Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 55

Klondike (solitaire) Outline Summary

Stale

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The summary of the article originally stated:

Klondike is a solitaire card game. Many people refer to Klondike as "solitaire". It has been proposed that the version shipped with Microsoft Windows is the most popular video game of all time.[1][2][3] Chris Sells, a Microsoft employee, was quoted as describing it as the "most used Windows application".[4] A study in Canada found that nine in ten Canadians online had played Solitaire on a computer, therefore more played than any other video game, and that for one third of respondents it was the earliest memory they had of using a computer.[5][6]

It was revised by User:Skaraoke to the following with the edit note: Removed pointless promotion for Microsoft's Klondike game from first paragraph:

Klondike is a solitaire card game. Many people refer to Klondike as "solitaire".

I reverted this edit, and the editor reverted it back with the edit note Irrelevant information is irrelevant information, no matter how well sourced. I haven't engaged in a direct dialogue, as I don't feel comfortable dealing with the dispute. My points are as follows:

• The inclusion of Microsoft's Klondike game in the summary, is because it strikes to the notability of the article
• The text was well referenced, indicating that it was one of the most popular video games of all time.

It would appear that User:Skaraoke believes the information is irrelevant. I disagree because I believe it is relevant due to its claim to notability. However, I accept I may well be in error with this viewpoint and would like second opinions as I feel I have nothing more to contribute to the issue. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced and relevant, but it's relevant only to the Microsoft version. The info should therefore be located in the section below about specific software implementations and not in the lead. DreamGuy (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Most popular of all time is NOT MSFT specific but most used windoze app is. Keep one and move the other? Personally I think it is funny that the most used windoze app has nothing to do with automated data processing, productivity or social networking, but just meaningless time waste with visuals...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"violent direct action" is misleading

Resolved

 – Edit war appears to have stopped. Article has other issues, but perhaps editors can take to the article talk page to work it out. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

on the [[1]] in the Info-box on right hand side

the group engages in direct action and yes, some forms of violence against property. but not against people, which is the primary definition of violence.

several of us have discussed this in the Talk page here and the Talk page for Whale Wars.

however, NRen2k5 has repeatedly ignored, dismissed, and belittled that discussion. Now he is reverting my good faith edit.

thanks for listening. please advise. Fhue (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. As borne out by the discussion, Fhue is the one acting in bad faith (as well as resorting to personal attacks). — NRen2k5^(TALK), 10:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, both of you. No one's acting in bad faith here. As for the discussion at the article talk page, I think there's no clear consensus developed through it. Since the disagreement is just about the term and no one seems to be denying the actions of damaging property, I suggest you think of some phrase that would indicate the nature of their actions while leaving no doubt that they are not directed at harming humans or animals. Nothing wrong with using something like that; the reader gets an accurate idea and everyone's happy. Chamal ^talk 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The material we're talking about is the infobox, and the article already has a section where Mr. Watson rationalizes his organization's actions as nonviolent / noncriminal / not piracy or terrorism. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. But since it is difficult to use a single word here to express the full meaning of the thing, you can use a short phrase instead. There's nothing wrong with that in an infobox, as long as it's not too long. Chamal ^talk 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How about bullet lists under "nonviolent direct action" and "violent direct action" that list specific methods? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys should discuss with the other editors of the article and decide that. But remember that the infobox is supposed to give a summarized version of facts in the article, so it should not contain overlong lists. It should be short and to the point. Chamal ^talk 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hence "violent direct action".... — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously not working, that's why I suggested an alternative method. If you are not happy with that, then don't do it.Hopefully, someone else will come up with another idea. Chamal ^talk 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not working? There's one guy who disagrees with it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not accurate at all, and NRen knows it. Someone else started this thread at:[[2]]
and there are several others in the archived discussions: [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]
also, please note that NRenk25 has said things like "Balance is not the goal" [[6]] when clearly it is a major tenet of wikipedia's policies. and he repeatedly claims that the Sea Shepherds are terrorists. Fhue (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There you go, misrepresenting again. You are the only editor who is actually against the wording I presented. The other editors involved in the discussion have only asked about it. If they, like you, had a bone to pick, you would think they would discuss the matter further. Wikipedia's goal is not balance, it's verifiable, accurate information, supported by reliable sources. Balance is sometimes, but not always, a happy side effect. As for the matter of terrorism, WP:TERRORIST withstanding, it is an accurate label supported by reliable sources but I'm treating it carefully, seeing as it's contentious. That is a serious issue. Your semantics over "violence" are not. If someone threw bottles at and then smashed into your house or car, then opened the door and proceeded to threaten you, I don't think you would argue that it isn't violent. Yes, I am accusing you of bias. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

see below for reply, continuation. Fhue (talk)

I'm not the one dismissing others' opinions when they dont line up with my own. Nor I am the one who brags (on his own wiki-User page) about getting kicked off of other forums. And calling you out for your trolling hardly qualifies as a personal attack -- regardless, you did the same in response. Fhue (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The problem isn’t that our opinions don’t line up with one another, the problem is that yours don’t line up with reality. Your argument that just because nobody gets hurt it isn’t violence is absurd.
2. I didn’t brag about getting kicked off of a forum, I mused over it.
3. Calling someone “a lame troll” isn’t a personal attack? And I did NOT do the same thing. I said you were projecting. You’ve been projecting the whole time; acting without consensus, ignoring the discussion, making personal attacks, and then accusing me of the same. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, both of you are making personal attacks. How about you stop that and focus on the actual editing dispute? Did you guys come here to resolve this problem or did you pick this as just another page to continue with your fighting? Chamal ^talk 11:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, I am not making personal attacks. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

apparently NRen2k5 doesn't see how patronizing his comments like #1 are, on two counts. Yet I already conceded the secondary meaning of violence. i also attempted to clarify by rephrasing (in the talk page, which he arrogantly dismissed). just because the Sea Shepherd's actions fit one definition of violence does not mean the info tag should take on the whole gamut, as Chamal_N says in the first reply above and as I've already said in the two other discussion pages mentioned. And for the record, his #3 point is petty and grossly exaggerated. Fhue (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a pattern with you: insisting that your interpretation is the only valid one. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this argument seems to have no end, I suggest you follow dispute resolution now. You guys are not going to get anywhere until the personal attacks stop on both sides. Both of you seem to be under the impression that the other is making personal attacks while you are innocent; a personal attack is anything that focuses on the editor and not the content. Stop it already. Chamal ^talk 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess this whole page is one big personal attack, seeing as its entire purpose is to comment on a user's behaviour, which is exactly what I've been doing, and entirely accurately I should add, as borne out by the diffs and current discussions. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] in Re others opposed: "I do not understand how can it be described as 'violent', when they do not attack people."   That is User:Sugaar clearly against it, one week after [NRen inserted the questionable term] before "direct action" in the intro-box -- and in disregard to the archived discussions about it in which he took part. In his reply to Sugaar, he merely cited the ambiguous wiki article on direct action.
So, really, I have reverted an [improper edit he made based on his POV]. Therefore I think the onus is on Nren2k5 to show why it should be "violent direct action" or any variant thereof, rather than just "direct action" like on every other activist page on wikipedia (for consistency, you can check the list that appears at on the direct action page). But does he really have to shoot back a reply every time here instead of waiting for others to weigh in. Fhue (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not opposition, that's I do not understand. You have neither proof nor consensus that my wording is improper. There is no "archived discussion about it", and the onus is not on me to show why it would be violent. I already did: I cited the dictionary definition for you. I'm curious how you would know that "every other activist page on wikipedia" lists "direct action" and not violence. Have you checked every last one? How does looking at trends in activist articles in general pertain to the more specific case of violent groups like Sea Shepherd, who directly attack the people they oppose rather than just getting in their way? Do I have to "shoot back a reply every time" to you before waiting for others to weigh in? No, but that's my choice. It's not like I'm doing anything inappropriate like, oh, ignoring discussion, revert warring or canvassing. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: probably appeal to other precedents, "every other activist page" would help. Consider the spectrum in no particular "ordering": "police action", "war" , "terrorism", "random violence", "cleansing", "civilizing","making the world safe for democracy" . Describing the Korean police action as a series of terrorist acts, coordinated by a central group set on cleansing, may provoke POV concerns. "Korean War" or maybe "conflict" is probably more accepted and more neutral even if you are a soldier, pacifist, or mob enforcer. Violence generally adds connotation with little specific meaning. For a general term, " direct action" does distinguish from letter writing perhaps without making specific claims about the type of action- presumably not everything they do would be considered violent by everyone. Alternatively, if everything they do involves vandalism, that would be specific and denote certain acts even if it has a negative connotation. How about "vandalism" instead of violence?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• They stinkbomb, ram, illegally board and scuttle ships. I'm not claiming that everything they do is violent, but these things clearly are. Fhue's trying to argue for his personal idea of what constitutes violence, which doesn't match the definition in law, law enforcement or the dictionary. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

←Folks, while I can appreciate the dispute going on here, EAR is not the place to continue a dispute from a relevant article talk page. By continuing to argue here, you're making it extremely difficult for any outsiders to penetrate the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. When this failed and Chamal_N said as much, I escalated it to Wikiquette alerts. Not one to be outdone, Fhue did so himself immediately afterward, and User:Bwilkins went ahead and combined the two into one. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

well i posted this thread in the hopes of hearing from a third party about the disagreement. But Mr.NRen has replied many times here, far more than anyone else. And unfortunately I got sucked into his trolling, again. For that, I apologize to the rest of you. If anyone else would like to read a summary of the dispute, please see my Talk page. Thanks. Fhue (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The reason for mentioning it here is getting the attention of people who wouldn't look at the article and may have insights from other interests. In particular, when you need to reduce a group's actions to a word or two, you have a tendency to create false constraints and fight over loaded words. So, discussing the larger issue may not be of interest only on this immediate dispute. Consider even something like "physical intervention" or "physical disruption" as "physical" has the implication of

impeding the efforts of others regardless of person or property focus. FWIW, I seem to recall seeing the term "violence" used when considering acts against literary works to so I'm not sure it really contributes much.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I’ve notified a few editors who I’ve worked with and asked them to weigh in on the issue. I believe the way I did so is within the rules (WP:CANVAS). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. [7][8][9][10][11] — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dwight Lauderdale

Answered

 – Perhaps resolved? No further editing on the article in question in over 1 wk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dwight Lauderdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KoshVorlon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user appears to have some ownership issues with this article and has twice today reverted it to his preferred ("dog's breakfast" in my words) format. After my first reversion, left a complaint on my talk page, has not responded to message left of their talk page.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Initially, I put an article up about Dwight Lauderdale and it required some correction on the part of serveral editors. Damiens.rf pretty much did a hatchet job on it as well. I have archive copies of any article I work on/write in my userspace. I modified mine to conform to MOS (no trivia, no itialicized quotes (as I had before), links...etc..) and posted that in response to the tag "This section requires expansion".

UKExpat did in fact revert me, I did drop a note off on his page questioning his edit summary "Dog's breakfast".

Yes, I reverted back.

2 reverts does not make me an "owner". I just disagree with the current hatchet-job done on the article. That and it's a laugh that that article got reverted but yet, the "This section requires expansion" is still there. That article was, in fact, previously expanded.

In short, I request this be closed. There's no ownership on that page, nor will I revert again today (nor will I tommorow either :) )

See you around_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my part in this matter, I have no connection to any of the above editors, but reverted the most recent round of changes because the entire article had taken on a completely non-encyclopedic tone. Dayewalker (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I'd like to think so but this:

Please do not be so petty. You don't own this article and the form it's in now after my second reversion of your recent edits is perfectly acceptable and properly formatted. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

and the fact that Ukexpat made only ONE revert not two on that page kinda looks odd.

_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 18:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker beat me to the second revert to same previous version. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, my following viewpoint may come off a bit harsh. I don't intend it as such, but in the interests of quickly resolving this dispute, I'm going to get straight to the point.

I've got to say I'm a bit concerned about the formatting in the article to which Kosh was reverting. Maybe WP:LEDE doesn't specify positioning of the TOC (I haven't looked), but common sense would dictate that we follow the prevailing formatting used in other articles (and WP:PG would suggest so notating it in our manuals of style). This would mean, barring rendering/display issues without a different TOC position, we shouldn't specify the position of the TOC in an article. Same deal with "hard" line breaks (i.e. <br />); they are very seldom used in articles (only in infoboxes and a couple other unusual situations as far as I've seen).

I'm also extremely concerned with the commented vandalism warning and "3RR exception" warning in that version. Let me say this here and now- assume good faith. Yes there are exceptions to AGF. However, I can say with no doubt in my mind that the loquacious and frankly threatening/legalese warnings encased in such comments are not only unhelpful, but may indeed serve to feed the trolls (which we shouldn't do).

And as a note, Kosh; it's regularly been established (i.e., it would take a cursory search of the ANI archives) that rollback with Twinkle is different than straight rollback in that when the editor provides a meaningful edit summary, it's no longer subject to the same restrictions as rollback. And further, this edit does suggest ownership issues; you aren't free to dictate who can and cannot revert your edits.

Also, please don't put edit summaries in the /* */ notation- this is for section titles, and the presence of such notation provides a link to a section with the same name. Adding your edit summary in there breaks any such links, or adds ones which don't exist in the first place.

Now, all this said, I'm curious as to why there hasn't been any attempt at discussion recently on this at the article talk page. To Ukexpat, it's a bit early IMO to call it an ownership issue- yeah the edit summary I provided above is suggestive of it, but I think it would be a better idea to have tried discussing it as simply a formatting dispute. But that's just me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian wax

Answered

 – Answered the OP's question. There's discussion about the pics on the article talk. This is not the veue for the broader discussion. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bikini waxing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two images on the page on bikini waxing may be too sexually graphic for their purpose. I think they should be deleted. However, I do not have suitable replacement images and I have not edited a page before. I therefore thought it would be best if an experienced editor would offer an impartial decision.

File:Mons_pubis.jpg File:Vulva_(brasilian_haircut).jpg

Kite407 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll find the general attitude on Wikipedia is that, while some of those images may be unnecessarily gratuitous, they're wholly acceptable for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia. There are an awful lot of images on that page though... two or three should be plenty tbh. But in any case, the place to discuss this is Talk:Bikini waxing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been surfing the web and could not help but note FOIA release of Deep Throat investigation, hard to tell how costs compared to investigating steroid use in baseball or which benefited the US more but you get the idea, as well as Chinese need to protect citizens from porn. I doubt if you will find anyone impartial but this is presumably an editorial call. I'm not sure how much scholarly content is at issue but certainly sexual topics or the purely irrelevant detail are not issues confined to this page. It is hard to call "explicit" a criticism in any scientific or scholarly work- you want to get right to the point as clearly and concisely as possible. Personally I'd even refrain from using that word as a criticism where possible. If it was an article on any other medical issue, there would be no objection AFAIK except for relevance and offhand I don't see why this should be any different. If the topic is otherwise encyclopedic and best described with pictures it is hard to argue against the most explicit illustrations suitable for the topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The illustrations are undoubtedly educational, for the benefit of those readers who are somehow unable to form a mental picture, even from the extremely detailed description. The problem is, the photos only show the results. To properly educate the public (especially those contemplating this procedure), a series of photos showing the pubes in the process of being ripped out would fill in that knowledge gap. (Time out now, while we cringe.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be generally against photos myself when words would work better. And again I concede this is a question of editorial policy, detail and presentation, but probably not "decency" or some other nebulous topic-specific moralizing as seemed to be the OP's interest. They have pictures of hockey sticks in one questionable article but if you have never seen one the picture really helps as they come up as an analogy for some chart shapes- otherwise you could laugh about the pedestrian nature of the illustration ( " why do you need a picture of a hockey stick?"). Level-of-detail in all articles is quite subjective and I guess that is where you are stuck with the Ed Meese criterion, " I know it when I see it."

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone has seen a hockey stick. Most humans over the age of 12 or so have seen female genitals, one way or another. I wonder, if someone posted a photo of the hairs actually being ripped out, whether someone would claim that was too graphic.

P.S. I am not a sadist. Quite the contrary, I wonder why women do this to themselves. But I wonder about lots of things. Like what percentage of women with tongue piercings have chipped teeth. And in case you're wondering what XXX-rated publication I got that idea from, it's mentioned on page 135 of the July edition of Reader's Digest. And thankfully not illustrated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You do raise a good point on POV, the deceny issue is a distraction. What about pictures of aborted fetuses in an entry on D+C? You can have loaded pictures as well

as loaded POV text. And, ok, I will admit I like the pictures but I wouldn't demand their inclusion to make a statment...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aborted fetuses are for political shock value. The photos here are also kind of for shock value, except nobody's trying to get waxing outlawed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that suggests a POV relayed by emotional visuals. Depending on the focus of the article, it is unlikely the fetuses contribute a lot about the facts related to the topic unless you were making an emotional appeal. If you were doing an article on the cutting properties or the instrument, then maybe detailed pictures of the "endproduct" would help. Relevance is probably easier to consider than, " what might set off some person or group of people" and the latter has been historically a big problem. The hockey stick issue goes to relevance and clarity. I guess you could argue that instead of a specific hockey stick picture, a simple black and white illustration, with 2 lines perhaps even a "_/" text entry instead of any graphic material, could replace the explicit hockey stick picture.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Chance Organization

Resolved

 – At least at this stage. There are still notability and clean-up concerns, but they can be addressed at the article itself. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been working on an article about an organization called Fighting Chance, and an editor asked me to clean it up and add some additional sources for notability. I have added numerous newspaper articles as sources and cleaned-up the article to the best of my ability. I was hoping someone could take a look at it and let me know if there is more work I need to do or if this is a good article. Also, I am not sure how to move it into the main Wikipedia area if it is good to go. I really appreciate any help and/or guidance. The article is currently at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swimlej/Fighting_Chance

Thanks! --24.189.110.45 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the editor referred to above, I think. Please note that the article is in the main Wikipedia area already at Fighting Chance (organization); User:Swimlej moved it on 27 April. My contention has been that the refs provided establish the existence of the organisation but are insufficient to show notability. That said, nobody has suggested deletion, so as I have said on my talk page to the anon editor, I think this is moot. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's in the mainspace. I have cleaned up the formatting a little, but IMHO it still reads like promotional material and, I agree, notability looks iffy too. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of RfC at Marryatville Primary School

Resolved

 – Material merged to Marryatville, South Australia per apparent consensus at Talk:Marryatville Primary School. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved editor review the RfC, the other comments on the talk page and the edit history and 'close' the RfC appropiately. I have my own opinion of what the consensus has been formed by edits of the page itself and the comments on the talk page but feel that if any changes at to be made they would be more likely to be accepted if they came from a neutral editor who was just trying to gauge consensus rather than from someone actually involved in the dispute. Dpmuk (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I know the RfC closed a while ago but I've been on holiday, hence the rather late request. Dpmuk (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the issue? Established practice here is that primary/grade schools are generally not notable - there can be exceptions if the school really is notable in its own right but this one does not seem to be. It should be merged with and redirected to Kensington, South Australia or to Marryatville, South Australia#Schools. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point but someone queried it really quite forcibly despite both myself and another editor changing it to a redirect. They were in effect arguing that the 'established practice' didn't apply here (it evidently isn't going to apply in every case but I see no reason why it shouldn't in this case). Hence I started a RfC to get comments on this specific case and would now like someone neutral to come along and effectively say "I've reviewed all the views and consensus is to redirect" (assuming of course that is their view). I fear that if I do it it won't be accepted. By having someone neutral tidy things up it leaves a nice clean conclusion which can be referenced if it gets reverted back to a full article again. Dpmuk (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral bystander and per the apparent consensus at Talk:Marryatville Primary School I've merged the relevant material into Marryatville, South Australia and explained my reasoning on the original article's talk page. Euryalus (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal link default with or without the | pipe

Resolved

 – Resolved per OP --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made enough edits on Wikipedia and WikiSpots to feel comfortable with basic syntax, but one aspect consistently confuses me. Using the standard internal link button (Ab, the third button in above the edit box), gives the default form [[Link title]]. However, the correct form seems to be [[Link | title]] with the | bar or pipe in the middle. Leaving it off appears to always form the incorrect syntax so that the title becomes part of the link. I hate to sound like I'm telling an editor what to do, but why is the default form for the wiki software, here and on the wikispots that use it, to provide an incorrect template? Is there ever a form where the | pipe is harmful to use, or the pipe-less better? Even if one provides no title e.g. editor_assistance but includes the pipe it still functions correctly, as far as I can see.

Is this a naive suggestion or an incorrect template? Thanks!

Jeff NotTires (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. Most links don't use a pipe, and that's as it should be. I think the term "Link title" might be the source of the confusion; think of that as "linkname" and then the piped form can be [[Linkname|Alternative term]]. Does that clarify? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AndrewHowse. I've always read it as NameOfLink WhatItShouldSay, which requires the pipe. The problem really came from knowing the pipe alternative and then reading the two-word Link title as if that was two separate items. It would be more clear in CamelCase or Wiki_Spacing, I guess, or just if I recognized that Pipe, alternative text is a more advanced feature. Much more clear as a semantic problem than a programming one, although I might raise the question of whether it should be rephrased to LinkTerm or Link_Name since I doubt I'm the first one to mistake it for two words. Thanks for the good reply. NotTires (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral help with biography page requested

Discussion moved

 – See WP:BLPN#Martin Horwood, which is the most appropriate venue for this sort of concern. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Horwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Martin Horwood and I'm contacting you (and please forgive the lack of Wikipedia jargon) because the page about me as a serving politician has a few problems. The text was originally lifted from my own website and (probably quite justifiably) attracted criticism for being too sympathetic. But subsequent edits were clearly hostile and included putting a negative spin on every election result and quite gratuitously inserting the name of my new Conservative opponent (but no-one else) into a section on local campaigns. These edits were removed and became the subject of a BBC article but this in turn attracted further editing and a discussion page article which accuses me of criticising Wikipedia (I never have), wanting to make the page a hagiography (I don't) and editing the page in my favour (I didn't). The main article still describes my 2005 majority as the lowest since 1992 (true but it was also bigger than my predecessor's initial majority. This is just the most negative spin on it). And all references to successful local campaigns on the NHS, police and local railway station have been removed.

Could somebody really impartial take a look at the discussion page in particular and see if anything should be done and perhaps use neutral sites like www.theyworkforyou.com or www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk to put back at least some minimal referenced content on the issues I've taken up as an MP. I don't want people to read hagiography at all but I think it's reasonable not to want people to read a whole string of unfounded accusations either.

Thanks and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yikes; I'll say this, if you haven't edited the article yourself, I'm glad to hear it, as I'm sure you are aware of the potential backlash of suppressing factual information irresponsibly (see the Streisand effect). As to this particular case, I don't intend to give you the runaround, but the biographies of living persons noticeboard (see WP:BLPN) may be a more appropriate venue for this sort of complaint, especially as the talk page edits, being poorly or unreferenced may be contrary to our biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP). The people at that noticeboard are far and away more geared towards handling these sorts of complaints. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've copied the above complaint over to the BLP noticeboard for its consideration. I'll inform the above poster directly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

...actually, that's a shared IP, so hopefully the reporter reads back here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not just shared, but sensitive as well, considering the hostname. One may indeed wish to be careful the sorts of messages left on that user talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Other issues Human rights in the U.S. - regional - New Orleans, Louisiana and Los Angeles, California

Resolved

 – OP Indef blocked. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I contributed the section on human rights in Los Angeles, which I attached in the last section: other issues. In that section is also a single paragraph, which I find cryptic, on Hurricane Katrina. Going back, I realized that this is what was left as the result of objections to the subject.

Between the attempts to eliminate coverage of recent events in New Orleans and Los Angeles, the article is deliberately skipping over the major events in the area that the title to the article claims to cover.

Here is are two segments I wrote in Discussion: Media:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Other_issues_Human_rights_in_the_U.S._-_regional_-_New_Orleans.2C_Louisiana_and_Los_Angeles.2C_California

DISCUSSION SEGMENT 1) SECTION 10: 1. U.S. Government Response to Hurricane Katrina, 2. Human Rights Crisis Evolving in Los Angeles County, California.

10.1. U.S. Government Response to Hurricane Katrina' Between the two subjects described below, it appears that an article that is expected by the reader to provide truthful reflection of the state of Human Rights in the U.S. today, is entirely failing to provide the basic information on the main human rights events of recent years. I initially chose to put the Los Angeles issue adjacent to the Katrina issue, based on my limited understanding of the matter of Katrina from discussions with people who volunteered to assist in the crisis after the disaster. Following the repeated deletions of my segment on Los Angeles, I went back and read a bit about the history of the editing of the Katrina story. There is no doubt in my mind that the segment on Katrina, in its current form, is rather non-specific, and appears to direct the readers to sources from outside the U.S. to hear the truth on the matter. One could expect better than that from Wikipedia. Even if there is a space limitation, there is no need to be circumspect. The major facts on the matter need to be stated, and if unclear, try to sort what part was established as truthful, and what part remains unclear. 10.1.1 Mistreatment of Prisoners However, if events referred to as "mistreatment of the prison population during the flooding." were indeed documented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Prison Project, then the main facts should be clearly stated. And if the main facts are anywhere close to what I was informed of, then clearly this was one of the major human rights event in the U.S. in recent decades. Delegating it to a elliptic single paragraph at the end of this long article is out of proportion with the significance of the matter of Katrina relative to title of this article - Human Rights in the U.S. Although the title does not explicitly states so, one expects that the article be current and reflect the state of affairs in the U.S. today: Open Questions: a. Were prisoners allowed to drown slowly in their cells when water levels were rising? b. What was the exact days of the event? c. What are the sources to verify it? d. What do we know about the number of prisoners who perished as a result? e. Did it happen only in one prison or more than one? f. What level in prison administration was responsible for the abuse? 10.1.2 U.S. Government Response ti Hurricane Katrina a. What was the U.S. government response to the issue of prisoner mistreatment, if any? b. What were the main reasons that U.S. government response to Katrina, beyond the prisoner's issue, were seen as as human rights issue? I believe that an encyclopedia has no room for circumspections. It's either you tell it as it is, or delete it altogether.

2. Human Rights Crisis Evolving in Los Angeles County, California Following prudent advice from editors, I started working on a full article titled: Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California 1985-2009. Most of the text and the references are already posted under my talk (Jz12345678), although it will take me a bit longer to bring it to standard Wikipedia format. What was inserted here, under Human rights in the United States is only an abstract with key references. The subject as a whole seemed to generate resistance in the past. I solicited and continue to solicit editorial comments, in order to bring the text of both the abstract and the article to a final form, Careful review of the subject matter and the references would leave no reasonable person with a doubt that this minor edition to the article on Human Right in the United States, is in fact documenting some of the most dramatic human rights issues taking place in the U.S. today, both as related to scope of the violations, and also related to the nature of the consitutional violations underlying the matter. I would be grateful for any editorial comment on both the subject matter and the format. Jz12345678 (talk)Jz12345678

Hi Soxwon: This is the second time that you delete a whole segment without making any comment whatsoever on the matter at hand. When a contributor provides text, it is assumed that he/she made a good faith effort, and the evidence is in the text itself. It should be likewise expected from anybody who deletes text to demonstrate at least a minimal intellectual investment in the subject at hand and justify the deletion based on the text that he/she seeks to delete, and the perspective of the matter at hand. Deletion absent any explanatory comment is indistinguishable from censorship, albeit good faith is taken for granted. Looking forward to comments on the matter... Any such comment would be gratefully appreciated... Otherwise, I am not sure of the procedures, but I request that the issue be declared a dispute, and that it be evaluated in a more formal way. Jz12345678 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678 Jz12345678 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678

DISCUSSION SEGMENT 2

Ongoing Katrina discussion

Please seeTalk:Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Katrina for full discussion. The Article in its current form fails to reflect the key facts regarding human rights in the U.S. in the past decade or two. Reading the article as it stands today, and following elaborate discussion on exclusion/inclusion of human rights affairs outside the U.S., it appears that some of the main human rights affairs of recent years INSIDE THE CONTINENTAL U.S. have been excluded from this elaborate write up as well. At present, the write-up gives very heavy weight to historical and abstract discussion, but avoids explicit description of the key facts in the matter at hand, on the ground. If one imagine a high school or college student reading this article for an introduction to the subject, one would have to conclude that he/she would not be well informed regarding the state of human rights in the U.S. today, or in recent years, and would not be able to form an informed opinion on the matter either. The opening statement is indicative of that: "Human rights in the United States are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States and amendments,[2][3] conferred by treaty, and enacted legislatively through Congress, state legislatures, and plebiscites (state referenda). Federal courts in the United States have jurisdiction over international human rights laws as a federal question, arising under international law, which is part of the law of the United States. [4][page needed]" It lacks any reference, factual or comparative, which would provide the reader any clue regarding the state of human rights in the U.S. today, on its own, and compared to other nations that we may choose to compare ourselves to. I myself got recently interested in Wikipedia, when I realized that on some critical economic/legal issues related to the current financial crisis, it provided straight forward facts and assessment regarding the role of various corporations in the evolving disaster. The readers expect no lesser candor from Wikipedia on the issue of human rights. Jz12345678 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Jz12345678 --Jz12345678 (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Jz12345678

With respect, Wikipedia is not the proper forum for your purposes. As stated at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." — Satori Son 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just scanned the above. But, from your talk page, I gather that the article you have written has been deleted via this deletion discussion. The short answer would be to address the concerns raised in that discussion, as much as possible, and then ask for a deletion review before reposting the article. If you cannot address those concerns, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for that material. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was my article rejected?

Answered

 – OP shown to prior answer. Fleetflame 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My article on 'Days of the Week according to Hindu calendar' was rejected saying 'blank suggestions'. What does the term mean? Bless10 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This was answered at the Help desk yesterday. See Wikipedia:Help desk#Rejected article - 'blank_suggestions'. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But did we bother to tell them it was answered? No! Fleetflame 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

continuous unjust undo of edits!

Resolved

 – Thoroughly explained on user talk and in edit summaries. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to resolve this issue for quite some time now. On the "turntablism" page I made an edit and it was undone because of soliciting. I was NOT at all soliciting any product or service.

I am DJ Supreme from NY and I actually created thw word turntablism in 1993/4. This can be verified by pioneer DJs including Kool Herc, Bambaataa, Jazzy Jay, Red Alert, etc who have heard me say it in the past. This info was accurate for a while, then it was changed to say that DJ Babu from the West Coast originated the word. Since then, every time I have tried to change it back, it gets undone. This is getting on my nerves now. Please communicate with me as to how to solve this problem.

Binkster was the last t undo my changes.

I would like to speak directly with an editor about this, because it seems that the editors are not thoroughly checking, especially when they now say that the reasaon is for solicitation. I believe maybe somebody else is playing with something. This is very relevant, and it is important to be certain that history is CORRECT.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdjsupreme (talk • contribs)

Left a note on the editor's talk page regarding sources and the need thereof. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

dispute creation attribution

Resolved

 – Per section below. Fleetflame 02:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Youngblood&action=history

I am the creator of the article about Gene Youngblood, however, the history attributes creation to a user named Shewhowatches, who seems no longer to have a Wikipedia account. Is there a way to correct the attribution?

The article was my first Wikipedia contribution and is based on an e-mail that Mr. Youngblood sent to me on February 1, 2007. I contributed the article to fill a gap in Wikipedia's account of the history of media arts. I fully expected others to add their knowledge to the article, but I did not expect someone else to take credit for originating the article. At the time, I did not know enough about the conditions of Wikipedia to have signed the article when I created it, and I did not have a Wikipedia account then, so it was created without logging in.

Thank you for your response to my question.Jcraford (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only way you could do this would be to usurp the account. WP:USURP states, "The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries on any Wikimedia Project to qualify for usurpation..." and "Please do not request usurpation if your user account is less than several months old, or barely used. In order to ensure that usurped usernames be put to good use, we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users." Unfortunately, the account you wish to take over has created two articles, and although your account was created over a year ago, you have made only 120 edits. Further questions? let me know! Fleetflame 15:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible that you created the article while not logged in, as IP's (people not logged in) cannot create new articles. Did you ask someone else to create the article, perhaps through articles for creation? Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Meet the Deedles Falsities

Resolved

 – As far as we can get it. Further discussion taking place on article and user talk pages. Fleetflame 01:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Meet the Deedles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For the Meet the Deedles article, user User:NitroMan3941 has made it his own, including unsourced and (based on my recollection of the film from years ago) patently false material. The warning flags arise when the editor claims that this 1998, PG-rated Disney movie includes drug-abuse, serial killer Ted Bundy, homosexuality and more.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Based on Disney's track record, however, it seems highly unlikely, and there are no sources. I'd be more than happy to have this irrelevant movie's article reverted to a stub. Editor User:NitroMan3941 claims he has reviews of the movie which mention the suspect details, but I could find no information supporting that on Google, except for sources derived from this article. He seems happy to get pugnacious, so I'd like to receive some editor assistance. Dabizi (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this situation is a little messy. NitroMan3941 doesn't seem to be the most civil user (I've warned him about this), either. First, I would suggest using the article talk page and his talk page to try to establish communication - not just warn him or call his edits vandalism, but talk to him. He's put in a lot of work ([12]) on the article, and probably took offense to someone coming out of the blue and calling him a vandal. If he doesn't respond, there are other ways to deal with the situation. Further questions? let me know! Fleetflame 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - disputed attribution for creation of article

Resolved

 – 02:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard my previous request for editor assistance regarding the attribution for the Creation of the Wikipedia entry for Gene Youngblood. Very much to my embarrassment, I realized out of the blue today that the disputed account, Shewhowatches, is my own! I had forgotten I had written behind the cloak of an anonymous account name. She Who Watches is the name of a Chinook petroglyph/pictograph along the Columbia River near my hometown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsagaglalal http://www.ochcom.org/chinook/ At the time, it seemed fitting to write about Gene under this name. Please excuse my forgetfulness.Jcraford (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Glad you remembered, and thanks for clearing things up! Fleetflame 02:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the "Wikilove" :~) Jcraford (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

COI and Copyright issues

Resolved

 – Please continue the discussion at WP:COIN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a new wikipedia editor so I need a lot of advice!

I recently tried to edit the page of Marc H. Tanenbaum who is the namesake of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, where I am an intern. I have been told that in having “Tanenbaum” as my user name and in being an intern here it is a conflict of interest for me to edit this page. My edits to the page have been reverted twice. However, I believe that I am capable of editing and expanding the biography of this great man without losing neutrality or advocating for the organization I work for. I tried editing the page and inserting information from a book that was written and published about Rabbi Tanenbaum. (I have been given permission to use this copyrighted information from the publisher).

If I am not breaking copyright rules, because I have permission to use this information can I add information to Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography? And if I am not actively advocating for the Tanenbaum Center’s cause but simply editing and expanding Rabbi Tanenbaum’s biography will information from a reliable published source will I be allowed to make edits?

Help! Tanenbaum (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You have already made the same post at WP:COIN, please continue the discussion there. – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting help in keeping information from being blanked out in Sathya Sai Baba

Stale

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 04:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sathya Sai Baba is a very controversial topic in India. All coverage of the individual in reputable western media has been strongly critical. In Sai Baba related pages on wikipedia we are facing some major issues, which I attempt to outline below.

• Continual blanking of critical and well sourced information by IPs, newly registered editors and people who apparently consider sai baba their god ( which can be evidenced by several comments to the effect on the article's talk). This blanking happens completely in violation of wikipedia policies. Some of the recent edit comments include: "I know that the changes I made where right"[13], "I add \ed thta because I know what to do"[14], "I changed it because this is offensive to a lot of people, and it isn't even true"[15], "My dad was in Puttaparthi his whole life and this never happened"[16]- just to point out a few. It is quite difficult, if not completely impossible, to engage in rational arguments with people making changes with "rationale" like these. THese edits were reverted but there are many more - which involve blanking of information, addition of advertisement like conent etc. which are hard to handle.

• Section blanking, deletion of clips revealing cheating in purported miracles( which can be seen in this version: [17])- the article is continually subject to such attacks. And the way the people who want the info out work make it impossible to fix these without getting quickly reverted and attacked.
• "Info", self-advertisement by any standard, sourced directly to the controversial sai baba organization cover entire sections now. All this material is completely in violation of WP:RS.
• Slander and attack against neutral editors. Almost 100% of info from respectable sources on this person is critical in nature - be it The BBC, The Guardian, The Times or The DTV. Editors adding well sourced material are targeted by and slandered by the Sai Baba group on their websites and blogs. Which makes many editors scared to contribute to the article and just stay away from it.[18]. Even people like Robert Priddy have had their character assassinated by the group's lies and propaganda. I had personally used an alternate account, of which I had informed the arbcom, to edit the article. Mainly because it is an extremely controversial topic in India and there have been attempts at life on many critics including elderly people[19]. People related to the sai baba organization had an SPI slyly raised against me to ascertain my identity. The admin, initially confused my alternate account for a sock and ended up revealing my details. Later investigations revealed that my alternate account was just a legitimate alternate account and was never used in an abusive manner - and thus my account was unblocked. I was further attacked by editors who wanted me not contributing to the namespace - which led to me deciding to stop contributing to the article. Recently I was taken aback by how all well sourced information was being removed and replaced with self-sourced praise and attempted to point out the issue on talk and fix it - with little effect. Even if I try to re-add the well sourced info - it would just be quickly blanked again.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about the topic, I liked the first paragraph as it follows essentially what I was suggesting ( based on personal opinion) about describing food controversies,

""Sathya Sai Baba (Telugu: సత్య సాయి బాబా), born Sathyanarayana Raju on November 23, 1926 [1][2] with the family name of "Ratnakaram",[3] is a controversial South Indian guru, religious leader and orator. He is described by his followers as a godman and miracle worker.[1][4][5]""

but presumably with the addition of a one sentence summary such as , " but his critics contend he is something almost libelous[n,n+1,n+2....n+m]."

Is there anything you can say that is factually easy to document ( satements of opinon by notable groups constitute facts about their opinion, " the Trogolodyte Club says he is a CIA operative[] ") that gives a reader the critical evaluation?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This version of the article contains the well sourced criticism that is being shoved under the carpet by a set of users. It would be of great help if editors could see that the well sourced content in there is not blanked out with misleading edit comments or manufactured excuses. I would very much revert to save this info but I am afraid I've already reverted a few times today. I sincerely request editors here to please help save this content. Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the amount of criticism in the article is astounding, especially for a BLP. The general agreement on the talk page was to find info that Dilip had removed (as white_adept) and re-add it, to expand his biography and teaching sections, and to cut the criticism into a well sourced, but smaller, section. There is currently an ongoing edit war between Dilip, Sbs108, and Radiantenergy about re-adding videos that were initially added without a consensus, and were removed pending an agreement about having them on the page, as well as info about SSB's charitable organizations and such. [20][21]. The revision of January 3, 2009 shows just how much criticism Dilip has added to the article. [22] The criticism isn't being "shoved under the rug", it is being cut down to the standards set for a BLP. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I withdraw my reply. I have no opinion on the SSB article. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, assuming the sources are credible and fairly represented, it doesn't sound like the existence of these allegations is disputed, "Allegations of sexual abuse, deceit, murder and financial offences surround" any more than there is dispute that lots of people seem to worship him. I'm keeping the discussion here because I'm also trying to keep it general. You would think that in many controversies with non-frivolous viewpoints represented, that a simple statement of "A thinks B about subject while C thinks D is more accurate about subject." In this case, it isn't really either or as financial and sexual crimes are culturally determined, most people believe that deception and taking of human life can be justifiable. So, this people who worship him may or may not see these are problems. My only point here is to avoid moralizing and try to stick with facts. If the sources say he engages in some notable sex practices, why should that be less relevant than his "miracles" which presumably would be difficult to state as fact in articles on unfavorable religions in the West?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are allegations is not disputed. People have leveled allegations against Sai Baba his entire life.The question is how much relevance should be given to them. Nothing has been proven and there has never been any case brought against Sai Baba anywhere in the world at any time except for the Alaya Rahm case in California which was self dismissed. The point is he remains innocent as nothing has even been proven. His hospitals and schools remain open and are thriving. He still has an enormous following estimated between 6-50 million worldwide (which even critics admit). There has been a vigorous, viscious and high profile campaign to defame Sai Baba by a few ex-devotees who still maintain attack web-sites with all kinds of suspect information unsuitable to Wikipedia standards. Many of those same ex-devotees have been intimately involved with the Sai Baba Wikipedia article using it as a mouthpiece for their views while at the same time claiming that the article is an advertisement for the Sathya Sai Baba Organization when anything positive is added. One user Andries who maintained and still may maintain an attack web-site, has already been banned from editing the article. These editors have continually tried to turn the article into an extension of their attack web sites. The user who brought this issue, Dilip_Rajeev, made over 140 edits in a 10 day period without discussion under the name White_Adept (inactive user account 001)turning what was a decent article into a total assualt against Sai Baba. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&offset=20090123041112&limit=500&action=history. Please review user Dilip_Rajeev's edits between January 8, 2009 until January 18, 2009 to get an accurate picture of where this user wants to take the article.Please review the article as it stood before the onslaught of edits by this user. The article is currently under protection and needs the assitance of at least three admins to oversee the article from this point forward as it has already undergone two arbitrations.Sbs108 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the article is under protection and has gone through two arbitrations, I don't know why Dilip Rajeev is bringing this article to our attention here. It obviously has enough attention. Is this a case of forum shopping? --C S (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

dispute with an administrator

Answered

 – Multiple answers given below. Please direct further comments to article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

National Holiday (Quebec) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a scholar who has attempted to add to this wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Holiday_(Quebec)

Now, though you might not be familiar with Quebec, imagine Israel and Palestine, without all the military. It is a similar situation. Thankfully, I am not from here, I am an American living here and I have become informed about this holiday by living here, observing, and talking to hundreds of people. And also reading. What I have learned in my years here is that instead of discuss the veracity of a situation, people tend to explode and scream, or in the case of Wikipedia, my entry has been removed many times over despite my having asked that this be resolved together.

In this wiki entry I have referred to many well-known blogs, nationally and locally recognized newspapers and still this is removed. Moreover, I don't appreciate threatening comments made by FisherQueen, nor do I appreciate the insults he/she has thrown my way. But the entire basis of this entry is factual, I have included many citations and I would like this dispute resolved because I haven't the energy to be insulted by this person any longer. Might I add that I don't think it ought to be the job of administrators to threaten and censure and I do take issue with type of behaviour.

Mind you, I am balancing out a very long Wiki entry that I could easily dispute with the very same arugments that the administrator gave me (ie. note the paragraphs listed with no references). But some things are social facts and do we need to cite every single source? Evidentally not if you want to give a positive spin on this holiday. So instead of having a dispute over what was written, I decided the more inclusive manner would be to write the other side of this holiday's story--the contemporary story where the allusions to race are not appreciated, where the ostensible inclusion of all in this holiday is a charade and where the massive immigrant community is conspicuously absent (though tokenized through a presence of a celebrity or two at each year's festivities).

Here is my paragraph below:

Extended content collapsed for brevity. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/

The central problem of this holiday for the more progressive Quebecois community is that this festivity celebrates the "pure laine" (literally translated as "pure wool"), a term used to describe someone born in Quebec and directly descended from European blood. The Saint Jean Baptiste holiday, therefore, focuses on racial purity thereby alienating the growing numbers of non-white, non-French and non-racist Quebecois (of all origins). Moreso this festivity historically effaces the very real historical and contemporary brutality toward's Quebec's indigenous communities who are virtual guests--and badly treated guests--in their own land. As such, the idea of celebrating racial purity would be akin to celebrating a national holiday for say the Ku Klux Klan; yet this holiday is never put into question in the provincial or local governments despite a recent poll which shows that 59% of Quebecers identify themselves as racist and more recently that many Quebecois see immigrants as a threat. Many Quebecois are considering holding anti-Saint Jean celebrations in 2009 in order to honour a society that is inclusive and non-discriminatory since many view honoring one version of history--a version that explicitly negates ethnic diversity and historical conquest--does not construct dialogue nor teach the tuth about the multifarious types of conquest and empire in this province as is noted on various websites and well-established blogs. Moreso, there is an enormous amount of censoreship on this subject as the refusal to accept debate about this holiday often results in paucity of direct journalism on this subject and even intimidation by other Wikipedia users. However, current attitudes are readily available on established discussion boards, blogs and newspapers

Given that this festival is about racial and language identity--both, not just French--it seems incredible to me that this be so conspicuously absent from the wiki. Moreso, it is offensive to me that it is constantly removed as the racial aspects of this holiday are what most everyone objects to. It is not really a French/English problem so much as a "pure laine" problem--and there are many francophones who loathe this expression as much as any other person.

I would appreciate that this paragraph stays in the political section and I would like to have a third party help me out, either to have the language ammended to suit your needs and/or to post it with no more offensive threats from the administrator.

Disfasia (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC) disfasia

If this holiday is widely celebrated, this essay looks like an attempt at giving a lot of weight to a small minority or fringe view. Also, blogs are generally not valid sources, as they are just individual opinions about things. Given all that, I think that the points made, if notable, could be condensed to about 1 or 2 sentences. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that I have either insulted or threatened this user; in fact, I've tried hard to be polite and constructive. I did use the standard warning templates to inform her that she will be blocked if she continues putting her personal analysis into the article, but that is not a threat, but a simple statement of fact. I agree with User:Baseball Bugs that a few neutrally-phrased, verifiable sentences about this controversy would be appropriate, and have said so to User:Disfasia, but she has not yet been willing to try rephrasing what she has written. I've discussed the problems with her at her own talk page, and anyone here can review what I've said and see if they can think of a clearer way to communicate the problem and its possible solutions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This holiday has always been under dispute--and no this holiday is not widely celebrated, it is a holiday for the white French. Just in Montreal alone the anglophone community is sizeable in Montreal (one third of the population) and these people do not feel themselves part of this holiday. Then contextualize the large immigrant communitiies that are francophone who also feel excluded and the percentage of people who do not celebrate this holiday is quite high. So, no, this is not a holiday in the sense that everyone celebrates it like Christmas or New Year's regardless of one's religious affiliation (ie. in the spirit of a day off, spending time with those who do celelbrate this holiday, etc0. This is a specifically political holiday that is not only divisive, but that has anglophones feeling discriminated and so you see those who celebrate in full regalia and those who do not stay at home and these numbers are considerable. Between anglophones and immigrants, we are talking over half the population in Montreal alone does not identify with this holiday.

The Quebecois say that 1 July (Canada Day) is the anglophone's holiday. But guess what the government concocted to keep this from actually being a holiday in this province? They created 1 July as the "moving day"--this is the day where leases are up and so everyone who has to move house does so on this day taking the holiday from the anglophones and making it all about something much more stressful than even a general work day. So the argument that this holiday is somehow balanced out by Canada Day loses air quickly--and as an outsider, I saw this immediately--as people here don't want to have "seperate but different" holidays. It seems to me they want to feel that they are included in the holiday at large. The recent scandal over the anglophone music says it all because although this was "resolved" many keep the quotations around resolved when speaking. For the resolution said basically, "as long as they don't sing too long". So the ideal is that anglophones should shut up at a certain moment.

When you look at responses from the public to forcing an Irish pub to take down its vintage posters (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/montreal/2008/02/quebec_language_police_nab_mon.html) you can understand why many people do not celebrate this holiday. Or the mere fact that there is a language police and that bands have to go through an approval process are other indicators about how the public reacts to an archaic form of language and racial segregation. What is most important here is that many scholars have lost their jobs as a result of writing about such issues and journalists stay away from such a hot debate. Often you will see a very short paragraph about what happened last week with a typical "problem solved" platitude at the end to cut any and all dialogue. But the blogsphere is alive with debate as are many communities as well as organizations such as Affiliation Quebec. http://www.affiliationquebec.ca/en/release-20081212-CommentsontheQuebecElectionbyAllenENutik.html So while the government might take an official approach to non-discrimination, there are in effect many laws and events (such as this holiday) that are deeply discriminatory and divisive that contribute to the general feeling of discrimination. See this Gazette article for further details http://archives.vigile.net/05-12/15.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disfasia (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK this is verging on too long, didn't read. But what it all boils down to is that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about content, including reliable sources, original research and undue weight. If you cannot reach consensus with other editors about your preferred content or wording, then I am afraid there is not much more we can do - we work by consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Then we need to have editors from outside of this country--sorry but I don't find the information I have provided not verifiable--if you go to my talk page you will see even more works on this subject. There is a whole body of contested works on both sides and I find it curious that Wikipedia would only accept one version of this festival when there is so much written on the discrimation faced by both sides, historically for the French, contemporarily for the English, livign in Quebec. So "too long" doesn't really say that much aside from you don't have the energy. That is fine...but I would like an editor who does and can address the serious nature of the sources I have cited rather than dismiss this as "too long". Disfasia (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) disfasia

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong. The fault of your long-winded argument not going over lies with nobody but yourself. If you don't care enough about either your argument or about your audience to make a reasonable attempt at forming a concise argument, you're all but saying that your argument doesn't deserve attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

??? This made absolutely no sense whatsoever! Again, there are a dozen references that illuminate the fact that this holiday: 1. is simply not celebrated by a large body of people who feel it reinforces racial stereotypes of whiteness and it obfuscates the very real present of a not so harmonious existence in many parts of Quebec, many of the articles listed mention this; 2. avoids the very real problems of racism experienced by immigrants in the province by creating a fiction of well-being and brotherly love that is not shared by many; and 3. creates a fiction of Quebecois identity that has long been abandoned by many and is having little resonance with the young (both French and English) who find nothing interesting or relevant about a day that does not speak to what they see around them (ie. a multicultural Quebec where people have children of all colours, whereby native Quebecois --the indigenous--are conspicuously absent, etc)

The paragraph I am trying to enter includes the necessary references and that people are displaying more bigotry in critiquing that it is an anglophone production, I find curious. Disfasia (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)disfasia

I've reinstated Mendaliv's comments above. I think Disfasia deleted them by accident. To be as clear and concise as possible, the references you cite are not considered reliable here. Anything built upon blogs and such will be disregarded. If you wish to continue advocating your position, you must bring better reference sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Disfasia, who may have misunderstood my comment, my complaint is not about your paragraph. My complaint is about your request for assistance in general. Your initial request spanned six paragraphs and over 4,000 bytes. As I said above, if you can't go through the trouble of presenting your request for assistance in a concise manner, all it says is that you don't want to be taken seriously. I don't mean to be rude about this; I want to see your concerns addressed. It's just that, as written, I can't tell what the hell they are. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Disfasia#Detailed_analysis_of_your_preferred_paragraph If you see the links here and the rather broad bibliography on both sides of the issue, you can see for yourself that this holiday is not at all the widespread holiday celebrated by most everyone. This is a holiday celebrated by those who see themselves as part of this "pure laine" culture and I think the newspaper and book references ought to be suitable for this wiki entry. To recap here are a few more references that deal with the racism in this province either directly related to the fallout from last week's latest language ordeal and other subjects related:

http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=6e2aa4a2-314f-417f-ad2f-96ee16e9eefb http://www.accommodements.qc.ca/index-en.html (here is a Canadian and Quebec-published report which in part deals with the feelings of racism in this province)

DeJean, Paul. Les Haïtiens au Québec. Montréal: Presses de l'Université du Québec, 1978.

As for the length of my description. First, my posting was deleted from the site instead of put under a "in conflict/discussion" section. I don't think administrators should have such power of censoreship and then the threats to ban me for putting up a paragraph which should have been resolved by discussion, not alienating and negative comments, insults even. (You can read for yourself this). I came here to get some help and once again...then on the original site, the administrator actually tried to guess my name by writing what he/she thought to be personal information about me, but instead it was about a colleague. I don't find this professional in the least. So now, I am just trying to get through the censoreship because it is pretty clear to me that this "holiday" is completely misunderstood by almost everyone outside of this place. And there is a large consensus to back up every single thing I have written from the language police, to rather archaic language laws, to the recent spat over bands singing in English (mind you, I was told today that in the past bands have been allowed that sing in Spanish or in Creole, just not English). And the horrid reality that the "pure French blood" aspect of this holiday not only smacks of racism, it is racism to immigrants here, not to mention many non-immigrants. Take a look at the articles I mention from newspapers, books and such... But I would like someone to take this seriously because today when I spoke to people of what has happened here---French and English alike--they could not believe that it is so difficult to have the entireity of this holiday's story told.

I went ahead and posted a corrected version of the paragraph with current debate on this topic, all fully cited (no blogs) to include journal articles and a television emission.

Disfasia, I think part of the problem you're facing is trying to discuss the issues of nationalism, racism and separatism that exist in Quebec on an encyclopedic entry about a National Holiday. I think you'd do better to mention the nationalist nature and redirect to further discussion under Pure_laine or Quebec Nationalism, etc. There is no doubt that St-Jean is a nationalist holiday, but issues of racism and separatism are not significant to the holiday itself, even though the holiday is a focal point for racist and separatist dogma. Do you see what I mean? I've lived in Quebec my whole life, and I believe that 80% or more of the celebrants are more concerned with partying and showing pride in their own French culture than the ugly racism that gets dredged up. pale (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you say about the partying--I call Saint Jean "the hockey game without hockey"! :) But this is 80% or so of those who participate. Still there are many of us--of all ethnicities and backgrounds--who are excluded from this festival despite the festival leaders trying to make it into a "Quebec is for all". It is hard to feel "welcome" to a celebration of white, French heritage (and I not talking about French language here, I mean "white French" as ethnicity) whilst this very same holiday refuses to celebrate contemporary Quebecois identity that is all inclusive. In the USA, for example, the 4th of July holdiays today celebrate immigrant identities coming together (because everyone there short of the indigenous are immigrant)--issues of slavery and Japanese and German internment camps are acknowledged, women's and Civil rights also discussed, and the betterment of our society and the current ills (ie. Bush, torture, fiscal irresponsibility, international thugishness,etc) are also discussed. As such, the collective idea of national heritage has drastically shifted these past twenty, thirty years. Wether or not you like drunken masses or the barbecues ad nauseum, this holiday is really about an acknowledgment of a betterment of this national identity by much of the media with all the superficiality and kitsch at times. I don't see this at all here, drunkenness and blue/white flags apart. In all fairness this holday is very much attached, directly attached, to these issues of separation even if drunkeness and naked torsos with flags painted on seem to carry this 'party' message. I know many Montreal- Maghrebians, Jews, Haitians, Egyptians, Ivoiriens, and I don't know a one who celebrates this holiday (and in Montreal, just visible minorities alone are 26% of the population, add into this all the other immigrant groups adn we are talking about a huge chunk of the city that does not celebrate at all this holiday). The lack of participation by a huge chunk of the population is a problem. Why cannot this be mentioned in the political section of the holiday? As you can see I added the events of last Saint Jean with Stéphane Gendron's comments about the racism and the notion that this holiday is purely "kétaine", contributing sources that weigh this issue on both sides.

Simranjit_Singh_Mann

Resolved

 – Temporarily, page protected. Please open a new thread - and Please use article talk pages to work toward consensus. 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This page about a controversial Indian Sikh politician has degenerated into an edit war. There are several versions of the article, several of which are largely editorial. A relatively even-handed version was instituted for a couple weeks before the current muckabout. We could use an enforced middle ground.

Thanks,

ETA Link: Simranjit Singh Mann --Misaligned (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected; both parties warned about 3RR violations and edit-warring [23] [24]. Fleetflame 19:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirection

Answered

 – Copied to OP usertalk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was searching for "Video Surveillance" and I got redirected to the "Closed-Circuit Television" (CCTV) page which I was very surprised since there's a difference between both and therefore each deserve a separate article. Is there a way I can write an article soley dedicated to video surveillance and delete the redirection to CCTV? --RPT01 (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure - just edit the Video surveillance redirect page to delete the redirect code and substitute your text. Make sure that you have reliable sources to support the notability of your new article. Probably a good idea to read WP:YFA first. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely! Though if you do plan on this, I'd strongly advise you to go about it in the following way:

• Discuss splitting content from the CCTV article to a new one on video surveillance at Talk:Closed-circuit television
• Write a draft article in your userspace rather than in the main article space (for example, at User:RPT01/Video surveillance)
• Have a good argument ready as to not only how CCTV and video surveillance are separate concepts, but why they should have separate articles; it would seem to me that most if not all video surveillance is done via CCTV, so it makes sense to discuss it exclusively in the CCTV article

And to specifically overwrite the redirect, you need to edit the redirect itself. You'll notice when you type Video surveillance in the search bar, you get some text that says "redirected from video surveillance". Click that, and you'll be brought to the redirect. You can edit it from there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And please be more cautious in the future before moving an article of this age and length to a completely new title, as you did before. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute About "Elevator Pitch" Entry

Resolved

 – The block is the answer. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Elevator pitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another person and I are in a dispute about the "Elevator Pitch" entry. I am a recognized expert in the subject (at Washington University in St. Louis and Notre Dame, among other places) and have been maintaining the elevator pitch page for over a year. Over a year ago I included a link to an article on one of my sites that goes into greater detail about the elevator pitch. The article contains detail that is important and relevant, and missing from the other linked-to external articles, but that really doesn't belong in the article itself. Here's the page in question...

http://www.elevatorpitchessentials.com/essays/ElevatorPitch.html

The issue is that I originally wrote that as a stand-alone, purely informational piece but have since published a book about the subject of the elevator pitch. The other person (who hasn't contributed anything to the page other than deleting my link) thinks my linking to my original article about the elevator pitch is spam since I now also sell a book about the subject elsewhere on that site. They also think I'm lying about my qualifications, but that's a separate issue.

It's also kind of absurd that experts not be allowed to weigh on on the subjects that they are experts in.

I know I could be seen as having a conflict of interest, but I also know that the linked-to article contains additional relevant information (which is why I wrote it in the first place). Can someone please make a call on this. Thanks. Thepainguy (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't find that link to be particularly bad in terms of the external links guidelines. But I'll say this; it'd go over a lot better if you were to instead contribute to the Wikipedia article and reference that essay. WP:SPS, our policy on the use of self-published sources (which this is), states that it's OK to reference self-published material by established experts. Just a thought anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mend, this just came up regarding an author with a fringe-theory on evolution so I had to check here. The author did have some controversial but notable publications however the ones relevant to the entry at issue amounted to self-published works of little obvious value. There is no reason, to create a new class of author and indeed the exceptions that do exist are quite limited BUT REQUIRE A WIKIPEDIAN TO MAKE A MERIT JUDGEMENT ABOUT 'ON TOPIC' unless there is 3rd party source anyway, " Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." That is, the wikipedian then must decide if a "doctor" is an expert on brain surgery as opposed to health foods. This ultimately would be decided by nebulous subjective criteria, like "does this make sense to me?" In practice, I don't see any place to apply this exception for self-published work without the coroborating 3rd party source. This exception gives a an author a soapbox for fringe theories based on track record that may or may not be related. There are AFAIK no exceptions in peer review for established experts although maybe reviewers could be intimidated or more glib about critiquing established authors. While the past is not a reliable indicator of the future, as the SEC wants us to remember, popular appeal even among peers is not a reliable indicator of merit but it is probably better for the wiki objectives.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to follow our best practice guidelines then you needn't worry about conflict of interest, and you'd be most welcome to contribute here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is not meant to discourage participation by experts. Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No of course not, but on the other hand, a COI must be properly disclosed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: OP blocked 72 hrs for spam linking. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

editing loop about Madeleine Pickens age

Resolved

 – Per Tony Fox below. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm getting into an editing loop about Madeline PIckens' age with another user who keeps reverting her age to the false younger age. I would appreciate any help resolving this, thanks. Also, I had to make the age section in the article really inelegant in an attempt to substantiate this and prevent (unsuccessfully) reversions.

For some reason (let's guess what that is :-) her age in numerous web pages is about ten years younger, 52, (bogus birthdate March 5, 1957) than her actual age, 62.

The New York Times had an article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/sports/othersports/03horses.html which listed her age as 62. I emailed the Times and asked if that was correct, due to the ten years difference from other sites, and I received this email back on May 1, 2009 from Mike Abrams (<e-mail address redacted>):

Thank you for your note about our article on Madeleine Pickens. We appreciate your concern and your readership.

Ms. Pickens is indeed 62, as we reported. Not only did we get the birthdate from her, but we confirmed it via public records research and previous articles.

Thanks again for writing.

Mike Abrams NYT Sports

Trudyjh (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the frustration. This is one of those verifiability versus truth situations. At Wikipedia we are concerned with what can be verified which is not always the same as the truth. The best way to resolve this is to go directly to the source -- are those public records available online in a form that can be cited or, if not, can those previous NYT articles be cited? Without that level of sourcing, you are faced with more sources supporting the incorrect details than those supporting the correct details, and that's a problem. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The NYT source is certainly a good reference - it does in fact say '62' in there. I might suggest that you do something similar to what has happened at Collin Raye, where there's been some debate about age - list them both, with a source for each, and a note that there is some confusion on the matter. That would save a few problems. Having said that, Trudyjh's last edit to Madeleine A. Pickens is entirely out of our style. I'm going to remove it and leave some comments on the talk page - it just can't stand the way it is right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion to put both in, but then I found her own website which says "I'm 62" Pickens tells Fox News. So I changed it to just 62. Trudyjh (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to User:Trudyjh's comment that I "keeps reverting her age to the false younger age". Insulting words aren't part of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Also, I note that User:Trudyjh only advised me of this Request well after the fact. In actual fact, the 1947 birth date I inserted under proper reference, comes from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) and, as anyone who knows racing, and for myself as a former Thoroughbred owner, the NTRA information is published based on a written document signed by the horse owner. As such, the only birth date acceptable as a Wikipedia reference, is the 1947 one from the NTRA which was what I patiently explained to the discourteous User:Trudyjh. As User:Trudyjh admitted here, the New York Times did not not get her birth date from Madeleine Pickens. And, the only U.S. record of her birth is a sealed immigration file. Hence the NYT date of 1957 was in fact unacceptable usage at Wikipedia (policy) when a documented reference of her birthdate is given by the very reputable NTRA who publishes it from a mandatory signed document. However, her NTRA form was at a time when she was Madeleine Paulson, and knowing Allen Paulson's enormous ego, shaving ten years off her birth date would be no problem as her birth records are not in the United States. Handicapper (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, the quote from the NYT fellow she corresponded with says "Not only did we get the birthdate from her, but we confirmed it via public records research" - and her own statement on her website would seem to seal the deal. I think this is pretty much sorted now. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lord Selkirk Elementry School

Discussion moved

 – See article talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord Selkirk Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To Whom it may concern: I recently update the Lord Selkirk Elementry School page with content from the schools plan (public document) When I checked today for the updates they where not there and there is no record of them being submitted. There is however, a banner asking that this page be merged with a community page (which I disagree with) I woudl liek to have the updates to the schools paged implemented becauser the school is going to celebrated it's Centenary and Wikipedia woudl be a natual place for folks to research the school. Please advise how I can make the updates stick Thank-you Colin Redfern —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.173.54.11 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 June 2009

What is the name of the article you're talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the merge proposal then join the discussion on the article talk page. If you want to know how to edit a page then please read Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Don't forget to sign posts with four (~) tildes . Jezhotwells (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a merge discussion on the article's talk page. Seems to me that all the related elementary school articles should be merged, so maybe there should be a centralised discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing dispute on Taiwan Major League

Resolved

 – To judge by the article history, the blocks got people's attention. Please opne a new thread as needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan Major League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There appears to be an edit war on this article over the correct semantics/location of this particular professional baseball league. Could someone come and work it out? It's been reverted several more times than the three-revert rule. -Falcon8765 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Both parties blocked ([25], [26]); that should settle things down. You haven't tried the article talk page to resolve differences; I would suggest that. Further questions? let me know! Fleetflame 02:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

political john russell article keeps getting deleted

Discussion moved

 – Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (Florida politician) (2nd nomination). Policy reasons for inclusion (or not) are best discussed in that setting. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

John Russell (Florida politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

user "Drmies" has been reverting work-in-progress on a florida federal candidate and activist as part of work i am performing on making fl political figures' pages more accessible. not sure why she has been attacking well-sourced work about notable figures like this without asking for clarification or using formal means of objection. please help wikipedia

Baxterword (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)baxter word

Drmies requested that the user reads WP:NOTDIR. Section 7 says "an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Baxterword has been adding trivia to the article that is not needed.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And Drmies is NOT a troll.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page. Your first step in any disagreement should always be to calmly discuss the issues on article talk with the other editors. Usually, that will be the only step needed. What you do not need to do right now is get other editors involved or continue with an edit war on the article page. I have also removed the accusation of troll from the section heading, that is unnecessarily inflamatory and you should assume good faith at all times. SpinningSpark 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is much easier to remove content, then to create or improve it. I suspect that content removal can sometimes become the tool of the lazy biased or inexperienced editor. The user in question appears to be more intent on suppressing information then in building valuable and well referenced encyclopedic content. While Spining Shark is technically right in writing that the first step in dispute resolution should be to attempt to calmly discuss the issues on the article talk page, encouraging discussion can sometimes be difficult when one editor is focused on creating content and another seems intent on removing or constantly reverting content. You probably should try it though, and you probably also did the right thing to ask for editorial assistance - at least other editors are more likely to be aware of the issue now. After trying these things you might just have to wait it out with some patience until the user concerned gets bored and goes away. Please post an update if the issue continues to be a problem. Frei Hans (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Corbin Chamberlin

Answered

 – creation advice given. – ukexpat (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Corbin Chamberlin needs a wiki, How dose one go about making one? best, D.V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.41.108 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to have a page created on this wiki, which is called Wikipedia, then you should log a request at WP:RA. If you would like to host a wiki, then please consult m:MediaWiki to learn about the underlying software. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard creation template message follows:

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.

If Corbin is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines, there are alternatives such as Wikipopuli and Wikibios.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

ACN Inc edit war

Discussion moved

 – Extensive discussion on OP talk, Article talk, and WP:COIN. Enjoy. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ACN Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) All sorts of issues between myself and another editor on this article. The other editor appears to be new to Wikipedia and is, in my opinion, not following guidelines for RS, NPOV, and BALANCE. He's reverting any changes I make, and making false accusations I'm a paid editor. Assistance in resolving the dispute would be appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I looked, but I'd more readily admit to studying the Brazil wax controversy... So, this company is another MLM with various legal problems. Unless you want to make a list of "MLM companies with legal problems" I'm not even sure I understand why this company is notable. It is quite likely there are passionate defenders as well as people who have lost money. But, what makes it notable?

Is this a new list?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See my discussion notice on WP:COIN about Insider201283, a self-described "paid editor" whose specialty in Wikipedia is defending MLM companies and who runs websites in defence of MLM companies. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to update our businesses wiki entry but am being told that I can edit the current entry.

Resolved

 – OP blocked. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi I am trying to update our businesses wiki entry but am being told that I can edit the current entry. It is for BPAY. What do you I do in this instance? I would like to put our own information on there.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by BPAY Official (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Righto. There are a few issues here. Your user name seems to indicate a conflict of interest on this matter. In fact your user name would appear to be in contravention of the Wikipedia user name policy. Wikipedia is not a directory or listings service, it is an encyclopaedia and various criteria on notability and reliable sourcing apply. Hope that this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Username template left on user's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Our policy for handling conflicts of interest says "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding." So you can suggest changes at Talk:BPAY, and wait for other editors to update the article if they agree with the changes that you have proposed. Note that text copied directly from a company's promotional material is unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia because (a) it will have an unencyclopedic style and (b) it is probably copyright material. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemike has now blocked User:BPAY Official. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – It appears some answers given below, and the conversation has moved on to other topics. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamid Arabnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear David (and/or others who can help): My name is Hamid Arabnia. I hope you can help me with this issue. Someone (and I know who) is being malicious by adding libellous statements to my wiki site at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Arabnia This person (and his former students) have been attacking me for sometime now (posting malicious statements to various blogs, sending emails to 100's of others, ...). They have been vandalising me for sometime now. I do not wish to get into discussions with this person (he is now using wiki user names IPV2 and RIP MJ and I am sure he will be creating more accounts) because he knows that he is posting lies. The correct version of my wiki web site is the one that you kindly cleaned up on "05:46, 7 April 2009". I wonder if you can help with this situation. I would be most grateful. More information (in case you are interested) appears below. Kind regards, Hamid

---

The person who is attacking me has been organizing a conference in Orlando each year; he attacks worldcomp (this is the conference that I have been coordinating)by posting unfounded allegations such as posting to blogs that gibberish papers being accepted, ... He then refers to his own posts (and his former students) as reference. For your reference, worldcomp is a federated conference composed of many tracks. Many of its papers end up being published in journals (in special and regular issues); most recently, special issues were published in BMC Genomics (with impact factor above 4.0). PDPTA (which is an important track of worldcomp) has received 1,837 citations according to Libra Academic Search: http://libra.msra.cn/conf_category_24.htm Many world renowned scientists present lectures and tutorials at worldcomp (tracks of worldcomp include: ERSA, PDPTA, BIOCOMP, SERP, ICAI, ICWN, IPCV, ... in case you wish to search for them in various databases such as DBLP).Also, you can find the 2009 worldcomp conference schedule at (in case you wish to chek the conference out yourself): http://www.world-academy-of-science.org/worldcomp09/ws or http://www.world-academy-of-science.org/worldcomp09/ws/program Investigatewiki (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• What? Maybe it is the lack of caffeine talking but let me see if I understand. You are happy that *your* wiki page was made "correct" and someone at a scientific conference is persecuting you AND vandalising your web page? While I can certainly believe all of this is possible, I'm at a loss on exactly what is requested and what is immediately relevant? Certainly this comes off as being a bit of a POV request especially given your alias but will concede you could have valid concerns as COI doesn't equate to POV. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nerdseeksblonde: Originally, the wiki page was created by someone (probably with good intentions)- but its content suffered from many mistakes and exaggerations. Not knowing how to delete the page (I am novice at this), I decided to re-write it. That is how I ended up with a wiki page! I have absolutely no problem if someone disputes the quality of a conference, journal, ... But they should be backed up with some sort of concrete evidence. The issue is that people can post libellous statements on various blogs and then cite them as evidence in other publications (such as wiki). This is what this person has been doing (first, some years ago, his attacks were by emails to individuals about me and then citing the statements posted on blogs as evidence). If someone is declaring that a gibberish paper is published/accepted in a conference, shouldn't they provide with the copy of acceptance notification + the paper that was accepted/published, ... as evidence? I guess originally what I was asking you was if anything can be done to stop this (which I consider to be harrassment). But I guess not. In any case, thank you for responding to my concern so fast - impressive. Investigatewiki (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Hamid

• Observations : I got some more coffee and went to the page in question. I found a blank page with an edit history of advert-BLP warring. I guess one thing that would help is a list of all sources ever cited, even the unreliable/blog ones for reference. Certainly the blank page is not helpful but I guess I could go through the revisions in the edit history. I'm not sure that posting links to scientific commentary would be libellous but I also don't know the legal or scientific criteria on which to decide a claim of "gibberish" ( facetious comment). Once the focus is on determination of who is right in an arugment over "I'm not the dummy, you are the dummy" you have lost sight of the interest in documenting a controversy rather than resolving it. Maybe you are all dummies, or not, it doesn't matter in a factual description. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nerdseeksblonde: Wonderful - I am so grateful to you. I can now sleep a little better. Blank page or even deleting the page would suit me just fine. Once again, thank you for taking the time to look into this. Investigatewiki (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Hamid

Ok, I see a few major problems with your base assumptions about wikipedia.

• First, you do not have a "wiki web site". The page you linked to was the wikipedia page about you. It is not yours and you have no rights over what goes in it. WP:OWN goes into more depth on this.
• Two, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We cant simply take your word for it that X is false. I can tell you that George Bush smoked weed in his bathroom, and that I saw it with my own eyes, but that information has no place in wikipedia because it isn't verifiable. There are no sources to back it up.
• You cannot delete anything from wikipedia. Only administrators have that ability. You can edit the page, and remove the information, but it will never truely be deleted, unless an administrator deletes it, and removes it from the history.
• You must engage in discussion. That is one of the key priniciples that allows wikipedia to function. We collaborate on all our articles, and work together to ensure our articles are as good as they can be. If you refuse to engage in discussion with the people you are having disputes with, you have no place in wikipedia.

However, if the people posting this "libellous" information are indeed using blogs as the only sources, and you can provide sources to counter the information, then the information can be removed.Drew Smith What I've done 11:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply and actions so far - I do appreciate it. I do understand that discussions with those who post on wiki pages is one of the important pillars behind wiki. But the person who is posting changes is posting lies; he knows it, and he knows that I know they are lies. So I know that discussions with this person would not help. Obviously, I can provide your office with copies of the printed published proceedings for yourself to see the caliber of the published papers (if it helps). Thank you for replying to my concerns. Investigatewiki (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Hamid

• Clarification: I wasn't supporting the blank page, just commenting it made it hard to know what was going on. In fact, I would probably support the appearance of responsible derogatory information. Controversial subjects can't be resolved here but they should be documented to get an interested started on a literature search for his own OR. If in fact the subject is notable, only the controversial subjects are really exciting. A scientific controversy would indeed make for an interesting article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nerdseeksblonde. what was added to the page was not a controversial scientific issue. The person who is posting it is simply harassing me. It can easily be documented when a conference accepts or publishes a "gibberish" paper (by providing a copy of the paper + acceptance notification + mail headers, ...) What he is claiming is a lie and he knows it. In any case, thank you for reading my messages.

• Comment : FWIW, many conferences don't do substantial peer review and hopefully they don't do personality or "character" or "motive" review. COI's in some cases need to be clearly reported- drug papers usually have prominent funding and other disclosures. In any case, a paper could be accepted because it could be debated, indeed the whole point of a conference is to get interaction on the topic. So, this could include fringe up to the point of being patent nonsense. I don't know you are anything about the unmentioned topic but don't come to too many conclusions based on what has been presented here. "Gibberish" can mean a lot of things as it is not too well defined but I've also mentioned "voodoo" come up between well regarded people in controversial areas. There is nothing wrong with debate :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. But this person was referring to a blog which had stated that this conference had accepted the first MIT-computer-generated (ie, gibberish) paper. I do not know what FWIW is but I will search for it. Thank you Investigatewiki (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Hamid

• Oh : So you are the supposed reviewer on the paper? LOL. Don't look at my user page where I have linked to stories like this. OF course, you do also realize that it is easier to get authors to attend a conference than people who were rejected :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course - I do undertand that it is easier to get authors to attend than the ones whose papers are rejected. Investigatewiki (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Hamid

• LOL - I had to look and I found at least one post as you claim. Keep in mind that this is an area of growing concern and it is funny too but the business conflicts can be big problems. I may actually link to this site on my other page with example of fake or claimed fake peer reviews. I have a lot of sympathy but OTOH I was reading a "peer reviewed" journal article on cold bubble fusion. This is more credible by accepted theories than palladium based but the article in question IIRC has glaring order or magnitude problems like measured durations in milliseconds that should have been in nanoseconds. Typos happen but still... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nerdseeksblonde: Thank you. The most challenging problem has always been (and still is)cases of plagiarism and also cases in which authors claim/believe that "to the best of their knowledge, this algorithm/system/design is the best/most-efficient-..." that exist. Cases of plagiarism are handled by first, discussing the issue with the author. In many cases, the author claims (probably rightly so) that his/her co-author must have copied materials from somewhere (typically, people who are accused of such actions are students or young faculty). We then ask them to explain the actions that they will be taking to educate the person who is accused of such unethical behavior. More often than not, the person is forced to take an ethics course and writeup a report. In the past, this has worked fine except for one case (caught in 2008 - a journal paper) who had one single author who does not seem to understand how a particular "table" of results ended up in his paper! He has language difficulties and comes across to be extremely rude and unprofessional. A committee is still handling this situation (I am not in the loop). Regarding fake papers being accepted in conferences and journals: such matters can easily be documented. The person who claims that this has happened can easily post the submission data (a copy of the acknowledgement that systems send to authors who upload their papers to the review web sites) as well as the notification of acceptance + a copy of the paper. All this can then be checked against the real data received (by the systems support staff of the person who has been claiming such things). There was a case (that was on news/BBC and probably CNN some years ago)in which it was proven without any shadow of doubt that a particular conference (held in Florida/Orlando) had accepted a fake paper. It is quite easy to prove if a fake paper has been accepted. Unfortunately, it is even easier to be malicious and falsely claim that a conference has accepted a fake paper without providing any proof.

Investigatewiki (talk)Hamid

• ROFL: Have you used SCIGEN? I just authored another paper, should make it ok on grammar. You have to admit that it is thought provoking- this actually reads well, no one nouned the verbs or left confusing punctuation. May not mean anything but hey... btw, are you actually claiming to be the faculty guy in GA or is there an identity issue too? Fake conferences are an obvious way to make money and boost publication lists so I would be a bit careful about keeping credibility here and I want to go see the SCIGEN presentation session and ask questions. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Hi again: Personally, I have not; but my students have. In fact, some of my former students (now faculty)have been communicating with the designers of SCIGEN/MIT about various linguistics-based algorithms (data mining, ...)SCIGEN is in fact a superb program; there is a lot of solid linguistic-based algorithms behind the design with solid foundation. Yes, indeed, I am a faculty member at GA (to check, you can call me - my tell number is posted on my web site); when I post, I use my real name (Hamid). Originally my biography wiki web site was created by someone with an IP address in Texas (he probably created the web site with good intentions) but the content suffered from exaggeration, many photos, and incorrect statements. I decided to correct the web site and DGG kindly corrected further to conform with the wiki policies. This is how I ended up with a wiki web site! (I really never felt that I am at a level/caliber to be in the encyclopedia). Thank you for your messages. Investigatewiki (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Hamid

Craig Sherman

Resolved

 – Article deleted as copyright vio. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Craig Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just wanted to get some assistance with editing this article. Would appreciate any advice/words of wisdom anyone could give me on it. (First article I'm working on) Cleaned up some promotional information within it...think it's good enough to stay? Stuartwork (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability still looks a little iffy to me. Most of the refs (all but 2?) appear to be self-refs or press release type stuff, so more reliable sources are necessary. I made some additional formatting tweaks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

bravo

Resolved

 – No question, no assistance needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 04:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia editors!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html?bl&ex=1246593600&en=7d023adc5bfa733a&ei=5087%0A

Dubravka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubravka021 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So, can anyone tell me when the Communists took over Taiwan? LOL Mr. Wales does claim to have not "cooperated" AFAIK but what was interesting was "deciding" that a source was "unreliable" under a desire to rationalize a given conclusion or action. While you are argue on this being good or bad, rationalization is a big problem that impedes growth in many fields when it masquarades as logic or reason. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm an administrator but was not involved. Interested readers may be able to access a free version of the article from this Google search. There is also mention at Kidnapping of David Rohde#Role of Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I understand this. With Taiwan the Communists just want to appear to be in control. With this, you are assuming that the kidnappers will get sympathy, as if people who wiped out Indians would get respect (LOL). POV is a very insidious problem and often of course "reliable" sources just parrot a party line. Freedom of speech is difficult to defend. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Page title: "On First looking into Chapman's Homer.

Resolved

 – Done. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I put my edit in the wrong section.

My edit is: Frances Power Cobbe, The Peak in Darien: an octave of Essays. Boston. 1882.

This should have gone into the section called, "References to this Poem" instead it has gone into the general "References" section. Can you fix?

Frances Power Cobbbe has a wiki page that could be linked to although this book is not listed there.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.16.85 (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, moved as requested and confirmed with refs. . dave souza, talk 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

§yu§u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europabio (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Europabio

Resolved

 – Europabio blocked as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am the Europabio's communication manager and I tried to update our logo but I can not do it. Each time I try it is said that I am not the administrator so they won't let me change it. I imagine that someone makes himself the administrator. Can you help me out by telling me how I can fix this? I need to change it really soon, that is pretty urgent.

Thanks for your help,

Best regards,

A.C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europabio (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, firstly your username is in violation of Wikipedia policy. You may request a change of name at Wikipedia:Changing_username. As a new editor you cannot upload images yet. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disposophobia vs Compulsive Hoarding.

Resolved

 – Original poster blocked

Hello Editors:

I have a problem need your good advice.

When a web suffer looks for the meaning of Disposophobia on Wiki it is forwarded to "Compulsive or chronic Hoarding".

As the creator of the word Disposophobia over 10 years ago I have a serious issue that Wikipedia has defined this word as "Chronic Hoarding." Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact Disposophobia and Disposophobic is a trade/service mark of Disaster Masters (R) Inc. as clearly claimed on this page.

www.theplan.com/clegal.htm

Virtually every normal human has some form of Disposophobia and on the far end of a normal Disposophobic's scale is hording which is about one percent or less.

My question is how do I interrupt or disengage the forwarding of Disposophobia and create a new Wiki page that clearly defines this word as I intended it to be on the internet?

Thanks for your prompt attention to this important issue.

I can always be reached by phone at <redacted>

Ron Alford Speaker, Author, Consultant Creator Disposophobia Disaster Masters Clutter Masters Thought Masters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanplan (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Open a discussion on the talk page of the Compulsive hoarding article. You obviously have a conflict of interest with respect to this issue, so you will need to provide references to reliable sources to support any changes you want to make. Also, be very careful that your comments do not cross the line into legal threats - not saying they will but issues relating to use of registered trademarks can cross the line. – ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

substing pagename

Resolved

 – Purchased a clue from Algebraist. 05:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not about a specific article. I've been creating a small number of high school articles that are very similar. So I have a copy-and-paste template, and (to make life even easier), I use {{subst:pagename}}. Unfortunately, pagename is not actually a template, it's a variable. So it doesn't get substed in. Is there any way to subst in the article name, or do I need to type it in every time? tedder (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Magic words are uppercase. {{subst:PAGENAME}} seems to work: Editor assistance/Requests. Algebraist 04:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying it too: Editor assistance/Requests. thanks! Curse my love of lowercase. tedder (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)