Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 46

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

I'd Like a 2nd Opinion

Stale

– no notable recent action at Protection racket or talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I had twice modified the entry about Protection Racket, some time ago. Investigating, I read that it was removed due to lack of citations. Eventually, I got around to finding several citations, and reposting. Again, my edit was removed, without any reason I could see. Not sure if this was the same person.

I tried looking at your topic and editing guidelines, but nothing seemed quite on target.

thanks, AuntyMM —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuntyMM (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All I can suggest at the moment is that you raise your concerns, citing specific edits and reversions on the article talk page. Remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~). Also you could try politely communicating with the reverting editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

En bloc sale of private property in Singapore

Resolved

– or a least the question has been answered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

1. I am a Wiki newbie from Singapore.

2. When I first created the above page, I wrote it more as an opinion piece. As I'm not technie, I didn't know how to create links for citations or to upload files. So the Wiki panel of editors/reviewers put in their qualifications and alerts. ArbiterOfTruth was even rude (I thought) by putting on the talk page that I have contorted and put "damned lies" when I haven't figured out how to insert citation links. One reviewer (don't know who) even went so far as to tag my page as "contains hoaxes"!

3. Another Wiki editor/reviewer with the moniker of Kimchi was more helpful with the specifics. Hence, with Kimchi's guidance and some help from another friend in Singapore who is more technie, I overcame some of the HTML know-how constraints.

4. Hence, I put in a whole slew of citation links to substantiate my article and facilitate Wiki verifiability.

5. My last version was starting to shape up and I just needed some time to clean it up further. I even put in a request on Kimchi's talk page to ask if the banner of alerts preceding my page could be reduced since I have made substantive clean-up.

6. However, today the whole piece was taken down. Could I appeal pls? I'd like to have your guidance as to why the cleaned-up version is still not considered acceptable. Or was it auto-deleted because of some embedded deadline and the original Wiki reviewers did NOT re-visit my cleaned-up version?

7. I find Singapore's system to be oppressive - there is little tolerance for dissent or alternative views. As Wikipedia is an internet portal, I do not know if some of the Wik reviewers of my page were intolerant if the Wiki page states facts which are not flattering to the Singapore Government's laws, policies or consequent social climate.

8. Hence, I'd like to appeal for re-instatement of my Wiki page with some specific advice on how else to make it better and more compliant to Wiki's standard pls.

Thank you.
SINPariah (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to retort.

1. Welcome to Wikipedia

2. You have violated NPA. Please stop. You have to realize that Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia, nor is opinion piece. We do not make exceptions for anyone, techie or not.

3. Glad you received help, although the help should have been how to not make Wikipedia a soapbox.

4. It doesn't matter whether your articles can be verified by laws. I believe you have deliberately twisted laws and regulations to your favour in that un-encyclopedic, op-ed piece of yours. Given that you have already established a history of being biased on your blog, we have to question the reliability of your citations.

5. Again, the matter does not rest with cleaning up the article. It rests with a fundamental problem: the article is a soapbox, used to advance a political issue or magnify a possibly small or non-existent issue as a wedge issue.

6. You can appeal, of course, but I will be the first one to oppose to the article being reinstated. Read above for why the article should have never been created in the first place.

7. Oppressive or not, the article you created is, firstly, written poorly, and secondly, fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's rules and regulations.

8. You can appeal, of course, and you know where I stand on this issue.

Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 06:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of others on this desk, the deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore. The place to make an appeal against a deletion is at WP:DRV. However, I suggest that this is not a good way forward, DRV is unlikely to restore the article in my opinion. A better option is for you to construct a new article in your own user space. You should take due note of all the comments that were made in the deletion debate and try to correct the problems. Once you have done that and have got the article as good as you can get it, then ask other editors (you can ask here) to review the article and make further suggestions. Once you have other editors agreeing that is in a fit state to be posted to the encyclopdia it can then be moved to the main space. SpinningSpark 09:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Spinningspark, for your constructive suggestions. My last version of the sub-section "Land Titles (Strata) Act" (LTSA) is already FULLY cleaned-up. It would be helpful if someone of legal background could be the reviewer. If that sub-section passes muster, then I would expend effort to clean-up the rest. If there are improvements to be suggested for that sub-section, I'd appreciate specificity.

As a matter of courtesy, Arbiteroftruth should similarly substantiate his/her allegations made in point 4 that "I believe you have deliberately twisted laws and regulations to your favour ... we have to question the reliability of your citations". My article was more op-ed as that was my first Wiki attempt and I subsequently understood that it needs to be more fact-based. These citations in the LTSA sub-section are hyperlinked to the web-site of Singapore's Attorney General's Chambers and the Ministry of National Development's Strata Titles Boards (STB). The text of the statutes and circulars could be readily verified against my posting. For that reason, I have provided the specific LTSA section numbers. Only a small part of LTSA relates to en bloc sales (essentially only Part VA and the First-Fourth Schedules). So any reviewer of legal training would be able to cut thru the legalese to verify the point succinctly.

Ditto for the slew of subsequent links to the various press articles about the fall-out of this Uniquely Singapore en bloc phenomenon in property web-sites - these are not cooked-up by me!

Arbiteroftruth has made spurious claims of socket puppetry. The comments by vijust (a practising lawyer) and itshometome (a minority dissenter who are amongst the rare few who won the en bloc battle at STB level are NOT by me. I trust Wiki should have IT tools to detect IP addresses. I came to know of these individuals in my active citizenry efforts. I will be repeating this defence in my talk page but thought I should repeat it here for the benefit of others.

(SINPariah (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Dear SpinningSpark - Additionally, could you give me the link to "my own user space"? After I realised my page was deleted this morning, I tried a "create page" but it didn't work and then I noticed on the top right corner, there was a "padlock" icon with the words "semi-locked". I don't know what implications these carry.

Like I said, I'd appreciate it if my sub-section "Land Titles (Strata) Act" could be reviewed first and then the reviewer could advise verdict. It's still there in My Contributions tab, I think.

(SINPariah (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

If you want the content of the deleted article restored to your userspace, I suggest asking the administrator who deleted the article to do so (this being Kurykh). If he/she refuses, you can ask at WP:DRV. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The "semi-protected" padlock means that an administrator has prevented the page being recreated by new users. This does not stop you creating a page in your own user space, which you can do by prefixing the title with your userpage name such as User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore. If you click the redlink that will take you to the edit screen. Non-admin editors are unable to review or comment on the section you are referring to as it is in a deleted article. You must first ask an admin (as Mendaliv said, preferably the deleting admin) to "userfy" it - which means putting it in your user space, or else recreate it in your userspace yourself as described above. SpinningSpark 11:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

More urgently, you need to respond to the accusation here that you used sockpuppets in the deletion debate. This is a serious accusation and you need to address it. SpinningSpark 11:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Spinningspark. If not for you, I wouldn't know that I must refute Sock Puppetry in that page that you have so kindly provided. I had PREVIOUSLY refuted it in my Talk Page. So too did Itshometome. As I have made it amply known that I'm a Wiki newbie, Arbiteroftruth made an allegation of Sock Puppetry and yet did not provide any facilitation for me to refute the charge!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SINPariah#Sockpuppetry_case

Spinningspark - Could you kindly check to see if I have done the necessary in that Sock Puppetry Rebuttal Page that you gave me? Is that sufficient? Since you say that sock puppetry is a serious accusation, then unless and until this is resolved, is it still worthwhile for me to expend my energy to contribute to Wiki?

Perhaps, that's the unstated agenda of Arbiteroftruth - typically Singapore Government style - to make things so tedious and difficult (and unpleasant on top of it) and people just give up after a while.

(SINPariah (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

SINPariah, please stop the NPA violations. You will be blocked from Wikipedia if this continues. I am asking you to redact your prior comments immediately. Itshometome said you enlisted his help in keeping that article on Wikipedia. That is considered Meatpuppetry. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer article

Resolved

– it appears that work to improve the article in the user space is proceeding. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has been deleted twice already and has been edited again. Can you take the tags away and help me to put it back on? I would also like to learn how I can ad, in chapter Collections, the link to the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.1027E (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Before doing that, I think you would be well advised to strengthen the demonstration of notability. It doesn't seem to be any better now than when the page was last deleted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, if you read WP:Articles_for_deletion/Errol_Sawyer you will get an overview of why the article was deleted last time round. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fleetflame, re your message in the template, 1027E is aware of that and has recreated an article in his/her userspace. Jez' and my responses were intended to address the other questions, I think. Did I misunderstand something? --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I did. I didn't see he had recreated it, and thought you guys were talking about his article. Sorry :-) Fleetflame 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No harm done; no need to apologise! Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at User:1027E/Errol_Sawyer I would say this has the makings of an article, I can't answer the question about the Bibliotheque National as I can't find the documents on their site. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take off the resolved tag and try the user's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jarnovic

Resolved

– Continuing with user on user talk pages. Fleetflame 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to change the name of this new page to reflect revised spellings and name variant. Suggested new name: Jarnović, Ivan Mane (also Giovanni Mane Giornovichi). Regards. Blarcrean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarcrean (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for coming here with your question. Unfortunately, the page you wish to move Jarnovic to (Ivan Mane Jarnović) already contains an article, evidently about the same person. I would suggest moving Jarnovic to your userspace, (click here to do so) and adding content from it or your sources to the current article. Further questions? You may ask me here. Thanks! Fleetflame 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Start documentation in high-risk templates

Resolved

I have a request to start documentation on 8 high-risk templates, entering some standard code. Then protection. The combined request is in full here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#High-risk templates unprotected. Maybe an administrator is already bizzy with it, so it may take some coordination. Bye, -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 12 April

If I understand this request correctly, you're asking for help to start template documentation for the templates listed in that RFPP post. Well, here are links to the /doc pages where we need to create said documentation:

Probably no big deal, as these templates all look very straightforward as far as usage goes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but this is not the problem. Documenting a template, showing text 'in' the template-page, requires code 'in' that template. (<span style="visibility:hidden">{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{NAMESPACE}}:|}}{{lcfirst:{{PAGENAME}}}}}}</span><noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} {{documentation}} </noinclude>.) See {{Lowercase title}}. the /doc-text shows up nicely on the template-page (green background, for me). I could copy the text in there, but they are high-risk templates, so I might disrupt too much. Thats the big deal. So far for the edit-request. Then the template should be protected. For clearness: main thread should stay the link to PP please. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently no high risk. Consider it done. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian Dollar

Resolved

– Edits reverted, editor warned. Thanks for reporting this! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the article on the Australian Dollar, there is a list of the most traded currencies in the world with the Aussie dollar listed as the sixth most traded and the US dollar listed as the most traded. However in the table that appears with the article, this seems to have been vandalized with the Turkish lira listed as the most traded currency. I do not have a list of the percentages but this appears to be a deliberate act of sabotage. Romperlevis (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably vandalism (bit urgent)

Resolved

– Account blocked indefinitely for vandalism. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
Here Rob Van Dam a fresh user filled a date of death in ~10 edits. (first April 4, finally April 10 2009 = friday). As I cannot revert multiple edits (don't know how), and because it may be unreferenced, could someone check the edits? Thanx. -DePiep (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I took care of it, and have warned the editors involved. Also watchlisted. Keep in mind that it could be true, so it's worth looking for references that confirm or deny it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Three pro wrestlers died today? It's a good job that one-hour-old account came along. </sarcasm> --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was checking on Google as you were reverting, and nothing came up. Fleetflame 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Case closed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Larissa Kelly

Resolved

– Change from stuck. No edits to article in five days. Fleetflame 13:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Croctotheface keeps trying to control this article by removing anything he feels doesn't belong in it without having a discussion about it on the talk page. Someone added the subject matter of the Final Jeopardy! question she answered incorrectly, which I believe is pertinent, because it caused her to lose the championship. How could it not be a valid bit of information if the only reason she has a Wikipedia article in the first place is because she was a Jeopardy! champion? Croctotheface removed it, calling it "unnecessary" but not explaining why he thinks it is. The editor who put this information in explained why he did on the talk page, so shouldn't Croctotheface at least have the courtesy to respond instead of just deciding the info doesn't belong? He acts as if he's the only one allowed to edit this article. Am I wrong to think he's wrong? Thank you for your help. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and it looks to me that Croctotheface has, in fact, explained himself and you should continue the discussion there. Hopefully, other editors will also give an opinion (and reasons) and a consensus can be reached. If you really cannot agree amongst yourselves you could try asking for a third opinion (if the dispute is only between the two of you) or else start a request for comment. But I suggest that you should first try and agree between yourselves, or at least agree that you want a third party to decide. SpinningSpark 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a consensus is reached, if Croctotheface doesn't agree with it he will continue to edit the article the way he wants to. This is his pattern. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite an edit war. Would an editor familiar with this sort of thing be willing to jump in and help settle things down? I just don't have the time right now....also consider the Mediation Cabal or other dispute resolution venues. Fleetflame 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a series of skirmishes, but they appear to get resolved. The issue originally raised, about the answer involving George II, seems to have been settled. There are some other content disputes, especially about the subject's sister, but they are at least being discussed on the talk page. I think this is close to resolved. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the article history? It's brutal: they're still reverting each other over nothing: [1], [2], [3]. All but the last so far were before the IP posted here. Then [4]; then things get even more petty: [5], [6], [7]. I didn't even check to see if anyone violated WP:3RR or not. Things have slowed down over the last few days, but it could still flare up again. It's at least worth watchlisting. Fleetflame 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but there's an overall trend towards a common point. Two steps forward and one back, for sure, but it's not three steps back. I haven't yet looked to see if the different IPs could be the same editor; that would be a reasonable thing for me to do. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Help With the Sea Glass and Sea Pottery page

Resolved

– Change from unresolved per [8]. Fleetflame 00:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am concerned about a double standard that is being enforced by an editor on the Sea Glass and Sea Pottery pages. I recently posted a link to a website for sea glass collectors called Sea Glass Artists & Sea Glass Collectors this link was removed by an editor yet another link to a website with a commercial interest called Sea Glass Lovers was allowed to stay. I fully respect Wikipedia and apologize if I posted a link inappropriately. However, there is a double standard as the Sea Glass Lovers link was allowed to stay. It only seems fair that if both links are not allowed to stay than neither should be allowed to stay. I am sure that the Wikipedia community wants to be fair and would appreciate any help I can get on this.

Thanks,

Lisl Armstrong16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaglassmermaid (talk • contribs)

I think you must mean sea glass and sea pottery. Sea Glass is a book and Sea Pottery does not exist - capitalisation is important in titles. SpinningSpark 19:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should first of all read WP:EL to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policy on external links. Not all external sites are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. In fact, the default position is not to include external links. Think about what we are doing here, which is to write an encyclopedia, the preferred thing to do is add information to our article, not point the reader to someone elses article. Of course, there are times when this is not possible and an external link is then appropriate. The argument that you can find another example of a similar external link is not valid here, Wikipedia is so large and has so many editors you could probably find bad examples of almost anything. SpinningSpark 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FDA (trade union)

Resolved

– Fleetflame 03:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is something of an edit war going on because someone called Haldraper is refusing to accept that the FDA is a trade union, and that it is called the FDA. There was a page called "FDA (trade union)", which had a disambiguation page because the FDA is a well known acronym for the Food and Drug Administration. Haldraper has changed that to "First Division Association", and is also removing any reference to the FDA being a trade union, because s/he says that its members are "bosses" and not "workers". S/he is not interested in the facts, which is that the FDA is a trade union under legislation and under the rules of the TUC. The details of that are on the Talk page Talk:FDA (professional association) S/he is also not interested in the fact that the FDA changed its name 9 years ago from "The Association of First Division Civil Servants" to the FDA.

Haldraper is making a mess of lots of wikipedia pages, including that of the General Secretary of the FDA - Haldraper has just removed the reference to him being a trade union leader - because of this obsession with the FDA, which makes no sense.

I have tried to show the facts on the talk page - the FDA is a trade union, and is named the FDA.

Please can someone help and stop this silly dispute? Guineveretoo (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's recognised as a trade union by the TUC then as far as I am concerned it's a trade union, or am I missing something? – ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure if it's worth a move war over the disambiguating term, but this] doesn't seem helpful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what it is all about, but Haldraper just keeps saying that, despite the fact that the FDA is a trade union by legislation and by membership of the TUC, it cannot call itself that. If you look at my talk page, and that page I linked to above, s/he keeps repeating that. Can someone stop this, so that the FDA can continue to be shown as a trade union, and Jonathan Baume can continue to be shown as a trade union leader? Guineveretoo (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The page describes its affiliation with various parts of the TUC, so I think that helps. I've reverted the change to Jonathan Baume. One can debate whether the lede should say professional association or trade union; one might say that the former is more widely understandable, whereas the latter is pretty UK-centric. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the FDA is a registered trade union, which is an internationally known term, and was shown as such on all the pages on wikipedia which detailed trade unions. "Professional association" has no real meaning, whereas "trade union" does. Haldraper changed lots of pages to remove any reference to the FDA being a trade union. This is wrong, because the FDA is a trade union. The definition of a trade union is shown on the link above, and I even linked to the Certification Officer, which is the body which registers trade unions, to show that its legal registered name is FDA. Guineveretoo (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The place to pursue the page move (name change) is at WP:RM. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh, okay - is this dispute ever going to end? Thanks for your help, though... Guineveretoo (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's going to end. I give in: if you want to kid yourself that the FDA is a trade union and its members workers, don't let me stop you. Haldraper (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the dispute appeared to have ended, but now almost the entire page has been deleted, and I don't understand why. Something about resources not being enough? Can anyone advise, please? Guineveretoo (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I have misunderstood the whole premise of wikipedia, and that I might just have to stop editing pages, because this is all too bewildering for me! Can anyone tell me what is going on, and what was wrong with the page on the FDA trade union, which has been deleted? Guineveretoo (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The page has not been deleted. It has however been trimmed quite drastically. If you look at the "History" tab you can see who edited and what they did and what they said about why they were doing it. In this case User:Chzz removed quite a lot of material as unsourced. That usually means that no references were stated for the material. You're absolutely free to reinsert the deletions as long as you show reliable sources for the replaced copy. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the history page, but I didn't understand why all the sections had been deleted, when the sources where there. The page has been up for some years without challenge, so it bewilders me. Guineveretoo (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Guineveretoo, you should also be aware of the rule against editing a page for an organisation of which you are a paid employee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Financial. Haldraper (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not a prohibition. The guideline says: we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It may not strictly be a prohibition but it is good practice not to. Haldraper (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My edits on the FDA (trade union) page have been neutral and factual, and have also been fairly minor, in fact! I am concerned at Haldraper's statement, and would ask for the source of the information as to my current employment status. Guineveretoo (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just state that you don't work for FDA and never have. Haldraper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

I have restored the deleted material and referenced it correctly with in-line citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So is it resolved (trying to avoid reading all the request, etc.)? Fleetflame 03:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The page seems pretty calm and the two parties have moved on, pretty much. I'd say it's resolved. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Steps Towards Consensus?

Resolved

– At least as much as it can be from here; RfC is progressing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I had just a quick question about consensus. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis there's been a months-long discussion between various editors about whether to use Miami (the county name and name used by most media sources) or Key Biscayne (the village location). Everyone has agreed on the former save for one editor, though I know (through reading about this) that numbers alone don't make consensus. An editor just tried for Mediation, but that one editor disagreed and refused mediation. I am just wondering what the next step should be towards resolving this issue and moving forward. Thanks in advance for help. AlonsornunezComments 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers alone don't make consensus, but a lone editor opposing what would otherwise be consensus doesn't necessarily break that consensus. Other options mentioned in WP:DR would include an RFC about either the article or the single holdout if his/her behavior has gotten disruptive. WP:MEDCAB could provide informal mediation on this topic; being informal they don't have the strict process that the mediation committee has. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll look into these. I don't want to disregard anyone's opinion, but at the same time I want to be able to constructively move forward, and these look like good ways of making that happen. Thanks again for the quick reply. AlonsornunezComments 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit War/ Ignoring ongoing discussion

(rolled this thread into the previous one as they're intricately related —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding wikipolicy here, in advance. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis we have been engaged in a discussion about the location names for various tournaments. My question actually deals with the actions of one involved user (Tennisexpert) who is continuing to edit articles relating to this discussion (here, here and here). This seems disruptive in light of the ongoing discussion I mentioned. He has stated that he has turned to the individual pages to build consensus, but when I reverted his change he did not take the discussion to any of the Talk pages (which, under BRD, seems like the next productive step). Am I misunderstanding something here? He has refused mediation, which is within his right, but seems (IMO) to be acting against a consensus rather than towards. Help! AlonsornunezComments 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite several requests to stop, Alonsornunez is continuing to vandalize and disrupt tennis articles through blind reversions. This user does not like the official names of certain tennis tournaments and would rather use Wikipedia-created and unverifiable names. Despite having expressed only this one disagreement with my edits, he reverts all my edits, apparently out of laziness or perhaps to make a point. See, e.g., the following edits of his: 2007 Sony Ericsson Open, 2006 NASDAQ-100 Open, 2000 Ericsson Open. This user has been disruptive for months and exercises unconstructive ownership of articles he has created, such as the Williams Sisters rivalry article, where he edit warred my suggested improvements into oblivion. He also publicly trashes the motives and edits of other editors, despite being warned not to do so, and then lobbies to ban those he disagrees with. Another example of his disruptive behavior is his use of false edit summaries, where he claims to be merely reverting a previous editor's edits but in actual fact he is introducing and disguising his own changes. Tennis expert (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

TE, I think this would be a whole lot easier if you just accepted mediation. Things like article names are determined primarily by consensus, and from Alonso's description of the situation, the consensus has not been in your favor. If you think you're correct from a wider point of view (i.e., preexisting consensus of the naming guidelines), then mediation would help your case. Alonso is obviously frustrated, and consider things from his perspective; refusing mediation in this situation seems like you're just telling him "fuck you, it's my way or the highway".

I strongly advise you both to stop reverting until the dispute is settled or you may find yourselves blocked or the involved pages edit protected. If you can, try to start discussing this from a blank slate; drop the issues of incivility and revert warring for now and try to resolve the content dispute that triggered this whole issue. If you can't do that, then I think mediation is your only option. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that an RfC has been posted about this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality classes

Resolved

– Question answered, directions given. Fleetflame 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I often notice articles that are rated Start class, but have been improved beyond Start class. Where can I find some information about the various quality classes and the criteria that apply to each one; and about promoting articles from one class to the next? (In particular, promoting a Start class article to whatever class comes next.) Dolphin51 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Alistairjh has left a message on my Talk page to advise me that the information I am seeking is available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment#Grades. Thanks Alistairjh! Dolphin51 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Some articles are part of WP:Wikiprojects and they may have their own quality assessment guidelines. The Wikipedia-wide assessment guidelines are at WP:QUALITY. Rating for importance or quality is a separate process which is guide-lined by the project that an article belongs to. If it is not part of a wikiproject then no such assessment is made. If an article is not part of a project then any editor could assess it, provided they have not made major edits. Good Articles are nominated at WP:GAN, Featured articles at WP:FAC. Most articles start as stubs or perhaps Start class. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

energy & environment

Resolved

– Advice given and taken. Further discussion occurring on article talk page. Fleetflame 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, a couple of times this morning I have corrected your page on the journal Energy and Environment, not least because of factual errors but also because the original poster only gave one side of the story: I added some balance. On each occasion my veresion stayed up for a short while, then was replaced by the older, wrong, unbalanced version. Why is this? n —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary4444 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Because your version was neither sourced nor balanced. See WP:V for verifiability requirements and WP:RS for a more detailed discussion of what is a reliable source. See WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT for balance. You might want to suggest changes on the articles talk page at Talk: Energy and Environment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit First Article - Fighting Chance

Resolved

– or, at least, answered; OP is now receiving further advice at WP:RFF, and has also filed an RM on his/her user subpage. Not posted at WP:RM however, which is fine for now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently searched Wikipedia and found a Fighting Chance article for a song, however, Fighting Chance is also the name of a cancer care center in my neighborhood and I wanted to create a listing for them. I have created the article in my user space, and added references from their website and verifiable third party websites. I would like to have an editor review the page just to make sure I have created the article properly. Also, I need to know where this should be posted as there will now be two "Fighting Chance" listings.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance --24.189.110.45 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The main concern I have here is that you don't seem to have provided any references to support the organization's notability- by this I mean notable in Wikipedia's terms (see WP:ORG for guidelines). As to where you'd move the article, I'd suggest Fighting Chance (organization). You can find more tips on writing your first article at WP:YFA. Best of luck on writing your article, and I hope it works out for you! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mh high school

Resolved

– Answered; nothing we can do. Fleetflame 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes hi want need help editing this i want make Mountain house high school wikki students from Mountain House attend Tracy and West high schools , since there is no high school in Mountain House, high school age children from Mountain House attend West High School in Tracy under the management of the Tracy Joint Unified School District. In 2009, if and when Kimball High School is completed as planned, high school age children from Mountain House will attend Kimball High School instead of West High School. Millenium Charter High School in Tracy is another option for high school age children. There is a grass roots push right now to build our own High School in Mountain House. On March 25,2009 Lammersville Elementary School District unveiled a timeline of when they hope to break way from Tracy Unified and open the district’s own high school, as well as two new elementary schools.In May 2009 officials will meet with Tracy school district administrators and begin designing the future Mountain House High School In June 2009, Lammersville will meet with the San Joaquin County Office of Education to negotiate unification. The district will file to receive state money to build the high school in July 2010 and hope to finish athletic fields by March 2011 that include,two baseball fields, two softball fields football stadium like West High’s with artificial turf, all-weather track and 4,000-seat bleachers. Mountain House High school will have an opening date of July 2013 it estimated that the Mountain House high school could open with as many as 800 students acccroding to Lammersville Elementary School District and the tracy press and cost between $70 and 80 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.w 2009 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be best to wait until the school is built and has been described in some independent sources, such as newspapers. Until then it's going to be very difficult to provide sources for an article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to emphasize that this is an encyclopaedia and the purpose of articles is to neutrally WP:NPOV report verifiable WP:Verifiable facts from WP:Reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you for geting back to me but i would have this page made can u please help me iknow is here yet but it will be next year —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.w 2009 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What we're telling you is that, without reliable sources, it's not going to work. If and when there are news reports or other independent sources, then feel free to come back and identify them. At that time, but not until then, I'll be glad to help create a well-sourced page with you. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew is basically right, and furthermore Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; thus we should not comment on things that may happen unless there's a significant amount of news coverage regarding those future events (for example, if there were a great deal of controversy regarding the school's construction). And even in that case, the article would need to focus on that news coverage instead of what the school is going to be like. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Messing up a subst:cfr template (cat for rename)

Resolved

– Evidently, according to OP. Fleetflame 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee I made a mess here Category:Assassins by ethnicity. Involves the template Subst:cfr (cat for rename). Could someone take a look & an action into the part to the discussion? (create the right link). Thanx. -DePiep (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Just replaced the whole subst:template cfr -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

San Antonio Taxi

Resolved

– As fixed as it'll get for now; SanAntonioTaxi blocked indef for spam username. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to build a page for San Antonio Taxi. The company is historically tied to the first city transportation going back to horse and carriages. An administrator marked it for speedy deletion and will not respond to my messages regarding the page. It is my sincere desire to build a page that is informative and conforms with Wiki policy.

Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Robert W. Gaines General Manager San Antonio Taxi —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanAntonioTaxi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. The page was deleted as not notable, and the deleting admin then copied it to your userspace. It was deleted because it didn't claim any notability. which is our criterion for whether a topic should be included here. Your account doesn't seem to have left any messages at the admin's talk page, so I don't know how you have left messages for him/her. ~~I'll put some more info on your talk page that might help~~. (You already have it; you really should read it.) You should definitely read our policy on conflict of interest too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the minor historical stuff in the draft on your user page, the draft is clearly promotional, particularly in view of your user name, which is clearly in breach of user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia (country) & Geography of Georgia (country)

Resolved

– Apparently resolved- refs massively chopped down and a consistent version has started to appear. In any case, advice given so that's all we can do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello editors, if I can kindly seek somebody's assistance with an issue, I recently included some thoroughly referenced statements on the Georgia (country) and the Geography of Georgia (country) article and sought other editors opinions on the reliability of them here WP:RSN. I took on board the advice and filtered out the iffy ones, leaving the most reliable ones in place with the statements to match them. I successfully requested page protection after they were being deleted en-masse - Talk:Georgia_(country). I spend a considerable amount of time sourcing and editing this information to improve the article while keeping true to WP:AGF, WP:RELIABLE, and good Wiki procedure such as using the talk page, requesting opinions, and resisting edit warring. Unfortunately, a user Kober (talk · contribs) has reverted the cited statements on both articles in a 'couldn't care less' manner, without any respect for Wiki conduct guidelines. Your help in this situation would be greatly appreciated. Izzedine (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You could carry on reverting and if the other editor breaks WP:Three-revert_rule report them. I sxee from the talk pages that you are aware of this procedure. I can't think of any other course if the other editor won't engage in discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jezza, i'm weary that if I engage in edit warring it will look bad on me and undermine my contributions, I think I will request intervention from an admin and page protection. Thanks for your suggestion though. Izzedine (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My primary issue with this is that it should not be necessary to support a single statement with 12-17 sources. Using that many sources suggests original synthesis to conclude that there's a consensus to say one thing instead of another. Anyway, here's what I see; if Georgia is on the Europe-Asia border, isn't it still in SW Asia? Or is the argument that it's straddling the border, and thus should be referred to as both an European and an Asian country? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

British Columbia STV referendum

Resolved

– Question answered here, Chzz is continuing help on user talk page. Fleetflame 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedai,

BC is having a referendum soon to change how our provincial politicians are elected. A referendum gag law is in place that bans any political comment when advertising STV, or any election advertisng that covers STV. This STV Referendum gag law is a fact, and can be validated by visiting BC Elections webpage.

Some person with the tag The Tom keeps erasing it. If he has issues, he should have editted it, and not deleted complete mention of the gag law. The gag law is real and is something Wikipedai should not help censor. Wikipedai stands up for freedom, and this is such an issue. Did The Tom do this because he had a political agenda?

Thank you, Haida chieftain (sad and confused) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. When you add content to to a page, it needs to be verifiable from reliable sources, and it's your responsibility to add source(s). It would also help if you used an encyclopaedic tone, and didn't link to a blog that has a name very similar to your username. If you need help with phrasing, or citing a reference, then please feel free to come back here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

VERY Pet shop Boys

Resolved

– Wording reworked, though related album articles should be updated to maintain consistency. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello This starts with this is the 7th album of 5 previously unreleased material. This does not make sensee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.119.134 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your question, though in the future it would make our jobs a lot easier if you could put a link to the article title in your request using {{la|article title goes here}}.

In response to your request, which appears to be about the first sentence of Very (album), I agree it's poorly worded. I believe it means that Very is the 7th album, but only the fifth album to include new music (i.e., there were two prior compilation or "best of" albums). I've posted a comment at the article's talk page, Talk:Very (album), which is a good first step when dealing with something on Wikipedia that you can't fix yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There may be a better way of writing it, e.g. "seventh album, and fifth studio album", or it could just mention that it's the fifth studio album, I don't know if there is a standard way of referring to albums. —Snigbrook 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Albums might be able to help, as might WP:MUSTARD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything relevant in either of those pages, or WP:MOSMUSIC. I've looked at a few articles in Category:FA-Class Album articles and most just refer to studio albums, including Californication, Thriller and Disintegration where there would be a difference if other albums were included. —Snigbrook 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So Very should just say "fifth studio album", probably? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone and BOLDly changed the wording to reflect this, per Template:Pet Shop Boys, which makes a fair distinction between studio albums, compilation albums and "disco" albums (which I believe are remix albums).

As a postscript to this case, the other PSB albums should be updated to maintain this consistency, as many use the same awkward structuring we've just eliminated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Nousics is a believe a hoax or a spoof.

Resolved

– Article speedily deleted as pure vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Nousics is a believe a hoax or a spoof.

It starts "Coined by philosopher Tony Montano, the word Nousics ...". I can find no philosopher of that name on Google or elsewhere. However, Wikipedia does have an article for Tony Montana a fictional drug lord who is the lead character from the film Scarface. (Montano is a common mispelling of Montana--for example, "Tony Montano (Al Pacino) prank calls Thug Wannabe" on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fT_bjjFv8o)

There is no mention of Nousics in Google scholar, SIS Web of Knowledge, Philosophers Index, OED, British Humanities Index. Indeed, I can find independent source for Nousics on google except those that derive from this page.

The article claims that "word Nousics (from the Greek, nous, meaning "soul")", However, nous in Greek is usually translated as "Mind, intellect; intelligence; intuitive apprehension".

The article content is non sequitur. For example, it mentions xenotransplantation as subject of "nousics debates" but none of those involved uses this description. It makes spurious "see also" links to # cognitive neuropsychology # cognitive neuroscience # neural networks # neuropsychology # computational neuroscience.

I do not want to get involved with dispute over this article. But I think it should be looked into. This is my only posting.--LittleHow (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article's been brought up for proposed deletion. If that gets contested, as it may, AfD is the next step. Unless it's blatantly vandalism, there doesn't currently exist a speedy deletion criterion to deal with hoaxes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that I've {{prod2}}'ed it as, having browsed through the article, it's nothing but a dictionary definition of the word, plus a whole lot of original research on bioethics. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nousics. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross

Resolved

– 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help me. Regards: The Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross article. Someone has been repeatedly vandalizing the article. Please just take it down. Remove any reference to the article. The lies are creating a lot of hurt and difficulty in the lives of our members. I am the Abbot General of the Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross. Thank you, The Most Rev. Oscar Joseph OCCOAbbot1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

I'm sorry you feel that way, but our deletion policy specifically states that deleting an article is not a valid route to resolving an editing dispute. However, after taking a peek at the recent edit to which you seem to refer, I've reverted the article to an earlier version that was more neutral. Another editor may wish to bring the article up for deletion on other grounds. I must stress, though, that your edit was not the right solution, both from a stylistic perspective and from a conflict of interest perspective. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that contributions, a rather new user, has posted to Talk:Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross expressing what seems like an agenda against the article's subject and Abbot1 above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there are a few sets of eyes looking into this now. However, I wouldn't be surprised if this escalates to higher steps in the dispute resolution process, as the parties involved appear to represent directly opposing positions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We now have a neutral version and edit warring has ceased. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Article now up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fansite tags causing editors to delete information instead of moving it

Resolved

– Or maybe stale? No edits to article talk page since the 14th, but "fansite tag" or whatever it was is gone. Fleetflame 01:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has added the "fansite" tag to innumerable tennis biographies in the last few days. He is aware that WP:Summary encourages the forking, i.e., moving, of information from a too long article instead of deleting that information. At first, he used the following false and exaggerated edit summary: "completely over the top level of detail for every match, every score, every tiebreak... not SUMMARY style in any way". After I objected to that summary because of its inaccuracy and the damage that might be caused by other editors misinterpreting the tag, he agreed to use the following edit summary instead: "please see WP:SUMMARY for further details, thank you". That was a very good development. However, we have now encountered the first instance of where the tag has caused an inexperienced editor (Alan16) to delete 7kb+ of information from the Andy Murray article instead of moving it to a new article. At first, he strongly objected to the tag but under strong pressure from The Rambling Man and especially from LeaveSleaves, Alan16 has refused to reinstate the information (either in the original article or in a new article). Worse, he is being backed now by tag team edit warring from LeaveSleaves, who even refuses to acknowledge that WP:BRD has relevance in Wikipedia. You can see the whole sordid story here. I would appreciate your comments on the Andy Murray discussion page. Thanks! Tennis expert (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice way to present your skewed point of view. It seems rather odd that you revert the reversion of your edits and then cite BRD. If you were a true believer in BRD, you never would have made the second revert and instead continued the discussion as you are now. And if you'd care to read the comments carefully, I did not say that BRD is irrelevant. I said that it is irresponsible that you cite BRD when making multiple reverts of what were clearly well-intentioned edits. As for your accusation of tag teaming, you should know that this is the first interaction between me and Alan16 and our conversation was limited to Talk:Andy Murray. Just because there are two editors who disagree with your reverts and take actions against them does not mean that they have some sort of internal agreement. ^LeaveSleaves 06:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You now claim to support WP:BRD; yet, you said on the Andy Murray discussion page that it is just an "essay" and neither "policy" nor a "guideline". And if you honestly thought that it applied, you wouldn't have reverted the reversion of Alan16's bold edit. Tennis expert (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your second reversion, which like I explained above is improper. And I said BRD is an essay, because it is an essay. Ergo, we don't need to abide by it. It is an advice in order to avoid confrontation and edit wars. ^LeaveSleaves 06:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I placed no "strong pressure" on Alan16 to reinstate information, thanks. Feel free to re-read the sordid link you provided. I pointed the editor toward an example of an article which is way overblown and features far too much intricate detail. It's the beginnings of some folks understanding that the tennis biographies need a lot of work to meet the minimum standards expected of a Wikipedia article. If we're all honest with ourselves, there is so much intricate detail in these articles that we should start removing some of it entirely, not just moving it to a forked article. For example, one of Tennis expert's recent edits showed this was also on his mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth re-reading the text in the {{fansite}} tag - "Please relocate any relevant information, and remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links." note, "relocate" "relevant" information but "remove excessive trivia..." - Tennis expert, do you think this needs to be reworded or do you consider absolutely none of the text removed was simply excessively trivial? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The point, as you well know TRM, is that almost 8kb of text was removed in one single edit, without prior discussion or consensus building. That radical removal was reverted by myself. Then, ignoring WP:BRD or by denigrating WP:BRD as merely an essay, both LeaveSleaves and Alan16 reverted the reversion through a tag team edit warring process. And the only reason that Alan16, a child and a very inexperienced editor, agreed to remove the text is because of the tagging and discussion pressure that you and LeaveSleaves placed upon him. That is what the "sordid discussion" clearly shows and is typical of the tactics you use, which are entirely disruptive, as you apparently have conceded but not with enough regret to fix. I invite you to re-read WP:SS, which you seem to have understood yesterday but no longer understand today. Also see WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Tennis expert (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of being accused of using "tactics". I want these articles to shape up a little and that requires bold editors to remove excessive trivia, per the {{fansite}} template's recommendation. I am also bored (although not surprised at your own tactics) of being continually reminded of your massive swath of "evidence" of my "disruption" which has already been dismissed as simply disagreement over editing. I fail to see how your tactics here help this particular issue, namely the absolute requirement to reduce excessive trivia in pretty much all major tennis biographies. I still fail to see where I applied any pressure to anyone. I linked an example of what happens when excessive trivia is allowed to go unchecked, the Billie Jean King article which is in need of a major overhaul. Instead of pointing me back to WP:SS, perhaps you could suggest the fansite tag is changed since all I have ever said is that we must remove excessive trivia. And that goes for forks as well, they should be pertinent and summarising, not rambling and full of intricate detail that would only be of interest to the most avid tennis fan. And goodness me, what relevance does Alan16's age have in this discussion? I'm deeply shocked that you would openly discriminate against someone due to their age. Whatever next. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, what do you guys want from Editor Assistance? This page isn't meant to be a forum for an edit war. It is somewhere to come and ask for help. I would suggest that you check out WP:Mediation Cabal , read the page at WP:Mediation and perhaps check out Seven Guidelines For Handling Conflicts Constructively. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert has refused to engage in mediation on a previous tennis-related discussion but perhaps will be more receptive to it this time? I am more than happy to engage in some constructive discussion/mediation as long as a wider forum is involved. I have asked for an independent peer review of another article which suffers from excessive intricate information in an attempt to gauge a feeling from outside the Wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for additional editors to examine the deletion of 8kb of material at the Andy Murray page and offer their opinions about that material and the tactics employed by TRM and LeaveSleaves, especially concerning the inexperienced and underage editor Alan16. This is what I requested in my first post here before LeaveSleaves derailed the proposal. Tennis expert (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

TRM, your disruption, which is ongoing, is still awaiting a decision by the arbitration committee. It has not been "dismissed as simply disagreement over editing" and your saying otherwise is completely dishonest. Tennis expert (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, can you please leave your personal issues with the other editors at the door? You're going to see no end to editing disputes if you can't work with other editors who have different viewpoints than your own. The more you point at other editors' supposed faults, the more you draw attention to your own. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for another impartial post. Tennis expert (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, why are you clearly discriminating against a user due to his age? That's shocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rambling Man, I'd like to ask you to stop pressing the issue here; I understand you're frustrated, but editor assistance is not the right place to address that sort of concern, especially when one of the parties involved refuses to acknowledge the problem. You may wish to bring Tennis expert to WQA or RFC.

My apologies to you Mendaliv, I will take these troubling developments elsewhere, outside this process. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, all I can say is you get out what you put in. At the very top of this page, it says to make your request in a neutral and concise fashion. I'm telling you again- drop your personal issues with the other editors if you want to make any progress here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

←I've stepped in at Talk:Andy Murray and tried to summarize the content dispute and offer some outside perspective. If that doesn't help, I think either an RFC or actual mediation would be helpful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Insistence on using cherry picked primary source in BLP

Resolved

– Without reading all the debate, it seems to me Mendaliv is satisfied and the page is protected. Fleetflame 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I brought this to WP:BLPN and only one neutral person replied and he was ambivalent. Also just left at WP:RSN. Any more definitive answers? Tired of having to revert this over and over again. Comments in the talk section would help a lot.

This year old web site has three editors listed here and does accept admissions mentioned here. It has been assumed the editors don't edit each other. Gilad Atzmon is one of the editors. Three related questions:

One editor wants to use an article where Atzmon presents a claim one or more individuals are racist and the article’s title mentions one person by name. I assume that nothing from that article can be used.
However, this editor insists on using just one sentence from that article, which out of the context of Atzon charging others with racism looks worse than it does in context. Which seems to me cherry picking a primary source to an extreme POV. (Long talk page discussion here.)
It should be noted that this editor has been sanctioned once and warned on this article[9][10], including for insulting other editors.

Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that I have never been warned for this article, and if one does click the links Carol Moore is posting to, they will see I was suspended for an accidentaly 3rr edit only. The edit Carol Moore is linking to regarding a "warning" is a hypothetical that was immediately immediately modified within seconds as can be seen on my discussion page. There is a consensus on the talk page that Carol Moore's edits have lead to a massive amount of POV i the article, and the only non involved editor who replied to this particular conflict agreed that the best course of action is to either include the quote by itself, or not include it at all. Since the quote is relevant and presented in context it should be included. One thing however that is not acceptable is for the editor above to be blatantly duplicitous, and, though it is not nice to say, willfully and intentionally lie, in an attempt to mislead other editors. Drsmoo (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As anyone who reads the article talk page or other links can see:

My complaint was 3rr AND edit warring and the block included reference to edit warring Here is my report to 3RR here's the block.
If an admin writes on one's talk page: If these problems persist then a topic ban could be applied. I think most people would take that as a warning, in that "hypothetical" situation.
There is no consensus to violate policy and in fact editors on both sides have complained about cherry picking.
"He later expounded 'quote.'" is NOT context of the article you are quoting from, which is what context means. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The suspension was for 3rr only, and it was the default template for a 3rr block [[11]], it had nothing to do with your complaint whatsoever.

The message you were reffering to from the admin was edited 5 times within three minutes, the final message can be seen here [[12]] unfortunately, you percieved those 5 revisions as being 5 seperate messages for some reason.

No policy has been violated, however there is a consensus on the article that it was heavily POV [[13]], you have spent the past week or so arguing to admins that it is violating policy, and thus far, no users have agreed with you. At this point, the majority of the article talk page has become you leveling charges against me with no result. Including using 5 versions of the same message to make it looks like more, and repeating the same things over and over despite them not being considered violations whatsoever. Rather than edit constructively, you have attempted to intimidate other users into agreeing with you. Drsmoo (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for NPOV opinions here, not more arguments with you on this. (Other editors have pretty much given up on the talk page.) Note that some editors have opined the article is POV because it doesn't label him an antisemite and delete any explanation of his views; others think it is POV because it coatracks every allegation ever made and because Drsmoo (and others in the past) keep putting in out of context quotes to make him look bad. So both sides support the unbalanced tag! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot decide to be the arbiter of which opinions are NPOV, nor can you decide to be the arbiter of which opinions don't count because they are not "enthusiastic" enough. Carol, none of the quotes are in any way shape or form out of context, there is a consensus on the page, you do not like the consensus that is there, and that is fine, you are within your rights to disagree with the majority, but there has been a majority. You have turned the entire talk page(along with the talk pages of moderators and special pages) into an attempt to get anyone who disagrees with your edits(despite them being the majority) blocked. That is the reason there is less activity on the talk page, before that, there was a clear consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more than enough context for this issue on the talk page. Please let the editors check it out and assist if they so choose. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, if you are going to post blatantly erroneous information regarding another user, do not tell them to keep quiet when they dispel your forgeries. Drsmoo (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, there is clearly an ongoing dispute about the content of this article. You could ask for an WP:RfC, or ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please don't carry on the dispute here. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus, [[14]] Carolmooredc simply does not accept it. Drsmoo (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For reference, relevant threads from other noticeboards: WP:RSN#Use of personal attack from professor’s blog, WP:BLPN#Insistence on using self-published critical article, and out of context, WP:NPOVN#Gilad Atzmon, WP:ECCN#Gilad Atzmon. This is quite a long issue, and WP:3O is definitely not appropriate as it involves more than two editors. I'm going to read up on some of this and try to give a suggestion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of further note is WP:ARBPIA which appears to apply in this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article now fully protected as a result of an OTRS ticket. As discussion is ongoing, I don't think this request is necessary any longer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove my comment if possible

Resolved

– Advice given. Not as serious as OP thought. Fleetflame 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I made a comment alleging vandalism and self-promotion based on an incomplete examination of all intermediate versions of the article on photographic orbs. After reexamining which change was made when, I see the mention of the Orb Zone was made after the deletion of the majority of the article, not at the same time or by the same IP. The owner of the website has asked I remove my comment, which is a reasonable request. However, I think this might require an administrator.

Thank you. Antije (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(cur) (prev) 13:04, 17 April 2009 Antije (talk | contribs) (4,433 bytes) (Reverted vandalism by 99.232.209.29, who is apparently self-promoting their website The Orb Zone. Appears to be legitimate site however.) (undo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orb_(photographic)&action=history

There is no need to remove the edit summary, and it doesn't fall into the criteria of something that would be removed like personal information, etc. Did you receive an e-mail from the website? Grsz¹¹ 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This would indeed require an admin or oversight- however the only condition on WP:RFO which might apply to this is that it's "potentially libelous" information (which it isn't) where the subject has requested such removal and where it's a clear-cut case (it isn't). And... honestly, it's pretty clearly an attempt at promoting or advocating a particular viewpoint- a large portion of referenced text was deleted (along with all the interwiki links and categories, I might add), and a competing viewpoint and promotional reference was inserted in its place. While calling it self-promotion was probably not the best thing to do, this is no worse a situation than why we don't oversight things like celebrity death rumors or shock site images; we just revert and ignore. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that the content deletion was perpetrated by a different IP address than the one which introduced the website. However, I also noticed that the IP which introduced the link is in the UK (90.203.244.229), and is thus geographically close to the location mentioned on the WHOIS information for the website. I think it's entirely fair at this point to suggest it was self-promotion. As to calling it vandalism, you were simply incorrect, and no oversight should be necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I assumed vandalism as I initially interpreted it as someone deleting the article and replacing it with a link to their site (but no, I have not read the overwhelmingly numerous WP rules and definitions of vandalism in the last two months). Because of this, when I verified the website I also notified the website owner that this was not acceptable. He replied to correct my interpretation, and has since emailed again to reiterate that he only added the link and did not delete the article content. While I normally dislike self-promotion, it is hard to fault him for adding useful references given the thinned content. Antije (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

He didn't exactly add a reference, he added an entire viewpoint and supported it with a reference. But in any case, contacting the website owner directly was probably not the right thing to do- it's generally a good idea to keep things on-wiki unless there are serious privacy issues involved. I'd suggest, if you haven't already, apologizing for misattributing the vandalism to him, which is really the only thing you did wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the reference...anyway, had already apologized and just trying to make things right. Separate issue, but about something else you said... Last time I attempted to warn someone about their extremely vile libel regarding a person I know and respect, it took me 30+ minutes to figure out exactly what kind of offense WP considered it and which level of warning it qualified as. In contrast, a quick form email on the Orb Zone website since I was already there took 30 seconds or less. Anyway, as long as someone is listening, just wanted to raise the point that pages and pages of rules and definitions can be very intimidating to occasional contributors who would gladly abide by the rules--provided they ever finished reading them. (And yes, I understand the administrators can't just wave a wand and fix it, but here's my vote that it should be a goal. You miss out on a wealth of knowledge and quality members because, except for editors, only those who don't care about the rules will contribute/monitor.) Antije (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, though, all that's really necessary is to revert something you consider to be vandalistic, libel, promotional, etc with a decent reasoning in the edit summary. It's not essential to issue a warning if you aren't sure how to, and even if you want to, it's not necessary to use a standard warning template on their talk page; you can leave a more personalized message if you want. The basic message is that the important thing is to maintain the article's integrity- there are usually enough people patrolling recent changes that they'll catch someone reverting a well-reasoned removal of content, and then that person will get warned, etc.

That isn't to say I disagree with you- there is a lot of documentation, policies, guidelines, essays and words with special meanings in Wikipedia parlance (e.g., the difference between blocks and bans). There have been several efforts of which I've heard to try and simplify things for newer users (or even for experienced users). WP:TMM is one, so is WP:YFA. If you really do want to talk about changing things though, I can suggest checking out the village pump, particularly the section on policy, and joining a discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

Unresolved

– Edit war continues... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm having a dispute with a a fellow editor about which term to describe a certain group of people in Taiwan when it comes to people who's ties originated from outside Taiwan. We are disputing about using either the term "Waishengren" or "Extra-Provincial People". He claims that "Extra-Provincial People" is a made up term therefore cannot be used for Wikipedia, while I claim that based on the Wikimanual that we're supposed to be writing in English, not in a foreign language. He claims that "waishengren" is a commonly used term in English, while I argue that it is not and that "extra-provincial people" is used a lot as well, it's just not used by him or his peers. When googling, it's impossible to tell which has more results, because "extra-provincial people" means "people from outside the province" and is used in more context then "waishengren" is. "waishengren" is Chinese, so it's only used in terms when talking about people in provinces of China. How should we proceed in this case? Liu Tao (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, you need to stop reverting while the dispute is ongoing. You've violated the three reverts rule, something which typically results in a temporary revocation of one's editing privileges. Discussion at Talk:Taiwan, which I see has occurred to an extent, is the appropriate step to take. As to the situation, I'll look over the dispute and reply in a bit with some thoughts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a report at WP:AN3 regarding the other user's conduct, as he/she has been blocked previously for edit warring and should know better. However, regardless of the result you should know that it doesn't give you carte blanche to continue making edits which are under dispute. As there appear to be more editors involved, discussion at Talk:Taiwan is the best procedure. I'll look into what's going on there in a bit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And I've responded with some thoughts and suggestions at Talk:Taiwan. Best of luck on this dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Marked unresolved as the two editors involved continued to edit war. They have been temporarily blocked as a result. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueCrime26

Resolved

– At least for a while; user blocked. Fleetflame 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Peck Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Del Cerro Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TrueCrime26 (talk · contribs) seems to not understand Wikipedia's relevant guidelines and policies by removing maintenance tags from articles without addressing any of the issues [15], [16], and [17]. User has also made a personal attack at me in the first diff (see edit summary). MuZemike 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it might be best to address the lack of referencing on the relevant article talk pages. Otherwise you will likely get into a revert war. I have placed a notice on the editor's talk page regarding the removal of the orphan tag. The Peck Park article has only just been created (yesterday) so it is not necessarily a good idea to slap on tags without discussing on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "tdel" series of user warnings would have been helpful, I think; {{uw-tdel1}}, {{uw-tdel2}}, {{uw-tdel3}}, {{uw-tdel4}}, followed by AIV if it continued. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I believe this edit pretty well qualifies as a block request- final warning issued anyhow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I reported to AIV after the user making this edit after the final warning while logged out. This is bloody obvious that it's the same user. MuZemike 05:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

...and hardblocked 72h for harassment. MuZemike 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Character Defamation

Resolved

– No defamation- just needed a redlink. Please add a dablink to Salvatore Inzerillo if Salvatore Inzerillo (actor) is ever created. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very serious issue concerning an artist I represent - Salvatore Inzerillo. He is properly placed as a living artist in a substantial production in this article - Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train.

The above Article links him to this Article Salvatore Inzerillo.

This is not the same person; it is defamatory, wrong, misleading and insulting.

When I attempted to create a new Article for the living Salvatore Inzerillo, it was refused, and yet there are articles I sited within Wikipedia as well as extremely reputable sites throughout the Internet.

I refuse to accept this abomination of my clients character and hope that Wikipedia can restore Salvatore Inzerillo's name as a separate person in a separate Article before I continue with legal action.

On Wikipedia My client is properly cited: Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train and LAByrinth Theater Company.

List of references collapsed for brevity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/

On the Internet:

Salvatore Inzerillo is not a dead heroin trafficking murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promethius11 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I've modified the article to link to another, presently blank, page; if the other Inzerillo can be shown to be sufficiently notable, then perhaps somebody will write about him. You should not; you have a conflict of interest. Please do not make legal threats, since that will only serve to get yourself blocked. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-legal}} issued and user admonished to retract legal threats. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As AndrewHowse has stated, you should not create an article on your client. However you may want to take a look at WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), as well as WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. From a brief look through your sources list, I'm not convinced your client is notable according to wikipedia standards. Most of your sources are not reliable sources and only mention your client incidentally as an actor in the play. The only clearly reliable sources, the NYT appears to fall into the later (although I've only been able to view one of the sources as the other two require registration). The Catholic Digest does have an interview and is perhaps a reliable source at the lower end but all in all I'm not seeing much to convince me your client is notable. Undoutedly he exists and was an actor in a play but that doesn't mean we should have an article on him. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the wiki standards for hatting a discussion?

Stale

– ....thank God. Fleetflame 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion with an editor, Fyslee/BullRangifer here, who decided to hat our discussion (and it is presently hatted as you can see), because he decided it was "distracting" and wanted to continue the discussion as a closed discussion on his talk page. He did not ask me, just hatted the discussion with the message "discussion closed, do not modify". This also hides all my comments.

Imo, the discussion had degraded to a point where I had no wish to discuss anymore anyway, but I do not want my comments hidden. The way I understand Wiki Policy, when another editor just archives your comments without your permission, this is going against WP:talk - do not overstrike/modify other people's comments (without discussion).

When I try to remove the hat, he puts it back on, once because I did not respond quick enough to his request to continue the discussion on his talk page.

Now, when I try to remove the hat, a second editor, Verbal, who had no involvement in the discussion is reverting my attempts to remove the hat.

I am a new editor on a controversial page, and the other editors have been there a while.

Is this proper behavior? or am I getting tag-teamed? Don't I have the right to remove another editor's hat of my comments?

(and is this the right place to ask this? or should I be asking this on the admin noticeboard?)

Thank you for any assistance you can give me in this matter.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion had grown personal, had quickly veered away from the topic of the thread, and was going in circles, with you not answering my request for documentation for a likely dubious claim you made. I see that you have answered with more verbiage on your own talk page, rather than where I prepared a place for our discussion to continue, but still not answering my question. That's very evasive. While you may wish to drop the discussion, I'm asking you to either document your claim, or drop your attempts to introduce (improperly-sourced, OR, controversial BLP) information based on fallacious reasoning, since it may be based on a possibly false idea. When discussions become personal, circular, and distracting to the existing thread, it is common practice to put a hat on it. There is no firm policy on this, but that's what happens, and I see that another editor also feels the same way. Forum shopping won't help you. You would be best served to document your likely false claim, or, not being able to do so, drop the matter entirely and admit you can't do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, here are my questions for Stmrlbs, which he is evading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have copied it to his user talk page where he can answer here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs, for infractions of etiquette you should probably take it to Wikiquette alerts. Unomi (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be another matter entirely. That doesn't free him from the responsibility to document his likely false claim. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--

Thank you Unomi. You can see from the tone of BullRangifer's response, what I'm dealing with. I answered his question, in the discussion, and again on my talk page.

For the record, you can see from Dispute resolution: Barrett's status as "medical expert" on his talk page, that he does not say there what he is now saying here (I emphasize the difference in italics) :

When discussions become personal, circular, and distracting to the existing thread, it is common practice to put a hat on it. There is no firm policy on this, but that's what happens, and I see that another editor also feels the same way.

This is the first time Fyslee/BullRangifer has made any mention of the "and I see that another editor feels the same way". He made no contact with me, just slapped on the hat, and made out that any editor could do it and implied that I just didn't understand Wiki policy. I might not know all the details of Wiki Policy, but I think I understand the spirit of Wiki Policy, and hatting my comments without consulting me is not in the spirit that Wikipedia is about.

and if you read the discussion, you can see that it turned personal when Fyslee started implying I was a puppet with some ulterior motives. This is not exactly the best way to reach a consensus about anything, but more a way to provoke battle.

Unomi, is there anything written up on hatting besides this page? I searched, but could not find much - unfortunately, "hat" is such a common term, that it is used frequently in many other ways in just normal conversation, so.. it is hard to find this specific term.

And, thanks for your quick response, Unomi. I appreciate it.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

one more small question.. when the 2nd editor, Verbal, reverted my attempt to remove the hat, his comment on the edit was "Reverted 1 edit by Stmrlbs; Per WP:TALK, next stop AE. (TW)". What does "next stop AE" mean? I couldn't find that either.

thanks,

--Stmrlbs (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to AE is WP:Arbitration enforcement. Since this whole thing appears to be a content dispute, I wonder if the editors have considered doing a Request for comment on the Barrett matter. It seems to me that hatting needs consensus, or at least a lack of objection from those whose talk is hatted. Check out WP:REFACTOR: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--

So, the hatting of a discussion is called "refactoring"? Thanks. That should be an easier term to find. :)

As far as requesting comments from people outside the dispute, this has been done before. I found some 3rd party opinions when doing some research on the topic of this continuing argument and posted them here to start a fresh discussion , but the regular editors who do not want this change, just ignore or discount the 3rd party opinions when it does not agree with their opinion. The problem seems to be a long running one.

However.. I guess this isn't the place for me to take this problem - I gather it is just for short discussions, so.. I will figure out where to go next. Probably Wiki:Etiquette, as Unomi suggested. Thanks for the explanation, EdJohnston. I figured the Verbal's remark was something alluding to the 3-revert rule, and was done to keep me from having a say about the hat on my comments. As I said, Verbal wasn't even a part of the hatted discussion The more I look at it, the more I think it should go to the Administrator Noticeboard.

Thanks again.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, I don't know of any guidelines regarding hatting, but most would understand that having your writing 'hidden' like that is provocative. I too have had some questions from BullRangifer/Fyslee. I would recommend that you start documenting his behavior, you will find him much easier to deal with. You might gain insight into what you have wandered into by having a look at early edit histories of those involved and the sphere of articles. Good Luck and Best Regards Unomi (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Unomi. Good advice.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also a new editor of that article. See WP:TALK for guidelines on removing or collapsing off-topic or fruitless discussions. Verbal chat 09:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you need to follow your own advice and actually read the policy before correcting anyone else. Collaboration and Consensus are supposed to be a central part of the spirit of Wikipedia. Fyslee/BullRangifer hatting my comments when I specifically said I didn't want them hatted and then you reverting my efforts to undo this is more along the lines of WP:Bully and WP:tag team.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to AGF and accept that an editor with far more experience than yourself has also recognized that the dispute had veered away from the subject of the thread, that it was circular, wasn't getting anywhere, and it was thus a distraction and should't be allowed to disrupt the existing thread. This happens occasionally, and such matters are either hatted, stricken, or removed entirely. In this case hatting the dispute was a way to leave it in place, and was certainly much better than deleting it or striking it out without the permission of the participants. Everything is still there. Nothing is deleted, and anyone who wants to read it can do so. Just AGF and learn how things are often done here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is more a case of a more experienced editor taking advantage of the lack of experience in a new editor. An editor trying to follow Wikipedia principles would not have made statements of bad faith (an experienced editor should know exactly what bad faith statements are, therefore using them anyway could be interpreted as statements meant to provoke), and would have read, and at least made an attempt to follow WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments and WP:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. Both policies emphasize discussing it with the other editor before taking any action. An above the board editor wouldn't leave out the consensus part of the WP policy on refactoring/hatting when a less experienced editor asked about it. In WP:Bully#Making_.22no-edit.22_orders, please note this statement:

no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article or part of an article by sending no-edit orders.

I think that is pretty clear.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You say several things which I'm not privy to, but I didn't send a "no-edit order". The hat template does have a hidden (until opened) "no-edit" part, but that is part of the template, and I didn't create it. I had no intention with those words, and didn't even notice they were there until later. The whole idea of hatting was to fold it so it did't fill and disrupt the thread, and to then get the discussion to move to our talk pages as it was disruptive and shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the existing thread. That's why I left a link to where to continue it. The discussion has since been dropped, so how about doing it here as well? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Stmrlbs, please stop continuing your argument here. This forum is for requesting assistance, not debating a dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry. You are right, Mendaliv. This is not the place. I thought I was finished here...

--Stmrlbs (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question re:Tagging and removal

Resolved

– Question answered; we can't really personally solve all editing or tagging disputes. Fleetflame 20:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Over on the Talk Page at Serena Williams a discussion is going nowhere about a particular tag, and I'm hoping for some editor assistance on the matter. I don't expect anyone to necessarily jump in (though you're welcome to!), I just wanted to see if I'm understanding tagging correctly. One editor tagged an article section for NPOV, and moved the discussion to the Talk page. A second editor removed the tag, while engaging on the Talk page. A third editor (myself) reinstated the tag because of similar concerns I have had with the section. Removed by editor, undone, etc. My understanding (in the two months I've been here) has been that tags should not be removed until discused and resolved (as opposed to BRD edits). Is this correct? And is this editor in violation in 3RR? My understanding about both guidelines is shaky and I wanted some clarification. Thanks. AlonsornunezComments 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm... maintenance boxes can be a very tricky subject. While their intent is to encourage editors to improve or at least discuss improvements to the article, some editors view them as badges of shame- and frankly there is some merit to that viewpoint given the reality of drive-by tagging.

In this case, I think it was a a very poor idea to remove the template simply because discussion was underway. As stated above, the intention of such a template is to drive interested editors to the talk page, and removing such a template without the dispute being resolved can be disruptive as it can serve to prevent uninvolved contributors from finding the discussion. However, I believe it was an even worse idea for you to get into a revert war over the tag. While WP:TAGGING is an essay, and thus not "enforceable" on its own, I would agree that there is a community consensus that says fighting over maintenance tags is not productive and may even be disruptive.

And, yes, Tennis expert broke 3RR- here are diffs: 1 (reverts revisions 284073268 and 284073420), 2, 3, 4. AN3 would probably call this stale, however- especially as the reverting has ceased at this point.

I would like to say, however, that considering the recent cases that have been brought up here, I am extremely concerned about Tennis expert's editing habits. Considering the above violation of 3RR and an apparent proclivity for central involvement in tennis article disputes, I believe Tennis expert needs to reevaluate his/her approach to editing, and barring a successful intervention by more uninvolved editors I believe an RfC/U may be necessary to facilitate this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left some commentary at Talk:Serena Williams to hopefully try and help the situation progress, or at least get it off on a different footing. One thing I noticed is the content dispute behind this is strikingly similar to the one on the Andy Murray article, and I've suggested that the proposed solution from there, of creating a fork and using summary style, be followed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Constant Re-Editing of Page

Resolved

– reverts have stopped for now --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having an issue with someone who continues to revert to earlier edit, eliminating proper credits and attributing credit for work done on the Restoration of the Eldridge Street Synagogue. Clearly this is being done as an outward act of vandalism and it is becoming tiresome to watch and correct this page over and over. Please help me in determining an appropriate way to block these continuous edits.

Thanks Lifflefacts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefacts (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll propose an intermediate version; I think you're pushing a bit too much about the Sedovic firm. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a compromise edit at the article - we'll see if it sticks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Request resolution of relevant content dispute by experienced wikipedia user

Resolved

– Evidently. Question answered, the rest is left to consensus, discussion, and deletion. Fleetflame 18:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Would like some input re: the "bicycle homage" section of Talk:Louis_Blériot. Minor edit war in the past w/ a protective user. I see a clear violation of WP:SOAP personally (parts 4&5), in the posting of an image of a product commercially branded w/ the subject of the article, and the product has nothing to do with the subject's life (it's a bicycle). However, due to protective user would like 2nd opinion. Zabby1982 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't know if you noticed, but the discussion you're referencing took place in March 2008, not 2009, and seems to have been long resolved. And there wasn't an edit war as far as I can tell- the person who gave an outside opinion in fact remarked at being pleased that there hadn't been one.

I will note however that I've nominated the image for deletion on possibly unfree files as it's clearly a non-free image and seems to fail the non-free content criteria. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The image from commons has been deleted as copyvio. The version on WP will likely be deleted in about a week. And it looks like there's some agreement emerging at the Blériot talk page to remove the section anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockall article, constant deletion of the Amateur radio section.

Resolved

– Advised and discussed somewhat, while not definitively resolved, it's all we can do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It contains the visit to Rockall in 2005, and the almost successful one in 2009. It is obvious that the person constantly deleting it, wishes have no mention of any recent or recently attemped visits. To suit their own agenda. This person claims that it is unnotable! Furthermore, has a history of edit wars. To gain support, I have started a new section on the discussion page. However if do not receive any support, I am willing to abide by an administrators or neutral third party's decision. Sulasgeir (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This request is premature honestly. I suggest you leave a message at the user talk page of the editor with whom you have a disagreement asking him/her to contribute to the talk page section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've done it for you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page, as you have, is the best way to resolve this. If there's no discussion, or if it's not helpful to reaching consensus, then please feel free to come back here and raise the question again, but resolution via the talk page has the greatest chance of success. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like discussion is underway- this can probably be marked resolved in a day or two. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recourse when WP:RS info reverted for longtime unsourced/WP:OR material

Resolved

– I guess. Discussion on article talk page. Fleetflame 03:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting on a new article with a lot of unsourced, poorly sourced and WP:OR material. I went through and got rid of the worst and replaced some with WP:RS info, a section at a time so people could deal with debate on changes easily. But one very POV editor I've dealt with else where came along and just reverted the whole thing with no explanation at all. I've reverted it back for now.

But what do you do when say you even just do one section at a time, replacing unsourced material with sourced material and they just keep reverting like that? What's best resource? (Also he tends to follow me around and comment on every question like this and I may have to start keep track and reporting it as harassment.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is about Anti-Zionism, you may wish to contact the editor concerned on his talk page in order to discuss the matter?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The editor did finally reply. Bringing things here sometimes gets their attention more, when they have a habit of following you around anyway. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

Resolved

– 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I have issue with the article on Syed Ahmed.

There are several factual errors of unverifiable and misquoted content which I have corrected an number of times.

These specifically relate to

These have been blithely restored and I have received a level 3 warning. I am not an expert at wikipedia. I have no idea who these people (Tnxman307, Jeff G., Nubiatech) are who revert the article and re-instate incorrect and libellous information. Or how they can issue a warning on what grounds and with what rights.

I would appreciate some assistance in remedying this.

Thank you

Kind Regards, Richard Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amicaveritas (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals in information that's attributed to reliable sources. For our policy on this, see verifiability and reliable sources. If you replace information that is attributed to a source with information that is not attributed to a source, then your edits will quite correctly be reverted.
Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, which means that no "rights" are necessary to issue a warning, and indeed you could issue warnings yourself, if you had a mind to. Such warnings would only be enforced to the extent that they coincide with Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia receives legal threats several times a day, which is why we have this policy on them. You would be well advised to explore dispute resolution as the fastest, simplest and cheapest way to address any concerns you might have about Wikipedia content. You should go to dispute resolution equipped to prove that the information in question is "incorrect" and "libellous".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Issued {{uw-legal}} for the legal threat. ~~May want to go for a block if is isn't retracted.~~ —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Bit strong, perhaps? We're dealing with an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply. If this editor goes for dispute resolution in good faith I'd view further warnings as less than productive; I think we're dealing with someone who's struggling with the bureaucracy rather than someone who's intentionally disrupting Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, true. Stricken the block suggestion accordingly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Thanks!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Documentary note: I thought it best to raise this matter on the biographies of living persons noticeboard as well.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. This is helpful. I have attempted to engage the other editors in discussion on this. I accept that information must be verifiable, however this equally applies to existing content and I believe that the existing content had a highly negative slant which I believe contravenes wikipedia’s neutrality policy. Given that as you point out we are dealing with the bio of living person I believe that this should be viewed most seriously as the content of Wikipedia has the ability to destroy and damage lives (legality aside). You are also correct I am struggling a little with bureaucracy I thought I was going through dispute resolution by posting here. I will re-read and your links more thoroughly. Comment on legal action was not aimed at wikipedia and is retracted. Thank you for your advice, help and patience (I am new here); all assistance is hugely appreciated.

Amicaveritas (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Wikipedia's power to cause harm through biographies of living people is a very serious matter.

I'm glad you felt you were helped by this. You're welcome to post here again if you have another issue, or contact me on my talk page which you can reach by clicking the link in my signature.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your statement as well, Amicaveritas. I'm sorry if I came off aggressively. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy regarding defamatory & titilating content

Section rolled into parent as disputes are identical or intricately related. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having a persistent issue with Daedalus969 (this user is also harassing me) restoring content (titilating and defamatory) that is the subject of an arbitration request. I believe the policy of Wikipedia is to remove questionable items from the Biography of Living person. I asked that the content is removed and he is prevented from restoring it pending the outcome of arbitration.

If this is not the right place to raise this please advise how I do. I've been here one day and aside from assistance here on this page, my experience is significantly less than positive.

Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassing you? I'm warning you against removing sourced content, as you had been warned against such behavior by several other editors and admins. Secondly, we don't take kindly to baseless accusations, so I suggest you use WP:DIFFS to back them up. Harassment is a pretty big thing here, and what I am doing does not fall under that definition.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus, please don't bring your argument here. Amicaveritas is making an honest request for assistance pertaining to what he believes is harassment. While I agree that it doesn't fit harassment from a Wikipedia perspective, S Marshall made a damn good point above that we should not overlook the potential legal threat to which Amicaveritas has alerted us and is attempting to correct. While he has an established conflict of interest, that doesn't automatically invalidate his concerns. The best way to approach this is to look at it from a BLP perspective only, while ignoring technical infractions until after the matter is resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For a bit of transparency

I was only fighting for the inclusion of the sourced material because, at the time, the user was warned against it's removal by an admin and several other experienced editors. Now that Gwen sees that the material is a BLP problem, I have no further purpose here. I have already un-watched the user and article pages. I'm also going to unwatch this one, so don't expect me to respond any further.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tilahun Gessesse

Resolved

– No sources available to support a birth year of 1941, multiple sources to support 1940. Status quo retained. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sirs, Concerning Tilahun Gessesse's date of birth, the correct date is September 27, 1941. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.74.98 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi - do you have a source for that? The best I can find is 29 September 29, 1940. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's interesting. This BBC article supports the September 1940 birth, but there's at least one article out there that supports a 1939 birth (Sudan Tribune, dated today says "aged 69"). There's a blogspot blog which supports 1941, but those are generally not considered reliable sources- what's funny is the source it cites says 1940. There are some sources which say "September 27, 1940" as well. Barring a correction from any major media sources, I think we should stick with what's up there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

When I went to check the artcicle it said September 1924, which may have been vandalism. I ahve put a recent death tag on. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems likely. Gave a level-1 warning for errors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback needed on List of civilian nuclear accidents

Resolved

– Unicode errors fixed, reporting editor advised to engage other editor in a dialogue before seeking help here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Crath has made multiple conflicting edits to List of civilian nuclear accidents that can't be simply undone and which would take hours to revert manually. The edits include entries that do not meet the list criteria, changing dashes to unknown characters in multiple entries and adding linkspam to a particular book. It would be quicker if the article could be rolled back to the "21:46, 9 April 2009" version.

Nailedtooth (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing your concerns with User:Crath? I tend to agree with you on the Unicode part, but I'd like to try a couple of different browsers first. The other issues you raise seem like they could be handled via discussion rather than just rejecting them out of hand. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, both the added entries had been previously trimmed for not meeting the inclusion criteria on the page, and the only other edits besides the unicode are to add multiple a reference to a book that can't be read online. The only effect of the citations is to add multiple links to Robert_X_Cringely (which itself doesn't mention the book the author supposedly wrote). I'd be happy to discuss the incidents he added, but at the moment they're drowned in edits that either don't contribute or are harmful to the page and which really need to be undone.

Nailedtooth (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I simply fixed the problem. It wasn't a hassle and took a minute tops. Honestly, though, you need to contact editors who you think are causing problems and ask them to clarify or fix their edits before you start climbing the dispute resolution ladder. If there's no response, or if it's rude/dismissive, then escalation is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with large quotation in Rebecca Ruter Springer

Resolved

Rebecca Ruter Springer contains a large quote from the introduction from Springer's book, Intra Muros. This information is about the author, so it is appropriate. However, I'm not sure how to format it properly to indicate the source. Already, another editor has included a different source to verify some of the information contained within this quote. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you need to provide explicit proof that the material is copyright free. See WP:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others for further information on this. If the introduction was published before 1 January 1923 it may be considered public domain in the United States

Or, you could re-write the brief biography, which might be better as it is written in a somewhat archaic style. This link, [18], suggests that she wrote other books, mention of which should be used to expand the biography.

To credit the source, please see the section on citing book sources at WP:cite.

The cite should look like this:

Springer, Rebecca Ruter. (2002). Intra Muros, or My Dream of Heaven. Taxus Baccata Books. ISBN 0972983015.

But if the introduction is modern you shouldn't be quoting a large part of it. The author of the introduction would need to be cited as a reference, even if the biography was re-written.

Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did not add the information, I'm just trying to figure out what to do with it. Good point on the need for the author of the intro. It should probably just all be moved from the article to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the only requirement to take a verbatim quote from a public domain source is to reference it like any other information. If you want to keep the verbatim quote, an appropriate reference would be something similar to the template {{1911}} for when we include verbatim text from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. But, yeah, Jezhotwells is right in that the PD-nature of that text needs to be confirmed. In my opinion, the easier method would be to just use the information in the quote to write the article, and reference the quote's source like you would with any other article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cited it per above, and started a discussion asking for verification and authorship of the introduction. Anyone want to give it a look? --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, though... to be honest after thinking about this a bit, I think it might be a better idea to pull the possibly-copyvio info until verification is completed. I hate to sound like I have copyright paranoia, but this is kind of a serious issue; I mean if the book has an ISBN, that means it was published after the 1970s. While that means it may just be a reprint, my understanding is that publishers like to include new content in the form of introductions, footnotes, appendices, etc. which permits them to treat the book as essentially new. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The author died in 1904. Any material quoted which she wrote is PD. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the ISBN and the particular binding from which this quote is sourced is described as having a "new introduction", likely written by Scott Givens, who is credited as editor. This needs to be fixed pronto. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit, take a look of course, but I think it's largely fixed. The citation template might need cleaning up as the the "editor" credit makes it look really weird. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)