Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Inappropriate deletion of Entries 2 Gratuitous product plug on a talk page 3 Advise on 2 Articles 4 Tears for Fears site linkage 5 talk:eucharist 6 Foreign language OR 7 it is noted that the section needs more references... 8 Leon Youngboy 9 Unbalanced portrayal of Iran and the NPT 10 Challenging article material 11 Should Wiki articles lead the reader to a correct conclusion? 12 Unnecessary (IMO) category changes 13 Reliability of unsigned encyclopaedia articles 14 RAK Men's College 15 The 16th amendment 16 Need assistance in relation of article on Geo TV 17 Mediation with POV editor loading attacks against in biography of living person 18 Garrigues disambiguation . . . 19 Ed O'Loughlin Entry 20 Editor assistance on Joseph Schlessinger 21 UNIVAC Solid State 80-90 Computer 22 Possible targeting of my posts by an editor / administrator 23 Annonymous Edit War 24 MOSIX article 25 George Biondo 26 My Son Banned on Roblox - Question (Thanks) 27 St. Colman's College 28 Trivia Vs Pop Cultural References 29 Sam 30 WP:RPC and 2 Issue by topic areas. 31 EUSA - link to blog 32 wp:civil question 33 Kenny Brown 34 Roberto De Luna 35 William M. Branham 36 BEING VANDALISED, AT Clan Grierson, please help 37 Spam link on Immigration to Germany 38 Please help with moving a page 39 Engineering 40 Fraternal Order of Moai page deleted unfairly 41 AC/DC - genre dispute 42 Persistant point of view in video games 43 Non-Neutral Administrator 44 Assistance Request 45 article on: bed wikipedia 46 Reverting a clear violation of Wiki policies - am I going to run into WP:3RR problems? 47 Craig Field 48 "Jacob Klock" content dispute 49 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_E._Nolan (I think you were punked) 50 Reverting 51 Need help with a page, from cd50. 52 Synovate 53 Songs of Jimmy Webb 54 Please assist 55 Trouble adding to the 'Further reading' sections 56 changing logo on page 57 Kaplan University Page 58 is this comment on a talk page really vandalism 59 Mortgage Insurance Reroute to "Mortgage" 60 Information replaced by spam 61 Persistient problems with a hostile editor 62 My article on the Wat Buddharangsi was deleted 63 Hi, I'm in a bit of a minor struggle with another editor

Inappropriate deletion of Entries

Over the past few months, User:JzG has repeatedly deleted a handful of quality entries, which I assisted in seeding and starting. Amongst the entries that JzG deleted are Travelport, Jeff Clarke and Gordon Wilson. After the three entries were recreated by Wikipedia users, I participated in editing them to include many of the factual items from the original entry, only to have JzG delete the latter two entries for a second time. I've made an effort to make a case for the entries and get a clearer sense of why they were deleted without process but his responses were not helpful nor did they address any of the issues at hand. While I fully understand why people with a personal stake are discouraged from some levels of participation, I feel that I have followed all the guidelines, made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and done so with complete transparency to facilitate open discussion in the event of a disagreement over merit or content. Per the dispute resolution guidelines, I backed away from the situation with JzG for a bit. I'd like some assistance from other editors to solve this disagreement before, as was the case previously, the entries are replaced with lower quality placeholders. Thank you. TP kelli 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a first step, I suggest that you recreate those two articles in your sandbox, so that others can read and evaluate. I have to say even without reading them, just from seeing so many other articles about companies and their officers, that all three probably should be deleted. What you deserve is a good explanation of why they should be deleted. Here's how to create your sandbox and articles inside them: Make a wikilink to the non-existent pages, then click and start editing. Here's your User:TP kelli/sandbox. When you edit there, add links to the subarticles, e.g. [[/Gordon Wilson]]. Then you can click those redlinks to make those pages. Sbowers3 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (and thanks for your message on my wall). I've placed the articles in my sandbox, and it would be great if you and others could look over them and provide some feedback and make some edits. Despite their deletion, I really feel these entries have merit and deserve thoughtful consideration. Thanks again. TP kelli 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Three points (some of my points may be more valid than the others, so bear with me).

1. Your photograph is not free. Unless you get the owner of the copyright to donate the image (release the image under a free license) it will be deleted. Permission to use images is generally not enough.
2. You're writing about a company that you have a vested interest in: "Editors proposing to write about ... their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors."
3. Your articles are not neutral. You need to have something more than "this guy is great". There doesn't necessarily need to be a controversy, but there does need to be both sides (or all sides) of the story. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous product plug on a talk page

Plug added to Talk:Instant messaging manager. I'm inclined to remove it, or at least the sentence where the product is mentioned, but I was once chastised for "page blanking" someone's racist comments on a talk page. Thoughts? --CliffC 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

the relevant page says: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Go ahead and remove it and make sure to explain what you're doing (and link to WP:TALK) in your edit summary. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing such a short comment might not be worth the controversy. I searched Wikipedia for presensoft.com, and notice there was a small-scale spam attempt in March, 2007, that was quickly undone. If whoever left the new comment can find reliable sources to show that his company's product is important, then he should have a chance to make the case. (It may seem unlikely, but it's possible). EdJohnston 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Advise on 2 Articles

Recently, I've encountered a user that is hell bent on reverting edits. The first article is on Vanessa Angel. He/she keepings editing my changes due to "poorly cited" references (their words). Granted, some info on Angel is hard to find so I did resort to IMDb which I've since changed, so that might be a dead issue, but they also keep deleting info in the infobox (birth name, spouse, etc). Is that information not suppose to be included in the infobox? I've seen plenty of biographies that have that info included so I don't get why the keep deleting it. They don't give a reason for it either. I've contacted them on their talk page and even suggested starting a consensus over it, but they don't answer. Another issue is on the Jayne Mansfield page. I'm not personally involved in that edit war, but while checking external links during my WP:WPEL duties, I noticed that they keep deleting a fan site that seem perfectly acceptable to me (external link section is not too long, site is dedicated to Mansfield, etc). Supposedly, the unofficial site is approved by Mansfield's family and has had approval to be listed. So far, they've repeatedly reverted the edits when someone adds it back. They've reverted that edit about four times. I don't know all the guidelines for Wikipedia and I'm basically going on things I've seen on other articles so, any suggestion on how to deal with this is greatly appreciated. Pinkadelica 11:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit tired as I write this, so I don't want to go through diffs and so on, but take a look at 3RR and EW and see if they are helpful to you. You're right to avoid using the IMDb: it is acknowledged not to be a reliable source. Adrian M. H. 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pinkadelica! Welcome, and let me add to Adrian's response. Indeed, IMDB is not a reliable, third party source, so cannot be used as a reference to items in articles. There is a template to place it in the external links, {{IMDB}}, and that already exists on that article. I'll remove the refs. As I'm unfamiliar with the Angel article, I don't know the reason for the reverting over birth name, etc., from the infobox, I'd suggest that you make a post on the article's talk page, if you have not done so already, and request other editor's opinions. I do not see why any editor would remove birth date and such from the infobox, unless it is not confirmed by a reliable source, in which case it is valid to remove it. Finally, the biographies of living persons policy applies here, so all information needs valid, reliable sources, or it can be removed. I'm sure this person has been written about widely by news media, so it should not be that difficult to find some good sources. As far as the other article, again I'd just suggest that a note on the editor's talk page be placed explaining why the link is valid, link to the conversation on Valrith's page, and add it back in, with an edit summary explaining it. I'd also suggest making a note on the article's talk page. If an editor refuses to discuss issues, there is not a lot you can do to force them to respond, except to document your actions on the article's talk page, and assuming the site is not a sales site, or something (if you're a WPEL member, I am assuming you're quite familiar with WP:EL), then I see no reason not to have it in the links section. If the editor reverts more than 4 times in 24 hours, report it to the 3RR noticeboard, per the directions there. If you have any further questions, let me know! Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tears for Fears site linkage

I'm getting frustrated with this. People are getting way too angry, and I'm not even sure I'm as level headed as I think I am. Over at Tears for Fears there is an edit war going on over a website linkage. I've made some comments on the talk page, but stopped doing any editing as I'm unsure what the actual rule is in this case. Some help from cooler heads might help. Thanks! Rabidwolfe 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites are not appropriate External Links. They do not meet the WP:EL guidelines, no matter how much said fans want to argue that they do. Collectonian 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question at hand, if you read the dialouge, is if one site in particular really is a fan site. Besides, the WP:EL guidelines do not include a blanket ban on all fan websites. All it says is sites with certain features are "normally to be avoided", which implies there can be (rare) exceptions. At the very least, how do we determine if something really is a "fan site" at all? One of the commentators claims the site in dispute isn't a fan site at all. AT this point, it seems like all we have to do is label something as a "fan site" and it goes, regardless of whether the label is accurate. Rabidwolfe 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It self identifies as a fan site and the about us very plainly says it is run by one woman who is a "big fan." It may be official in that it is accepted by the band, but it is still a fan site. You are right, the WP:EL guidelines do not specifically ban them (though I honestly believe it should), but they also aren't specifically allowed. :-P It may be something to also bring up there, as well, the need to clarify that. I just noticed though, that in the argument, you also are having the actual webmaster trying to argue for their site (WP:COI violation if they are the one who added the link in the first place). Collectonian 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good evening to you both. If I might add something here, although I can see that there is no specific mention of fansites on WP:EL I believe that they are covered sufficiently in Personal Web Pages (#12 in the "links to be avoided" section) and therefore would contravene Wiki policy. I do accept that #12 in that list might benefit from some minor rewording though in order to clarify the point further. Kookoo Star 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

over at the talk page for WP:EL - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links - I am told there is not a blanket ban on fan sites, and that if (IF) a site can pass muster, it is okay. Unless told otherwise by TPTB, that seems right to me. Rabidwolfe 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you already have been told by TPTB in this very message thread that that fan site in particular does not pass muster. Furthermore, back over in the talk page for WP:EL which you just quoted, they have also stated quite clearly the problems with copyrighted information on fansites. This isn't just about the band's own images/music/videos, but also to copies of press releases and audio interviews from radio stations (this has already been pointed out in the original discussion). Kookoo Star 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about whether the talk page over at WP:EL supports the inclusion of the fan site in question. I am reassured that, despite your (and other's) claims, there is no blanket ban on fan sites. Whether that applies to the TFF site or not, I'm still not sure. But in my 00:55, 14 November 2007 statement, I was making no claims about any particular site one way or the other. Rabidwolfe 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

talk:eucharist

I'm trying to talk out differences but believe I'm getting trolled. Could someome with time on his hands check out the recent colloquys at Talk:Eucharist? If someone could give an independent look at the validity of the applications of the No Original REsearch, Reliable Source, Common Knowledge and Verifiability canons, I would much appreciate it. Eschoir 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is exceedingly difficult to make heads or tails of what you have copied/pasted here. Would you instead, please provide links, diffs to relevant issues, and explain what the problem is, in your own words? Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 06:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Eschoir had simply pasted the whole section from Talk:Eucharist#Eschoir - his table. I've removed the wall of text, as anyone can read it simply by going to the page. GlassCobra 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, yes that's much easier on the eyes to see it in its "native environment" lol. Thanks dear GC! Ariel♥Gold 07:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my first foray in dispute resolution. Eschoir 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that TCC has been assisting you, which is good. If TCC wasn't already involved, I would have suggested a 3O to start with. The comment "The question whether Matthew and Mark call their meal Passover is common knowledge, nobody challenges it and doesn't have to be sourced." caught my eye in particular; it is hardly common knowledge according to either my or WP's interpretation of that term and therefore needs a citation. Adrian M. H. 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(<-)TCC can be a great assistance. He is widely respected. You may wish to consult Pastordavid as well if he's available. He's good with religion article conflict resolution.Majoreditor 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful-a straight answer. Thank you, adrian. By citation, I read you to say in instances where there is not consensus reached among editors, and the information is not common knowledge, reference is necessary to a source other than the editor's interpretation of the Primary source, but you could mean something else.

Either citation like 1) "God hates the world (see John 3:16)"

or 2) "God hates the world (See Nietzsche, Friedrich, On John 3:16 Der Froelichen Wissenschaft, 1872)

1) seems like OR to me Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here, but let me interject. "God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would be OR in most contexts, because it is a statement on God. However, "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says. Pastordavid (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am mighty appreciative for the response. I point out to you the twist in my example, which raises another issue. "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says. What would it be, then, given that it is a ludicrous statement about what John says that is 180 degrees from the actual obvious explicit meaning of 3:16, and would certainly be contested? Forgive me if these questions seem elementary - I am a lawyer and if there were a place to look up caselaw I would go there first and search the precedents. Eschoir (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, in which case the proper response would be to insert the text of J 3:16, and let the text speak for itself without any interpretation. If the meaning of the primary text is obvious, "John says X", then it is not likely to be disputed. If it is disputed, then the text should speak for itself or any interpretation should be that of a reliable source - not the wikipedia editors. Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language OR

Under what circumstances is it OR for an editor with no language training to opine about the derivation and meaning of foreign words referring as his source an online lexicon? Eschoir 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir may not be referring to his insistence on 20 October 2007 that it be proved that "ὁ υἰὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means "the son of God" (cf. this edit). It would be helpful if he would indicate at what point he was referring as his source to an online lexicon. Lima 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima carries his edit war to a second front. I don't know what he is asking, if he is asking anything. I don't believe I have ever used an online lexicon as a source, hence my question about the legitimacy of such a citation.

And what do you suppose is up with the he reference?Eschoir (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for intervening. I just thought that the abstract way in which the question was put made it difficult to answer. This further intervention is only to apologize for intervening against Eschoir's wishes, to explain that, by "he", I meant "he himself", and to assure that I will say no more on the matter. Lima (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you google the term online lexicon you'll see a Biblical Greek lexicon which may help. I've seen editors use them before. Majoreditor (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir, you can also try searching on the romanized term -- several sites show it and its variants as "son of God" [1].

Is there some alternate translation? Ask InfernoXV or Pastordavid.

(Lima, perhaps Eschoir is objecting to the assumption of gender in your choice of pronouns.) Majoreditor (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, but my question involves interpretations of the Original Research rule rather than a search for lexicons.

Is an editor without special language training or expertise, who, when confronted with a controversial Primary Source text in a foreign language, uses an online lexicon to translate each word of the text and cobble together his own translation of the passage, citing the lexicon, rather than a published secondary source, engaging in Original Research?

Eschoir (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the lexicon shows both the word or phrase and the rendered translated on the same page then it is a secondary source since there is no synthesis or OR. Personally, I prefer not to use online lexicons when providing in-line citations, but other editors employ them and, to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, the practice isn't forbidden. Majoreditor (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, you conclude that if the lexicon doesn't show both the phrase and the rendered translated on the same page then it is not a secondary source and it is synthesis and OR. Eschoir (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to see the specific issue before reaching a conclusion. I'd probably take a different course of action and reach out for a third opinion on the translation before doing anything else. There have been unfortunate instances when tendentious editors have attempted to wiki-lawyer translations needlessly; these situations often end badly. A third opinion from one or more uninvolved parties is a good way to avoid that kind of circumstance and reach consensus. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual translation of "ὁ υἰὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" is "the Son of God." If a citation is needed for a lexicon that uses that exact phrase, see Danker, Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)(BDAG) υἰὸς, def: 2.d.β. BDAG is the academic standard for koine period Greek, and uses exactly this phrase as "the Son of God." There is, of course, a minority position that translates this phrase as "a son of God", namely the Jehovah's Witness tradition in the New World Translation. This runs counter to every other translation of the NT, and represents a small minority of translators. "ὁ" is the definite article - "the" - and while the Greek uses the definite article in some situations that we would not, the broad stream of translation history agrees that this is not one of those situations. Pastordavid (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is getting substantive, whereas my question was originally procedural. I will take my substantive question to talk:pastordavid. Thanks! Eschoir (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

it is noted that the section needs more references...

Spreadsheet

i added more details regarding the world's first electronic spreadsheet - LANPAR

i am the co-inventor and have articles and proof to substantiate everything i have said there

on my website, for example, www.renepardo.com i link to an article from AT&T news from 1971 which refers to the spreadsheet

i have all the original manuals, as well as the presentation which i gave to 18 vice presidents of the operating telephone companies and AT&T in 1971

what more references do i need to provide?

rene pardo <phone number removed> toronto cell anytime

warm regards,

rene

i love your wikipedia by the way - outstanding. <e-mail address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.82.161 (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2007

First, welcome, but your personal information has been removed for your own privacy. Allow me to direct you to a few relevant policies and guidelines. First the conflict of interest guideline, which says you should not create or edit articles about yourself, your company, product, family or friends, as you'd be unlikely to edit neutrally. Neutrality is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and is quite important for an encyclopedia. Second, reliable, third-party sources mean sources unrelated to the company or product. Things like personal websites, blogs, unreliable websites, etc., do not do fact-checking, and are not reliable sources. Reliable sources are things like media articles, professional journal articles, and the like. Original material falls under original research and cannot be used in articles. Manuals are also, not reliable sources, and presentations you've made would also not fall under reliable sources. You will need to find news articles, from reputable publications, to verify the information you wish to add. I hope this helps you understand why your edits are being removed. I'd suggest that instead of editing the article, you instead go to the article's talk page, and discuss the issues there. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Leon Youngboy

Hi I was posting a article about the history of this 1st Asian American Latin freestyle and a editor kept on taking it down,, than I sent him or her proof by telling them to go to

Take a look at the Hoy newspaper article dated January 13,2006 page 30 Take a look at the Chinese World Journal dated November 29, 2005 page E3 Take a look at El Diario article dated May 11 2005 page34 Take a look at The Sino American Times dated Dec. 16, 2005.

Even with the proof they won't release the article.

Somebody help me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Answer8 (talk • contribs)

I have alerted User:Scientizzle of your concern, and have asked him to reply. BTW, it isn't appropriate to ask for another Wikipedian's email, especially to send him articles. If you have sources to add, add them. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left another message to this editor explaining simply that all he or she needs to do is add sources to the article. All I did was propose the article for deletion (after declining a speedy deletion) because there were (and still aren't in the article) and cited sources to meet WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I'm not going to give this editor my mailing address or email address for any reason. — Scientizzle 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be watching the page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. — Scientizzle 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's up at AfD. Can't say I disagree, see my comment there. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced portrayal of Iran and the NPT

In the page on the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," the section on the "third pillar" states in part: "Controversy can arise when a state claims it is pursuing enrichment for peaceful purposes but has no reactors that require enriched uranium fuel, as is the case in North Korea and Iran." That is passive-voice editorializing, and factually backwards.

I provided links documenting that N Korea has had a small Uranium reactor for some time, and that Iran is halfway finished building a Uranium-fueled reactor with Russian help. Unfortunately the page quickly reverted to how it was before I edited it.

Similarly, in another location it states "Iran violated its NPT safeguards agreement by pursuing uranium enrichment in secret..."

Each of those points remain in dispute, and it is not the role of a wikipedia writer to determine what is a violation of a the NPT unless the case is clear-cut. Uranium enrichment is Iran's right under the NPT. Under the rules of the IAEA in force at the time in question, Iran was under no obligation to disclose much of its work related to Uranium enrichment.

I'm somewhat new to the wikipedia community, so any guidance and help to positively resolve this matter with neutral language would be appreciated.

Some of my version of the text appears below...

---

Iran started construction of uranium enrichment facilities without declaring them, consistant with the IAEA safeguard agreements in force at the time (see http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/21/stories/2005092105231000.htm ). The United Nations Security Council then passed a resolution ordering Iran to suspend its enrichment-related activity (see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm ), illegally revoking Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy. The United States and some members of the European Union have accused Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, which would be in violation of article II of the NPT. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the agency's head said that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons (see http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071028/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsiaeaus_071028162940 ).

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had corrected gaps in its reporting to the IAEA. The IAEA wrote that "To date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme." ^[1] Yet in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, citing Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, declared that Iran was in non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.^[2] The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.^[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhcatsteve (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 November 2007

Challenging article material

I have been requesting inline references on an article World War II Online for claims made in the Damage Model section and it looks like I've already made some mistakes on the discussion page by adding specific policy language about what are acceptable references. Although I initially deleted the material after awhile it was added back, this time with references. The links given are to a pay only web forum for the game itself. I think I've been doing the right things (stepped away from it, given time etc.) but maybe with the wrong tone. I have expanded the reasons for challenging the material on the discussion page of the article and now with two specific editors over on the Wiki Video game project pages. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you. Awotter (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong in outlining the requirements; you have handled that perfectly acceptably. Fora are certainly not reliable sources by any sensible definition, whether independent of the subject or not. One comment in particular shows a deep lack of comprehension of WP:N – "Do you realize how little attention this game gets outside of just it's [sic] forums [sic]? It gets very little." Editors must know that they need to work within the realms of verification, omitting material that cannot be supported, and they have to establish notability, which is not deemed to be inherent in this subject area. Stick with it, if possible. Adrian M. H. 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Should Wiki articles lead the reader to a correct conclusion?

Editorial comment is solicited on the accuracy and NPOV implications of this declaration: (Wiki articles) should indeed lead to a conclusion, as should any informative article. It should lead the readers to a correct conclusion about what the current state of knowledge is on a subject, and not distract them with irrelevancies or mislead them with discredited theories. Eschoir (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First, NPOV applies to articles, not to discussion. As to the accuracy of the statement, I would need to see it in context. Pastordavid (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary (IMO) category changes

Could someone please take a look at what this editor is up to? I asked on his talk page for an explanation of this but received no reply. His goal seems to be to take categorization down to more granular levels, of state or town, and he's made scores of edits today, in some cases introducing ambiguities as well. At least a few other editors have registered their objections, saying it better than I can here. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A similar swath is now being cut by this editor, probably the same person, he started editing two hours after the other one stopped. Is this part of some official Wikipedia project? I don't see the value in categories with only four members like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Vancouver%2C_Washington or ones like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_the_Portland_metropolitan_area. Maybe it's a good thing but I just don't recognize it. This edit might be the key to his thinking, I can't tell for sure since there are hundreds of edits but zero edit summaries, and no reply to a talk-page question. If these changes are legitimate I'd like some admin to say so. --CliffC (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of a rule of thumb that 3 articles was enough to start a category. In any event, I think Xnatedawgx correctly changed the city-category for Clearwire. Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of unsigned encyclopaedia articles

WP:NOR says the following: "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources."

Does this mean that "articles not signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can not be regarded as reliable sources?

Separate question: can a Wiki article be a reliable source for another Wiki article? Eschoir (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The easy one first: No, a Wikipedia article can not be a reliable source for another Wikipedia article, mainly because we have no expert peer review process, and because anyone can edit at anytime. Although the overall quality, i.e. comprehensiveness and accuracy, of featured articles can be considered fairly high, even those articles may contain unnoticed ommissions or errors because we have no process of expert review.

With regard to unsigned articles in other encyclopedias: The staff of print encyclopedias is usually made up of experts. Even though the individual entry may not be signed by an author, encyclopedias like e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica or Brockhaus Enzyklopädie can safely be assumed to be reliable by our standards. |dorftrottel |humor me 12:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think your interpretation is correct. Unsigned articles in encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica are not considered to be as reliable as signed articles and information from such a source ought to be reinforced by a more authoritative source. For example see the section in Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Impact of the attack "Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's incorrect retracted estimates." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that such a case pertains to WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For the average, uncontroversial information, we can generally assume that EB is sufficiently reliable. Of course, a signed text by an expert is generally better, but the question was "Does this mean that "articles not signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can not be regarded as reliable sources?" - The answer, I maintain, is: Yes, in most cases they can. We can't just assume that EB articles are a priori unreliable, even though there do of course exist some bad apples.

Consider that ignorance towards our policies on original research and a simple formulation (part of NPOV) pose far greater problems with regard to accuracy. Citing a source in an untruthful manner (as happens very frequently) is far worse than innocuously citing a figure from EB before someone else comes along and puts those figures into perspective with an even more authoritative source. |dorftrottel |humor me 14:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The firszt question you've asked is predicated on a logical fallacy, to wit: I tell you that all dachshunds are dogs. Does that then mean that animals that are not dachshunds can not be dogs? No. The set of all reliable sources includes articles in specialised encyclopedias signed by an expert. That fact says absolutely nothing about the rest of the set of reliable sources. It speaks only of the intersection of those two sets. See what I mean? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're replying to the exact formulation of the question rather than answering the question itself, which is quite an interesting and relevant one. There's another fallacy. |dorftrottel |humor me 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To go back to the NOR statement of whether "For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources": That statement (and indeed all of that section except for the concluding sentence) can be ignored since it subverts and dilutes the value of the principles outlined in reliable sources (WP:RS).

While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using general encyclopedias, it is crucial to understand that - from the specialist's point of view - general encyclopedias are not reliable sources at all. This is not because they are unsigned (as WP:NOR is implying), but because general encyclopedias sometimes simplify matters to the point of inaccuracy or even falsehood; and because individual articles are not dated and do not cite their sources and are not peer-reviewed and are - due to long update cycles in some disciplines - sometimes outdated. These are serious reliability issues that cannot be compensated for even if articles are signed.

Inversely, signing does not enhance reliability when other reliable sources (WP:RS) issues fail. A typical example of such a source is the Catholic encyclopedia, the articles of which are signed, but not necessarily reliable.

Be also aware that the concept of good scholarship and (building) good reputation are unknown to very many WP editors, to whom then a name (and thus reputation and integrity) of a source's author are irrelevant.

'dorftrottel' (who is evidently very smart and not a trottel at all :-) is also quite correct to point out that a knowledgeable person can put general encyclopedia-cited statements into perspective. Sadly however, the knowledgeable person will often have to fight the editors who draw on those sources. If this happens to you, don't let it get to you.

Btw: The "exceptional claims" clause is only effective when editors are capable of recognizing the exceptional. Unfortunately (in my experience), most editors who cite general encyclopedias are incapable of doing so.

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think unsigned encyclopedia articles can generally be treated as reliable sources, so long as they are not contradicted by more reliable sources. Obviously if you had two encyclopedia articles, one signed, and one unsigned, you should rely on the signed one, other factors being equal. The point about biased sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, or out of date sources, like the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition must be considered as well. Often you should be able to find a more reliable source than an encyclopedia, but if that is all you have, by all means reference it. Dhaluza (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is an interesting case. There seem to be two P.D. editions floating about, labled 1915 and 1939, maybe identical (it would be amusing if the edition dates were fudged). Its conservative bias is an advertising and marketing point. Eschoir (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RAK Men's College

HI there, my name is Stephen R. Pellerine and I'm wondering how to get a page back up on Wikipedia? Our college was in the process of making a page RAK Mens college and we are not really sure where we wen't wrong. The development was good for juat about a week - but voila, something is obviously wrong. The article is down.

Wondering what we did wrong?

Thanks a million for your support.

Kind regards

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by HCTProjectDay (talk • contribs)

Could you provide a specific name for the article you were working on? I just went through several variations of "RAK Mens college" and couldn't even find a deletion log. It's likely the article was deleted for some reason, but the deletion log would give the reasoning. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I found it.

18:06, 17 November 2007 Natalie Erin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ras Al Khaimah Men's College" ‎ (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement here.

So, there you go: you may want to ask Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) for her reasoning; if there's an issue with the deletion, you may want to go to deletion review and ask for editors to review the situation there. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The 16th amendment

I appear to be at odds with famspear on this issue.

in several sections omission give the wrong impression

It is posted:

Income taxation of wages, etc. The courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[

This is of course patently false wording

It should read allows a direct tax on income derived from wages salaries.

Interpretation

The Amendment—which overrules the effect of Pollock[18] -- essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.

and this passage should read tax on incomes derived from what ever source.

Excluding these key words entirely changes the percieved meaning of these sentences.

To say tax on income from any source is patently false.

Furthermore this is the kind of response i get from him when i make statements in discussion

Famspear:

No, the document does not say anything about a "tax on the National Government."

I believe that this may be the wording of the Taft message: “I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.”

In other words, the protesters read just the words "conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government" and ignore the rest of the sentence. the rest of this sentence bears no relevance to the meaning of it. Conferring “the power to levy an income tax” upon the National Government is not the same as the bluntly goofy idea of proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the National Government to levy an income tax upon the National Government itself.

Taft obviously never did any such thing. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is well-documented. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

so clearly he says no it doesnt say that then turns around and says the exact same thing.

this appears to me to be dishonest and decietful on his part to alter the context of statements to his liking and his liking only.

Implying i am a protestor for wishing the text to be factually accurate to me is childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lojack12b (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 November 2007

Need assistance in relation of article on Geo TV

I am needing some advice on what to do with the article about Geo TV, a Pakistani TV channel. I am unable to clean up the section about the station shutdown, which appears to have a copy-pasted news article about the station closure. Even if I do a clean-up, the clean-up gets reverted. Since I do not want to be engaged in the edit war, but at the same time, the article is against WP:NPOV policy, I decided to ask for assistance. Thanks in advance. Tarmo Tanilsoo (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not even one of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V (but it would be, had it been legitimately written). The main issue is that the entire text in the section had been copied verbatim from http://www.hindu.com/nic/geo.htm, which is clearly inacceptable. I've reinstated the concise version and introduced the Hindu.com article as an additional reference.[2] |dorftrottel |humor me 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation with POV editor loading attacks against in biography of living person

See Article: "David Reardon" Discussion: "Pro-Life Activist"

Despite the fact that there are already criticim sections for this biography, the anonymous editor continues to insert out of place and POV inferences in the opening paragraph of this biography and has little or no sense of Wikipedia rules.

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 November 2007

I've tagged it for Neutrality, just to let everyone know. I've noticed you haven't addressed the IP directly on their talk page. Please do so, and let us know what happens. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues disambiguation . . .

I have redesigned the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and would like the Search box to go directly to it rather than to a subsidiary page title Garrigues. How is that done? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean redirect? They seem to refer to different things, so that wouldn't be appropriate. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my. Did I use the wrong term? Well, whatever term is used, how does one use the Search box to go directly to the Garrigues (disambiguation) page rather than to a subsidiary page Garrigues that refers only to a county in Spain, which I suppose is a nice place but which most folks searching for the term garrigues would find rather marginal? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "search box" goes, by default, to the article with the exact name one types. If one types Garrigues, it takes you to the page by that name. The only way to accomplish what you describe would be to rename (move) the pages to the names you want. Firstly, you would move the Garrigues page to something like Garrigues, Spain and then move the Garrigues (disambiguation) page to Garrigues. None of this should be done, however, without posting to the talk page of both articles telling editors what you suggest doing. Only after a full discussion or, at last, providing ample opportunity for discussion, should you attempt such a move. In general, the principle is that the base name should be at the page that is most likely to be searched for. If most people entering Garrigues want the Spanish county, that should be the default but there should be a prominent {{dablink|Garrigues (disambiguation)}} at the top... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave, for the help. I will pose the problem to the various Garrigues pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, mon ami. Just for clarity's sake, you don't need to conduct separate discussions at each of the pages. What I'd do is start a renaming discussion at the base (Talk:Garrigues) page and just point to it by way of a note on the other talk page(s). Happy editing. If there's anything else you think we can help you with, please feel free to post back at your leisure. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ed O'Loughlin Entry

Ed O'Loughlin is the Middle East correspondent for the Fairfax newspapers. His reporting of the news has been extremely controversial.

There is world-wide criticism of his journalistic practices. Studies have been undertaken to determine whether he is being fair to the subjects of his stories or whether he is taking a stance. I believe that any wikipedia entry on O'Loughlin needs to allude to his performance or it would be overlooking the very essence of his noteriety. His proponents have every opportunity to make their position in this bio. without repeatedly and without explanation entering a deletion war.I feel that they are vandalising the article in order to suppress a valid, reasoned, alternative view on O'Loughlin. Any attempts of mine to explain my position and clarify why others are deleting in "discussion" are not responded to.

I am new to this mechanism of Wikipedia so please forgive me if this format or presentation is not correct.

Please advise, please help

Adon Emmet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.92.25 (talk) 05:10-06:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember that every single thing you say about a person, especially a living person, needs to be scrupulously sourced. Accuracy needs to be paramount. It's no good to say that "common knowledge says 'X'" or that "some critics have said 'Y'" unless you can point to reliable sources that have said precisely 'X' and 'Y'. I'll give you an example of a problematic statement from the current O'Loughlin page. The article says

"The content of his reportage has been studied. A detailed analysis of his compliance with independent standards of journalism has been published by Media Study Group [1]. This is the only in-depth study into O'Loughlin's work and is noteworthy for its scrupulous methodology. It has revealed a clear and undeniable pattern of advocacy journalism. Mr O'Loughlin disputes these findings of bias in certain of his articles but no authoritative refutation to them has yet been provided."

The reference at [1] (which should point to the actual article which, I presume, is at http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/reports/-The_Age-_Newspaper_Study_(pdf).asp and not at the page the reference points to) , however, is not, strictly speaking, a detailed analysis of O'Loughlin's reportage. It is a detailed analysis of reporting at The Age about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are more reporters at The Age than O'Loughlin and there is also more reportage going on than about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The study, which I have just now read more-or-less in its entirety, does not make any conclusions at all about O'Loughlin's work but makes conclusions about the reportage at The Age. The only real evidence in there specifically about O'Loughlin's reporting is in the table that compares the various reporters and where it is shown that the rate of problematic statements in articles under O'Loughlin's byline is slightly higher than the average for the paper. The wording and the reference really need to be tightened up to make it 100% bulletproof. The following sentences in the article are completely unreferenced. If we want to say that O'Loughlin disputes something, we have to provide a reference to where O'Loughlin disputed it. If we want to say that no authoritative refutation is provided, we need to reference somewhere where precisely that is said. These are just a few of the problems I see with the article. Remember, at all times, that the criterion for inclusion of a statement in Wikipedia is not whether or not the statement is true but whether or not we can provide verification for the statement by way of references from reliable sources. It might be helpful for all involved in the dispute to review those policies and guidelines as well as that at BLP. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page, removing anything not rigorously sourced or inadequately sourced. Whilst there, I undertook a general cleanup and correctly formatted the references. All editors need to be aware of WP:BLP. That's an official WIkipedia policy and is entirely non-negotiable. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance on Joseph Schlessinger

Could you take a look at the page on Joseph Schlessinger when you get the chance? It looks like either Joseph Schlessinger or a representative of his keeps deleting select sections of his page, not reporting an even balance of the facts. (i.e. keeps deleting anything perceived as negative even though the page is 90% positive PR and anything which might be perceived as negative is all the way at the bottom) The editing history speaks for itself. I believe the section is written pretty factually and would be interested in hearing a senior reviewer/editor's input.

What might work out best for this would be for soneone higher up to just make a decision on what to include or not include, and then lock the page for a specified period, as you see fit. Thanks in advance for looking into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

UNIVAC Solid State 80-90 Computer

I was the project engineer on this computer back in the mid-1950s. I have just written a paragraph about the development of the computer and is circuits. I would very much like to find others who were at Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation AKA Univac back then I don't think many of us are still around. I can be reached a e-mail redacted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Co-RegistrarL23 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 November 2007

It would be very hard to skim all of the users on Wikipedia to see who worked at that comany. You may want to pull out anything you might have that may contain a list of who worked there. From there, you can contact them directly. Sadly, Wikipedia has no good way for you to find people based on that kind of criteria. Sorry. Vistro (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible targeting of my posts by an editor / administrator

Can someone here assist me?

One of your editors / administrators (who goes by the name of 'shoeofdeath') has continually deleted my updates to the information on 'Multiracial', 'Mulatto' and 'Colorism'.

When asked 'why' this person has continually made this decision -- they continue to come up with the seemingly most 'petty' reasons imaginable for doing so.

For example, at one point they claimed they deleted my updates (which was an entire page of material, mind you) because they felt it contained more 'capital letters' than they preferred to see.

They then went to look at every single update that I had made on multiple topics and deleted them all -- again, for the most petty and baseless of reasons.

Just recently, after deleting, yet another entire -page update, they responded to my inquiry as to why this was done by falsely claiming that the update was a copy / paste of an entire journal article.

This was not in the least bit true.

In fact, the update merely contained a sentence or two from each journal listed (and also had footnotes making mention of each journal).

At this point, I honestly feel this individual is harassing me and simply does not my very well-supported data online at Wikipedia.

It seems this person (perhaps due to my rather familiar screen name) has some issue with the perspectives I have presented on this topic and is also abusing their position of authority in order to use any means necessary (including the most petty and baseless of reasons) to continue to delete my entire postings.

I would like to know if it would be possible to have some other administrator handle the editing / moderating of my posts sent to the pages on these particular topics.

If you'd like I can also forward the questions I have sent and responses I have received in regards to this matter of this individual continually deleting my entire posts and coming up with the most baseless, petty and superficial of excuses for doing so.

Any intervention that can be offered on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

AllPeople (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 209.244.31.165 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just picking one of your edits at random, to look at, I see a number of issues, and I'd revert you too if I saw the edit. First of all, you're changing the content of the Colorism article drastically, in this edit. Second, you're adding non-neutral, personal opinions, without reliable sources (groups.yahoo.com is not a reliable, third-party source, nor an appropriate external link) to verify information. You have removed the neutral article prose, and in place, put in what is basically POV original resarch, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and is against the core pillars of Wikipedia. As for this edit of: "wikipedia mods suck, go to uncyclopedia.org", well, I think that speaks for itself. This edit, and this edit, are also, unhelpful, unnecessary, and inappropriate. I'd say this admin is simply doing their duty, correcting your POV, unsourced edits, and removing the rest of your edits that are quite unhelpful. Now, I do notice that your IP is possibly shared by many users, and it is entirely possible that you didn't make some of the above edits. In that case, you simply will have to understand that there may be many, many other people using that particular IP, and I'd suggest simply creating an account to avoid warnings that were not for edits you've made. However, I'm guessing that you did make the Colorism edit since that's one you state in your complaint, and that edit is not something that's acceptable, for the reasons outlined above. If you would truly like to help, I'd strongly suggest that you review the basic policies and guidelines beforehand, and be quite careful to edit neutrally, and find valid, news sources/journals, etc., to back up statements you make. I think it would be helpful for you to also review what Wikipedia is not, and what Wikipedia is. Hope that helps explain the issues, Ariel♥Gold 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I notice you removed the IP address that you posted with, and put User talk:AllPeople, so I'll go ahead and assume that is your account. Your talk page explains fully the issues with your edits, by a number of editors, admins, or not. It also appears you've had a bit of trouble understanding that you cannot copy/paste information from other sites, as that is a violation of copyright policy, and for legal reasons, cannot be allowed. I'd again simply encourage you to familiarize yourself with policy, and understand that Wikipedia is not like many other sites. Additionally, I think shoeofdeath has shown patience, and kindness with her comments to you, providing you the relevant policies and guidelines to read to help you understand why he's removing your edits. Don't take it personally, he's trying to help you and realizes that you're new. Wikipedia can be pretty confusing at first, I think we all remember what it was like, but reading up on the basics will truly help you out in the future. Hope that helps, Ariel♥Gold 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This editor appears to need further assistance, especially considering the strange report on WP:AN/3RR. Does someone have the time, understanding and kindness to take on this task? I'm afraid I'm rather occupied with other matters. --Philosophus ^T 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Annonymous Edit War

I'm trying to fix the Briefs article. The In Popular Culture section is horrible, so i'm trying to clean it up, however 69.244.123.237 keeps undoing my edits. I'm not exactly positive on what to do, because he's anonymous and I can't warn him on his page. --Dan Leveille (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because the editor doesn't have an account, doesn't mean you cannot leave them a note on their talk page. Feel free to leave them your reasons for making the changes you are, and if necessary, give them links to guidelines (such as the manual of style, or WP:TRIVIA) that can help them understand why your edits are improving the article. Ariel♥Gold 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ArielGold, after warning the user about his behavior, [Special:Contributions/69.244.123.237|69.244.123.237]] is still undoing my edits. Would it be best to get the attention of a administrator at this point?

Usually you don't need to get the attention of an administrator so soon especially since it isn't vandalism. Since this is a content dispute (and not simple vandalism) you have to take great care not to revert too often. Try to discuss the problems on the talk page and the user's talk page. Try to engage this user and other editors. There is a template that you can place on his talk page: {{subst:uw-trivia}} which might explain your point of view in a standard way. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MOSIX article

Hello,

The MOSIX article was written by prof. Amnon Barak (to whom the trademark of MOSIX is registered) and me, about the MOSIX research project of the distributed computing lab at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel (see www.mosix.org for details).

The MOSIX article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSIX) has been constantly modified by a single user to include a refernce to another (commercial) project, with no good reason. I had confronted this user over the article discussion page, and offered to place a link to their article (it is duely noted their article can be found without the "help" of MOSIX, despite his claims, and is translated to more then half a dosen laguages...) - but to no avail.

The user insists not only on returning the unrelated content, but also to place it in the middle of the MOSIX article, violating content and style guidlines, and to my best knowledge - general wikipedia guidelines. I think the "openMosix" section has no place in the "MOSIX" article (not to mention it has it's own article), and should be removed (I added a link to their article in the links, and I believe it will suffice).

Respectfully, Margolin Alexander, MOSIX Lab, HUJI

128.139.226.34 (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your straightforwardness. However, please consider the applicable Wikipedia policies regarding conflicts of interest and ownership of articles. Problems can arise when, like in your case, people affiliated with a certain group or company edit the respective Wikipedia article. To comment directly on the subject matter, the addition of a short and referenced paragraph about OpenMOSIX appears to be a relevant and useful (if comparatively minor) addition to the article. |dorftrottel |humor me 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And... just as MOSIX warrant a mention at openMosix, so also does openMosix warrant a brief mention at MOSIX. openMosix is after all a fork, so even if the individuals involved are not connected to the other project, the respective articles are still related.

Remember that Wikipedia articles should attempt to be comprehensive. Use this to your advantage when describing the history of the project, where openMosix certainly deserves a mention. Ignoring openMosix would be like not referring to FreeBSD when speaking of BSD, or having a Sodipodi article that does not refer to Inkscape.

You could also, for example, alude to openMosix when describing the advances that MOSIX has made since it became closed source.

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

George Biondo

I have made some significant contributions to the article about George Biondo of Steppenwolf, which a user claims Mr. Biondo has a problem with. I believe that Mr. Biondo really is concerned, but with what I don't know. I've allowed his birthdate and succession box in the band to go away, but the user who is acting on behalf of Mr. Biondo keeps reverting everything else in the process, explaining that it falls under the aegis of "George doesn't like it", though I can't discern why. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a self-promotion website, and unless libelous or otherwise inaccurate, the information should stay and is fair game, given that George Biondo is a public person. Lars951 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP (especially this section, and also this) and then respond. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What if I go back and source all the edits I made? As an aside, none of the material is inflammatory in the slightest ... just more information than was there before Lars951 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Your edits do not seem as unconstructive as I had previously thought. The IP seems to believe that because it's about Mr. Biondo, he can choose what goes in. Still, it's good material to look at. I have talked with the "representative". If you choose to source your edits, you can't be at any fault, but you don't really have to. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If the material is not subject to the privacy section of BLP, then it is fair game. If this "representative" really wants to own the article, point them towards the noticeboard and they will get short shrift. And I have to point out that you do need to cite your sources for all but the least questionable and/or most obvious statements, particularly in a BLP. Adrian M. H. 22:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The version that's up now is the other guy's ... I'm working on my version with references and citations ... but it'll be a few days... 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find sources for an edit, remove it. Thanks Adrian, I just noticed that the whole page is unrefed (and now tagged for such), so it is definitely a good idea to reference. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a new version of the article (actually my older one that kept being reverted) and referenced just about everything. I don't know if Biondo's rep will revert, or what action I should take at that point, if any. Lars951 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My Son Banned on Roblox - Question (Thanks)

Username: Shadowbird33333 is my son and he has been banned for three days from the "Roblox" game. Is there a way for me to find out what his offenses were so that I may speak to him? I have no problem with you emailing an email account that I will use temporarily: <removed>

I am his mother and I will do all I can to help, please if this is not the appropriate place to ask, could you direct me to the right one? Thanks so much, Sharon F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.102.10 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007

We have no user under Shadowbird33333. Is this on Wikipedia? If not, you are definitely in the wrong place. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does have an article on Roblox, I think the Roblox wiki, http://wiki.roblox.com , would be the appropriate place to ask in the future. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

St. Colman's College

This is being vandalised.

Can you put a stop to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrontower (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two St. Colman's College articles, and a disambig. However, none of them appears to have received extraordinary amounts of vandalism recently.[4], [5], [6] |dorftrottel |talk |14:57, November 22 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Vs Pop Cultural References

Once and for all, what is the stance on removing trivia or pop culture references? I'm a volunteer at WP:WPTCU and to be honest, the policy isn't clear (perhaps I've missed it). I usually remove blatant trivia on all of the articles I edit and keep pop culture references as I've seen pop culture references in quite a few articles. Are pop culture references also considered trivia? I know to a degree they are trivial, but again, I've seen them on many articles. Only recently has someone challenged my removal of trivia or the removal of the trivia template regarding a section. Instead of tagging the section and leaving it in, I'd like to either remove it completely or leave it in untagged. The section in question is the cultural references on The Andy Griffith Show page. I removed the trivia template because most of the entries seemed to be pop culture references in my opinion (I removed others that were basic trivia about the series) but another editor re-tagged it and informed me it's all trivia. What's the point in tagging it as trivia and leaving it in? Should it be removed completely? Any suggestions would be great. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Trivia is not only a matter of content, but also of style. Obviously, it's far better to reduce such a section to sourced info only, and to qualify it as e.g. cultural references which provides a common element that works as one "unifying topic" of the section, rather than having a fully indiscriminate collection of bits and pieces with sometimes only the most spurious connection to the article subject. On the other hand, with respect to style issues, this is not ideal either. Ideally, all material should be in the form of a continuous text body, explaining or at least indicating context and relevance of the cultural references. In your example, under content policy, the entire section may be removed as completely unsourced, among others not demonstrating relevance and thereby bordering on original research. However, I'm saying that as someone with a rather strong prejudice against trivia sections in the classical sense, i.e. indiscriminate collections of factoids. So please don't jump into an avoidable (and lame) edit war of the kind that frequently happen surrounding trivia sections. I strongly suggest waiting for more comments here. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:11, November 23, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will consult the other editor and hopefully, we can come to an understanding regarding the content. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is a contentious issue, and even the guideline is in dispute. There is no clear definitive answer, but there is a gradual working toward a consensual solution. Have a look at Wikipedia:Handling trivia and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and the associated talkpages to get more background. As with Dorftrottel, my inclination is against unsourced, tangential material and I also feel the material could be removed. However, if there is a dispute with another editor it is always better to discuss first, edit later. If your discussion remains between you and the other editor, you may request a Wikipedia:Third opinion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam

In the article Sam, there is currently a dispute as to whether or not the opening paragraph, "Sam is primarily a male given name and may refer to:" is an assertion that needs to be referenced. Personally, I think that this is an acceptable assertion, except that Wikipedia policy requires that any disputed assertion requires a reference and this assertion is under dispute. However, other editors say that it doesn't require a reference. At this point, it is effectively down to, "Yes it does," and "No it doesn't," with no end is sight. Because I don't want to engage in any more edit-warring, I'm asking for assistance. What discussion there has been (except in the edit-war comments), fit on one page at the bottom of the talk page. Please help soon. — Val42 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would agree that Sam is primarily a male given name, but referencing a thing like that seems tough (and asking for a source for this seems like a rather tough demand to make, too). You may want to ask that question at the Reference desk. Other than that, a quick round of googling turned up this (which of course is not a reliable source, but maybe it can help you guys sort out the discussion?) I dorftrottel I talk I 04:56, November 25, 2007

You should look for a study in the field of Anthroponymy. That would be a reliable source. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RPC and 2 Issue by topic areas.

I have a disagreement in an article (Talk:Richard Gorringe) that discusses judicial review of a malpractice case. The article also discusses medical techniques. In asking for comments should I place more than one tag on the talk page, eg. for medicine {RFCsci}, and for law {RFCsoc}? Thanks. -- Anthon01 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems you already have :) I've asked this at WT:RFC, and you can watch that page for an answer. The section heading is "Two RfCs". J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

EUSA - link to blog

I have been trying to add an external link to the bottom of the entry for "EUSA." It is a link to a popular student blog - EUSALESS.blogspot.com which is mildly critical of EUSA. I feel there is a strong case to be made for keeping the link there as it provides a counter-balance to EUSA's press machine. EUSA officials have been consistently deleting my link, is there anyway I could keep it permanent? 86.142.198.167 (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the policy that they're probably using says that one should avoid using "links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." This rule is followed by most editors. Blogs are often very unreliable. On the other hand, I appreciate your attempts to produce a more unbiased view in contrast to what is on the EUSA article. Instead of adding a link, consider adding content (reliably sourced). Thanks, and let me know if that makes sense. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, makes perfect sense to me. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:28, November 26, 2007

wp:civil question

Howdy. I am wondering if the recent exchanges on Iranian Georgians exceeds an acceptable level of rancor. I stumbled into the mess doing Recent Changes spell-checking. I can take the abuse... :-) I just want to know if the current behavior on the Talk:Iranian Georgians page has crossed a line. Thanks for the advice. —Noah 06:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe (not that I think I am fully right) that it is a little heated - but, unfortunately, ethnic edit-wars and flame-wars are commonplace on Wikipedia, often requiring tedious amounts of mediation. One or two nasty comments but nothing really worrying. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. —Noah 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenny Brown

Hi, can someone please take a look at the Kenny Brown article? I have left comments on the talk page in an attempt to prevent an edit war, but if another editor reverts my edits, I'll be forced to break the three-revert rule. Thanks. --buck (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the discussion on the talk page and replied on the talk page. Please don't break the three-revert rule (there's a chance you'll be blocked). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is carrying over into the R. L. Burnside article as well. --buck (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Roberto De Luna

I'd like someone to take a look at an entry I did for Roberto De Luna. A user (well not a user but an IP address) keeps harassing me about the artist not being famous enough to list even though the artist was listed in a review in The New Yorker and has sold work from a very reliable source in Chelsea, NYC. I feel that the Notability of the artist is clear.

See what has been happening in the history... and please advise.

--12.16.164.205 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Listed at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto De Luna. Consensus will determine notability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

William M. Branham

William Marrion Branham (April 6, 1909, – December 24, 1965) was a Christian minister, usually credited with founding the post World War II faith healing movement.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Today, he is considered a Scriptural prophet by those Christians around the world who believe that his ministry and teachings were vindicated by God.[citation needed]

The above comes from an article in which I have taken a personal interest. I am still relatively new to WP and have probably made some mistakes, so I'm seeking your advice.
(1) When listing several references for a single statement, is it only acceptable to list each reference with a different number (as above) or could all the references be listed under the same number? (2) To substantiate the international nature of this movement I used these two websites but they have been classed as spam and removed by another editor - could you advise me if in this context you regard them as spam?
http://www.wmb1.com/de/~diego/ChurchSitesA.shtml
http://www.williambranham.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=141
I want to learn and I am willing to abide by correct WP policy. Thanks for your help. Rev107 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

They should be listed under different numbers; see Template:Cite web for a template, and enclose each cite web template in <ref> tags. Those sources you gave are probably not acceptable as sources, but you should definitely make room for them in the External Links section. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:59, November 27, 2007

BEING VANDALISED, AT Clan Grierson, please help

I am having some serious problem here with someone??? who I've been able to determine is destroying articles, or reverting them, out of ?? stupdity...I've worked for weeks on Clan Grierson, my work. I am the very best qualified for this article, and no one can write it, because I've been working for 20 years on this family, and found nothing to equal it.

I don't know how to revert it back, and I find it very frustrating to try. Can you help? Can we keep this particular person or anyone else from changing this page again? Also, I can't seem to find my password for GriersonOrigins

David Alan Grierson, 1960 (aka Lyon)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.231 (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. There's a lot to be said here. First, I fixed the revert you're talking about. Bobo192 didn't explain his reasons for the revert. Second, you don't own the Clan Grierson article: when you edit any page on Wikipedia it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Third, the article in question appears very very long and unwieldy. Try looking at your first article for more information on ideas for how to shorten up that article. Fourth, please check out preview and edit summary. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You also appear to be posting copyrighted material (your material) to the talk page. I've removed all copyrighted material from the talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article, as mentioned, has some issues. It does not conform to the Manual of Style for Wikipedia articles, the section headers are far too lengthy, there is use of "&" instead of the word "and", and there are no reliable sources cited to verify information. I have added necessary tags to allow other editors to help clean it up, and improve the article, but I would strongly suggest you take a look at some pages, that will help you understand Wikipedia a bit better, and see how to format articles: Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, and article development. Additionally, you may wish to review the conflict of interest guideline, as well. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam link on Immigration to Germany

Hello,

In a section of Immigration to Germany comparing Germany's immigration laws with Austria, I added a link to the relevant Austrian law on an Austrian government website. This was replaced by a spam link advertising an e-book. There have been similar problems in the Work Permit entry. Thanks, 67.168.65.207 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help with moving a page

Hi, I made a mistake when moving a page and now I can't revert it myself.

I want the page with the incorrect lemma Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany) be moved to the correct lemma Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany) (which simply replaces "for" with "of", according to the German Government homepage) but this page is already a redirect, from the correct to the wrong lemma. Would not be a real problem but as it is quite unlogical I'd like the move be executed. I am prepared to adjust all the links asociated with this but without the wrong lemma deleted I can't do anything.

Hope I'm in the right place here for my request. Thanks in advance, Wschroedter 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From how I understand your question, all you need to do is move all the text from the wrong title to the right one, and redirect the wrong one. So wherever the page is now, hit the edit tab and cut and paste all that into the right page (removing the Redirect link, of course), and save the new page. Then go to the other one (you should still have the edit form for the original page there) and make a redirect to the correct title. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to preserve the edit history, you can post a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves. If it's an uncontroversial move, which is what it sounds like, then it should be moved by an admin very quickly. (You can't move a page to a redirect that contains more than one edit, but an admin can.) –panda 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, do not cut and paste to do an article move. That messes up article histories. If you try the Move button and are unable to move it, go the requested moves and let an admin handle it. Cut and paste moves leave a mess to be cleaned up (with some difficulty) by others who come along later. Pastordavid 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Move has been completed, over the previous redirect. Please note WP:RM for future requests for page moves. Pastordavid 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I don't do a lot of moves, huh :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Wikipedia:Requested moves was indeed the link I was looking for because it seemed to me that I glanced at it during a previous move operations, but I could not remember it. And I was not able to find it by myself. - Simply cut and paste is not the good way to do the job, I know. That's why it was impossible for me to do it myself. Ok, thanks again. Wschroedter (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Engineering

Hi again,

I appear to be on this page more than I would like.

There has been some solid banter over at Talk:Engineering#Branches of Engineering, whereby a small edit scuffle broke out between an anon 71.197.116.25 / 71.155.143.39 / 71.155.143.243 (all the same person, but not trying to be a sock, must have rotating IPs or multiple edit locations) and some editors, including User:Tasoskessaris (aka Dr. K) and myself User:User A1. A protect was placed on the page and the anon came to the discussion table.

This is the most minor of discussions I have yet been involved in. Here goes:

There is a list of "main" engineering disciplines on the page, with other disciplines on a linked page. Computer engineering was not one of the main ones, and the anon added them and a few people reverted this many times - hence protection. Now the anon has stated many times that either Computer engineering has to be on the list by itself or in the form "Electrical and computer engineering", and is refusing to move from this position. The remaining editors (incl. myself) are opposed to the idea for reasons outlined in the page, which has become a lengthy discussion at this point. The block is due to expire soon and I feel that we have not resolved the issue at all. I believe a neutral party member (preferably a non-engineer) is required to solve this - hence the request for assistance.

In short, "please help", as too much discussion over too little (but something I have a strong opinion over) has occurred and may contine.

Kind regards User A1 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a link to the main article: list of engineering branches. Your section duplicates most of the content of the other article. Why have two near copies of the same list? I would have no list at all in your section or perhaps take three or four from the other list as examples of the breadth of engineering disciplines. If readers want to see the whole list they can go to the other article. (As an aside I note that the sentence on Industrial engineering in the other article is an incomplete sentence. It ends with a colon, and from the wording was intended to continue with something or other.) Sbowers3 18:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As you will see, I have long been suggesting the same thing -- simply provide a link to the article with the full list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 November 2007

I think the best idea is to simply, under the "Branches" section, have a link redirecting to the full list of branches. Pyrofork 18:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the sources supporting the selected five main branches. However, there are other sources which give different main branches. It appears that there is no widespread and universally agreed main five branches, so I would also support a link redirecting to the full list. Selecting just five is going to be a perpetual problem. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fraternal Order of Moai page deleted unfairly

I am a member of the Fraternal Order of Moai, and I was told that our new page, [7] , had been deleted, supposedly because the article showed "No indication of importance/significance." I wish to dispute this. I believe that the F.O.M. is an important part of a pop culture movement that deserves to have an entry in Wikipedia. [8] I am requesting that someone else review our article and consider reinstating it. If there are specific changes that we could make to show our group's importance and significance, I'm sure we could make those changes.

Thank you, Donald L. Drennan --75.63.205.48 (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Donald, and welcome to Wikipedia! I realize Wikipedia might seem confusing at first, (please click on the blue words to read the policy/guide they refer to). Wikipedia is not like other sites you may have come across. First, it is an encyclopedia. What this means, is that it is not MySpace, or FaceBook, or a place to host personal webspace, or a place where editors can make articles about anything they wish. Wikipedia has Core policies, such as neutrality, notability, verifiability, etc. What does all of this mean? Well, it means that any article on Wikipedia must demonstrate notability (meaning it must be note worthy, covered by the media, etc.), and have reliable, third-party sources (such as news media articles, magazine/trade/professional journal articles) written about the subject, and the information given in the article must cite those sources to verify it is true. From those sources, information is summarized, paraphrased, condensed, and worded neutrally to make an encyclopedic entry (information cannot be copied from other sites). See Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, and how to edit for assistance. The article was deleted because no assertion of notability by Wikipedia guidelines was given, and no sources were cited to establish notability. If, after reviewing the policies and guidelines, you feel the group is notable, then gather two to three reliable sources that you can cite, and you can try to create the article again. I hope that helps explain why it was removed. Cheers, and happy holiday! Ariel♥Gold 08:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ariel,

Thank you for your reply. I believe that the F.O.M. does meet all of the guidelines that you mentioned, much like groups such as the Shriners [9], The Elks [10], Moose International [11], Knights of Columbus [12], The Lions Club [13] and many others do. The F.O.M. hasn't been in existence very long, but that does not mean that the group does not have notability. This was an honest effort to create an encyclopedic entry for our group. It was not meant to be a MySpace or Facebook page. It was meant to be informative to the general public. Is it possible for you to review the article that was written? or was it totally deleted? I hope that you will reconsider the deletion. Changes can be made to the article if necessary, but I feel that the immediate deletion was unwarranted.

Thank you,

Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.205.48 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2007

Don, thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our policies on notability and verifiability. I have looked at the article as it was prior to deletion. I could post it at deletion review, which would allow other wikipedia editors to voice their opinions about whether or not the article should be kept. However, I would bet dollars to donuts that the deletion review process would uphold the deletion. Notability means that some third-party source has found your group important enough to write about it. Examples of things that would show the notability of the group would be a book published by a national, peer-reviewed publisher, a national magazine or national newspaper article, or national television coverage. The article provided no evidence of such coverage of the group by third-party sources, and thus no evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pastordavid, I would appreciate that. I believe that we could provide the aforementioned examples of notability. We have been mentioned in books and newspaper articles. These examples may not have been included in the original article, but I'm sure that this material could be provided (I was not the original author). I feel it would be much more beneficial to notify the original author of problems with an article and allow for the author to correct mistakes or make additions which bring the article up to Wikipedia standards than to immediately delete an article which could provide people with useful information. I am an avid user of Wikipedia and I am constantly amazed and grateful for the numerous articles on even the most trivial of subjects. Deleting articles because they seem to be too trivial seems to me to be antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you. -Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.205.48 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

With the holiday, I may not get to this for a day or two. Pastordavid (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don, if you would please create a user account, I will be happy to place the article as it was deleted into your userspace, where you can add the necessary references, and then have it moved into the article space. Pastordavid (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AC/DC - genre dispute

Right, here's the problem: I think AC/DC are not heavy metal, someone else does. That's it in a nutshell. But really, it turns into something far more complicated than that. If you want to deal with that though, read on.

There's been about 7 debates in the past on the genre. No one who has thought the band were heavy metal came up with a brilliant justification of why, and though they found places calling them such, never found a reason for that classification. That's the background.

I thought, when I saw the tag, why not change the genre? If most people think they are not heavy metal, why put it, right?

Well, seems someone thinks I'm wrong. I found quotes from two highly respected frequent contributors to well known music magazines. I found quotes from two professional rock historians (cited on other Wikipedia pages like hard rock and heavy metal I might add). I found a dedicated rock 'n' roll website, sleazegrinder.com supporting me.

If that isn't enough credibility, I found a blog by a music commentator for Seattle Weekly. Which appears to be some kind of newspaper, I only found the website. I suppose that isn't quite as credible as the rest, but it adds to a strong argument. And AC/DC themselves - both their lead guitarist and lead vocalist, have been quoted as referring to themselves as a non-heavy metal band. Again, they're not music experts...but they are AC/DC experts.

I was willing to compromise. I thought "OK, so there's sources calling them metal too, we'll have to put a paragraph in calling it a disputed genre and just drop the tag from the infobox". Like Coheed and Cambria, for instance.

I'm not saying we can say they are not heavy metal, simply that we cannot issue a carte blanche statement that they are. We cannot ignore 8 decent sources which all lean towards one side of an argument.

Thought I'd ask some other people to weigh in. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Forgive me if this seems simplistic, but many artists have multiple genres in the infobox, and in the article. Why can you not simply put both (or more, if more than two apply) genres? I personally think they are both hard rock, and heavy metal, depending on the song, album, and historical time. There are some songs I don't mind, and consider hard rock, but other songs I just abhor, because they are, basically, heavy metal songs (not my kind of music). However, please note that a blog is not a reliable source, so can't be used to verify information. Sleazegrinder.com is also not a reliable source. Reliable sources are news articles, magazines, trade/professional journals, etc., but AC/DC is so widely known, there should be absolutely no problem documenting that they are known by the media, and the public, as both hard rock, and heavy metal. Let me know if you need help finding sources to back both statements up, I'd be happy to help. As for the content dispute, make a note on the talk page explaining your reasons, and suggest the compromise of adding both genres, as that is done in many musical group articles, and is a valid thing to do. For instance, a singer can be both Gospel, and R&B, etc. Engage the other editors, by requesting they comment on the talk page via a note on their talk page, and see if you can't decide on an appropriate compromise. Hopefully that will diffuse the situation, and allow you to come together to improve the article! Ariel♥Gold 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The blog I mentioned is a part of the Seattle Weekly publication's online service, as I said. It's basically a column by one of their selected contributors - I am aware that normally a blog cannot be considered a reliable source but I think this is an exception. And as for Sleazegrinder...why is it not a reliable source? A place that has managed to get interviews out of Blue Oyster Cult not a reliable one? That's a hard thing to achieve. Also, the site is run by a man who goes by the alias Sleazegrinder. Not heard of him? He writes features for Metal Hammer, Classic Rock, Total Film, Sirens of Cinema, Rue Morgue, Screem...a lot of major music publications and various other ones. It's a very professional organisation. It might not seem it at times since it feels a bit rough and dirtily put together - but so are many rock bands.

I feel many artists can be both hard rock and heavy metal. But my view is that just because a lot of people claim they are heavy metal, they do not automatically qualify. There are no sources out there defining their metal-ness...but plenty stating why they are not metal.

The people who want to call the band heavy metal do not want to drop the rock tag. That is not the problem. The debate is not "which are they, rock or metal?", it's "can we call a band heavy metal when so many sources explicitly state they are not". And the debate is not like with KISS and Zep - who had some metal songs but an eclectic range of styles making defining dominant ones hard - it's a general one. Some people think most of what AC/DC did was metal, some think none at all. So unlike those, we cannot explicitly state "they ARE heavy metal".(The Elfoid (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

Persistant point of view in video games

Hi,

I was wondering if someone could help me with a conflict over a statement that I think carries a strong point of view in Legend of Success Joe article. The issue was talked about in this too: Talk:Tomorrow's Joe under NPOV. To my understanding, the statement was found to violate the NPOV policy. Also, I think the sources supporting the statement aren't very credible. There are also too many. They do not use a professional style of writing, and many are links to forum discussions. Here is the statement in question:

It is widely considered one of the worst games for the Neo-Geo system, with common complaints being very poor gameplay control, inadequate graphics and poor animation on a system that was touted as not having these issues.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

I feel that I have a hard time articulating why this statement feels wrong, at least to satisfy the contending User:Bobak. I also find some of the things this user has said in User talk:Anthonzi are somewhat threatening, which prompted me to seek out help.

Basically, I'm a little confused weather the NPOV policy or the video game guidelines take precedence. Bobak has stated that opinions are part of the guidelines. I have looked at other video game articles' "reception" sections, and find most of them reasonable. However, I didn't see any that had such strong phrases as "one of the worst". I believe that this issue could be solved by rewording this part and removing the abrasive sources, but from what I understand from the previous discussion in Talk:Tomorrow's Joe, Bobak would not be satisfied with this revision.

Thanks for helping.Anthonzi (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add that we have been edit warring for a while now. My reasoning is that there was a consensus that the statement be removed. Am I incorrect?Anthonzi (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's all that's said about the poor quality of the game, I think it's fine. Plan 9 from Outer space is widely considered the worst movie ever, and you don't even really have to source that. If these sources are reliable, I don't really see a problem with it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the input, especially as I am new at editing wikipedia, and would like to continue to do so more actively in the future. So, the next question is: does the statement need so many sources? I noticed that a few of the sources are forum posts. Are forums generally accepted as reliable sources? As I have pointed out in the talk page, most of the sites seem questionable to me. Are there any guidelines to determining the reliability of these kind of sources? I think that using this many negative sites to the article makes it sound like it's trashing the game. It may be true that the game is horrible, but I would prefer a more professional/scholarly way of saying these kinds of things. I'd like to think along these lines:Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards.Anthonzi (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPS, which covers self published sources, such as blogs and forums. Maybe a Gamespot or IGN review. Also, maybe a more appropriate wording is "It was poorly received by critics, as well as fans" and cite the problems in the game. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 05:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Administrator

[[14]]

See above diffs: Jossi has strongly held opinions on cults and those critical of cults, tending to be more sympathetic to the former in his edits to relevant articles, and we've been in opposition on this. While doing nothing about the primary issue of NPOV and chronic failure of cult members to comply with COI and the opinion they should restrict editing the COI Noticeboard, a couple days after and with much water under the bridge, he warns me I have been uncivil, an action the editor in question rightly took as support. Administrators need to be sensitive to bias and conflict of interest too, and be even handed in their warnings. Jossi dismissed my telling him he should recuse himself due to this or be even handed, and his failure to properly address NPOV first according to the Civility Policy itself, as trolling. Given our basic conflict, I want nothing whatsoever to do with Jossi or he with me, but I want to know how to formally complain about this and have him justify why he should not defer to other, neutral admins in areas where his neutrality can reasonably be doubted, so he can't abuse his authority or obscure more basic issues. This has nothing to do with Jossi's function, only his selective exercise of it where there is reason to doubt neutrality and others are available to do the job instead. --Dseer (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The best place to take something like this, as a first resort, is WP:AN/I. Read a few of the notices, there, before posting and you'll get the idea of how things operate. You'll need to provide more meat than you have here, though — preferably the full suite of diffs you find problematic. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 11:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Assistance Request

Some months ago the article on Charles Scott Bridges was tagged as lacking references. I supplied several references, which seem to me adequate. The article continues to be tagged as lacking references. Will someone please remove the tag, else tell me what more needs to be done? Thanks -- Peter Bridges

OK, I replaced that tag. If you want to information on providing in-line citations on WP, see WP:CITE#Inline citations. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

article on: bed wikipedia

after editing an article , one of the patrol editors decided that the source was a problem , ok fine , however, there is another aspect of the article that seems to be incorrect, in Bed, down in the desciptions of various, one included is an " air bed " which is really an air mattress and not bed, having removed this, it also was rejected by this patrol editor and this info is wrong can you assist in finding a way to correct this hope i am in the right department many thanks Professorbond 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, bed and mattress are basically the same thing. A bed has a mattress, and a mattress can be used as a bed. Air beds are mattresses, and are slept on, so it is a valid statement to call an air mattress a "bed". If you have any real reason to want this removed, I'd suggest that you discuss it on the article's talk page, but for the content and context of the article, it seems to me that it is a reasonable thing to have in the article, to me at least. As for the references, first, realize that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable, third-party source so cannot be used in references. Second, you may wish to review WP:CITE, to learn how to format references that are reliable. Also you can take a look at the following pages for assistance for new editors: Manual of style, Layout guide, First article, Article development and How to edit. Hope that helps! Ariel♥Gold 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting a clear violation of Wiki policies - am I going to run into WP:3RR problems?

Anonymous IPs keep re-adding a foreign-language blog to Low-cost carrier, which is a violation of both Wikipedia:External_links#Non-English_language_content and number 12 on Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Here are their reverts: diff diff diff diff - I've deleted this link each time (except for the last one, since that would be my third in 24 hours. The problem is since they're anonymous, their IP has changed, while my user name has not. I've also warned the (most recent) user that the link is inappropriate and made it clear in my edits why I was removing it. So...now what? At what point can I treat the addition of this link as vandalism? Can I continue to remove it without worrying about WP:3RR? Torc2 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, here are some things I found.

• You do need to worry about 3RR. This isn't vandalism, but it does clearly violate WP:EL like you say so I'll revert and warn.
• You probably should have warned every time instead of just the most recent time.
• I added a note here.
• "Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits." (WP:SOCK) So, in other words, this guy is violating 3RR and should be warned for that too. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Torc2 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Craig Field

There was a small article on Craig Field which I had noted needed editing a few months ago . Unfortunately by the time I returned to it the article had been deleted. The log says: 02:45, 1 November 2007 ^demon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Craig Field" ‎ (completely unsourced BLP, notability outside of DUI largely unestablished) [15]

Field was an outstanding rugby league player of the 1990s who's career was effectively ended in 2001 by the use of recreational drugs. From memory, the original article focused more on the drugs than on his league talents. I can re-do the article from scratch, but it would be great to be able to reference whatever was already there. I did make this same request to the deleting editor on 2 December, but I've received no response. If the information can be retrieved at all, I would greatly appreciate it. Many thanks, ~ Florrie • talk • 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Florrie, I have posted a slightly redacted version of the article has been posted into your userspace here. I removed anything that was tagged with a "fact" tag, since it is still a bio of a living person. Hope this helps. Pastordavid (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated, thank you! ~ Florrie • talk • 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jacob Klock" content dispute

I am in a content dispute with another editor of Jacob Klock. I am unable to engage the other editor in a discussion. I need ideas on how to proceed. BradMajors (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the article talk page (I saw you already asked the IP to do so) and collect and include more sources. The burden of evidence is with the user who wants to include the material. Ideally, format the article with inline citations. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Footnotes, and Wikipedia:Citation templates. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:49, December 8, 2007

I did what you requested and added the content back in with citations. But then I realized by doing so I had broken the Wikipedia's WP:AN3RR. To avoid being sanctioned, I reverted the content which had been deleted by the other editor along with the citations I had added. I need another idea. You can check the user's talk page, I can not contact the other editor. BradMajors (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 3RR applies. At any rate, you didn't blanket revert to a prior revision but instead expanded the article and introduced many new sources. I reverted to the expanded revision.[16] Well done btw. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:04, December 8, 2007

The other editor has agreed to engage in a discussion concerning the article and I think we are about to reach an agreement on the content. However, the other editor is posting false information about Wikipedia and is engaging in a personal attack against me on an external website: [[17]]. How am I supposed to deal with this? BradMajors (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a personal attack or off-wiki harassment here. It would be better if the editor would bring the same energy into what could be a very fruitful debate and collaboration on the article, but as long as he doesn't try to add that link into the article or posts it on-wiki in a harassing manner, I would suggest simply ignoring it. Did you take a look at the other pages on that website? Maybe some things could be salvaged to expand the article? I dorftrottel I talk I 06:12, December 10, 2007

• Related report at Wikiquette alerts has been filed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:74.33.197.125. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:26, December 10, 2007

• I think this issue may be resolved, in that I no longer intend to work on the Jacob Klock (colonel) article. Lots of other stuff to work on. BradMajors (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_E._Nolan (I think you were punked)

This article is about a non-existent tennis player -- the article says she won 3 Grand Slam tournaments -- 2001 French and Australian, 2002 French. These were won by Jennifer Capriati.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I have put it up for speedy deletion as pure nonsense - hoax. Pastordavid (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

I've added some text to an article with references, and moved some of the text from that article to another one which I found more appropriate. Furthermore I've explained my actions on the discussion page of the article.

Still, the changes have been reverted three times and the user reverting has said that he has reported me? But I've done nothing wrong! What should I do? 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Malangyar (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you were probably reported due to violation of the 3RR. We'll sort this out. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the article. Could you please help with that? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a revert-war at Red-Green Alliance (Denmark). I have warned both parties involved, as they appear to have violated the 3-RR, and will watch for further reverts. I also will bring it to the attention of an editor with more experience in the area. Anyone else who feels qualified to jump in on this one, please do so. Pastordavid (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a page, from cd50.

Hello, this is actually Writer1400, I've had to post by logging out to contact you so the person I want to report can't track me down because he has a real problem with me. I believe the user TheHYPO is violating the rule Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for the Barenaked Ladies page. He has basically taken complete ownership of the page. He almost never allows anyone to touch the page other than himself. Any edit that is done by another user has to be gone over by him and if he doesn't like it, it automatically comes out even though some of the edits are improvements. I was able to get in a few small edits but I had to agrue with him for a long time to do so and I've actually improved the page alot with my edits. The page as he had it had very few sources and lots of unsourced sentences.

Could you look at the page and see what you think? We really need your help. Thanks alot. 99.243.86.204 (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this request for assistance different from this one? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is a different issue but I can see why it could be considered the same. I feel his "ownership" of the article is what caused so many problems last time. All we want to do is improve the article is much as possible and make it as good as it can be and TheHYPO is not allowing this to happen. I can understand if your too busy to deal with this, is there anyone else I can talk to? I actually tried talking to someone else before and they refered me to you. 99.243.86.204 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked some recent history there, and I can't really find anything. Could you provide examples of OWNership? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)

Second that question. I don't see anything negative or "ownerish" in edits like this one. Please remember that WP:BOLD applies for everyone, and you should be prepared to accept extensive editing of your contributions. If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Also, any such allegations should be backed up with evidence in the form of specific diffs. I dorftrottel I talk I 20:52, November 26, 2007

Synovate

Hi, I recently made a couple of edits pertaining to a market research company called Synovate. One of my entries included my assertion that Synovate has been reported as a source of cold-call marketing. Another user (Rwizard) found this to be biased, and we have had a little banter on the discussion board. My entry references the website www.whocalled.us, which in Rwizard's opinion is unreliable. I disagree, and this had left us at an impasse. My "cold-call" reference, however, has been deleted by 220.255.146.116 with no explanation on the discussion board. Before rolling back (again), I would appreciate some mediation on this issue. Thanks, Joconnol (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Joconnol

Songs of Jimmy Webb

On New page patrol, I came across The Songs of Jimmy Webb and I'm not sure what to do about it. There is a Jimmy Webb article. Is the right thing to merge the new article into the Jimmy Webb article? Should I advise the author to do the merge? There are other Songs of ... articles but they are mostly songs on a topic, not songs by an artist. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My, what an exhausting list! Unless all these individual songs are notable, I think you should merge, and give the notable singles their own page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion... i have just moved the page to List of songs by Jimmy Webb, just to comply with namespacing guidelines. Note that this obviously doesn't affect the eventual outcome of the page. tomasz. 17:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assist

Hi there! I wrote a whole article (it was just a stub). Someone who apears COI (a pr man for the company) keeps erasing my entire page. Please help, I noticed that in his talk page he has done this kind of vandalism many times before. The article is "Environment California" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlandy (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some older versions of the article since the current is missing the important statement that describes what Environment California is. Also, I've given you a useful link on your talk page about how to cite sources in Wikipedia (WP:CITE), as well as fixed one of the references using a standard citation template as an example for you. I would recommend that you add a reference supporting the claim that Environment California is somehow connected with FFPIR. The text about the FFPIR lawsuit should be in the FFPIR article and not the Environment California article unless it is somehow directly associated with Environment California. The same applies to the PIRG text. As for the reverts by User:Christopher Mann McKay, you could try leaving a polite note on the editor's talk page asking why he reverted the text. Don't forget to include the name of the article and to provide diffs of the changes you dispute so that the editor knows what you're talking about. You'll need to look through the article's history to find the appropriate diffs. Here's an example for your case:

• 04:15, 25 November 2007
• 01:00, 30 November 2007

–panda 02:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Trouble adding to the 'Further reading' sections

Hi,

I am a publishing assistant at Intellect Ltd and a new editor on Wikipedia. I am trying to add 'further reading' to various pages, for example we publish a book about Bande Desinée, so I have tried to add a reference to that on the Franco-Belgian comic page with a link to the book on our website. I have added a few like this, but now have been given a warning by Wikipedia that I shouldn't be doing this and that they'll block me if I try again. Any tips? Is it because I am linking directly to out website and would a link to Google book search be better or worse?

Many thanks for your help,

Melanie

Melaniesharrison 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are here to promote your company's books here, and that just doesn't work with Wikipedia's policies. Why don't you try improving the content of those articles instead, and if it's appropriate, cite the relevant book as a reference? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

changing logo on page

Dear Sir,

Please could you inform me of how to change the logo of our company and update a correct version as someone has taken this off our web.

Kind regards and I look forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy51 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please carefully read Wikipedia:Logos to make sure there is no copyright violation. You can upload a newer version of the logo at Image:Ilion_logo.gif or by clicking here. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 11:25, December 6, 2007

Kaplan University Page

The Kaplan University page is being edited everyday by someone who does not belong to the University. Therefore, they are not editing the website with accurate information. Examples include stating that the University has 30,000 customers instead of students. That is a very unnecessary statement. Kaplan University is a recognized and regionally accredited institution. Also, the page is often edited with a Doing Business As notation. Other for-profit educational institutions are not critiqued the same way. That DBA sentence is neither appropriate after the Kaplan University name. Under the history section the page read that Hamilton Colleges were now under the Kaplan University brand. Hamilton Colleges merged with Kaplan University giving them a name change. The Hamilton Colleges are now Kaplan University campuses. That is factual and unbiased information.

The issue I have is that all the edits on the Kaplan University page are unfairly biased. I would like a resolution to prevent this from occuring in the future.

Thank you, KAPLAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAPLAD (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What?!! Being edited by editors who have no association with the subject matter??!! They must stop this immediately. Seriously, though; please follow that link and read the guideline. If you can genuinely claim bias and/or the absence of verification, then you have a valid beef and you should follow those policies (and related links) when dealing with it.Adrian M. H. 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) First of all, welcome! Second, let me point out that nobody owns articles, and it does not matter if someone is affiliated with the university, with regards to them editing. Additionally, anyone who is affiliated with a subject is discouraged from editing, due to the conflict of interest guideline, which explains that someone close to a subject would have difficulty editing neutrally, and neutrality is one of the core policies here on Wikipedia. I'm a bit concerned because your username, and the way you have worded your request, would make me think you are in some way associated with the university, so I would caution you to edit with extreme care, if at all. The best thing is to make comments on the talk page suggesting improvements, giving sources, etc., and allow a non-involved editor add the information, to ensure no COI exists. All that being said, I agree that "customers" is not an appropriate word for a university page, as students would be the proper word. What is most important, is that reliable sources be cited to verify information. The article is currently lacking in reliable sources, the only source given is a .pdf file, which is discouraged because such files require the reader to have non-standard software to access. They can be used sparingly, but should not be used as the only sources in an article. The university's site, or any sites that are associated with it, cannot be used as main sources, as they are not third-party sources. The best way to ensure that information is not removed, or replaced, is to cite reliable, third party sources to verify the statements, and make a note on the talk page that additions should have reliable sources cited. (Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a place to simply promote an organization, so some articles can have criticism sections, if written neutrally and cited with proper sources, although they should not be given undue weight.) My suggestions would be to remind the editor about the policy regarding reliable sources and verification, as these are important policies on Wikipedia, and to add sources to the article so that the current information is verified. I hope this helps, Ariel♥Gold 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan staff is doing what Hamilton staff did on that article, which is to edit out information placed there by others that may not show Kaplan in a favorable light. Kaplan (and the former Hamilton) doesn't like negative press. They've been asked before to cease or cite...they do neither.

They are a DBA, as shown in the reference. They are the Iowa College Acquisition Corporation. If they want to be Kaplan University, fine...they can change their legal name. The source is cited, the facts are relevant.

As a business, they serve customers. Their customers are students, their students are customers. As an alum, I am familiar with their operation, and their standing in the community. (side note, the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, newspaper wouldn't cover Hamilton 'College' in their education section despite Cedar Rapids being home to Hamilton's main campus. They would only cover Hamilton in the business section. All other local colleges are covered by the education journalists. The paper viewed Hamilton, and now Kaplan, as a business - not a school - due to their operational methodology. They didn't act like a college, they didn't treat students as students, they refused to allow student government, they had little involvement in the community. All other area colleges operate as colleges - student focused. A simple comparison of Hamilton/Kaplan's web site with all other colleges in the region will show the difference.)

The Spelling 'reference' is irrelevant to the article and wasn't even set up as a reference. In fact, the only referenced fact in the article is to the DBA information.

It may well be time to put a criticisms section in the article to discuss problems the schools have had, lawsuits against them, profit uber all operational philosophy, censorship, etc...as well as the college itself editing the articles about them to remove unflattering facts.

My advice to Kaplan is to act like a college and they'll be treated as such. --averagejoe (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

They're back! User:KAPLAD is back reverting and removing without discussing, sourcing, etc. Such a good paper (Washington Post)...if only their quality extended to their Kaplan,_Inc. subsidiary. --averagejoe (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have help watching their edits to that page. If they pass the three-revert rule, report it at WP:AN/3RR. Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

is this comment on a talk page really vandalism

Hello, I was dinged for posting the following comment on a talk page of the article 'Drew Bledsoe' by 'Pats1'

- == Stage Diving == - - In the late 90's Drew stage dived at an Everclear concert at the Paradise Club in Boston. Tom Brady and several other Patriots players were there as well. This was big news at the time because Drew apparently broke the back of a female concert goer he landed on. I think it is worth a mention in the article but I do not know quite enough about it to make the addition. Perhaps someone who does might want to add it to the article. 66.235.9.15 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this not what the talk pages are for? To make suggestions like this one? How could this be considered vandalism. I would like to know how to have this reviewed and if there is a way 'Pats1' could be counseled by a higher up at wiki as to what is vandalism and what is not and have my comment reinstated on the talk page for Drew Bledsoe. Thank you for your help. 66.235.9.15 04:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

apparently this comment by me "here, here mrmurph " in response to mrmurph's following comment:":::That still does not explain why he threw a fit after Angel's challenge. However, this talk page should be about the article, not gossiping about the participants. Take that to a message board. " is also considered vandalism by 'Pats1' as he commented on my talkpage as well about this. Really? agreeing that someone should take their opinions to a message board is vandalism? I fear that I have somehow offended 'Pats1' about my suggestion that an unsavory episode in Drew Bledsoe's career be documented on wikipedia and he seems to be fairly trigger happy about his opinion of my additions on talk pages being vandalism.

I do not agree that anything listed by 'Pats1' as vandalism is in anyway inappropriate or vandalism. Additionally, I feel that 'Pats1' is abusing his privledges as an administrator and should be warned as such by an appropriate authority. I would also like to request that his comments on my talk page be deleted if appropriate and possible. Thank you for looking in to this. 66.235.9.15 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that User:Pats1 had concerns about WP:BLP issues when removing your comment from Talk:Drew Bledsoe, since you did not provide a link to a reliable source. Pats1 might not have heard about this particular mishap, although it was widely covered in the press. If you think this issue needs further discussion, why not leave a message at User talk:Pats1 and invite him to join the discussion here? If you expect to be participating on Talk pages frequently, you would be better off creating an account since it is easier to follow discussions when all the editors have names. EdJohnston 06:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I see your point. I do have an acct that I do use but I neglect to log in as frequently as I should. The issue I have here though is that this was a suggestion on a talk page, not actually on an article. Where I even mention myself that I do not have enough info about the incident and was wondering if someone out there who does have more information feels it would be appropriate to add this to the article. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe my addition to the talk page did violate some sort of TOU by it was in no way vandalism. And the second response from the Phenomenon talk page is simply ticky-tack and petty. I feel Pats1 over reached his/her authority and could simply have made his/her concerns about my intentions on Drew Bledsoe's talk page much more diplomatically than jumping to the 'vandalism' conclusion. Also regardless of being logged in, an honest edit or suggestion should be treated with the same respect as an honest edit by a user who has 5,000 edits to their name it seems to me. Thank you for you attention to this Ed. 66.235.9.15 16:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mortgage Insurance Reroute to "Mortgage"

To Whom It May Concern:

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

My article which I can verify, and wrote as a Mortgage Broker, has been basically deleted and redirected to Mortgage, wherein the actual information provided to the consumer/reader is NOT included anywhere in the existing article.

My editing skills and time are fairly non existent, but whomever was doing this also did a similar thing to one or more of my other contributions.

Please explan what I must do to restore the actual information I originally provided to the online community?

Most Sincerely, Lex Luther Vandross

--LV 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just added the Mortgage Insurance info to Mortgage. Is that what you were looking for? 67.168.65.207 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, thank you all the same. Please check the history. Read the item of consumer information I had provided, and was reasonably edited up through "Revision as of 04:30, 17 December 2006 (edit) Radagast83." After that the redirect squashed the actual information on mortgage insurance. Check the definition, and note it does not appear any more in the current definition. (This happened to several of my other entries, as well.) --76.103.214.50 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient and civil. The entirety of what was previously at Mortgage insurance is now in the article Mortgage loan in the section titled - appropriately enough - mortgage insurance. Pastordavid (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Information replaced by spam

Hi,

My update to Immigration to Germany was replaced by a spam link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_to_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=175989145 This is a consistent problem, and this link keeps getting spammed to work permit, Immigration_to_Germany, and other sites. 67.168.65.207 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The site linked to is primarily to promote the sales of a book, and thus should not be linked to according to the policy on external links. I have removed the link in question, and warned the user. If necessary, the link can be added to the spam blacklist or the user can be blocked. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The user just blanked a section of that page, at [18]. This is similar to actions such as [19] and [20] taken on Work Permit.

This is a persistent problem, as can be seen from the user's talk page at:[21]

Note deleted comments at [22]

Thanks, 67.168.65.207 (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to have disappeared since that last little tirade. Please let me know if he returns and it is a problem, either here or on my talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistient problems with a hostile editor

Hello, I and others attempting to work on the Dissociative_identity_disorder and the user DreamGuy consistently is rolling back my work in bulk, often without appearing to have reviewed the involved sources and data at all. Last month, I noticed that the Causes/etiology section was the copyrighted material of Merck and rewrote the section. He rolled that back along with many other changes, some of those without any justification. After I pointed it out in the talk page, he apologized and said he would get to when he had time. 2 weeks later, I decided that there's no reason to wait for him and put it back in (even cleaned it up and fixed some sources). Now, he comes around and rolls back a few days or work between myself and WLU (mostly my work). While earlier, WLU discovered that another section was copyrighted, re-wrote it very poorly (stated it was poor, I figure it's better than legal liability) and DreamGuy only hits my work.

His attacks seem aimed squarely at me and exceedingly biased. I already have a proposal and have begun work to demonstrate that the validity of the DID diagnosis is not in the state of dispute that he and Cloudsurfer claims and have even avoided those areas for now until that examination can be completed and a formal RFC be posted. I have repeatedly attempted to work with him in good faith (mistakenly presuming that he's going to work towards accuracy, not his own point of view) and he continues to back-stab me. In one occasion, WLU made changes that gave a section it a more of an "anti-DID" sound. I examined the sources and reverted his changes, posted on his talk page why, etc. He agreed (he made an error). He actually improved the wording beyond my ability, giving the entire section a much better flow (and it was accurate). So DreamGuy rolls back to WLU's inaccurate statements that WLU already conceded were inaccurate! This is just an example. Please assist.

Thanks, Daniel Santos (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here, as I have described in edit comments and on the talk page is that the above editor has taken a very aggressive stance in favor of the reality of DID and is not trying to hide it, and is very clearly making edits violating WP:NPOV policy to try to make the article conform to his own opinions. He is rewriting sections about research results to ONLY list the side he believes in and refuses to work toward getting a consensus on wording for any changes. The alleged "inaccuracies" were not, or, at the very least, far less inaccurate than the version he changed it to. Any conversation he had on some other person's talk page instead of the article talk page is beyond my knowledge, and I have consistently told him that he needs to work as a group and discuss issues on the talk page instead of radically altering the essay to try to present opinions as facts and to erase all studies and expert opinion contradicting his view. He merely tries to claim superior knowledge and that anyone who disagrees is a flat earther who doesn't understand the topic. As far as the copyright issue, the section in question seems to be a mere listing of symptoms, and mere lists of factual information in list form usually do not have copyright protection because they are the only way to express the facts about the diagnosis. Some tweaking may be in order, but I think he's using it as a smoke screen for other more sweeping edits that simply do not follow our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus! I posted here to seek editor assistance, not to have you hound me! Why don't you stay out of my requests for advice? This page doesn't exist for your arguing pleasure. Daniel Santos (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy came here because someone asked him to, not because he is stalking you. You are going to have to deal with his comments one way or the other, because you are involved in a content dispute, and it would be helpful if you would assume good faith. I would suggest getting a third opinion, but there are already three of you involved (with the consensus, it appears, against Daniel's position). I would suggest everyone adhere to the one-revert rule (for sanity's sake), and list this at request for comment. Pastordavid (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Echo everything Pastordavid said. I had already typed in a response here, recommending RFC rather than WP:3 because with User:WLU this is not a two editor situation. Looking through the diffs however, I determined the situation was too complicated to simply decide that without notifying DreamGuy beforehand and ask for his view. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 20:25, December 6, 2007

I see. My intention was to seek advice on how to proceed, not a "decision", as you said, and not to open a debate in a new location prior to getting advice. I hope you can see why I am surprised at his posting here with his misinformation. I make the claim that he is providing misinformation, not as an attack, but as a defense. So is this forum not a place to get advice on dealing with disputes as advertised?

Editor assistance helps editors find someone experienced to provide you one-on-one advice and feedback. While not a required part of dispute resolution, it is designed to help you understand how to clearly and civilly express your views and work toward consensus. You may request an assistant's help at any time, whether you're involved in dispute resolution or not. Assistants can also help you find the best way to resolve your dispute or issue.

As far as having to "deal with his comments one way or the other", if you visit the talk page, you can see that I have been dealing with them as best I can for a few weeks now. And on the matter of the "consensus being against me", I would have to say that the of the recent editors and other users posting to the talk page, DreamGuy is alone. WLU is neither for or against me, although we seem to have been in agreement on most of what we have mutually done. I have actually found him to be very objective, if bold. I'm not saying that every edit he's made should stay in exactly like it is, but what I've studied closely, I either agree with or have no opinion, aside from a few issues that we've come to agreement on since. Note users (and anon IPs) who have posted in my favor in the past month: Special:Contributions/75.17.201.207, User:Biaothanatoi, User:RobertPlamondon.

But this debate isn't about the validity of the diagnosis as DreamGuy would like to try to frame it. There is still not a solid consensus amongst mental health professionals that DID is a valid diagnosis (see the first study linked WLU's "possible new source" posting for a nice recent example of this). That said, there's no excuse for inundating the article with this controversy when there is already an article dedicated to that topic. If you look at the state of the article a month ago, you can't get through two paragraphs without tripping over arguments as to why you shouldn't believe that it's real, this is inappropriate, as many users have complained about recently. However, that barely scratches the surface of the issues that I have addressed, and documented, and it's not even the point of this posting.

The point is that this forum is supposed to be for seeking advice and I have come here to seek that prior to next steps. Do you disagree that it's wise to get such advise prior to engaging in further argument, especially for one with limited Wikipedia experience? If not, why have you invited him here? Daniel Santos (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When I said "decide" above, I was merely talking about the decision on what best to recommend. The kind of input you appear to be looking for is indeed usually provided in an RFC rather than here. You see, this page is a far less specialised place. When an issue is too complicated or specific, we usually direct users to the appropriate processes. I'm sorry if my "invitation" to DreamGuy gave a wrong impression. From what I understand, the situation is a clearcut content dispute, but I suppose you know about WP:RFC/USER, too. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 23:00, December 6, 2007

I don't think this is a content dispute. There's a longstanding problem with Dreamguy's approach here at Wikipedia. Is there some way that we can get some administrative or editorial help on this? Frankly, there's a bunch of us with an interest in writing some decent articles on child abuse and trauma, and Dreamguy seems to sit on these articles, contributing nothing to the actual article, and blocking every change from editors that contradict his entrenched POV. These blocks are usually accompanied by some reference to WP policy in order to justify a pejorative or sarcastic remark about the editor in question.

This has been going on for years. Can you suggest a way that some of these concerns could be addressed? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there's also WP:RFC/USER, or you can get some input from admins at WP:AN. However, you should back up everything with diffs, and not stray into the realm of incivility or personal attacks. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 02:32, December 7, 2007

"writing some decent articles on child abuse and trauma" in Biaothanatoi's case seems to just be wanting to write from only a specific POV and simply being unwilling to work with other editors. Of course the blocks to bad content are accompanied by references to policy... that's how things are done here. If this editor doesn't want to follow Wikipedia policy then he should create his own website. It's ludicrous that someone can try to portray editors doing exactly what every editor here is supposed to be doing as if it were a bad thing. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I originally missed that you said WP:RFC/USER and not WP:RFC, I'm still a bit green, so I'll have to read up on this. How do we "back up everything with diffs"? Thanks, Daniel Santos (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and clarification. However, I wouldn't call it a clear-cut content dispute because of the chronic misrepresentations DreamGuy is creating. The fine points are lost in the confusion that he attempts to create with misrepresentations, emotionally appealing logic fallacies and even outright lies. A strong accusation to be sure, but let's look at this one. In the earlier posting, DreamGuy claimed:

"As far as the copyright issue, the section in question seems to be a mere listing of symptoms, and mere lists of factual information in list form usually do not have copyright protection because they are the only way to express the facts about the diagnosis."

Now, I have been accused of making POV edits under the false guise of copyright issues. To ask an outsider to investigate first hand is to ask for a very large slice of their time. Thus, I have painstakingly assembled the facts in a form that is both easy to digest and easy to verify.

1. The section that I claimed was copyrighted material was the Causes/etiology (which WLU renamed to Causes), not Symptoms.
2. DreamGuy knows this because it was discussed in two places on the Talk page, the last 3 postings on Explanation_of_Changes and the entire Causes/etiology section.
3. I've assembled a page to compare the text taken from Merck's web site here and here with the November 14th version of the Causes/etiology section. view history comparison here

As you can see from this comparison (link above), the text from the Causes/etiology section indeed uses non-trivial portions of Merck's copyrighted material. You can also see that this is not a list of symptoms.

One can say "well, he made a mistake," but if need be, I can go line by line in his postings and point out the dishonesty that is occurring, although it would be time consuming and I have wasted enough time discrediting this type of attack from him (see the talk page, I have done this this a number of times now). I have spent a good 2 hours compiling this and figuring out which sentence came from what part of which article to demonstrate his dishonesty and manner of attack. Although I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policies related to arbitration, I don't see any point attempting to negotiate if he isn't willing to meet us on a level playing field where everybody his honest and straightforward, do you? And there is still a long list of other infractions he's committed that I haven't even gotten to yet because we're busy addressing his lies. Daniel Santos (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction to the Causes/etiology vs. Symptoms issue, it was in three places: the two listed above and one in my opening paragraph of this posting. Daniel Santos (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. OVer and over we are now seeing editors who pretend that content disputes are not content disputes, assume that their content is correct and do not have to take other editors' views into any consideration at all, and then try to portray the editors enforcing policies instead of violating them as the ones causing problems. He's talking about my not operating on a level playing field when he is making radical changes he knows to be controversial without trying to forge any consensus. This is nothing but pure wikilawyering on his part. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

His changes aren't controversial, and that's where this issue stops being a content dispute and starts being a different kind of problem altogether. You are blocking any change to the DID article that attempts move beyond your key POV concern that it might be iatrogenic. In effect, you are acting in a hostile manner by preventing the diversity of views on DID to be presented in the article, whilst pushing a fringe theory that therapists are somehow "implanting" a disorder in their clients. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, enough with the "making radical changes", "pro-DID POV" blah blah blah. You lied right here on this post, were caught doing so and you still want people to believe your assertions. Why did you lie? Are you even reading what I write before posting your responses? I don't suppose it matters though. Daniel Santos (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This apparently cannot be resolved here and I suggest the involved users try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead of bringing it to this page. I dorftrottel I talk I 11:51, December 12, 2007

My article on the Wat Buddharangsi was deleted

Please tell me why my article on the Wat Buddharangsi was deleted and how I can create it again without somebody deleting it again.

The Wat Buddharangsi is a working Theravada Buddhist temple in Homestead, Florida. I included the URL for this temple's website in the article and I personally know about the temple because I've been to many of its festivals and meditation classes.

This is a Buddhist temple in the every sense of the word. It always has at least five Buddhist monks including and abbot in residence, all of which are from Thailand. The building itself was constructed for the purpose of being a Buddhist temple and was funded by donations from Thais living in Florida. It's not a former school or wharehouse. I included all of this information in the article, and despite that it was deleted.

I created the article after I read another Wikipedia article on Buddhist temples throughout the world and noticed the Wat Buddharangsi wasn't on it, even though it clearly deserves to be. The article on Buddhist temples now includes a link for the Wat Buddharangsi (because I put it there) but the link is red instead of blue. LuisGomez111 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The deletion log says that the article was deleted because it fit the criteria for speedy deletion: #7 for Articles. "Non-notable building, notability is neither asserted nor present" is what the admin put into the deletion log. The admin believed that the building was real, but he wasn't sure why it mattered. You can read about asserting notability in the link I included above. You can read more about notability in general here: notability. Let me know if that helps. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a bit of a minor struggle with another editor

On the Super Smash Bros Brawl article, the user Stevo1000 has added comments which do not follow suit with what is appropriate on Wikipedia such as personal opinions and reverting other editors without any reasoning.

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

Here is where I took my first edit earlier this afternoon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&diff=176219188&oldid=176185183

I provided my reasoning for redoing this section and told him why he couldn't say that, he later edited it entirely after another editor cleaned up my edit and added his same fanboyish statements. I reverted them and put a notice on the talk page on Brawl, he then immediately reverted my edit. I am not going to revert his edit since it'll be a pointless edit war, so I am seeking help with the problem here. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Stevo1000 was reverted and so far hasn't edited the article any more. Please update if the issue continues. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:56, December 8, 2007