Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 76

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

help prevent deletion

Resolved

– Deletion was averted. Diannaa ^TALK 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have recently tried to publish my first Wikipedia article and I am being told that it will be deleted. The article is called "Green Smoothie' I would really like some assistance with this as I feel my content is factual and unbiased. I am also struggling because I only know of a couple of sources for this information. For example, when talking about the discovery of green smoothies, there is only one person who discovered them and one book which documents it, so how do I add more sources? I feel that green smoothies need to be in their own category because they are revolutionizing the way people find natural health. Please help. I don't want to have this article removed in the 7 day time frame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msemeb (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find sources then the article, which you do not name, is probably not notable in Wikipedia terms. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anything has been done to assert notability, some of the sourcing looks distinctly dubious as has been said ta the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green smoothie. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since writing the original request the article was improved with many more sources. I am still being disputed and would like some experienced help with preventing deletion. Some people say it should be a topic that merges with 'smoothie', however the nutritional value of greens in a blended form makes green smoothie a stand alone subject. Thank you!

Well, it has been deleted now. Why not attempt ti write an encyclopaedic article in your sandbox? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Green smoothie has been nominated for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the copnvenience link was all capitalised, I have fixed that. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing Dispute in Articles Regarding Ahmadiyyah community

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You have posted this question on this page before, and I don't think we can do any more from here than to recommend using article talk pages. You may have to take this to artbitration. But to comment anyway... In a sense, any article that "represents views of" one side of an issue to the exclusion of another, risks being non-neutral. The concern should be whether other views can be demonstrated to be notable enough to be covered in the article. An article is not harmed by referencing alternate views. An article on the physical characteristics of planet Earth is not harmed by mentioning there are those who believe the Earth is flat. Wikipedia's article on evolution is not harmed by mentioning that the theory has its opponenets. When an article's topic is highly controversial, no balance of presentation of alternate views or theories will be to everyone's satisfaction. You may just have to live with the fact that a "view" which you do not agree with, is notable, regardless of its truth or sensibleness. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Suhayli (talk) many times what he finds not neutral, which sentences he finds not neutral, but he doesn't respond. He keeps on repeating that i'm not being neutral and is always trying to report me as if I'm doing something wrong. See his talk page. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please guide me

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have made an edit in BACnet page. I have added a BACnet Testing facility section in the page. This section was added from a neutral point of view. Recently I have also added a link to section pointing to a news. Some wiki user has deleted the section without any warning. Can you please guide me as to why was the section deleted and how can I get it back on the BACnet page. --Peswriter (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read your contributions to the article, and also checked the references you gave. Much of your contribution does not seem to be sourced at all, the the sources you give for other parts are not very solid. You give a link to http://www.softdel.com/ as a "reference", but it is not a citation for any of the statements made in the article at all, but just an external link to the web site of a company mentioned in your contribution. The link you give to "cse live" is a little better, but it is a limited amount of coverage, and essentially no more than a report that BACnet has made an announcement of a business development: in other words almost certainly a write up of a press release. You say that your editing was made "from a neutral point of view". Well, I agree that it is not written as blatant advertising, but its general tone is somewhat promotional. Almost all of the text you added is to be found verbatim at http://www.bacnetassociation.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=36, which means it is almost certainly a copyright infringement. Finally, looking at your editing history I wonder if you are editing on behalf of one or more of the companies about which you have written. If so then you have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage you from editing about such companies. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since writing the above I have looked at some more of Peswriter's editing history, and there is no doubt that there is indeed a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Punkbuster EULA warning information....

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tried several times to ad a EULA Warning on the Punkbuster page which I feel is beneficial to unwary people about the free access that Punkbuster's EULA, gives Punkbuster, to view your personal files, and take screen shots of what you are doing. It is the wording of Punkbusters EULA that I am committing on, which is factual, and I tried to keep it as neutral as possible. As soon as I post it, within a few minutes/hours it is pulled down, and I feel it is an effort to keep that information out of the public's hands. I tried to figure out how to warn people about vandalism, but I could not figure out all the steps I need to do, and it is multiple people pulling it down, and I have not gotten any warnings that I am in the wrong, just people pulling it down. Would you look at the history... I have even edited it to try and make it as neutral as I can, but still factual. If I am posting something that is wrong I will stop. I felt it was important information people should know about the EULA. Wikipedia Page : Punkbuster Author: Cutmetal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punkbuster

Thanks

Cutmetal

I looked at your latest attempt to enter a section into the PunkBuster article. It does read like an essay, rather than encyclopedic information, as noted in the edit summary of the editor who removed it. The biggest problem is that it's completely uncited. Find reliable sources that make these claims, and reword it in a less conversational tone, and you may have a better chance of getting the edit accepted. Note that blogs are not reliable sources. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mostly single-source article — Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently discovered the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement page (links to which have been heavily seeded into many articles' "See Also" sections), and found it to be rather un-encyclopedic: the article is about an organization (or movement), and most of its substance is simply copied from the website of the organization itself. Of 14 references, the first 9 are the subject's own site, and the remaining 5 are all for a "media coverage" section of the page. Thinking this inappropriate, I added a onesource tag to the beginning of the page, which prompted vehement opposition by User:Skyeking, whom I've had trouble convincing of the need to pull the article material from additional sources. While I have attempted to argue (via the article's Discussion page) why I felt the page deserved the tag, the ensuing discussion (much of which the other editor insists on doing on his User talk page instead of the article Talk page) appears to have accomplished nothing—to the point where I have been told by this editor that Ignore all rules applies and therefore it can't be a policy violation (obviously I disagree).

I am uncertain of how to proceed.

--Jagerman (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen such absurd objections from the editor you are working with, that come with 2-page-long preformatted arguments leading to a demand that you remove your (perfectly valid) comments from the article's talk page! There is a serious article ownership issue here. I'm not an admin, but I think this article needs an admin's eyes. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'll be bold and continue to make some edits on the article as see how things go. The article is a mess, but I think it can be cleaned up. Skyeking, you might contact User:SarekOfVulcan, they have been to the page before some there might be some interest there. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten into a dispute on the West Loch Disaster article

Resolved

– Diannaa ^TALK 02:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

:

I just lop off the second sentence.

This is really irksome, because:

1. We cannot know what would have happened "if."

2. Although we cannot know, it seems pretty ludicrous to me to think that "but for" the secrecy the West Loch Disaster would have become as famous as the attack on Pearl Harbor, which, after all, led the United States into WWII.

So it seems to me that there is some unnecessary speculation taking place, which is also ludicrous.

I feel silly just changing it back again and again. What should I do. Tesint (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you are the IP that added the comment to the talk page? Perhaps inviting the other editors to join that discussion would be the best start. Continual reversions are WP:Edit warring and may lead to blocks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was me.Tesint (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to read "The incident is not as well known as the original Pearl Harbor disaster, the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor of December 1941, in part because the event was classified Top Secret until 1960." Hopefully this better reflects the intended meaning and will satisfy all parties. If not, well, we'll find out soon enough Diannaa ^TALK 03:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:superldm/Miroamer

Answered

– article now in mainspace at miRoamer –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I've made some correction of my article which is User:Superldm/Miroamer. Could somebody please help me to check if it is okay to publish the page in Wikipedia? If okay, I will put it up. If not okay, could you please tell me what should I alter to make it available please? I appreciate any of your recommendation of what things I need to improve.

Superldm (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to address the citation needed tags, every statement needs to be cited directly to a verifiable, reliable third party source. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for help. I've correct those citations. Could you please check again and see if my article is okay to put in the main space please?Superldm (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper Method to update article when lack of consensus

Resolved

– Diannaa ^TALK 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Over at the New Guinea Singing Dog article, several editors rewrote the article from scratch and complete redid it in one massive change. I reverted and have proposed a Path Forward that will allow all editors time to construct a quality article (most of the editor are newbees, including me. We have differences of opinions on what the content should be. I don't want a war to break out. My question is, what is the proper way to go about this. Might be helpful to have more experienced editors add comments at the Singing Dog article page so we all see.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You (and the other editors) should not be just pasting your preferred version of the article over the changes that other editors are making. This is not the way to build consensus, or to build an article. You have made 35 edits to the article, and many of them are reversions of other people's work, or reverting back to your preferred version of the article. Today, for instance. You have removed an enormous amount of material from the article, maybe 75% of the content. Why? Surely it is worth keeping? Diannaa ^TALK 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for taking the time to comment. Fyi, Wiki user Inugami-bargho took the original NGSD page, placed it on his own page and made it his project. He did the same for the Dingo page. All indications are that Inugami has used cited and referenced information and his knowledge and experience of both wiki and of primitive canid's warrants some respect. Most if not all of the information from the page in it's original form is still there. The added information reflects a more NPOV. I and others involved agree that taking the more complete version and tweaking it would be a much easier process at this point. I will return the article to it's more complete form. Tomcue2 (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that. I investigated quite thoroughly. I agree with you, Tomcue. The new version is a much better starting point for future revision, and better meets WP:MOS style guidelines etc. Mr Horseracer has commented on my talk page and I am responding there. Diannaa ^TALK 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mayawati

Resolved

– I have cleaned up the article and added it to my watchlistDiannaa ^TALK 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Mayawati page needs moderation and cleanup.

I have started copy edits, and will help you monitor the article for the next while. Diannaa ^TALK 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ginny Glass of Crossville

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently updated the "Crossville, Tennessee" article in the "Notable People" section with the addition of author, Ginny Glass, who hails from Crossville. This was deleted. Why?

Thanks, Walter Smith

The edit summary says the person is not notable. I have to agree as there were no Google hits other than her own website and Facebook. Once she is famous enough to have newpaper and magazine writeups, c'mon back and add her again. Diannaa ^TALK 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

request for indian spice importance in aurvedic medicine

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

dear sir/medam I am health and nutrition student. doing some assainment on aurvedic medicine and spices role in health. I want to take some pictures from the site. i want your permission to take images for preparation of healthy food. thank you for you time (Email removed)

Each photo and image has its own licensing and copying conditions. Click on the photo and you will see an enlargement of the photo, and below that, the license agreement for that image. Each photo may have a diferenct license agreement so make sure you check for each image you are interested in using. I have removed your e-mail address from this very public board. Diannaa ^TALK 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your help needed

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've been trying to update and condense the content of the wikipedia entry for Le Moyne College (I work for the College). I accidentally clicked "Watch this page" when editing, and then an icon of a broom appeared along with advice to clean up the article. Since then, I've tried to edit it thoroughly to make it more neutral and to take out references to events in actual time, and to otherwise carefully follow all the style advice. But the little broom icon persists. I wonder: once this icon is placed on an article, will it always remain? Is there some way to ask an editor to quickly review the website and see if it now passes muster? thanks for any help you can give Dolores Mitchell.166 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The cleanup tag will remain on the article until removed (which should be when the article is sufficiently clean). Please be aware that since you work for the college, you have a conflict of interest. Please read and be aware that even though you may know something for 100% sure, you still have to cite it, and keep a neutral point of view when editing. I'm sure somebody will be happy to look it over and see if that cleanup tag is necessary though. (my excuse for not doing it: I'm kinda busy in the meatspace right now...)--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

okay, so, you are "kinda busy" and now the entry for Le Moyne is slapped with three different alarming-looking messages, because I asked for help, admitting that I work at the College and am trying to condense and update some basic information (while following wiki guidelines) so that it is correct? wow!! crazy. Mitchell.166 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The tags are intended to aid editors in identifying articles that need improving. They are not censures, they are ways of categorizing articles that need specific points addressing. They contain links to the relevant policies and guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax! A whole lot of articles have similar tags. There is no deadline. I'd help, but, I kinda have a term paper to write... I have to argue that the Patriot Act is a good thing. It is nearly impossible to find sources to support that... I want to help! That's why I'm here, but I just don't have time to go through the article and clean up.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 15:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Information provided was changed

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I had edited the page Dia Mirza last night as there were lot of things on the page that were not factual. I am Dia Mirza's representative for the same. The changes showed last night & I checked it again today morning it was all ok. But when I re-checked today at 2.30pm (IST), the changes had been removed & the page had gone back to being what it was initially. I want to know how can this happen as wikipedia is where everyone can contribute. Why were my contributions removed & the page went back to the original state.

Please do help & let me know how I can make the changes, as whoever has written that about Dia Mirza has obviously made the page go back to square 1.

Awaiting a response from your team about the same.

Thanks, Neharaj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neharaj26 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 April 2010

Well you edits were uncited and in fact you removed existing references. The edit summary re the reversions noted that your additions were effectively original research as you had added no references to reliable sources to substantiate the material that you had added. Another editor has noted on your talk page that you have a conflict of interest here, you need to be careful to cite reliable sources for any material that you add. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect/move page swap

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to swap the United States Astronaut Hall of Fame redirect page with the current article page, Astronaut Hall of Fame, because the correct and full name of the hall is United States Astronaut Hall of Fame. I would do this but apparently need an administrator's help. Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The place to post your request is at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is concerning the upcoming songs section. There is a bit about Jimi Hendrix in that section backed up with a source along with an article, but since the article for that sources is gone, it is bare information that meets WP:CRYSTAL. Why I am here is because one user Masem is reverting my edits telling me that the information hasn't necessarily changed, or that the site is down. I'm very cautious when it comes to verifiable information and I hesitate to keep this information up considering it can no longer be proven. What if the information has changed?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 05:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Just a note, I have reached my 3RR.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 05:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is related to the problems with Rolling Stone's website being discussed here, here, and here. Watch those pages for developments. In his latest edit summary Masem says "I can confirm the article stil exists at RS but the link is weird" (probably meaning uncopyable because of the brackets), so I would recommend keeping the information in the article until the site's issues are resolved. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Commenting out statements can be a useful way of dealing with tehses sort of issues temporarily. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias and tendentiousness, refusal to discuss core issue directly, continuing to make changes

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am a newbie and I need help. I am working on the Sharia article. I honestly need an objective third opinion here.

I am involved with a wide ranging dispute with another editor. My main concern is bias in the introduction of the article. I believe I can demonstrate the bias, and I think an objective third person would agree. But as I am trying to figure out how to get to the root of the issue, the other editor continues to pour changes into the article.

These are mostly changes from the other editor, please note in particular the beginning of the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&action=historysubmit&diff=358527750&oldid=357103172

This is the general discussion that has gone on. Talk:Sharia#Neutrality_in_doubt

This is my most recent attempt to engage on my core issues with his edits Talk:Sharia#Removing_POV_from_head_of_article

There are only two of us directly involved in this. He has made and continues to make some big changes, and he has more planned. Any advice, suggestions, difficult truths, whatever you can give me is appreciated. I tried for arbitration, it was suggested I go through DR. Help?

Thanks Aquib (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a contetious subject area, I suggest that you formally request a WP:3rd opinion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul A. Baran biography

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul A. Baran

In the wiki entry for Paul A. Baran the date of birth provided is 8 December 1910. According to Stanford University Memorial Resolution, his date of birth was August 25, 1909. Link: http://histsoc.stanford.edu/pdfmem/BaranP.pdf

--Mardemots (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Mardemots

I have added that DOB with the reference. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed to live my article

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please assist me to check if my article User:superldm/Miroamer is okay to put in the main space? Thanks a lot!!!Superldm (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little nobody, but that looks to me like WP:SOAP--product promotion and advertising. If you put it in main space it's likely to be tagged Template:Advert. Yopienso (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your tips! I'll keep editing. :) Superldm (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Xconomy entry dispute

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi...I was searching for the entry for Xconomy and saw that it had been deleted, apparently as spam. Xconomy ([http://www.xconomy.com) is short for the exponential economy. The company is a leading news organization covering the business of technology that was formed in Cambridge, MA, in June 2007. It has now grown to operate in four cities: Boston, Seattle, San Diego, and Detroit. It has a small, but highly accomplished professional staff and syndicates its content to leading newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Seattle Times, and San Diego Union Tribune. I know, I founded the company (but did not write the article about it). I'd like to get it back live. Thanks--Bob Buderi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbuderi (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, when there is substantial coverage in verifiable, reliable sources to establish the company's notability, I expect someone will create an article. At the moment there seem to be just self published sources and blogs. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Source notability/reliability

Resolved

– at least for now. They'll be back, I'm sure. Diannaa ^TALK 03:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Marina_Orlova#Investigation_show_source Disagreement over reliability/notability of source in relation to WP:BLP. Uninvolved editors are needed to inspect the source and give their own independant opinion.--Sinistrial (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the reliable sources noticeboard is the place for this. I see that you have started an RFC at Talk:Marina_Orlova#Investigation_show_source and you have had anwers from experienced editors there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This was already tried with minimal response. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Investigation_show_reliable_and_notable. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive82#Video_evidence_enough.3F. I'll put in another one then.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Other discussions occurred at WP:ANI on March 22, WP:ANI on March 24, the BLP Noticeboard on March 27, initiated a Request for Comment April 10 and posted at Third Opinion on May 3. So far you have received no support for adding your material to the article or that the source is question is reliable. Diannaa ^TALK 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior is called forum shopping and is considered to be inappropriate behavior. I urge you to drop this matter. Diannaa ^TALK 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Takbir--Arabic phrase--translation in dispute--current version's proponent seems to concede, but version remains

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And as a new user who tried this once and was rightly chided, I am afraid to edit the article myself. So what is the next step? I read over the dispute resolution article briefly. Here is the dispute transcript from the talk section of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Takbir#If_Akbar_is_the_elative.2C_why_does_the_little_graphic_at_the_top_of_the_article_show_.22God_is_great.22_as_the_translation.3F Transcript follows: If Akbar is the elative, why does the little graphic at the top of the article show "God is great" as the translation?

If this is an application of a Wiki rule that general understanding, common parlance, defines word usage, then what is the purpose of this article and of dictionaries in general?Chrisrushlau (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Because "God is great" is the probably the most commonly-used English translation, and also arguably the one with the fewest problems in connotations ("God is greater" is a rather awkward English sentence, while "God is the greatest" sounds like teenage slang or a snappy advertising slogan). AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jesuits have a slogan, "God is always greater." My suspicion is that this originated with founder Ignatius of Loyola, who grew up in Spain and encountered a Muslim there during a famous spiritual crisis--"God, steer my horse: if it leads me past the Muslim, I will kill him for your honor . . ."! The entire point of the saying, for both Jesuits and Muslims, surely, is to relativize all human conceptions--so that God is entirely other, and thus worthy of complete honor--I want to say "dread". It is almost a definition of God, and indeed a definition Scholastisicm would find quite comprehensible. The unmoved mover, the thing greater than which cannot be imagined, etc. And you cause me to regret my reference to dictionaries in my first comment--I over-simplified.Chrisrushlau (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"God is always greater" is certainly a better English sentence than "God is greater", but there's nothing in the Arabic sentence Allahu akbar which directly corresponds to "always". In general, we have to translate according to accepted translation practices, rather than someone's abstract philosophy, as discussed in the section immediately above on this page. AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy clarifies statements. The principle of translation is to convey to the non-speaker the intent of the speaker. "Great" empties the term "akbar" of any content--the simple "kabeer" would suffice. It also makes the use of the term "elative" spurious. Your standard of what is most widely accepted must refer to acceptance among those with grounds to be believed: Arabic-speakers. To simplify, as in the graphic illustration above this article, is to present the essential, not eliminate the inconvenient or uncongenial--from the Latin, "simplex", meaning "whole", as opposed to "complex", "divided". If an Arabic speaker wanted to say God was great, big, old, etc. (the various translations of "kabeer"), the term would be readily to hand. Why do you read more into the matter than that: does the speaker's intent not matter to you?Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC) (end of transcript) Thanks for reading, Chrisrushlau (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly this is a dispute over a translation from Arabic in to English. As has been pointed out to you, philosophy doesn't come into this, but accepted translation practice does. This is an encyclopaedia, if you can find verifiable, reliable sources that support your translation, then bring them to the article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

help creating a page for Houston's only GLBT community center

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Right in the middle of creating/editing the Houston GLBT Community Center's page, an administrator deleted it.

We founded this group 14 years ago and the Center currently serves over 4,000 Houstonians a year, managing numerous grants, and it an IRS designated charity.

Of course I didn't have time to enter much of this information before the page was deleted less than an hour after being created.

There are numerous independent sources on the web and in print that verify our good. A simple Google of our organization pulls up years of information.

We have to wonder about the possible prejudicial motivation of the deleter(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbagbygrose (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please advise how we can get our page created. It seems unfair to allow deletion before our initial edit is even completed and without any explanation whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbagbygrose (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the article was deleted because it didn't say how the community center is important. Not important in terms of the real world, but in terms of having an encyclopedia article here. To have an article here, topics need to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion and be verifiable. Please click on those links and read the guidelines and policies there. You might also find Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) helpful. If after that, you are sure that the charity meets our notability guidelines, please put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. As you have a connection to the organisation in question, it would be considered a conflict of interest to create the article yourself, and would be very strongly discouraged. (See also Wikipedia:Autobiography). You could also drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies which is a Wikipedia project dedicated to working on articles related to LGBT-topics. Someone there may be interested in creating the article. --Beloved Freak 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One last note - please try to assume good faith with regards to the person that deleted the article. We have certain criteria under which articles can be deleted straight away with no discussion. (See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) That is why the article was deleted, not for any "prejudicial motivation". You can also talk to that person directly at User talk:NawlinWiki if you have further questions on why it was deleted.--Beloved Freak 17:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

BBagbyGrose 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)It is not clear to me how or where to submit a request to have someone write/edit our information in order to ensure fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbagbygrose (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is the place, but please bear in mind that unless notability can be established it is unlikely that an article can be created. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Drop me a message, I'll see if I can help you. — e. ripley\^talk 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You can post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences#Organizations. This may take some time. Articles must comply with the neutral point of view policy, and experienced editors will ensure that articles are fair and balanced. Of course, this is the ideal and as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, articles sometimes fall short of this ideal. You can discuss articles on their talkpages and you can watch pages to see any changes being made to them. If you find problems, you can add cleanup maintenance templates which alert other editors to the problem. You can also post concerns here or at the help desk. Remember that you won't have any editorial control over an article about your organisation, which can be frustrating.--Beloved Freak 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess forget all that as you've recreated it anyway.--Beloved Freak 18:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Belovedfreak. We'll keep trying the see how it goes. The Center is certainly a notable organization; it's just a matter of establishing that within Wikipedia guidelines. Wish us well! Thanks again.

20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbagbygrose (talk • contribs)

Article name changed and text deleted without consensus

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has changed the name of an article and deleted large amounts of the text of Writings of Herbert Schildt -- was Herbert Schildt. There was no discussion and certainly no consensus. The article had just survived an AFD and the editor, User:Crotalus horridus had voted for deletion. I would revert myself (though it probably would lead to a revert war) but I am unsure how to change names safely. Please advise. Barsoomian (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I also support the move, there were BLP concerns from a few editors, why not wait a while and see if there is a consensus of objections. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What BLP concerns? Which editors? You keep saying that but don't specify. Please explain on the article discussion page. I'm tired of this generic excuse for laying waste to established articles. Barsoomian (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Armando Favazza [living biography]

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to fulfill the "citation needed" requests but have no idea about how I can provide a citation for such things as my educational degrees, media presentations, etc. Pleae advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armando Favazza (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 May 2010

Oh dear! Editing an article about yourself is not a good idea!. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines. I shall place some links to WP policies and guidelines on your talk page. Citations need to be made to verifiable, reliable sources in third party publications, e.g. newspapers, academic journals or authoritative web sites. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so only such sources should be used. if it can't be verified, then material should not be included. Lastly, please remembert to sign posts with four tildes (~) or using the signature icon,

on the edit bar. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The best thing you can do, really, is if you know of any reliable sources about you, then point them out on the article talkpage, at Talk:Armando Favazza, then other editors can use them to improve the article in a neutral way. --Beloved Freak 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Mills

Answered

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Last week I submitted an entry for Phillip Mills and had it rejected because it was sourced from the www.lesmills.com website. Actually I am a member of the Les Mills International communications team that drafted the original text on the LMI site, so I think we probably own any implied copyright on that text. I have been charged with checking and updating other LM-related entries on Wikipedia, including the Les Mills International and BodyPump ones in which Phillip already features. I think he certainly meets your criteria as a notable person and as one of the authors of the text, I submit it can be legitimitely used on Wikipedia. I guess the only real remaining issue is how I prove I am who I say I am ... cheers g —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant R Chapman (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You can either arrange for the copyright notice on the relevant websites to be amended to reflcet the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or email "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" granting the same license. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for further information. You have admitted a conflict of interest in your statement above so you should read that guideline and be very careful about editing any article with which you have a conflict of interest. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a trade directory, so articles should not be promotional in tone and should only cover notable subjects, whose notability can be verified by reliable third party sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions despite objections

Discussion moved

– WP:ANI#Haldraper deleting relevant materials despite other editors' objections –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy of post at ANI

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of the Catholic sex abuse cases article:
a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
c. proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

Here are some of the diffs: joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Removed i) Christian Science Monitor survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967

2. Removed quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

3. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

5. Removed section on Context (quote by Applewhite) and Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed all the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there?

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put it (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section (although on the talk page, he has written that her quote doesn't concern inaccuracies). He has removed Jenkins' quote again.

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

Points 1-4 have been resolved through the intervention of several other editors. Points 5-8 remain unresolved.

See discussions at joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
1. here

2. here
3. here <-- latest

This is a duplicate of what was posted at WP:ANI#Haldraper_deleting_relevant_materials_despite_other_editors.27_objections. Diannaa ^TALK 15:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kingston University Controversies section

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please may I have some assistance with the Kingston University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, particularly the Controversies section. As you will notice from this section one former employee has been involved in a long-running dispute with the University, and unfortunately Wikipedia has been used as his personal battleground against the University.

Is this section appropriate for an encyclopaedia? One of the issues listed is notable and may deserve a line or two, but surely a complete section listing all the petty grievances against the University in such detail is inappropriate? Also if you notice from the edits this content has been added by one or two IP addresses with an obvious vendetta against the University. Take a look at the Talk page and you will spot these one or two IP addresses arguing against the sensible majority who have raised issues with this content previously.

Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, so I think this article would be greatly improved if some experienced editors would take a look at this. I hope this is the correct place to raise this issue, if not let me know. Thank you. Pandabearcollective (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! There are a number of issues her. I think that Wikipedia:Content noticeboard may be the best place to start with, although it is likely there are some WP:BLP issues as well. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Jezhotwells. I have posted a message on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. I think an editor went into the Kingston University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and made some changes to make the article slightly more neutral but as you can see an IP address reverted these. Is there anything else I can do to get more experienced editors than myself to take a look at this and agree on how this article should be updated to be more neutral - unfortunately any changes being made at the moment are being reverted by certain IP addresses who have a conflict of interest.Pandabearcollective (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow the steps at WP:VANDAL, I have started you off with one warning. Try to engage them be leaving messages on their talk page, inviting them to discuss things on the article talk page If it persists / gets to Level 4 warnings then report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help. Another editor has opened a section on the Conflict of interest noticeboard Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kingston_University_COI_and_NPOV so hopefully we should see some action being taken on this. Pandabearcollective (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A dispute between myself and William M. Connolley on "Climate_sensitivity"

Discussion moved

– Changed forum to WP:WQA --Diannaa ^TALK 13:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_sensitivity#Cloud_and_Radiation_Budget_Changes_Associated_with_Tropical_Intraseasonal_Oscillations
A simplified history of our dispute runs like this...

Me: I think this published paper X should be mentioned in the main article for reason A.
Him: I dispute the validity of reason A.
Me: Oops, I'm not very confident of reason A because of my, freely admitted, lack of expertise in this area, but here's reason B which is much better.
Him: Ha ha, look how stupid you are for having put forth reason A.
Me: I'd like to retract A because B is a much stronger argument. If B is valid then A is irrelevant and requires no further discussion.
Him: Ha ha, look how stupid you are for having put forth reason A, lets talk about it in detail so I can humiliate you.
Me: Please let me retract all mention of A... look I'm deleting it.
Him: I'm un-deleting it so I can humiliate you some more.
Me: I made a mistake proposing reason A, reason B removes the need to even discuss A.
Him: no, I'm not letting people consider published article X unless you publicly declare how stupid you were putting forth reason A.

Discussions of the published paper X is now hidden inside a box saying "Went nowhere" on the discussion page.
I consider William M. Connolley's actions to be out of keeping with the ideals of Wikipedia. Reissgo (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You could take it to Wikiquette alerts, perhaps? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: The last post in that discussion was dated 24 September 2009 (UTC). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had left it alone for a while because I had thought to myself "well at least the paper and some excerpts were discussed on the discussions page so people may take a look at it". I only noticed that the entire thread had been rolled up into a one line comment "Went nowhere" a couple of days ago. Reissgo (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As suggested I have now put this notice on Wikiquette. Reissgo (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruby McCollum article

Stale

– No one seems keen to clean up this mess. Diannaa ^TALK 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance is needed from a volunteer to provide impartial editorial assistance to review and clean up above-referenced article so that notations regarding neutrality, etc. may be removed. . Artellis1000 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a misuse of warning template?

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit and left a npov warning on his talk page. The user then reverted the warning and left a warning on my talk page for a misuse of the warning template. Was I out of line here? Truthsort (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The template turned out like this:

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

The template does not quite suit the case, as it was not "personal analysis" on the part of the other editor that you objected to. A note on the talk page of the article (not the user's talk page) giving the rationale for removal of the link would have been a better choice IMHO. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but adding content into a see also section like he did based on his apparent POV of the content ends up making a pretty good article into an unencyclopedic biased one. Truthsort (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of message you could have posted on the talk page of the article. --Diannaa ^TALK 23:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly that discussion was already ongoing on said talkpage. Warning template was completely appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it should be noted to the user about his POV edits. I see nothing wrong with warning him about it. I should note that a veteran user left a message on my talk page saying that the warning was appropriate. Truthsort (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used a template in that situation... I would have just used a personal note. I don't know of a template that is appropriate in that situation.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 01:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I still have not seen a rationale explanation against my warning of him. It was discussed in the talk page not to do it, but he added it. In fact he also added it back on April 27 which was reverted. Truthsort (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, or we do. No one here is saying it was inappropriate to talk to the user. The template was unsuitable. I made no comment supporting or not supporting your warning him. I commented only on the template. Did I misunderstand your question? Are you also looking for feedback as to whether or not you should have warned the user about his edits? Diannaa ^TALK 03:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am gonna go over my response in a little more detail, but I have to warn you that you will probably still not like what I have to say.

Here's what happened

you undid his revision with an edit summary of "really inappropriate"
you placed a template stating "personal analysis" should not be included in the article on the user's talk page
user responds with a "misuse of template" template.
everyone leaves angry and feeling ill will.

Here's what could have happened

undo their edit with an edit summary of "removed link - see talk"
place a note on the talk page of the article giving the reason for removal: "I have removed the link to Nuremburg laws as the connection to the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is tenuous at best."
different result? Probably.

Regards, --Diannaa ^TALK 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Philippoussis Bio photo

Resolved

– –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The only issue is the image keeps switching back. The photo is of very poor quality. My image that I took with my own camera is high quality and a clear profile image.

Will this person be able to keep changing the image, even though it's poor quality?

regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by LovesTennis (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem was the addition of the fan site, it looked like EL spam to XLbot, so I removed it and the other fan site, please read WP:EL. The bot automatically revert your edit thus changing the picture as well. I have added your picture back in. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

revising "foreskin"

Resolved

– Debate seems to have dried up, both here and at the article. Diannaa ^TALK 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Foreskin (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Foreskin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am concerned about the editing of the talk page first. After my first attempt at revision, when i included the reason for the revision, someone "deleted" the reason changing the appearance as though I revised it with "no" reason. that is not polite. after we resolve that we can move to the revision content... (which will probably not be approved despite the convergance of medical views which verify each other) still the approach must be dealt with first. Today i see that someone is editing the talk page and "altered the presentation of the reasons" in a way that seems inaccurate. ie changing my post and then commenting "a magazine is not reliable." both are simply misleading because the sources in my addition are directly from the medical journals such as "Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.<\ref>" and others. therefore it seems fair to add together with that, one doctors opinion in a magazine which concurs with the medical journals rather than deleting it all claiming "nothing of the sort" and "almost the opposite" when in reality the sources are not only accurate but also the proper understanding is by doctors with a background in the field. Tectaal (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be chnaging other people's comments as you were doing. Post your comments below the last post in the discussion and don'y forget to sign them. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How can we create a wiki-table like this?

Answered

– Diannaa ^TALK 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How can we create a wiki-table like the following? With thankfulness.

Clumsily (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Help:Table should give you enough information. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly easy if you don't need bullets, like this:

Fixed-width column	Variable width column
The Start	The race starts just upstream from Putney Bridge. The start is marked by the "University Stone" on the south bank.
	Two stake boats are moored so that the competitors' bows are in line with the University Stone on the south bank. The winner of the toss has the choice of station. Coxes raise their arms while their VIIIs are getting into position.
	When both crews are ready the Umpire starts the race by waving a red flag. In the straight section after the start the Middlesex crew tries to hold the fastest water on the centre line of the river.
The Finish	The course is 4 miles and 374 yards (6,779 m) from Putney to Mortlake. The finish, just before Chiswick Bridge is marked by a stone on the south bank and a post on the north bank.

If you do want bullets, then AFAIK you need to add a column to separate the image from the text as below. You can probably add style statements to prevent the border from being displayed, but that will make the source harder to maintain in future.

Fixed-width column		Variable width column
The Start		The race starts just upstream from Putney Bridge. The start is marked by the "University Stone" on the south bank.
		Two stake boats are moored so that the competitors' bows are in line with the University Stone on the south bank. The winner of the toss has the choice of station. Coxes raise their arms while their VIIIs are getting into position.
		When both crews are ready the Umpire starts the race by waving a red flag. In the straight section after the start the Middlesex crew tries to hold the fastest water on the centre line of the river.
The Finish	The course is 4 miles and 374 yards (6,779 m) from Putney to Mortlake. The finish, just before Chiswick Bridge is marked by a stone on the south bank and a post on the north bank.

Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

mixer credits

Answered

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Acapella_(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hello, I'm having a dispute with Lil-unique1, who keeps deleting the name of the original mixer that I have add to the song Acapella by Kelis. I've argued my case, but he refuses to engage with my arguments, instead simply slapping down the law, ie what he says is Wikipedia common practice. He now threatens to report me to the administrators. For me this is at at heart about a wider issue, which is that I am of the opinion that the original album/single mixer of modern-day songs should be mentioned, especially if remixers are also mentioned. The role of mixers has become increasingly important, and I have explained to Lil-Unique (see our talk pages) that I am a music journalist with 20 years of experience, who writes a monthly series about these mix engineers for Sound on Sound magazine, one of the world's leading music technology magazines. I don't have a personal relationship with these mixers, I'm not trying to promote them or any of them in particular, I just think that if remixers are mentioned, the original mixer should also be mentioned, as their role is as crucial in the making of these songs. Ideally their name should go in the box at the top right, with the song writing and producer credit, or else in the article or where the different song versions are mentioned. Lil-unique1 has deleted my entry of the song's mixer, Dylan "3D" Dresdow, wherever I have put it, using a changing list of arguments that seem to suggest it's more about pride than creating an informative and complete article ("irrelevant," "not Wiki policy," "not properly sourced," etc). I can have some understanding for the source argument, but I have given my name, my credentials, my professional reputation, a way in which he can verify the fact, and in simply not accepting any of this and then threatening to report me he is not assuming my good faith. Admittedly, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing.. so what now? Thanx for any feedback/suggestions, Paul Tingen.(talk) 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start you should be discusing this on the article talk page. That is what it is there for. Just constant reversion is not a very good way of proceeding. I note also that you are not sourcing this to verifiable reliable sources. You need to do that. Just because you know is not sufficient. Wikipedia is not about "truth", it is about verifiability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... though it's also stated that not everything has to sourced, only "anything challenged or likely to be challenged." Lil-unique1 has in fact not challenged the information I have supplied, he just contends that it's "irrelevant" and not "common practice" to supply it, which is what I disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingen (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Wikiproject Music has developed detailed guidelines for music related articles to aid in maintaining uniform article structure and style. Check out WP:WikiProject Music#Quality guidelines: MUSTARD or WP:Manual of Style (music) for more information. Or you could contact a member of that project for help getting started editing in that field. Diannaa ^TALK 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Living statue

Answered

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've been editing the living statues history page a bit- it contained some thinly-veiled ads for various living statue companies when I found it. They seem to be putting them up rather quickly. I thought they were all gone a couple days ago and when I checked again today somebody had already put themselves back under the external links. Short of checking the page every morning to see if anybody has felt compelled to link themselves in the events section because they happen to work the same fair every year or under external links because they think it will drum up business, how do I stem the tide? Thanks much! CVishnia (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of things you can do. First thing I would suggest is talking to the editors who are adding the external links. You can put something like {{subst:uw-l1}} ~~~~ on their talk pages. Try to only put it on their talk pages right after they post the spam external link so they don't get confused as to what you're referring to. I have other suggestions if that still doesn't help the situation any. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarlet witch character

Answered

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have edited her powers/abilities page based on marvel.com and i have improved her page with more fact based information and it keep saying [volume & issue needed] i then remove [volume & issue needed] and replace it with a reference but then it got removed and [volume & issue needed] got put back.The point is i add it The Scarlet Witch also has the potential to wield magic and later learned that she was destined to serve the role of Nexus Being, a living focal point for the Earth dimension's mystical energy on her power/abilities page and put a reference there to show that the info i add to her(scarlet witch) was true and supported i mean scarlet witch is a marvel based character and it is only fair and best to show the right info on her powers/abilities so people who visited Wikipedia site and look for scarlet witch can know that they are readying true information and not being mislead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterwanda (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The other editor wrote the following as the edit summary when they replaced the tag: "Marvel character pages are open-source, fan-edited pages, not official Marvel bios. Cite an actual issue or an article. Re-instituting tag." You might like to inquire at their talk page (User talk:Luminum) if you require more details. I think they know a lot about comics so they can probably help get you started on editing in this field. --Diannaa ^TALK 05:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I all ready know a lot about marvel characters and Pepsi,target and others totaling up to 40 investments and part of being a investor is to know things and i also have a family member who donates to Wikipedia not to mention i use wiki for basic understanding of things but as the person below said wiki seem not to be fully fact(truth) here and there and if there's not fact(truth) then there's false(lie)which is misleading and one of the problems is open editing that's good and all but if not fully watch can mislead people which can cause trust issues but in the end when every i read things off of Wikipedia i always do back up-research to make sure I'm not being mislead but over-all i am still a supporter of Wikipedia but with limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterwanda (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a good source of info. on military stuff

Answered

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Despite all the rules and editing specifics, I find Wikipedia is not truly a good representation of info. for many topics. Specifically in the area of military equipment and its technical capability. I have found military types currently enlisted and non-active, who delete information for various reasons. Official publications on military equipment are not accurate sources because of the sometimes sensitive nature of the information. For example, modern U.S. nuclear carriers are capable of at least 50 m.p.h. in open ocean. I suspect the actual number is in excess of 50 knots. This can be deduced from the specifics of the S.S. United States that made about 44 knots in tests. This info. is available from the Freedom of Info. Act as quoted in a N.Y. Times article. Anyway, a modern U.S. carrier has less hydrodynamic drag, and approx. the same s.h.p. as the S.S. United States. Weight is not directly a factor in the top speed of ships.

Anyway, my point is that it would be nice to believe that Wikipedia is truly a source of accurate and unbiased information, but that is simply not true. I believe that on some topics that has been severely compromised.

Thanks, Randall B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.173.95 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, information in Wikipedia has to be sourced to verifiable and reliable sources, so it is possible that not all information is complete as sources may be classified. As you appear interested in the subject why don't you get an account and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history which aims to improve articles on the subject. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coles Supermarkets

Answered

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Coles Supermarkets I have tried updating this old, outdated information on this page, but it keeps being reverted. The information that was originally on the page is well and truly outdated and no longer relevant, as the business has undergone dramatic transformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnotley (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that you are adding content without adding citations from third party sources. You need to cite reliable third party sources such as newspaper articles or magazines. Also the people who check these things are concerned about where the photos came from, and they have been dagged for deletion. We have to be careful with the photos for copyright reasons. If you go to WP:Possibly unfree files you will see the person's rationale for tagging the photos for deletion. --Diannaa ^TALK 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please learn a little more about using Wikipedia. Your text information looks like valid content, but you cannot just change Wikipedia articles without also including references to where you collected the information.

Also, please check article histories and Edit summaries. There was information given to you there last night and you ignored it. You should also check your own Talk page. More information was given there.

And learn to sign your additions here by using the ~ symbol four times. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

When BLP Noticeboard doesn't work

Resolved

– I have politely asked Carolmooredc and Drsmoo to stop responding to repeated provocation from each other, both here, on my talk page, and on Carol's user page. I am hopeful that the two users can get back to working on improving the article. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Gilad Atzmon article

(NOte: Moved from WP:ANI talk page which realized was inappropriate.) Gilad Atzmon article has been a big problem for a long time because many pro-Israel Jewish people are angry at this high profile former Israeli musician who writes ~~hostile~~ highly critical things about Israel and Zionism and questions ethnic/religious issues. However, this does not excuse the violations of BLP policies in the article, especially WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. (The article was closed April-Sept 2010 after an OTRS, evidently from Atzmon, and continued edit warring with an admin who tried to clean it up.) While there are a number of mainstream and NPOV articles and interviews with Atzmon, content from them is regularly deleted unless it makes him look bad. After the article reopened one editor continued to engage in these violations but every time I'd try to get help from a noticeboard he'd follow me around and attack me with falsehoods and quote Atzmon out-of-context to scare people off from assisting. In early December I finally gave up editing on the article, just putting in tags and explaining on the talk page the relevant violations.

Recently another equally hostile editor has joined adding even more slanted material and using the fact that David Duke publishes some of Atzmon's article has evidence of Atzmon's antisemitism. This at least led to some attention on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilad_Atzmon but several editors engaged in the same pattern of attacking Atzmon to intimidate other editors, as I complained at that thread. However, none of these editors seem to have engaged in any overtly sanctionable behavior. (Though if I were to engage in editing again to correct the policy violations, they'd probably resort to extreme edit warring, and I don't want to be blamed for that.) So I'm not sure if this is something I can bring to WP:ANI; it looks like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement under WP:ARBPIA does not want to deal with such content issues. Advice welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't you just focusing on the underlying reliable source problems? Focusing on the motivation of editors is a fruitless exercise and doesn't help. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is frequently expressed hostility towards the subject of the article by editors that not only betrays a strong POV but is WP:UNCIVIL towards editors who might try to follow policy on the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That is probably true, but it is coming from both sides. Can you make a list of problems sorted by order of importance, leaving out all references to other editors? Remember, if your house is in order, it becomes that much easier to eliminate editorial misconduct, otherwise, both parties will suffer from sanctions due to the rotten apple response. Let us work towards resolution, and help each other reach a higher ground. We can keep fighting the same battles, or we can start working on bringing peace to the world by beginning with ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For over a year now you've been threatening to "have banned" every editor who edits the article in a way that you don't approve of. This must be the tenth noticeboard you've said the same thing on and every single one has told you you were wrong. You are determined to ignore consensus and simply hope to find a single admin who agrees with you so you can cite them when you revert the article to your own singular non collaborative vision. Anyone here can look at Carolmooredc's history on the Gilad Atzmon talk page. Virtually every contribution she writes is attacking and threatening the other editors, most often me, and most recently RTLamp. She wrote on the talk page that her goal is "it's like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=352845153&oldid=352302795 She's about 0/10 at this point, and has shown no effort whatsoever to edit in conjunction with the other editors of the article, who in her view are all "biased." Drsmoo (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the topic rather than other editors? I would like to help resolve this problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking about the narrow issue of WP:RS, I forgot that I did in fact write somewhere that the issue should have gone to WP:RSN and not WP:BLP (where someone else had taken it) and have figured that once that discussion petered out without proper resolution I should take it to WP:RS. Though I have worried I'd be criticized for "forum shopping" for doing so. So you think it's ok to take it to WP:RSN?

After searching relevant policy pages some more, I realized the civility issue against Atzmon and by-association editors who try to make the article NPOV is something that should go to Wikiquette alerts or Request for Comment on user conduct. It's hard to remember all the remedies!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, having just read Drsmoo's out-of-context quote above, for anyone who doesn't want to click the link, I actually wrote about the policy issue in question: "But wikipedia is too broken to do anything about it. Unless it's like the lottery...etc." Please correct that mis-interpretation, Drsmoo- or even delete it all together. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this issue seems to revolve around the use of RS. But before you take it to that noticeboard, please try to summarize the problem in the context of reliable sources. If after doing that you feel the problem involves other issues, please describe them here and I can make further recommendations. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

<--back>I assume you mean summarize the issue I would bring to WP:RSN? Ok, looking at Gilad Atzmon article I can see that the fact that David Duke publishes his articles has been removed. So the relevant WP:RS issue now is removal of the fact Atzmon is published in Dissident Voice, supposedly because it is not WP:N. However, Middle East online which gets far fewer news.google hits remains, and has far fewer well known writers, showing that is not the real reason. I note that at least six other BLPs are allowed to mention that their subjects were published there.

Since Drsmoo's misrepresentation above, I was reminded my first big problem is Drsmoo Wikipedia:Harass#Wikihounding me, i.e., "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." It’s one thing to reply to noticeboards, it’s another to do so issuing long attacks filled with misrepresentations, like that above. This just poisons the waters and make it impossible to get a neutral opinion - or often any opinion at all.

This has been going on since last fall when we were the only two editors actively editing Gilad Atzmon so going to noticeboards for the many problems with Drsmoo's edits was the only option. I made these Wikiquette complaints (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Drsmoo & Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Drsmoo_.28revised_per_comments.29) against him last fall, (original and revised it per an editor's suggestion), but still got blamed for being as bad as he was. So I don’t have much faith in that process.

Since December I have largely stopped editing the article itself (just tags and a couple nits) to avoid constant reverts by him and fights with him, but this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Especially since certain sections of the article become more and more attack sections against him as new POV editors add material (and often attack Atzmon gratuitously on the talk and other pages). (And this is all despite an OTRS in spring 2009 and admins trying to make the article more neutral and even locking it for several months.) Any advice welcome. Thanks. ~~

I understand. This was your attempt to resolve the dispute with the user in October 2008. I think you should try contacting the user one more time on the talk page and ask them what you can do personally, to help resolve the ongoing dispute. Their answer may be instructive on what step you desire to take next. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The full history is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Drsmoo & Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Drsmoo_.28revised_per_comments.29. So you think just asking him to stop insulting me and making false or misleading accusations every time he replies to a message is sufficient? I guess I can suggest a more trained mediator in formal mediation again, as I did towards end of informal mediation on that talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, because there is a content dispute involved and because the behavioral violations are not unambiguous or one-sided, I would recommend choosing the most egregious problem and addressing it. If there is actual, ongoing wikihounding occurring, you will need diffs. I think it's best if you take a step back for a few days to get some perspective. The alerts are somewhat old, and this dispute is likely to have an outcome neither of you will like. For now focus on content and avoid addressing other editors or their motivations. The first editor who does, will be at a disadvantage. Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the content dispute. Because no one would for so long, other issues were aggravated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

THE LINE IN HIS RECORD OF "APPEARED TO HAVE HIT" SHOULD BE HE HIT

Request unclear

– --Diannaa ^TALK 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling him a killer but he did hit #3 on the last lap last corner no chance for the win and put #3 into the wall killing him hours later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.142.49 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, *who* are you talking about? What article/page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You may well be better off posting useful comments on the appropriate article talk (discussion) page). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)