Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 52

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

Star Tours: Animated?

Answered

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

68.183.52.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is very persistently making edits to various articles indicating that an animated version of Star Tours is in development, will be animated by Disney animators, and will feature characters and voice actors from Star Wars: Ewoks. None of these edits have any source provided, and I can't find any mention of an animated version.

I suspect this is just someone's wishful thinking, but I can't be 100% sure, and I'm having trouble keeping up with the IP's edits. I suspect this user has used other IP addresses in the past to perform similar edits, based on the history of a few articles (in particular, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, which had a huge section in it that looked like an animation fan's wet dream; I removed it here). There's no telling how far back this person's edits may go, and I'm worried they might go undetected due to superficial plausibility and the editor's persistence.

I'm having trouble keeping up with the many places this user is making edits, so I need help.

-- Powers ^T 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect someone is serially inserting hoaxes into articles using that IP or a range of similar IPs, then I believe some research is in order followed by discussion with an administrator or possibly a SPI case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that this is disruptive, or at least verging on it. I have left warnings on the users talk page and rolled back a couple more edits in the same vein. Powers, can you give me any further IPs/accounts involved in this? SpinningSpark 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

From perusing Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, it looks like 68.183.63.158, 68.183.57.253, 68.183.102.235 (also here and several other instances in the history, including the one that seems to have started it all, [1]), and 66.245.192.59. There may be others, not sure. Powers ^T 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are too few edits and spread over too long a period of time to justify a range block, there would be far too many innoccent bystanders caught in it. Besides, I am not totally convinced this is all the same person. They all belong to the same ISP, but the WHOIS info says they are direct allocation, which would indicate this is not an IP hopping user (but possibly that is inaccurate). I have blocked 68.183.52.43 for a short period who has answered our warnings with further disruption, I know s/he has read them because the warnings were attacked. Let me know if you see .43 return to this campaign or the situation gets any worse with other IPs and I will reconsider a range block, but I would prefer other solutions if possible. SpinningSpark 23:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Direct allocation means something else in this case; DSL Extreme is an ISP like anyone else and probably uses DHCP to assign IPs to their customers. Of course, that they have a /16 still makes a rangeblock impractical, but I do believe checkusers will recommend smaller rangeblocks when the technical information indicates a user typically comes from within a smaller range and there aren't a lot of other edits coming from within that same range. So maybe a quick checkuser request at WP:SPI would be in order? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we would be wasting our time with a SPI at the moment, it will be thrown out as stale. All the diffs I looked at are old except for .52.43 who I currently have blocked. We need some evidence of recent disruption from multiple accounts before going to SPI. Besides which, I could do a rangeblock myself if it was justified but /16 covers 65,000 users and the range block calculator says /17 would be needed to cover all the addresses in question which is still 32,000 users, to say nothing of the odd 66 address which is another /18 range from the same ISP. Frankly, I don't think rangeblocking is a viable approach unless the disruption goes to a whole new level. A better tack may be to semi-protect articles when the disruption starts to concentrate on one place as it did earlier in the year for Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. SpinningSpark 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't realized the edits were largely stale. You're right though, a /16 or /17 rangeblock would be unacceptable. However if the edits were new enough I know a checkuser could recommend multiple small rangeblocks. But you're right that this may not yet be at the point where it merits a SPI case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the only reason I brought up other IPs is because it showed a longer-term pattern than just the single IP the user is currently using. I certainly wasn't thinking along the lines of a range block. =) I also thought the pointer to other IPs might reveal other locations where this activity had occurred in the past. Powers ^T 13:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you did the right thing in bringing this up. As to which actions to take, I think Spinningspark and myself are more thinking aloud than saying a certain action must or even should be taken. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

After resolution

I just stumbled on User:68.41.83.224. [2] [3] Different articles, but it's same type of misinformation -- plausible to someone unfamiliar with the subject area -- and also Disney-related. I don't know if this is the same user or not, but it's a weird coincidence if not. Powers ^T 12:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty different geolocation for that IP as compared to the others previously; a residential Comcast IP in Michigan. That doesn't mean it isn't the same user of course- could always be someone on vacation, Tor, whatever. But it's not likely the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert

Answered

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know that Adam Lambert's middle name is Aselm not Mitchel. I was going to change it myself, but it wouldn't let me. Thanks! Hannah (AKA adamaddict95) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.143.94 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected so you will need to login to edit it. However, according to IMDB the information is correct as-is, his middle name is Mitchel. Please make that your source is reliable before editing it. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To be completely fair, IMDB is a borederline reliable source, so almost anything (reliably) saying otherwise will count.Drew Smith What I've done 03:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for cases when IMDB may be considered an RS (though it's not official at this point). In any case, as a lot of the info there is user-supplied, especially biographical info, IMDB is unacceptable for this sort of information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How should I deal with an idiosyncratic, frequently unproductive, and unresponsive IP editor?

Resolved

– IP sufficiently warned. If problem persists make use of WP:AIV or WP:ANI as apprpriate. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

97.100.118.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User contributions makes a lot of edits. Some are okay. Many however are clumsy, un-nuanced, and oblivious to context. It might be, removing the Wikilinked term Primitive music from an article about Filipino music because the editor deems the term "primitive" to be derogatory. See diff. Or removing Cameron Diaz (repeatedly) from Hispanic and Latino Americans because she's not a "full-blooded" Hispanic. (Or Alberto Gonzalez because he's "controversial".) There are more like that. A good quick overview of this editor's style of unproductive editing (no diffs at the moment) can be found on the user's Talk page, where I periodically document some of the problems I've encountered in the course of keeping an eye on this editor's work. (I have not received any response to some 8-10 comments there.)

I had hoped that the editor would run out of steam, or gradually figure out the difference between good and bad edits, but it hasn't happened after about 3 weeks now, and I am not sure it will any time soon now. (I've also, admittedly, gotten a little more cavalier about my reverts and undos, because I can't keep taking the time to ascertain whether a particular edit is one of the rare sensible ones or not.) It's not "vandalism" - apart from the refusal to engage, at all, the edits seem to be sincere ones. But that said, they're not making Wikipedia better. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in my experience, unresponsive editors who are not making wikpedia better get blocked. I ran across one user who had been blocked for "not writing articles". A deeper investigation revealed he had been working solely on his user page for almost two months, apparently using wikipedia like myspace. My suggestion would be to test warning templates, because I think they merely say "cease unconstructive editing". If he gets up to a level four warning, you can report him to Administrator Intervention against vandalism, even though it isn't vandalism.Drew Smith What I've done 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a temporary block is needed to get an editor's attention. The edits you describe aren't vandalism, but are POV pushing, and the editor is pretty surely disruptive at this point. You may wish to go with a final warning (like {{uw-npov4}}, {{uw-nor4}}, {{uw-biog4}}) after the next disruptive edit and then go the WP:AIV route if that doesn't help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I agree re a brief block - I've seen it work before. I'll cast about for the right tool to bring to bear - I feel a little awkward crying "vandalism" when the real sin is a kind of oblivious persistence. In many ways it's just as corrosive (being that much of it sort of slips by other editors and becomes entrenched), but not motivated by quite the same animus. Be that as it may, I take the point about escalating the warnings until there's something to take to WP:AIV. JohnInDC (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV isn't just for vandalism, despite the name. If you use one of the above templates, you can warn them of violating NPOV, NOR, or BLP, which ever one you deem appropriate for the situation. Then, when you file a report a AIV, you can tell them exactly what the situation is, and have sufficient warnings to back it up. This way, you aren't really crying vandalism.Drew Smith What I've done 05:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Copy+paste of public domain allowed, frowned on, or both?

Answered

– Unionhawk explains it well– verbatim PD is allowed, but not a best practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See Fantasy Canyon (caught via patrol). Copy pasted (including grammar errors, most unique is idiomatically incorrect) everything past the first blurb. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My general understanding is that verbatim copies of PD resources are absolutely allowed (see {{1911}} for a common example). However that doesn't mean such content shouldn't be conformed to WP:MOS or expanded upon as appropriate. And furthermore, if the PD content simply isn't encyclopedic, it just doesn't belong. Wikisource, if I understand it correctly, is the place to stick verbatim PD/libre content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, I was about to answer, but Mendaliv beat me too it, with an almost identical reply. I would like to add that while it is allowed, it is generally discouraged, as those sites can change their copyright policy at any time, and the content on wikipedia would have to change as well.Drew Smith What I've done 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, once something is placed in the public domain in the United States, it's there forever; the same way that publishing something under the GFDL is an irrevocable act. Proving that it was once under the public domain can be another matter, however, although internet archive and WebCite can help with that. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And there's the other matter of it being PD as a work product of a U.S. federal government employee. It was PD from the word go. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought that if the author wanted to copyright it later on they were free to do so. But as it's a govt. employee I guess the point is moot.Drew Smith What I've done 03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, copying PD text is legally OK, and PD text cannot have "its license revoked", although someone can make a modified version and copyright that. Still, copying without attribution is still plagiarism. So if a PD text is copied, the source should be made clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a modified version would need to meet some threshold of originality. But in any case, more specific questions beyond this probably belong at WP:MCQ, where I imagine they're more knowledgeable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's allowed, but, we're not here to simply build a repository of Public Domain content. It's allowed, but, not the best thing to do (a quick-fail for GAN, for sure)--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideas.

Resolved

– Some ideas given. Not much we can do here. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now I feel kind of useless. My vandalism reverting tools have stopped working, so I have to do everything the long way. I have been given lists of things to do, but there is never any direct things that I can help out with. To help out on articles, I feel that I have to go to the library and check out books on the topic. When I look at other users, they are involved in all these projects and I don't really know where to find all that stuff. Can anyone help me out? I would really appreciate it. Thanks. GandalftheWise : Talk Page 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Always plenty to do. :)

If you'd like to write an article but you don't know what to write, may I recommend the missing encyclopaedic articles pages? Or if you don't feel like writing, do you have the skills to take photographs or draw images, upload them to Wikimedia Commons and license them? Failing that, there's always proofreading (going through articles making sure they have decent spelling and grammar and comply with the manual of style — the "random page" link helps find things to work on).

You can also do category sorting or deletion sorting, which are very helpful activities.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you fancy helping with category sorting, there's a gadget that helps. Try Special:Preferences, select "gadgets", and install Hotcat.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered getting involved in a WikiProject related to a topic which interests you? There are ones for medicine, linguistics, the United States, woodworking, computer and video games, terrorism, firearms, basketball, economics, tennis, mathematics, House, Monty Python... and an untold number more both specific and general. You definitely don't need to do in-depth research to do massive improvements to articles either; WikiGnome-like edits, where you mostly fix things like typos and grammatical errors are always appreciated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict resolution regarding the 'Moksha' article

Stale

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam,

I am facing some issues editing the article under the heading 'Moksha', because one of the active content providers keeps reversing my changes, while providing little or no explanation for his/her actions. The user in question here goes by the name of 'Mitsube'. Given below are the links to the article and the usertalk page. You can call me Dandekar.

Moksha Talk:Moksha

I perform minor/english edits to Wikipedia, and do not possess the skills or ability to argue with the active content providers, who most definitely know more than I do. I focus mostly on the language and readability of the articles I edit. These days, with every article that I try to edit, I am faced with people trying to push their thoughts onto Wikipedia, providing little or no facts, and arguing vehemently with 'noobs' such as myself for little reason. This results in newcomers shying away from Wikipedia altogether. And my episode with 'Mitsube' is a very good example of this very behavior that has tainted Wikipedia. I hope some action is taken in this regard.

---- Dandekar (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The material is (excessively) well-sourced. This user's characterization of the situation is inaccurate. Mitsube (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Although there are references in the Origins section there are only two other in the rest of the article. Reference #1 is not clear as to the full title of the book being referenced. I can see no evidence of User:AkshayDandekar's edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You say his characterization is inaccurate, however he isn't questioning the sources. I believe your characterization of the situation is inaccurate.Drew Smith What I've done 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to change any 'content'. I was just changing the way it was portrayed. And that too in a very minor way. In fact a major reason for even reporting this small 'episode' is because I was surprised to find all my changes reversed(thrice... and each time I tried to change something in a different manner), when my changes hardly amounted to anything. I was feeling real good of having done my small part for wikipedia... until I come back to see everything back to square one. If I am going to face so much criticism for something as minor as removing a couple of adverbs (which i feel should be removed) and adding a qoute from the reference itself! Then is there a point in trying to help at all? Besides the quote was added to resolve the conflict regarding the summary in the first place. Also, thanks Drew for hearing me out. I will focus my attention on other topics. There is plenty of playground for everyone. -- Dandekar (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there's at least one underlying problem here, though I will agree it seems silly to revert over what appears to be a style issue. The two versions are extremely similar. I don't understand Mitsube's objections, and to Dandekar, I would say you can probably feel safe to continue editing the article. If Mitsube can't collaborate on the article or discuss things in a reasonable fashion on the article talk page, I think we can escalate the situation further. I don't think you're in the wrong behaviorally Dandekar.

Something I do have a problem with however is the excessive use of quotations in the reference material. Quotations, if relevant to the article, should be in the article rather than attached to reference footnotes. Otherwise, if they're only relevant for the purposes of fact checking, the quotation is unnecessary. As Mitsube says, the material is excessively well-sourced; something in excess should generally be reduced, no? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Copied to OP's talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist page

Stale

– OP has not contributed for 1 wk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is continually amended to say that the CPBML has suported the Labour Party ever since 1979. This is not true. The CPBML said 'Vote Labour' to get Thatcher out. When she lost power, the CPBML returned to its traditional line of 'Don't vote, organise'. Wikipedia surely does not wish to allow falsehoods to be continually asserted. Also someone is continually entering a sentence about a particular individual who left the CPBML, stating that his departure significantly weakened the party. This is, to say the least, highly debatable. First, why is one individual singled out? Second, is this not an attempt to promote the profile of this individaul, and therefore tendentious and unacceptable to Wikipedia?

Stevenjp (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC) stevenjp

I haven't looked at the history yet, but yes, this sounds tendentious, and also possibly the start of an edit war. Attempt to discuss it with the other editors both on their talk page, and the discussion page of the article.Drew Smith What I've done 10:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that there has been no discussion on the article talk page. I have reverted some recent vandalism from a Chinese IP and placed a warning on the IP talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Note the unclear request below, #Socialist Workers Party (Britain), may be tangentially related to this request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copied to OP's talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ron Perelman Bio

Answered

– And further advice given on article talk page. (probably resolved) Fleetflame 01:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Big Wikipedia fan...

So I've added Mr. Perelman's official bio, as of this evening (5-31-09) to his Wikipedia page. This is an authorized bio, from Mr. Perelman, and from his company, MacAndrews and Forbes.

The information of the Wikipedia page prior to my posting tonight contained a variety of subjective and potentially libelous claims, and apparently was written by an author who has recently published an unauthorized biography of Mr. Perelman.

While we understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort... how can we make sure accurate information about Mr. Perelman stays posted on Wikipedia... especially for his biography?

Again, we fully understand all Wikipedia posts won't be 100% positive; that's the nature of the beast; but we do want to make certain Mr. Perelman's official bio is accurate (as it is now, at 1910 EST tonight, after my posting).

Can you help? Email me at <email address redacted> I want to play by Wikipedia's rules... just need some guidance. Thanks!

Best Wishes,

John DeMarchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsaavn (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 June 2009

It sounds like you've got a pretty level head, and are willing to play by the rules, so I'll spare you the usual BS. Basically the biggest two things to remember is that wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. This means that you do not own the article, and nor does Mr. Perelman. The other thing you need to remember is that wikipedia is not for blasting people, nor is it for promoting them. Wikipedia articles are required to remain neutral per policy. It sounds like you are trying to remove information that shows Mr. Perelman in a negative light. Unfortunately, if the previous version is reliably sourced, it must remain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is meant to present the facts, not put a spin on them. In the same note, it is not supposed to omit facts. Happy editing!Drew Smith What I've done 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} :Right, firstly please do not provide email addresses in postings here or anywhere else on Wikipedis. Please read and understand the text at the ehad of this page:

The description of the issue with which you need help should be concise and neutral. If you are asking about an article that was deleted, please provide the exact title so that we can check the deletion log. Please avoid copying large quantities of article text to this page. Remember to sign your posts. Please click here to post your request. As always, please do not include an e-mail address or other private details.

If you are unhappy with the contents of an article, the place to start is on the article talk page. It is courteous to discuss major changes with the existing editors of an article. The html links you provided do not all support your assertions. Some look like spam links. I have reverted your edits. Are you associated with Mr Perlman or any of his companies? If so then ther is a clear case of WP:Conflict of interest. If you have real concerns about the content of a biographical artcile about a living person then the correct place to post such concerns is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please read the guidelines there. Might I also suggest that you check ouit what Wikipedia:What_Wikiepdia_is_not. "Official" biographies are primary sources and not neccessarily encyclopaediac. What is needed is WP:Reliable sources Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense to OP, sincere question, you do understand that "official" is antithetical to "scholarly" and that a personal interest is often bad in terms of helping get a factual account and understanding of any topic? I appreciate the situation here but this problem comes up in many contexts, not just Wikipedia. Even in things like drug approvals that should be dominated by impersonal science, witness menacing reaction to earlier Provenge BLA, questions of who to believe are a big problem when facts can not be obtained to settle an argument of accuracy.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whom the requestor refers when he says "we". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, we are quite fond of the majestic plural. ;) Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, copied to OP's talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

Answered

– Edit war has stopped for now. Feel free to open another thread as needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

there is an issue that has caused allot of argument that i would like resolved. the problem is to do with the wiki article concerning the defintion the Horn of Africa. The article omits vital facts about the defenition of H.O.A. It does not mention what the actual H.O.A constitutes which is a peninsula containing only Somalia and eastern Ethiopia. And secondly it does not mention that the term is extended when referring to the H.O.A region.--absit invidia (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)absit invidia

My impression on reading the article is that the statements therein are fairly well referenced. The fact that there are differing definitions of the term could perhaps be mentioned in the text, but the fact that editors disagree is not something that can be judged by other editors. You need to seek to understand others' opinions and find positive ways of working to consensus. You have already asked for and been denied page protection. Also please remember to sign posts, both here and on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition can often be a section itself as with anything whose boundaries are defined by politics- is Taiwan part of China? The claims and semantic arguments add nice details. You don't need to settle a conflict, just document it. Any resolution would be original research unless someone can find a prior author who settled the matter. But, even there you have official definitions and usage in less formal settings. I guess wiki has guidelines on fringe and credibility issues.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Folk Nation wiki problems.

Answered

– A reliable source is a reliable source. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm having a problem with the page Folk Nation. Besides the page being extreamly vauge and imcomplete, a user 'Niteshift36' keeps adding the Crips as a member of this midwest super street gang. Aside from it being a sterotype in the south (an area rife with 'posers' to both gangs) it's simply not true. He lists a Florida Department of Corrections website as his source, despite it saying this is more of an alliance and it dosn't even hold up in all areas and in fact they are often enemies. I've tried civily to tell it's not true, I've pointed out his source says it's not true, then I wasn't so civil but explained why and suggested he could mention the "alliance" but not to list Crips as a Folks gang. He just calls me a vandil and edits the page back to say Crips. So I guess we need some kind of moderator on this. 67.235.172.207 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Lich

Yes, let's have an admin look at it. I am using sourced material. The IP editor is simply removing it, saying the source is incorrect and then adding a lot of unsource WP:OR. His idea of "civily" pointing it out is "I'm taking it down. And I'm going to keep taking it down, because it isn't fucking true." [4]. Of course I don't even think it belongs on this board, but since he put it here, I'll roll with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Actually the article does say they are in alliance with the Folk Nation gangs, as ALL gangs are "in alliance with" Folk Nation. The information is true and sourced, so don't take it out again, or you will again be labeled a vandal.Drew Smith What I've done 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets get one thing straight, right from the start. I'm not an admin. I am a volunteer assistant. There are few, if any, admins who frequent EAR. This is step one in dispute resolution. The admins reside a little further down the line. That being said, the incivility of the IP is completely unwelcome here. Outbursts like that will lead to your IP being blocked from editing and account creation priveliges being blocked. As I've said before, the information is sourced, and represented in the article correctly, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. And to the IP, I suggest you make an account as registered users generally (though not officially, and not always) get a few more chances before getting blocked.Drew Smith What I've done 07:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Second Drew's comments here; the source is certainly not a bad one and does link the two groups, so it should be left unless another source is found to counter it. (And Drew, there *are* a few admins around this board... =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tula massacre

Answered

– Copied to user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

my name is Noe Reyes Andrade and i writted the article Tula massacre some time ago and since i lost my password-this happen before the button "email new password"- i open a new account.so the question is how can i record my contributions whit my new username? reg Noe Reyes Andrade (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can get information about retrieving a lost password at Help:Logging_in#How_to_log_in. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a preclusion for creating multiple accounts. Not only are you claiming to be contributions, but it seems pretty clear you're also contributions. That's not necessarily against the rules, but it's definitely troubling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a problem if the multiple accounts are created to get round vandalism warnings and blocks, see User talk:Totonaco and User talk:Noe Reyes. – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeez... I hadn't even looked at the block log for Noe Reyes. I'm not certain this is sockpuppetry though; just somewhat questionable use of alternate accounts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, there is not a direct and easy way to credit your new account with the edits of your old account(s). You could try usurping the old username, but that still wouldn't give you the contribution history. Without the login on those, there is really no way to show that you are the old account - if you follow me. Another thing you can do is redirect the "old" userpage(s) and talk page(s) to your "new" pages. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over WP:BURDEN escalated to User RfC

Answered

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not new to Wikipedia, and I've had my share of disputes, but I'm exasperated by this one. This issue involves a content dispute at lane splitting, but has escalated to the point where a user RfC has been filed against me. I've provided a summary response, but now there are more accusations being made, and it's an awful lot of work to respond. I'm seeking advice on how seriously I should take this, and what specifically I should do.

The core content issue is about who has the burden in providing a source for challenged material in an article: the one supporting the material in the article, or the one challenging it. I won't repeat the details, they are in my summary that the RfC, but I've been exuberant and arguably stubborn in my efforts to convince the others that the burden is on them - those supporting the material in the article. In short, WP:BURDEN seems to be abundantly clear on this point,

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

For the life of me I can't understand why they insist that I, the challenger of the material in question, has the burden. But they do [1] [2] 3], and, in return they have decided to file an RfC against me essentially alleging that my arguments amount to disruptive editing. It is true that they did offer to mediate first, but they apparently took my explanation for why I felt there was nothing to mediate to be a refusal to accept mediation [1] [2].

Other than that, most of the allegations made against me are based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations, ascribing motivations to me that are pure fantasy, and just mistakes, and it would be a lot of work to straighten it all out, especially with folks who seem to just not be listening. They even describe my efforts to explain why they need to abide by WP:V to be wikilawyering.

I've already asked for assistance at the talk pages of WP:V WP:MERGE, and a few editors have responded in support of my view at Talk:Lane splitting, but apparently to no avail.

After at least taking a look at the RfC, and Talk:Lane splitting (at least the #Informal mediation section), what do you recommend I do? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of seen this coming to a head from the sidelines on ANI. I've got no interest in the situation, and haven't actually looked into it, but my advice to you is to take the conduct RfC seriously. While it's true that no conduct RfC will be binding (essentially, it's a chance for people involved and not involved to comment on behavior in general and try to reach an agreement), it's also true that user conduct RfCs may lead to more serious steps such as arbitration or a topic ban.

Basically, though, keep this in mind: it takes two to tango. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong... but somehow this situation has gotten to the point where other editors in good standing consider your behavior disruptive. Even if you're within policy, you should try to address the other editors concerns as sincerely as you can. If you genuinely don't understand where you've gone wrong, address that, and leave yourself open to advice. In general, the editors here will appreciate sincerity far above and beyond any assertions of technical correctness. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mendaliv. Do you think there is some advice that has been offered that I have not taken? The only thing I can think of is the advice - by those who are my adversaries on the WP:BURDEN point at Lane splitting - that I accept mediation... where one of them is mediating. Should I have taken that advice? If not, what advice should I have taken that I haven't taken? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know- I haven't looked into the dispute and I'm just telling you what I know about RfC/Us from experience. No, I don't think it's reasonable for you to accept mediation from someone involved in the debate- but in the situation where they tried to go for that, the logical response would be to try to find mediation through another venue, either WP:MEDCAB or failing that WP:MEDCOM. If you managed to get someone from MEDCOM, I'd follow their advice as their standards for mediators are pretty high, and someone there who felt actually involved would definitely recuse.

There's another point I've got to make however, with regards to the WP:BURDEN note. Unless it's a BLP issue, this is a situation from which you can honorably walk away. Walking away, or even just taking a breather from a dispute, does not imply capitulation- and that's a fine point I think many editors (myself included) forget. Like I said above, it takes two to tango- if there's fault to be had, it neither rests solely on your shoulders nor on those of your adversaries. My thought in a general dispute involving WP:BURDEN, where the local consensus was to include a poorly-sourced point and I disagreed with that local consensus, would be to rather than argue the point ad nauseam with those involved, would be to try and escalate the situation via the dispute resolution process. I haven't read the dispute, so I can't tell the degree to which this has occurred.

My personal approach to the theoretical situation I described above, if it wound up as an RfC/U on myself, would be to approach a response as neutrally as possible. I would state that my involvement was because I felt the information in the article was not verified/verifiable, and thus I removed it per WP:BURDEN. If I screwed up behaviorally, I'd cop to it and apologize, and suggest going for mediation. Also, if it started to appear that a large number of uninvolved people were evaluating my behavior as disruptive, even if I felt they were being wrongly influenced, I'd back down. Once that happens, you know you're fighting a losing battle. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Preserve you dignity and your sanity by walking away from the RfC and the talk page debate. Ignore any attempts by your antagonists to draw you back into the dispute. Take all the relevant pages off your watchlist. Go and do something more useful, more positive and more enjoyable, either elsewhere in Wikpedia or in real life. Read Wikipedia:Don't panic. You can always pick up the thread again at a later date - but give yourself at least a week's break. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, but what about this:

* In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that. RfC has no teeth and seldom achieves anything constructive. Most RfCs are eventually "delisted due to inactivity" when the participants become bored. If you walk away from the dispute now then you save yourself a lot of time and effort and no-one will have an excuse to escalate to ArbCom. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Probably a good time to quit - the only two outside views so far are in my favor. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the guidelines and policies create a burden related to the claims you are trying to substantiate. If you go to a controversial source and just say "Joe stated that [joe's tirade]" the burden seems easy to meet as Joe's statements probably reflect Joe's attitude. In terms of concluding something about other topics, it remains an opinion and AFAIK Wiki doesn't object to these sources if they contribute something of value to the reader (" some people have concluded blah blah blah" may be ok). Personally, I have to look into the criteria related to "negative" or derogatory information a bit more as this attitude is not scholarly, contributes to various "bubbles" or inefficiencies , and plays to many biases that you need to work to get rid of ( notably confirmation bias ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Explaining in the MoS

Resolved

– No edit warring while page protected! Advice given on dispute resolution. Fleetflame 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like the assistance from an impartial and experienced editor (or editors). The issue concerns the inclusion of a brief paragraph written by myself and another participant. It resides on the Wikipedia MoS page and is designed to be an unbiased and concise contextual explanation, which contrasts the normative uses of punctuation to what is called logical quotation. Given that logical quotation is not generally recognized by most English speakers, American and British alike, we thought it would be helpful to those who first come upon Wikipedia's unique punctuation guideline. The contribution reads as follows:

The custom of placing punctuation inside or outside differs from geographic location and among professional style guides. Most Americans place periods and commas inside quotation marks, making exceptions only for parenthetical citation and cases in which the addition of a period or comma could create confusion, such as when quoting the name of a web address. In British English periods and commas are placed outside the quotation marks, unless the periods and commas were part of the original source material and the quotation is preceded by some form of punctuation. MHRA (2008) MHRA Style Guide. London: Modern Humanities and Research Association, p. 43.

There are a few editors who would rather not include this paragraph, claiming that providing context might "confuse" readers. They also argue against the contrasting of geographic usages, as usage is not always universal (though generally is). We believe that the wording of the paragraph minimizes the risk of such possible confusion.

Prior to discussion, a series of edit wars ensued. Feeling that the removal was both unjustified and against the general policies of Wikipedia I participated in the reversal of these "reverts." Given that the suppression of NPOV contributions does not seem to accord with Wikipedia's philosophy, and OWN, I was hoping someone here could help mediate our disagreements. Best Miguel Chavez (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

From your summary of the situation, I don't understand how NPOV contributions are being suppressed, nor how WP:OWN necessarily applies. In any case, edit warring on guideline pages is bad. If you can't reach a clear consensus on the talk page, you shouldn't be going in and changing things around. And if you're deadlocked, considering this is a policy page, I'd imagine the village pump for policy and perhaps a policy RfC would be appropriate. Since the MoS is a big deal and changes to it have significant implications throughout English Wikipedia, this sort of discussion may also merit listing at T:CENT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like excellent advice to me. I note that [[Wikipedia MoS is currently protected. You will have to sort out the edit-war and will need to seek to establish consensus at a high level as suggested by User:Mendaliv above. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Colby Date of Birth and Year of Law School Graduating Class

Resolved

– Vandal blocked for twelve hours. Fleetflame 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Per history page

I added the year of her law school Graduating class "1983" and her birthday 12/21/1961 The class roster is listed at the link below "Jamie Nell Colby" http://www.law.miami.edu/homecoming/1983/roster.php?op=2

DOB is listed http://www.chickipedia.com/jamie-colby/

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Colby&action=history The edits have been deleted twice without any stated reason or substantiation.

Mojofan1945 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I checked out the page, and most of it was a straight COPYVIO from her Fox News bio. I've removed the copyright violations, and left a note on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I too saw this and was about to report it as a copyvio until I saw that the above editor had removed the material. I would suggest that you add the information and communicate with the other editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and left a reason for my change. Mojofan1945 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A poster named "Accuracy checker" has deleted all changes by Dayewalker, Jezhotwellsand and myself and cut and pasted the Fox News bio. I changed it back, but I doubt it stays. Mojofan1945 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy checker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reported at WP:AIN Jezhotwells (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy checker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 12 hours, if the problem resurfaces report at WP:AIN. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Workers Party (Britain)

Stale

– Fleetflame 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Socialist Workers Party (Britain), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't insert your own derogatory comments into articles. They will not be tolerated. RolandR 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roland, as you are a supporter of the Fourth International, you can hardly be trusted to put forward a neutral point of view on Trotskyism. It seems you are using Wikipedia to promote the Trotskyist viewpoint, accompanied by threats to those who disagree with you. Stevenjp

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Trotskyism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you add material to articles, particularly if this adds contentious or non-consensual claims, you must include a verifiable source so that other people can themselves assess the validity of your assertion. Otherwise, such edits are not allowed, and will be deleted. RolandR 11:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Stevenjp (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. RolandR 11:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roland, if you are objective, perhaps you will allow the addition of this quote to any of your Trotskyist propaganda pieces: In 1915, Lenin wrote in his article "The United States of Europe Slogan", “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” Stevenjp (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me Roland, if I can't quite understand how you are in a position to make such threats? Stevenjp (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevenjp" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjp (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 May 2009

And your request is what precisely? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole request is a partial copy of the requestor's user talk page. I've fixed the pre-formatted text sections as they were screwing up the pagewidth, and put the whole thing in a blockquote to indicate that it's just a quote. I've also added a more appropriate title to this request and will shortly notify the requestor of the change and requested that he clarify this request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, gentlemen, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. I suggest that a balanced account would put the Totskyist account of the orgins of the dispute over 'Socialism in one country' and also proffer the non-Trotskyist viewpoint, for example, the following: In 1915, Lenin wrote in his article "The United States of Europe Slogan", “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” Otherwise Wikipedia's supposedly objective account of Trotskyism merely reproduces what Trotskyists say about themselves.Stevenjp (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting the account of Trotskyism in Socialist Workers Party (Britain) is biased towards Trotskyists, and that the article should reflect an alternative viewpoint? Certainly a valid request to make, though being unfamiliar with the subject area I can't exactly evaluate the appropriateness of it. As such the best advice I can offer is, if discussion of the issue at Talk:Socialist Workers Party (Britain) has failed, you may wish to try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties or Portal talk:Communism or something else similar to turn the ear of editors with significant experience in editing in that subject area. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

copied to OP's talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic hate campaign

Stale

– Fleetflame 01:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

EmmDee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Padmaloka Buddhist Retreat Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For some years, an individual has waged a hate campaign against a Buddhist orgnaisation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. He has enrolled as a wikipedia editor, and persists in making homophobic and hateful attacks on this organisation, citing a Guardian newspaper article published some 12 years ago. No financial misconduct or sexual abuse has ever been demonstrated against this organisation, although some 20 to 30 years ago its founder did have consensual sexual relationships with a number of adult members.

The present dispute relates to a link which this editor insists be maintained to an ANONYMOUS attack site, which makes countless homophobic and other defamatory abuse of the organisation, whose members throughout the world are thus smeared. For example,the attack site alleges:

"In simple terms, FWBO public centres ostensibly teach Buddhism and meditation, but really act as a front for recruiting people to work voluntarily or for low wages in FWBO charities and businesses. Profits from the businesses are covenanted back to FWBO charities, thus avoiding tax. To a lesser extent, FWBO public centres are also used as a front to procure teenagers and young men for the homosexual leadership of the FWBO."

I have sought to bring some element of proportionality to this matter, without censoring or deleting the facts of what are now long-distance controversies about a Buddhist leader and others having sex with members of their order. I have deleted the link to the anonymous site, as I believe that such links are contrary to wiki policy. The attacks from that site are also homophobic and defamatory. The editor Emmdee, persistently reinstates the link, and indicates that he will continue to do so.

I would appreciate it if outsiders, who have no particular interest in this organisation, could assist to clarify what the proper position should be.Bluehotel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Note this dispute does appear to span multiple pages. Prior to taking a look at the situation itself, I'd like to note that WP:ECCN would probably be the logical next step if the people here can't help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, anything pertaining to 4chan or anonymous is not considered a reliable source.Drew Smith What I've done 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do 4chan or anonymous enter into this? I think the website in question is this one. Looks self-published. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, when they said "an ANONYMOUS attac site" I assumed they meant anonymous as relates to 4chan. I guess we all know what assuming does...Drew Smith What I've done 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you discussing the "ostensible" and "reality" quote? Even if this was CNN, what factual claim could it substantiate and what would be the primary source for making this conclusion? That is, this appears to make an inference as to the mental state of the subjects. Consider, "Ostensibly they are doing A but the reality is this is a pretext to do B." And, for this argument, they do both A and B in some amounts as can be factually verified by observation. Which is "real" A or B? Presumably this has something to do with intent which is only discernable by mind reading or fMRI. If you need to document the attitude of a notable figure, then self-published work would seem to do that and a quote would be good evidence of this( "Joe made many statements about people's true interest in doing B when they pretended to do A" might be something you could factually say about Joe). However, for describing the people who engage in A and B, what does this contribute beyond saying "they do A[] and B[] and the IRS has doubts about their tax status[]."

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Batman (film series)" article disagreement

Resolved

– Change from "stale." OP has "lost interest," and we're rude. Nothing else to be done. Fleetflame 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (original tagging stamp: 17:31, 9 June 2009)

This discussion has highlighted that the majority of editors are unsatisfied with the current format of this article. Consensus reflects this in a landslide, but user ThuranX seemingly believes he owns the article, and has repeatedly asserted that the consensus supports his vision of it without any evidence. Recently he marked this user's good faith edit [[5]] as vandalism. Looking at his edit history, you'll find he is frequently rude. I am open to discussion about this article, but I don't think objective dialogue with this user is possible. Any help would be appreciated. A gx7 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there are only three editors talking about this. You, an IP, and ThuranX. It also appears that a prior consensus was reached deciding to leave the article the way it was. ThuranX has provided several very good arguments as to why the article should remain as is. Your arguments have restated the same line in a few different ways, and basically amount to a whiny "Why not!?". One more thing, at the top of the discussion you provided, there is a link to a more appropriate page for what you have proposed. It seems to me that the article "batman movies" should redirect there instead of to this articleDrew Smith What I've done 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion page, myself, Noz92, two IP addresses and Wildroot question the current format of the article. Literally only one who doesn't is ThuranX, who is the one repeatedly making the vague, unquantifiable claims that the films follow "one line of development" and that "consensus has been reached". I find your response quite rude. I would suggest that if you realised what such conduct revealed about you, you would be quite embarrassed. I've lost interest. A gx7 (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything by Noz92, only see one IP, and wildroot is agreeing with ThuranX in a "let's pacify A gx7" way. I find this "go to the other parent" aproach to editing quite rude, thus my rudeness in my response.Drew Smith What I've done 06:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Marchywka_Effect?

Discussion moved

– Article moved to mainspace. Science desk would probably be a better help next time. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, anyone want to comment on this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdseeksblonde/Marchywka_Effect

There are a few citations that come up on google and alternative names are suggested. There is a related patent and suggested practical uses. If anyone can find precedents in electrochemistry which anticipate or trivialize this result I would not be offended.

Is there a free citation database somewhere? I recall at the UGA library one of the DB's gave yo citation rates ( I looked up my own papers LOL) and I think citeseer gives "cited by" information. Of course, google scholar doesn't do too bad. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this to the main site after adding references and general clean up for coherence. Again, the COI issues may or may not be apparent and depending on notability criteria this may be considered arcane technical trivia. I have documented most claims and believe it to be generally accurate but after editing etc it should at least be verified. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this didn't get answered. Next time you might find the Reference desk/Science more geared up to answering these kinds of questions. SpinningSpark 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it gives me more time to fix stuff and I mentioned on talk pages where I could find related topics. Thanks.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Help With Disagreement Re: Shift4 Article

Resolved

– Per below & IP talk page, appropriate commentary being taken off-wiki. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently having something of a dispute with an editor named Drmies regarding the Wikipedia article for Shift4. Shift4 is a corporation in Las Vegas, NV that handles credit card transactions for a variety of clients, both national and international.

The article itself is written like an advertisement for the company. It is extremely complimentary and gives the impression that it was written by a Shift4 executive, for the sole purpose of boasting about how wonderful the company is. The article has been flagged at the top for exactly that reason.

I have discovered a website called Jobschmob.com in which former Shift4 employees have posted on the unfairness of the company's hiring and firing practices at length. The reports are all anonymous, but do tend to say the same things, leading to my belief that there is some accuracy to the claims.

In the interest of bringing balance to the Shift4 article, I have been trying to include a section that references the Jobschmob website and point out that some of the company's practices, as regards employees, are controversial. Drmies has been undoing that edit, and on June 3, 2009, posted a message to my Talk page warning me to stop my "disruptive" edit of the Shift4 page, and saying that if I continued to "vandalize" the page, I will be blocked from editing.

On my Talk page, I responded by informing Drmies that I do not consider this to be vandalism, as I am quoting the source and am just reporting on a controversy which does in fact exist. The fact that these allegations from former employees, if true, would tarnish the reputation that Shift4 seems to want to maintain with its heavily positive article is of no importance to me. I have found information that I believe has some truth to it, and I feel very strongly that it deserves to be a part of the Shift4 article.

I have also posted this view on the Shift4 discussion page. As of June 6, 2009, there has been no response from Drmies to either my Talk page or to the discussion page for Shift4. On the discussion page, I specifically stated that I wanted my edit to be restored and left alone, or, failing that, to enter into a discussion about its merits. Drmies has not as yet done so, and I am left wondering if he ever plans to do so.

My question therefore is: may I take his silence as evidence that Drmies has had a change of heart, and will allow my edit to remain in place if I should post it again? If not, is there a way to push forward and make progress of some kind on this matter? Essentially, what are my options here?

15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.11.126 (talk)

To an extent, silence implies acceptance. That said, lack of response doesn't give you carte blanche to edit war. I'll also note that from your description, the source you're using probably does not meet our criteria for being a reliable source, which means it's very inappropriate to use it as a source for anything controversial or contentious (i.e., complaints about a company). At best, it's definitely a primary source, in which case it still wouldn't be very appropriate for use in the article. But in that case, if the people represented in that primary source were significant, then it should be a trivial matter to find mentions of the dispute in secondary sources (i.e., news articles).

I'll furthermore note that 3 days isn't exactly a long period of silence. Even though Drmies has been active since you posted the question, it's possible he just didn't see it. If you want his involvement in discussion, you should drop a message at his user talk page inviting his participation at the article talk page.

As to the article itself... some of the history section, I agree, is puffery. The "origin of the company name" is written in a highly unencyclopedic tone, and should simply be integrated in a matter-of-fact manner in the history and/or lead sections. The technology section is unclear. Per WP:PRODUCT, information on prominent products generally belong in the article about the parent company, while less-prominent ones don't merit mention. I recall a recent case where an article of similar structure was nominated for speedy deletion per criterion G11. The article itself doesn't show much indication of how the company passes WP:CORP, but if its subjective claims of importance are true, it should be trivial to substantiate them with sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! As per your suggestion, I posted a message to Drmies in his Talk page asking to continue the discussion regarding Shift4's edits. Insofar as the Jobschmob website is concerned, I see your point; given the fact that all of the people who've posted complaints about Shift4 are doing so anonymously, I can't verify with any real names...and therefore, I can't verify with references to any legal claims against the company that may be in process. However, I find the fact that these people clearly do exist, and that they do have legitimate axes to grind against the company, to be personally offensive, and I really would like to make the general public aware of the fact that Shift4 has this in its background. Do you have any suggestions for how I can do this...if not with Wikipedia, then through some other means? 70.170.11.126 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your irritation that such a source wouldn't be acceptable here. Part of the problem with using primary sources to reference such controversy is this- how do we determine how relevant those complaints are overall? If we read through all the complaints, weight them, and figure out how significant this is to the company in comparison to how big they are, while we might be able to evaluate such significance, we have an even bigger problem- that evaluation constitutes original research.

I have no idea what to tell you about getting public awareness up with regards to that website. Wikipedia isn't the place to do it, however. One thing I'm reminded of, however, is EA Spouse, and how that changed employment practices at Electronic Arts. I have no idea if that's relevant to your interests, but when I heard you mention anonymous complaining about a company's employment practices, that just happened to pop into my head. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Onyeka Article

Discussion moved

– On-going at OP's talk Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good morning,

The Publishing house Narrative Eye has posted an article about one of its authors Onyeka. We find his life work including three fiction titles to be a great asset to the life and times of Black people in England.

We recently recieved a note on the newly created site to say there were no reliable sources and that there is a possibility that the page may be deleted.

I have read through the wiki material about using resources etc but apart from Onyeka's work there is not much more we can post.

Could you please look at the page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyeka) and provide your opinion.

Kind regards,

B.Moir (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Page got hit with a {{notability}} tag. I just added {{wikify}} as well, since it's got a strange layout. Anyway, problem here is a poorly- or un-referenced BLP with questionable assertions of notability. I've dropped a welcome template at B.Moir's user talk which may help out with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gold Mercury International

Resolved

– speedily deleted per G4 and G11. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin check if Gold Mercury International was merged or simply deleted? A new version has popped up (it's a spammy phony awards company) and I want to know if the new version is the same as the last one. It was at least a year ago so I'm vague about if it was AFD'd or I am thinking of another article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log shows this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Mercury International. – ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} You don't need an admin to check that. Just go to the revision history and click on View logs for this page, and you will see that it has been deleted four times on 18 March 2005, 16 January 2007, 8 February 2008, 7 November 2008. there are links to the AfD for the last deletion. the previous three were admin actions for copyvio. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing an admin would need to check is whether or not this version is substantially different that the version previously deleted. If not, it can be speedied as a re-creation of deleted material. But you need the buttons to see the previous version. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)`

LOL - seems I AFD'd it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And now speedily deleted per G4 and G11. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 9 June 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.