Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 50

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

Washington Huskies football

Answered

– Please open a new thread as needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came across the Washington Huskies football a few weeks back and noticed inconsistencies in the article. The intro claimed 3 National Championships (NCs), the infobox claimed 4 NCs, while the NCAA (the governing body of college football) says Washington has earned one championship and the College Football Data Warehouse also only recognizes one national championship for the Washington Huskies. I believe this is the mainstream view and so I added a sentence in the intro, sourced with the two links above that mention this. I also tagged the article with {{refimprove}} since the article that long should have more than just 5 references centered around one or two sections (which I explained in my edit). However, a user came and reverted both edits (along with several other edits) without any explaination. So, assuming good faith, I opened a dialogue with him in the talk page and noted on his user talk page that I was asking him a question. However, he did not respond and after a week of no response, I re-added my previous edits. He just recently reverted my edits again with no explaination and no response to my opened dialogue on the talk page. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I believe the article suffers from NPOV without at least that one statement for a mainstream viewpoint on the subject. I feel like he is trying to supress information and keep it as a fan page. I am unsure of how to proceed at this point, especially since the user refuses (or doesn't know about) to discuss the issue. In a semi-related note, how is that article rated a B-class? Thanks for any help you all can offer. Cluskillz (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor tweak to the intro and suggested on the Talk page that further revisions be undertaken. Perhaps that will stimulate some discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... it seems the editor in question is not respecting WP:BRD... and you've not only attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Washington Huskies football, but have gone the extra step of informing said user at his/her user talk page. I think you've done all you can to request discussion. I'm going to leave a message on same user talk page strongly recommending that he/she engage in discussion. Another thing you might want to try is dropping a request for interested parties at the College Football WikiProject's talk page (WT:CFB), which can help get you some more specialized assistance.

As to the article ratings system... things like "start" and "C" class are very loosely defined, and "B" class not much better defined. There isn't much regulation involved in article ratings below the Good article level. It looks like WP:CFB has a special means for requesting reassessment. You need to add |reassess=yes to the {{WikiProject College football}} template on the talk page. WP:CFB/A#Requesting an assessment explains it in better detail. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Kathleen Q. Abernathy

Resolved

– Based on talk page messages. Feel free to open a new thread as needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a box today at the top of this article which I have been editing on an ongoing basis. The box states that there are "multiple issues" with the article and history shows that it was recently tweaked by a Wikipedia editor, David Levy.

I have attempted to address these concerns by adding links to independent, third party websites and sources that verify and confirm the statements made in the article. Also, as suggested, I uploaded a current photo of the subject of this article.

I would greatly appreciate some feedback as to whether I have adequately addressed these concerns, as well as what edits, if any, I should consider making at this point to meet Wikipedia's editorial standards for articles of this type.

Thank you very much.

Louis Abramovitz (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Louis Abramovitz

I have cleaned up the article a little, formatting the references correctly and a few other manual of style issues. But is does still read like a CV that you would send with a job application, so it's really a matter of tone. I also removed the image and nominated it for deletion as it is clearly a copyright image and does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a whack at it, cutting out 2-3 paragraphs of material that read pretty much like puffery. Generally the principle to bear in mind is whether the language is more suited to an encyclopedia (as Wikipedia is) or a biographical blurb to be provided in connection with an appearance at a conference or seminar. Is the information something that the average reader is likely to want to know about this notable person, or is it more in the nature of PR? JohnInDC (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I note now that the author of this posting has reverted the changes that ukexpat and I made to the page, so that it now reads as badly as it did before. The non-free image has been restored as well. Other editors may wish to view the page and weigh in with their own edits, or here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI noted at user's Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back to your last version and left a note for the user. – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth referring this editor to contributions, who appears to be an associate of the same law firm which employs contributions, but has significantly more experience and might be able to help provide some advice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now left a message at User talk:Mdswbkq giving him a friendly heads-up about this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the article and talk to Louis. Thanks for the heads-up. Michael D. Sullivan (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem- thanks for dropping in! I should note that I asked you to stop over not as a complaint against Louis- he hasn't done anything that one can't assume was done in good faith- but since you know each other I figure you'd be able to communicate things in a more expedient manner than we could. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to my museum

Resolved

– Confirmed that it does not meet EL, link removed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam,

I will admit straight away to being somewhat of a 'noob' regarding Wikipedia workings, though like most people I am well familiar with Wikipedia. I put a reference entitled 'Ireland's first online computer museum' on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_museum

A day or two later, it was gone! I just want to let you know that I am the owner of the museum, and I put the reference there because it is Ireland's first ( and actually, only ) online computer museum. I have no idea who deleted it or why.

Much as I would love to plug my museum, I respect the fact that Wikipedia is facts - based. It was on those grounds that I put the reference there. It may well have come accross as spam, so I just wanted to confirm that it isn't.

Many thanks for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Halpin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpc (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. I took a look at the page, and there's no reference to your museum in the article. I don't think there's any reason to add the external link. Further, our guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from editing topics in which you have a personal stake. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He's probably referring to this edit. And he's somewhat right- it's not proper for him to just be plugging his museum's web link. WP:EL is Wikipedia's external links guideline, which discusses some recommendations for external links to use and not use. I can say right now that computer museum is not the appropriate place to include that link. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dean Cochran

Resolved

– Info removed. BLP; source it or remove it. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Dean Cochran and I'm horrible with computers. I don't think anyone cares what year I was born but it's weird seeing my age as 40 (didn't matter when there was a 3). I was born in 72 but imdb one time posted 69 because I graduated from high school early. Anyway I sent them my driver's license and birth certificate but they didn't change it. I gave up. I'd love to send whatever info you need so at least it's accurate here. I asked for some help from the guys who seem to monitor it here. Someone I work with had tried to change it back in the past but he just told me he's no longer going to be my internet baby sitter ;o) Anyway, any help would be terrific I don't know what it means to sign Saintdean (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC) but I'll try dxxx @xxx.com

Saintdean (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You should not really edit pages about yourself as it is considered a conflict of interest, you can try and discuss the problem at the related talk page Talk:Dean Cochran but failing any response you may want to read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is perfectly acceptable to edit ones own page as long as they keep a level head and follow all the other rules and policies of wikipedia. As for your question, any newspaper, reliable website, magazine article, or any other source that falls under WP:RS would be acceptable. Technically speaking, your drivers license could be used as wikipedia doesnt strictly ban the use of primary sources, but I would stay away from that as the logitics of getting it universally accepted by wikipedians astounds me. Not to mention the fact that drivers licenses are easiy faked. which may be why IMDB didn't change it... IDK, I would stay away from primary sources, just because they are nearly impossible for the average wikipedian to verify.Drew Smith W hat I've done 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Best way to confirm a birth year is to find a newspaper article that says something like "Dean Cochran, 37" (or whatever your age was that year). At the very least it can be used as a source to not support the other birth year. And if there are no reliable sources to establish your birth date/year (and FYI, IMDB is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes), we can just remove the birth date/year, which has been done in the past where the birthdate was very unclear. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually... I did just that and corrected the birthdate. Well, technically I've just sourced the year but I'm keeping the month/day on there for the time being. I'm going to try finding a source that gives the actual month/day... but we'll see. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing useful found in LexisNexis, though I can be pretty horrible with that tool. Man I wish there were a better way of sourcing birthdates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyway, if this is still a problem for Dean or anyone else, the noticeboard for issues regarding biographies of living people would be a good next step. The people there are a lot more experienced in resolving this sort of issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Actually... I'm removing the birthdate and year entirely pending better reliable sources. The one I have actually suggests Cochran was born between July 21, 1970 and July 20, 1971. WP:BLP and all that. This article needs referenced pretty badly, by the way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ashford Police Training Centre request for sanity check

Resolved

– Not an edit war yet. No reverts in about a week.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like a sanity check over a potential edit war concerning Ashford Police Training Centre. I believe that user 217.40.222.106 and possibly user Jonathan.barber have a conflict of interest and are using the page to advertise a project that they are involved with. I have tried to enter into discussion but they will not respond and just roll me back. I would appreciate a heads up on whether I am overreacting on this and advice on how to proceed. --Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesnt appear to be an edit war yet. The first thing to do is to stop reverting the edits. If they continue to change the article without gaining consensus ask an admin to protect the page, so as to force them into discussion.Drew Smith W hat I've done 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. --Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonathan.barber created another page, Ashford police training, containing his version of the article, which I have redirected to Ashford Police Training Centre. JohnInDC (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My first instinct would have been a speedy, but a redirect seems to be a much better solution.Drew Smith W hat I've done 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It has the additional virtue of me not having to fish up the proper category - JohnInDC (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to mixing to many ideas, the Police Training Centre article should deal with just the Training Centre and if it is notable Grosvenor House/Bockhanger Hall may be worth an article on its history with most of the Police training bit removed. The speculation could be added to the Grosvenor House/Bockhanger Hall article if it can be reliably sourced! MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anael Article

Resolved

– Asked for comments, comments given. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been rewriting this article, and it is now nearing completion (AGAIN). I would appreciate someone taking a look at it and leaving me notes as to all the things that are wrong with it. I cannot for the life of me figure out how to leave a link to my own sandbox, but that's where the article resides at this moment. Thank you.

Usagi Jeshika (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The page in question is at User:Usagi Jeshika/Sandbox. When you posted here previously, you were advised of the notability standards WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Which criterion for notability do you believe is met by Anael? I didn't see any claim of notability, but I might have missed it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but from an WP:NPOV perspective, your userspace draft is completely unacceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Copied comments to sandbox talk page.Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Site promotion and questionable content

Resolved

– Original editor blocked. Others watching pages for spam. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

User mamamobile has been repeatedly:

Trying to insert references to trackimei.com (page, then trackimei article that was speedily deleted).
Trying to insert somewhat random references to AAAGSM.com (speculation: domain owner is MAMA BHANJA COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. which has some linkage to their username)
Repeatedly reverting edits from myself and another (IP) user to remove these. In fact, trying to obscure these changes and make them hard to revert by spreading across 10+ edits.
Creation of AAAGSM, not dissimilar to their earlier TRACKIMEI attempt
TYPING IN ALL CAPS. Okay, so that's not (yet) an offense. :-)

I'm trying not to editwar, and have requested protection for International Mobile Equipment Identity and labourously reverted it (annoyingly to a state which includes trackimei.com linkspam, and reverting my minor edits). I've also put up AAAGSM for speedy deletion.

AAAGSM may be a legit organisation, it is hard to tell. It is certainly not a good enough page yet though.

Please help.

Bwooce (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Following your request for protection, User:mamamobile has been blocked for a little while. I'm thinking of tagging that username for closer attention too; seems to be rather focussed on the one issue.

btw, you don't need to unplug each edit by hand; you can simply revert to a previous version ( but you still need to be sure that's the right move, of course.) --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, AAAGSM got deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Nice research on the username, Bwooce- AndrewHorse may be right that this is a spamname. Though keep in mind, a spamname block does not preclude the user coming back with another username. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers everyone. It is mostly resolved then, except an IP user came back and re-added the link to trackimei.com again to International Mobile Equipment Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Actually there are two links there now, since I undid my original edits and didn't want to inflame things further. The article does need some TLC, if only for the, random, commas, in places.

Andrew, I'm not clear how to revert 10 sequential edits other than manually? Undo'ing each in turn? It just felt like I was repeating the original tactic doing that and polluting the change history.

Thanks again, Bwooce (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RV may be of help, but here are some ways you can revert multiple edits in one go:

Go in the page history, click on the date/timestamp for the revision you want to restore, then in the page that comes up, click "edit". You should get a warning that you're "editing an old version" of the page. If your aim is to just restore an old version, type an edit summary indicating what you're doing, and then save.

Also, if you notice the radio buttons in the page history, you can create diffs between two noncontinguous revisions. If you choose your first as the version immediately before the edits you want to revert, and the second revision as the last edit you want to revert, then click "compare selected revisions", you will see an "UNDO" button in the page that comes up. This doesn't always work, however.

Finally, you can just edit the page to remove the objectionable content, and simply note in the edit summary that you're removing objectionable links, and why. No matter which method you choose, the edit summary is essential, as without one, your edits may be labeled as vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What he said, plus my favourite, WP:POPUPS, which allows you to hover over the time stamp in the history and choose Actions/Revert. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

IS this cruft?

Resolved

– Good removal of unnecessary info - likely target to aquire more info like it in the future. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is far from perfect, but there are a few hundred pages that link to it inline as an overview of that film genre, so it may be hard to say it is interest only to a limited audience. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 04:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is not cruft right now, the subject is encyclopedic. Yes, the content was mostly cruft before you cleaned it out. Them From Space 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

33 (Battlestar Galactica)

Discussion moved

– Discussion opened at WP:ANI. Probably best to stop the conversation here while that one is on-going. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in a slow-motion edit war with an administrator at 33 (Battlestar Galactica).

At the heart of the issue are three characters of information; Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been insistent on including a "production code" of "101" in the article's infobox without any verification of that fact. To comply with "the letter of the law" of the Verifiability policy, I have—at various times—tagged the information with {{fact}}, commented the information with an invisible comment to editors, and attempted compromise with regards to the reliable sources we do have in this instance. The administrator involved swiftly reverts all of my edits to these effects, citing a "spirit of the law" that I cannot corrobotate. All of this debate over the applicability of the Verifiability policy is on the article's talk page for perusal.

My hope is to bring this article (and, of course, all of them) up to Good Article status, and maybe eventually on to Featured Article. Having discussed this matter at WT:FA? and WT:V, it becomes clear that an article with plainly contested information will not reach those heights.

What is my recourse? I've discussed this ad nauseam on the article's talk page, but the administrator will not budge on insisting the challenged material remain. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at the users talk page. By the tone of your post, and the actions I saw in the history, I assumed this user was fairy new. However it appears that this editor has been blocked for edit warring before, and, if blocked again, would probably get an indef block. My advice would be to bring this up at WP:ANI if the editor continues this behavior. Removal of fact tags, without proper referencing, is absolutely unnacceptable.Drew Smith W hat I've done 06:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not "new", I am in fact an admin. pd_THOR has been forum shopping to try and gain consensus for his stance, and has been unsuccesfull. This has already been to ANI and the last edit regarding this matter was months ago. pd_THOR has been told several times not to press the issue over such a trivial tidbit of information that has been used as conventiuon througout Wikipedia, even on feartured articles. So, once again; stop beating the dead horse. — Edokter • Talk • 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, conversely, you could simply roll up your sleeves and go seek out the citation. As has been indicated elsewhere, what you personally feel doesn't need citation isn't really citable. Sorry for the harsh, but this edit-warring over what you clearly admit is a trivial tidbit of information". It takes two to edit-war; it is as much up to you as the other editor to discuss and find a compromise. Thinking you can win an edit-war is simply wrong. I am not even going to bother suggesting how using the threat of your tools to gain an upper hand would be seen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Several editors and admins have pointed out to pd-THOR that the matter is not worth beating a dead horse over; the information is verifiable through the episode's homepage link and consensus is that such data is too trivial to require specific sourcing. Pulling policy over this matter is completely undue, yet pd_THOR keeps forum shopping, which is only going to diminish pd_THOR's credibility even further. This matter is closed. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? You discussed me and/or this particular article at the ANI board? I never came across that, nor was notified; can you point me to its archive? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This discourse doesn't so much answer my question as crystalize my points. The information isn't verified (as discussed on the article's talk page). Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has no inclination of allowing it's removal or {{fact}} tagging, as evidenced at the article itself, as well as here. What, then, is my recourse for taking this article further along its progression to GA or FA, when those avenues have made clear that challenged information as discussed here will be prohibitive? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How about just go about and write the article to featured status and ask for review; this certainly is no show-stopper for any GA/FA reviewer. Getting hung up on a minor detail is not doing you or the article any good. In the very-slim-to-nonexistent possibility of any reviewer challenging the information, then we can discuss what needs to be done. — Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, again, you could simply find a citation to satisfy the request. What's the problem with doing so? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained countless times by now: the code is cited by the episode's homepage on scifi.com. — Edokter • Talk • 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The website provided (http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/episodes/episodes.php?seas=1&ep=101&act=1) has, in its title HTML: "Episode 101". This is not a reliable source for a "production code". Are you referring to another reliable source for the article's "production code"? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I linked above where I've discussed the unreferenced information at WT:FA? and WT:V and had responses from editors that any challenged or unreferenced information would preclude such a promotion. Knowing this, and making such a nomination, would be pointy. But you're insistent on the unnecessity of implementing the Verifiability policy at this article, so I don't know what to do. FWIW, in addition to the editors I've spoken with, I would contest a nomination for GA/FA on the bounds of the unreferenced information we're discussing. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me as if Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is being entirely unreasonable in this matter. As an admin she/he is expected to follow WP:Admin#Administrator_conduct which she/he does not appear to be doing. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am trying to prevent a potentially dangerous precedent that would result in every tidbit of information being scrutizized beyond reason. pd_THOR has made his point in several forums and was told that the information was too minor to source, and not to press the issue... repeatedly. I am well aware of policy. I am also aware of editors that pull the policy curtain over such minor issues. Rarely do they contest the information per se; they simply want to 'pull rank'. I see it every day.

The "101" coding is a matter of convention and used extensivly throughout Wikipedia. I submit that most, if not all episode article have "unsourced" production codes. Take A Streetcar Named Marge, another featured article; it also has an "unsourced" production code. It can be found on the episode's homepage, but does not specify it as such. Unless pd_THOR intends to address all these articles, which I doubt, I advise him to cease and disist this petty dispute; it is literarely about nothing. He is welcome to open an RFC on WT:TV about the issue, but I refuse to let him single out one article. And I am warning him not to engage in any further forum shopping. — Edokter • Talk • 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say that I haven't already. If I may concise my points:

Wikipedia: Verifiability is a policy. This policy says, in a nutshell, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have challenged material in the article discussed here, yet it is not attributed to a reliable, published source.
I have seen no policy, guideline, or consensus determination that codifies "a matter of convention" for how most TV shows create or use production codes. For that matter, I made the following statement before:
At a random sampling, The Simpsons, Arrested Development, Duckman, Little Britain, Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., and Prison Break all use differing formats for their episodes' production codes. [... T]here are no reliable sources that Battlestar Galactica even uses such codes.
These examples do not conform to a supposed "matter of convention", and it is original research to assume this instance does as well.
Whether other articles are unsourced or unchallenged, and whether or not I intend to tackle all of Wikipedia's articles any time soon is not relevant to the application of the Verifiability policy and the policy on no original research.

Edokter continues to warn me against discussing this policy-related issue with regards to forum shopping. In addition to the inquiries (disclosed above) I made at WT:FA? and WT:V, I have requested a third opinion as a part of the dispute resolution process as well as this forum itself. If seeking either (a) policy-implementation, (b) policy amendment to allow Edokter's information to remain, or (c) dispute resolution between myself and another editor is forum shopping, then I may be.

I greatly appreciate the input of other editors in this resolution, and would ask for both more input, as well as recommended actions by the parties already commented. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate the implication that I am making this effort not to improve the article but to "pull rank" on other editors. This strikes me as a lack of good faith, and potentially an attack on myself if Edokder did so in response to my self-disclosure as a military member. Regardless, neither assumption is helpful as part of the dispute resolution process, and I respectfully ask Edokter be more careful with any potential implications or accusations in the future. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, provide the diffs that prove this "forum shopping". And even if it is forum shopping, we have policies, and they need to be followed. The information is unsourced, another editor has asked for a source, and you failed to provide one. Furthermore your actions on this forum alone represent a breach in the administrators code of conduct.Drew Smith W hat I've done 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I have laid claim to all outside requests for input either above or at the article's talk page. I don't recall any others, but it's possible. As my memory serves:

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 32#third party opinion re: verifiability - Blueboar (talk · contribs) agreed with Edokter regarding that the information is too trivial to worry about sourcing. As with Edoker, I disagreed with this stance because there is no "triviality" clause in the Verifiability policy, which requires everything challenged be sourced. I discontinued here though when Blueboar made me realize I could incorporate the source we have for "Episode 101" in the "episode" variable of the infobox. Edokter disallowed this as well though, discounting the sourcing.
Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#elabouration assist? - I asked whether or not "the repeated inclusion of unverifiable information into an article, in knowing and plain contravention of the Verifiability policy, constitute[d] vandalism?" I was assured it did, but I declined to pursue this avenue with an administrator for fear of retribution. I did not mention any particular article in my inquiry, should that warrant note.
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 33#Help amending this policy - Since Edokter insisted that "trivial information" wasn't subject to the Verifiability policy, and that that was the consensus, I argued to add that amendment to the policy so others would be aware that they did not need to reference "trivial information". Two editors seemed to understand my position and agreed with my determination, but didn't feel it was worth risking an edit war with an administrator over.
Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#articular referencing - I asked here about how much of an article needed to be sourced to make FA-status, seeking confirmation that unsourced or challenged information will stymie an article's chances at WP:FA. I again didn't discuss this particular article, so I don't know of Edokter is counting this as "forum shopping".

As above, I can't find any corroboration for the triviality clause of the Verifiability policy, nor does anybody make the claim that "Episode 101" = a "production code" of the same. I did receive feedback that I shouldn't worry about this, or risk the ire of an administrator, but I feel that all articles to meet the muster of our core policies and guidelines. Regardless of how minute this fault is, or the tenacity with which Edokter seems to feel it is necessary for this particular article, I'd like to see either the rules followed, or the rules changed. This particular "forum" (as well as my third opinion request I cannot find evidence of) is a part of the dispute resolution process; and as Edokter and I continue to dispute this issue, it seems warranted to seek more input.

If Edokter has any evidences of any malfesance on my part, aside from what I've listed above, I welcome his reminders of my lapses in memory. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

pd_THOR, what are you going to do with the hundreds of other (featured) articles that have an unsourced production code? Why are you singling out this article? Why are you not adressing the article I pointed out? If this is such a problem, wider community input is needed. Since you are not interested in that, I shall open an RFC for you.

Drew, unless you can point out any 'abuse of admin power' in my conduct, you concern is totally out of order. I may be stern, but I haven't touched any tools; I am merely expressing my take on the matter, and I am well entitled to do so. So please refrain from mud-slinging to further your position. — Edokter • Talk • 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alos, please point out where I have stated you abused admin power. Seems like someone has a guilty concience to me. All I said was that you broke the admin code of conduct. And I feel the need to echo Arcayne's thoughts on this, find a better citation. One other thing, it doesn't matter what kind of precedent it will set, policy is policy, and unsourced information has got to go.Drew Smith W hat I've done 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss it here, we can open up an ANI on you.Drew Smith W hat I've done 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I already opened an ANI thread. I have also opened an RFC on WT:TV. So there is no need to discuss the issue or my conduct here. — Edokter • Talk • 11:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- Please provide links to the ANI and the RFCDrew Smith W hat I've done 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Arcayne and personal attacks and WT:TV#Request for Comments: Production codes. — Edokter • Talk • 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As per the latest at WT:TV, it would appear that Bignole has pretty much clarified that production codes aren't important, and Collectonian has noted that it shouldn't be in there without citation. Now, you have been presented with a consensus of five different editors who feel the info doesn't need to be in the article. Will you concede to the consensus, or do you wish to pursue the matter further?

Again, I will point out that if this is as vitally important to the episode as you apparently feel it is, it should not be too difficult to find a citation that notes the production number in the text. If you cannot find one at this time, it would suggest that such isn't considered important just yet. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abramites hypselonotus

Resolved

– Problem fixed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There just appeared a large picture of the joker on my article about a fish. I cant find out who did it either. I tried to revert it, but it stayed there. I tried to manually edit it out, and can't find the picture anywhere in the coding. What's going on?Drew Smith W hat I've done 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And now they are gone... What happened? There is nothing in the edit history for this...Drew Smith W hat I've done 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody was messing with Template:taxobox title. Click 'related changes' from the fish page and you can see it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That really freaked me out.Drew Smith W hat I've done 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! article and User:Robert K S

Resolved

– For now. Article protected, some discussion starting on talk page. That would be the more appropriate place if anyone wishes to discuss further. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have made several good faith attempts to tag the Jeopardy! article as a fansite and remove intricate detail, unsourced information and general fancruft. However, User:Robert K S continues to remove tags and labels his removal edits as either undoing vandalism or removing "drive-by tagging." The following edits made by this user detail his actions:

I have asked this user to refrain from removing tags, however the user continues to undermine good faith efforts to clean up the article. This user has also publicly stated his opposition to using tags, here and again here.

Please provide assistance in at least maintaining the appropriate tags and how to avoid circular debates as to whether or not tags should be used in an article. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to chime in. The appropriate response to what are perceived as deficiencies in an article is to edit the article or to discuss the deficiencies on the article's talk page, not to lazily place a drive-by tag at the top of the article, sans any explanation, and hope somebody else comes along and deals with it. It is inappropriate for the many reasons I've outlined (see links provided above), and what the above editor is asking for assistance for is the establishment of a squad to enforce article blight. Instead, the editor should place talk content where it belongs, in the talk space, and follow the procedure outlined in WP:BRD. Robert K S (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed on the article talk page. I agree that drive by tagging is not generally productive. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has since reverted the addition of the tag again, here. Additionally, this user is potentially violating the three revert rule, making three revert revisions in less than a 24-hour period.

Furthermore, this user has begun engaging in incivility, with this edit to my talk page, accusing me of making "unsubstantiated and libelous" edits and goading me into a fight. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the "unsubstantiated and libelous" edits referred to above are Sottolacqua's sundry accusations on my talk page, the tone of which indicated to me he prefers to instigate editor conflict rather than discuss issues in good faith and arrive at reasonable solutions. And as to "goading me into a fight", this is a plainly malicious misrepresentation of what was written. Robert K S (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide assistance in at least maintaining the appropriate tags and how to avoid circular debates as to whether or not tags should be used in an article. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that Sottolacqua's edits are unjustified. Many of the additions to this article over time have been unsourced or irrelevant. There isn't a single reliable source that verifies that the 1990s set was called the "Sushi bar", so we shouldn't mention that. Indeed, the whole article feels very bloated, like most of the other game show articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but discussion should take place on the article talk page. Drive by tagging is not productive. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither is constant removal of the tag without improving the article. I hardly think that Sotto is drive-by tagging, as he has stated why he thinks it looks like a fansite. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, reviewing the edit history clearly shows that "drive by tagging" is not taking place, as several good faith efforts have been made to remove fancruft and minutia. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: "Neither is constant removal of the tag without improving the article. I hardly think that Sotto is drive-by tagging, as he has stated why he thinks it looks like a fansite." Where? Where is the proposal for improvement? It does not exist. Also, the "sushi bar" bit is non-sequitur, since that is not a part of the page and not what is being contested here. Robert K S (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He has indeed been making good faith efforts to improve the article by removing poorly sourced info. One citation was a Geocities site, which we shouldn't have per WP:ELNO. Oh, and did we mention that you seem to be the owner of the J-Archive site (which actually looks reliable) that is cited in the article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is plainly disclosed on my User page, and yes, Solottoqua mentioned it, and couched it as a libelous accusation that I am somehow editing with a conflict of interest. I value my reputation as an editor and I won't stand for libelous insinuations. I would be very appreciative if you were to substantiate, by pointing to actual edits, where there is a COI, or else apologize. The real conspiracy here is that you and Solottqua trade talk messages opposing me, rather than following SOP and discussing problems on Talk:Jeopardy! to arrive at consensus solutions. Finally, if Solottqua has been making good faith edits, then the blighting tag is unnecessary. It is simply being placed there to give the appearance of a perspective that does not have consensus. Robert K S (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Clearly it does have consensus, if there's another editor (me, and at least two other admins who found out about this via IRC) agree that it is a fansite. That's kind of the point of tags: to be removed after the problem is fixed. Could you tell me how you think the article does not read like a fansite? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2 editors against one does not make consensus. Really, since you and Solottqua are the ones who are taking this position, it's up to you to say why, and preferably in a way that proposes a solution. A fansite is a site that presents fanatical non-objective commentary of an adulatory nature about a subject, or otherwise discusses the subject in a way that betrays clear preferential bias. The Jeopardy! article presents the rules of the game (as any article about a game is obliged to do) and then outlines in what is at this point the briefest of ways the various versions of the show. I won't defend the culture section at the bottom, which tends to bloat; it should preferably be limited to the three most notable instances (without reference to which the article would probably be lacking--but I'm not going to argue that here, this isn't the place for it). But this is a far cry from a fansite, and defining it as such is an absurd exaggeration, and insisting on the blighting tag as if to punctuate the point is just improper. You can't find any justification for doing so in guidelines. I note that you're silent on the apology issue, but that silence is fine with me, as long as you don't disagree it indicates the withdrawal of your baseless insinuations. Robert K S (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Fine. It's a fansite because it's overly detailed. Do you think the average reader really cares that the buzzer locks out for a quarter-second, a trivial fact which isn't even in the Jeopardy! book? Do you think that they care about what kind of car the second- and third-place winners got, which again can't be sourced? Et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is probably inappropriate to assert an exact length of the lockout (my understanding is that the lockout device is and always has been human-reset), but the fact that there is a short lockout is part of the rules of the game, so your question is like asking, "Do you think the average reader cares what a preempt is in contract bridge?", or "Do you think an average reader cares what the value of a knight is in chess?" Your assertions about what is appropriate for the average reader amount to an opinion, as does your assessment of the level of detail presently found in the Jeopardy! article. The articles for those other two games I just mentioned are both substantially longer and more detailed, and I would wager that far more people watch Jeopardy! in the average day than play bridge or chess. Saying that any such detail "can't be sourced" is again prima facie absurd. If nothing else, the prizes can be sourced directly to the TV show episodes, which is perfectly appropriate. This sort of substantive discussion belongs on Talk:Jeopardy! and it's time we closed out this debate here. Robert K S (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: Both users involved seem to be being uncivil, and neither is innocent here, just look at the history on Jeopardy. I do support the tag until the article is de-fansited, though, as tags are not talk content, and this one seems appropriate. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia content copied to Wikia

Resolved

– GFDL compliant, nothing to see here. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there some arrangement under which Wikipedia content can be freely copied to Wikia wikis? Gantz Wiki appears to be a copy of the Gantz article from Wikipedia with no attribution. Here is Gantz Wiki's main page on 5 November 2008, and here is the Gantz article from 31 October 2008. Should something be done about this, and what would be the appropriate forum to discuss this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All information contributed to wikipedia is released under the GFDL which means anyone can use it. However a direct copy and paste without at least pointing to the source seems a bit underhanded and out of form. I'll look up the relevant policies, but I guess "technically" this is ok.Drew Smith W hat I've done 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

When a small number of people who were around at the time, decided to mass delete things from the original Gantz article, I was able to save it by putting it over there. Up top there is clear mention of where the original source material came from, I and others having worked on it here previously. A lot of stuff has been improved and added since then. Dream Focus 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem - per Wikipedia:Copyrights it is okay. You are fine to discuss this here, or could alternately discuss in WT:Copyrights. Thanks. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On second look, there doesn't appear to be an attribution problem here given the notice that DreamFocus points out. It doesn't appear in the archived version of the article and I didn't check the current version before posting here. Apologies, and thanks for the replies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki newbie

Answered

– Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are other websites for rating businesses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted on Home Depot's site and inadverently erased their whole info. I thought I was just adding a category about how awful their service is.

if you can return their lost information, aka what i inadverently deleted, and keep my category called service that would be greatly appreciated.

thanks

kim hayes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.114.133 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been reverted. As for keeping your complaints, please read what Wikipedia is not. Livewireo (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Constant undoing of blocks of text, refusal to participate in discussion

Resolved

Better sources used, and page semi protectedDrew Smith What I've done 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloomex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please see discussion page. "Flowerman11" and "Floralexpert" (likely the same person) consistently undo blocks of text that they don't like, but refuse to participate in discussion or even give a reason for removal. My suspicion is that he created the page as an ad, and is embarrassed by the controversy and criticism of his company. This is turning into an edit war. Please help. pale (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look. JulieSpaulding (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is an open-and-shut violation of the Three Revert Rule. I think you should post this at WP:AN3. JulieSpaulding (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely 3RR. A report filed should equal a block here. Let us know if you're not comfortable filing a report, and I'm sure someone will help. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you also want to file a SPI on Flowerman11 and Floralexpert?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Though Flowerman11 and Floralexpert may have a WP:COI, the negative material they were removing was mostly unsourced. I took out everything except the Better Business Bureau grade of 'F', which did have a reference. Restoring this negative material before sources can be found would violate WP:V and could lead to admin sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your help and valuable input. I think your assessments are accurate, and believe the edit war will stop now that there are so many eyes on the perpetrators. pale (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson

Resolved

Gretchen Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am trying to provide at least some coverage of the fact that Gretchen Carlson is often criticized by liberal organizations for being biased towards conservatives. This fact is relevant to why Gretchen Carlson is so notable in the first place. Yet the same user who in the past broke the "three revert rule" on this article when he tried to remove the controversies section is at it again trying to remove this from the article. User:Arzel has a history of defending all politically conservative figures in the media regardless of almost universal agreement that these figures are criticized from the left as being right-leaning. I know he's going to get into an edit war with me because rather than modify the controversies section to be as NPOV as possible, he's just flat out removing the section.

He takes issue with me sourcing a liberal organization for its criticism, but that's exactly my point. Liberal groups criticize her and so I want to link to an example. I don't have a NYT or AP article which covers the fact that there is criticism, but the criticism is still relevant.

Can I get some help here? This information should at least be somewhere in the article...

Thanks,

130.64.130.115 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nunh-huh has semi-protected the article which I discuss above instead of resolving the dispute. Please assist. I was not vandalizing at all. More than that, User:Nunh-huh seems to think all political disputes do not count as controversies which I would take issue with.

Mangala3 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there's your problem: you cited two probably extremely unreliable websites, Media Matters and News Hounds... I posted a notice on WP:RS/N. Remember that Gretchen Carlson is a living person, and controversial material, improperly sourced, must be removed.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy is wikistalking me

Discussion moved

– Thread opened at ANI, best to have this discussion in just one place. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy is harassing me by wikistalking my edits by nominating articles that I have edited for AfD. I now realize that I am not the first to have problems with DreamGuy (see dreamguy prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) and after reading the many complaints against DreamGuy, it is clear to me that his wikistaliking of my edits is further evidence of long time edit warring/abuse. The following links should provide sufficient examples of how DreamGuy is wikistalking me:

Juliet Morrow

Colin Spensor

WeeMee

Steven Van Slyke

Cathedral (US band)

Mark Abis

Absolutist Games

Atsuhisa Hiruyami

Mary Gallagher

Stefan Rapp

Argo (film)

Ashley Morgan (musician)

Sergio D. Acosta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varbas (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a courtesy notice on his talk page. This is really a matter to take up at WP:ANI, I guess... I mean, he has a long term pattern of 3RR violations, and it has been proven that he is a likely sockpuppetteer.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've recently been having some mild civility issues with him that went unresolved due to admins siding with him. My suggestion is to bury it until you have sufficient evidence to make a good case.Drew Smith What I've done 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One major correction to the sockpuppeteer accusation above. As I remember the situation, it was all IP addresses, and DG's explanation was simply forgetting for periods of time to re-log after his login expired. Those that dislike DG tended to disbelieve his explanation, those that like him tended to believe it. In the end he was publicly admonished to be a lot more careful to make sure he remained logged in, and that was about the extent of the situation. Just wanting to lay out that, whether the editing while logged out was intentional or not, the case was far, far less than him being accused as a "sockpuppetteer", IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ensuring I have maintained civility in an editing disagreement.

Resolved

Hi,

I was seeking advice on whether I was too uncivil in a response to a commentator who reverted my edits and commented on it on the Jim Gibbons page. The response I listed is listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim_Gibbons_(United_States_politician)#Neutrality under my ip address (24.188.246.45) and in response to Kwpdb8. I would appreciate a response and will be glad to edit my response on the discussion page to ensure it is focused on substantive issues and would appreciate any other advice.

Thank you. 24.188.246.45 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you, or anybody else, was uncivil in that discueeion. You seem to have this pretty well handled, so why don't you create an account?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm fairly certain that I'll spend way too much time editing if I do create an account so I think I'll hold off on that for now. 24.188.246.45 (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.246.45 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of article to promote commercial company

Resolved

– Article has been deleted and protected to prevent recreation--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check out Talk:Micandidate and see if any action should be taken. They are planting links in Wiki articles in order to promote their commercial website. They also cut and paste Wikipedia content into their own website and present it in a misleading way. --Sasper (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as if User:Jamesdonnelly19's entire editing history consists of inserting spam links to http://www.micandidate.eu/ I am reporting him at the spam noticeboard Jezhotwells (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped after the most recent warning. The article is deleted. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Discussion moved

– Article protected, talk page discussion on-going. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am new at this, and am having problems with another editor, Farsight001, who absolutely refuses to let me post anything at all. First he reverted the entire page, then in my last post 02:45, 19 May 2009 I added nothing but hard facts, thouroughly documented, that are relevant to the topic. This was reverted too. I request assistance regarding proper procedure for dealing with this.

Biblelight (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you came here looking for an advocate, but even your well sourced edits introduced a POV tone. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral to any POV. Therefore is a keyword to look out for. You cant take something said in an article and use it to bolster your own beliefs using therefore. This introduces original research, which also isn't allowed.Drew Smith What I've done 05:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how one side can claim that certain facts don't exist, and never existed, and the other side is prevented from citing and presenting those very facts, because that supports a POV. How is perpetuating a falsehood on this site by refusing to allow relevant facts a neutral POV? Biblelight (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Try reintroducing the facts in a neutral way, and using sources that clearly support the fact.Drew Smith What I've done 10:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Answered

– Discussion talking place on article talk page now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Jimmy Hugh has been reverting several changes I've made to the article. While he offers certain explanations in comment, his explanations are faulty, and require depth which cannot be handled in comment. He has not expressed anything on the talk, where I've now laid out several issues points. -Ste vertigo 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole subject area is often prone to edit wars, I am afraid. All I can suggest at present is keep talking, be mindful of the 3 revert rule. I don't think that the matter requires further escalation at present. It may be one step forward, two steps back and vice versa for some time. Perhaps you could seek a peer review from WP: WikiProject Terrorism Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Resolved

– blanking reverted Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor has made five edits removing large sections of text from this article. I don't feel comfortable determining whether or not the edits should be reverted, as I'm in a conflict position, but I'd appreciate it if a neutral pair of eyes could have a look and see if the edits were appropriate. Mlaffs (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the section blankings. No edit summary has been left by User:99.233.13.119 and I have warned them for vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Tempur-Pedic

Resolved

– Resolved according to requesting party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The Popular Culture section of Tempur-Pedic was deleted last month, with a comment that the popular culture was trivial. As this brand is often referenced, usually as a parody of their commercials, I believe it is relevant to include this as part of the entry. I've modified the section to only include non-promotional mentions regarding the popularity of that wine glass test commercial, and posted the rewrite in my sandbox I believe this is in line with WP:CORP guidelines. Can the section be added back to the main entry? Jilliant (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Many good articles (not saying GA's mind you) have this kind of section included. Most readers find these kinds of things at the very least amusing, and a little humour never hurt anyone.Drew Smith What I've done 20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Drew! I appreciate the feedback. Jilliant (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Resolved

– Resolved according to requesting party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have an issue with user Hebel right now on the article Kingdom of the Netherlands. Though he seems to be editing in good faith, he seems to lack some social skills, especially discussion skills. I have repeatedly said to him that he doesn't own the article and that he doesn't get to decide whether or not to delete a (significantly sourced) section himself, but he keeps replying with "I'll look into it". He has deleted the section three times now. A proper discussion doesn't seem possible with him. Please take a look at it. Regards, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the editor has violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, you should report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Try talking to him on his talkpage.Drew Smith What I've done 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like Kww has volunteered to take on this case, though I'd recommend that both yourself and Hebel specifically ask for Kww to step in and make specific recommendations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

True, it looks like we have found a form of agreement now and we seem to collaborate constructively now on the article. Thanks anyway! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing Katauwa Chaupari into Katuwa Chaupari

Resolved

– Page moved. Drew Smith What I've done 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How to correct the above url the Name Katauwa Chaupari is wrong, the right is Katuwa Chaupari —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabinsxp (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, some research using UN and Nepali government sources indeed shows that Katuwa Chaupari appears to be the preferred English equivalent of the Nepali original. I have moved the page and a redirect is created for the original spelling. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing History

Answered

– If you believe you've made damaging edits, you may wish to privately request their deletion: see WP:RFO. If you no longer wish to use your account, you should exercise your "right to vanish": see WP:RTV. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I need help editing a page 'history'. I regretfully edited a page and it has come to light that this hurt many people and may damage the reputation of another. I undid my edits on the page, but for the sake of all parties involved I need to go a couple of steps further and delete the 'edit history' for my account 'maehem' before it can cause further damage. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

~~History and edit summaries cannot be removed.~~ 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is best to make sure of your facts before editing. Also, reviewing your talk page comments, I would like to politely suggest you review the conflict of interest guidelines as it appears some of the edits you have made may have conflicts. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is possible. Through a special right known as oversight, which can only be granted by a steward, a user can hide a revision from the edit history.Drew Smith What I've done 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

However, if you do believe that something damaging has been said in an edit summary, it may be appropriate to request oversight. See WP:RFO for instructions on how to do this. We aren't the right people to ask whether it's appropriate, and moreover it's not a great idea to point people to something you think is potentially harmful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article: Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg

Resolved

– page now deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article: Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was apparently posted by a member of the book retailer's association, and has attracted comments by Sandor Clegane and party. Being the subject of the article, I have requested that it be removed. However, nothing has happened, and I find my privacy regarding Wikipedia users in jeopardy. Could this please be resolved. RFStapelberg (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

It looks like it is on it's way to deletion already via the AFD process here. This AFD is 8 days old so I'll try to get an Admin to wrap it up. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested an admin to take a look at it so you should see some movement today. In regard to your "privacy regarding Wikipedia users", you may to take a look at this, because (while I am not sure exactly what you mean), there may not be the kind of privacy you are looking for. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Page now deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistica article has NPOV issue and possible COI

Answered

– Discussion talking place on article talk page now. R.Vinson (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

STATISTICA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has an ongoing WP:NPOV issue and some potential WP:COI issues. Initially, I brought the dispute to COIN. After some feedback, it appeared showing COI might inadvertantly out an editor. The POV nature of the article has been brought up with the two main contributors of the article over a significant period of time. Bold corrections to the article are meet with reverts by both editors--on a few occasions resulting in revert wars. A NPOV in the article would require a fundamental rewrite of the article. For a clear example of the POV writing see Importing data with Statistica.

Would action on my part be misconstrued as vindictive after posting on COIN? R.Vinson (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

R.Vinson, I'm impressed at your familiarity with COIN and EAR as such a new account. Just wondering, have you been around a while but only recently created an account? If you are not familiar with it, the suggestions on the COIN page pointing you to WP:AFD are reasonable suggestions ONLY if you truly believe this company is not-notable. If you think the company is notable but POV is a problem then COIN is the right place (give it some time). Also, have you considered placing a POV check on the article ( usage {{'''POV-check'''|date=May 2009}} ). 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 07:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But to directly answer your specific question, no I don't think making properly sourced, good faith edits to improve the page would be vindictive. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 08:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Contribution/editing is new to me, but I've been using Wikipedia as a resource for years. The company's product does appear in journal articles, so it is notably. I think they were suggesting using AfD under the assumption that 'no notable content remains' after removing advertising content.[1] However, I'm sure some of the article is salvageable. I'll follow your suggestion and add a POV check on the article and wait on the COIN. Thank you for your time and input. R.Vinson (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

POV is the least of its problems -- where are the references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability? In fact as it stands it's borderline speediable in my opinion as spam and I am surprised it's been around for so long without being nominated for deletion per an Afd discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It was nominated for speedy deletion yesterday, but was rejected due it being around for a long time with many authors..R.Vinson (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and it's a bogus reason for declining speedy IMO. Nowhere in WP:CSD#G11 does it mention that as a reason to decline. "Speedy" refers to the process, and spam is spam no matter how long it's been around or how many editors have had at it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not the most obvious decline reason. My thought is that, as the article is quite old and has had a plurality of editors, there should be a basis for rewriting the article from a non-spam perspective somewhere in the edit history (i.e., not "requiring a fundamental rewrite"). For example, this version doesn't meet WP:CSD#G11, though it would be a candidate for merge or delete per WP:PRODUCT in my view. In any case, the right step if you think deletion is necessary is to go for WP:AFD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article still has issues, but enough people are actively working on it to resolve them. Thank you for the help.R.Vinson (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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