY and ALL comments contrary to his personal beliefs... and threatening to ban people who disagree with his personal philosophies.

I do not believe this is the way the Wikipedia should be operated. No one has the right to supress factual presentations of others. That there are unbalanced individuals who will insist via power of edit on enforcing their personal beliefs on others and the Wikipedia in general... that should not be the case with people who moderate this system.

It is obvious from the listings given that "Prince of Canada" has developed a habitual policy of viewing all pro-creation or pro-intelligent-design arguments as "incorrect" and "unfactual" and has taken it upon himself to remove all such entries. The very fact that two primary Wikipedia headings are listed as "Evolution" and "Creation Myth" give strong evidence of such.

I question: is the Wikipedia a balanced source of information, or is it the personal belief-blog of Prince of Canada?

I'm an admin now? Cool beans. To clarify, and save y'all some diff-diving:

The user was continually adding the following to Objections to evolution:

Note: readers should be aware of the dominance of pro-evolutionary thought in these articles. Statements such as "the scientific community" should be taken with a grain of salt (there is a significant portion of "the scientific community" that supports the concept of intelligent design). The presentation of pro-evolutionary arguments and the conspicuous absense of arguments for intelligent design might also be considered while examining these arguments. It is not the purpose of the Wikipedia to present prejudicial or biased opinions regarding a subject, but rather to present a rounded "both sides" view of these issues.

Non-encyclopedic, non-referenced, unfactual vandalism. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 09:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And how do you explain editing out other entries sir? I also quesiton how you consider the above factual statement as "vandalism". It very accurately portrays obvious and intentional biasing of the Wikipedia and notifies users that such things obviously take place. That is not "vandalism"... that is a statement of obvious fact... fact that I witnessed as you methodically removed every single one of my posts this eveing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.19.97 (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read some of our policies and guidelines: neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, other things Wikipedia is not, verifiability, vandalism, and reliable sources, for starters. Cheers. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 09:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia guidelines and the concept of Wikipedia. That does not validate you imposing your personal beliefs on the Wikipedia community. It is very obvious from reading the post on evolution controversy that it had been gone through with a fine tooth comb and all arguments from anti-evolutionists removed. It was equally obvious that this was done by one person or a group of people dedicated to such agenda (such things do leave tell-tale marks). Upon observing your activities this evening, it became apparent to me how such things come about. Anything contrary to your beliefs are immediately edited out and when someone points out that is happening... you send messages threatening to ban them from posting should such continue. In other areas this is called "blog Nazi" attitude, and it's very apparent that such policies are being applied to the Wikipedia. The result is a biased, prejudiced, unfair presentation of one-sided arguments rather than an informative, balanced document. And no quoting of "guidelines" or bogus claims of "vandalism" is going to alter that very visible fact.

Sorry you disagree with what I have to say. I'm even more sorry that you use your position on Wikipedia to enforce your concepts upon others. It results in a system that is far less than it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.19.97 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, right.. well, here's the thing. There's a neat program that can be used for combating vandalism on Wikipedia. I use it. Take a look right here to see all the edits I've made this evening using it. I think you'll note that the only point of view I'm pushing is that Wikipedia policies should be followed. I think you'll also note that there were no threats; the messages on your talk page (which are automatic) explain pretty clearly why what you were doing was unacceptable to WP policy, and merely outlined for you what the next steps would be if you continued to violate policy. That's how it works around here. And I believe I'm done with this conversation now. God bless. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 09:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, dear 72.135.19.97. You must assume good faith here, and you do seem to be failing to meet that requirement to the extent that you're making personal attacks on an editor. That can get you blocked, don't do it. Sadly, you don't seem to have got the hang of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, to name a few. I've popped some hints which explain these acronyms onto your talk page, hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prince of Canada and dave souza here, except 72.135.19.97 is correct in questioning the characterization of that particular edit as "vandalism". According to WP:VAND: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." That particular edit was unacceptable for Wikipedia, but it wasn't vandalism. It bothers me how some editors leap to calling all poor edits vandalism, and to me shows a lack of assuming good faith. But at least that one edit (I haven't looked at his/her others) was correctly reverted by Prince of Canada, no bias needed. -kotra (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your editor stole my edit

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A while back I made an edit on a simpsons episode and then deleted it and then took credit for it I notice this happening a lot with not just me but other people than myself. The edit had to do with the episode where stephen colbert appeared on the simpsons and I mention how dan castlentta and colbert both preformed on the 2nd city troupe which was featured on the episode. The editor said I vandalized it then put the same edit. I went to his page and noticed dozens of similar occurences with this particular person. It's frustrating and makes me A.) not trust the site B.) think the editors are plagirizers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.200.117 (talk • contribs)

Greetings 76.116.200.117 and welcome to Wikipedia. I think perhaps you are confused about a few things. First of all, an "editor" on a wiki is just a person who makes edits to a page. When you edited this page to add your complaint, you were an editor of Wikipedia. When you say "your editor", it sounds like you think that editors on Wikipedia are senior contributors or something and I just wanted to let you know that this is not the case, that all contributors on Wikipedia are called "editors" and all are equal. Secondly, when you click the "edit this page" button, if you look below the edit box, near the "save page" button, you will see it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL... If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Basically, what this means is that when you posted that material, you licensed it under the GFDL which means that other people can modify it, change it, build on it and so forth. Your contributions can even be used commercially by other people. I'm not sure exactly what happened in this situation you describe, but if you want to provide a link to where this happened, I, or someone else here, will have a look into it for you. But it's possible that the contributor reverted your because he thought that it violated one of our polices but then had second thoughts and reverted himself to restore your edit, or perhaps that someone else disagreed with him and reverted him in turn, thus restoring your edit. It's not really possible in the general context of editing articles here on Wikipedia to "steal" someone's edit to an article and "take credit" for it because it remains in the history of the page so that anyone can see that you were the person who contributed that material. Also, there's not really any benefit in stealing someone's edit because of the history page for the article shows exactly who contributed what and when. Also, please do not call other users names. It's a violation of the no personal attacks and civility policies and you'll end up being blocked if you're not able to express yourself without name calling and personal attacks. If you want me or someone else to look at what happened with you and this other editor, just post a link to the discussion and we will try to give you more assistance and information. Regards, Sarah 13:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Severe link deletion problems in reference section of 'W201 Mercedes-Benz'

Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am having severe problems with someone who keeps deleting the link in the reference section to a very useful website. They delete the link I place and replace it with another one, which is starting to get a bit childish. The website I add is a very useful one and is used by many people to find information which cannot be found elsewhere.

What would be nice is if their link and the link I place could be there together and then the page to be partially protected against editing the references. I see no reason why both sites cannot be listed, however the other person 'Extrastrongmerc' does... I am not sure why? Both sites are for owners clubs of the Mercedes 190, however the site I list is free to join and has hundreds of pages of information on the 190(W201) and is not just a forum. It also has a technical help section for anyone who has any problems...I know the other site has not got this and is in now way as helpful. Although I do think both should be listed to ensure no hard feelings.

If anyone can give me any assistance on what to do, please let me know... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.166.103 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. I suggest you read Wikipedia's guideline on External Links. The issue with the links you have added is that they are both links to forums, which are prohibited (rule #10). For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, 79.75.166.103, please familiarise yourself with the 3RR policy which states that you may not revert more than three times in a 24 hour period and if you do you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I note that you and the other fellow seem to have reverted each other a dozen or more times. I don't think the links you're fighting over are suitable for Wikipedia but please be aware that you may be blocked without further warning if you continue edit warring. Sarah 20:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, I was not aware forum links were not allowed on wikipedia... That is no problem at all, I will not be adding any more forum links although I will add a link to a related site but not a forum, Thank you for looking into this for me. [79.75.166.103] 16:12, 7 October 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.166.103 (talk)

Edition of article removed shortly after.

Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

H.van Asten, The Netherlands. Desertfax.

I tried to edit the article on Amelia Earhart with a recent new theory published in a professional magazine. Shortly after uploading in the English Wikipedia the review disappears without notice.Up to now the incident took place for two times. What reason could it be ? The same addition to the Amelia Earhart article in the Netherlands Wikipedia incurring no obstruction.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfax (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. The editor who removed the material from the article objected to its use in the article and requests that you start a topic on the article's talk page to discuss the new material. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Newman page

Resolved. Clarification added to article. -epicAdam^(talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Paul Newman page, his widow, Joanne Woodward, is listed in the right sidebar with the following lifespan: "Joanne Woodward (1958–2008)." That implies that she died this year, which I think is untrue. R. Bickford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.114.162.136 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe those are the years they were married, not her lifespan. Either that, or Mr. Newman was quite literally a cradle robber. ;-p -- Vary Talk 14:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I attempted some clarification by adding (divorced) and (his death). --Jh12 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Investment bank promoting itself and/or its management book

Stale. epicAdam^(talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:HoulihanLokey and User:64.94.105.98 (an IP registered to "Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin", their article here is Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin) have recently edited several financial articles to add material that almost invariably cites their $200 management book, with Houlihan Lokey cited as one of the authors. Sometimes the statements added do seem to improve the article, while others such as this seem trivial and contrived only to promote the company name and/or sell the book. I'd appreciate some administrator comments on these edits, and especially on whether the book cited qualifies as a WP:RS that should be cited here at all. --CliffC (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there aren't many admins on this board, but I still think there's a solution. The book, in my view, certainly meets the standards of WP:RS. However, the user is failing to reference page numbers in their citations, which is necessary under WP:CITE, especially for textbooks. If either the registered or IP user inserts edits that appear to be trivial or unnecessary, I would remove them and open a talk discussion. Really, it's all going to come down to article consensus as to whether or not the book and the information it provides should be inserted into the article. Let's see if we get a response to either of our COI warnings. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I am trying to improve articles and address the requests for "citation" and "verification" on some key topics that many people are currently interested in. It is not my intention to sell a "$200" book. I actually began to use that book because of Wikipedia "citation" and "verification" and "copyright" guidelines. The extensive Wikipedia rules are not a quick read, and I am trying to keep up with all the various nuances as my time permits, please see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I do believe that any Wiki posted by someone is written by them and they have some form of involvement with the topic, so I am trying to understand why a publication such as this book would ignite such hostility from an editor. HoulihanLokey (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is hostile to your book, if we seem "hostile" at all, not the case, it is due to your insistent plugging of the book and of your employer Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, in spite of an admitted conflict of interest on your part and that of 64.94.105.98. There are no "nuances" in the Wikipedia rules when it comes to conflict of interest – self-promotion is not allowed, as has been explained on the talk pages of both you and 64.94.105.98, in particular here, where the consensus approach to editing is again explained. I can understand why a business (even an international investment bank such as Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin) might feel the need to promote itself in the pages of Wikipedia, but you have been ill-advised to do so. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --CliffC (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on Epicadam's suggestion, I entered in page numbers.

The reference to the Insolvency Act 1986 is not unnecessary to a section on bankruptcy in the United Kingdom, especially in a larger article regarding bankruptcy that mentions "law" over 20 times.

Under every edit screen this appears: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." Which likely means that those rules are intended to apply to all edits -- not just those already in the article.

If an uninvolved editor will make an edit based on information provided, there should be a proper citation to a reliable source and Epicadam pointed out that this book is certainly a reliable source.

If you would like to expand the bankruptcy article as Tempshill does here, the book I've referenced contains in-depth chapters on legal analysis of bankruptcy in England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. But please give proper attribution to the expert information in order to comply with Wikipedia copyright terms. HoulihanLokey (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

help to improve an article

Stale. epicAdam^(talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

hi i am trying to improve the apache beat article as it seems to have all sorts of notes on the top of it requesting improvement. how would one go about this?

Anabananaana (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted a welcome and a link to the musicians project at User talk:Anabananaana. cygnis insignis 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Velletta and Company

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was looking forward to seeing the Velletta and Company wikipedia article. They are a pre-eminient firm in Victoria BC and have worked on some very significant cases that have been well documented.

I understand that it has been deleted. I think the deletion should be reconsidered. I note that other law firms have their entries on wikipedia-- Velletta and Company ought to as well.

Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.hepburn (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Velletta & Company (deleted reversions viewable by admins), created by Velletta (talk · contribs) was speedily deleted as blatant advertising, and after looking at the article, I'd say that was a proper deletion. Wikipedia does have other articles on law firms, but those law firms generally meet the notability guidelines for businesses - and those that don't should be deleted as well. There is also the problem of conflict of interest to be considered, considering the username of the editor who created the article. If you feel the speedy deletion was in error, you can request a deletion review, but the article as deleted was far from an encyclopedic article in tone. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way that I could view the article in question? I would like to be able to actually read it and come to my own conclusion about its merrits before going to the deletion review stage. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.hepburn (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential Editor Bias/ Notability Question

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zukhits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am having a problem with an editor. It seems as if they are biased in their opinion. I have made the suggested changes and now they have marked the page for speedy deletion. Could another editor please take a look at the page Zukhits and let me know how I may resolve the problem. He is a credible producer with press and the other editor is saying that it is not enough.

JPercy (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JPercyJPercy (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that any editor has marked the page for speedy deletion. There are a number of cleanup tags, but those banners are far from actually submitting the article for deletion. The main problems I can find with the article are that there are numerous paragraphs that are uncited and that that the article is not written in a very encyclopedic manner; it seems to be simply a list of his accomplishments as opposed to an actual biography. If you are simply looking for a way to improve the article, I would recommend that you submit a peer review request. If you believe that another editor is mistaken in his assessment of the article, a post at Requests for Comment or requests for a Third opinion might be better options than this forum. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a photo

Stale. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A photo was put up recently on the List of Sex Positions which has created quite a debate with regards to both it's legality and worth. After reading the talk page I felt that the consensus was to remove it because a) it likely breaks 18USC2257, b) the image's copyright status is debatable, c) most agree it is redundant given an illustration of the same scene is given and d) it's poor style to have one photo on a page of illustrations. However User:Banjeboi continues to revert changes citing WP:IDON'TLIKEIT without debating the discussed issues. I don't think we need arbitration as the issues are clear, so what can be done? Kansaikiwi (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The image in question is Image:Michael Lucas as top with Kurt Wild as bottom.jpg. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue would be resolved, I think, if we found an illustration (instead of a photograph) that adequately illustrates the same position, so we could remove the photograph without any loss of information. I've commented on Talk:List of sex positions accordingly. -kotra (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have been notified of this concern as it was posted and not after the fact. Also, counter to Mendaliv's statement I have addressed every point of discussion so the only remaining concern indeed seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is a terrible editing policy front. We all have images and content we don't like but we don't censor it. Also I wholly disagree that illustrations are preferred or even better than photos - they can compliment each other but hardly replace for the need of one another. The debate of whether to use images verses illustrations on sex-related articles has compelling issues on each side with no clear consensus after years of discussion. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help resolving an edit war

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten into a bit of an edit war on the Nikki and Paulo page (a page referencing two characters on the TV show Lost.)

I added a 'Trivia' section to the page that states:

"In 2008, the band Miniature Tigers released a song titled Cannibal Queen that contains the lyrics: "If she ever left me, I would break down and die, Like Nikki and Paulo could bury me alive."

My edit was originally removed because someone deemed the band NN. I realized that the band lacked a Wiki page, so I created a page for Miniature Tigers (which, IMHO, verifies the band is relatively notable, considering they were mentioned in Rolling Stone magazine, Spin magazine wrote an article on them, etc.) I then re-submitted my entry, which was subsequently removed.

I believe my addition is entirely relevant. I have also seen a barrage of other wiki pages with similar trivia sections. However, I am certainly open to listening to arguments against the addition. (Please note that I posted my concern on the Nikki & Paulo 'Talk' page, but no one has responded.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joel. The edit does not belong in the article for multiple reasons. You are right that there are many other pages on Wikipedia with trivia sections. This does not tell you much because there are lots of things on Wikipedia that need to be fixed, removed, edited, deleted and are against guideline or policy or just not in keeping with an encyclopedia. In other words, just because other examples of things on Wikipedia can be found is often not a good reason to generalize from that existence, that it is proper. See, by way of analogy, WP:WAX. As for notability, that is really a discussion for the article on the band. The reason your edit does not belong in the article on Nikki and Paulo, is otherwise. First, your edit is not verified through a reliable source. Every statement in an article should be, ideally. In practice there are a huge number of articles that are unsourced or poorly sourced (you will see at the top of many articles templates flagging the article as not properly sourced and so on). Our goal for all articles is that they are fully verified, written from a neutral point of view, cover a topic comprehensively, contain no original research, are written brilliantly and so on. Articles which come close to meeting these standards are promoted to featured article status, which are considered our best work (you will not find a single featured article containing a trivia section). This article is a featured article and so it is highly watched and such placement will be removed by multiple users. Not only is your citation not a reliable source but the source is apparently violating the copyright of the owner of the lyrics (most song listing lyric sites do). We do not allow links to sites that are copyright infringements. The edit also places undue weight on a side subject. Is the fact that this song by a minor band mentions the characters important to the primary topic of the article? Remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. For some of these reasons, we have a guideline at Wikipedia:Trivia sections which explains why trivia sections should be avoided. I hope this helps clarify matters.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

crea tea dispute

Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been contacted recently, asking me to remove a link I placed to the site www.noveltea.co.uk from your page on Cream Tea.

I would like to protest on the grounds that Noveltea is a non profit-making organization which provides information relatng to afternoon tea. There are recipes, letters, news and reviews which would all be of great interest to someone looking up cream tea. In he past visitors who have come from Wikipedia spent up to 10 minutes on the site which is anecdotal evidence that what they find they find useful.

I hope you shall consider reinstating the link so others may benefit from it.

Yours,

Amos J. Harris

Noveltea (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Noveltea (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note on your talk page as to why the links were deleted - in short they contravened WP's guidelines on external links set out at WP:EL, in particular section 4.1. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Notability tag by anonymous users.

Resolved. Tags replaced, articles nominated for deletion. epicAdam^(talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed the notability tag in a couple of articles ( Eleftherios Arelis, and Dimitris Papadatos) created and edited by the same IP addresses, because they seem like somebody is trying to post his CV and the CV of his friend. Unfortunately the anonymous editor removes the tag. I have been trying to find some other source of information, other than the personal web page but the only thing I could find is quotations in blogs. The external links that are provided do not have any relation with the articles, except of the personal web pages. I think that the pages should be restricted to registered users, and possibly marked for deletion. Please advise. Maniadis (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. I would go ahead and nominate each for deletion. That is something you are certainly able to do on your own. Both pages are so bad that they might actually qualify for WP:SPEEDY. If not, just try a standard WP:AFD. The method to nominate each for deletion is described on those two pages. While removing maintenance tags is not vandalism in itself (unless it can somehow be proven malicious), removing deletion tags is. It's not likely that an administrator will protect the pages from non-registered users; that action is usually reserved only for high-profile pages prone to consistent vandalism. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if they, completely unreferenced and as you say seemingly self referenced COI pieces, survive the AfD nominations I just put it up for. Mfield (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

incorrect bio information of a living person

Resolved. Dispute appears to have been a misunderstanding. -epicAdam^(talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am outraged that you are putting incorrect information about me on your site, listing maiden names that have caused identity theft, publishing incorrect information about my age and family members. I am outraged that you would not give me the ability to live safely, not publish things about my family! Things about relationships that never exsisted. I want it stopped. Illeana Douglas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotid (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits look like vandalism. And now you are claiming to be Illeana Douglas. Anybody want to take this one? I'm not familiar with the actress or her impersonators or her biography. I just noticed the vandalism and reverted it. A is putting the smack down (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an article about yourself please refer to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself which gives guidance and information on contacting wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so Elaine May was mentioned because of a footnote. See I don't have familiarity with this stuff, it just looked like vandalism. my bad :) I thought the comment about Elaine May was a joke from the vandal A is putting the smack down (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Many broken links on Barack Obama page

talk 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

– checked several more links, they all appear to be working. thanks, --guyzero

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

All the Govtrack links in the table of bills Barack Obama sponsored are broken.

It is the table with this heading:

The status of Obama's bills and resolutions as noted in the below table is in accordance with thomas.loc.gov. Introduced in the Senate (IS) refers to bills pending approval in committee. Reported to the Senate (RS) refers to bills that have received favorable report in committee and may be placed on the calendar for vote. Approved by the Senate (ATS) describes bills which have gained approval.[4] Govtrack links from this column provide updated status, summaries, and full text of the bills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.175.7 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried 10 at random and they all worked for me. Perhaps govtrack was down for a bit. Is it still broken for you? --guyzero | talk 08:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)