Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Wing Chun

Resolved. Deryck C. 06:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war. I am Alan R. Bak Fu Vasquez Sifu Certified Instructor, VTAA; Life Member, Certified Principal Instructor, Director, Hawaii Wing Chun Kung-Fu Association; Founder and co-owner Orange County Wing Chun Association and owner of the WingChunAssoc.com web page. Someone has sabatoged my lineage and web link. I would like to post my lineage (Yip Man-Wong Long/Wong Tsok/Robert Yeung (Yeung Biu or Yeung Tin Yao) to Alan R. Bak Fu Vasquez Sifu to include the 4th generation graduates from Yip Man. Phone 949 929-6026

Regards

Bak Fu Sifu

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BakFuSifuARV"75.30.150.2 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For a very short answer-the link's not appropriate, don't add it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Placing a Neutrality Warning on an Article

Resolved. Deryck C. 06:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I was just reading over Wikipedia's Eminent Domain article, and noticed that it needs not only a "clean-up", as the banner at the top indicates, but also a neutrality adjustment.

I happen to agree with much of the biased material that the article contains, but I value the neutrality of Wikipedia far more.

In any case, I have seen neutrality warnings at the top of some other pages, and I was just wondering how those come about. I realize that that specific page is need of a general clean up, which probably includes a neutrality adjustment, but I ask the question for future reference as well.


Thanks in advance.

Requiems 02:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality warnings you've seen on other articles were placed there by editors who felt they lacked proper balance, much as you have concerns over Eminent domain. You do this by placing the appropriate template at the top of the article text, in this case {{NPOV}}.
But the first step isn't to place any template at all, but to go to the talk page to share your concerns with other editors and see if a consensus can be reached about what the article should look like. Or just be bold and update it yourself. Only if matters seem to be progressing in such a way that you're approaching an impasse should you place the template. Even if you do place it earlier on -- some people use it as a spur to discussion when they're not getting much of a response otherwise -- it's a bad idea to do so without saying what you think the problem is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

website

Resolved. Deryck C. 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodolfo Valentinwebsite has been deleted several times from the article. Why?, other hairdressers as Frederic Fekkaior Vidal Sassoonhave listed their official website! also :Jonathan Antin has listed the "selling products" website!. So, why not Rodolfo? In Frederic Fekkai is a note reading: "need for verification as per WP"... it is "all" question of the rigth wording or ???- Please let me know, confused!Ralicia 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)ralicia

"Dom-I-Nechers" page by abreedy88

Resolved. no further follow-up requested, resolution assumed. --Deryck C. 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editor, My fraternity's page keeps getting edited by other people. They are posting stupid things on there and Im hoping you can help me lock the page for editing. If this is possible, will I still be able to edit?

Thanks Reedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreedy88 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 May 2007

Hi Reedy! And welcome. It would be a good idea to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia, which are a summary of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Among them is the idea that no one "owns" an article. In the case of outright vandalism, it's easy to revert.
Also, you can sign/date your posts on talk pages (etc) with four tildes (~~~~). — Demong talk 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Entry on Extremeskins.com

Resolved.

Greetings.

It's come to my attention a banned member of our community, Bufford, is posting some insulting comments about several members of the Washington Redskins website, Extremeskins.com.

I am one of the people, and rather enjoy my entry, but, for the protection of others and civility, I'd ask for control over this page to some degree. I am the lead moderator of the site and would like to be able to protect my members.

(cur) (last) 20:25, 2 May 2007 199.68.16.14 (Talk) (13,727 bytes)

The person in question has that IP which was matched in our database.

Please let me know if there's anything we can do to resolve this quickly before people's feelings are hurt. We can leave mine up, but, let's protect others.

Ouch!!! My apologies that that junk was retained for a while. I've removed the most obnoxious bits from the article. If you want anything else nuked, please let me know. I'll try to get action taken against the person who added this. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: that IP you so kindly listed for us has been blocked for 24 hours, thanks for the tip-off. If he continues the block will be longer next time. The same person's user account here has been harshly warned. If he continues via the account, we'll kick him out for good. Thank you for alerting us to this problem. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks much. When Bufford comes back on the site I'll try to talk to him. Cheers. Art.

No problem. If the problem reoccurs here I'll come down like the hammer of Thor, because we just can't have this sort of junk about people introduced to articles. Ever! It's just trolling. Moreschi Talk 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

Resolved. Deryck C. 06:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am so confused - I pulblished an article "Soviet Demim" and was shocked to find out that wikipedia considered it advertising and or spam. Where can I go for assisitance? The Soviet jeans company is much older then most of the other brand names thats posted on here and its kinda slap in the face. It is a very reputable company.

Bok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boksteynberg (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2007

I've had a look at what was in the deleted article, and I can unequivocally tell you I would have come to the same determination, and deleted as an ad. All I would have had to read is "Soviet strives to ensure that every item that is manufactured meets the following criteria:...", that could've come right off a glossy magazine page or a press release.
If you would like to write about companies, write about them in a neutral tone, using mainly third-party source material which is unaffiliated with the company. If such third-party source material is scarce or nonexistent, we can't have an article on them until more sourcing is available. And if your article sounds anything remotely like what the company's marketing department would ever approve, it's not a good article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue with editor who keeps adding his personal info to articles

Resolved. Deryck C. 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

155.109.5.21 has been editing several articles adding his personal info and either nonsense or things that violate WP:COI. I don't know whether it can be considered vandalism or just a very misguided edit in good faith. I've messaged this IP twice (and I believe even IP users get notified that they have messages waiting) and I don't know what I should do next, elevate it to an admin to consider a temporary block or just leave another message on the user's talkpage as a final warning or somesuch. Please see these edits: [1] [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChronoSphere (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 May 2007

The editor's already been warned. They haven't edited in a couple hours, but if they pull it again, report them to WP:AIV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help with coor code

Resolved. JDAshton 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that geographic coordinates can be encoded using {{coor d|stuff|}} or {{coor dms|stuff|}}. However, I could not find where this code is documented. So A) please teach me how to find where this code is documented and B) what other coordinate encodings are available? Thank you! JDAshton 03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find the documentation about these two templates at the template pages, Template:coor d and Template: coor dms. Related templates can also be found from there. --Deryck C. 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another wiki user is deleting my posts when they are genuine posts on a discussion page.

Resolved. Deryck C. 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarks: related discussions at Talk:Kingdom Hearts (series), User talk:Baaleos and User talk:Apostrophe. --Deryck C. 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi The user Apostrophe keeps deleting my posts without cause, I have asked him to cease deleting them from the discussion page of Kingdom Hearts, as it is a place for us to discuss the topic. He replied with "This is not a place for you to dump your "views", go to a fucking forum"

Can you please ask him to cease deleting my posts, as they are valid posts to the subject. All I can do in the mean time is to keep reposting my posts till he gets tired of deleting them.

I have checked the history of the kingdom hearts discussion page, and I can see that this is not the only time he has done this either, he is a serial Deleter.

Please provide some arbitration, I am willing to re-write my posts to make them more coherent, but I still believe he doesnt have the right to single me out and delete my posts because he doesnt like them. Baaleos 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Apostrophe is warned. However, to avoid future conflicts, Baaleos, you should also try to make your discussion more relevant to what others are talking about. --Deryck C. 14:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for messaging him, I appologize for my posts being bit muddled, somtimes when I start typing regarding a subject, I tend to ramble on. I will attempt to be more coherant. Baaleos 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Everybody starts off with a bit of trouble. So did I. I was nearly banned back in 2005 and failed an RFA because of previous immature actions. As you work, you learn. Hope we can work together again. --Deryck C. 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, just saw the award you gave me, thanks mate, made me say "Awww" hehe. Thanks again, anyhow, think its best we not talk here, its bit off topic. Lol, cya, and thanks again. Baaleos 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm sorry to trouble you again, but the same offender has left a message on my talk page saying he is going to ignore your warning, and he has deleted my posts again. He is making that particular discussion page into his own discussion page where only things that he agrees with goes on it. I have been civil, requested assistance, he was warned by an admin, but hes not taking this seriously, can a temporary ban be issued please? Baaleos 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Heya Baaleos. Not a direct response to your current situation, but a couple of hopefully-helpful tips: admins don't have any extra authority over other editors, only extra tools and responsibilities; and it's a really good idea (for lots of reasons, one of which you've discovered) to remain civil no matter what, especially in the face of incivility. Good luck! — Demong talk 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Demong, in regards to Apostrophe, he has been asked by myself and another user on my talk page, and Deryck chan to be civil, not swear, and ask me to change my edits opposed to deleting them himself. As an act of spite, he has gone and deleted the entire Kingdom Hearts discussion page. Am I able to roll back to the previous undeleted version, and if so, and he deletes it again, would it be considered vandalism, he didnt just delete my post now, he deleted everyones. Surely thats gotta be bad? Baaleos 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
He didn't delete the discussions, he archived them. There is a link to the archive on the talk page in the upper-right. It may have been a little heavy-handed, but there was a lot of discussion-forum type activity, and a clean slate doesn't hurt. — Demong talk 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

why are useful external links deemed spam?

Resolved. No further action requested. --Deryck C. 04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just added some useful external links to city guides in the uk from ukcityguide.info, but these have been removed. Some of your city articles in Yorkshire have only 2 external links with not much useful information, whereas www.ukcityguide.info has much more useful information written by local writers based in Yorkshire cities. The website is non commercial and there is no promotional benefit than just providing a good resource for useful and concise information. Why on earth is this deemed spam? -- Bluecoffeemug 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. You, editing from your account, don't appear to have made any other contributions other than to this page. Did you make your previous edits anonymously, using your IP address? If so, could you please tell us what the pages in question are that you added the links to? Moreschi Talk 09:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not encyclopædia-orientated. Phrases such as "The York Racecourse, the York Model Railway and National Railway Museum are just a few more examples of unparalleled days out in York" are a bit too promotional. If it was a website that presented the history of the city, for example, that would be acceptable. Adrian M. H. 15:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you have not been welcomed yet (although you will have by the time you read this), so you may not have read any policies yet: WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Adrian M. H. 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandberg's "Chicago" poems.

Resolved. no follow-up action requested by the requester. --Deryck C. 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First, this isn't the Civil War. I take minor exception to the statement that Carl Sandberg was trying to create some kind of metaphor for the social and industrial image most folks seem to think he had between his ears. Too bad we can no longer simply ask him. My minor point is that nobody on the planet at the time needed to create a metaphor linking America (I freely use the colloqial term) with civility or industry. Those were the end years of America emerging as the greatest and mightiest social, economic, and downright cultually refined country the earth had ever seen. I think that's quite a statement in light of the ugliness with which so many regard the United States.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia to me is a priceless reference. In this age of whatever, you seem to have gotten it right. Your researchers and writers are just amazingly fine. Thank you. Gndboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gndboy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 May 2007

Thanks for the comment. --Deryck C. 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alderac Entertainment Group

Resolved. withdrawn by requester. --Deryck C. 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, this issue seems to have resolved itself. I thought there was a very indecent image on the page, but its not appearing any more. So, no issue. Baaleos 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

John Paulus page

Resolved.

I am the person who the Wikipedia page is the subject of. The sources sited and referenced are a series of gossip sites and blogs. Your information about me is replete with inaccurate information and information that it skewed in a calculated effort to promote propaganda and paint me in a negatively light. It's objectivity is in question when the authors are fans of one Clay Aiken who have massaged the facts to suit their malicious and nefarious agenda. I asked that the page about me be removed or that certain elements that are not sourced through legitimate media be removed. At issue is this alleged recant. This recant is false and was a sarcastic response taken literally and immediately fed to blog sites which are now being sourced as legitimate. I can be contacted through email at JohnPaulus@gmail.com You immediate attention is greatly appreciated. --JohnPaulus 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

copied to the BLP Noticeboard... response will probably be swift... in the mean time, it may be helpful to read the policy regarding biographies of living people — Demong talk 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I object strenuously to his characterization of the editors, our intentions, and the article's intent. Will Beback a Claymate? Come on. Article has been nominated for deletion for the second time, this time at subject's request, again on the basis of lack of notability. We've chosen to debate the AfD nom rather than the disputed content. -Jmh123 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Article deleted. -Jmh123 06:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Resolved. Mailer Diablo acknowledged the restoration. --Deryck C. 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image I create Image:SEscreenshot.png for page Computer-aided design. I did not see any notice of deletion for it. Could you explain how it disapeared and how to retrieve it? Freeformer 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for the deletion is unclear to me; please see the deletion log for the image in question. It appears to be connected to deletion of an article entitled Solid Edge. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it was Mailer Diablo's mistake. I've undeleted the image. I'm going to leave Diablo a message. --Deryck C. 05:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Babylon Translator

Resolved. No new incidents. --Aarktica 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for advice on developing the Babylon Translator page. It is proprietory software and a user user:Yellow up has consistantly been eliminating my additions (in favour of the manufacturer) making me think that it is indeed an employee of the company. Could you please take a look? I've been working in good faith.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.55.9 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 29 April 2007

One major problem I see is that you're citing web forums as a source. Forums generally do not meet our reliable source guidelines, since posting on them requires no fact-checking or editorial review. Your best bet is to find more reliable sources which back up the claims made. For example, a reputable site or source which commonly reviews software (CNet, Wired, etc.), may have made a review or written a piece on the situation. Information sourced to reliable sources is much less likely to be challenged. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an answer to your question, but it's a good idea to link the page you're asking someone else to look at. Just put two square brackets (like [[this]]) around the exact word(s) you want to be a link. Or if you put brackets, link, pipe, any text, brackets, you can do something more complicated. Edit this page to see what the markup looks like. Also, it's a good idea to sign posts (on talk pages etc) with four tildes (~~~~)  - Demong talk 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Demong, I think our anon. editor doesn't understand your verbal description. You should say, with this code, [[Talk:Babylon (program)|more complicated]], you can do something more complicated. --Deryck C. 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I do have a name now. I am also getting a better grasp on coding.Teguiste 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)S:

Here are the links to the pages Babylon Translator and to the discussion Talk:Babylon (program). I have been searching for reviews of what happened to Babylon and unfortunately there isn't much written. The documentation at the time was mainly generated through usenet and forums on the babylon site. I suspect the program itself was not big enough to generate criticism in the press. I understand these to be "primary sources"; moreover there is a sufficient quantity to conclude that the complaints were not isolated. The complaints concern a) the appropriation of the work of an "open source" community and b) the attachment of cydoor to the software. I suggest that common sense be used here: we know what happened, how it happened and when it happened. Cannot forum members discussing an event be considered primary source witnesses? Teguiste 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As an addition to the proper use of sources, [[4]]contemplates use of forums. In this case, there is a lack of other sources and the forum was moderated by Babylon.com. Here is an example [[5]] (one of many archived and not necessarily the best example.) Teguiste 09:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Wayback Machine is down for right now, I'll try to view your link later on. Yes, it contemplates use of web forums and such sources, but only in very exceptional cases. (For example, if Science were to start up a web forum, and it were limited-membership and moderated by the editors of the journal, such a source may be acceptable in some cases.) It's not intended so that we end up cataloguing every dispute that takes place on a forum somewhere. In this case, the moderation of the forums is by an interested, non-independent party. You can certainly try to make a case on the article's talk that the material should be accepted on the weight of the forum sources alone, but do be aware that it's unusual for such arguments to be accepted. Your best bet is still to find more reliable sources. If no reliable sources have written on the matter, send some of them an email, and let them know what's going on. Who knows, one of them may write up an article, and then you've got an editorially-controlled, fact-checked source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello.. Regarding Door Games

Resolved. At least at the current stage. --Deryck C. 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Related discussion at Talk:BBS door. --Deryck C. 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks..

Regarding BBS Door Games as listed here:

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

We had edited that page to link to several different places where a number of Door Games were located. About 3 more links were added I think. Maybe 4. But they were removed by someone and only the dmoz web site was left. Did you all do that? Or was it someone else?

The dmoz web site (the only remaining link) only has about 4 or 5 games listed. The links that were inserted at the lower half of that page had many many BBS Door Games available for download, of almost every variety.

Was it a problem listing where many other Doors can be found, as there were aleady some other links there before we added any? Now there's only one link there and apparently only 3 or 4 games.

The links we provided were

http://www.ultrasoft-online.com

http://www.bbsfiles.com

http://www.ultrasoftdoors.com

Lots of doors available at those locations and some freeware utilities for BBS Operators too. I'm not sure why they would have been removed.

I'm wondering if we did something we shouldn't have by adding in those new links on that page? If so I'd like to know not to do that again. But if not I'll add them back in. Because I'm sure people reading about it would like to know where to get the software the articles refer to.

Thanks in advance for your answer..

Steve

jmushad@hotmail.com

It was RTucker who removed the links. He left a message concerning this on the talk page. For the time being, upon my own rationale, I included back all the links. However, further discussions ought to be done on that talk page. --Deryck C. 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Smashboards

Resolved. Editor agreed to rewrite article per guidelines. --Aarktica 18:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I created Smashboards less than three months ago, and by a week it was deleted. After asking about, I filed a deletion review, which I think is archived in the May 5th or 9th. This article is not WP:FANCRUFT and can be rewritten to fit all guidelines, however, it's against the rules to recreate a deleted page, I think. Deletion Quality 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not against policy to rewrite a deleted article and re-publish it if and when it meets all of the most important standards that are subject to deletion policy. However, if the original article was deleted per Fancruft, and yet you claim that it was not fancruft, that suggests one of two possibilities: either you are not truly familiar with the required standard for articles or the deletion was unfair (perhaps only marginally so). I cannot recall ever witnessing an AfD closure that was clearly unfair, however. Perhaps you should do what many of us do and create a drafts sub-page, which would allow an informal peer review before you finalise the article's new incarnation. I should also point out that your username may be considered a bit provocative, at least in the context of this issue. Adrian M. H. 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How to remove "Contents" in short articles?

Resolved. --Aarktica 21:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you remove the automatically generated "Contents" in very short articles where it does not seem necessary? I see it has been done in some articles. woodpecker 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

__NOTOC__. Usually placed at the top of the page. However, you should not really be doing that in mainspace articles. Help:Magic words. Adrian M. H. 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FDCPA

Resolved. Appears that it's time for EA to step out of this matter. They've successfully got to the stage of calm consensus-building. --Deryck C. 06:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act edits of my posting of infinitecredit.com.

I did not spam this website as InfiniteCredit is not a website that asks for fees or money. It is a legitimate external link that utilizes self-help in resolving FDCPA and FCRA problems. It was not a frivoulous linking as it is a website that helps people recognize their rights under the FDCPA and the FCRA and is just as legitimate as NACA or any other site that are for consumer advocates. If you allow CreditBoards.com as a link, then InfiniteCredit.com is as legitimate as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.124.188 (talk • contribs)

I'm trying to catch arichnad's attention and see if there could be an appeal. --Deryck C. 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for messaging me, Deryck. 141.153.124.188, I assume you're also speaking for 76.108.0.110. Thank you for coming here to request assistance. Let me start by stating that I don't believe that InfiniteCredit.com is a notable website. The policy clearly asks that all external links be reliable sources for the readers. A non-notable forum clearly doesn't meet these guidelines. When assessing external links you need to start by asking the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it would never qualify to be used as a reliable source for anything," then don't link. The fact that InfiniteCredit is not a website that asks for fees or money doesn't mean that this isn't spam. Please stop adding your links to Wikipedia articles.
If you believe that NACA doesn't meet WP:EL, then you're free to remove it (though you might want to explain your reasons in the edit summary). Please respond here if you have any more questions regarding this issue. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
InfiniteCredit operates the same as Creditboards.com and if they are allowable as a link then so should InfiniteCredit. We are as reliable as they are and have several lawyers, law students, and paralegals answering questions on the site. As for the question of why we were not used as a source for the article, I would say that this is because Congress actually wrote the article and it was merely regurgitated piecemeal as wikipedia content from the FTC website, edited of course. I believe that you do your readers a disservice by not allowing links to legitimate websites dealing with everyday application of the content of your articles. In addition, I do not see where Creditboards.com was used as a source either. User: blitzkim 141.153.124.188 05:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "If you believe that Creditboards.com doesn't meet WP:EL, then you're free to remove it (though you might want to explain your reasons in the edit summary)." ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
So am I to assume that you are not going to change your stance on my request for InfiniteCredit.com to be included as a legitimate link? Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic (We Are); information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (We Are); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (We Are). User:blitzkim 141.153.124.188 05:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you haven't convinced me yet, but I'm always open to discuss things further. You think that the article was regurgitated from the FTC website and that we're doing a disservice to our readers. I'm close to agreeing with you. However, instead of adding the link to a forum, I challenge that we should instead add unbiased information that is well sourced to the article body. i.e. add content, not links. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Content devoted to individual circumstances could make the article entirely too lengthy and potentially incorrect for everyone as no one with debt collection or credit reporting problems ever has quite the same problems nor can all their problems have the same solutions. Only by posting an individual problem can their problem be dealt with correctly whether they post on Creditboards or InfiniteCredit. The caselaw alone for FDCPA or FCRA violations is enormous and would not begin to include the opinions by the various courts both federal and state that are decided everyday. Only by linking to legitimate websites that can help with everyday solutions to FDCPA or FCRA problems can the article maintain it's own legitimacy in being the number one web source for research into the FDCPA or the FCRA. Don't you agree? User: blitzkim 141.153.124.188 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain a fundamental concept. That everything on Wikipedia needs sourcing is a basic rule. On the other hand, as our anon editor has mentioned and Arichnad has agreed, Creditboards is no better than InfiniteCredit. It can thus be argued that the sites should either be both included or both removed. Since we should make our list of external websites balanced in terms of exposure of contents, including both seems to be a better way than removing both. --Deryck C. 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I don't agree, but I'm willing to let this go. I should mention that other editors will possibly disagree with your assessment and remove the links without my involvement. However, I'll leave the article alone. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That is agreeable with me. May I put the links back or will that be done by you? Please advise. Blitzkim 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Links? Are you planning on adding the link to multiple pages? I have a striking feeling that Deryck thinks we're only talking about one page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Links to Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act articles. Only those two as they go hand in hand. Is that permissible? Blitzkim 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before, I don't agree with any of this in the first place. However, if you add it to those two articles only, I'll stay uninvolved and I'll let other editors work it out. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will contribute some content I believe is lacking as well as the links. Again, thanks! Blitzkim 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The content you added, assuming you are 76.108.0.110, was redundant with information already contained within the article - there is another section that clearly lists prohibited activities and is labeled as such. You also seem to have simply re-iterated the basic definition of the act and sourced your information to a forum post on your site? Why? Please read WP:RS. On the topic of your forum, you were clearly adding a promotional link to several tangentially related topics in order to promote your forums. It does not add to the topic, and seems to simply be a conflict of interest. You were warned many times not to do so without any reply, so the warnings were indeed progressive stern. I would love to see you use your knowledge of credit related topics to actually add to the article set, but I would ask that you contribute without promoting your site. If you have a problem with another link that you feel is not appropriate, simply remove it with an edit summary as to why it was removed, and/or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. Kuru talk 00:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be nice negotiation. I think it's time for me, a complete outsider about the article's matter, to step out and leave this alone to you. --Deryck C. 02:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting

Resolved. Thanks, Tony! --Aarktica 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to post a press release of a person who's involved in the Sound & Entertainment business. They have articles on Yahoo and Google. Can you show me how to post.

Here are the links...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/sound/ultimate_fx/prweb523772.htm

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/5/emw526990.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrich (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2007

Answering on editor's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Page needs HTML fixs that are beyond my ability

Resolved. Thanks Demong's technical effort. --Deryck C. 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Page needs HTML fixs that are beyond my ability

For article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans

It all started with the thought, "Oh, a broken link. Even I can fix that." So I signed up and fixed it.

Then I noticed that part of the article below "References" was displayed as raw HTML. I've corrected as much as I can, but now I need expert assistance. The "edit" links seem to be mis-numbered (starting over at "section=1") at the section titled "Effect" just below "References". I can't figure out how to access any more of the damaged article further down the page about 10 lines into the section titled "Levee failures".

I also question where these sections should be *below* the "References" section, but that could be a noob thing. After all, this is my first attempt at editing.

tj

Xnonymous 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Actually, that wasn't your fault: the article had been "broken" for several revisions (usually such things are corrected immediately, but layout problems at the bottom of a long article are less likely to be noticed right away). I tried to find the actual problem so I could fix it and retain your edits, but unfortunately I couldn't. Instead I reverted to the last "good" version, which was from yesterday, and repeated one of your lost edits (but why did you remove the <ref> tags?) — Demong talk 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, that problem had been there for weeks at least! It was an unclosed <ref> tag (so everything that followed it was put under references). The open tag was "fixed" by some vandalism that replaced it (the version I reverted to), but when I subsequently put the correct text back in place of the vandalism, it re-broke because the "correct text" contained the open tag. I found the correct, complete ref in a very old version and replaced it in the current one. Problem solved?
Also, you can link to a Wikipedia article (wikilink) by putting double square brackets around the text to link (for example, [[Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans]] becomes Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans)... you'll barely ever use html on Wikipedia, and wikimarkup is pretty easy (and you can always edit a page to see the code behind it). — Demong talk 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help Demong!!

I recognized the open "ref" tag, but went about fixing it the wrong way. Xnonymous 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Now the problem is solved and you know how do things work. --Deryck C. 07:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake Account

Resolved. --Aarktica 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this account has been set up by somebody using my details. How do I get it deleted? The email address is mine so I will have to resolve email security from my end but I would appreciate any help in getting this account deactivated. Dhan1986 21:23, 17 May 2007 GMT (London)

User accounts can't be deleted on Wikipedia, but if you simply don't want to use the account, then I've seen suggestions before that your best bet is to go to the 'my preferences' tab at the top of the page, disable your e-mail address there, then set a completely random password (that you aren't going to be able to remember), then logout. I think that'll work, anyhow.. other thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tony, I think Dhan1986 is addressing a different issue. This user's personal details are stolen. Of course, the solution is the same. Since there is Email activation, you can change the password of this account and put it aside. Of course, we've all assumed that you've seized the account's control. --Deryck C. 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance/advice concerning List of notable converts to Christianity

Stale. --Aarktica 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my lack of talent for brevity. Three paragraphs is as short as I can make it while trying to explain everything fairly. Please assist me in this; I need advice into the matter, and information on policies and guidelines (in relation to the matter, obviously).

There is a current debate over whether or not to include Bob Dylan on the List of notable converts to Christianity page. While the opposing party (2 frequent participants) deny any real conversion, and claim it to be merely an insignificant 'phase' in the man's life, they have provided absolutely nothing to support their arguments. Not a single source has been used in their argument. On the contrary, we have provided 3 widely-available books as sources to his conversion, and ten internet sources. The opposing party's demands become increasingly ridiculous. It seems that they demand evidence of baptism (as to them, Dylan's numerous statements of belief and the sources explicit language concerning the fact that 'he converted' is not enough), and when 2 or three sources claim baptism, they demand nothing short of actual baptismal documentation.

In addition to this, however, there is another element to the argument. They claim that Dylan is currently a Jew (and provide no sources; in fact, it seems he currently has either no religion or a pluralistic view which synthesizes Christianity and Judaism), and as a Jew, has no place on the "List of notable converts to Christianity. However, to my party, this assumption is incorrect. The list is not intended to include only current Christians, but those notable people who have converted to Christianity in their lifetime. Consider that other pages, such as List of vegans, also has this inclusive parameter: any one who has professed veganism is included, even if they are not currently vegan. The conversion is notable, whether it is between religions or diets. (Consider also that many of the List of Christians pages/sub-pages already indicate which current Christians came to the faith by conversion)

The opposing party (one of whom seems to have a very strong bias towards Judaism) is accusing us of attempting to proselytize on Wikipedia. We make it clear in the article's introductory paragraph the criterion for inclusion: any notable person who has converted to Christianity, or any person who has had a notable conversion at some point in their life is included here. We also make it clear in the entrant's description what their current status is. They believe that since Dylan is now a Jew, he should be removed. Compare this example: if Abdul Rahman converted back to Islam, should his entry be removed? Considering his conversion made world news because of the death penalty he received for it, it would be foolish to remove him. It is noteworthy. Bob Dylan is notable himself, and his conversion caused a chain of events which changed his style and alienated his fans; he played only new, post-conversion songs and proselytized from the stage, to panning reviews and atheist protests. We are including his conversion because of his, and its, notability. (Besides, how can one honestly say that listing a person who left Christianity is 'pro-Christian proselytizing'?)

Please ask me for further details. The argument has gone on for a very long time, and hasn't gone anywhere; therefore, the advice and assistance from an editor more knowledgeable in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is urgently needed.--C.Logan 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I wish I had an answer, as I've encountered several similar situations. Will be watching this in case one appears :) However, might I suggest this as a "brief" version of your question: "what do you do when consensus is impeded by bad arguments?" (bad meaning POV, illogical, unsourced, etc etc) - Demong talk 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty excellent answer from ObiterDicta: read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing; and "I'm a little curious as to why people feel the need to keep responding to his posts. This isn't an Oxonian debating society where a point stands if not responded to." In other words, continually responding to a point that has already been addressed invites further repetition, and continues the argument without advancing the discussion. That is, if the discussion goes A-B-A, it's better to leave it at that, or to continue A-B-A-C-D if a different point C is made, than to make it A-B-A-B-A-B (-A-B-A-etc).
Also, remember that consensus is what stands. - Demong talk 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: This issue is far from resolved; the parties involved just brought the fight to my doorstep... --Aarktica 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, by the way. Hopefully, the discussion on your talk page will cease. --C.Logan 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That's quite alright. As long as it helps bring a worthwhile and timely resolution to the matter, I will allow it. Aarktica 04:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Company Profile Page Deletion Administrator refusing to accept edits

Resolved. Deryck C. 10:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a Wiki page to link to our company profile page "valpak" off of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Communications profile page. Within 2 months the page was deleted so I followed up according to Wiki policy contacting the administrator who removed it asking for assitance and offered her to review forthcoming edits which were denied. I would like to open this up for third parties to review since our internal communications department also reviewed the previous content and made additional adjustments according to the Wiki policies.

Please follow up with me at roaldrich@yahoo.com --12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)roaldrich

Hello,
For proper context, I have two questions:
  1. Could you please provide links to your correspondence with the administrator in question?
  2. Do you know if there was any discussion prior to deletion of the article?
Unfortunately, the involvement of an "internal communications department" raises questions of objectivity. Additional scrutiny based on WP:CORP is par for the course.
That said, I would like to see a copy of what was deleted. If you have such information available, please post it to the sandbox for review. --Aarktica 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see my talk page to review all of the content thank you for helping me with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaldrich (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 May 2007
Major COI issues at work here, and while that is officially only a guideline rather than a policy, it is a particularly important one. I would like to ask what you mean by "denied". Not replied to? Rebuked? Adrian M. H. 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

First, I implore you to review WP:EDIT before posting again. Posting garbled text is a very efficient way to discourage others from providing [constructive] feedback.

Second, the content you posted leaves much to be desired; it reads like a resume and is anything but encyclpaedic material. As Adrian mentioned above, your actions indicate a conflict of interest. The following warning was likely presented to you before posting the content:

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, YOUR COMPANY OR PRODUCTS, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Caps mine)

Based on what I have reviewed, I am afraid that the article fails to meet notability requirement for articles relating to business entities.

Nevertheless, I assume good faith on your part, and hope that this adresses your request. --Aarktica 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aarktica, just be a bit warmer. Newcomers seldom understand the issue of "conflict of interest". Nor do they understand any of the content policies. You should address the things one by one. Of course, it would be irritating to tell a company that "you are not allowed to edit your article on Wikipedia", but if possible, do it calmly =] --Deryck C. 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating the ability of people to read and understand instructions. I was new once and I don't recall having any issues with the key policies, of which I had looked over the most obvious dozen or so before creating an account, when I used to edit anonymously for a short while. The biggest factors relate to new editors not reading the policies, either because they cannot find them, or they do not know to look for them, or in some cases, they choose to ignore them. I help many new users and they rarely say "I don't understand that policy". Adrian M. H. 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your assistance with this issue. I had spent a great deal reading all of the policies and distributed them for those that assisted in this project. I apologize for the sloppy WP editing I have been trying to manage this issue and communicate in a timely fashion. I would like to undertstand how other "companies" are able to retain their wiki pages with "notable" content such as "Publix", "target", albertsons...and so on... The content I provided seemed conservative in nature compared to the afformentioned pages to name a few. Roaldrich 20:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAX sums up that argument. All too often, editors say something along the lines of "why delete this article when all these similar articles exist?" but without considering why the other articles exist. Some of them may actually meet the requisite guidelines and policies, such as Cisco Systems for example, but many others are victims of two things: the backlog and indifference on the part of many editors. There are many policies at work in this particular field: Notability, Corporations, spam, and COI to name just four. One cannot fairly assess these articles without first understanding the relevant guidelines. Adrian M. H. 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Adrian: Thanks for the reminder. --Deryck C. 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

why the wikipedia delete links to my site

Resolved. Persistent spammer on the verge of being blocked. --Aarktica 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Do not remove the <nowiki> tags from this section. Some of the text are now part of the Wikimedia spamlist and therefore the tags are needed to help bypass the filter. --Deryck C. 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i have developed a virtual gallery of art http://artgallery.lojadeluxo.com

why wikipedia delete the links to my gallery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomazfranzese (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 May 2007

Probably because other editors felt it did not meet the criteria for external links as given at WP:EL. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a number of policies and practices that most editors try to follow. There are two documents that I think you should read that might help explain things. The first is the policy WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not, and the second is the guideline WP:EL external links. Of these, WP:NOT is the most important of the two. It is a policy, meaning that it represents a standard that editors are expected to follow in most circumstances, with relatively little deviation. WP:EL is a guideline, meaning that it represents a standard that editors are encouraged to follow in most circumstances, but that some reasonable deviations seem more likely.
WP:NOT tells us Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. We are not willing to allow links to all artist-related websites in each artist's article; we try to limit external links to only those that further our purpose as an encyclopedia. Since there are literally thousands of websites for images of most major artists and they are all easily found using a search engine (such as Google), there is no point for us to have a link to an image collection anyway. For example, there are nearly 6 thousand sites with at least one of the versions of Caravagio's The Sacrifice of Isaac, and in fact, Wikipedia is one of them. There's no point in linking externally to content we already have. Also, it seems that lojadeluxo.com is a brand new site that is trying to build traffic; Wikipedia isn't here to help you with that. And finally, I personally have deleted links to lojadeluxo.com, such as this one - http://art.lojadeluxo.com/index.php?id=Goya - that were to galleries full of nothing but public domain images and Google AdWords. The fact that there is a variant of the site without the ads is irrelevant; there are thousands of sites that want to increase traffic and/or improve their Google pagerank by having links from Wikipedia and we're not here for that purpose. Studerby 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, but the new site is http://artgallery.lojadeluxo.com , now not have any kind of ads. (ADS FREE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomazfranzese (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 May 2007
It would be nice if you could sign your comments. It is still just a gallery and forum, so it does not address all of the shortcomings raised byStuderby. Have you not yet read the pages to which Studerby linked? Adrian M. H. 11:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are still advertisements on the main page. Questions are also raised regarding promotion of your own site; please see WP:COI. It also does not look good that it appears that you use different IP addresses to continue to link to the site. JNW 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that most of these concerns, and warnings, have already been expressed on the talk pages of these IP addresses, and have been ignored. JNW 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a friendly warning at [6] about the 9 May wave of additions, but later on I went back and added

(Later) My first look at this site was a quick one, now I have taken a second look and must say that all those great images are pretty much worthless without the inclusion of their titles. I would not support this link being added to any articles. My first look used Firefox with Adblock turned on; using IE I can now see a commercial aspect to the site, not that there's anything wrong with that. --CliffC 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

--CliffC 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: the abovesaid site is now blocked by the Wikimedia spamlist. --Deryck C. 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

michael hardinger

Resolved. Thanks, Tony! --Aarktica 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

somebody has removed my info on wikipedia. I wonder why.

I am a danish musician with 32 albums to my credit.

regards, Michael Hardinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.67.228 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 May 2007

Hi there. From a quick look around, it appears the article Michael hardinger was deleted because a proposed deletion tag was on the article for five days, and was not contested. A note was left at User talk:Danishmusic to let the article creator know its deletion was proposed, but no response was made, and the article was deleted. However, a look around does seem to indicate that music notability guidelines may be met, so what I'm going to do is pop a note over to the deleting admin's page and see if we can't get the article restored and at least sent to articles for deletion discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've got the article contents on a user subpage, and will try to bring it up to guidelines, then look at reposting. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please fix my talk page.

Resolved. formatting fixed Studerby 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On 25 April 2007, Imoeng "spammed" my talk page with a request to join WikiProject Indonesia, enclosed in a box. Since then, all messages posted to my talk page have been enclosed in said box. Could someone experienced in wiki markup please edit the box code so the box only surrounds the request to join WikiProject Indonesia, and not any subsequent posts? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The code dropped into your talk page for the WikiProject Indonesia included a <div tag which caused all the trouble. I simply ripped it out, through the closing tag... See the diffs in your page history if you're curious... Studerby 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging question

Resolved. --Aarktica 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a question conerning the entry for Rosetta Biosoftware, which has been merged with the entry for Merck & Co.. While it is correct that Rosetta Biosoftware is a business unit of Rosetta Inpharmatics, which is a subsidiary of Merck, I was wondering if it is possible to nevertheless re-create a page with a proper description of this entity. Rosetta Biosoftware has many customers outside of Merck; in fact, the majority of its revenue is coming from organizations that would be considered competitors of Merck in the pharmaceutical space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmwill (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 May 2007

The discussion page says Rosetta itself does not qualify for an article... So I think there's little we can do. However, you can bring this issue to the talk page Talk:Merck & Co. and see if there could be any change. --Deryck C. 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

stop a deletion

Resolved. --Aarktica 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to write a wiki entry so i chose to do one on the thing i like doing punting. I put my first page up on wiki a week (TOTE Tasmania) or so ago and it got a tag calling it advertising. I rewrote the article so it didnt read like an advert as this was not my intention. Now there is another tag calling for deletion.

Can you help me find what im doing wrong? Also it asks for a reference to the logo i put on the page how do i add in the reference

Thanks Broke punter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broke punter (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 May 2007

If you mean TOTE Tasmania, it does not meet the basic minimum guidelines for inclusion, particularly Notability and WP:CORP. Where are the independent non-trivial sources? Adrian M. H. 14:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance with page move

Resolved. --Aarktica 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you guys. I'm a new user and I can't move pages. I guess this is a good thing, or else I might have made a mistake! Anyways, I would like to know whether or not my idea to move the article Magician's_Force to Magician's Force(Yu-Gi-Oh) is good or not. Basicly, the concept of "Magician's force" is a concept in magic tricks. The only place I can find it at the moment is at the force disambiguation page Force_(disambiguation), where it says "A (card magic) trick wherein the spectator picks a seemingly random item ("Pick a card, pick any card"), but the process is rigged so that they receive a pre-selected item known to the performer." I have a book called "Giant Book of Card Tricks" (ISBN 1-4027-1052-6) which details this further. I wanted to ask for opinions at the Yu-Gi-Oh Wikiproject, but it seems inactive. Any help is appreciated, thanks.--0rrAvenger 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I seem to have forgotten to say why I even wanted to move it! I want it moved so I can create a new article at Magician's force. Is this possible? Thanks.--0rrAvenger 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the name has more than one meaning, you can create a disambiguation page at Magician's force (disambiguation), then create your article at Magician's force (magic tricks) or something of that nature. You can cite the book as a reference when writing your article. WaltonAssistance! 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Guardians of Knowlege" problem

Resolved. No new reports from inactive editor. --Aarktica 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia are fair and unbiased, I have on occasion run into pages where even small changes are rejected out of hand. As a copy editor, I recognize this as the "guardian" syndrome - anything is rejected that was not written and contributed by them or a small select group.

We all appreciate Wikipedia for its embracement of public contributions. What is the procedure if we run into a "guardian" editor whose priority is what they want, as opposed to what is factual and fair use for a subject page?

Thank you,

Ruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootsie (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please review WP:NPOV and WP:OWN; see if any of that matches up with what you have described. If so, you might consider submitting the affected article for peer review. Hope that helps. --Aarktica 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For a specific point, try third opinion. But it doesn't have to be formal--just ask any editor on this page. DGG 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

user name abuse

Resolved. No further action required. --Aarktica 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

hi, I am working from a public terminal and someone (a friend of mine actually) used my account to edit a page which I have worked on in the past. I don't disagree with the edits that were made, but I wish my friend had not used my name to do so. Can teh history of teh page be altered to reflect the IP address only, and the description of the edits be changed to something more normal or perhaps they could be deleted entirely and re-done by an admin?

Thanks you very much, Thibbs 11:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Admins don't use the method known as oversight for something like this. Log out when accessing Wikipedia from shared locations (even if your home PC is shared). Adrian M. H. 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

image tagging for deletion

Resolved. No new incidents. --Aarktica 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a user may have been engaging in rather indiscriminate and destructive tagging of images for deletion to fulfill what another editor has said to be "edit-count padding" or otherwise fulfilling some "anal obsession". AFAICT, some tags have been inserted inappropriately - for example, there has been a case where another editor complained about his tag where the {{albumcover}} tag has already been used, and thus no further rationale would appear necessary. Whilst it is important to be vigilant against copyright issues, I believe that this indiscriminate action is counterproductive. Instead of inserting rationales himself, he tags images for deletion.

Other users have complained about his activities before, but this does not seem to have moderated. His archives are littered with examples of complaints of exactly the same problem over and over again. I would like him to work more productively, and have today left him a message today on his userpage. Again, as I said, others have already done this but he has not changed. I don't hold out much hope he will change his behaviour. Ohconfucius 04:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At the current stage, I think the folks at IFD could do well enough to control the problem. On the other hand, in my opinion from an AGF approach, instead of thinking of ESkog's action is disruptive, I'd rather say he's trying to dig up possible problems with the images, though he's doing it by an indiscriminate bruteforce action. --Deryck C. 10:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm failing to see what he's doing wrong. Images with no fair-use rationale are to be deleted if the rationale is not added. (Albumcover or any other boilerplate specifically is not a fair-use rationale, a detailed rationale must be given for each and every article the image is used in.) If he's trying to pad his edit count, tagging things which are soon to be deleted is an awfully silly way of going about that! If you want to prevent deletion of fair-use images you upload, make sure that each and every time you upload a fair-use image, you figure out what article you're going to use it in and what the fair-use rationale will be. Use of only the boilerplate license templates will result in the image being deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Google

Resolved. --Aarktica 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I recently sent up a wikipage, which started showing up on google searches. That was exactly what I wanted, because the world uses google. Now it does not show up at all in google, and has been designated a 'stub' because it is not long enough. What do I need to do to fix this, so that it does show up on google? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocsese (talk • contribs) 07:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It is uncategorised as well, and some formatting improvements would help, such as losing the "Internal links" section (we don't use those). See the various pages that form the Manual of Style. It is also unreferenced; the nearest thing to a reference is an external link to a primary source, and primary sources should never be used on their own. You need to use secondary sources. Adrian M. H. 15:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just a viewer

Resolved. --Aarktica 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just a viewer. pages I viewed came up with an editing option. Just to test it I clicked the star key and save the page and it actually changed the content. Could it be that the editor option or the admistrator pages are availible by mistake. Just trying to make you away of a potential major problem.

Also there is no way to contact you that I have found other than this route. Sorry if I overlooked an obvious way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.7.25 (talk • contribs)

You are not just a viewer; you are an editor! Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — Demong talk 21:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes you indeed overlooked an obvious way. Every revision of each page on Wikipedia is backlogged. In other words, all errors, or better saying, everything done, can be undone (or "reverted", if you like this word better). So this is not a big problem as long as we have a continuous supply of server equipment and labour. --Deryck C. 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like you exercised any administrator priveleges, but I could be wrong- however, it seems clear you had a typical editing test. I used to edit many articles as an anonymous user, so if this is really new to you, I would suggest you read the policies and then... help improve Wikipedia. I'm really impressed that you went through the (unnecessary) process of posting this here. --C.Logan 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright assistance requested

Resolved. Licensing issues resolved by uploader. --Aarktica 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I know just enough about copyright issues and image uploading to make a confused mess of things. In the interest of avoiding such a mess, I would greatly appreciate if someone with more copyright knowledge could please look at Concordia University, Nebraska and the associated talk page. There seem to be some copyright issues with the images. They are tagged as CC 2.5 and GNUFDL, but the uploader also placed this disclaimer into the article: "All photos, logos, and other types of media are exclusive property of Concordia University, Nebraska", which leads me to believe that they are mis-tagged, and probably still copyrighted (a case could be made for fair use on a number of them). I am not looking for a reprimand here, rather the editor who has done the uploading (User:Tlancaster s) could use someone who would be willing to guide him/her through our sometimes confusing copyright/uploading process. Please respond on either the article talk page or the user's talk page. Thanks in advance. Pastordavid 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Responded at article talk page per editor's request. --Aarktica 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help on a couple of vanity articles

Resolved. Per Mafmafmaf's closing remarks. --Aarktica 17:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been alone in a struggle against repeated unsourced edits on Global Panel Foundation and on Prague Society for International Cooperation, two closely-related articles which I stumbled upon when I cleaned-up the autobio of their president Marc S. Ellenbogen. These articles are advertising and are fully unsourced. Every time I do a rv, someone from those organizations comes and restores the original text. I would appreciate if some kind fellow would help me here as I honestly don't know where next to take this. (I've always documented my rv's, either in the edit comments or in the Talk pages, so it's easy to see what's going on.) Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just list them for deletion. You might even try {{prod}} per G.11 and A.7. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Generally, speaking, I would not bother with Proposed Deletion when SD is not possible, but AfD instead. Prod tags can be removed freely (which these probably will because the articles are clearly being watched by someone with a vested interest). The AfD process is free of that shortcoming and, if successful, the deletion is (re-creation notwithstanding) essentially permanent. The procedure is more fiddly, but worth it. Adrian M. H. 11:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, what PROD works for is for unwatched pages, or pages so skimpy that they will be abandoned. Remember that PROD is not intended for controversial articles--it's clearly stated several times, so if there is reason to suspect controversy, it is necessary to go to AfD. (It's not speedy A7, since it asserts its importance, and G11 is only if there is no usable core.) These articles might be possible, suitably trimmed. It's hard to judge an article whose only references are to printed books in Czech, but that does meet the WP requirement for sourcing, as any language is acceptable if that's where the information is. Obviously there's no assurance that the material is in the book, but it is reasonable to ask for page numbers.
Suggest you wait a day so I can join in there. What is needed to overcome resistance to necessary editing of spammy articles is more than one person editing reasonably, so it doesn't become a revert war. (naturally the threat of deletion also does tend to help editing, but in my view it's a last resort, because it makes to much work for too many people--AfD lists are too long for proper attention as it is. Therefore, listing the material here was a good way to go. A more general consensus will help. (and if necessary, the way to attract even more community attention is RfC.) DGG 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I will take a step back. Thanks a lot for the comments. --maf (talk-cont) 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been three days now, and the articles have stayed in their long-spammed form as I have pulled back. Other than User:DGG who said he will, is someone else willing to look at them now? Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look as well. If you believe that an editor to the article may have a conflict of interest, you may also wish to list the article on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Several editors and administrators who are experienced in dealing with such situations monitor this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - I didn't know about WP:COIN - will xpost there as COI is effectively the central issue here. --maf (talk-cont) 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Status update:
  • Not much help gathered on WP:COIN - only a 3RR warning (which never happened)
  • User Ohconfucious tagged both articles as Spam
  • User DGG cleaned-up Global Panel Foundation (ended up at basically the edit I've been holding on to) and removed the Spam tag
  • User DGG removed the Spam tag on Prague Society for International Cooperation, probably fearing the article would be deleted then recreated, but did not do any edits
As I wrote initially, this is a long but slow-moving revert war - I expect one of the same editors, or a new one, related to the organizations to restore the full texts pretty soon. DGG, will you go back to review Prague Society for International Cooperation?
--maf (talk-cont) 14:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User:DGG has now also reviewed the remaining article. Anyone else is invited to review this couple of unsourced vanity articles, otherwise case closed here. Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

Stale.

- Adrian M. H. 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm involved in a content dispute at this rather contentious article. I'm having a very hard time dealing with Simplemines and massive assumptions of bad faith. Comments I've made have been misconstrued and personal attacks are par for the course on the talk page. I'd love some help dealing with this page, as I've had very little experience dealing with a high profile controversial article like this. There are arguments about reliable sources, bias, and appropriate content. It's going round in circles, and I just don't have the experience on how to deal with editors who refuse to assume good faith. We tried mediation, but it was rejected by one of the parties. Even comments to a user on "my side" of the debate telling him he was acting inappropriately were twisted to show my bias. Any help would really be appreciated. AniMate 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If mediation has been ignored by one or more parties, there is little that one editor can do to change that other than to raise the issue to a more serious level, if it warrants it. You are probably already familiar with the advice at WP:DR, but I cannot suggest any more than that. WP:RFAR is described as a last resort, so it is up to you to decide whether it is worth pursuing. Adrian M. H. 14:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion problems

Resolved. No new incidents. --Aarktica 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to create a wikipedia page for the Pecos Conference and editors keep deleting my stub I do not understand.

I put the stub up and I have invited my colleagues to find it and contribute to it and edit it.

The Pecos Conference is not a club. It is a gathering of southwestern archaeologist who meet somewhere in the southwest each year to discuss research problems. These professional invite the public to attend the gathering. They have been doing this since 1927.

I put together the web pages for the pecos conference and have done so for the past dozen years. We want to have a wikipedia stub article that will grow and thus become a better source of information than the web pages we currently post each year.

I just dont understand why the stub gets deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.72.142 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 May 2007

I'll be blunt for a moment, if I may. How exactly does this subject matter meet or exceed Wikipedia's notability requirements? And if this article has been deleted more than once, you are only making more work for other hard-working editors by recreating it without making the necessary changes. Every article has to meet thresholds of notability and verifiability. Adrian M. H. 16:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The article we're talking about is Pecos conference. It's been speedied once as a copyright violation (the text was just copyied from some website with no assertion of permission). Whether it's notable...perhaps let Wikipedia:Articles for deletion decide? It may well be, I'm no archaeologist. Moreschi Talk 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If that went to AFD – even without copyright issues – it would probably be deleted as non-notable. It makes no effort to establish its notability and a web search revealed a plenty of hits but a paucity of those all-important non-trivial independent writings. I strongly suggest that the creating editor rewrite the article in his own words and find reliable third-party sources to verify the content in its entirety. Adrian M. H. 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Adrian's claim, there is, although little, an appreciable amount of relevant items found from a web search. If that's the case, I'll help rewrite the article to conform with Wikipedia's writing standards. --Deryck C. 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


The Pecos Conference is notable in the following ways:

There is a book published about the Pecos Conference by Richard B. Woodbury, a well known archaeologist: http://www.amazon.com/Sixty-Years-Southwestern-Archaeology-Conference/dp/0826314112/ref=sr_1_1/104-7704681-9201569?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180412146&sr=8-1 http://www.swanet.org/2007_pecos_conference/misc_articles/1996_Downum.pdf

There also have been recent articles written about the Conference 2005 by Grace Lichtenstein (New York Times) http://www.swanet.org/2007_pecos_conference/misc_articles/2005_Lichtenstein.pdf 2006 by Teresa Mendez (Christian Science Monitor) http://www.swanet.org/2007_pecos_conference/misc_articles/2006_Mendez.pdf

The Pecos Conference is regularly mentioned in the professional journal American Antiquity in the context of current and on-going research, and mentioned in textbooks and popular magazines like Archeology and Antiquity.

Every archaeology student in the United States is taught the importance of the Pecos Conference and Wikipedia even runs a page titled Pecos Classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecos_Classification. The Pecos Classification came about because of the work of archaeologists meeting at the Pecos Conference. The conference remains important and notable today because it is an activity that organizes each year several million dollars worth of research and sets the standards for collaborative research that are emulated by archaeologists around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.72.142 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 29 May 2007

Then I am sure that you will have no trouble rewriting and referencing the article to meet the standards. Meeting or exceeding key policies and guidelines from the start is the simplest and most obvious way to avoid seeing your efforts deleted. Adrian M. H. 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Need help moving a page!

Resolved. --Aarktica 01:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I've been trying to fix the title of our school page for the Florida Interactive Entertainment Academy. Originally, it was listed as the Florida interactive entertainment academy (incorrect capitalization). In attempting to fix it, before figuring out the 'Move Page' functionality, I created a new page with the correct title (Florida Interactive Entertainment Academy) and copy-pasted the content. Because the new page now exists, however, I can no longer move the old, incorrect one. Can you please help me resolve this issue so only the one correctly-capitalized page exists and all links correctly point to it?

Thanks!

--Tectonic042

I made a redirect :), it's a bit dirty because you didn't moved, you copy and pasted, next time use the move tab (instruction about that can be sought at HELP:Move -- Esurnir 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I'm gonna speedy delete the new page then move the historic there. -- Esurnir 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed this history for you, but the article doesn't really assert encyclopedic notability, and it reads a little like a promotional effort for the school. I'm going to speedy delete it under CSD A7 and CSD G11. I'll be glad to restore the article, once you produce verifiable reliable sources, attesting the school's notability. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. If you'd like evidence of the school's existence and accomplishments beyond the official site itself, allow me to point you to:

In addition, there are links within Wikipedia already pointing to the page, specifically within the Orlando, Florida entry and the University of Central Florida entry.

Please let me know if you need any additional sources. I'd like to get this page restored (with correct capitalization) as soon as possible. Thank you for your time.

--Tectonic042

If you wish to recreate the article, I suggest that you work on it on a user sub-page or offline in a text editor; rewrite it in an appropriate tone to address G11 and use those sources in citations to address verifiability. Incidentally, existing wikilinks have no bearing on notability. Adrian M. H. 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All right, will do. I will rewrite the article in order to remove any instances of G11 violation and pursue a more encyclopedic tone. Thank you.

--Tectonic042

All set! The article has been re-written and replaced at its location at the Florida Interactive Entertainment Academy page with a more encyclopedic tone and a full references section. Thanks for pushing me to re-write it like this, actually - I think it looks far more professional, and reads well. Much more appropriate to Wikipedia. Hope you'll agree - and thank you again for your time. Oh, one more question - will all inquiries to the school now be re-directed to this page, including previous links to the older, incorrectly-capitalized entry?

--Tectonic042

  • Yes. You can see what other articles in the encyclopedia point to the page in question by selecting the What Links Here link in the left hand pane on the article page entitled "toolbox". --Aarktica 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My link apparently erased daily

Resolved. Request determined to be WP:COI. --Aarktica 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ightham_Mote#External_Links

I have added a link to my web site which contains five photographs of this historic property in Kent, England: Ightham Mote. Today is Wednesday 30 May 2007. I first added the link on Monday 28 May. It was gone last night (Tuesday, 29 May) and I replaced it. It is gone again today, Wednesday, 30 May, and I have again replaced it. There has been a statement on the page that it was edited on May 29 and another today that it was edited today, May 30.

Apparently, someone is editing out my link, and I suspect that it may be someone interested in the other two external links to this page.

My link is: "Images of Item Mote"

The link appears to be OK otherwise as it works.

My question is how to stop this editing-out of my link?

Wowniejr 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

William Owens Boston Massachusetts USA wowens1@verizon.net

I think the link is okay (putting aside the fact that you're the owner of that website in attempt to make fair judgement). It's just presented improperly. I've rewritten the link format and incorporated it into the current list of external links. --Deryck C. 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that you should not be adding links with which you have any affiliation. That's COI. It is good practice to propose such links on relevant talk pages. Adrian M. H. 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
In my interpretation it should not be a strict "no". Rather, Wikipedia:Citing oneself gives ideas on when to include and when not to when there's a conflict of interest. --Deryck C. 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the place in the article, but I have replaced the link and am now discussing it on the talk page. The pictures do indeed seem to be notable enough for inclusion in the article. It would seem that even after two editors reincluded it, the page is still continually removed and denounced as "spam", which I think is hardly the case. Drumpler 11:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've likewise noticed a WP:COI on Bob Castle's part. Here's two diffs (diff1 and diff2). In the diffs, Bob Castle assumes that Wowniejr is promoting his website as spam and yet uses his own edits and contributions (including photos and text) as self-promotion (giving an air of superiority). However, Wowniejr's account is fairly recent and the user may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia protocol.[7] I assume good faith on Wowniejr's part and do not believe the site was added as self-promotion. The pictures are indeed factual and pertain to the article's subject. I think that this seasoned editor's reverts[8] can be interpreted as an attempt to "own the article". Instead of accusing the new user as a spammer, an attempt should have been made to explain the Wikipedia process. Drumpler 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this discussion. My message to Wowniejr's talk page was merely a response to his rather attacking tone of questioning my integrity as an editor:

Perhaps you just take it upon yourself - a "self appointed" editor. Or maybe a "self-appointed" spammer might be more appropriate.

I was reminding him that the reason we don't appreciate his external link is because there are plenty of other editors out there who add their own photographs to the site, not just link to external pages of questionable worth - a look through his contributions show that he has done nothing but add links to his own website since he joined, which is both a conflict of interest, and self-promoting behavior which doesn't really help the project at all. Bob talk 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" crimes once perpetrator is convicted, what is the official policy

Resolved. --Aarktica 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just edited Megan Kanka and took out a bunch of 'allegedly's. Her killer was convicted in a court of law, but there remains an editor who seems to be claiming it's POV to say "he killed..." without sticking in an 'allegedly'. Please point me to the "official" policy on this so I can cite it. Thank you, CliffC 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See: Words to avoid — So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported
I hope this helps. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention to be careful when citing the link I provided as it is not considered policy, but rather guidelines. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
While words like "allegedly" should be avoided, it is even worse to word a proposition by "it is". Instead, you should write like "Who-and-who suggested that...". --Deryck C. 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Dorvaq, thank you for the pointer, where I see "Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal." Agreed; I use 'alleged' whenever writing about someone where crimes have been charged but not yet proven in a court of law. Perhaps what I'm trying to ask is more of a common-sense question to which the answer is so obvious that no one has thought to incorporate it in a policy or guideline here. Trying again, "Once an accused criminal is convicted in a court of law, is it not both inappropriate and biased to insist on using the word 'alleged' when writing about the charges of which he's been convicted?" Maybe someone has a pointer to an old discussion or arbitration about this? It seems that it must have come up in the past. --CliffC 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is no discussion involving the generic use of "allege" (or any derivative thereof) specific to before-and-after trials. However, there has been many discussions of this sort on individual article pages involving criminals. But, most of these discussions have been initiated by either anonymous users or users who contribute very little to Wikipedia besides the article in question. Perhaps your best bet would to start there unless someone else can provide you with something more informative.
Anyhow, I don't believe this needs to be incorporated into policy/guideline beyond how the word has already been treated. In terms of law, to allege is to present without proof or without first proving. Therefore, to state the convicted crime of an offender as an allegation is inherently contradictory. Wikipedia is dedicated to quality and integrity — anything contradictory fails on those two points, but that's my opinion. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that last paragraph hits the nail on the head, thanks. Nothing like logic to prove a point. I came upon the Megan Kanka article by chance and I remember the case quite well. It really irked me, after removing all the 'allegeds' and cleaning up the article, to find an old entry on the Talk page stating "He argues that he was wrongfully convicted; if he admitted to the allegations, they wouldn't be alleged, but he hasn't, so therefore they're 'alleged,' and he's the 'alleged killer.'" Arrgh! Thanks again. --CliffC 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Once a criminal has been convicted in court, they are legally guilty of the crime, and it is acceptable to say "they did it", even if they continue to deny doing so. If they have been charged or indicted, but not convicted, they are indeed the "alleged" perpetrator, but once convicted, it's entirely appropriate to state that they are indeed the perpetrator. If they are suspected of involvement but have not yet been charged or indicted, the proper reference is generally "suspect". Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this one off and on all day. I think an absolute "convicted" means "they did it" policy is wrong. We know that, even in the U.S., there are at least a few wrongful convictions, and in some countries at some times, a conviction might have nothing to do with facts. The flipside is also that "acquittal" does not automatically equate to "they didn't do it". Consider John Gotti; we know he bribed at least one juror during one of his murder trials. Or consider O. J. Simpson... I think the key to the issue is, is there are a genuine controversy over what happened? Then WP:NPOV applies. All the other policies come into play in deciding if there's really a controversy, in particular WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:SENSE. If someone claims a controversy to dispute what most of us think a conviction means, they need to produce sources, and we get to evaluate how reliable those sources are, applying all we know about the context of the situation. We need not take the self-serving statement of a convict as seriously as some neutral person's; we consider the source. For example, despite some weak claims of accident in the Yolanda Saldívar article, the Selena article is right to say Saldivar murdered Selena. On the other hand, there's some sort of heated controversy about whether Mumia Abu-Jamal actually committed the crime of which he was convicted, and the regular editors of that article try to apply NPOV.
We have much the same problem with other types of "facts" about people. We say that the two Roosevelt presidents, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were 5th cousins, even though no one's ever done genetic testing or otherwise "proved" it; there's just no controversy there, so we don't need to condition the statement. On the other hand, in sports there are various non-legal controversies about infringement of the rules with performance enhancing substances; articles should usually reflect well sourced notable allegations, but err on the side of caution and use forms like "X claimed that ..." or "Y suspended Z after a positive test for...".
Also, a lot of the questions can be avoided with careful language; "X was convicted of doing Y to Z" is usually a verifiable NPOV statement, that lets the reader apply their own biases. Studerby 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow

Resolved. Content moved from requester's sandbox to article; collaboration with other editors underway. --Aarktica 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of rewriting the article here, and I am wishing if anyone is willing to help me out during writing who is more knowledgable than me with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, for me to cite page numbers to the tie-in books and comics and more. Alientraveller 18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Try WP:PR for possible tips. --Aarktica 17:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trouble reaching a consensus

Stale. Subject prone to discussions which go {{Round In Circles}} --Aarktica 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to form a consensus to (re)insert material to Stephen Barrett. The majority of editors there are in favor of including information that Barrett is not Board Certified. This content has been verified by many reliable sources. A compromise has been proposed which should satisfy everyone's concerns. However, there a still several editors unwilling to agree to allow this content's inclusion. We have gone through nearly every step of WP:DR. Informal surveys have show a majority support of inclusion. Mediation failed due to lack of civility. Third-party opinions (all in favor of including the content) are ignored by the disenting parties. Any assitance here would be most helpful. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The majority viewpoint appears to be there is no consensus and no interest in continuing a discussion that has been going on for over two months on an issue originally brought up by Levine2112 over 15 months ago. If anyone is interested in trying to help, I've been working on a Talk:Stephen_Barrett#History_of_.22Barrett_certification.22_dispute to help assist others in getting up to speed. -- Ronz  19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nummer29 is constantly trying to delete the article I've been working on.

Resolved. Subject of request deleted via AFD decision. --Aarktica 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nummer29

This user is actively trying to delete the article I'm creating. His response: "this article has been deleted before because it is not significant, so leave the tag where it is"

Not only is this response extremely condesending, it is also false. Wc3Banlist is definately significant when there are tens of thousands of users who are actively taking part in this program.

I would like to have him barred from adding this delete tag to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikernum1 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 May 2007

If you have an issue with a particular editor, you need to take it up in a civil manner with him on his talk page, and bear in mind that he might be right. This is not the place for airing dirty laundry. I will look into the matter (although some more information would be nice... such as what article you are on about) but you should respect WP's dispute resolution advice. Further response will be made on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
He appears to be talking about Wc3 Banlist, and it's currently been shifted to an AfD discussion, so this appears to be a non-problem at the moment. Spikernum, if a consensus is reached in that discussion that the article should be deleted then that's what will happen. It's no fun -- no one likes to see his work disappear -- but it happens from time to time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, the subject doesn't look notable to me, and the article also appears to be pretty promotional. That's grounds for a speedy deletion, which if it weren't already at AfD I would certainly consider doing. Notability doesn't reflect popularity, it reflects how much reliable source material is available on a subject from sources independent of the subject. I can't find any at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I was trying to smooth potentially ruffled feathers. The article had already been prod-ed; it's in AfD because Spikernum1 objected. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

problems with Apocalypto

Resolved. --Aarktica 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to make changes an additions to the Wiki page for the film Apocalypto. However the page is being monitored by an extremely zealous person who immediately goes and reverts to the previous version. Furthermore, he seems to have a strong sense of ownership over the page and has been making threats to have me banned if I don't leave his creation alone. I suspect that his zeal eminates from the fact that he is among the subjects in this entry and has written about himself. I have made efforts to remind him that no one person owns any Wiki page and that he cannot appoint himself as the final say on any one fact. Can you please offer advice on how to make the additions without having them constantly and immediately undone? Cjboffoli 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


  • However the page is being monitored by an extremely zealous person who immediately goes and reverts to the previous version. Furthermore, he seems to have a strong sense of ownership over the page and has been making threats to have me banned if I don't leave his creation alone. I suspect that his zeal eminates from the fact that he is among the subjects in this entry and has written about himself.

Apart from the repeated false personal attacks again (I'm not even one of the subjects), I'm actually reverting your libelous unverified original research from Apocalypto and Farhad Safinia. If anyone wants to know whats actually happening, this user, Cjboffoli, keeps inserting the likes of the following into either articles about plagiarism:

The genesis of Apocalypto was a screenplay entitled "Sacrifice" penned by screenwriter John Fletcher which was circulated around Hollywood in 2003-04. The script caught the eye of production assistant Farhad Safinia who had no previous writing credits. Safinia liked the script and felt he could adapt the property sufficiently to avoid crediting the original writer. He pitched the script to Gibson's Icon Films and represented it as his own. Safinia had a pre-existing relationship with Mel Gibson as he had worked on Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. Despite having registered the screenplay with the US Copyright office and the Writer's Guild, Fletcher had little recourse to pursue damages. Safinia had altered at least 10% of the screenplay and a court battle (especially if unsuccessful) could have proved costly and career-ending.

The above statements incorporated into the text are very libelous and worse, not even verified from any source. Cjboffoli wrote on my talkpage[9]<---:

There is already one infringement lawsuit pending and both the Writers Guild and the LA Times are currently looking into the 'Sacrifice' matter. The amendments I made to the page in question are true and I have information to back them up. Truth is a solid defense against libel.

If this supposed lawsuit is still pending, why are you incorporating the supposed plagiarising into the text and presenting it as fact? ResurgamII 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If no court case has decided that plagiarism did indeed occur, we absolutely cannot state such material as fact. See our biographies of living persons policy. We cannot state as fact that a person plagiarized unless there is very solid source material (such as a successful lawsuit) which indicates that such did indeed occur. However, if it can be reliably sourced that there is such a controversy, we can report that a controversy does exist, but not editorialize, take a side, or write in any way that appears we endorse one side or the other as correct. If no reliable sources have reported even on the controversy, we can't include anything about it, period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Cjboffoli, your unsigned comment on ResurgamII's talk page goes against WP:AGF, particularly as he made only one revert to one of the two affected articles; the other reverts were done by other editors. And based on my study of the articles' edit history, their talk pages, and the talk pages of the editors involved, you seem to have presented a slightly distorted view of the facts in your post here, because there is no evidence that WP:OWN has been ignored by anyone. I noticed ResurgamII's removal of your sources on the talk page, which is bad form IMO, and he was maybe a little hasty to mention blocking (but bear in mind that continuing to add inappropriate content may be construed as disruption, for which a block may be issued). I think that you should take a breath and consider the situation, then check the important policies/guidelines if you haven't already done so. It is very important that statements about legal issues are treated strictly. Adrian M. H. 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (etc.) violation

Stale. --Aarktica 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to fix what looks like a big NPOV (& forking, COI, now CIVIL?) violation here was met with a very emotional response from the author/subject (yep, same person). I brought it up with one editor and on the relevent project page, where two more people confirmed we have a problem, (one confirmation on my talk page). Though I do have a PhD in another area of physics, I don't have any expertise in the page contents. I don't feel like my going head to head with this editor will accomplish anything, but something's got to be done. Please help! Thanks.PhysPhD 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. With only two editors directly involved, you could take it to 3O first and see if that resolves it. I'm a bit concerned that anyone who chips in might not be respected by the other editor unless they are an expert in this field. Adrian M. H. 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone check this, please

Resolved.

Can someone have a quick look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercars.net (2nd nomination) and tell me if I have done it correctly. I haven't made a second nom before, but I don't think that should be red-linked. I followed all three steps. Adrian M. H. 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorted now. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation in article on Elvria Arellano

Resolved. Requester has elected to pursue mediation. --Aarktica 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically me and two other editors cannot agree on the use of terms such as "Illegal Alien" and "Anchor Baby" in her article. They prefer the more obtuse "parents facing deportation" and no refererence to the wiki article on Anchor Baby. There is a lot of discussion on this near the bottom of the Discussion page. I have asked for a Third Opinion as well as RfC. Those guys don't care. They consider the article their personal fiefdom and revert my edits while continuing to use biased terms like "undocumented". One of them went so far as to get me "convicted" of being a SockPuppeteer in a bogus trial reminiscent of the Soviet Union. He also edited my signatures (until I reverted them back) to use the Single Purpose Account tag stating I had made "few or no other edits." Basically a smear campaign, not countering my arguments. Frankly, I have not edited a lot of articles on Wikipedia due to time and lack of interest but I have to say if this is the way it is run, full of personal bias and editors using the system to stifle other editors so as to make "right-thinking" articles, then I want no part of it. I'm giving Wikipedia one last chance to show me it is worth the effort. [LordPathogen] LordPathogen 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this goes to show the range of differing experiences that editors will have. I find myself getting by without major conflict, but that said, I don't usually edit where controversy and strong POV are likely to lurk. When I'm over at 3O, the kind of arguments that go on never cease to surprise me, because many of them could be sorted out amicably. But if you have already been through 3O and RFC, there is not much else that I can suggest without getting really heavy. Does the case really warrant it? Before that, there's mediation, but that is voluntary (and I can't see you getting agreement from the other parties). If I looked into this thoroughly, it would take far more time than I have, but I recommend that you either call in the heavy mediation guns if it is really worth it or take a deep breath, wlak away from that article and those editors and relax. Sometimes, just occasionally, discretion is the better part of valour and spending your (presumably precious) spare time making more constructive edits without hassle becomes possible once more. Adrian M. H. 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture issues / Editor who is not listening to my notes and loathes the subject matter

Resolved.

Two issues:

1) Relates to the Frat_pack article, a pop culture topic. DreamGuy removed all links to my related fan site. The fan site in question is not a simple rehash of the subject matter but does include original research, reviews, interviews on topic for this subject matter. This isn't a scholarly subject so there are few "official policy" sources to look to for this topic. The acknowledged seminal source is USA Today that named the Frat Pack and I coauthored a second article about the group, so I believe I have reasonable credentials to be noted in the article. Links to my site have been in the article for more than a year but DreamGuy has removed all of them. I am not trying to turn the wiki article into a vanity article for my site; on the contrary - I have not written major sections of the article -- just small edits/vandalism removal and such. I give a damn about the subject matter and that's why I do it, not to pimp my fan site. I do feel the fan site is relevant to the topic as a source of additional information for this pop culture topic.

2)DreamGuy is not taking any time to listen to what I am saying. When I say "I did not originally add the links" he says "see, you admit to adding the link." I requested Mediation but DreamGuy declined. I could really use some help in determining what to do. Related links:

Request for Mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Frat_pack
Latest loathing of the subject matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DreamGuy

Kevin Crossman 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Links to fansites are not acceptable. But let me make that clearer. Links to fansites are not ever acceptable. They're not reliable sources, and they don't add anything to the article. It's only a secondary concern that you have a conflict of interest here-you shouldn't link to fansites even if they're not yours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Links to fansites aren't acceptable, DreamGuy's someone who refuses to work with people, your best option is to just drop it. If you try and push it wou'll probbaly be on the short end.--Wizardman 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the sources for Pop Culture? I mean, there isn't exactly a scientific test to determine who is in the Frat Pack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes%2C_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_cultureKevin Crossman 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, that looks an awful lot like ArbCom deciding content, that rather surprises me. They usually stay away from it. That being said, I don't think they're saying "use any old source for any old thing", I think they're more saying "For pop-culture stuff, Entertainment Weekly or TV Guide may well be an acceptable source, since you're not likely to find it written up in Science." I strongly doubt they meant "Repost whatever crap a bunch of people decided to throw on their personal blogs and go on about on forums and fansites." Now, of course, I can't speak for 'em, that's just what it looks like to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, Kevdo is asking people to spam wikipedia on his behalf. IrishGuy talk 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a message from over two weeks ago, when I thought IrishGuy was a vandal, not that he was enforcing the "no fansite" rules. I have not asked people to "spam" the site since then. Also - "Is asking" is present tense, not past tense as it should be. That's libel, plain and simple. Kevin Crossman 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I take full responsibility for fully trying to fight for what I believe in with regards to External Links (not just my own) and I haven't responded anyone about it today and am dropping it. But I still think the Wiki policy is wrong.Kevin Crossman 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. As recently as the 28th you said "...but this the time where I'm really gonna need some help from you guys.". Since that time, a series of single purpose accounts have arrived to the various "frat pack" articles and added external links that were removed. IrishGuy talk 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That was a reference to DreamGuy's removal of links YOU deemed okay as part of the references section --- not the external links. Kevin Crossman 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Full quote "Let's see how this plays out for the next day but this the time where I'm really gonna need some help from you guys." You of course omitted the part of the quote where I said don't do anything until we see what happens. Once again, that's libel. Stop it.Kevin Crossman 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You didn't say "don't do anything until we see what happens". What you said in the posts entirety was: I cannot tell you how incredibly fucking angry I am right now. Some new asshole moderator at Wikipedia named DreamGuy (similar to IrishGuy... hmmmm.) has removed the external links to The Circle and to the Statistical Analysis. Moreover, he completely removed the main section that talks about pledges (with reference The Circle page again) -- but then left all the assorted Pledge references throughout the page. So, I write the guy to say "hey, I didn't add the links but I think they're relevant" and he immediately writes back "see, you admitted to adding the links." Let's see how this plays out for the next day but this the time where I'm really gonna need some help from you guys. It isn't libel to quote you. IrishGuy talk 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And where did I say that I asked anyone to do anything? Is English your native language, or perhaps my American vernacular is confusing you.
"let's see how this plays out" = chill for a bit
"I'm gonna need your help" = sometime in the future I might ask for your (non-specified) help
You'll note that I didn't ask anyone to do anything after that. So drop it, okay?Kevin Crossman 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I will recommend you read WP:CIV. IrishGuy talk 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW the reason I was so angry was that I went through this whole external link thing with you, but in the end you were cool with the references staying in. Then a few days later DreamGuy (similar name, no?) deletes them -- and wrecks much of the article. As noted, ad nauseaum, I give a shit about the topic and would like Wikipedia to have a good rather than crappy article. That's why I was mad. And I still didn't ask anyone to do anything specific. Kevin Crossman 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Similar name, no?...are you making an accusation? IrishGuy talk 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, earlier in my posting the issue with DreamGuy is that he ripped out a lot of stuff on the page (notably, the Pledge section). So there are references further down the page referring to Pledges but they were no longer defined. And as you have so eloquently explained, I should not be editing anything on that page due to your twisted view of conflict of interest rules -- so I needed their help to get the page back in order. Kevin Crossman 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
My "twisted view"? Please read WP:CIV. Then go ahead and read WP:COI and you will see that my view is in line with policy. Also, asking others to edit on your behalf is still COI because you are using meatpuppets to edit for you in something you shouldn't be editing. IrishGuy talk 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, are you saying that (as long as I don't promote my own website) that I shouldn't edit the Frat Pack entry? Because it would be pretty stupid to have someone who knows a lot about the subject to not be able to edit the page (as long as they maintain neutrality and don't promote... see how I'm learning?).Kevin Crossman 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I apologize for saying your views were twisted.Kevin Crossman 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Meaning - if I fix the page I'm in the wrong. If I ask other people to fix the page I'm in the wrong. No winning with you I guess (even though I've been doing my best to keep up with vandalism on the page and such). Kevin Crossman 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the single person accounts, once again I will say I have not told anyone to do anything (since the original message weeks ago). I wish I had a team of minions to do my bidding but it simply isn't the case. Maybe they're just movie fans who see value in fan sites that provide original and in-depth content for the subject matter. Just because you think that fansite have no value, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way. If it's Wiki's (completely shortsighted, IMHO) policy then fine. Kevin Crossman 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm saying this, but if you want to help:
a) Make the "fansite" policy clear, explicit, and easy to understand
b) Do a better job of enforcing the policy. Kevin Crossman 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding those single purpose accounts; I'm sure all of them were adding my website and my website only. Oh, that's right -- they weren't. Kevin Crossman 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you know nothing about any single-purpose accounts...how do you know what they did or didn't add? IrishGuy talk 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because you told me they were created. Duh! Kevin Crossman 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I simply told you to stop asking others to add your links. How would you know if they added other links if you know nothing about the SPA's? Curious, no? IrishGuy talk 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Curious? No! You wrote "a series of single purpose accounts have arrived to the various "frat pack" articles and added external links that were removed." How fricking hard is it for me to look at the histories of the various "frat pack" articles to see what had been happening lately? Answer: it's not very hard. I saw the edit war on Vince's page. Again... YOU told me. Duh! Kevin Crossman 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW - my original question is resolved, though I guess IrishGuy and I don't see eye to eye on a number of issues. Kevin Crossman 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with removing a section

Resolved. Adrian M. H. 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this falls under any Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Here is my explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bad_Dudes I deleted the section once, but it was re-added. I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong for deleting it. Tkrpata 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know, unsourced material whose veracity may reasonably be questioned can be challenged as being unverifiable and removed if it cannot be verified. I suggest that you approach it from that angle: request a reliable source that is independent of the subject and verifies the included material from the editor who added it, as well as looking for it yourself, and if cannot be found and is not provided, then you have grounds to remove it. Adrian M. H. 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... I'm pretty certain there's no such reliable source, so I went ahead and removed the section. I left information in the article's discussion page and on the talk page for the IP for whoever made the edit (they didn't log in). Tkrpata 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I came across WP:NOTFILM which provides some useful explanation specific to this situation. Tkrpata 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Entry for Mark Douglas Olson

Resolved.

There are two editors (myself: Swanny123 and Avidor) that have each been accused of COI or bias. I request editor assistance to conform the article to the neutrality rules of Wiki. Swanny123 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Swanny123

  • You may want to review WP:COI to see if there is any merit to the accusations; WP:3O may also be helpful in that regard. As for resources on improving the article, check out WP:EDIT, WP:GOOD, and WP:PR. HTH, --Aarktica 04:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This is more of a "what? how? I'm confused forum"; the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page explains various options for getting other editors to help out to resolve issues. Studerby 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

im getting wiki-harrassed

Resolved.

i made a comment(pointed out a contridiction) about amelia earhart on the purdue page(talk,not the actual page)and ever since people have been on me,check my history,mostly all ive done is remove messages from my user:talk page and 2 or 3 people keep switchin it back,i asked one guy "why" on his talk page and he responede "because" please make it stop.

Barn,FOUR TILDESOtis66Driftwood 17:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Many editors mistakenly think that warnings on user talk pages should not be removed, in part because most editors leave them, and in part because many malicious editors do remove them (not that it helps for long). You need to "assume good faith" on their part; that is to say, assume that they think they're doing what they think is right, even though it isn't, and don't assume they're doing it to "harass" you. I'm going to briefly intervene and leave notes on the other 2 editors talk pages about the policy on warnings. Studerby 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems resolved, the primary other editor seems to understand policy now. Oh, my comments about about "good faith" should have included a link to policy, WP:AGF. Studerby 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A general observation, leaving aside any lack of civility that you might have experienced in this case. While it lacks a written guideline against it, removing other editors' posts from one's own user talk page can appear to demonstrate a refusal to discuss an issue or accept a warning or piece of advice, whether the editor means it that way or not. As such, it can be considered uncivil. Indeed, I have seen a number of editors who, with little doubt, have used this practice with the express intention of hiding warnings and/or avoiding discussions, leaving little room for the assumption of good faith. Editors who have encountered overt instances of apparently deliberate bad manners are understandably likely to be influenced by that. Adrian M. H. 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


THANKS FOUR TILDES-> Otis66Driftwood 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon article

Stale. --Aarktica 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I need some assistance with the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon article. An anon IP and user account Landau7 are vandalizing portions of the article and removing information. I discuss this on the article's talk page itself[10][11][12][13]. I believe that there's an attempt to bully me from the page because of the unfavourable, but verifiable, information I have put up on this group's article. I am a good faith editor who is trying to make sure that all sides of the issue are being addressed fairly, however, I think that the editors in question want to make the article read more like a religious tract. If one reads the first archive on the talk page, Landau7 has a tendency to try to get my emotions involved and I've decided to keep it cool this time after the advice of a fellow editor, Alastair Haines.

Because I suspect the identity is the group's leader himself, I do not expect this process to really go anywhere. But I am going through the process because I've already filed two sock puppet reports on this individual in the past[14][15] and I was recommended to go through this process next time. The user has demonstrated that he has access to this religious group's "secret archive" about me, both under the Landau7 account and the anon IP account (if you look at http://www.nccg.org/archive/, you will find that people must have a password to post, but these two accounts are able to post articles from there liberally -- I discuss this on the talk page). I do not want to go through a repeat of what happened on the talk pages' archives, where I feel I must be pressured to give into them because of (what I think is) sock puppeting. He mentions an agreement I made some time back where I agreed to stay off this article, but I only said that because at the time, it effected both my mental and emotional health and I thought that I had no chance. I came back to the article later when I was over much of that and was able to make (what I feel) were more neutral edits. Part of the other reason I made this decision was because another former member on the talk page was making similar statements to my own and this made me feel relieved as I realized I wasn't posting a minority opinion. If one takes time to read the archives, they will find I was both bullied and pressured into believing that my contributions did not matter. Every little thing I contributed was nit-picked and poked apart whereas the edits of another anon IP (which points back to the group's HQ in Sweden) and Landau7's own edits were left alone or ignored.

The edits being disputed largely involve the comments I made in the Garden subsection of the Beliefs section in the article text itself. Each of these edits were backed using the religious group's own website and materials, but after the anon IP vandalism, were immediately removed from the group's site itself in order to kill my sources. I restored them on my own site, but then deleted them a day later to avoid legal complications and because I found a Wikipedia policy that protected dead links. Landau7 has demonstrated his own subversive influence by removing a reference to a statement by cult specialist Mary Alice Crapo that refers to the group as a dangerous sect. I have the newspaper article which mentions this statement. I even linked to the group's own site where they reference the statement was indeed made.

If there's anything that's really needed, please feel free to post it on here or on my talk page. I really am desiring to follow Wikipedia protocol and sometimes, I have to learn the rules the hard way. However, I feel in regards to my edits, the rules are being used as a stick against me to justify Landau7's own edits. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being the one to feel like my contribution does not matter, when the group has counselled its members[16][17] to keep a watchful eye on the article to ensure "accuracy". Personally, I think the accounts need to be blocked but do not want it to be percieved as harassment. However, due to the fact that I think the attacks are either from or being provoked by the group's leader itself, again, I do not expect this to go anywhere. I ask that people be weary of any manipulative or emotional attacks which may arise on Landau7 or other sympathiser's behalf (there's also uaasun/Lil'Dummy whom I know off-site and who has likewise tagteamed with Landau7 in the past, but he's largely backed off, I think).

I hope this helps. The reason I raised the issues on the talk page in the first place was so that other editors may be aware. However, I think from now on, in the future, I'm going to go through the resolution process, as I do not intend to drag it out like I did when I was more emotionally involved in the past. I only want this article to present all sides of the issue fairly, regardless of how I feel about the group or my own activism against it off-site. Drumpler 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this under the Landau7 Removing Unfavourable Material Section on the article's talk page:
I did a trace route on the IP that I thought was from the Netherlands and it traced it right back to Sweden[18], TeliaNet, the location of the person who initially wrote the underlying text for most of this article[19] and likewise the location of the group's known compound[20]. I think it is settled and would recommend a trace route on the Landau7 account. If one reads the archives, they will find that Landau7 dispassionately referred to 81.224.220.232 as an anon-IP and tracing back will show if this is true. The other possibility is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet as the purposes are the same. I have decided on dispute resolution with another editor to see what s/he says and will not file any reports until then. This likewise gives Landau7 an opportunity to explain himself. Drumpler 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this abuse? I'm going through this process to get a fresh pair of eyes, so do not want to file any reports until I get a clearer perspective on it. Drumpler 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just Noticed Your Message

So it isn't really stale. ;) Drumpler 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the stale tag. Hope this "relaunch" can bring all of you back to business. --Deryck C. 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting convos between Aartika and I are here and here. Landau7 has played various games in the past to protect both vandalous and unverifiable edits (some games he has played was acting as a Wikipedia admin, pretending to be a "neutral editor" when in fact he's the group's own leader, recruit others and created special interest accounts to protect his own edits, etc.). He has made attacks on my own character within the text of the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon article in the past, which I have removed. This is explained in detail in the long section above. Drumpler 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, links 1, 2, 3, 4 in that long section are in the second archive on the article's talk page. I moved them there when it seemed pointless, but I'm thankful that now people are looking at my case. :) Drumpler 05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Enough?

I was wondering if this page is notable enough for Mishpachah_Lev-Tsiyon#The_Garden? I'm not asking so much for myself as I am for Landau7. He recently tried to reinsert this link but I deleted it because I felt his reasons for doing so weren't NPOV(diff). He likewise has tried to insert this link in the past in an attempt to vandalise (diff). It would seem he's trying to use an "NPOV tone" to assassinate me. What do you think?

And so it is known, I'm the Derek being discussed on that page. Drumpler 08:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone there? A simple yes or no to my question would suffice. :) Drumpler 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The link you refer to doesn't load for me. --Aarktica 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Patience is a virtue, Derek ;) Your edit from yesterday was lost to my watchlist (and therefore, probably to others) thanks to more recent edits at the end of the page. To your question; that external link is totally inappropriate, given its content. Even with your understandable desire to remove it because of its personal content, it should be removed. Notability is not really relevant to external links, though, just for the record. If you get into an edit war over it, go to 3O (although I won't respond to that because of this discussion, but someone else will). Re the archiving; we archive this page regularly, so the previous content of this section will need to be included in that. Probably wasn't a good idea to archive it of your own accord. Adrian M. H. 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was actually trying to make your guy's job easier. ;) I restored everything from the archive. Now, how do I delete that archive? LOL. Drumpler 00:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Where do I go in cases where 3O does not apply? I hate to say this, but due to circumstances outside of Wikipedia, it is hard for me to assume good faith with the editor in question. I'm sure he feels likewise toward me (hence his vandalism). He has a tendency to game the system and if needed, I can provide several evidences of such behaviour. Drumpler 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the link in question really did not bother me and if it was good enough for Wikipedia (which Adrian deemed it wasn't), I would have kept it on the page. I'm just curious, of the thousand of "Garden experience" he could have chosen, why my own?
I have incorporated his edits where they have been verifiable. My desire is a neutral, NPOV article. Drumpler 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

review potentially abusive discussion behavior

Resolved. No new incidents. --Aarktica 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am essentially in an edit war with Dreftymac over the Hoplophobia article. (See Talk:Hoplophobia) I can handle the edit war, but I feel the need to call attention to this user's behavior in the course of this disagreement.

For some context, after reviewing the reference in question and the edit history, it seems that Dreftymac selectively edited a quotation in order to reverse the source author's intent. I removed the quote and prolific insults ensued. Initially, I didn't understand the duplicity behind the gerrymandered quote, I just noticed that it didn't seem to contribute anything to the article.

Dreftymac is extremely familiar with Wikipedia policies and contributes heavily to the policy articles and discussions. I find this a little disturbing considering how much abuse this user has sent my way.

I am not interested in dispute resolution. I am interested in reporting potentially abusive behavior. Is there any policy or procedure to address this? —BozoTheScary 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • See if WP:AIV is what you are looking for. --Aarktica 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Help requested on biased article

Stale. Inactive requestor. --Aarktica 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new editor -- I began participating in the learning disability page in January but more seriously in early April.

I'm now looking at the Dyslexia article, have read through all the discussion page and interacted with the two current primary contributors. We don't have an active dispute, but I do think the content is at this point very flawed and I'm not sure how to proceed in raising the issues that I see. I need someone objective to give me a sanity check on my perceptions, hopefully followed by some guidance as to how to participate constructively so that we can move forward in developing the article.

Thanks, and I look forward to working with someone on this! --smoran 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • For information on corresponding with other editors, see WP:TALK for guidelines. As far as help on improving the article, see WP:EDIT, WP:GOOD, and WP:PR for possible solutions. --Aarktica 23:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Site help House of Windsor

Resolved. Requestor elected to copyedit article. --Aarktica 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across, House of Windsor and found a complete re-write of UK history. Other editors have seen the same problem. I cursed a lil left the offending sections on talk and deleted them. The only references were on a heraldy site and i think he had taken the info from wikipedia. The nonsense had been on site since May 2004 See Edit log and was posted by User:Garryq. Do I report it him? Can I ask that all editors on that site get a 24hour ban for unsourced articles? help plz Mike33 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, at worst, all I see is a good-faith mistake and some real ignorance of the subject. WP does not normally block for any type of good-faith edits and certainly not for unsourced ones. While one could make a good argument that that policy allows junk to creep in, that's the way it is. Studerby 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Resolved. Requestor elected to copyedit article. --Aarktica 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing the Steinway & Sons article quite a lot recently. We've had a few issues with a lot of POV comments/advertising. I think most of these have been successfully defused. But the problem appears to have shifted to the talk page: one user in particular is posting fairly extended essays on things only slightly related to the topic, large parts of which are mostly personal opinion or experience (see the sonic quality and playability section, and others). These posts are rewritten and added to quite frequently, and would appear to be a way of sneaking in advertising/POV material that didn't make it to the main article. I've tried to suggest subtly on his talk page that he have a look over the talk page guidelines, but I'm not sure what I should do about the rather bloated talk page, if anything; and how to gently discourage the user from cluttering up the the page, whilst still encouraging him to make use of it. Alexrexpvt 02:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Make a conscious effort to educate the editor in question about NPOV and its importance in article space. If said editor persists, step through the DR process. --Aarktica 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Saving the Capclave and WSFA entries from deletion

Resolved. Consensus from AFD to merge/redirect. --Aarktica 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Our pages for Capclave and WSFA (Washington Science Fiction Association) are being continually marked for deletion by a Doc Glasgow. How can we stop this person from trying to remove our information. I've changed it once with a note that the Capclave site isn't promotion it's a history list of the current and past Guest of Honor. Capclave is a fairly prestigious SF/F convention held in the DC area every year in Oct. We have a link to our website (http://www.capclave.org)

He's also trying to remove the WSFA entry which is for the Washington Science Fiction Association which has been in continuous existence since 1947. Many members have won Hugo Awards and other honors given out by the SF/F community worldwide.

We'd like to keep our entries active in Wikipedia but if this person is going to continue to demand a delete of the entry 5 to 10 minutes after we change it back -- it's going to be a pain in the neck to try to maintain this entry. We don't really need it as we have our own websites -- we were placing the entries here with a link back to our site as a resource for the SF community.

However, I really don't want to have to redo the entry every 10 minutes for the rest of my life.

What can we do to resolve this or do we just let this person delete the entries. Who is he anyway and why do you allow someone to take control of the process.

I tried to figure out how to source the site but after about 6 pages of instruction none of which told me how to do that I gave up. If we could figure out how to source it would that stop this guy? It doesn't seem like it but thought I'd ask.

Iskustva 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Iskustva

Iskustva, Wikipedia is not like MySpace or whatever, no one "owns" the pages. Once a topic is created in Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. When there is conflict, editors interested in a topic try to reach a consensus on changes, within the framework of Wikipedia policy. Not all topics are appropriate to Wikipedia; many hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of pages are deleted every day. The deletion process is somewhat more controlled than the editing process; only trusted editors with "administrator" privileges do deletions, and they follow one of several processes for each deletion. The Capclave article has been nominated for a full deletion review. You (or any Wikipedia editor) may participate in that review by clicking the this article's entry link at the top oc the Capclave article (which I have copied here). Note: this is not a vote! Editors will be making arguments based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If you (or others) wish to argue against deletion, you need to become familiar with Wikipedia policy - the place to start is WP:DEL. The argument will likely center on whether capclave is sufficiently notable to merit an article, and whether or not there are verifiable sources to support such an article. Wikipedia does not publish original research (see WP:OR), content on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable by other editors. In other words, the general Wikipedia policy requires that there be some independently verifiable material that indicates that capclave is notable, that will serve as source material for the article. To prevent the deletion review from resulting in deletion, you should supply references to souch source material, on the deletion review page. By the way, any page in the Wikipedia is subject to review, and Doc glasgow is following more-or-less appropriate process. Studerby 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I note he did not replace the {{prod}} tag on Washington Science Fiction Association after it was removed, and it is therefore no longer in danger of deletion for the time being. He did add {{verify}}, which is a note that external sources must be cited. This is nothing more than a reminder of long-standing Wikipedia policy. See WP:VERIFY.
You're confused about how to cite sources in general. Citation is nothing more than adding footnotes pointing to outside resources that verify the information you want to include, much as you would do for any research paper. There is a collection of templates that can help you reference these resources in an acceptable for. See WP:CTT. Preferably, these resources should not be affiliated with the group or event you want to write about, especially as far as general information goes. There ought to be such resources available for any subject suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If there isn't, then there's a good possibility that it's not.
To make these citations into footnotes we use a set of tags resembling standard HTML. See WP:FOOT for how to use them.
There is a current article for deletion ongoing for Capclave, as the template at the top of the article states. The way to prevent deletion of this article is to join that discussion and try to build consensus for retention. This is a discussion, not a vote: the Delete, Keep and other apparent votes are simply intended to summarize the comments that follow and are not simply tallied.
However, I strongly suggest you review WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:OWN, which may give you some insight into why these articles are being considered for deletion in the first place, and why your summary in this edit is not really to the point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We welcome and value positive contributions and, per AGF, I will assume that you wish to do so, but editors who infringe a bunch of the most important policies and guidelines are liable to see their contributions attended to in some way, and that includes deletion. That's another important policy that is worth reading. Adrian M. H. 12:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Romano German

Resolved. --Aarktica 19:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written two articles about the Romano German subject, and both have been deleted, even though 99% of the articles came from wikipedia which I had explained, and I had Refrences listed. I dont understand why wiki wouldnt have an article on this subject, and I dont know why my articles have been discriminated in wiki.--ProfMozart 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not discriminated against, and neither are editors. Articles are deleted when there is a good reason to do so. See also: WP:DP. An article at Romano German was, as you can see from deletion log at that red link, deleted due to contradictions with established articles. If wish to discuss it with the deleting editor, you can do so, remembering AGF and civility. Adrian M. H. 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

help with changing a listing

Stale. --Aarktica 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I updated a listing and a day later, all of my changes - which are correct and more timely than the information in the current listing - were "undid." Can you tell me why and how I can make changes without them being undone?

Thank you 161.243.51.205 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell you anything, since you have provided no information at all. If you had an account, I could check your contribs. I won't speculate on it. Adrian M. H. 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
We would at least need the article name and an approximate time that you added the information; the more frequently edited the article, the more exact the time would need to be. It would be a lot simpler if you had an account, but a review is possible with enough other information. Another point is that all articles have "history", which is one of the tabs at the top of the article's page. You can click that tab and see the revision history for yourself, which is what we would do. Most editors fill out the edit summary, which will be displayed and might give you a clue, although sometimes the comments are a little cryptic to the inexperienced. Also, the name or IP address of the editor who reverted your change will be visible in the history; if a named account, you could go to that user's talk page and ask them (politely) why they reverted your changes. Studerby 19:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this relate to the John Peyton (US politician) article? In which case I think the problem is not providing sources. Addhoc 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anybody editing that article since 29 May except you; looks like you confused yourself by adding your copy of the article at the bottom of the existing article. Looks like you have now fixed it. --CliffC 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking User:161.243.51.101 could be the same editor. Addhoc 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that your IP is assigned to the city government of Jacksonville, FL, I wonder if you are editing this article as a part of your job or for personal interest. If it is indeed as a psrt of your job, you may want to consider suggesting your changes to other wikipedia editors, so that they can make them if they seem appropriate and you can avoid a conflict of interest on the subject - you can do this by either suggesting changes on the article's talk page, or by talking through such changes with another editor on their talk page (mine is here). Pastordavid 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maulden

Resolved. --Aarktica 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have I got a warning

I updated it- I have lived there 9 years, and my wife 48 years- what have I don ewrong- the user reverted my version

who is Optimale ?

my email is <removed for privacy> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.198.22 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 June 2007

We strongly discourage publication of e-mail addresses. Also, more info would have been useful to save the detective work.... Back shortly. Adrian M. H. 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just commenting here - (article Maulden) - this user was warned with {{uw-vandalism4}}, I think a bit over the top for what seem to be WP:good faith edits most of which would be more suitable for a newspaper article than an encyclopedia. --CliffC 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This edit is one that was right to have been reverted. Wikipedia is not the place for canvassing or inappropriate external links, and such actions are considered to be spam. Since you posted here, I assume you're not new to Wikipedia. So you might know that such edits will get reverted on sight, and since you placed it within a series of small edits, it had to be reverted to the last known good version for expediency. RC patrollers don't normally have the time to sift through a series of edits by the same editor to sort out the worst bits, even if they use TWINKLE. As you'll see from Special:Contributions/Optimale he is one of thousands of very busy RC patrollers. Adrian M. H. 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request: create a category {{Error correction}} similar to {{Video formats}}

Resolved. Template created. --Aarktica 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request:

Can someone please create a category "{{Error correction}}" similar to "{{Video formats}}" so that all Error correction (ECC) pages may uniformly link to themselves in a less chaotic manner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_detection_and_correction#List_of_error-correction.2C_error-detection_methods

I am Webmaster for

Such a category would help with my own research linkages to Wikipedia, mainly in place to aid non-industry and non-research folk...

)

Eyreland 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the category Category:Error detection and correction is what you want. Or do you mean a template? A template may include a category, as the Video formats template does. Are you really wanting a navigation template like Video Format that also includes a Category? Studerby 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

needed catigory like {{Video formats}} for "Audio brodcasting technology"

Needed:

A category like {{Video formats}} for "Audio broadcasting"

What needs to go in it:

  • Digital audio broadcasting
  • Digital Radio Mondial
  • AM Modulation
  • FM Modulation
  • ALLISS
  • HRS type antennas
  • shortwave, mediumwave, longwave, FM broadcasting, XM, Sirius, ...
  • domestic radio broadcasting, international broadcasting

I am webmaster for

Eyreland 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Entry: Bill Dunlap

Resolved. Per AFD decision to keep. --Aarktica 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Can someone please insert a disambiguation link for the entry: Bill Dunlap

There are two individuals with the same name, both of whom should have unique entries. I bring this up because the fist entry for Bill Dunlap was recently deleted and replaced by an entry for the other Bill Dunlap. I don't think that was the proper, mature, or polite way to handle this problem. I have replaced the orginal text for Bill Dunlap. The entry now has bios of both persons and is therefore confusing. I feel that a disambiguation link would solve the problem. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Dunlap (talk • contribs)

Based on your username, it is a conflict of interest for you to be editing that article. IrishGuy talk 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it more complicated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dunlap. RJASE1 Talk 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, ain't we got fun. Studerby 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
User Bill Dunlap, please be patient. Another editor has suggested that the entire Bill Dunlap article be deleted, based on policies described or referred to in WP:DEL, (particularly WP:N). You may participate in the deletion review, see the banner at the top of the article. This is not a vote, but an evidence-based discussion about whether the article complies with policy. The apparent votes are just a handy synopsis of editors points of view, to help busy administrators decide what to pay attention to. While this review is ongoing, it's unlikely that any other editor will want to invest significant time in the article, so you'll probably need to wait a few days to see what happens. Studerby 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious explanation to edits to entry: Bill Dunlap

User 65.34.155.44 explained the deletion of the previous Bill Dunlap post by saying this: Inserted bio for William Dunlap, drummer for the band and artist, and deleted the wrong bio for Bill Dunlap, an artist not associated with the band.

This appears to be gibberish. There is no "band" referred to in this entry nor any talk of a drummer. Also, why would an entry for William Dunlap need to replace the current entry for Bill Dunlap? Could two seperate entries ("Bill Dunlap" and "William Dunlap") be created? or a disambiguation link for "Bill Dunlap"? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Dunlap (talk • contribs)

You can create a disambiguation page at, for example, Bill Dunlap (disambiguation). Apparently the user 65.34.155.44 mistook the biography page as a page about the band. --Deryck C. 03:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently that editor must have been a fan of The Imperial Show Band; the east coast artist William/Bill Dunlap was a drummer for that band in the 60s. The east coast artist's bio was pasted over the west coast artist's bio. I don't think it was malicious or suspicious, just confused. We get a lot of that around here. Studerby 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does any of this paragraph belong?

Resolved. Article deleted. --Aarktica 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the following paragraph in Ocala, Florida#Demographics while researching links to On Top of the World Communities, Ocala, Florida (which article I have nominated for speedy delete):

Major private sector employers in Ocala include: Emergency One (fire rescue vehicle manufacturer); Closet Maid (vinyl coated shelving manufacturer); Cingular Wireless (call center); KMart (distribution center); Mark IV (automotive hoses); Lockheed Martin (circuit boards); Signature Brands (cake decoration manufacturer/Hero); Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (wholesale lender); and On Top of the World Communities Inc. (an Active Adult Retirement Community).

It doesn't seem right to remove only the On Top of the World Communities, Ocala, Florida mention, should the whole paragraph be deleted? --CliffC 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would delete that section and mention just a couple of the most noteworthy companies with a sentence that sums up why they are worth mentioning. It's fine to write something like "Snoresville is the site of the award-winning ACME biscuit company" or whatever, but just listing a bunch of companies, some of which may not even be worth a mention, is excessive and not very encyclopædic. Adrian M. H. 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

External links to ear training resources are continually deleted

Resolved. Per WP policy on external links. --Aarktica 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Until about a month ago, the Ear training article had links to various sites containing ear training tools, articles, and related content. In fact there were two external link sections. One for ear training software and one for general links. A couple of days ago I noticed that the links were no longer there due to a single editor's claim that they are all promotional and therefore disallowed. I've tried to discuss this with the link-removing editor (aruffo) in Talk:Ear training#Promotional links, however he has declined to relent and instead suggested that we seek editor assistance. For those not familiar with ear training... software or some other form of tool is extremely valuable in the process of learning interval, chord, and melody sounds. To prohibit links to all such tools undermines the utility of an Ear training article. As for the links I tried to add, they were for a variety of sites containing free online ear training tools. Yes, one of the links pointed to my site (iwasdoingallright), but I also included other very useful resources like musictheory.net, GNU Solfege, and Tete. I thank you in advance for helping to resolve our dispute. Rg3000 18:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you are aware of WP:EL and WP:NOT, though I cannot presume how familiar you might be with the content or the wider consensus regarding external links. To summarise why aruffo and many editors, myself included, would remove most or all of those links:
  1. They are not encyclopædically orientated and some of them do not even contain substantial editorial content. These are two important aims that should be respected when adding an external link.
  2. Free does not necessarily mean non-commercial. A free product is still a product, and is therefore unsuitable for inclusion per WP:NOT, etc.
Furthermore, the point of an article about Ear training is exactly the same as the reason for the existence of Samuel Pepys, for example: that is to inform and educate in the manner of an encyclopædia. The internet is full of other kinds of information, products, promotion, how-to guides - you name it, it's out there - and they are all but a web search away. Wikipedia is not here to feature anything but an encyclopædic report of the facts and history behind each and every subject. Of course, not all articles succeed in meeting this aim. Adrian M. H. 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

understanding rejection

Resolved. Stub created. --Aarktica 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I had submitted my first entry, for Dzus Fasteners, and found that, an hour or so later, "Oscarthecat" had deleted the entry. The only clue as to why was a parenthetical note ("db-spam"). I searche wikipedia for "db-spam," but found no explanation. My proposed entry did include the name and addess of a vendor, which may be a violation, but the content could have been edited to retain the origin of the term, "Dzus Fastener," without providing any further link.

Oscarthecat declines to receive e-mails, so I can't query him.

Should I resubmit the entry without any commercial reference? Or forget the whole thing.

By way of background, "Dzus" is a name for a type of quarter-turn fastener, that has been used for 70 years, in aircraft and racecars. "Dzus" is almost a generic term, like "Kleenex." Today there are many makers of quarter-turn fasteners. I had great difficulty in locating a source of information on the real Dzus variety, and when I found it, there was an interesting history, including why it is called a "Dzus" fastener, and an identity of the present Dzus manufacturer. I could include the history without the ID of the present source, if that were acceptable.

Previously, searching Wikipedia for "Dzus" revealed no referece to Dzus, except in an item that used the term "Dzus" without explanation.

Thanks for your guidance to this wikipedia novice.

Roger Bohl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerbohl (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 June 2007

Please remember to sign your posts. And I had to remove your e-mail address per the privacy guideline. {{db-spam}} is an SD template. Have look at WP:NOT, deletion policy and WP:WMD and you will hopefully understand why your contribution was deleted. WP:N and WP:V might apply, too. While your good intention is welcome, all contributions have to abide by some key policies and guidelines. By the way; there should not be any need for an editor accept e-mails, when we have talk pages. There are now some important and useful links that I have placed on your talk page. Adrian M. H. 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

External links again

Resolved. --Aarktica 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have included a small handful of links in the external links area to my site, http://www.sexinfo101.com. The links are extremely relevant to the articles, and in most cases, the links are by a landmile the best additional reading a wiki visitor could get. Although the site had advertising on it, the content is free and classy.

I believe this situation is escalating because other users are coming in and removing the external links so that they can monopolize the resource for themselves... I have never done this myself, i just watch for when others do it, and just put our links back... Since the history shows you who touched it last, certain members were accusing me of doing it... which i did not.

How can i resolve this situation?

An example of an external link that i have made is this for the "list of sex positions" wiki page: http://www.sexinfo101.com/sp_index.shtml

I would also like to inquire about putting the images of the sex positions themselves on wiki to contribute...

Thank you,

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomk6 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 June 2007

I'll point you to the earlier questions about external links, such as this one, and point out that having advertising on a site is often enough, in my opinion and that of many editors, to prevent its inclusion. Then there is the COI issue with adding your own link; common accepted practice is to suggest COI-affected links on article talk pages and let other editors decide whether to include them. Adrian M. H. 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


What he (Adrian M. H.) said. Furthermore, Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a web directory or a catalog of all knowledge. Toward that end, we have policies and guidelines, one of the most important of which is this one: WP:NOT And another relevant one is WP:EL. To put it simply, for a topic where there's plenty of sources of information, a website that gets money from web traffic is going to be among the last choices for a link. Studerby
Please also take note of the folowing SPA spam sock accounts:
Spam accounts adding http://spam.sexinfo101.com
Tomk6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Tomku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Also has been posted on WT:WPSPAM, see WikiProject Spam case--Hu12 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge or deletion?

Resolved. No new incidents. --Aarktica 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking for some editor advise regarding Frank West (Dead Rising), this article has been proposed merger for a long time with no one really doing anything about it (I'm afraid of mucking up the actual merger myself), with a new editor determined not to wait for a resoultion. However now on viewing the article, everything that can be said about this character Frank West can and IS said in the main Dead Rising article section and overall context. Since we have an standalone article that covers everything that's covered in the short paragraph at the Dead Rising article, wouldn't deletion be better? Just trying to get a feel for the best course of action from more experienced editors. Parjay 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wait for a resolution"? The merge proposal has been around for ten months. You yourself admit this by saying "this article has been proposed merger for a long time." Is ten months long enough for you? The merger failed. - Throw 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the point I'm making is deletion; everything that can be said about Frank is covered already in the main article. Parjay 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is merely a content fork, then deletion is warranted. Mergers do not fail if there is a lack of responses; proposed mergers (when proposal is even necessary - it often isn't) can be carried out after a week or so if there are no objections. What sometimes halts the process is nominating editors who forget that they proposed it in the first place. Adrian M. H. 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What is considered "lack of responses"? The current tally is two oppose and one support. This is after ten months of the very first merger notice. - Throw 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There are more than just "two oppose and one support", several people express that they feel it should be merged despite wether they wrote the actual word "oppose/for". Besides, can you give us any good reason why there should be double content? The main game article covers everything about Frank that his standalone does, and nothing can be added to the standalone that wouldn't be OR or fancruft. Adrian, thanks for your input. Indeed the nominating editor seems to have forgotten. Since this article is a content fork and should be deleted, how and what are the best steps toward this? Parjay 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
AFD. If you have never done an AFD, I can set it up for you if you like, although I'd like to see the articles first to check the full picture. Generally speaking, any opposition to a merger proposal is enough to at least delay the procedure and require a bit of discussion. It's seems quite rare to get any opposition, in my experience. Adrian M. H. 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have looked over those two articles plus Carlito Keyes (which is relevant to what approach you choose) and there is some content in the character article that is not duplicated - though admittedly just a description of his appearance, but I know these things are important to Wikipedia's game fanatics. I would suggest that, if you want to do anything with these articles, you would have to propose a merge for both character articles. If you choose that route, give it a week or so, discuss as necessary and see what consensus you get. If you don't get any consensus, you'll have to just leave them, making a bold merger will probably trigger a revert war or something. It's the presence of the Carlito Keyes article that really complicates matters, because whatever you propose for the main character's article would logically have to extend to that article as well, as a secondary character. Deletion as a content fork is out, because the consensus will be to merge! And a bold merger will.... I'll leave the decision up to you. Adrian M. H. 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will propose a merger on both articles. Regarding the Carlito Keyes article, it is nothing but fancruft, a detailed story breakdown that is covered in the main Dead Rising article anyhow. Also, another editor is putting together a clothing/appearance section regarding Frank in the Dead Rising article so that will be covered there soon too. Actually, now that I think of it, when that editor adds that content then the Frank West article will be once again a fork, won't it? Perhaps it would be best to wait until the main article content reflects this one piece of info and then go by the way of AFD? Again, thanks for the input and sorry for all the questions, just want to get this done right. Parjay 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Post back if you get stuck with anything. Adrian M. H. 22:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for EL spamming

Resolved. WP:SPAM. --Aarktica 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked from Editing. I was sent this message:

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Degu. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. VanTucky 00:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting a link for a product that saves pets lives is not spamming. I posted this link and it keeps getting deleted: http://www.brisky.com/8/354


Here is the subject I posted it on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degu

It even states in the article that improper diet can kill this small pet. When I posted a link to inform Degu owners about a proven formulated diet to save pets lives, it was deleted. This is supposed to be about information, not advertising. I do not represent Brisky, but this is important information for the care of this hard to care for specialized animal.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.255.177 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2007

Your link is commercial, and therefore unacceptable per Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. WP:EL and WP:NOT apply here. Posting a link to a product is spamming, regardless of whether that product is beneficial. While your apparent good intention to inform is laudable, it is largely irrelevant in this instance. Adrian M. H. 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be beared in mind that "spamming" has a different interpretation when it comes to Wikipedia. --Deryck C. 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)