Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 37

Notability and software related articles

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask for help on the notability policy from someone familiar with Wikipedia processes. I am very unsure what the requirements are for software topics to be notable.... or to see it from the other side what is the criteria for software topics to be deleted.

When an existing software or terminology is known within its peer group but still speedy deleted with "G11 Blatant advertising", could it be that the topic is not known in the main stream audience? Sometimes it looks like G11 is picked instead of "A7 No indication of importance", at least I can not always follow the given explanation (see Lighty_Tray). When there has not been a deletion discussion, it's unclear if it would be okay to be bold and recreate the topic because I do not have full information about the history. Wikipedia's notability policy describes that notability is distinct from fame or importance. But what does it mean in this context, does for example "significant coverage" mean that only mainstream technology projects will be listed on Wikipedia (Apache, Skype)... is a small software project with reliable 3rd party source good enough? Reading the deletion policy didn't help me to find clear guidelines. At the moment I don't see the balance between deleting existing software (Softros) and on the other hand keeping rare technology neologisms (Comet). Would be nice if someone can point me to software guidelines, thanks. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, but examining your edit record displays that you may not be being entirely honest in requesting clarification about Wikipedia rules. You seem very confident indeed when it comes to cutting/deleting information about certain software producers and their products. And in fact you also seem to be quite a crusader when it comes to people who you believe have a conflict of interest, and who you believe are engaging in Blatant Advertising or Self Promotion. You have not just warned them about their behaviour, but your have "outed" their identity. What could be the reason? Well - a pattern seems to be emerging. You seem to be relentlessly promoting a product called Pichat, whilst at the same time deleting information about competitors. Look a little more closely and it seems that the article about Pichat was recently speedily deleted for Blatant advertising and non notability. Look even more closely and your IP address is the Web Server of Pichat.com. It seems there is a Conflict of Interest here. So in these circumstances, it would not be a good idea to "Be Bold". It would be a better idea to "Be Honest". Please cease and desist from contributing to articles in which you have an interest. You know the rules about COI well enough - since you have been placing them on so many of your competitors' talk pages recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.59.248.88 (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't true and doesn't answer my question about Wikipedia policy. It looks like I stepped on your toes, could we sort this out on a talk page? I wonder most of all what I have done to upset you, secondly could you name specific cases where you are unhappy with my edits? About COI, I have tagged more articles COI lately instead of ignoring them, but none I have a personal interest in. I could be wrong in using it, any help is welcome. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of record that your IP address (until 20 October 2008) led to the Pichat.com server - even if you have altered that now. Please cease and desist from editing articles in which you and your company have a personal interest. All your editing tracks are a matter of record within Wikipedia and it is pointless trying to cover anything up. Please understand that deleting does not hide anything or affect the record of exchanges and the evidence will always be there for anyone who wishes to do the research or investigate the matter.90.59.248.88 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are angry with me and I deleted something important for you. As you might read between the lines, I am trying to be more careful with cleaning up software articles because I cannot rely any longer on information from the deletion log (yes I am guilty of taking a G11 reason literal in the past) and now trying to get more certainty about "good" software articles. I have a feeling that your comments are really about web conferencing and answered on my talk page. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

83.254...: G11 is used when an article is overly enthusiastic about promoting the product involved. In the case you point out, Lighty Tray, the most recent deletion (its second - the first was as an A7, lacking notability) was very correct, in that the article used phrases like "It's highly configurable and extremely easy to use" and other such phrases that I tend to dub 'marketspeak'... which I come across constantly in press releases. (It's even got a request to Digg the product.) Basically, what an article needs to survive is an assertion of notability, based in neutral, notable reliable sources that confirm there is independent interest for the product. If it has nothing along those lines to back it up, then it's likely to be deleted either as a speedy deletion or through discussion. As for the comments of 90.59.xx here, do note that we have conflict of interest guidelines to consider, if you are a representative of a company. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like when articles are marked G11 this could mean things like "not enough references", "the tone is not appropriate", "more content than it deserves", "comes from marketing zombie". The reason that G11 is popular could be that 1/ that there is too much self advertising going on (I am guessing that admins need a fast way to handle the constantly flow of incoming junk) and 2/ CSD does not offer A7 for software articles (e.g. Lighty Tray was formally wrongly deleted and whoever edited the second article didn't do it a favour). I think the later was why I came here, some articles that I looked into survived with a tender cleaning-up (Coretomic, Colayer) others got the "can-mean-a-lot" G11 (Axisoft, Cutrope). Right now I don't see the balance, maybe clear software notability guidelines and a wider range of deletion reasons/labels would help. Thanks for the help Tony Fox. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A possible edit war brewing

--AndrewHowse (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 – Moved to talk page per advice given

Hi all,

I've got a problem with an article I watched for a while, then majorly edited. Another user, Jyoti buet, keeps reverting the page Government Laboratory High School to a previous copy, which I don't feel reads as well as mine and contains lots of random bits and bobs on it. I've tried to explain why I'm doing what I'm doing to the page to this user on his talk page, but he hasn't responded. I'm getting bored of reverting the page now ... is there anything more I can do!? --LookingYourBest (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is more than a possible edit war, it is an edit war and I cannot understand why someone on this board has not responded earlier. This kind of warring is not permitted on Wikipedia because it is very corrosive. Please stop warring and start talking. Most of the reverts by both of you are entirely without edit summary (I can see that you explained in early edits but you have now got into the habit of just reverting without comment). Communicating through edit summaries is not the best way to proceed in any case. Your post to Jyoti just addresses the removal of the tag, it does not explain any of the content issues. I agree that Jyoti has been persistently re-inserting the same material over and over, but he has posted an explanation on the article talk page on 8th September, which, so far, no one has responded to. I suggest that you engage him in discussion there and resolve you differences on the content of the article by collaboration - always the best way to end an edit war. Administrators can take action against edit warring, but there is no need for such unpleasantness if you start to talk and stop reverting. SpinningSpark 10:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is Jyoti. Thanks for the responses. I wrote on my stance 2-3 months ago perhaps. But there was no reply to that. I'm explaining my position yet again.

I believe that wikipedia is source of information. If I can give elaborate information based on any issue, then what's the problem about it. The user LookingYourBest has repeatedly edited the page. But I couldn't find any clear explanation behind it. For example he continued removing the list of students who achieved positions in S.S.C. examination's merit list. But why? Can you please explain the reason behind this edit?

There are tags named 'citation needed'. As much as I can understand, a web link is needed for the particular information. But no school(or most of them) of Bangladesh has not got any web-site. So the informations put there has got no web or internet edition. If it's the fact, then why can't we use wikipedia as a source of those informations? The sources of the data is included at the end of the article(Anushilan). Isn't it enough?

Looking for your response.Please let me know the place (if any particular place exists) where I can express my thoughts about editing in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyoti buet (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should leave a note for User:LookingYourBest on his/her talk page reminding them that you have opened a discussion at the article. On the question of citations, it is not a rule that on-line web sources have to be provided. The important thing is that the sources are reliable and verifiable. Books, newspapers, magazine articles and academic journals are all acceptable as well. Often, these can be considered rather more reliable than an internet source. Other Wikipedia articles are specifically not to be considered reliable (since anyone can be writing anything). You can, however, use a reference from another Wikipedia article in this article also. It is not always enough to just list the sources at the bottom of an article (and I see none at all in your article). Specific facts, if they are likely to be challenged, must have an in-line citation. In-line means that the reference is stated between <ref></ref> tags immediately after the fact it relates to. This will appear at the bottom of the article as footnotes if you write {{reflist}} there. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. SpinningSpark 14:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response(talk).But I haven't find any from User:LookingYourBest. —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

I think that Spinningspark has beaten me to most of my points. Basically the entire page read like an advert for the school and had a lot of biased and unreferenced information in it. When I first began editing the page, all you did was remove the tags that requested citations. Secondly I see no reason why there should be a list of people who passed an exam in the article, I don't see any other article with such info, so it just seems random to have it there. Thirdly, I re-wrote the article to make it read more clearly (or so I feel). At the end of the day, I feel the article needs citations and, if reverted to your edit, needs to be re-written. --LookingYourBest (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You should be explaining this on the talk page of the article; to Jyoti and anyone else who is interested in that article. I still see little sign of discussion on that talk page. That is what it is for and that is the best way to settle what should be in the article. There is really no reason for others to get involved at this stage. Wikipedia is all about collaboration, please try a little of that before coming here. SpinningSpark 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Still no explanation from LookingYourBest. I agree with the 'citation' factor. But I disagree with the comment on 'list'. I should tell you that(it's clearly written on the article also) it's a list of the students who got passed their S.S.C. exam having position in board's merit list, which is regarded as a great achievement. Each educational institutes have their own list of graduates who have made excellent jobs in different fields. So where's the problem about it. I don't think this page can't have the list just because of, no other school don't have this kind of list. It can be an example too. You should give a stronger reason why it should not be there. I also don't think that any re-writing is needed. Thanks. --Jyoti_buet (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page of the article 3 days before you wrote the above reply! --LookingYourBest (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with edit war

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently added factual and referenced information to the George W. Bush page, regarding a San Francisco ballot measure to name a San Francisco facility after George W. Bush. No POV is stated as you can see if you read my version. User:SMP0328. Keeps removing the relevant information. This is relevant to this article because: 1) It is a current factual event, referenced and relevant to the President, that has had National and International press coverage. 2) It is a proposition that will appear on the San Francisco, November 4, 2008 ballot. 3) It directly relates to how Bush has had impact on the community. Please review my revision, under the "Tributes" category: [[[1]]] Editor^U.S.A. TIC 22:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The main issue here is whether this particular "tribute" is important enough to warrant a mention on the main article. Just because information is sourced, that does not mean it necessarily belongs in the Wikipedia article. Most editors would consider the information such as that to be trivial. Per WP:SUMMARY, if the information is to be included somewhere, one of the subarticles would probably be best. Perhaps Criticism of George W. Bush or Public perception of George W. Bush, or another similar article. Further, it would be best to bring this discussion up on the GWB talk page first. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposition has not passed yet, and so this particular "tribute" (if one can call it that) does not belong in the main George W. Bush article. Even if it does pass, two paragraphs about it in the George W. Bush article is undue emphasis. Most facilities named for presidents get one sentence at most in the article about the president. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeating identical material across several articles

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this ever acceptable practice? I'm in dispute with an editor who's doing it, and suspect that there may be WP:SOAP or WP:COI issues. Thanks for your advice. Pondle (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be. If person A had a noteworthy argument with person B, both notable people, and the resolution was brokered by (notable) person C, then I can imagine that it might be mentioned in articles about both A and B, and possibly C too. As a matter of style, it might be that the 2 or 3 entries would be phrased differently, bu that's a relatively minor point and anyway the remedy would be copyediting rather than removal. WP:UNDUE might apply, if we're talking about Rhodri Morgan et al, but that's a content dispute and should ideally be resolved through discussion, and patience, at the relevant talk page(s). --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Valid Presidential Polls By Unregistered User

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

An unregistered user has delted vaid presidential polls from "Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008"

Here is the deletion history:

(cur) (last) 22:08, 22 October 2008 216.27.182.48 (Talk) (152,713 bytes) (→Democratic nominee vs. Republican nominee: The AP poll of likely voters overwieghted evangelicals. See http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/new-flawed-ap-poll-claims-mccain-and.html) (undo)

(cur) (last) 22:18, 23 October 2008 216.27.182.48 (Talk) (152,964 bytes) (→Democratic nominee vs. Republican nominee: Gfk poll removed again (uses too absurd Democrat-to-Republican ratio to be a credible poll; the +10 Obama Gfk poll was removed too)) (undo)

The user says: too absurd Democratic-to-Republican ratio." Then he says "the AP poll of likely voters overwieghted evangelicals." How does 216.27.182.48 possibly know that?

I didn't hear any complaints on October 7-9 when Reuters/C-Span/Zogby had only a 5pt spread, but the biased, in the tank for Obama Daily KOS had a 12 point spread!

Here is the methodology of the AP poll: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf This poll has THIRTY PAGES of documentation!!

216.27.182.48 has no basis for removing this poll and should be blocked if 216.27.182.48 perists in delting valid data.

Thank you for your review of this matter!

Edokin (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)edokin

It's a content dispute but from what I see, you're "fighting" against a couple of IP addresses who refuse to talk - try leaving messages on their talk pages to take it to the talk page, then follow WP:DR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The link provided by the IP makes it abundantly clear that this is POV pushing. The aim is probably to keep this out of the article until after the election, so most likely there will be no response on talk pages and dispute resolution is going to be too slow in this case. Of course the poll is a valid fact to add to this article. If the IP has reliable sources for the flaws in the poll, that should be mentioned too. SpinningSpark 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with a few 3RR violations at Sarah Palin

Resolved

 – per suggestion --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, This is best posted at WP:AN3, if you haven't already. That's a noticeboard dedicated to 3RR issues, whereas this is much more general in scope. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, I'm just about to move it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This entry mistakenly claims that cappuccino was invented after the 1683 battle of Vienna either by or in honor of the Blessed Marco d'Aviano. I have corrected this several times, providing references for the correction, but someone always deletes the corrections and reinstated the groundless claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.236.56 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no attempt by you to discuss the issue with the other editor, Kansas Bear either on the article talk page, their talk page or even an invitation to discuss in the edit summary. Your first action should be to discuss the issue at the article where editors are likely to be more knowledgeable, not bring it here where we likely don't know a cappuccino from a latte. Kansas Bear appears to be referencing a book specifically on the social history of coffee. I cannot get a preview of the book so am unable to tell how accurately he is representing it - you might ask him to quote to you exactly what it says. Couple of other tips; a denial by Vatican officials does not make something categorically untrue: not here on Wikipedia anyway, and you cannot delete something on those grounds. It is ok to say in the article that someone at the Vatican denied the claim, but please format it as a reference in Wiki style (see WP:CITE) if you do. SpinningSpark 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Prudence Millinery / abusive deletion

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Prudence Millinery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

hello

from movieacting

why was the article Prudence Millinery deleted ? I contest this abusive decision Prudence Millinery is very known in England and Europe she is an hat creator, has made many contributions to fashion and won awards she has designed for YSL, Vivienne Westwood, Julien Mac Donald please do investigate the resaons behind this deletion there is absolutely no reason for this very informative article to be deleted Prudence Millinery has many references in other Wikipedia all over the world

many thanks

movieacting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieacting (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. If you try to edit the page, such as here, you'll see the deletion message. In this case, admin User:Master of Puppets deleted the page for reason A7 (bio) Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person. Most likely, the page didn't explain why the person was sufficiently notable to be included here, or perhaps didn't cite sources to support that. If you haven't already, you might find it useful to read your first article, as well as the welcome messages I put on your talk page. By the way, please be careful about words like abusive; if you can't prove it was abusive then it's considered bad form to make those allegations. And, finally, please sign your posts on talk pages with 4 tilde (~) characters. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, you can ask User:Master of Puppets to copy the deleted content to a page in your userspace in order to clean it up before you re-post, if you like. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Help

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tried to create redirects for "Cott Corporation" and "Cott Corp" to go to "Cott," but apparently the pages are on the blacklist. Don't see why. Suggest you make redirects. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither one appears to be blacklisted - redirects created - but please advise if you continue to have trouble. The more details you can post, the better. Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to create a redirect to make "renquist" go to William Hubbs Rehnquist, but that was reportedly blacklisted too. Here is the message I get: "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." Is this due to a measure placed against me directly? I was blocked for 48 hours once, but the block was lifted. I've made numerous helpful redirects in the past and would like to continue doing so. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem getting the edit screen for renquist. It may be that rollbackers are exempt from the blacklist as well as admins. I don't think administrators have the ability to block you individually for page creation only (at least its not an option on the blocking form), but you might want to check that with the blocking admin to be sure. The blacklist uses some cryptic rules and often gets false positives. Your only recourse in those cases is to ask an admin to create the page for you. Drop me a note if you have trouble with any others. SpinningSpark 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE REVIEW 5W PUBLIC RELATIONS - A few users have taken it hostage

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

5W Public Relations

Over the past year, assorted gangs of Wiki users have attempted to make 5W's page completely negative and surrounded by 1 minor incident. They have created fake puppets, attemped to have the page removed 2x (failed both times) and in general hold the page hostage. Review the page from a year ago and see what they have turned it into. Please, WIKI editors review this page.

Why would a blog editor's name be relevant ? A minor controvery gets more attention than representing Sean Combs and changing his brand or the richest European ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge amount of controversy on the talk page for such a short article. You cannot expect editors here to wade through it all (you want us to go back a year?). In any case, ancient history of who said what to who is not really relevant. What is important is is there anything in the article now that should be changed and is anyone stopping you from doing it? Please specify exactly what your problem is, preferably using diffs to illustrate your point. There seems to have been a consensus reached on the page now after several socks (including you) were blocked and the COI tag has been removed. I suggest that someone closes this thread as resolved unless the OP comes back with more information. SpinningSpark 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll poetry articles

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrt to All in the golden afternoon..., Haddocks' Eyes and They told me you had been to her..., do these articles satisfy WP:N ? I know they are all from a notable work, but they contain no real-world context and are basically just copies of the poems themselves. Surely if they are to go anywhere, WikiSource would be a more appropriate medium ? Are there any policies regarding poetry quotations ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no content policy on poetry, other than the general notability requirement, but there is a guideline at Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. There is further guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#Individual poems. Whether or not they are notable, not being an expert in poetry, I don't know, but I would guess not. To establish notability independant reliable sources need to found discussion the poem itself. Clearly both the author and the book they came from are notable and should have articles. Notability for the poems is going to be much harder to establish. SpinningSpark 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Save Mart Supermarkets

Stale

Dear Sir/Madame,

Looks like we may have an edit war brewing. The Save Mart Supermarkets company overview is being abused by ill-informed and misguided individual to defame the character of the CIO for Save Mart. This is not the forum for this sort of personal attack. It is slanderous and does nothing to enhance the information regarding Save Mart nor the quality and value of the content of Wikipedia. Can you assist, perhaps lock-down the entry due for some period until this individual cools off or tires of their attack?

Thanks much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.50.101.155 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The attacks on that page seem to have now stopped over the last week so page protection is not currently required. It is policy on Wikipedia that all statements about living persons must be referenced to a reliable source and if they are not they should immediately be deleted without discussion. In future, you will get a faster response to requests for page protection by asking at the Administrators Notice Board. Likewise, requests to block disruptive users should be directed there. This page is really to help Wikipedia editors understand policy. If you feel you need libelous material permanently deleted from the page history you should see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.

Having said that, it is very noticeable that the article talk page has no discussion on it whatsioever and all the edits have been made largely without an edit summary. It strikes me that the person(s) adding the controversial material may not even have realised that they were causing a problem. Please use edit summaries, and if something is controversial, go and discuss it on the talk page first before starting a war. SpinningSpark 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Danny Maciocia

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

It appears that the wikipedia page "Danny Maciocia" has been vandalized with severe point of view today by IP address 75.152.196.70. On this persons user talk page, they have a history of vandalism, and were given a "last warning" on 03-August-2008 that they will be blocked from editing if they vandalize another wikipedia page.

I do not have the user power to block this person, and don't want to revert the many insulting edits they made today to this page, in case they want to get into an edit war. Can someone help me out to rever this page, and block this user?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boondocks37 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for the heads up. A block is not warranted at this time but I have rewarned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Add external address to 'Flowers' page

Resolved

 – Advice given. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add the following external link to your 'Flowers' page http://www.flowers.org.uk/index.htm

We are a non for profit association that promotes flowers & plants You will see from the website that this link would suit a place on the 'Flowers' page

We also have a sister site, if you think this would be relevant, could this also be added: http://tryflowers.org.uk/

Thank you flowers&plants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowers&plants (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy on external links which you can read here. After taking a quick look at your site I could not see any rules that you were in breach of, but on the other hand I saw no strong reason for including it. The bottom line is that our opinion here on this board does not really matter, this is an issue of content and it is the opinion of the editors of the page that counts. You could ask on the talk page of the article. Also the article belongs to a wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants and you can also ask there. If you don't get a response I suggest that you insert the link anyway and see what happens, you do not need anyone's permission to do this. But you will have to accept that another editor may come along and remove it - that's just the nature of the way Wikipedia works. SpinningSpark 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello (Srebrenica Massacre 'also known as Srebrenica Genocide'?)

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I just wanted to ask someone for some advice regarding my editing over at the 'Srebrenica Massacre' article (shudder if you have not heard of that one before!)

I am currently involved in a dispute over whether it is factually accurate to say that the SM 'is also known as [the] SG'; in my opinion it is clearly not (see the bottom of the article's talk page for my reasoning).

However, I have been basically told that people are simply going to revert this change (and are quite open that it is a political point). And their arguments, when they are even proffered, do not stand up to scrutiny, IMHO.

So.. can someone give some advice as to what to do here? Would be much appreciated.

Also, I received a pretty un-civil message in my inbox from one editor over this; while I'm not trying to be overly precious, can I get some advice on what to do regarding hostile editors? (I know there are written materials about this, but advice would also be appreciated).

Thanks very much. Jonathanmills (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the term 'Srebrenica Genocide' is actually referenced directly in the article to significant sources not limited to the Washington Post and the BBC. It is not used as the title of the article, it is clearly stated as a possible alternative moniker. The International Criminal Tribunal even ruled that the massacre was genocide so this is hardly a matter for debate after the fact by less informed people. I do not see that the problem is or why you are so insistent in having it removed. It seems like this has become a point of principle dispute rather that a dispute about the term itself. If the consensus is that it should stay and there are such significant references to back its inclusion then that's really the end of the matter. Mfield (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. While I thank you for your response, I believe you have the wrong end of the stick in saying that I am somehow arguing that genocide didn't happen at Srebrenica. That is not the issue at all. The issue is, *is 'the SG' a common name for the SM?*

I believe I've argued fairly convincingly that it isn't (I've added some new evidence over at the talk page). However, I have in the course of that research found a small handful of RS's which use the phrase 'the SG' and, while I do not believe for a second that fits the bill for inclusion as a 'common name', I'm prepared to let it lie.

As for the issue of consensus, surely an issue can sometimes arise about whether like-minded editors are not reaching a correct consensus? (I'm not trying to sound aggressive, or smarmy; actually I'm asking for an opinion on this one -- not whether these particular editors do or don't fit that bill, but what the thinking is if/when this arises).

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several options for dispute resolution on Wikipedia which you can read about at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have to say that this seems to me to be a small semantic disagreement, scanning over the discussion there does not seem to be any major dispute of the substantive facts. This is, of course, an emotional discussion and it appears that those closer to the events are interpreting this as some kind of cover-up or revisionism. I do not think that is actually anyones intention, but that is how it is being interpreted. I would hope that with due sympathy to the feelings of Bosnian editors, this could be resolved by discussion at the article. You are going to make someone very weary if you choose to put this through a formal process. SpinningSpark 09:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you for listening

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

dear editor--i love love wiki---the american one--so informative--well, i asked a question to wiki-que du mon-french---meaning--anyway, this wikizine stuff came on rude, arrogant, and pompous, with my little tidbit-telling me the only reason they contacted me-blah blah blah--i told them how rude they were, and that there rude pompous asses needed to take etiquette lessons--anyway, wiki-love ya doing a great job, but stay in america. those people are rude, and i just got hot under the collar---i thank you janmarie---ps still don't know the meaning in french, and to tell you the truth now, i really don't give a rats' ass---love ya--keep up the good work in the usa--thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.72.135 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that unless you log in so we can see your contributions (or if you have no login then provide us with a link to the discussion in question) we have no possible way of knowing what you are referring to. Please point us in the right direction and we may be able to help. Mfield (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that even loging in would help in this case as he appears to be saying he has posted to French Wikipedia. If so, he did not post using the same IP, there is nothing there. SpinningSpark 09:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User repeatedly makes edit but will not respond to discussion requests

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article The Energy Detective a user User:Greenasgore2 has repeatedly removed the see also link to the article about a similar device, the Cent-a-meter, giving no explanation for the removal. (e.g. [2], [3], [4] )

In my edit summary reverting the removal, I suggested seeing WP:BRD and discussing the mater, I also tried to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:The Energy Detective#See also cent a meter. I put a notice on the user's talk page also, requesting that they discuss the mater. So far they have not made any response, but persist in making the same edit.

I am trying not to edit war on this subject, my addition of the see also is purely in the spirit of "building the web." I am perfectly willing to discuss the mater if somebody thinks the link inappropriate. But I don't know how to proceed when the other party won't discuss/explain. Most of the dispute resolution procedures seem to require discussion before further action, so would like help figuring out what to do.

The item has also been removed a couple of times recently by IP address users, again without explanation and with no regard to the request for discussion. Though I have heard of sock-puppetry, I don't know how to investigate that, so no idea if those removals are relevant.

Thank you for your assistance. Zodon (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the user a caution for unexplained deletion of content without discussion. You can and should escalate that to a warning if it happens again. Mfield (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, in June 25, a user with similar name (minus the 2 at the end User:Greenasgore) remove all references to other similar devices or projects [5]. MaNiAdIs-Talk-GuestBook 23:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets can be reported to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. In case you do not know how to find it, the warning that Mfield is suggesting can be found at Template:Uw-delete3. If it occurs yet again, give a final (level 4) warning. If the user still persists, don't bother with any more warnings, just report to WP:AIV which will result in a block. SpinningSpark 09:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop Personal Abuse

Resolved

 – Advice given --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like help to stop being abused by the editor User: DJ Clayworth. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I had it pointed out that some of my edits were not notable enough. Now he reverts all of my edits and will not let me contribute. He told me not to revert my Talk Page, but then a few days later reverts the comments I made on his. Can you please help me? WikiWebbie (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are free to remove comments from your own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What should I do about his constant edits of my Talk Page and always undoing all my edits. I am considering giving up on Wikipedia. WikiWebbie (talk) 11

58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with a specific user, talking it over on their talk page, or requesting mediation, or just focusing on the content will work best. I'm sure that these will not work. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User Blueking12 inappropriately using protection templates all over his page...?

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've was patrolling around and reverting vandalism, when I came across Blueking12's talk page. It's just a big mess of protection templates, which seem to be added by himself for no apparent reason. The black padlock is visible, which usually mean not to mess around with anything on the page, as someone from the Wikimedia office is investigating something. However, the page is obviously not protected at all, because I can see the "edit this page" tab. What's going on??? — ThreeDee912(^talk/_contribs) 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a newer user, experimenting with templates and such. That kind of thing might not be to every editor's taste, but it doesn't seem to be harming the encyclopaedia. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Pollina

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Pollina is a current gubernatorial candidate in the state of Vermont, US. A new user with only one prior edit added a large amount of content [6] to Pollina's page, most of which was copied directly off of the candidate's website (see [7] and [8] for examples). I reverted this, as a blatant violation of NPOV, and warned the user. Another new user reverted the page back to the version that violated NPOV, including reverting several of my edits since [9]. I have re-reverted, and warned that user. Now a third user has come back and re-added a somewhat edited down version of the same content [10]; it looks like they were just editing the old version of the article, since they overwrote a couple other edits I did in between. Now I'm not sure what to do; I don't want to violate WP:3RR, but I think that the vast majority of the content pasted in violates the NPOV policy, as well as being copied verbatim from the campaign website. It's also looking increasing likely that these users are sockpuppets (several new accounts created for the purpose of adding the same content). Should I report these users as sockpuppets? Request the article be semi-protected? And what should I do about reverting the latest bad edit without violating the 3 revert rule? Finally, do you think it would be worthwhile to contact the Pollina campaign to let them know that someone, possibly related to the campaign, is violating the rules of Wikipedia by posting political advertising? Thanks in advance! — λ (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Page has now been semi-protected (can't be edited by unregistered editors or new accounts) - let's hope cooler heads prevail. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tammy Bruce

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked up Tammy Bruce after seeing her on television. The article refers to her resignation from Los Angeles NOW. The description in the article seemed to me odd (it said she was fired for focusing on domestic violence instead of racial issues in the OJ Simpson case). The Time magazine article cited as a reference in no way supported the article's wording. Another editor, who has admitted working for Tammy Bruce, has repeatedly reverted my edit. My last edit included both the Time article, which said that Bruce was censured for making racially insensitive comments, and a reference to Bruce's book, which her employee says gives her POV that she was fired for focussing on domestic violence. Another editor, who seems to have extensive Wikipedia experience, has agreed with me. Three(?) other editors, who have only contributed to the Tammy Bruce page, insist on including only Tammy Bruce's version of events. Help...

Sounds like Living persons info can help.

The most important rule for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) is that unsourced material MUST be removed immediately without discussion. SpinningSpark 10:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Need English/Chinese-fluent editor with knowledge of Chinese medicine

Resolved

 – advice given --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know--this is gonna be a tough one. Here's the problem: Traditional Chinese medicine. I have commented out an entire section in the middle of the article because--well, here's an example. The entire section is full of stuff like this:

*Luo Shibiao: In the early 1960s, Lysenkoism the function of Qi (1962).

• Qin Bomo: In the late 50s was 'the material of Qi Lysenkoism'. in 1959? .
• The Qi was unifies the field Lysenkoism
  • Huang Kunyi et al: the human body that the Qi field hypothesis.
  • Lee Xiao et al: that the Qi's entropy flow assumption.
  • Wu Banghui: Qi, Lysenkoism the order parameter.

To the average English-speaking reader, that makes ZERO sense. What this article, and particularly this section, needs is someone who is fluent in English and in Chinese, who also has knowledge of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The whole article needs a proper going-over; as it stands, it's practically a candidate for speedy deletion for being incomprehensible, contextless nonsense. (No, I wouldn't actually try to have the article deleted--but in its current condition, it's useless.) Any substantive assistance would be greatly appreciated. Gladys J Cortez 08:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gladys, you may have better luck posting this in a place that sees more eyes, like AN or ANI. An alternative option would also be to seek out one of the translators at Category:Translators zh-en and asking for their help. GlassCobra 19:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have the Chinese source material available, you can request a new translation here. SpinningSpark 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with Spammer who is now vandalising pages

Resolved

 – user blocked --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User User:Ebeing has been spamming various pages including Solar hot water and HVAC with commercial links to sites he is involved with, and recently received a 24 hour suspension for spamming. Now the user is vandalising pages by blanking entire references and external links sections, often with several edits to prevent simple reverts. I can't do rollbacks, so I don't know what to do about this. Can somebody help please? Charlie Tango (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User seems to be engaged in a WP:POINT campaign - removal of entire reference and external link sections. Has some talk messages now explaining that what he/she is doing is wrong. Further deletions at this point would merit strong warnings for content deletion. Mfield (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has been warned, and have not resumed the behavior. If they DO resume, we can institute further sanctions, but we should at least give them the chance to behave properly. Thank you Mfield for the warning. If the problems return POST-warning, please leave a detailed history of the events at WP:ANI and I, or another administrator, will handle it as needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up, user is now falling foul of WP:SPAM and WP:COPYVIO by creating a promotional entry for a company Grus_Construction_Personnel he/she is presumably involved in. The page has been speedied for both reasons and I have placed warnings about that. I have also reinstated some of the deleted external links from the Solar hot water article, although not all, as User:Ebeing was actually correct that some of them would certainly be considered commercial and inappropriate. Mfield (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: Ebeing has been blocked 48 hours for continued spamming. If problems continue, post again at WP:ANI and additional blocks of escalating length may be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

War of Words

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is misinformation on these pages. we are concerned about the expanded linkage of these two ethnic groups on your encyplodia site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamasee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guale

Yamasi People are being physically, economically, sexually, and politically attacked by casino corporations. We suspect that information about us is being misrepresented on the internet for commercial/political reasons. We also have Universities altering information to keep us from questioning their treatment of our ancestors' remains. If wikipedia cannot mediate this accurately, please take the pages down. Right now wikipedia is just another instrument of war against Yamasi People.

We tried to click on 'edit' but it doesn't work. We could go over the misinformation in detail with an editor or through some system that works. But essentially, each statement needs one or two references from a publicly available print publication to be on the pages.

Lori Johnston

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.127.61 (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

removed personal information

I have checked the pages, and they are not protected. If you cannot edit them it must be a problem with the configuration of your internet browser. I have included links to the pages, clicking in any of this, it should bring you into edit mode... Yamasee Talk:Yamasee, Guale, Talk:Guale. Before you start editing, make sure you read some of the basic informations about Wikipedia policies, WP:COI, Your first article, Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view... MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

reverting the article back and forth

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the 26 edits of mixed-signal integrated circuit from 02:48, 10 September 2008 to 14:25, 29 October 2008 (the current version) involve reverting the article back and forth to one or the other of 2 previous versions of the article.

Apparently some people prefer one definition, and other people prefer the other definition. It seems a violation of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability to delete the definition supported by published references, and to keep only the definition not supported by any references.

Should I revert -- again -- the article back to the version that seems, to me, to have a more neutral point of view, and seems to be more verifiable?

That feels like I'm violating the spirit of WP:3RR.

What else can I do? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you've done the most important thing already: start a discussion on the talk page. Now the first stumbling block is: what to do if they don't join you there? Well, if they revert your change in the article without joining you in discussion on the talk page, politely remind them of that on their user talk page. Point them to the talk page and ask them to bring their ideas to the page where you can dialog. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The secret to avoiding WP:3RR, and the one that is hardest for people to do, is to leave the wrong version visible. If the people ignore your repeated requests, left at their talk page, to join you in a civil discussion over improving the article, then seek outside help in the form of a request for comment or third opinion. Wikipedia has no deadline, and if it takes a few days to establish a consensus version of the article, then that's OK. It's much more destructive to the encyclopedia to edit war than it is to leave an imperfect article for a few days, and to bring in help in fixing it. Once several editors have weighed in due to 3O or RFC, then a consensus will likely develop pointing to which way to go. Once it is clear that one party is acting in contravention of consensus, it is easier for admins to block them (and not BOTH) sides in a dispute. As a last resort, you could also ask for the article to be protected at WP:RFPP. It would force users to use the talk page, which is what we want in a dispute! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving a message for this guy is going to be next to impossible as he is IP hopping. He needs to go to the talk page but there is no sign he has ever looked at it or reads the edit summaries. The only thing he looks at is the article. I'm going to try hidden text in the article, maybe that will get him talking. SpinningSpark 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

abusive editor

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For the past month or so, Ward3001 and I have been engaged in a fight of sorts. My apologies for not being able to figure out a more-correct way to get this resolved; I've searched for several hours trying to find some way to figure it out, but it's beyond me.

It started when he began an edit-war, insisting on adding a piece of irrelevant information to an article, while I insisted on keeping it off. After having several warnings and accusations thrown at me (most of them unjustly, and the majority of those describing his own actions rather than mine), I finally lodged a 3rr complaint, having no idea how to report the majority of the abuses and being lucky to find even that much. The official response was that we were both edit-warring, with no further action about the attacks. In the meantime, an RFC was posted and so far has ruled that the information he wants to add is indeed irrelevant.

Not long after that, Ward3001 began deleting relevant information from the same article, claiming that the information was uncited as his reason for deletion. Since he knows exactly what to do and where to go to cite the information he deleted, he has either displayed a distinct lack of knowledge on the article's topic, or merely decided to start up another war. This kicked off another edit-war, which I tried to avert by discussing it with him, but he preferred to have the war, choosing to again falsely accuse me of starting a war. This one didn't go to the point of me having to lodge an official complaint, but only just.

Now today, someone re-added the aforementioned irrelevant information, and then when it was deleted, he restored it. When I re-deleted it in accordance with the RFC, he restored it again, forcing me to delete it again. He then began again to pelt me with false accusations and antagonize me, which naturally enough led to me fighting back.

On the other hand, he has kept a few malicious vandals at bay, and occasionally provided some help to me, or otherwise been sensible. There are times when I feel like he is making a (small) effort to teach me how to use more wiki features and improve my familiarity with the rules, so I decided to assume he meant well, but then he goes and ignores the rules he bludgeons me with, refusing at nearly every step to try to come to some sort of agreement, preferring to impose his will and threaten me with banning, and to hell with anyone who disagrees or wants to come to a common consensus. It bewilders me how he can be useful - helpful even - one minute, and then spend the rest of the time performing acts that border on vandalism or ruffianism.

I'm tired of getting picked on and being threatened, and I can't see any way to stop it; wikipedia either doesn't have any way to deal with people like this, or hides it well. So my questions to you are these: how do I get him to stop picking fights, to stop throwing rules at me that he doesn't even follow, and stop accusing me of the "crimes" he commits?

I apologize for the sheer ridiculousness of this, but it is a ridiculous series of events that looks to be spiraling out of control, and I'd like to arrest it before it does that.

The article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Chabert

Also see the Discussion page for that article

Also see our respective Talk pages

The 3rr complaint has since scrolled out of the list, with its non-3rr-related questions unresolved, but you can find it within the past month's scroll-backs.

Wontonkok (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the bad feeling there does seem to be getting out of hand. My advice is to go edit another article for a while. Stay away from this one, and any other that Ward3001 is editing, at least until things have cooled down. Now you may not like what I am going to say next, and I know that there has been incivility on the part of Ward3001, but many of the rules he's been "throwing at you" are very important ones on Wikipedia. Most important is Biographies of living persons, which says,

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

This is to protect both the subject of the article and Wikipedia. It is not subject to debate.

Just a final piece of advice. When asking for others to intervene in a dispute please keep it short and simple, you will get a faster response if we don't have to wade through pages of debate to get to the point. Link to the article in question at the top and provide diffs to any specific complaints. If it looks too hard to deal with, many people will just move on to something easier and you will get no answer. SpinningSpark 12:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that WAS short. The sheer volume of incidents required what appeared to be excessive detail.

In the first major incident, he felt that simply because the information was sourced that it was relevant, as if one single action defined a person, and I argued that until more such things started happening, it would be irrelevant. By the same token, I could not fairly put a label on Ward3001 from just the one incident, nor establish a pattern of behavior. Therefore, the quoted passage you provided didn't really apply; it was sourced, it just wasn't relevant. That the wording wasn't neutral was beside the point, but I think that much has been worked out.

In the second major incident, the information had been there and anyone who knew the subject matter would know that it was true and where to go to verify it, the only thing missing was an actual, official reference. The information was there long before either of us came along, so why it suddenly had to go, I couldn't determine, but at least I convinced him to clue me in on how to add the info he thought was needed. Again, your quote doesn't seem to apply, because it's known-true information to anyone who knows the subject, no different than a blind person accepting that the sky is blue, it's just that the link to IMDB (the source) wasn't in the list of references. For now, it looks like this particular issue is resolved, but I'm sure it's going to come up again if I start adding additional information, and I'd rather not have another edit-war break out.

Wontonkok (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Help Define "Mormon Fundamentalist"

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Big Love begins with the statement that the show is "about a family of Mormon Fundamentalists". I have tried to get that wording changed on the grounds that it is inaccurate. My argument is that the family in the show (the Henricksons) clearly does not agree with many MF precepts and has a very dissimilar lifestyle -- with the notable exception that they practice polygamy.

User:Good_Olfactory strongly disagrees. Although he agrees that the "fundamentalist" characterization lacks logic, he considers its widespread use to override my argument. To bolster this opinion, he's added a number of citations to the opening statement that "prove" his point.

My reaction to this is that this is a simplistic misuse of citations. Repeated misuse of a term doesn't make the usage any less a sign of ignorance. Good_Olfactory rejects this argument, and basically we're not getting anywhere.

I think what I'm hoping for is backup for my argument that Good_Olfactory is misusing citations. But if you disagree with me on that point, by all means, chime in.

(Much heated discussion already available on Talk:Big Love, of course.) Isaac R (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that much of the discussion is about what a Mormon Fundamentalist is and why it should or should not be included. This appears to be original research or opinion, all that is needed is a reliable source that states that the fictional family are or are not fundamentalists. The fact that users think they are/are not is not really relevant to WP:V MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my (initial) "solution" to the issue. I selected 3 sources from a number that are available and included them as footnotes. I thought this would (and should) largely resolve the issue, but it hasn't ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's where you and I differ. You consider those references to be evidence that "Mormon Fundamentalist" is an acceptable way to refer to the Henricksons. I consider them to be merely evidence of sloppy writing by journalists who probably don't have a clue as to exactly what "Mormon Fundamentalist" means. I could show you similar reviews of TV shows and movies that assert that Never Cry Wolf (film) takes place in Alaska (it's really Canada) and that the 82nd Airborne is a branch of the Air Force. When making an attribution, you have to consider the quality of the source. An attribution from somebody who doesn't know what they're taking about is meaningless.

In a way, I'm grateful to you for obstructing the change, because it's forced me to think carefully about the way attributions are misused on WP. (And elsewhere, by people who consider WP to be a model of "correct" reasoning.) This has bothered me for a long time, but I haven't been motivate to think through an argument against it. Isaac R (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Assistance Please:

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

I had been editing an article on Battle of Longewala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Longewala).

I tried to make some edits with the aim to increasing neutrality and factual correctness of article and at the same time making it respectful for the soldiers of both state parties involved, but everytime I make edits the same would be deleted by an IP user and a highly skewed POV would be inserted.

I have posted explanations for why I made the amendments and polite but detailed response for the person deleting the edits but to no avail.

I wish to request that an administrator may please have a look at the article in question and help sort out this situation.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcacitizen (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the text you deleted is a bit POV. I think that you should post on the article talk page explaining why you deleted it so that other editors get a chance to comment, including the one who reverted you. Then just leave it for a while to see what the consensus is. Resist the temptation to keep reverting the article back to YOUR version while this is happening. It is much more important to reach consensus than stopping the article being wrong for a few days. There is really no need for anyone else to get involved at this point, it has not got to the stage of an edit war and you should be able to sort it out amongst yourselves. SpinningSpark 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentences that Rcacitizen is removing are not only biased in language, but also unsourced. So he is right to remove them. I've warned the IP user about adding unsourced and biased statements. VG ☎ 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

These statements are from a book and i did not edit them im just maintaining the article hes adding the new unsourced additions please open your eyes 86.158.236.85 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Then cite your sources before anyone can begin to really discuss this with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The initial unsourced edit was made by the well-known POV pusher and trouble maker mrg3105 (the IP user made this fact know to me on my talk page). If you doubt the "credentials" of mrg3105, look here. VG ☎ 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Lewis

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The wiki ntry for Robert J. Lewis, editor at Arts & Opinion (see user page), was disqualified by Edgar. I would like you to review his decision. Thanking you in advance, Artsandopinion (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

I do not understand what you mean by "disqualified by Edgar". User:Edgar has had nothing to do with you, now or in the past, as far as I can tell. User:Edgarde has previously warned you not to insert "spam" links in articles and not to make your user page look like an article. He does not, nor does anybody, have the power to reject an article in advance. We can however, advise you that an article might not be a good idea. In this case, he is right, it is not a good idea, if you are indeed Rober J. Lewis yourself or are connected with him. Wikipedia discourages this because it is almost impossible to write a neutral article about yourself. The guideline is at WP:COI which I strongly urge you to read. If you are truly notable someone will eventually write an article on you. You can always try making a request for an article at WP:RA but there is no guarantee that anyone will take up the suggestion. Please also note that there is already an article on a different Robert J. Lewis, please make sure that you do not overwrite it. Also, one minor thing, your username should be changed as it is in breach of the username policy and could get you blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 13:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronnie Nader article dispute

Resolved

 – taken to talk page --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently in doubt of how to solve an article dispute. The article in question is Ronnie Nader. The whole discussion is documented on the talk page Talk:Ronnie Nader, here I give my version of the events:

• I had doubts on the credibility and relevance of the article in question, so I started a discussion on the talk page about this.
• With two other users, we reached (in my opinion) a consensus on how to best redact the article and avoid non-credible or controversial sources. The relevant threads are Talk:Ronnie_Nader#Four_Day_Training and Talk:Ronnie_Nader#Four_Day_Training. After some time, I proceeded to edit the article along those lines.
• User User:Airwolf754 apparently took exception with my edit, and started reverting the changes.
• I asked User:Airwolf754 to please refrain from editing the article and discuss his arguments on the talk page.
• The objections he made I responded to on the talk page.
• User:Airwolf754 refused to continue the discussion after my reply, preferring instead to make insults and threats.
• Seeing he was not willing to engage in rational discussion, I reverted his changes.
• Which he reverted back.
• As did I, after asking him on the talk page to please try and reach a consensus before further editing.
• Which he again reverted, and the page is now protected.

All of this is documented on the talk page Talk:Ronnie Nader. My question is: In case that User:Airwolf754 should remain unwilling to engage in discussion about how to best redact the article, how can this conflict be resolved avoiding further edit wars?

Thanks a lot. -Hilbert137 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

This article was already checked for sources and content by Rillian on August 2008, and also article was created by MBK004 and i contributed as also did Digirami

I have provided extensive evidence involving official Ecuadorian and Russian government documents and videos, Hilbert137 is just refusing to acknowledge the documents and cites dubious/obscure one-page sources against dozens of documents, twisting everything in his argument's favor.

I request that Hilbert137 IP is compared to edits made by some Guillermosoriano, in order to establish if they are the same, also looks like user Hilbert137 was created on 25 October 2008, at 14:47 just almost the same time as Guillermosoriano intervention, just with the purpose of editing the article and it registers no other contribution to Wikipedia.

It looks to me that they are the same, please investigate this.

I'm citing just a few OFFICIAL references about the case here, again:

Official acknowledgment for Cmdr Nader's position and work, both from the President and from the Air Force General Commander, and IN PUBLIC.

http://es.truveo.com/Reconocimiento-presidencial-al-primer-astronauta/id/1583828426

Presenting his work on the Official commission on the Foreign Ministry http://www.exa.ec/bp13/ http://www.vcea.ec/paginas/seminario.html

And in to the Air Force http://www.exa.ec/bp9/

Even his training suite is displayed on the National air museum: http://www.exa.ec/bp14/

The creation of the first 0G plane in latin america: http://www.exa.ec/bp16/index-en.html

The World Record in microgravity: http://www.exa.ec/bp19/index-en.html

And for the "4-day training" lie: here is the whole ASA/T training program with all their phases, a 16 month training program, with all the videos, results and photos. http://exa.ec/programa-asat.htm

And AGAIN, the official communique from the Russian Ministry of foreign affairs: http://www.mid.ru/ns_publ.nsf/ca618d5746fee68cc32571f4002a5d7c/4ac98c9a8bbf9a17c325730500297e20?OpenDocument

This is the man that Hilbert137 insist in call a "tourist", a few more references from other sources:

http://www.ecuadorciencia.org/contenido.asp?id=4750 http://prensaespacial.blogspot.com/2008/10/entrevista-ronnie-nader-bello.html http://www.astronaut.ru/as_ecuad/text/nader.htm?reload_coolmenus http://www.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=117690&id_seccion=12 BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_7595000/7595080.stm http://www.ipmsguayaquil.com/noticias/gravedad%200/gravedad_cero.htm http://www.tvecuador.com/index.php?option=com_reportajes&view=reportaje&id=785 http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11118299 Ecuadorian Defense Ministry: http://www.midena.gov.ec/content/view/6068/209/ http://www.estudiantes2000.com/links/home/foro_UEES/foro_uees.html http://www.programaespacial.com/nueva/indextest.php?category=28

Let's resolve this in the most unbiased and fair manner, as Wikipedia users deserve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airwolf754 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you make a request for comment to gain a wider view on the dispute it may help to also ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight for more opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I will detail the main objections against the current version of the article here. Note that the following is the result of discussions with Digirami and Guillermosoriano documented here. I apologize beforehand for the length of this reply.

First the criticism: the main problem with the article as presently redacted is the dubious credibility of some of the sources mentioned. Further, two sources do not match up with what the article claims: (the sources are numbered with respect to the latest version of the article)

The 1st source 1 seems problematic for the following reasons at least:

• Conflict of Interest: Mr. Nader (according to the article as presently redacted) is head of the organization responsible for the webpage.
• A collection of dubious and unsourced claims such as "starts pioneering research in artificial intelligence in Ecuador, in 1991, designs and develops the first hybrid, multi-building, fiber optic, mainframe-to-client-server banking architecture in Latin America. The following year he designed and built Ecuador's first TCP/IP client server network [..] Mr. Nader began research in Astrobiology and designed Latin America's first internet-to-fax and internet-to-beeper interfaces. The next year he designed and developed Ecuador's first internet commerce platform".
• Dishonest description of Mr. Naders scientific work: "He is ranked #3577 over 373.733 scientists around the world, within the 1% more distinguished and over the 99% of world's scientist, due to his scientific work and achievements", further listing unpublished work of dubious character, such as "Complexity at works on the LQG description of a discrete space-time manifold to form higher level differentially geometrical structures such as quarks."

If the claims made on that page were indeed verifiable, there would be no problem finding third party sources backing up the assertions made there. This other sources should then replace 1 as primary source. Further, the relevance and credibility of EXA as a space agency seems to me still controversial.

The 3rd source is a scanned newspaper article 3 hosted on the same website of Mr Naders EXA organization. The problems with it are

• Conflict of interest, since the picture is hosted on Mr Nader's EXA website.
• The claims made by the newspaper are exactly the same as the ones made by Mr Nader's bio page 1, which are verifiable nowhere else on the internet. The "Advanced Suborbital Astronaut Trained (ASA/T)" degree is also mentioned, on this see below. It looks like the newspaper just took the contents of Mr Naders bio page and reprinted them on good faith. See above as to why I think relying on 1 as primary source is at least naive.

The 4th source is 4 (Google Translation 4b). It does indeed describe Mr. Nader receiving some sort of training from the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, but does not specify what kind of training exactly. Further, searching for "Advanced Suborbital Astronaut Trained (ASA/T)" degree on Google gives no result (search), apart from documents talking explicitly about Mr Nader, most of them referring, again, to his own bio page 1. The mention of such an ASA/T degree on the article seems to me therefore irrelevant. Note that to this objection, Airwolf754 replied with "I don't expect a simple person like you will understand the intricacies of inter-agency relationships" (see talk page )

The 5th source given is 5, the full page is here (Google Translation 5b). The sources used by astronaut.ru editors to compile that article are listed here. Note that all of them - except for spacefacts, discussed below - only mention the fact that Mr. Nader is a space tourist on a program operated by Space Adventures. The same website astronaut.ru lists him as such, see here.

The 6th source given is 6. It is easily seen to contain the same dubious information as Mr. Naders own bio page 1, repeating suspicious claims such as "he designed and developed Ecuador's first internet commerce platform. In 1999 and 2003 respectively, designed and developed Ecuador's first and second generation "intelligent houses"". A simple google search returns nothing of the sort (here or here).

The 10th and 11th sources given are 10 and 11. 11 only asserts that Nader received the official shirt of some youth event, 10 reports that Nader received an award from some youth climate change organization. None of them mention any "Ecuadorian Government medal Example of youth". The only other mention of Nader receiving such a medal I could find on the internet is on the spanish wikipedia version of this same page! Further, there are no sources given for the "Honored citizen, Riobamba, 2007" claim.

In the end, it was concluded that the article should only describe Mr Nader as the first ecuadorian space tourist, as documented in this press release from Space Adventures, which talks specifically of Mr. Nader participating in the Space Adventures Suborbital Spaceflight Program. It was decided that this was the only non-controversial credible source referring to Mr Nader as a spaceflight participant of some sort. The whole discussion on this can be found here.

Please address the arguments raised here without resorting to threats or name calling so that we may reach some sort of consensus.

Regards, -Hilbert137 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is not the place to repeat you content dispute this page is to ask for help not to further your discussions. As I have suggested above one or other of you need to make a request for comment to gain a wider view. And to repeat myself it may help to also ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight for more opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the text was only intended to inform about the dispute. I have copied the text to the talk page article's talk page, further discussion will be done there. Following your suggestion I have requested comment from the Spaceflight Wikiproject here. Regards, --Hilbert137 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks and false claims

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On this page Talk:Motorcycle_club, User:Proxy User is attempting to discredit my opinions by making false claims about me. I'm at a loss as to what to do about it. It's particulary odd since I have not yet expressed an opinion about the topic under discussion.War (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You and Proxy User have a rather lengthy and heated discussion on this page. Which specific statements of his are "false claims about me"? Isaac R (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable person, and would be perfectly happy to "leave War alone", but it works both ways. Yes, yes, I know - it's childish. But User:War is not a totally "innocent" party here. War has done his share of "attack" posting in different articles discussions for articles we have both edited. I'm willing to walk away from it - a cool down, if you will. Proxy User (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer you question precisely Issace. This remark posted by User:Proxy User pretty much sums it up, "So you are a Bandido Associate. This makes it a conflict of interest for you to edit that article. Are you as well a member of the Washington National Guard? Do your superiors know of your gang associations? Proxy User (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)"

First off, I'm not even sure what a "Bandido Associate" is. How often do I have to meet with members of the Bandidos MC to be an associate? Would it help to know that I've not spoken with a single member of any MC in approximately 18 months? Why?..I've been busy with other things is all. It certainly won't stop me from crossing paths many times in a future. I also happen to know a couple people in the Hells Angels MC. I don't coorespond with them on a regular basis but I have no doubt that I'll cross paths with them in the future also. It's the circle I live in and that is all there is to it. What that makes me is 'highly informed' editor. See, one thing that's difficult for regular citizens to understand is that the vast majority of the information about motorcycle clubs is undocumented. It takes a person like me that has the ability to find out information to get at the information. I don't know why User:Proxy User finds this so threatening.

Concerning the Washinging National Guard. I proudly served this country for 7 years. Among other things I recieved an Army Commendation Medal. I'm not currently in the National Guard but I'm very proud of what I accomplished while in service. I find it particularly offensive for him to associate anything negative with my 'association' with the US Army.War (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the Commendation Medal, I've got two of them myself, nice reward for service. Anyway, you're far from an "innocent party". Let's not forget, you've "attacked" me on numerous occasions. But as I said above, I'd more than likely let it drop.

These users have been battling for (at least) several months. I've tried using 3RR against these users; War respected it, Proxy User didn't and so he was blocked for a short time. (also see my user talk for some comments on this). What's really needed is for BOTH users to cease fire on any motorcycle club-related topics and especially reverts to each others' contributions. Tedder (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither I nor User:War have reverted any of either User's edits since that time. Also, your block of me was questionable because you blocked me for editing a part of the article that was not in dispute at the time. Proxy User (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tedder. Please review every edit I've made (very few and very minor) since the dispute. You will see that I've been doing exactly as you suggest. I don't even know why User:Proxy User brought up my name in the talk page. He's suggesting that I shouldn't edit. I think the last edit I made was a vandalim a couple months ago. Before that was a copyright issue with an image. Before that was minor correction in July? I'm not the one going crazy with edits.War (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

War- you are right. I went and reviewed your edits, they are mostly to rv vandalism and normal things like that. Tedder (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I "gone crazy" with edits. I've reverted a few vandalisms, added some new but minor information. Which "crazy" edits do you speak of? I don't know why you're going after me here, but it's not warranted. Proxy User (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone reading this thread to look at Proxy_User's recent contribs. Go read some of the talk page discussions, see the comments for reverts and edits to pages (even outside of motorcycle club/gang areas) and draw a conclusion. Tedder (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tedder, what does any of this have to do with you? Are you now User:War's proxy?

It seems I'm to be "ganged up on". User:Tedder and User:War don't like my opinions, so they wish to try to drum me out of Wikipedia. Lovely. Interesting, though, none of this nonsense that Tedder and War have been bringing up concerning my editing have anything to do with War's original complaint here. Is this all just a smoke screen to have me banned for opinions they object to? Probably so. And totally without merit.

I'm done responding to their aggression, I'm going back to enjoying Wikipedia, and editing a few articles as they interest me. User:Tedder and User:War should do the same. Proxy User (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, Proxy, and I don't know who War is, I'm just tired of seeing you squabble over edits and over discussions on talk pages. War has dialed it back. You haven't. Like I said, I invite those reading this discussion to look at your recent contribs and note the pattern of disruptive editing and reverts to pages. Here are some examples: 1 2 3. It looks like many of Proxy_User's edits are bringing up the quality of Wikipedia, but there is certainly a trend of disruptive behavior. Tedder (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're off-course here. You're opening up areas not brought to the table by User:War in this forum, areas that to date no one but User:War has bitched about. No one involved with any other articles besides User:War and you have made any stink about me in recent time. This tells me that the problem is not me, it's you and User:War. Why not back off and go back to editing Wikipedia, instead of trying to string me up? Proxy User (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Proxy User's remarks here accurately demonstrates the issue that I'm trying to deal with. His repeated personal attacks make Wikipedia and incredible unpleasant place. And User:Tedder's excellent examples: 1 2 3. (which there are many more) furthur demonstrate that he attacks just about anyone that disagrees with him. What, if anything, can be done?War (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not guilty of anything other than common run-of-the-mill disagreements over article content, there is not a lot to be done, except accept that you don't always prevail because you don't WP:OWN the articles you edit. Proxy User (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Stale

 – user blocked --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried unsuccessfully to edit this particular page on Wikipedia only to have it changed back and then I was blocked due to vandalism.

My issues with this entire page is the author of this book Blood Done Sign My Name is he promoting his book with the use of this site.

Here are the main details that I need to discuss and make sure you are aware of. The book Blood Done Sign My Name written by the Author Timothy Tyson is not a true memoir that he claims it to be. This book has been misrepresented from the very first page. The sources the author has in the back of the book have been incorrectly misrepresented.

I myself have a website www.timothybtyson.com that clearly shows some of the untrue issues the author writes about in this book.

When I edited the wiki page I inserted a sentence For the truth about Blood Done Sign My Name see references Tim Tyson Exposed. And I added a link at the reference section.

It is my understanding Wiki is not to be used to promote anything. The author of this wiki page is promoting His book Blood Done Sign My Name and also Promoting the movie that is suppose to be released in 2009.

I have my own personal reasons for asking that this page to be deleted. I am one of the people the author has written about in this book.The author has lied in his book and continues to lies with no facts to back it up. Something that I do have on my website. Please respond with a reasonable resolution to this problem.Ssakcaj (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know much about the book or the author, but I have to say that it is difficult for me to take your word as a serious statement after carefully reading your username. Trying to be fresh, and get others to take you seriously? MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As an update, User:Ssakcaj has been blocked temporarily for vandalism, and since then a series of similar edits have been made by User:Rd4u (all of which have been reverted by other editors). --Russ (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's suspicious/obvious enough that I have filed a sockpuppet report. Mfield (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was blocked permanently because of the username that violates wikipedia policy, and he made an attempt to place a rename template in his talk page, to change to Pliqueajour. So if he created a new account, I do not think that this qualify as a sockpuppet case. The vandalism is another story though. MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I note the block for the username, but there was a block for vandalism on the same edits that User:Rd4u had taken up so it seems to still meet the criteria of 'using one or more accounts abusively'. There was no disclosure or linking of the accounts via talk. Mfield (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, the edits you refer to happened before the permanent block, and therefore they are defenately qualify for sockpuppetry... MaNiAδIs-τάλκ-GuεστBooκ 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert war developing on Morton Feldman

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user (always from the same IP address) keeps adding Carl Swanholm to a list of "notable" students of composer Morton Feldman. Swanholm does not have a Wikipedia article, so is not "notable" as defined at Wikipedia. The anonymous user has made no other contributions to Wikipedia besides the repeated insertion of this link. It has usually been me reverting the change, but several users have reverted it as well. This has gone on for some days now. The user has been warned repeatedly (by other editors, not me) at User talk:76.94.130.32 What's the next step...? SethTisue (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the user has had a final warning so further addition would merit a block - the correct procedure at that point would be to report the IP at AIV. Mfield (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The anon's last contribution has been reverted and has been reported on AIV. --Russ (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. SethTisue (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there is some misunderstanding here, Wikipedia does not define notability as having a Wikipedia article. It is quite possible to be notable and not have an article (yet). It may well be that you are right anyway and that this student is still not notable (I havn't looked for sources). SpinningSpark 18:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The ban has expired and the same user is back and still making the same edit over and over again. So I must ask for help again. (Spark: I've checked and I don't think Swanholm is notable. I could find nothing on the net except self-promotion. Anyone's free to contest this on the talk page, of course.Also, several other editors seem to agree with me; I'm not the only one who was reverted the anon edits.) SethTisue (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Resolved

 – advice given --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Experienced Wikipedia Editor,

We need assistance in determining what is required for us to do to have the comments removed from the posting 'Magnetic immunoassay'.

The following comments were generated although we feel that the posting complies with the Wikipedia guidelines:

This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merging, or deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This article has been tagged since October 2008. The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (October 2008)

Can you please provide us with feedback/input that will help us to modify the article to comply and thus have the comments removed?

Thank you for your assistance,

Clay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.25.158 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If this notice seems confusing to you, and the policy pages it links to (follow the blue links on the original page) aren't helping, let me reduce it down to some very simple concepts. In order for an article to exist at Wikipedia, it needs to demonstrate notability. To do this, it must cite sources which are reliable sources, such as newspapers, books, peer-reviewed journals, etc. Those sources must also, besides being reliable, be independent from the subject of the article they support, and they must actively and extensivly cover the subject (not just mention it in passing). If getting these notices is bothering you, you may want to read Your First Article and work on collecting references FIRST before you create the article, so that the article you create is compliant from the first... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Resolved

 – advice given --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been attempting to add an entry into the USS Liberty incident page and I am being reverted incessantly by the same two persons. Since I have already commented on why I need help, I am reproducing my complaint here:

The most important comment I can make is that this is not an edit war, it is a concerted effort to censor any mention of comments by Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAGC, Ret, the chief Navy attorney for the 1967 U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack, from being shown on the USS Liberty incident page. Two people, Narson and Jayjg , have been removing an entry I have carefully vetted. The Findings of the Moorer Report, with no copyright notice whatsoever, is located here.

Some History:

1) The original discussion involved the assertion that the entry was a WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE violation, yet repeated requests by myself and one request by User:CasualObserver'48 for an explicit explanation of how the entry is a violation has been summarily ignored, primarily by Jayjg who simply deletes entries.

2) Of particular interest to you should be how User:CasualObserver'48's original request for clarification was removed from the Discussion Page at the point in which he entered it. I had to go back through the archives to retrieve the request and I reprinted it. I also identified myself as the one who reprinted it. You see, someone removed it and I was unable to find out who did so. Who had the ability, not to mention audacity, to remove a request for information? Whoever did that should be removed from Wikipedia forever.

3) In my many attempts to satisfy repeated deletions of the entry, I have quoted a) the Congressional record, b) Statements made by persons who submitted Affidavits for the report and c) the report itself. In all cases the entry is removed for the flimsiest of reasons. Note that if the person removing the entry was performing his/her due diligence, then the entry would be modified by that person in order to satisfy his/her particular problem with it. This has never happened. Not only are flimsy reasons used to remove the entry, no attempt to mollify the concerns of those removing it are even attempted. Again, this is not an edit war. This is a blatant attempt at censorship. I, on the other hand, have modified the entry several times in an attempt to satisfy their concerns. All my modifications are deleted in their entirety.

4) Artificial arguments used against my entry are common place. One example is to ask for a newspaper article which is a second source for the report. Why does my entry require a newspaper article to second it? The report was entered into the Congressional Record. Am I to understand that Wikipedia doesn't accept the Congressional record as a valid secondary source? Is a newspaper article supposed to be more reputable then the Congressional Record?

5) You mention copyright concerns - the link above is a direct link to the Findings of the report. There are no copyright notices on the Findings page, and it is the only source I have attempted to quote.

A careful and thorough analysis of the history of the attempts to appease Jayjg and Narson will show that appeasement is not possible, as their goal is to censor any mention Captain Boston Wards comments from the Moorer Report. These two do not edit the entry to satisfy their problems with the reports contents or the entry itself, they remove it. That is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldFacts (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have made many attempts to edit my entries to appease these two, but all my entries are removed. This is in contrast with their actions which invariably are entry removals. Their problems with my entries are never edited, by them, to satisfy them selves. They invariably remove my entries.

I need help as a careful reading of the discussion section will show that I have made many attempts to satisfy there concerns, but the only response from these two is removal of my entries. Never have they tried to edit the entry to satisfy their concerns. They are censoring, plain and simple. WorldFacts (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the reasons for removing seem three-fold. These are not my reasons, and I am not putting them forth as "true", merely summarizing the position of those who ARE removing them, since there seems to be some misunderstanding of why the information is being removed:

1. The addition of the section is believed to give undue weight to what is an irrelevent fact. Lots of things are both "true" and "verifiable", but that does not mean that every such item is "relevent".
2. The veracity of the statements being added is being challenged. The fact that the statements appear in court documents or affidavits does not mean that the statements can be taken as true. The only thing that can be verified is who made the statements, not that the statements they make should be taken as true. People say things all the time under oath and in affidavits; it does not mean that those statements are true, or even if we take them to be true, that they are relevent to the article.
3. The fact remains that the information is being challenged, not just removed without explanation. The editors who have removed it have left extensive explanations as to why the information does not belong. That you disagree with their challenge does not nullify their good-faith challenge.

In order to resolve the issue, you must keep the article at the status quo with the challenged material not added, and seek outside help in resolving the issue. I am not providing an opinion on how the issue should be resolved, nor am I endorsing one side or another. You may be right, or you may be wrong, I am not making that decision. I am only noting that both sides in this issue seem to have good-faith reasons for doing what they are doing. To avoid letting this content dispute devolve into an edit war, please seek dispute resolution by requesting a third opinion or request for comment. These venues are availible to bring outside, uninvolved editors into a dispute to help mediate it. Once more people have given there opinion, a consensus can be reached, as long as both sides are prepared to accept what consensus may develop... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Are these external links appropriate?

Resolved

 – advice given --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted this to Wikiproject Spam,[11] but didn't get any feedback. I am hoping to get some comments from experienced editors about appropriate external links. My post from Wikiproject Spam is reproduced below:

User Themintyman and IP editors have added links to semi-directory.com in a number of semiconductor articles. The semi-directory.com site was created by Themintyman (diff [12]). I deleted a link to semi-directory.com in the External links section of Semiconductor industry (diff [13] and rationale [14]); however, Themintyman objects and requested additional input. I agree and welcome comments.

The question is: are links to semi-directory.com appropriate for the External links section of Semiconductor industry and/or other semiconductor articles?

Thanks. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User Themintyman as creator of the website should not add them to wikipedia as it is a conflict of interest. I have not looked at the site but it would be up to other editors to add a link to it if it adds value to the article, editors need to make a judgement based on external link guidelines with particular note to what is not allowed, You could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics for opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

semi-directory.com is a commercial link farm. Proxy User (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Need independent editorial help with Better Business Bureau article

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeking expert Wikipedia guidance on how to prevent edit warring with another editor of the article about the Better Business Bureau, and bring that article up to Wikipedia's own standards, which it does not yet appear to meet. The other editor has an extremely negative view of the BBB and has posted inflammatory statements about it, unsupported by evidence, in a manner that suggests the editor's personal opinions are facts. These statements take the form of accusing major BBB institutions of being "liars" or suggesting that the organization is some kind of fraud. This is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, I would think. The other editor has repeatedly deleted information I have posted about the BBB's self-policing process that could be helpful to readers. In my edits I have tried to acknowledge the existence of the other person's view, while incorporating a BBB point of view as well; but the other editor simply deletes this copy and re-inserts prior accusatory statements. Neither of us - the other editor or myself - is able to take an entirely dispassionate view of this situation. I can see that this article has been problematic over a long period of time. Independent and unbiased help to get this article in order under Wikipedia guidelines would be helpful. I am new to Wikipedia, inexperienced, and openly calling for help in improving the Better Business Bureau article. A prompt reply is needed and will be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your attention. NYCBBB (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NYCBBB has already been blocked for COI issues since his/her request. I have had a go at tidying up the article to try and remove advertising and repetition. It still badly lacks independent references but I suspect with the COI user blocked their is not much more we can do at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Off Broadway Theater

Resolved

 – AfD'd --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the owner of the Off Broadway Theatre in Sierra Vista, AZ. One or our guests started a Wikipedia site for OBT and it was modified by people saying hateful things about our business. I have tried to modify the page but it keeps getting changed back. I am looking for any help that you can provide a small business owner who is being wronged. Any help would be appreiated. Thanks! Obtsupporter.

I assume you are referring to the sections about the law suits added by BillWestman, it seems as if these are backed by reliable sources and factual in nature. You may disagree with the outcome of a lawsuit or not wish the facts to be on Wikipedia, but as long as they are a matter of public record and are backed by citations, then they cannot be removed as a matter of principle - see WP:Not censored. You can argue that the section is being given undue weight and try to have the amount of content reduced, but that is something to take up on the article talk page where consenus will need to be reached. You need to start a discussion there and if that proves fruitless then ask for further assistance. Mfield (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just placed this article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off Broadway Theatre, as it's nothing but a coatrack for the lawsuit, and is effectively an attack page against the person named. The business itself appears to be non-notable outside of the lawsuit, an article on which I've added to the AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, there is not enough factual and contextual information left in the article about the actual subject to justify keeping it. Mfield (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

K-State Research and Extension

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I made a page about K-State Research and Extension (KSRE), of which I am a student worker for the Marketing Department, and my boss asked me to create this. Now I see that it could be deleted because it doesn't have reliable sources. I got all my information straight off the official K-State Research and Extension website, I don't know how it could get more reliable than that....

Could I get some help/advice?

KSRE (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The concern raised was that the topic doesn't meet the notability standard. If you haven't already, then please read the linked explanation. It's possible that you can find the independent non-trivial coverage to meet the standard; it's also possible that it doesn't exist, in which case the article can't be written yet. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted as promotional - it read like a press release. Obviously can be re-created in more suitable form. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel biography

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1.The addition of the middle name "Israel" seems false. It doesn't appear anywhere else. If not factual, please remove. It's purpose is to incite. 2. Someone keeps inserting the word "Israeli" ("An American-Israeli politician"). He is not an Israeli citizen. A falsehood meant to incite. 3. Why the statement that his father was "a former member of a militant Zionist group" with the statement "proof needed. Why include dubious hearsay also meant to incite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.109.233 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1. "Israel" is indeed his middle name.
2. Rumors about his dual citizenship seem to be just that, rumors, but his father is Israeli, so I don't see how "Israeli-American" is inaccurate.
3. There isn't any dispute that his father was a member of Irgun, which at the time was classified a terrorist group by the UK. "Militant" seems fair.

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/will-the-arab-w.html Mosmof (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)