text:
Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 58
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
- 1 Shorebazaar....
- 2 Red links
- 3 Word for word text copying not a copyright violation?
- 4 Precognition
- 5 OK or not OK to remove or restore MfD template while discussion is active?
- 6 Deletion or Protection of userpage
- 7 Jeopardy!
- 8 Content dispute on Party in the U.S.A.
- 9 Editors on the Stoern Page
- 10 14th Military Police Brigade
- 11 Medical Cannabis article, problems with references
- 12 Correcting a misquotation
- 13 Help for New Article
- 14 dispute with User:NEV1 (I'm sorry I didn't know who else to turn to!)
- 15 why give a new writer, age 62, a hard time
- 16 request for feedback
- 17 Blue Ocean
- 18 subtle vandalism on page, changing 3 letter word to "sex",
- 19 Wikipedia talk:Reference desk keeps getting deleted.
- 20 British Isles article needs independent (not British Or Irish) oversight
- 21 Need immediate advice re. suspected sock
- 22 Redirect questions
- 23 User:WriteINGWell
- 24 Toronto Port Authority NPOV
- 25 Request for Assistance and Review of New, Second Article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie
- 27 Gordon Lish
- 28 Adding a related article
- 29 Need help creating article
- 30 swapping two pages VERSUS fixing cut and paste moves
- 31 Victor Arbogast
- 32 Hello
- 33 Lee_Zehrer
- 34 kahoolawe
- 35 Resolve a dispute
- 36 ICROA Wikipedia Article - will it be deleted? How can we improve it?
- 37 User:Xxc2009
- 38 Question regarding transcriptions into foreign scripts
- 39 citation & references assistance, disambiguation page
- 40 neutrality - michel vulpe
- 41 Editors in Indiana
- 42 Please block User talk:188.8.131.52
- 43 Edit dispute over Artical "Kent Hovind" with user Arthur Rubin
- 44 racist vandalism
- 45 group black moon
- 46 Criticism Section on Sean Hannity page being reverted constantly
- 47 Paroxetine
- 48 Party in the USA
- 49 Old Apostolic Church / Reformed Old Apostolic Church dispute
- 50 Assistance required with policy proposal page
- 51 Victor Arbogast Ref.
- 52 Is there a quick way to add linked items intoa new category?
- 53 Licensing of Material
- 54 Delete article
- 55 Removing issues from talk pages
- 56 John Crippen Article
- 57 Link vandalism on the "Sokoban" Wikipedia page
- 58 civility at Template talk:Major cities of Greater China
- 59 Disputed content
- 60 Portal:Turkey
- 61 HSUS -- Animal rights vs. Animal welfare
- 62 Please help!
- 63 Can't create a title for "Contributory causation"?
- 64 "Criteria for speedy deletion"
- 65 Plus-size model
- 66 Tax protester arguments
- 67 Citation help
- 68 Purdue Boilermaker's Football Rivalries
- 69 Matchbox Twenty Singles discography
- 70 Joel William Gonzales Deleted and Is A person Of Inportance An Actor
- 71 Kennett River.
- 72 Dealing with energetic but inexperienced editor
- 73 New Editor Angliaman help with a URL link on Play School : UK TV series page, via BBC Birmingham and Play School
- 74 Sicilian Vespers
- 75 anyone care to look at IDology page?
- 76 Defamation of historical leaders
- 77 Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo
- 78 15th Amendment
- 79 Assistance Requested from newbie: Chandler School Pasadena
- 80 Editor assistance requested for multiple article vandalization
- 81 "Chinatown, Vancouver"
- 82 First time assistance request
- 83 Inappropriate tags being placed
- 85 Craig Martindale
- 86 Third opinion needed on Fashion (Heidi Montag song)
- 87 wikipedia dead tree source verification and copyright
- 88 Lama Pai article
- 90 Editor search inquiry
- 91 Daniel 11
- 92 Arthur Wellesley: Irish or not?
Is anyone able to verify the notability of this store (Shorebazaar)? Cause I picked it up on newpages patrol, and while I can't verify its notability or not, the author has avoided making untenable claims on the page, so it doesn't fall under advert. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It has been deleted so no need to worry about it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Red links
Is there a policy regarding red links to names of people who do not have articles? For details please see my edit history. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is, at WP:REDLINK. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you translate that for me? Does it say we should have these links, or not? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:REDLINK#When to create red links is pretty clear. – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not all of us are fluent in Wikipedia-speak... 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- It says we should have them, in articles, when there's a reasonable chance that an article could exist at the linked title; otherwise, not. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, editors don't always agree on this, but the general guidelines mentioned above state that yes, red links should exist, when they point to articles that are likely to be created at some point. If the subject fails to meet notability guidelines, and is unlikely ever to have an article, then it shouldn't have a link. Hope this helps, --BelovedFreak 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Word for word text copying not a copyright violation?
Marguerite Ross Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On July 30, the editor Racepacket made an edit to the article Marguerite Ross Barnett in which he/she added what appeared to be copyrighted text which was a word-for-word duplication of text published in the article's lone reference which can be viewed here. The actual edit can be viewed here. As a response, I removed the copyrighted text, and left a message on the user's talk page as a notification. I then received a message on my talk page regarding this here. It appeared to be somewhat uncivil. The conversation ensued.
If read, it can be seen that the editor claims the text is in fact not copyrighted because it is not literary expression. What plan of action should I take? I've tried to somewhat reword the text on the article page since, but was I wrong to believe this was a copyright violation to begin with?
Thanks for your help.
--Brian Reading (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the prudent course of action upon encountering an edit that tracks, word-for-word, material from a source such as the New York Times, would be either to remove it (as you did in the first instance) or reword it (as you did subsequently). I think, conversely, that it is imprudent to add copied-and-pasted material to Wikipedia even if the text is so - well, prosaic, that one might contend that there can be no copyright violation because it's "just facts". (I'm skeptical of that assertion - "facts" can't be copyrighted, but way in which they're presented certainly can be; and this is prose. But then, I'm not a copyright lawyer.) I would have done what you did and relied upon the good faith and intentions of the other editor to fix what is at least a glaringly *apparent* copyright problem. JohnInDC (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, Wikipedia's policies on this are quite clear. I note that the other editor has a bit of history judging by the talk page. Further instances should be reported to admins. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for both of your help. Brian Reading (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, Wikipedia's policies on this are quite clear. I note that the other editor has a bit of history judging by the talk page. Further instances should be reported to admins. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, I would distinguish copyright vio from plagirism. Sometimes we get into arguments over fair use and even appropriateness of quotes for an encyclopedia. Personally, I wouldn't sit around trying to change someone's words to get by on plagairism or copyvio. If the words are important, quote and attribute up to fair use limits or get permission. If not important, make up your own words without adding ideas. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- User Brian Reading never bother to identify the source which was the basis of his concern in his first message. If a person believes there is a possible copyright violation, always state the source that gives rise to the concern. The next step is to determine whether the source is copyrighted. Then, go to a "fair use" analysis. It is prudent to remove the material out of caution while the problem is being studied, but if the first editor rephrases the material, deleting (here) the rephrased material is not warranted on copyright grounds. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever else it may permit, fair use doesn't permit the use of copyrighted material without attribution (as was the case here). In this case, fair use analysis is beside the point. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Unacceptable_use. JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 18.104.22.168, you may want to re-read what I initially wrote. I clearly included the source the material was ripped from. Brian Reading (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, Template:uw-copyright does not provide the source, nor was it in your July 31 edit summary. Second, it should be noted that you deleted subsequent rephrasings that were not "word-for-word" on August 2 claiming that they were copyright violations without giving a source for them either. I don't see the basis for your claim "It wasn't even very good information, as it even simply repeated some of the same facts." It appears that the edit caught and corrected an incorrect birthdate and included for the first time an academic career at a number of important colleges. Summarily deleting different phrasings of a set of facts over time because they are all "copyright violations" is different from deleting just the first edit. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 184.108.40.206, At this point you should probably point out that you are in fact Racepacket, as what you're doing at the moment appears to be sockpuppetry. This is something that you have been confirmed to be doing in the past, so I recommend that you don't mislead again. As far as not providing the source for copyright violation, I think it was pretty clear. If you had a question, it probably would've been better to ask before adding it again. I'm not just going to remove something and claim it was a copyright violation if I didn't see it in a copyrighted text to begin with. Otherwise, it would easily be refutable. Why are you so set on the practice of word-for-word ripping for use on Wikipedia? Are you just trolling? Brian Reading (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, Template:uw-copyright does not provide the source, nor was it in your July 31 edit summary. Second, it should be noted that you deleted subsequent rephrasings that were not "word-for-word" on August 2 claiming that they were copyright violations without giving a source for them either. I don't see the basis for your claim "It wasn't even very good information, as it even simply repeated some of the same facts." It appears that the edit caught and corrected an incorrect birthdate and included for the first time an academic career at a number of important colleges. Summarily deleting different phrasings of a set of facts over time because they are all "copyright violations" is different from deleting just the first edit. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 18.104.22.168, you may want to re-read what I initially wrote. I clearly included the source the material was ripped from. Brian Reading (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever else it may permit, fair use doesn't permit the use of copyrighted material without attribution (as was the case here). In this case, fair use analysis is beside the point. See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Unacceptable_use. JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- User Brian Reading never bother to identify the source which was the basis of his concern in his first message. If a person believes there is a possible copyright violation, always state the source that gives rise to the concern. The next step is to determine whether the source is copyrighted. Then, go to a "fair use" analysis. It is prudent to remove the material out of caution while the problem is being studied, but if the first editor rephrases the material, deleting (here) the rephrased material is not warranted on copyright grounds. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, I would distinguish copyright vio from plagirism. Sometimes we get into arguments over fair use and even appropriateness of quotes for an encyclopedia. Personally, I wouldn't sit around trying to change someone's words to get by on plagairism or copyvio. If the words are important, quote and attribute up to fair use limits or get permission. If not important, make up your own words without adding ideas. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, the question has been answered. If you want to make a sockpuppet report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance will explain the process. If you want report copyright violations then Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the place. If you want to hurl accusations about then WP:Editor assistance/Requests IS NOT the place for it. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- To restate the question, if a copyrighted source states:
- Dr. Barnett was born in Charlottesville, Va., on May 21, 1942. She graduated from Antioch College in 1964 and received her master of science and doctoral degrees in political science from the University of Chicago. She taught at the University of Chicago and at Princeton, Howard and Columbia universities before turning to university administration.
Should you summarily delete as copyright infringement:
- Barnett was born in Charlottesville, Virginia., on May 21, 1942. She grew up in Buffalo, New York, and graduated from Bennett High School in 1959.[2] After graduating from Antioch College in 1964, she earned a master of science and doctoral degrees in political science from the University of Chicago. Before turning to university administration, Barnett taught at the University of Chicago and at Princeton, Howard and Columbia universities.
I don't think so. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article in question is Precognition I have recently overhauled it in order to provide more objective and representative information on the topic as it is presently scientifically investigated, and has been traditionally conceived. Perhaps my overhaul was too radical, all at once, but this does not seem to have concerned other editors. Instead, contention is almost singularly expressed as to my dissociation of this article from those articles on the subject of the "paranormal" - which, on WP's pages, comprises the likes of Atlantis, Big Foot, Elvis-as-a-cucumber-in-Arkansas, the Yeti, etc. I have tried to communicate the following reason for this: essentially, the concept of precognition, since the 1970s (at least) no longer needs to reference the "paranormal"; theories of its occurrence - as an ostensible or veridical fact - have been given in classical psychological and physical terms, in peer-reviewed forums; and I have provided dot-pointed and, I trust, well referenced information on this in the article, with more elaborate slices thereof in discussion. Perhaps there is a precedent here being feared - that if precognition falls outside WP's weird family of the paranormal, then other parapsychological constructs will do the same. That might well have to happen; the discipline grows; the understandings advance; and, accordingly, the encyclopedia must go through its editions. But a non-partisan approach to representing this information is called for. I recognize that WP must not promote "fringe" theories, and that it obliges itself to give the edge to the consensus, but in this domain of enquiry, the edges are presently not so simply drawn, and I have hoped to represent what is at least consistent with the present literature on this topic. In any case, the disputant of my approach has been silent for about a week, and I wonder when or if it is time to remediate the dispute, in terms of the content of the article. Rodgarton 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)
- Comment : Generally "fringe" is as much an issue of popularity as rigour. Wiki is not a soap box or place for OR. A new hypothesis is still "fringe" as would have been newtonian mechanics at one time. The interest is in documenting the state of knowledge, not adding new stuff. Taxonomy is always political, but off hand I would think paranormal is an issue of rigour- if you have "normal" science on the topic it probably isn't paranormal or supernatural. Some similar arguable prejudices came up on EM theories of consciousness articles- these theories don't exclude ghosts or the supernatural and to date AFAIK all proven consciosness is dependent on a brain. Calling them fringe or not seems to be an open issue but IIRC the involvement of folks like Penrose/Hammerhoff with "logical" suggestive arguments and lack of better alternatives made these ok. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Having read the discussion on the talk page, I feel that you are POV pushing. You don't want precognition associated with "paranormal" - fine, that's a fight for the real world, not for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability with privilege given to dominant scholarly views. As was pointed out to you on the talk page, wikipedia may not be cited as a reliable source. It has no authority. To get the dominant view changed requires a lot more work than editing here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: - A different approach. Having read the above, and skimmed the talk page I am wondering what all the fuss is about.
- Quantum theory quite successfully envelopes precognitive processes ("thinking" requires collapsing wave-functions -- otherwise your thinking would be rather fuzzy to say the least, opening up a whole new meaning for "fuzzy logic"). Physicists have known for, what, around 80 years? that the wave-functions of matter (e.g. of neurons) express pre-physical possibilities - "everything that has already happened is particles, everything in the future is waves, Sir Lawrence Bragg). And how long has he been dead ... And not to mention, of course, delayed-choice experiments which throw a rather large spanner in Newtonian clockwork-universe theories.
- In a quite literal sense to think requires precognition of the possibilities. Precognition (or possibility-awareness) is as natural as breathing, and just as necessary to life.
- It seems to me that those who shout "POV" or "OR" are pushing their own particular world-views. It's all quite disingenuous, and good folk know that you know it is.
- btw, I've enjoyed the following quotes from Jane Roberts books that were published by Prentice-Hall (the original text of which is archived in the Yale University Library).
- "The fetus grows into the adult, not because it is programmed from the past, but because it is to some extent precognitively aware of its probabilities, and from the "future" then imprints this information into the past structure." {Source: Roberts, Jane (1977). The "Unknown" Reality Vol 1. Prentice-Hall" original text of which is archived in the Yale University Library}
- "It is the body's own precognition that allows the child to develop, to speak and walk and grow." {Roberts, The Unknown Reality}
- "Your precognitive awareness of your own possibilities from the future helps to form the present that will then make that probable future your reality." {Roberts, The Unknown Reality}
- None of the above quotes should surprise. Recall Einstein's comment, that the ""The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." To believe that we only operate in a very narrow range of time is a quaint idea, no less quaint than "flat-earth" beliefs.
- btw (again), I particularly enjoyed the candid admission that "Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability with privilege given to dominant scholarly views." Priceless.
- Ciao
- "those who shout "POV" or "OR" are pushing their own particular world-views." Of course they are. NPOV does not mean no point of view; it means neutral point of view, where 'neutral' means something roughly like 'weighted according to the views of experts as published in reliable sources'. The view that quantum mechanics allows for precognition in the sense that the word usually means in English and the view that it does not are both 'world views'; the latter is the view overwhelmingly taken by professional physicists publishing in respectable journals and therefore Wikipedia adopts that view.
- If Wikipedia were not about "verifiability with privilege given to dominant scholarly views" what would we be about? The Truth as determined by the most recent editor to work on a given article? Or the majority of editors? I don't see a viable alternative. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral? The majority held view by physicists (according to one survey of the acknowledged top 20 physicists that I read), is the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory. In that conceptual framework, what does "neutral" mean? To which world-reality are you referring - presumably the one in which your 'neutral' views are "right"?
- The official verdicts of the Salem witch trials that saw 18 people executed for having practised "witchcraft", were likewise "peer (court) reviewed" judgements (and that's official!).
- Not to mention any number of other atrocities, and ... shh, let's not say anything about Galileo (who happened to go against the official "peer (church) reviewed" dogmas of his time).
- There is one particularly delicious quote by Seth that I thought summed it up: ""The universe is — and you can pick your terms — a spiritual or mental or psychological manifestation, and not, in your usual vocabulary, an objective manifestation. There is presently no science, religion, or psychology that comes close to even approaching a conceptual framework that could explain, or even indirectly describe, the dimensions of that kind of universe."
- And this one as well: "Atoms can move in more than one direction at once. You only perceive scientifically the probable motion you are interested in."
- Placing your faith in the Gospels of science is really no different to putting your faith in the Gospels of religion. What would navigate us out of the ruff, so to speak, is asking questions of the evidence. For example, look at the debacle over on the Talk:Zeno's paradoxes pages that I've had to sort out. The superstition that movement is "perfectly continuous" and that infinite-series solve the paradoxes is serious witch-burning territory.
- So, in regards to your "I don't see a viable alternative," try seeing one. Begin with the end in play, imagine a reality in which we've moved beyond the Gospels of deterministic science, and have entered an era in which we seek answers not based on the majority (crowd) opinion, but on good old-fashioned wisdom - timeless principles that will stand the test of time. What is a timeless principle? Ask the question, see what answers you get.
- Asking questions is highly recommended! And might I add, increasingly necessary if we're to create a saner, more equitable and sustainable world. From personal experience, I can attest that creativity is very very deeply reliant on precognitive processes. When we shout down the idea of precognitive processes, we clamp down our potential to engage a process that is natural, highly effective and crucial to wellbeing.
- btw, your statement that "quantum mechanics allows for precognition" (...is not one that is) "overwhelmingly taken by professional physicists publishing in respectable journal" is questionable (again, depending upon which questions are asked)... which crowd of "professional physicists"? We should trust them, like professional church folk (of Galileo's time), or professional lawyers (of Salem witch trials era)? In any event, would Professor R.C.Henry of The John Hopkins University be rated as "professional" who writes that "There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out 'what things are'. If we can 'pull a Galileo,' and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze. The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."
- In that reality, in which "nothing exists but observations" and that "The universe is ... mental and spiritual" one would necessarily be precognitively aware of, and helping to "coagulate" pre-physicality into the resulting physical reality (if you don't see why this is necessary, try asking some questions, based on that world-view).
- There are plethora of other professional, highly regarded physicists who voice similar beliefs.
- Not being one who slows down at road accidents in order to gawk, I shall be on my way. :)
- Just to note that user:Steaphen is, as he links to on his talk page, this person here who promotes these ideas about quantum precognition professionally, i.e. there's a little bit of WP:COI here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Conflict of interest? Not at all. You are getting my services here for free (and that's FREE as in free beer!). I've provided a link to the website to inform, and to reveal who I am (to confirm that I'm not sneaking around with a pseudonym). I stand by the ideas I "preach".
- Previously I said I don't slow down to gawk at road accidents (I slow down if required for safety reasons), but I will admit that I am drawn to not only slow down, but to stop, gawk and lurk at the train wreck of Western science. It's fascinating for me, but more to the point, I am deeply committed to helping the victims at the scene. Like ambulance drivers and paramedics who experience less-than-grateful responses from those they seek to help, I'm still willing to help ... as a Belief Doctor, it's my job and duty, which I both enjoy and take seriously.Steaphen (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- As your own books don't even meet the criteria for reliable sourcing, as they're self-published (and you're trying to get free advertising), I'm not sure who's gawking at whom.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, conflict of interest need not involve financial gain (although his advertising his consultancy service on his user page could bring him financial gain. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting responses. What have my books (which I have not used as "reliable sources") got to do with the issue at hand? Any "Conflict of interest" can be resolved - I just remove the link to the website. That still does not address the issue at hand. As a courtesy to Rodgarton perhaps you could, dare I repeat myself, deal with the issue at hand - that precognitive abilities are quite necessary in order to think, since the wave-functions (associated with neurons involved in thinking) express pre-physical possibilities that we then "collapse" into the choices and thoughts we experience. All this is fairly elementary, and I would think as a result that Rodgarton's original arguments (that initiated this page) be acknowledged and validated.Steaphen (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Kindly carry on discussion at article talk page or elsewhere. WP:EAR is not the place for continued squabbling. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting responses. What have my books (which I have not used as "reliable sources") got to do with the issue at hand? Any "Conflict of interest" can be resolved - I just remove the link to the website. That still does not address the issue at hand. As a courtesy to Rodgarton perhaps you could, dare I repeat myself, deal with the issue at hand - that precognitive abilities are quite necessary in order to think, since the wave-functions (associated with neurons involved in thinking) express pre-physical possibilities that we then "collapse" into the choices and thoughts we experience. All this is fairly elementary, and I would think as a result that Rodgarton's original arguments (that initiated this page) be acknowledged and validated.Steaphen (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, conflict of interest need not involve financial gain (although his advertising his consultancy service on his user page could bring him financial gain. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- As your own books don't even meet the criteria for reliable sourcing, as they're self-published (and you're trying to get free advertising), I'm not sure who's gawking at whom.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OK or not OK to remove or restore MfD template while discussion is active?
User:Deepmath and User talk:Deepmath are listed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the discussion is still active. Deepmath removed the templates from his user page and his talkpage, and I restored them. Then I began to wonder if it was appropriate to restore the templates. On the English Wikipedia, I understand that the general rule is that users are allowed to remove templates from their own user and talk pages. On the other hand, this is an ongoing matter and the templates are not only directed at Deepmath but are also used to communicate with others that visit the pages. Sjö (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the MfD template says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion., which I would say is clear cut. I think you should discuss the removal and restoration at the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion which would seem to be the appropriate venue. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion or Protection of userpage
Somebody keeps restoring content of Matthew McKenzie that's been deleted as spam on a userpage in violation of WP:UP. What's to be done about it? The page is User:Matthew McKenzie (Check page history) Seb az86556 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it might be appropriate to move this content to a user subpage for the User:Matthew McKenzie leaving a note to explain what you have done, where it is and why you did it. If one assumes that the IPs who keep adding the content are the same person then a similar note on their talk page would be appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe that'll do. Resolved Seb az86556 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been part of an ongoing discussion about the lack of sources for very intricate detailed information. The following is the unsourced statement:
There is a 66-game disparity between the show numbers assigned to first-run Jeopardy! episodes and the actual number of Trebek-era games played...However, all 65 reruns in Season 1 (1984-1985) were given new show numbers despite not being new games.
I have repeatedly asked for a source regarding this statement.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Each time a reference is requested, Robert K S provides a similar argument that "Season 1 began on September 10, 1984 and ran for 195 episodes (see Richmond). Season 2 began on September 9, 1985 with show #261. 260 - 195 = 65," usually stressing the arithmetic function that results in "65." However, no source for the episode number of the Season 2 premiere or the episode number of a repeat showing the disparity has been provided.
My original argument was that this information is not encyclopedic and more along the lines of minutiae/trivia. Because the user insists upon including the information, I've tried to determine if there is an actual source for this or if this is merely a testament by an individual based on their own assumption or unverifiable research, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempt.
Can you please provide insight? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you clarify your request to the other editor and answer their questions at the talk page, rather than forum shopping. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I've posted on the talk site. Perhaps a second editor making your point will help. I have a feeling he doesn't know about WP:VERIFY, which is why you're talking at cross-purposes. He thinks he's being truthful (and he may be perfectly right), but you - I think - are being correct in wanting things verifiable.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your insight, VsevolodKrolikov, and your addition to the talk page on the article. I agree that Robert K S is likely correct—I am simply requesting a source for the second variable in the arithmetic equasion.
- However, I do not agree with the statement from Jezhotwells that I am forum shopping, as I have answered the user's question as to exactly what type of source I am looking for here ("Do you have a screencap of the slate for the Season 2 premiere that shows the episode number?") and here ("[Provide] an episode number for a repeat that does not match the original airing, the episode numbers/slates for the final Season 1 and first Season 2 episodes, etc."). I requested editor assistance on this page in order to find an administrator that can further articulate that I am not disputing that 260 - 195 = 65 and that I am requesting a source that 260 is in fact the correct episode number for the episode aired September 9, 1985. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think "forum shopping" wasn't a correct attribution. It appears from your contributions list you have not appealed to more than one dispute page in order to get the answer you want. So rest easy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- An additional response has been provided by Robert K S, however this again results in a circular argument and lack of verifiable source. This validity of this information has been in question for over ninety days with multiple and sufficient requests for a verifiable source. Can this information be removed and the article protected until such verifiable sources are found? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think "forum shopping" wasn't a correct attribution. It appears from your contributions list you have not appealed to more than one dispute page in order to get the answer you want. So rest easy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want admin help to protect the page, then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the appropriate place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Content dispute on Party in the U.S.A.
Party in the U.S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:220.127.116.11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has repeatedly moved the lead section into other parts of the page. I tried to explain to him/her that I felt it was an unnecessary change and reverted it, but s/he continued to make those changes. Additionally, this user has linked to a screengrab (on Twitpic) of a copyrighted TV program on the talk page, and after I removed explaining that it was a copyright violation, s/he continued to add it in. This user also was acting uncivil on the talk page, claiming that I didn't know what I was doing. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is really a matter of opinion. The brief lede seems better to me. Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly? Aren't leads supposed to summarize main details from the article? There are so many things in the article that the current lead doesn't discuss... the song's chart performance, the performance at the Teen Choice Awards, the controversy following the performance at the Teen Choice Awards? POKERdance talk/contribs 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it's supposed to be a brief summary: "a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". The brief version does it. 20 years from now nobody will give a rats's ass about Teen choice awards. There you go. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please look at GA-status song articles such as Just Dance which give a summary of mostly everything important in the article. Maybe it won't be notable in 20 years, but it's fairly notable right now. POKERdance talk/contribs 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're rejecting the assistance you've requested. I didn't come here to argue with you. That's why you're here in the first place. Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue. I just disagree with your opinion. Perhaps we can take this to Talk:Party in the U.S.A. for further discussion, but I would appreciate some more opinions before this is considered resolved. POKERdance talk/contribs 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The short lead is definitely better. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) In my opinion, the longer lead is too specific and goes into too much detail. The shorter lead is marginally better, but it's way too short and doesn't summarize the article. Powers T 12:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pokerdance, the article's lead just summarizes the rest of the info in the page and moving all of that is unnecessary. Those sections are not well done, it took what as already well written and well patterned into unnecessary sections. And as far to the uncivil comments 22.214.171.124 has used bad language and Pokerdance was not threatening the user, he only warned him some users have been blocked for that. Bottom line: The article needs to be reverted back to the way it was previously. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive repeatedly read that leads should be concise. Major points of the article may be touched upon, but very detailed details shouldnt be in the intro. The lead as poker had it had alot of info--& the info was on Miley's 1 performance of the song--not about the song! @ipodNano: your bottom line is your opinon. Have you read the opinion posted before yours? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
- Directed at 188.8.131.52: You are right, we do need to concise. The reason why I agree with saying things about that performance is because it is a major part of the article. It was a controversy, is the longest section of the article and should be on the lead section. It doesn't seem like much, it is only three sentences. You are also right in regards to that "bottom line" comment; it is "my bottom line." After all, this page is discuss our opinion; isn't it? So I say, let's make a summary that doesn't say too much about the controversial performance, something along the lines of:
"Cyrus performed the song at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards and was met with much controversy, saying that it was too sexual for a teen-oriented event because for a short portion of the performance, she was dancing onto what appeared to be a dance pole. Some have defended Cyrus, claiming that people should not focus on the 'pole-dancing,' rather than on her accomplishments that night, winning six awards at the show."
I think that summarizes it to the main aspect and is not too extensive. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi ipodNano. Right now it is current. Miley has plans to promote the song in other performances(GMA 4 ex), & if she does the pole routine again, will that performance detail too be added. I feel that having the controversy in the lead extensively takes away in that the explanation is so long. This article is about the song afterall. How about this:
- Miley's 2009 TeenChoice Award performance of the song was met with controvery for her pole dancing.
This way it is mentioned but the details are in the article, not the lead.184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
- Directed at 184.108.40.206: O.K. I will reword the second paragraph in the lead to a shorter version along those lines and merge that into the first. I think that would solve this predicament. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you move this dicussion back to the article talk page please? WP:EAR is requesting assistance or guidance, not a forum for discussing article improvemnent. That is what the article talk page is for. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors on the Stoern Page
To save time I have cut and pasted my comments from the edit war issues. I have come to this page on advice from S Marshall.
Mr. McGeddon creatively edits the Stoern page by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first part of the article. In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury. Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim ("Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study." THIS STATEMENT HAS NO EFFECT--WHAT SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM CAN BE MADE BY STEORN. Without any reason behind Stoern statement to doubt the jury's finding, Stoern is rebutted the jury's finding or at least left doubt in the readers mind. This is a misdirection of the truth.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source. I accept McGeddon's edits if it is applied equally to all contributors. However, he is selective in his edits.
Furthermore, I doubt the legitimacy of McGeddon as a person without an interest in Stoern. Reviewing his editing over the YEARS of Stoern, he has made changes at all times, shortly after others have made editing changes. This appears to be a company hire to protect the editing of the Stoern Wikipedia page or Stoern itself then an altruistic in Wikipedia. (p)Evidence of Year of Editing and editing within shortly after other's editing (cur) (prev) 14:29, 26 July 2009 McGeddon (talk | contribs) m (19,037 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 184.108.40.206; Rv placeholder (?). using TW) (cur) (prev) 14:25, 26 July 2009 18.104.22.168 (talk) (19,104 bytes) (→Jury) a matter of minutes.
(cur) (prev) 11:15, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (not in source.) (cur) (prev) 11:11, 6 July 2007 Boldra (talk | contribs) (33,418 bytes) (→Demonstration (July 2007)) (cur) (prev) 10:07, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (→Arguments against: use better source) Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors should read this first before responding to this request. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No forum shopping, thank you. This is being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Irrito so is irrelevant here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I was told to enter my concerns on this page by S Marshall--as noted above. I am not sure what the scope of review will be at the other page. If the scope of review is different here I would like to continue review.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
- This isn't a page for reviewing articles, neither is WP:ANI. If you want a review, try WP:Peer review or nominate at WP:GAN, but neither will be any good until disputes on the talk page are sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. No Forum shopping please. It's really annoying and disruptive--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
14th Military Police Brigade
Can anyone tell me the proper way to rename this article I caught on new page patrol? The naming seems so generic that I feel its highly likely that it conflicts with something similarly named be it from a previous time, fiction, or country. Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a major problem. If someone creates or tries to create another article with the same title then they will get a notice telling tem it already exists. If that happens a disambiguation page can be created. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that the other brigades listed at Military Police Corps (United States Army) have similar names. I'd suggest any renaming plan should go through the military history WikiProject. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Medical Cannabis article, problems with references
Medical cannabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello there,
We have some edit warring going on at the Medical cannabis page. Would you care to take a look? One editor is changing references from articles to abstracts of scientific papers. Could you give us advise on how to come to an agreement about what type of references will work? On the discussion page, I have outlined these problems (very bottom of page). This page was locked for the past day, but once it was unlocked this editor went at it again and does not respond to discussion page. Thank you very much. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as has been suggested, you can raise a request for mediation or just a request for comment. You mention that the the page was locked for a day. Perhaps you could inform the admin who did that what is going on. Check out dispute resolution for other options. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Correcting a misquotation
My Technical Director has found that he has been mis-quoted in a recent article. What steps should he take to correct the mis-quotation?
Thank You LindaDRI (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Verifiable, factual matters should admit editing by anyone, even COI editors. That is, if the quote is documented in a reliable source it shouldn't be too controversial for anyone to fix it as per the source. Now, if the cited source doesn't agree with the speaker, preference has to be given to the verifiable source. Bio of living people tends to have asymmetry in regards to positive information ( kind of like securities valuations LOL where positive information is generally accepted more willingly than derogatory stuff ) so if the original quote is taken from a source which can be made to appear unreliable and is not flattering to the author, there is a good chance it can be removed. Unverifiable "corrections" however may not be possible. If you believe that wiki has accurately quoted some other source, you first need to get that source ( or even some other reliable source) to publish an indication that your director disputes the quotation. At that point, the controversy could be documented in wiki. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- What is the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I understand. I will forward this information on to him. He has also asked if there is any way possible (other than following the directions indicated on the Wikipedia Help area) that he would be able to keep or "lock" the correct quote so that it cannot be editted or change to prevent the mis-quotation again. Thanks again. LindaDRI (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- What page are you talking about? Locks are available but usually only due to obvious vandalism. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Help for New Article
Trying to create an article for Canadian landscaping company. Looking for help for what info I need before it can be made public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmyrland/Sunshine_Grounds_Care Fmyrland (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks factual and devoid of a lot of puffery but you still need notability established by unrelated reliable sources with significant coverage. My own opinion on significant being that there has to be enough content on which to base an article. Has the company been covered in more-than-local news,business, or trade journals? Normally directory listings don't qualify- all that allows you to write in any case is something like "listed in yellow pages" which is probably not encyclopedic. If they were noted for some specific attributes, it would help to highlight these. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to say that it appears that this is a completely non-notable company. Please read WP:CORP which is the guideline on notablity for companies. Wikipedia is not a trade directory, it is an encyclopaedia. So, I think there is little point in continuing unless there is something specifically notable about this landscape gardening franchise that is different from other such companies. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is an international company that has been the front page feature in a respected magazine. Where is the line for notability? Fmyrland (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- As Jezhotwells suggests, go have a look at WP:Corp. That should help give you an idea. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have read it and my understanding is that notability is established by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I have a link from the page to an article on the company from a reputable, independant magazine but what does "significant coverage" mean? Can it be quantified? Fmyrland (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're talking about having been the cover story in Franchise Canada Magazine, which is linked in the article you've drafted. My personal sense is one-time or occasional coverage by a trade organization's bi-monthly publication does not qualify as "significant coverage" for purposes of Wikipedia notability. Coverage by a greater variety of publications - ones of more general interest, perhaps - would present a more compelling case. That's just my personal point of view, though. Others may have something different to say. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you'd have to look at the context and AFAIK wiki doesn't limit much beyond being non-local coverage. One-time may be arguable but AFAIK there is nothing wrong with erring on side of inclusion as we don't have to fit in a bookshelf or kill a tree. I haven't looked at the claims in this case beyond above comments but, ok, if the coverage is just that "the place exists" then you would have a hard time writing an article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're talking about having been the cover story in Franchise Canada Magazine, which is linked in the article you've drafted. My personal sense is one-time or occasional coverage by a trade organization's bi-monthly publication does not qualify as "significant coverage" for purposes of Wikipedia notability. Coverage by a greater variety of publications - ones of more general interest, perhaps - would present a more compelling case. That's just my personal point of view, though. Others may have something different to say. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have read it and my understanding is that notability is established by significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. I have a link from the page to an article on the company from a reputable, independant magazine but what does "significant coverage" mean? Can it be quantified? Fmyrland (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- As Jezhotwells suggests, go have a look at WP:Corp. That should help give you an idea. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is an international company that has been the front page feature in a respected magazine. Where is the line for notability? Fmyrland (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to say that it appears that this is a completely non-notable company. Please read WP:CORP which is the guideline on notablity for companies. Wikipedia is not a trade directory, it is an encyclopaedia. So, I think there is little point in continuing unless there is something specifically notable about this landscape gardening franchise that is different from other such companies. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
None of these are really high class sources, IMO. Whilst such awards are useful to promote employee well being and to enhance a company's status in advertising, etc. they do not really say anything about the notability of a company in Wikipedia terms.
dispute with User:NEV1 (I'm sorry I didn't know who else to turn to!)
I apologize to Nev1 for inserting a weblink into the web page entitled "Darwen" but there was no need to delete other content that I had added in the article!
I found the deletion rather agressive as I do hail from Darwen originally and perhaps know a wee thing or two more than he does!
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can contact Nev1 on the user talk page at User talk:Nev1. User talk pages are often linked next to the username. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
why give a new writer, age 62, a hard time
I am Irene Brodsky, age 62, and was recently added to Wikipedia by one of my readers in India. And i tried to add as much as I could to the article he set up for me. Much of this was removed by someone I did not know., And much said about me was not true. I also did not get any advice how to fix up my page Only criticisms and none of these people told me their credentials. but they were certainly trying to down-size my credentials. Please advise how I can get my article back and tell me how to fix it and I will do so. Irene Brodsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates1x2 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Irene, I am responding on your talkpage to explain the policies you have been having issues with. Mfield (Oi!) 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Magic User, 1st Class: Generally you want to concentrate on merit and facts or data, credentials can be a distraction or even prejudicial or intimidating and in any case are really just ad hominens ( flattering puffery has the same merit as attacks ). There is a reliance on things like track record with qualifications like "reliable" in citing known sources and sometimes contribution history is examined for wiki contributors. In an anon place like this, credentials are difficult to establish in any case. You see this come up in other places too- from stocks, to medicine, to any other products you sell with celebrities on TV. This isn't just a problem confined to you, it is everywhere :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
request for feedback
Nazargunj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
an article on 'nazargunj' has been tagged since March 2008 suggesting there are multiple issues e.g. not enough of an introduction, etc. This has been edited since to address such issues. Can someone please review it to see if it is now satisfactory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazargunj (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The article needs editing to conform to the manual of style. It would be preferable to have more than one source and to have inline citations. It may not conform to the notability guidelines, I am putting some links on your talk page that will show you where to find further information about editing on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Blue Ocean
Blue_Ocean_Strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I attempted to add a citation but destroyed the References but cannot resolve to undo. I feel terrible for the mess-up & would like to draw attention to the unintended removal. Halukmesci (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have fixed it. The citation should be added in the text and not in the references section. See how the other references are added in the article. You can read WP:CITE if you need more help on this. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
subtle vandalism on page, changing 3 letter word to "sex",
check out IP edit,
I guess that is less conspicuous that adding "Erin Andrews" ... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I reverted that and posted a warning on the ip talk page using WP:Twinkle. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it could have been a foreign technical term but seems hard to imagine, prior history didn't look like vandalism but I didn't bother to look for more subtle stuff. That is one way to get page views up LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk keeps getting deleted.
The discussion page for the reference desk keeps getting deleted. Its filesize keeps alternating between about 1kB and 72kB. I think there might be a user who feels he was wronged, and he wants to disrupt talk pages until he is satisfied. I'm not sure who to report this to, so I'm putting this here. Gary (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was archived properly,[1] then accidentally restored,[2] then trolled by a known sockpuppeteer,[3] and now it's back where it should be. There seems to a few users on top of it. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
British Isles article needs independent (not British Or Irish) oversight
British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm a wikipedia reader, rather than an editor. I've been reading the British Isles article and the associated talk pages.
Its clear to me that there's a disagreement going on which cannot be solved on those talk pages.
To state my bias: I am a citizen of Ireland; however I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible here.
The vast majority of Irish people (as sourced in that article) object to use of the term 'British Isles' as a culturally imperialist term.
Most people from Britian do not agree; they are of the opinion it is a geographical term, and therefore should be kept.
While I understand that wikipedia does not discriminate against editors on a geographical basis, it is a fact that there are more British people than Irish people, and hence, (if we assume anyway even distribution of wikipedia contributors across both states), there will always be more editoral opinion in favour of use of the term 'British Isles'. Clearly, this is the case from reading the talk pages. Equally clearly, there is no consensus there; indeed, considering the long history of this debate, none seems forthcoming.
The status quo appears to be that as there are more British editors (it is quite clear from looking at the talk pages of the main contributors that the main editors in favour of the term are, in fact, British), the page title remains 'British Isles'. This is a term, that as stated, is horribly, amazingly offensive to most Irish people.
This really needs looking into, and resolution, from more Wikipedia editors, and not just those local to the term (those from Irish and the UK). Ideally, there would be no geographical bias, but one is here, and manifesting, and this needs to be fixed.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- Yawn. Some editors cannot distinguish in their minds the way things are versus the way things they want them to be. Regardless of Irish sensitivities, the term is still very much in use, as can be evidenced by a Google book or internet search, and it continues to have a definition regardless of whether anyone likes that definition. The controversy is noted in the article. All this post is is another tiresome attempt to use the encyclopaedia to right WP:GREATWRONGS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh fancy that, I've followed the same trail of crumbs as Redhat... Independent editorial assistance might actually be helpful. Since Wikipedia is based on sources and the arguments on the page are between those citing sources and those inserting opinions it would only work in favour of the former group. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above request from an IP is an attempt to open up yet another front in the British Isles battle. He states "I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible here" - well you are not being very good at it. You state "vast majority" regarding the view of the Irish people, but a simple "most" regarding the apparent British view. So far as I know, most Irish people are not even aware of the issue (an issue which, by and large, is hosted by Wikipedia) and I would say the vast majority of Irish people, and the vast majority of British people, are not interested. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is possible that the phrase British Isles may be replaced by something else in time. I understand that it has been objected to since the time of British rule. It might be appropriate to include information about the disagreement appropriately sourced in artciles, but currently sources seem to show British Isles as a term conveniently used by many. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is the person that originally left the comment. Like I said, I'm fairly new here, but this is a compelling issue for me, and one I'd like to pursue, so please bear with me as I learn. MidnightBlueMan and TheRedHatOfPatrickFerrick: Its pretty clear from both of your talk pages you are from England, or at least Britian. As such, your comments here are sort of illustrating my point. From your culture you will probably view 'The British Isles' as primarily a geographical term. As an Irish citizen, I find the term offensive. As sourced and acknowledged in the article in question, a majority of Irish people similarly find it offensive. Now, I'm not saying you guys are wrong and I am right. All I'm saying is that we are both biased, because of the culture we are in, and that as such, itd be better if wikipedians who are not subject to the same bias were the ones trying to resolve this. My argument here isn't for or against the use of the term 'British Isles', although I am happy to acknowledge my bias against it. My argument is rather that either people from Britian, or Ireland, editing on the issue, clearly hurts attempts towards WP:NPOV. We aren't neutral, and our points of view aren't neutral. Someone more neutral might be better able to steer the article towards WP:NPOV. Or the article and talk page could continue to go tit-for-tat - but hopefully we can move beyond that. To deal with the specific points raised above: I'm not trying to open a front. I hadnt seen the article until a few days ago. I'm trying to think about how to resolve this. I think help and oversight from editors not from 'these islands'/'the british isles'/'the atlantic isles'/'britian and ireland' would be helpful. A solution that involves either a large number of British editors 'shouting down' a smaller number of Irish ones, or vicea versa, and going over and back on the talk page is not helpful or productive and is a sad mirror of the real life conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- So go to Talk:British Isles, say what you think is not written from a neutral point of view, and we can all discuss it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is the person that originally left the comment. Like I said, I'm fairly new here, but this is a compelling issue for me, and one I'd like to pursue, so please bear with me as I learn. MidnightBlueMan and TheRedHatOfPatrickFerrick: Its pretty clear from both of your talk pages you are from England, or at least Britian. As such, your comments here are sort of illustrating my point. From your culture you will probably view 'The British Isles' as primarily a geographical term. As an Irish citizen, I find the term offensive. As sourced and acknowledged in the article in question, a majority of Irish people similarly find it offensive. Now, I'm not saying you guys are wrong and I am right. All I'm saying is that we are both biased, because of the culture we are in, and that as such, itd be better if wikipedians who are not subject to the same bias were the ones trying to resolve this. My argument here isn't for or against the use of the term 'British Isles', although I am happy to acknowledge my bias against it. My argument is rather that either people from Britian, or Ireland, editing on the issue, clearly hurts attempts towards WP:NPOV. We aren't neutral, and our points of view aren't neutral. Someone more neutral might be better able to steer the article towards WP:NPOV. Or the article and talk page could continue to go tit-for-tat - but hopefully we can move beyond that. To deal with the specific points raised above: I'm not trying to open a front. I hadnt seen the article until a few days ago. I'm trying to think about how to resolve this. I think help and oversight from editors not from 'these islands'/'the british isles'/'the atlantic isles'/'britian and ireland' would be helpful. A solution that involves either a large number of British editors 'shouting down' a smaller number of Irish ones, or vicea versa, and going over and back on the talk page is not helpful or productive and is a sad mirror of the real life conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- It is possible that the phrase British Isles may be replaced by something else in time. I understand that it has been objected to since the time of British rule. It might be appropriate to include information about the disagreement appropriately sourced in artciles, but currently sources seem to show British Isles as a term conveniently used by many. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above request from an IP is an attempt to open up yet another front in the British Isles battle. He states "I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible here" - well you are not being very good at it. You state "vast majority" regarding the view of the Irish people, but a simple "most" regarding the apparent British view. So far as I know, most Irish people are not even aware of the issue (an issue which, by and large, is hosted by Wikipedia) and I would say the vast majority of Irish people, and the vast majority of British people, are not interested. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh fancy that, I've followed the same trail of crumbs as Redhat... Independent editorial assistance might actually be helpful. Since Wikipedia is based on sources and the arguments on the page are between those citing sources and those inserting opinions it would only work in favour of the former group. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Need immediate advice re. suspected sock
Please do not re-direct me, I've already been round the block. RashersTierney (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:Sockpuppet investigations gives guidance on how to report sock puppetry. You need to collect evidence:
Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts, users or IPs concerned. The evidence needs to be quite strong, not just a vague belief or assumption. Certainty may not be possible; it is usual for a decision to be made based upon an experienced user's judgement of likelihood. If the evidence suggests it is likely that abuse has taken place, then action may be taken.
- Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reply, and hope you don't take offence when I say, not really. A multiple no of connected IPs have made substantial edits to several unrelated articles. By the time an 'investigation' has been carried out, most, or at least a substantial number of edits will stand. The sock has mostly had his/her way, and lives to vandalise another day. RashersTierney (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this sort of vandalism is hard to fight - most people do it by keeping artciles in which they are interested in their watchlist and acting to revert vandalism as and when it happens. Persistent vandalism from IPs can and do result in blocks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Looks like things are going to get messy. Any help appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- What articles are you referring to? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Looks like things are going to get messy. Any help appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect questions
People skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting assistance about procedures for recreating the People Skills article. The information is under "The Pillars" on my talk page. Thank you. PSY7 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- And your question is...?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 06:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The page is still there. If you actually have any useful content to add then do it. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The page search redirects to Wiktionary stating Wikipedia has no People Skills page with a template:long comment and monitor. What is the procedure for changing this template? PSY7 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mmmm, it seems from the article history [4] that User:Closedmouth changed the article as you describe. You could ask them, on their talk page User talk:Closedmouth, why they did this. That would be a good start. I must say that the article did look rather like an essay. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I did ask 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) without reply (please see "The Pillars" on my talk page) PSY7 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could be within your rights to revert that editor's effective deletion, but be very careful of getting into an edit war. I repeat that the article still looks essay like. The majority of the references you provided are not WP:RS. Please read that guideline. You could create the article in your user space and ask other editors to look it over before moving into mainspace. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is in my user space for editors to look over. All the references have been clarified and verified. PSY7 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- However the majority of references are not reliable sources, eg Google search, wikipedia, etc. Also the artcile should be in a sub page, e.g. User:PSY7/People skills. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- WriteINGWell (talk · contribs)
My concerns with this user are that he or she seems completely non-communicative in the face of multiple notices about his or her image uploads. He or she continues his or her upload pattern, blithely pushing ahead without paying any apparent attention to his or her talk page. I have posted a request for communication to no avail. His or her only talk page edits have been to delete a brief discussion on Talk:Snow White (Disney) without explanation or comment (twice).
WriteINGWell's article-space edits are often trivial or subtle changes in wording, yet he or she does occasionally provide useful, referenced information. (See, e.g., this series of 13 consecutive edits).
I appreciate any thoughts on where to go next.
-- Powers T 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikiquette alerts would appear to be the correct venue: It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Toronto Port Authority NPOV
Toronto Port Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am requesting assistance for the article on the Toronto Port Authority. Various authors including myself have contributed to the article for years. The article was in dispute a number of years ago. It is my belief that all contributors to this article, including myself, reached a consensus some time ago. A new contributor, "Alaney2K" has been rewriting the article line by line since the fall of 2008. The NPOV of the article is now in dispute due to the substantial rewrite dome by "Alaney2K". I am not familiar with the sequence of events for resolving a dispute of this type. My preference would be to have the page locked as it was about 6 months ago. Thanks. Kdickson (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to me that Alaney2K has been adding neutral information to the article and that you are engaged in an edit war with him. I have reverted your unexplained removal of his rewrites and have locked the page. Please take the discussion to the talk page if you wish changes to be made. Wiki's are ever changing and not static, just because an article was one way a year ago does not mean it will always remain that way. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for Assistance and Review of New, Second Article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie
I am requesting assistance for a second article I created for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie. The first article got deleted for severe lack of citations and references, and for being too "press release" like. The second one has a number of citations to support the content. Would like feedback and suggestions for improvement. Even if it needs to be shortened. Thank you. User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article
Chicago Smooth (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly this article does little to establish the notability of the subject. Mentions in directories of speakers, passing mentions in local newspapers and references from unreliable sources such as blogs, your tube, IMdB biographies and the National Examiner do nothing for either notability or verifiability.
- The article tone is heavily promotional with use of weasel words and other puffery. My personal opinion - forget it. I might suggest that you read What Wikipedia is NOT, before creating any other articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect Jezhotwells, I read What Wikipedia is NOT back in Spring or Summer of 2007; Before I even created the original article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie (which was not even one-third as credible as the current second article), I consulted with two or three editors and asked them was the article credible enough for inclusion. They said yes. The original article remained on Wikipedia for at least a full year, if not longer, before the editors Davidwiz and Theserialcomma challenged it.
- Please be very specific on the parts that you are suggesting are "weasel words and other puffery." To be blunt, I'm not looking to engage in another "debate" on whether or not the article is about a credible and notable subject; That debate has already taken place. This request is specifically for a review on how to make the second article better.Chicago Smooth (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comparison of Notability - I keep reading where various editors have challenged the 'notability' of Book Author Alan Roger Currie; In my opinion, it very much depends on who you are comparing him to.
Here are articles for subjects who are in the same line of work as Book Author Alan Roger Currie; I would like a review of what makes these dating and relationship authors and experts "more credible" or "more notable" than the subject of my article:
- Doc Love
- Zan Perrion
- David DeAngelo
- Ross Jeffries
- Tariq Nasheed
- J-Dog
- Ellen Fein
- Why Men Marry Bitches
- John Gray
- Karrine Steffans
- Greg Behrendt
I feel like my subject (Book Author Alan Roger Currie) is just as notable, if not more notable, then most of the authors and dating experts listed above. Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong Issue : Generally comparison to other entries is a bit of a last resort. I do it a lot myself too, but usually the intent is not to argue for a specific outcome, rather consistency. In this case, your comparison argument could just as easily lead to all comparators being deleted. First, puffery is a legal term but what physicists would say, "this isn't right, it isn't even wrong" to express how wasteful untestable statements are. If you aren't sure about puffery, the distinction between this article and others may not be apparent. The positive opinion you had previously elicited could have been a good faith but inaccurate assessment of your article, " I have 50 good sources, does that mean it is notable?" FWIW, consumer and even professional opinion polls of this type often elicit glib answers. If the sources are as the other poster suggested, it is likely things attributed to them are non-encyclopedic. Probably the ultimate fate depends on the sources, puffery can be fixed if there is substance somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes all of those other articles are about non-notable people. I see that they all have cleanup tags and several have been nominated for deletion. With regards to puffery, etc. Currie now has two books sold on the Barnes & Noble website as well as Amazon.com: Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking (2006) and Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know What You're REALLY Thinking (2009) is a straight advert; Currie has resisted having his name associated with the well-known Seduction Community, which features authors, dating coaches and seduction gurus such as Neil Strauss, Mystery, Ross Jeffries and Tyler Durden, among others. this uncited statemnet appears like puffery to me, in fact that whole section is puffery. Curie this, Currie that. Where's the criticsm of this person? Career as a radio personality. He made a guest appearance on a radio show and set up his own blog? Give me a break, purleease!! Please don't try to debate here anymore. You asked for an opinion and you got one. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback Nerdseeksblonde. Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Jezhotwells - An appearance on a radio show and a blog?!? This author has been on national television (The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Tonight Show with Jay Leno) and on his own radio show, he has interviewed a number of high profile guests, including at least 8-10 men and women who are featured right here on Wikipedia(!!) Just because you are not familiar with this author and talk radio show host does not mean others are not familiar with him. Matter of fact, in the next four-to-six weeks, his radio show is going to be featured in Black Enterprise magazine. Cheers! Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback Nerdseeksblonde. Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes all of those other articles are about non-notable people. I see that they all have cleanup tags and several have been nominated for deletion. With regards to puffery, etc. Currie now has two books sold on the Barnes & Noble website as well as Amazon.com: Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking (2006) and Upfront and Straightforward: Let the Manipulative Game Players Know What You're REALLY Thinking (2009) is a straight advert; Currie has resisted having his name associated with the well-known Seduction Community, which features authors, dating coaches and seduction gurus such as Neil Strauss, Mystery, Ross Jeffries and Tyler Durden, among others. this uncited statemnet appears like puffery to me, in fact that whole section is puffery. Curie this, Currie that. Where's the criticsm of this person? Career as a radio personality. He made a guest appearance on a radio show and set up his own blog? Give me a break, purleease!! Please don't try to debate here anymore. You asked for an opinion and you got one. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
i NEED YOUR EXPERTISE TO ALIGN THE INFORMATION IN A BLANK TABLE PROPERLY IN RESPECT TO THE "ORIGINAL CAST" OF THIS OPERA AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN PARIS ON APRIL 28, 1865. I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FIRST AND LAST NAMES OF ALL THE PERFORMERS BUT I A AM NOT SURE THAT THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. PLEASE EDIT ACCORDINGLY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've fixed the table for you. Notice that spaces, like you were adding, are ignored by the table format: to signify a new entry you use a | and to signify a new line a |-. Help:table has more information or you can ask here again if you need more help. Good luck! Olaf Davis (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, for future reference Wikipedia:Help Desk is a better place to ask questions about formatting - this is designed more for interpreting policies and dealing with disagreements. Don't worry too much about getting it wrong though, someone can answer or point you in the right direction. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Lish
Gordon Lish was an editor and sometimes-writer who was influential in mid-20th century American fiction.
About 2 years ago, I spent a lot of time wikifying his article, but I was finding my edits reverted by users who seemed to be Lish family members. Their edits maintained the article in a state of literal chaos, with random uncited facts, no headings, no flow, weasel words, and nuggets that only friends and family could know (which were not worth noting anyway.) Often the edit summary would be the only citation, and the reference would be "see NYT July 1962." Eventually the article hit an equilibrium when other editors started maintaining it.
I took a long break from wikipedia and I just noticed that this article was reverted entirely back to chaos. I took the unusual step of reverting it back to its form of January 2007 (I really don't think there are any substantive differences in the meantime, believe it or not). Perhaps there might have been a better "restore point" but I wanted to get it fixed, and I explained myself on the talk page.
I would really appreciate having another editor take a look at the article and perhaps, if possible, put it on some kind of watch list to prevent destructive reversions. I would rather it be wikified and light on marginalia than a total mess with lots of random tidbits. Thanks! -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Small update, I reverted it to a more recent spot in 2008 which I think is the most recent point at which it was being maintained.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can put it on your own watch-list and revert any vandalism that occurs. Just click the watch tab on the article page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the adding of a related article. I tried to add a related article to the 2009 Nazran bombing article, namely the Civil war in Ingushetia. However a user reverted my edit asking for a source. We tried to settle it (My talk page, His/Her talk page), however this user insists on that he's/she's merely enforcing Wikipedia policy. I don't get it, what policy exactly? Why do I have to source a Wikipedia article? If there's a problem with the article itself not properly sourced, wouldn't it be proper to put a tag on it's page instead of deleting a related link I put in the "related articles" section of another article? I also noticed that this user has been accused of Wikipedia policies violations. IJK_Principle (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to me you didn't do anything wrong; you've run into a troublesome editor. I'll put it back for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Need help creating article
I came to Wikipedia hoping to find a page on Peter Toon, the late Anglican advocate for a traditional Prayer Book, and was amazed to not find one. I am new to Wikipedia, and was willing to spend a little time putting something up. What I gather is that his name is the issue. For although he is mentioned a few places in other pages, creating a page is difficult due largely to his surname
Would like to create
but apparently need help to do so.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SongspiritUSA (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
swapping two pages VERSUS fixing cut and paste moves
In an an attempt to remove the hyphen/dash from an article title (with an existing second article having a title with no hyphenation and a redirect to the hyphenated article), I made the poor choice of using an outdated manual move (simultaneous cut/paste of the two articles) instead of following WP:MOVE, and hence, lost histories. Please advice on how to best proceed now. Which procedure to best follow: Wikipedia:MOVE#Swapping two pages OR Wikipedia:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves?. Would like Non-commutative ring to be the redirect to Noncommutative ring with "Noncommutative ring" being the main article. Thank you. Henry Delforn (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please list this at WP:RM so that the cut-and-paste can be undone, putting things back as they were. You should then list a new requested move for discussion if you think the topic should have an unhyphenated name. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, but putting things back as they were is counter. Please note that the assumption regarding a discussion is incorrect. An unhyphenated name for the topic is beyond what i think. Is there no other choices? - it seems that Wikipedia:Requested moves is a very long way to go just to start over. So that's out. Can't the two pages be swapped (which would merge histories)? It just now appears to me that "Wikipedia:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves" is not appropriate either, but not sure, that's why i'm asking. Which of the two would be more appropriate?...I guess i answered my own question. Thank you again. Henry Delforn (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- FYI - went ahead with "Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen", thank you for the WP:RM reference. Henry Delforn (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, but putting things back as they were is counter. Please note that the assumption regarding a discussion is incorrect. An unhyphenated name for the topic is beyond what i think. Is there no other choices? - it seems that Wikipedia:Requested moves is a very long way to go just to start over. So that's out. Can't the two pages be swapped (which would merge histories)? It just now appears to me that "Wikipedia:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves" is not appropriate either, but not sure, that's why i'm asking. Which of the two would be more appropriate?...I guess i answered my own question. Thank you again. Henry Delforn (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Victor Arbogast
I would like to request correction and comment advice on my userpage article. I have requested this on my discussion/user talk page, and have not recieved any comments. Now that I have written the article with edits; what do I do next? Shizuye (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
- Well, you have the beginnings of an article here. It would be good to use inline citations to fix the print references to the specific statements that they support. The last reference #5 is a broken link. You definitely need to provide sources that support his work being used in embassies and galleries, as this supports his notability. I have put some useful links to article editing on your user talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
My name is Darrell Howarth I think my girl friend is in the hospital her name is Gina Rosas can some body return email to me how she is and if its possible to contact her, And if I fly there if I can visit her. (Email redacted)
Darrell Howarth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might be in the wrong place here, this is an encyclopedia, we have no connections with hospitals. You might want to phone or email the hospital--Jac16888Talk 13:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please review the article for Lee_Zehrer. It is unclear why this is deleted.. It is relevant to business and web culture and as (if not more) significant than all of the following articles:
Lee Zehrer was a pioneer in the development of Web 1.0 and social media. He built the first online dating business with many more members than Match.com when he sold to them. If Gary Kremen has a wiki page, Lee Zehrer certainly should. If it is a issue of inclusion or significance, please re-instate and I will personally make sure that this article meets those specifications.
Here is the article noted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Zehrer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was deleted under criteria A7: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The other articles that you mention do assert the notability of their subjects. I would suggest that you recreate the article in your user space, make sure it asserts the notability of the subject, reference those assertions and then contact the admin who deleted the page to give it a lookover before moving it into the mainspace. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
dear madam,dear sir:
i found a "message" for me at wikipedia that my contribution about kahoolawe was reversed or something by "blue clot"??
i never did edit anything, although by coincidence i live in hawaii (lahaina, island of maui) i believe this is a case of mistaken idendity.
best regards and aloha
john blahuta Lahaina, Maui, HI email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- IP addresses are often reassigned by internet service providers, so whats probably happened here is that someone else had your IP address and made that edit, and a while later it got reassigned to you. Don't worry about it--Jac16888Talk 09:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolve a dispute
Hey! There is a dispute in the Persian gulf talk page about my reversed edits with another editor. I seek help from a more experienced member. Egyptian lion (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can always ask for a third opinion or start a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I put a request in the active disagreements section but none interfered to resolve the dispute yet. Egyptian lion (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
ICROA Wikipedia Article - will it be deleted? How can we improve it?
Hello, ICROA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICROA I am the author of the ICROA article. We attempted to make it as neutral as possible, but there are two tags on the article - one for conflict of interest and one for the referencing, saying there aren't enough third party sources.
I would like to know how organisations can create articles on themselves. Further, we are a new organisation, less than a year old. therefore, there arent many 3rd party sources available talking about ICROA. What should we do in this case? How can we identify correct sources?
Thank you Secretariat ICROA --Secretariat ICROA (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It may well be that in Wikipedia terms your organisation is simply not notable enough for inclusion. This is not a judgement on your organisation, it is a judgement of its noatbility when checked against notability guidelines, especially those for organisations. It may take some time for such sources to be found for a new organisation. It would probably also help if you got the name of the organisation right. In the heading in teh article you have it as The International Carbon Reduction and Offsetting Alliance but all the sources I have checked show it as the The International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance. If you do a search on the latter using this tool you will find some reliable sources. Also if you check newspapers via Nexis or a similar archive. Please note that your username is in conflict with Wikipedia policies so you need to address that immediately. I have placed a notice on your user talk page about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that can help is by adding a lead section. The COI tag is because your username and the article title coincide.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the article has now been improved and referenced by a number of editors. Secretariat ICROA has been blocked by User:Orangemike. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- One thing that can help is by adding a lead section. The COI tag is because your username and the article title coincide.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This editor appears to be deliberately targetting another editors (Sillyfolkboy) revisions with no summary for reverts or apparent reason. Please see [5] <-that for the users contributions. The editor whose edits are being reverted is highly unlikely to request help in resolving the problem (taken from experience) and also has their edits targeted by user Jw2035 due to supporting different football teams (please see here for proof of targeting [6]. Jw2035 has had a previous account Jw2034 where he had been given temporary bans for disruptive editing. I'm nowhere near skilled enough to look into this kind of things, but was hoping that someone would be able to see if the users (Xxc2009 and Jw2035/Jw2034) are connected and also help in pointing me in the right direction of getting (at the least) the disruptive Xxc2009 blocked. Thanks and I hope I'm not putting this in the wrong place. Fol de rol troll (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could ask for help at the edit warring noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Question regarding transcriptions into foreign scripts
I have noticed that there are many articles that have names of famous people transcribed into foreign scripts, but no reference given for the transcription. Isn't this WP:OR? How do we verify that these names were transcribed correctly? Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- One could ask at WP:Translation, I must confess I have never asked for verification myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't this in violation of WP:Policy? WP:Verifiability states:
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
- and
- Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (Wikipedia citing itself).
- my concern is that asking a proofreader at WP:Translation is not only a pain for someone who is trying to verify a transcription, but also circular because they are asking Wikipedia to verify itself. Plus, it constitutes Original Research on the part of the editor who provided the transcription, if I'm not mistaken. Webbbbbbber (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Translations are not original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean. I found the clause explaining that here. Don't know how I missed it before. Silly me! Webbbbbbber (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Translations are not original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't this in violation of WP:Policy? WP:Verifiability states:
citation & references assistance, disambiguation page
I'm a newbie author but am working on an entry that will require a disambiguation page. That's secondary, at this point, because my references are still messy. I'm currently looking for a standard model for citing a youtube video, for one, but I feel uncertain about a number of my references. This page concerns a prolific author who's getting increased media attention (currently featured in WIRED), so I'd like to get help soon. Thank you. Neredowell (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- You probably won't be able to cite a Youtube video as your authority for making some claim, but you may be able to cite it as an example of what you're describing. See Sara Benincasa as an article with the latter. If this author shares the same name as somebody who's better known, see for example the combination of Akira Toriyama and Akira Toriyama (ophthalmologist). If the author shares the same name with a number of people, then see for example Chris Wood. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
neutrality - michel vulpe
hello ... I posted an article on Michel Vulpe, who is the co-inventor of a patent owned by the company he founded, i4i, which recently won a patent infringement trial against Microsoft. My article is a factual summary of who he is and his achievements to date. I would like the dispute to be resolved so that my article can be posted in wikipedia. Please help? Winter2009 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- A quick look through the article, at User:Winter2009/Michel Vulpe, suggests to me that it still reads as very promotional and not neutral. Several sections read like resume material, and a lot of it appears to function as marketing material for the product he created. Please take a look at these guidelines, and I'd suggest continuing to work on the article until it's truly neutral. You also need a lot more in the way of reliable sources - the majority of your sources look like press releases. Find some more independent coverage that discusses him and use that to help shape the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Many of the claims could go with some citations- while it is likely that those places mentioned use the technology, they also use computers, indoor plumbing, etc and sources to that effect would establish notability and relevance. Just as a convenience to reader, instead of citing things like patentstorm which AFAIK don't add value, you could just link to the uspto. I'm also not sure if the inventor or invention are notable. 1-hit-wonders may not be themselves notable even if the "1 hit" is. Wikipedia is to collate and document, not make or promote that which otherwise has not been shown to be of interest. Personally, I've seen a lot of IT patents that getting argued on grounds of "obviousness" and it isn't clear what innovative step could be attributed to the inventor in any case. However, even failing that, an article that provides coverage of the inventor ( " joe got a patent award for his patent on eating to sustain life") is what is required for notability here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors in Indiana
Hi, I've never contacted an editor before, but I'm interested in talking to one about a project that I'm going to be starting soon with a University class at IUPUI.
I'm looking to find an editor in or around the Indiana area that I could discuss the project with to make sure that this project is fitting well within the scope of Wikipedia.
Many thanks, --Richard McCoy (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Email redacted)
- You might find Indiana-oriented editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana, but you might also be interested in Wikipedia:School and university projects. The latter was written to address your sort of situation, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please block User talk:22.214.171.124
Please block User talk:188.8.131.52 at least temporarily. I am getting tired of reverting nonsense on Glenn Martin, DDS. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest asking for temporary protection of the article rather than a block of an IP address, in that particular case. I suggest you raise the matter on WP:RFPP.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's a better spot and I did the report.Americasroof (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and I'm pleased to see the page has been protected.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit dispute over Artical "Kent Hovind" with user Arthur Rubin
Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, thanks for your time to examine this matter.
I made a small contribution to an article I am very well familiar with, and it has been undone twice, the first time I had a note saying my information was biased. But I only contributed a fact about employees that was directly related to charges being discussed, which was completely appropriate, and I added a verse after another verse to show both sides of the debate (which actually brings neutrality, not bias )
Upon the second undoing of my contribution, I stated it was verifiable about Kent Hovind's family being over 80% of those employed in the "ministry" and that the verse addition was to balance to the one immediately before it.
I took the time to see he has been actually shaping the article to be biased against this man, and when any attempt to bring objectivity into the article is made, he will scrap it claiming bias, of which he only is guilty.
PLEASE take action to prevent this pest from harassing people who are just concerned over the facts, I am not a Kent Hovind follower, but I didn't like how he is being magligned, and I believe I would do this for anyone in the name of justice.
thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankful21&3 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, if you can't resolve this at the artcile talk page you could take this to WP:ANI , but I see you haven't attempted to discuss this at the talk page. That is where you should start. And on't forget you sign your posts on talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, please don't post the same request twice. This page, like all of Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers. You will get responses but not always instantly. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also please read the guidelines - I have posted links on your talk page. Adding unsourced controversial material about living persons is likely to result in instant reverts. Jezhotwells (talk)
- Furthermore, please don't post the same request twice. This page, like all of Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers. You will get responses but not always instantly. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
racist vandalism
Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk · contribs) keeps editing and trying to say Chris Brown is not a convicted felon. He even cites an article which clearly states 90% of felony convitions are handled by plea arrangements. On his own cite he states his racist views. Ban him and delete all his comments/edits/188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot find any edit that fits your description. Please be more specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) BKotO doesn't seem to have edited this article in days. Could you be more specific as to what you're talking about, please? Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The exact incident the IP is talking about can be seen here. Though how that accounts to racism is beyond me. The IP also vandalized my user page as seen here. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me the exact incident can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Brown_%28entertainer%29#Convicted_Felon_2 Yopienso (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Which I already linked to directly above. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. It's two months old, and I cannot see any racism or vandalism at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
group black moon
I am a Member of the Group Black Moon. There is a sub page for the other two members, Buckshot and Da Beatminers, but me (5ft) I wanted to also create one with my biography and projects. How do I do this?
23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivefever (talk • contribs)
- Hi, you could request one at requested articles or you could look at the article histories of the other pages that you mention and ask the editors who are involved there if they could start an artcile. Whatver you do avoid getting involved yourself as that would present a conflict of interest which could ersult in you getting blocked and your article being deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Criticism Section on Sean Hannity page being reverted constantly
In October there was a dispute because Sean Hannity's page had no criticism. I stumbled across it again today, and naturally there were NO criticisms.
I put some back in, asked that people stop whitewashing the page in the criticisms section, and before I was even done it was reverted. I added it again, and once again requested that this behavior stop, and was once again reverted.
I continued discussion in the talk page, at which point another one of this page's "criticism police" began defending the "reverter".
Can we get some dispute resolution? I'd respectfully like to see the blurb that we all agreed was fair put back in, the page locked, and if the "reverts" see fit at that point I'm more than happy to discuss it.
FuriousJorge (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you came here, rather than risk edit war problems. The people who are reverting seem to be having a conversation on this topic on the article's talk page. I see you have posted there too. Do you think you have given enough time to allow a discussion to happen there? 7 07:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Respectfully, yes I do. This page has a history of corrupted by editors who will simply not allow any criticism of Mr. Hannity. It took less than five minutes for the section I added to be removed, and despite my requests that they not "shoot first and ask questions later", it is removed within minutes. I cannot add it again or I will violate the 3RR, and the pages "sponsors" will not concede any point.
- As the editor who reverted him, I must protest. I reverted poorly sourced material (newshounds and TheNation) and said that replacing some of the content was ok by me. His edit summary of "Re-added criticism, much to chagrin of hannity staffers" didn't exactly help his case either. Soxwon (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Respectfully, yes I do. This page has a history of corrupted by editors who will simply not allow any criticism of Mr. Hannity. It took less than five minutes for the section I added to be removed, and despite my requests that they not "shoot first and ask questions later", it is removed within minutes. I cannot add it again or I will violate the 3RR, and the pages "sponsors" will not concede any point.
- ... and the NYT, and the Washington Post, and the Bergen Record, and the LA Times, and everything else. You are misrepresenting the amount of information attributed to questionable sources. That was a fraction of the content that you reverted. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Noooo, that was the entire first edit save a blog and a couple of news stories that had nothing to do with hannity, your second edit was included before I knew it was there... Soxwon (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- And for the record, the LA Times is an National Public radio piece... Soxwon (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- ... and the NYT, and the Washington Post, and the Bergen Record, and the LA Times, and everything else. You are misrepresenting the amount of information attributed to questionable sources. That was a fraction of the content that you reverted. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like you have no problem with the second part, then. It's a start. Mind putting it back in? I can do it. FuriousJorge (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can't, I've reached 3RR and techniqually would be undoing NightShift's revert (unless I'm mistaken *looks at admins questioningly*) Soxwon (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note, although several admins do answer questions here, this isn't an admins' board. Edit warring can be posted at WP:3RR although sometimes admins tehre may sanction allof the editors involved. I would suggest that if you cannot resolve matters at the artcile talk page you start a request for comment, which may bring in otherwise uninvolved editors an dhas the effect of casting a spotlight on the events at the artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't it normally considered WP:CIVIL to notify involved parties of this sort of discussion and allow them the opportunity for input before actions are arbitrarily taken? I wasn't given the courtesy of even being told about this discussion and in less than 2 hours from the first post, it's being touted as "decided". Just because Soxwon doesn't have an issue with a particular part doesn't mean that it is "solved". I contend that that part about the Martin piece would be more properly put in the article about the show, not in the bio. Since Hannity had no part in writing, directing, producing or financing the documentary, it really isn't about him. It was, however, aired on his show and the shows article is where the story should be placed. Further, the documentary piece wasn't the only part forced back into the article. Also jammed back in was the part about Turner. Again, why shouldn't this be more properly placed in the article about the show? That is where all of his involvement with Turner took place. It's not like they were buddies that hung out. He had him on ....you guessed it...the show and took criticism for allowing him on....yep, the show. There isn't some great conspiracy to cover anything up. My contention is simply that it doesn't belong in the bio, which is supposed to be more about the person, but in the articles on the shows. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Niteshifht: Please refer to the discussion log from October of '08. This debate was settled, and you even partook in it. As evidence note that the information was in the article until June, at which point someone removed ALL CRITICISM of Mr. Hannity, without explanation. I simply undid that transgression, and within five minutes the entire criticism section was removed AGAIN.
- The information should be in there now, if Saxon wanted to remove it he should have posted in the discussion (as I did when I put it in), and I'm happy to debate it's pertinence with you once it's back in there (were it SHOULD have been before I fixed it anyway).
FuriousJorge (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- also, please note the message at the top of the article: **This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2009)
- What are the odds that this is the opinion of only myself, the person who left that note, and the independant third party who put it back just now so that it could be removed, again, by you. FuriousJorge (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, you fail to acknowledge that I have said, before today, and at least twice today (this will be the third time), that some criticism DOES belong in this article. I simply contend that these two items aren't it. So instead of spinning this as some sort of "whitewash", how about discussion the actual issue at hand and answering that basic question I asked: Why should these two items not go in the articles about the respective shows and instead go in the bio? Would you mid addressing that for me? Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- And yes, I did remove it. Verbal jumped the gun and reinserted both items in less than 2 hours after this even started. That is simply uncalled for. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be in the article about the show IN ADDITION to the article in question. I've already told you why: (1) because we've already had this EXACT argument, which you partook in, and it was already decided. Also, (2) because the information should not have been removed after 6 months in June. In addition, (3) when I put it BACK in, it should not have been removed, AGAIN. Ive also stated that (4), there is a note on the page calling for differing viewpoints, and (5) and independent fourth party put it back in, at which point you re-reverted.
- Since that is not enough, I'll add more: (6) Are we to add an article about his career on WXYZ to put the criticism about Hal turner? Furthermore, (7) major mainstream newspapers (NYT, LAT) have described his "Hannity's America 'Documentary'" as precedent setting using words like "a new low". Note that the show is called "Hannity's America", and if his name is in the title he is responsible for the content, in life and on Wikipedia. If there was already SOME criticism in the article, perhaps I would agree with you, but there isn't.
- I know you are familiar with that last point because you argued, unsuccessfully, against it the first time, which is why this information was put in there, and why it shouldn't have been removed to begin with.
- Perhaps the most important point I'll make is this: There is something fundamentally wrong with you and Soxwon living on this page, removing and arguing against the insertion of any and all criticism of the subject. The page is, in my opinion corrupted by this behavior. It's completely obvious that a certain vocal few are trying to control the message against the will of a less passionate majority. FuriousJorge (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm really growing tired of the broken record routine Jorge. I frankly don't care what happened a year ago. This is August 2009. Deal with the present. Ok? 1) WXYZ was still the Sean Hannity show. That article exists. Your argument is empty. 2) Yes, his name is part of the title.....but that's an empty arguement as well. But let me get this straight.....you ultimately want to make sure that the same story gets told TWICE, in the bio and the show article? That's starting to sound like an agenda to me. And I think it is worth pointing out for those who haven't bothered to look through the talk page that you were absent for 8-9 months, came in and made large, controversial changes without discussion (allegedly based on some year old discussion), and made 3 reverts in the span of 30 minutes. But somehow you want everyone to believe that you are simply acting in good faith and I'm, as you put it, a "Hannity staffer" who is whitewashing? You've engaged in little discussion, instead just repeating "this was decided last year" over and over. You're claiming I'm repeating my argument from a year ago......maybe I am. But where is yours? Present it to the people. Why does it need to go in the bio and not in the show articles instead? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the one with the agenda? Check the discussion log, you live on this page, and you and Soxwon basically control the message, consistently arguing against the inclusion of any and all information that reflect negatively on the subject. The wiki-note on the page says it lacks alternate viewpoints, that's how obvious it is to the otherwise silent majority.
- Furthermore, Mr. Hannity is a journalist, not an entertainer. HE is responsible for the content of his show, its message, and the "experts" and guests he has on it. Just read the articles. They describe the incident in question as a "first", and a "new low". They basically spell it out: he set a precedent, and it is noteworthy. Also, yet another person is asking you to put the information back in, and you still will not do it. Instead you, in typical fashion, demand he further justify his position, as if he could say anything to convince you, so that you may consider allowing it back in, for the 10th time in 12 months.
- I'm not a wikipedia lawyer, but I think when someone takes the time to add two paragraphs of referenced content to an article that that requests that very content, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. That content should not be removed in its entirety first, and discussed later upon request. FuriousJorge (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's starting to look like you have one my friend. You make a lot of edits to the article, disappear for 8 months and spend your entire time back fighting this sole issue. Meanwhile, you claim I "live on the page", yet I have tons of edits in other places. Anyone can put a tag on a page. The tag is essentially correct in pointing out that there are some things missing. I've said that multiple times. Problem is, these two things aren't it. That's the part you can't seem to get. While you're claiming I'm trying to prevent anything negative, you're ignoring my repeated agreement that criticism does belong on the page. The question is what criticism belongs there. Hannity is not a journalist. He does an opinion show. You may get informed about news from it, but it's not intended to be news. You know you are getting his opinion on what is going on. He never pretends to be unbiased. So a writer from the LAT called it a first? Was it really? Or are you relying solely on the fact that the writer said it was? Was the Obama documentary really that much different than a network showing Farenheit 9/11 (which had proven inaccuracies and fabrications, ones that were shown even before the network aired it) just before the 2004 elections? Maybe the writer just forgot about that. And there is no "silent majority" on that page. There are a couple of regulars and some sockpuppets. That tag was placed at the top of the page by an editor who engaged in lengthy discussions about issues on the page. Please do some homework before making allegations. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't just the LAT, it was also the NYT, and those are just the most reliable ones. It's obviously different then a network airing Fahrenheit 9/11. The network is responsible for the network, and Sean Hannity is responsible for "Hannity's America" and "The Sean Hannity Show". Just read the articles in both of those mainstream media sources, and they break it down for you better than I already have several times.
- Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree, and let the people decide again. So far, its 4-0 not among people who don't regularly appear in the discussion page and censor negative content. FuriousJorge (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
While all this back-and-forth takes place, the page - remarkably - reflects no criticism whatsoever of the highly controversial Hannity. Will one of you please start up a request for comment to bring in some disinterested parties? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reason for that is simple. Check the discussion log over the last few years. Niteshift36 personally sees to it, because everyone else has an agenda. FuriousJorge (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- One just expired for another issue on that page. It drew 2-3 people. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Giving up on civility Jorge? Ok. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- No but let's stick to the topic. I believe that is just another independent voice not agreeing with the censorship on Hannity's page. FuriousJorge (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- You want this all finished in a couple of hours. It would just kill you to see what transpires over a couple of days, wouldn't it?And you're couting !votes as if this were an election and some you aren't even reading right. JohnInDC said do a RFC, not "oh, you're 100% right Jorge". Dude, take a deep breath. Wooosah or something. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've already seen what transpires over a few days the last time we went through this. If the last few hours are any indication, it was the same thing that is transpiring now. The information will go back in for a few months, at some point it will be removed, and when someone tries to put it back in we will repeat the cycle.
- My breathing aside, and back on topic, please answer this: Should all of the criticism of the subject been removed in June? Obviously not. So what gives you and soxwon, who basically do nothing but argue against any and all criticism of the subject be allowed to "hold" content for debate to begin with. The content should be in there right now, especially since soxwon himself acknowledges he didn't mean to take out the bit about "Hannity's America". From there you can make your case about why this, like every other criticism you've ever seen, should not be on hannity's page.
FuriousJorge (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Enough! This bickering isn't making the Hannity page any better and it's tiresome for other editors to have to wade through it. Please take one of the many steps available to advance the discussion, rather than continuing on in circles. JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- The vandalism that was done to this page in June has not been corrected after 24 hours and after independent 3rd parties (who don't live on the discussion page) reverted the content and then asked that it be placed back in when it was once again removed.
- The people who control the message on this page are the same ones who allowed the page to be vandalized in June, and despite the requests of numerous 3rd parties, they have not allowed one iota of compromise.
- My request is simple, reasonable, and I think would be considered fair by any 3rd party. I would like to see information critical of Mr. Hannity that was removed when the page was vandalized put back in, and the page locked while people discuss.
- This was the only way that critical information made it into the article in October, and it is clearly the only way it will make it back in this time. The only dissenters are people who's names are all over the discussion page making sure no information critical of the subject gets put in, the same ones who ignored the vandalism despite their intimate familiarity with the subject and the page, and the same ones with who we did this whole thing in October.
- If there isn't some official intervention then a vocal minority will remain in control of this article's message, in opposition of a more silent majority.
- All I ask, respectfully, is that the pre-vandalism content from June be reinserted, and which point the dissenters can once again make their case as to why the information should not be allowed. It is simply, anti-wikipedia that because they spend the most time looking at the page that they should get the final say as to what content makes it in there.
FuriousJorge (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- you keep claiming a majority that never seems to materialize and then go on to rant about vandalism. You need to civily discuss this if you want accomplish anything. Soxwon (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go look at the discussion that took place to get that information in the article in October. Note which side won. Then go look at a revision mid June in which every single bit of negative information about the subject is removed, with 0 discussion. How can you claim this is not vandalism.
- Now go look at the number of people here and in the article discussion who's names never appear prior, and have either reverted the content or asked that it be included in some way. The only ones dissenting are you and two other people who's names are all over the discussion page trying to prevent any criticism from making it into the article. Note also that I'm not the first person who's recognized this. This is a clear case of a vocal and passionate minority controlling the message over a more silent majority. If you disagree then why don't you count the votes.
FuriousJorge (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- If no consensus reached then please explain how a bunch of people who's names do not appear since in the discussion section got the information included, despite fervent opposition. If you need evidence as to which side won, check the page's history from October to June. The info is there. And please don't dodge this question again:
If someone removes all negative information about a subject without discussion (much like you did to me yesterday), how can that be described any way other than vandalism? The info was perfectly referenced, and the matter was settled for six months prior. Then one person who is sympathetic to censorship comes along, completely whitewashed the article, and rather than condemn the behavior we reward it by restarting a discussion about its validity for inclusion to begin with. You may be right that voting is not wikipedia policy, but at the end of the day the information was there for six months. That in and of itself is the proof of what the community decided. Your behavior continues to completely undermine Wikipedia. FuriousJorge (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are we looking at two different archives? That is NOT consensus, that's crossfire. You had NO CLEAR CONSENSUS. There was no "winning." An Appeal to tradition is not an excuse for keeping contentious material in a WP:BLP. Some of the material (mainly what was sourced to The Nation and other such sites) was indeed poorly sourced, and as for the rest, NPR and Washington Post, I'm on the fence and don't really care whichever way it goes. You keep using buzz words like whitewashing, censorship, and vandalism. Yet you never seem to back it up with substance other than "it's there, go and check" and accusing the person of lying when they call you on it. Soxwon (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you dodged the vandalism question... again. If deleting all criticism and not discussing after the information was collaborated into the article for months does not constitute vandalism, then please explain why. Second of all, if Side A supports one position and Side B supports another, and Side A's position made it into the article after official intervention, please tell me which side "won". You are right that there is no voting policy. There is only what makes it in.
You will not answer these questions, but you will misrepresent again and say the information was poorly sourced when it wasn't. Many people collaborated to get that right.
You have an issue with the Nation? Fine. Take that part and leave all the other unbiased sources in there. You didn't do that did you? Just like the original vandal you delete first and post discussion never.
Are you going to dodge my questions again? FuriousJorge (talk)
- My patience has run out Jorge. On the vandalism page it says quite clearly: An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Now stop referring to what is not vandalism as being so. Period. Now then, as for the rest of your comment.
First of all, you dodged the vandalism question... again. If deleting all criticism and not discussing after the information was collaborated into the article for months does not constitute vandalism, then please explain why. Second of all, if Side A supports one position and Side B supports another, and Side A's position made it into the article after official intervention, please tell me which side "won". You are right that there is no voting policy. There is only what makes it in.
Answered vandalism question so directly I can't be accused of dodging it again. Secondly, I again, saw no example of the consensus you claim. I saw a lot of arguing and little agreement, hardly suitable to claim widespread consensus. Please stop claiming such, thank you.
You will not answer these questions, but you will misrepresent again and say the information was poorly sourced when it wasn't. Many people collaborated to get that right.
Misrepresent? Please, the information for the entire first paragraph was nothing but TheNation, Newshounds, a blog, and an MSNBC bit on how bad Hal Turner was, NOT ON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH HANNITY! This bears repeating: HANNITY IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE SOURCES THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED CREDIBLE (and even then, MSNBC is still shaky). That is why I removed the content. As for the second paragraph, the "LA Times" correspondent was doing a piece for NPR (that's what On the Media is, a National Public Radio piece), so basically you have NYT piece, whose only criticism seemed to be "under fire from liberals" and Washington Post, which is about Olbermann and Hannity. I'd say it's ok to go in, but it doesn't need more than a couple of lines really.
You have an issue with the Nation? Fine. Take that part and leave all the other unbiased sources in there. You didn't do that did you? Just like the original vandal you delete first and post discussion never. Are you going to dodge my questions again?
No I have an issue with the Nation, a blog, and Newshounds suddenly becoming WP:RS exclusively for your criticism section. Not a whole lot of other "unbiased" information. No I didn't leave a bunch of contentious material in a WP:BLP, as that's policy. Soxwon (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice try. It says "COULD BE", but in this case, when ALL negative information is removed that is a vandal with an agenda.
- I count 5 *disinterested parties* that have unequivocally asked for the re-inclusion of some or all of the content. I count 0 that argued against it.
- Misrepresenting again. Newshounds was removed in the latest censored version retored by Verbal, and there was nothing bout MSNBC. If you have a problem with the nation then don't delete EVERYTHING first and ask questions later.
- LA Times piece is reliable, and so is the NYT Piece. Saying they are not is (wait for it)... misrepresenting.
Again, newshounds was removed in the most recently reverted version. Once again you are... misrepresenting. That leaves the bergen record, the nyt, the lat, etc. It's funny what you can try to pass off as not reliable when you want to. I'll give you this, you finally addressed the question, but now it's clear why it took so long. Weak. Sorry about your patience though. FuriousJorge (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reposted comment, response: I've nothing more to say to you if you don't wish to discuss things other than continually grasp at non-existant consensus. Soxwon (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- This issue might come as a surprise to editors who think Wikipedia is dominated by liberals. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we have this conversation without misrepresenting. The nation is a newspaper that has existed since before the word "blog". You could say "left-leaning" sources have criticized hannity and still have The Record of Bergen County as non-left leaning source in that blurb. Or you could just have The Record. I don't care. Once again, newshounds was removed from the final version. Either way, stop misrepresenting. FuriousJorge (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
... and here you have "the new american" pointing out that Hannity has been criticized for his giving neo-nazi hal turner a forum. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1701 This article is from last week, and of course you will tell me this is still not relevant when people are writing about it a decade later. God forbid there should be one criticism in hannity's page, right? FuriousJorge (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ROFTLOL, did you really just post a fringe piece quoting a blog as a credible source? That's rich and shows no concept of what WP:RS means. Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The arguments posted here by Jorge are the flip side of those posted by other editors who claim there's not enough criticism of liberal figures. It's the wrong approach. It begins with a "let's get him" agenda. The Bill O'Reilly criticism page (assuming it still exists, as it's not on my watch list) covers stuff that he's said that basically backfired and caused him plenty of grief. I don't know that that's the case with Hannity. One annoying thing about Hannity is that he has a way of poking holes in his opponents' arguments in a fairly calm and almost lawyer-like way, generally minus the belligerence that O'Reilly typically displays. I personally can't stand watching Hannity, who I find extraordinarily sanctimonious. But that doesn't mean that some blog writer who also can't stand Hannity is any more of a reliable source than I am. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now, if Hannity's been caught in a lie or in distorting info (which O'Reilly and Limbaugh are notorious for doing), and that's been reported by a reliable source, then he might have something. Maybe I'm daft, but I don't recall ever seeing Hannity lie about something, but only present something through the right wing lens, which is not the same thing. You can't just criticize someone for being "too liberal" or "too conservative". That's not encyclopedic "criticism", it's just partisanship. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What a joke. The New American has existed since the 50s. It is even a conservative publication. What a surprise that we are now debating its credibility (read: misrepresenting). You can't help but prove my point. FuriousJorge FuriousJorge (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, give me your honest opinion please. If hannity is still criticized among left-leaning outlets today for this relationship, and the sources for this information are a conservative magazine and a local (albeit 2nd largest in NJ) newspaper, does that constitute reliable sources and due credit? Please read the information in question (most recent reversion), and tell me what you think.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I see why you think I'm out to get him, but I'm just defending what I and others fought for and got in October. I don't post for any other political figure. When no one was looking, all criticism was removed and I think some should go back in. Problem is the page's "sponsors" won't allow it, which only further motivates me.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The one link I'm seeing here, to that story in thenewamerican, leaves me with a couple of impressions: (1) Turner fooled Hannity, which may be interesting but not necessarily a "criticism"; and (2) the writer is a conspiracy theorist. And to reiterate what someone said above, Hannity is not a "journalist", he's a "commentator". Fox News and MSNBC's evening lineups both consist of commentators. Shep Smith does the news on Fox. After that comes hours of commentary. They are not the same thing, although a journalist can also be a commentator and vice versa. (Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley, to name two.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but allow me to respond. This article, only a week old, acknowledges that criticism exists from left-leaning sources, regardless of whether it endorses that criticism. The bergen record article, which i think you should read before deciding, is 10 years old and simply states that a local radio guy is giving a forum to this questionable character. In between there are hundreds of left-leaning publications that criticize hannity, ergo Hannity still receives criticism to this day. You may still say "Well, that isn't such a big thing," but if that's the case which is the lesser of two evils: having this criticism in there, or having this page exist with no criticism for months at a time because someone thought it was ok to remove it all in June (and now a vocal few censors wont allow any of it put back in)?
If you still don't agree, I respect that. At least you discussed it on merits. I'm just wondering if you could look at the last few reverts and decide if ANY of that criticism deserves a place in the article. FuriousJorge (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
My request for comment has finally come through on this article. I respectfully request that we move this to the article's discussion section. Talk:Sean_Hannity#Who_Removed_All_the_Criticism_From_This_Article_in_June
- Some might be worth noting that the originator of this request was blocked for edit warring, then blocked as a result of a SPI investigation for engaging in sockpuppetry on this articles talk page. The SPI also sees meatpuppetry as a possibility. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the paroxetine page suffers from a negative POV. This is a very widely used medication, but the page reads as if it is harmful and discourages use, despite its endorsement by the FDA. Any suggestions?Neurofish (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish
- I see there is already a discussion about this issue on Talk:paroxetine. An article's talkpage is a great first place to try to discuss concerns article content...it's the first step in the dispute resolution process. DMacks (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, Prozac has some shown indication of reducing valve damage from phen-fen ( possibly more than alt SSRI's such as this) and if you are interested in sexual side effects as article suggests, I would note the PDE-5 inhibitors aside from that indication may function as well as some meds intended to relief pre-load on heart ( can't remember specifically but ACE inhibitors) but of course ACE inhibitors may have other benefits etc etc etc.I put a comment on someone's talk page about seeking out contraindications and evidence and remaining scientifially sceptical when presenting any case. SSRI's were the focus and I noted clinical psych effects may not even be due to 5HT per se. So, I would have to contrast " gee, a drug company made this poison it must be a killer" from evidence based criticisms ( " if you want an SSRI, use prozac due to peripheral side effects " etc ). You should be able to argue for text that is consistent with quality of the sources used to justify the text. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Party in the USA
(moved from WT:EAR) Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Part 1 is here: WP:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#Content_dispute_on_Party_in_the_U.S.A.
Despite consensus User:ipodnano05 again reverted 2 his/her preferred version. Not surprised as Miley stans are crazy. I'm reverting and including newwed edits that others have added. Look thru the revision history & ipod is dominating, repeatedly reverting others contributions. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Um... what do you want? No personal attacks, what? But seriously, what is your question?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to repeat what I said before: Can you move this discussion back to the article talk page please? WP:EAR is requesting assistance or guidance, not a forum for discussing article improvement. That is what the article talk page is for. If you can't progress there then perhaps start a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Old Apostolic Church / Reformed Old Apostolic Church dispute
I have an dispute with contents on the pages Old Apostolic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Reformed Old Apostolic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
I have edited both pages and believe that I have placed sufficient proof (sources). This pages are constantly being changed by anti-Old Apostolic Church and pro-Reformed Old Apostolic Church members, who removes the info I placed with its sources.
I need someone to look at this information on both pages.
With Thanks
SaneSerenity (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see that you have tried to engage the other editors on the article talk pages without response. I have placed warnings on the main offenders' talk pages using WP:Twinkle which is a useful tool. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Assistance required with policy proposal page
I would like to request assistance with the policy proposal page Wikipedia:Scientific standards, particularly from editors who have not been previously involved with that page.
Firs, some background. In August 2008 ScienceApologist started a new policy proposal page at Wikipedia:Scientific standards. The proposal was edited and discussed during August and September 2008, with another burst of discussion in December 2008, but no consensus emerged. I was involved in some of these discussions - see Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards and its archives. In March 2009, after the proposal had been dormant for 3 months, Levine2112 added the {{historical}} tag to the page. On 19 August 2009 ScienceApologist removed that tag with the explanation "Now that I'm no longer banned from editing Wikipedia, I'd like to discuss coming to terms with writing standards about how to write articles on various subjects. I removed the historical designation for this reason". In the following 24 hours there were 3 minor edits to the page, but no discussion emerged on its talk page. As the article has now been entirely dormant for a further week, I restored the {{historical}} tag earlier today. Within an hour the tag was removed again by another old contributor to the page, Verbal, with the edit comment "too heavily involved to make this decision". This comment was presumably directed at me.
If you are an editor who has not previously been involved with this policy proposal page, please can you consider whether the {{historical}} tag should be restored to the page, and contribute your views to the talk page discussion here. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Frankly, my reaction is - you are all grown ups, sort it out amongst yourselves. If you are involved in policy proposal pages you presumably have been around Wikipedia for some time. Post a WP:RFC. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Victor Arbogast Ref.
Hi, I just recieved a email response from the director of the Huntington Museum of Art. She not only verified that Victor Arbogast has a sculpture that is part of their permanent collection, but also is in a current exhibition there. She asked if her email is enough verification or do you require a letter on their letterhead, or do you just need me to reference to the museum's website www.hmoa.org? Thank you. Shizuye (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
- There is no article of that name in Wikipedia. Please clarify your request. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah got it now - its in your user space. A private email is not a reliable source, I can't find any mention doing a google search of the museum web site, however. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Victor Arbogast (part 2)
Hello, I'm writing about Victor Arbogast in my user space. In the References I can list: www.hmoa.org Huntington Museum of Art. Attention Permanent Collections database: Kinetic Force #3; 1977.99 Executive Director: Margaret Mary Layne. Is this enough of a direction for the reader? Shizuye (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Shizuye, 8/31/09
- I can't find any database on that web site. BTW please don't use tabs on pages like this as it messes up to formatting. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a quick way to add linked items intoa new category?
I created a new category for recipients of a military decoration (Category:Recipients of the Air Medal). "What links here" at the article Air Medal suggests that there may be somewhere in the low hundreds of article that qualify for inclusion in the category. Do I have to open each article and insert the category into it (i.e., do it by brute force), or is there a way of doing some kind of batch job that can grab the qualifying articles and do it quickly? (I have found nothing on Wikipedia that suggests there is, although I have seen large numbers of article added quickly to new categories. Is that all done by brute force?) Mdnavman (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)mdnavman
- I am not aware of any tool that would do this. I use WP:HOTCAT for category operations. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Licensing of Material
[[7]] (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to see if a profile, bio, can be copyrighted on wiki under anything other than public domain (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0).
My understanding of public domain is that anyone can use the text and/or images and change them in any way that they choose. Is that correct?
If that is the case, can you please suggest another licensing option provided by Wikipedia?
Thank you so much! Nell Okie <e-mail redacted>
188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I did submit a question on talk to the volunteer who deleted post but never heard back from him.
Link prior to deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prendergast
- Your understanding is correct. Sorry, Neil, that's part of our purpose here: to create content licensed to be re-used and re-purposed by anybody for any purpose. We're not a place to put stuff you want to copyright or protect from editing. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. If you don't want to license it that way, it's not going into Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete article
I submitted and article to free reading and I want it deleted. This is the link http://www.freereading.net/images/9/9d/SEDU_511_ReadMeFirst_Session_2.doc
Thank you for taking care of this for me.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors have no control over outside sites; you'll have to go directly to the operators there and ask them for it to be removed. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Removing issues from talk pages
I posted a comment on Talk:Banana which was intended to and did result in the removal of inappropriate content from the locked page. (I forgot to sign the comment, and was using a different dynamic IP at that time, but 184.108.40.206 was me.)
User:Baseball Bugs removed my comment and another editor's response to it calling it irrelevant and vandalism. He has not replied to a message left on his talk page asking for a justification of the removal. Clearly at least one of us is out of line, and I don't want to revert him again until I know who. What is the preferred way to handle this? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you left a message on the talkpage requesting a sentence be removed. You were correct in doing so, and the sentence was removed. My guess would be that Baseball Bugs figured that after that, there wasn't any point in keeping it on the talk page - it was a resolved issue. When he says "irrelevant," I'm fairly certain he just means it was resolved and done with, so there wasn't any point in keeping it around. Also, when he says "vandalism" in his edit summary he was probably referring to the sentence in the article, not your comment on the talk page. I can't read minds, so I don't know for sure; but it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. I would suggest, as always, communicate with Baseball Bugs on his talk page if you have a difference with him. Fleetflame 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Fleetflame and Powers for your thoughts. I tried asking Baseball Bugs on his talk page first but got no response, so I started looked for someone who would give me an explanation and found this place. I think I'll tell him that a discussion occured here. Then, I probably won't escalate the matter any further. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Now archived, as per the IP's recommendation the last time I reverted it. The peculiar wording and the lack of a signature is what threw me. But the problem was fixed in June. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
John Crippen Article
Hi Mike, I'm trying to get an article up to par, but rather than help me, there's a couple folks that want a quick deletion. I have tried to alk to this "Hoary" guy, but he just flings insults and inapproiate remarks instead of just taking a second look at things. I'm going to stick to my guns with this article, but I do want the article to be acceptable to the community. I guess this is an SOS. What can I do to keep the article on wikipedia? I will make any changes required. Thanks,
--Writer of this article 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ARRGG this gets frustrating :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe a copy of the article above can be found at User:Johnnyswords with some discussion about it on the talk page. noq (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the major points have been covered by others. You need to use reliable sources, preferably with in-line citations to support specific statements. You should use a user sub-page rather than your main user page for this sort of work. Please read WP:user page. You have been warned appropriately about conflict of interest and dumping large quantities of text on others' user pages. Oh and don't forget to sign your posts. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Link vandalism on the "Sokoban" Wikipedia page
The company "LetsLogic" continually tries to add their particular Sokoban game clone to the link section on the "Sokoban" game page, no matter how often we from the "Sokoban community" delete the link.
The Wikipedia article in question is this one: Sokoban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The link in question is this one: http://www.letslogic.com/ The Online Sokoban Community
Despite its name "The Online Sokoban Community", this is just another Sokoban clone, and as can be seen on the "Discussion" page for the "Sokoban" article, it has for years been the policy of the "Sokoban community" to keep the Wikipedia article on Sokoban free from links to any of the thousands of implementations of the game, and the "LetsLogic" website is no different from hundreds of other websites and clones which is at least as - and even more - relevant for the game.
Therefore, please bar "LetsLogic" from their vandalism by whatever means you have at your disposal, e.g., by blocking the article for further editing by all non-trusted editors. Otherwise, it leads to the unfortunate situation that a lot of other Sokoban clone authors will react by saying they should have the same rights to use Wikipedia as a "link farm".
Best regards
Brian Damgaard
Briandamgaard (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)briandamgaard
- When you revert you should warn the editors for adding spam. If they persist, there is some useful information about warnings at WP:SPAM. WT:WikiProject Spam is where you can report persistent spammers. I see many of the additions come from the same IP ranges. I have placed warnings on the most recent offenders' talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
civility at Template talk:Major cities of Greater China
Things seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot at Template talk:Major cities of Greater China. I'm not sure why and I'm not sure what to do. Rather than potentially making things worse by continuing to discuss there, I'm hoping that another editor might step in and provide us with some guidance. Related to the discussion are the edit history at [8] (history of User_talk:Dave1185) and the talk at User talk:Lennlin and User_talk:Readin. Readin (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Having looked at this I feel taht best way to get more input into this would be to open a request for comment. Remember to format the question neutrally. Full guidelines at WP:RFC. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Disputed content
I've been accused of spamming the Aebleskiver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page because I posted a link in the 'External Links' section to a page on my site has instructional cooking video & step by step photos & instructions on how to cook aebleskiver. The content of the video is branded, but I feel it is relevant to someone who is trying to figure out what 'aebleskiver' are and how they are made. I've also followed the precedent of the Solvang Restaurant which link to a history of aebleskiver on their branded site.
Copied text External links
* The Story of Aebleskiver (Solvang Restaurant, Solvang, California) * Cooking Tips & Instructional Video (Aunt Else's Æbleskiver, Minneapolis, Minnesota)
End of copied text
I've contacted the guy who has been removing my link to address the situation in person as well, and am hoping we can all just get along.
Chad.gillard (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the WP:SPAM policy applies here and you should not be adding this link. Jezhotwells (talk)
- Agreed. This isn't the place for instructional video. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Turkey/Related portals (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Turkey/Related portals|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A while when I started contributing to WP and I noticed that Portal:Turkey didn't list Portal:Kurdistan in the related portal's sections. I added it as I felt that Turkey and Kurdistan are very much related too each other. Not just because of the position of the Kurds these days but because the issue of Kurds is one that is one of the top priority's of Turkey today. It got removed 5 times over a period of 11 months by anon Ip's, none of them gave a reason for doing so. So I was able to revert most of them.
On August 24 User:Turkish Flame reduced the amount of portals listed in an attempt to make the main portal page look better. I agreed with him but thought that too many portal that we're related to Turkey had been removed. I added some of the back, but I had trouble getting them centered. I went to him and asked for his help on his talkpage. He helped me very good by centering all the portals. But in doing so he removed the link to Portal:Kurdistan. At first I thought this was an accident and he had somehow forgotten to put it back when he edited the page. So I added it back to the page and thanked him for his assistance.
But right after my edit he reverted me with the reason removing the portal of a region of a neighbouring country. He misunderstood Portal:Kurdistan as being a Portal for Iraqi Kurdistan and not for Kurdistan(which it is). I tried explaining it to him and we had a very shot debate after which he didn't respond to me. I reverted him 3 days later, but shortly after he reverted me again.
So I've come here to see if someone else can be of some assistance. I don't want this turning into a revert war, but I think that Portal:Kurdistan is just waay to related to exclude from Portal:Turkey ~ Zirguezi 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well it would seem that the addition of teh Kurdistan portal would be not welcomed by many editors, especially those of Turkish origin. The ethnic conflicts in the region would point that up. There is obviously no consensus at the Turkish portal to include the Kurdistan portal and probably none to exclude it. I see your edit summaries but I see no discussion on the main portal talk page which should be the first place to try to establish consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
HSUS -- Animal rights vs. Animal welfare
There is a dispute occurring over Humane Society of the United States, List of animal rights groups, and Template:Animal liberation. The discussion has been spread across multiple talk pages, but the conversation has been completely copied to Talk:Humane Society of the United States#Animal rights vs. Animal_welfare.
This is a highly charged topic, with many lawsuits and legal initiatives being pushed by animal rights groups with very large budgets. I have tried to document that the Humane Society of the United States is an animal rights group, and supported it with a valid, published reference. As you can see from the discussion, there are efforts to claim that any opposition to the HSUS violated NPOV, despite almost exclusive quotes from the HSUS's web site. Both sides are not being represented, and all involved are clearly biased. However, even downgraded "neutral" language favors one side. –Visionholder (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- So what would you like the volunteers here to do? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, I was just going down the list on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, hoping other editors might get involved and weigh our actions and arguments to give more feedback. Maybe I should have gone straight to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee given the HSUS discussion page is filled with fights over this same topic.
- So, in short, I'm looking for more feedback. Who's in error? (Me, SlimVirgin, both of us?) And what do the volunteers recommend to resolve this (ongoing) problem.) –Visionholder (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I would hesitate to make any judgements about who is right or wrong. As you say many editors have their own personal biases. I have added my opinion at teh artcile talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have made my last post to the article talk page (for now) since I need to dedicate my time to more important matters. I am not considering this issue resolved, and will return to it sometime around January or later. Feel free to continue giving opinions. –Visionholder (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I would hesitate to make any judgements about who is right or wrong. As you say many editors have their own personal biases. I have added my opinion at teh artcile talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please help!
I have a dispute with a administrator by the name of "DeLarge." I've spent the last hour trying to figure out how to report a admin. This is not very user friendly to please any help is greatly appreciated. He is clearly showing bias on his deletion on multiple articles, and honestly he is being plain ignorant to me in the talk section. I would like to get this resolved and have a mutual edit be placed on the article MIVEC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please email me, or respond here. I would be very appreciative. Justin5117 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why aren't you discussing this on the article talk page? It looks like a content dispute to me. IF there is a discussion on a talk page then it might be reasonable to ask for a third opinion. You are not using edit summaries to justify your edits and neither is the other editor. It is difficult to offer any opinions without an active discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- "You are not using edit summaries to justify your edits and neither is the other editor."
- Sorry, but just to correct you, at the beginning of this slow-burning edit war two years ago I repeatedly left edit summaries to explain myself, here, here, here, and here. After the fifth reversion of the redundancy, I tried to communicate with the editor directly on his talk page, since I wasn't sure someone of his intermittent editing habits would even notice a talk page comment. He replied there, but made no further edits to MIVEC for eleven months. (You may also wish to note that when I left a message on his talk page, I recommended talk:MIVEC as a good place to discuss the matter.)
- When the latest round of back-and-forth editing began, I used popups to revert bacause I believe there's a limit to how many times I should have to explain what a tautology is. He then came to my talk page to comment, and out of courtesy I kept the conversation where it was, rather than confuse an inexperienced editor by migrating it elsewhere. --DeLarge (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't create a title for "Contributory causation"?
Tried to create a title for the concept of "contributory causation," with a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes but got a message that such a title was blacklisted. Must be a mistake. Could an admin please create this redirect for me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai.kefu (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please clarify - are you trying to create a redirect page targeted at Causality#Necessary_and_sufficient_causes? And don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~). Jezhotwells (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"Criteria for speedy deletion"
I am trying to write article on Du Pont de Nemours and Company's product Zemdrain. It shows up "Criteria for speedy deletion" G11 and G12 messages;
I see similar articles on all the product related information from Du Pont chemicals in Wikipedia.
I request you to assist me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandula Venkateswara Reddy (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is the article name? Is it in your user space? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are they from me? LOL. I keep getting templates mixed up and indicate speedy when not intended but this is not a dirctory or compilation of MSDS's. If the product has a notable chemical structure while not itself being notable ( does it poison something in the environment?) you may have an easier time making an entry for the chemical and maybe mention the commercial products that contain it in passing etc. I don't know what those templates are but you can't make it read like an ad ("call for prices"). Personally I think a lot of new materials are quite interesting and if it is superlative in some catagory and some trade journals or popular press have noted it, then it could indeed qualify for its own article but some independent source ( non-ad ) needs to have shown an interest. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Plus-size model
Plus-size model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am having difficulty with an editor to this article who insists on including citations defining who wears plus-size clothing, which have nothing to do with the definition of plus-size model, nor the business of being such a person. This person is not civil, does not act in good faith or participate in discussion, and reverts to their edits without considering new work on the article done in the interim between reverts.
I have taken the liberty of transferring the user's edits to the relevant article plus-size clothing, even though I find them to be lacking neutrality, simply to get this person diverted. I do not expect that they will allow this action to pass however, and will revert all of the other new work out of the article yet again. Can you assist please? Please read section 32 of the discussion page (there are earlier sections discussing clothing definitions with the general consensus that they do not belong) and provide a third opinion or whatever assistance you are allowed to offer. Thank you 3RingCircus (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. — e. ripley\talk 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- e. ripley, thanks for your assistance but the specific issue was still not resolved. It's not about fat or overweight - it's as I have said above - the user repeatedly reverts the article to include definition of who wears plus-size clothing in an article where such a definition is not required. I have made more specific points under your comments in section 32. Can someone take another look? Ta 3RingCircus (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Tax protester arguments
I have tried to edit this page:
to include the assertion by circuit court judge James Fox in regards to the amount of states required to ratify the 16th amendment. He asserts that in actuality, not enough states ratified this amendment, but the fact that it has been upheld for such a long time makes the point moot. This is one of the pivotal points of the tax protester movement, and the full text of this assertion in the case Sullivan v. US can be found here:
I also noted that the term "properly ratified" in quotation marks asserts by itself that the statement has no validity, and that against the basic tenets of Wikipedia, in my opinion. In fact, it seems as if the whole page is skewed in a manner that destroys any inkling of credibility tax protesters might have in their arguments. I have tried to include it in several different ways, however there is one editor in particular who seems to be limited by his own abilities to accept that this may be the case. He has insulted me in the discussion page, and I have clearly pointed to at least seven references on different websites with varying points of view on the subject that all show that Judge Fox asserted this point in a legally recorded stenographer account of what was said in his courtroom. I believe his ego as a senior editor is clouding his judgement, because he seems to be smug in the fact that he is more knowledgeable than others about tax laws. While this may be true, it is clearly documented in many places that this statement was made by Judge Fox, and has yet to be directly refuted, and is again one of the cornerstones of the tax protester argument in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraplegicemu (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Citation help
Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neredowell/Mark_Sloan section on <<architecture students>> trying to cite two youtube videos in Notes, following http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Referencenotes but lost somewhere. Please help. Thanks. Neredowell (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well you have a mixture of styles there which causes the incorrect numbering. Consistent footnote referencing using in-line citations is preferable in my opinion. Have a good read of WP:Citations. Be careful with references to Youtube as it is not usually a a reliable source and may conatin copyright violations which are not accepatble in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Purdue Boilermaker's Football Rivalries
Fact: The Big Ten has designated Indiana and Northwestern as Purdue's official Football rivals, and yet for over a year someone keeps editing out Northwestern and replacing them with Illinois who Purdue only plays 4 of 6 years, I assume since they play for a "trophy" this person assumes that makes them major rivals.
Big Ten Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purdue Boilermakers football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
If Illinois is such a major rival, why dose Purdue play Notre Dame, Indiana and Northwestern every year and Illinois 2 years in a row, skipping 2 years and play 2 years in a row? Trophies do not make "major rivalries'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- And your question is? Perhaps you should idscuss this at the artcile talk pages? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Matchbox Twenty Singles discography
While I was sourcing the Singles Discography on the article for matchbox twenty, I was unable to find a source for most of the singles chartings in the UK, so I removed them. When they were re-added without a source, I took it to the New Contributors Help Page [9] and was told that I should remove all the unsourced chartings and post a message in the talk page asking for a source. I did so and left a message, however, they were re-added again without anyone posting a message in the talk page or giving a source for them. I reverted this and left another message in the talk page. However, this also hasn't been answered and a number of the unsourced chartings restored. This has been done by two IP users, who are probably the same person considering their edits. I'm not sure how to stop them; i have no issues with their information as long as they provide sources, but at the moment they refuse to tell me where they are even getting it from, so some advice on how to sovle the issue would be appreciated.Hitthat (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This source[10] gives the UK chart position for 3 AM. Wikiproject Songs has information about reliable charts. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Joel William Gonzales Deleted and Is A person Of Inportance An Actor
Here is The Proof http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3595099/ and also can You help wrte an article about this actor please? 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) James.Cooper.Manager (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like he fails to meet the notability criteria for actors. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Kennett River.
The west coast town of Kennet River, on the Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Australia is marked on all original Victorian maps as spelt with just the one 't'. All locals of the area, myself being a one time local, will argue passionately that Kennet River is in fact spelt with the one 't'. I have edited all other text on the page to it's correct spelling, but cannot alter the page name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- The reason you can't change the article name is because you have not created an account and logged in. I have used Wikipedia Reference search and found that various government bodies and newspapers use Kennett River [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], so unless you can provide reliable sources for the alternate spelling I don't think that there will be any change. Your amendments have been reverted and I suggest you leave it at that. If you find reliable sources for the alternate then please discuss them on the article talk page before making any changes. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Dealing with energetic but inexperienced editor
I've been working with User:Suomi Finland 2009, a new editor (account created 8 September 2009) who is energetic and enthusiastic and wants to make big improvements to Wikipedia. The problem is that he doesn't know much about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and tends to misread the ones he does know about. Whenever he comes up with an unhelpful idea and starts implementing it, I explain to him why it is unhelpful, and this works: he stops doing it. But then he immediately develops another unhelpful idea and runs with that. I have pointed him to the general information for newcomers, and to John Broughton's Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The reason I'm involved is that he and I both have a special interest in the article Alamogordo, New Mexico, so our paths often cross. He works on a lot of other articles, too, and has been corrected by some other editors. Any ideas how to steer him in a more helpful direction? It's getting wearying. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Making him aware of this EAR so he can participate would be a good start.
If the user agrees, adoption sounds like the way forward.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
New Editor Angliaman help with a URL link on Play School : UK TV series page, via BBC Birmingham and Play School
Play School (UK TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please can I have some help with an edit I just completed to the page on BBC programme Playschool, which can be seen on my recent contributions page! I tried to add my first link at the bottom, and did the following:
- [17]]
But if a more experiended editor checks this page (I will try and come back with a direct link) you will see it has not shown correctly. The link works but it has a [2] there and not the URL. It would help if you explain on My Talk where I went wrong, so I don't repeat the error.
You can find the page I edited BBC Birmingham then via Play School click on the top link Play School : UK TV series.
It is only the URL link that is wrong and needs correcting as far as I can see. Thank You David
Angliaman (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Thanks for posting here.
- Your link was [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=408040&c=1]]; it justs needs a title (and doesn't need 2 square brackets at the end, only one. For example, [www.example.com Descriptive title]. The title is all the text after the first space character. The url will only display if you use that as the title. If there's no title, the mediaWiki software appends the [1], [2], etc, as a default label. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Subsequently, I've removed the external link from the Play School page because it didn't mention Play School, but was about the mediacity development. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a learning curve for me, you were right to take the link down, as on further reading the links section, I would have come to the conclusion it was needless to add one. I was thinking for verification puposes. But the article already included a link which I added, to the media city mediacity:uk is in the article, and so no need to clutter with more links.
Thanks to you and others for your help, this matter is now sorted
Angliaman (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Angliaman (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Sicilian Vespers
See my comments on the S.V. discussion talk page. This article is too important to world history for us to permit the inelloquent prose of a collaborative effort, and the major consequences of the Vespers, that it affected world history, is left almost unmentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siciliano99 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- What? the page isn't linked here and I haven't checked the talk page but anyone want to elaborate on, " article is too important to world history for us to permit the inelloquent prose of a collaborative effort, and the major consequences" and the consequences of "allowing" a collaborative effort on this or other pages and who arrived at such a conclusion on this or other topics? LOL. Certainly accuracy and "free speech" issues are a problem anywhere so maybe we should continue this discussion here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- On quick read of page I'm not sure I understand your concern but it does look to be an interesting historical event and probably none of the participants ( circa 1200 AD) had websites and since it may be relatively obscure perhaps lots of scholarship is still in dead tree sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
anyone care to look at IDology page?
IDology,_Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( edit: the above link may not work due to trailing period, use this IDology,_Inc. ) This didn't seem to be a big deal but author removed my advert tag, then blanked page after I re added. A second new user has apparently re-created the page and another editor reverted some edits back to the version I had left behind. Not sure what to make of it. The article had a bit of an ad tone but I thought it may have been salvagable if notability could be established and puffery (I'm using this term liberally as many claims probably could be tested but puffery as per legal usage IIRC refers to untestable statements ) removed. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the article to IDology to comply with naming conventions. I also did some clean up and tagged the article with a few more maintenance templates. Will watch for further activity. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Defamation of historical leaders
There has been several personal attacks on historical figures in this Sino-Indian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [[18]] page.Also a brief look in archives will show that a user named Xingdong has been misusing Wikipedia's freedom for quite a while.Personal attacks on people can be tolerated to certain extents but attacks on historical figures shall not go unpunished. I did my duty by informing Authorties/Admin rest is up to you. Cheers, Swift&silent (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- What makes you think that {http://www.orbat.com/} is a reliable source? If you wish to complain about perceived personal attacks then WP:Wikiquette alerts is the place. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said a word about orbat not when i added it and post reverted(I promised as you can see in discussion page that I will try to make better edits in future.Seriously I thought of orbat as a good site.) But thats not the point,I want to point your attention on Personal attacks on historical leader (Nehru) and also some obviously biased remarks. As for orbat,dont worry I wont use that link again. Swift&silent (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please post diffs of these alleged attacks on historical figures. I note that you seem to be bringing your own point of view to this. Wikipedia is not about editors' personal points of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo
Six months ago I argued this article be moved to Napoleon D'umo since his wife Tabitha had her own page and since they have different histories prior to meeting each other. I have since changed my mind: last month Altenmann placed a redirect/link in the marriage section on Tabitha's page to the marriage section on Napoleon's page. In the edit summary he/she typed "to avoid divergence of content". This made me start to feel differently.
The marriage section, the lead, and almost all of the career section on both pages are identical. They only section that's vastly different is early life. I want to recreate Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo and decrease their individual pages to stubs. The stubs would only have the early life section and the new article would have everything related to their career. I was planning to go ahead with the process but I thought I would check here first because when the page was moved back in April, so was the history. I didn't want to mess up protocol (if there is any) since the history was moved. Can I proceed? // Gbern3 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since no one has objected or raised any red flags, I'll go ahead and get started. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
15th Amendment
I entered a number of edits to the history section of the 15th amendment, footnoting each with a reference to Gillette's "Right to Vote" or Foner's History of Reconstruction. These are both seminal works in the field and are largely in agreement. Gillette and Foner argue that the main purpose of the 15th Amendment was to enfranchise Middle Western, Middle Atlantic and Border State Negroes, since the reconstruction acts had already enfranchised Negroes in the South.
I was accused of vandalism and told to stop disruptive editing. That accusation is certainly unfair, especially when the text I was editing was largely unsourced, and the footnote to page 448 of Foner is erroneous. 18.104.22.168 (talk) David Abbott
- I have left a welcome note on your page to encourage you to get a login. It is quite possible that your edits (especially when performed by an anonymous user) looked like vandalism. Wikipedia is not censored, but at the same time we have no goal to offend people so we must be careful when using even historically accurate derogatory words - just to make sure they are used in the appropriate context. Also, please take a look at the citation style page for the correct style of references, because while they may have seemed well referenced to you they may not have looked that way to other editors (we do not use ibid). 7 03:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds like a translation issue- admittedly you are translating "older" English into modern English but still an issue of getting the right word to document what the source was trying to say, not necessarily the most flattering or offensive word. In this case, it would seem to be hard to avoid charges of OR if you want to pick a word that "surely the author would have chosen were he writing today." What is wrong with a documented quotation assuming the questionable text is relevant and reliable etc? If the word is that sensitive it probably has another wikipedia page or there are other sources that can explain the context in which the RS was authored. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Assistance Requested from newbie: Chandler School Pasadena
As I describe on the talk page of the same name, I created the page of the same name as my first experience on Wikipedia and the page is intended only as a source for information. I based the article on an article for a nearby school (Westridge), basically following their general style. When I originally created an account I generated a username with Chandler School in it, which is why I believe the article was flagged for possible lack of neutrality and conflict of interest. In addition, I failed to cite references. The were unwitting mistakes and I believe I have rectified the errors and would like to figure out how to get the warnings removed from the top of the page. I believe this is the next step. KaliGirl (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)KaliGirl
- I removed some unencyclopedic stuff and the previous tags. The article still has no footnotes so I added a tag relating to that. I also moved the page to Chandler School - the Pasadena bit is unnecessary as there is no conflicting article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor assistance requested for multiple article vandalization
User:Mark Renier requests editor assistance regarding some edits made to specific articles and their immediate subsequent reversions by user:Kwamikagami. I made some edits to articles that included valid citations. These edits were reverted without substantiation or any counter citations. I have notified the user and asked for his assistance concerning his edits before an edit war starts. I reverted to my valid edits and again was reverted without any valid assertions. Please look into these edits and assist as you can. Please let me know how I can further assist in resolving these disputes to multiple articles.
Initial reversions in question:
- edits to Constituent country: England et. al. are not "clearly countries", Kwami provided no citation. I provided cites that they are not countries
- edits to Kingdom of Denmark: Greenland is not a country, citation provided in edit
- edits to Greenland: Greenland is not a country, citation provided in edit
- edits to Faroe Islands: Faroes are not a country, I have provided a citation to reputable source.
Thank you. //Mark Renier (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Additional prior history on this dispute is located here // Mark Renier (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are considered countries by the BBC and the British Government - [19]. There is no alternative way of describing England than a country. You may also like to take a moment to read Sovereign state and Country articles, not all countries are sovereign states. The article Countries of the United Kingdom goes into detail and provides many different sources about this matter.
- Thanks for the counter citation! Finally. Please link this on the articles in question. I am not forcing the question of countriness or non-countriness; this dispute concerns the reversion of valid citations that state only one viewpoint. I'm sure there is room in the article to accommodate both of these (and more) citations. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- No comment on any of the others places listed. But there is consensus across the UK articles to describe England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as countries. Any attempts to change such things will be strongly opposed by alot of people. Although i understand the point of view Mark has, less than a year ago i viewed it as unacceptable to say they were just "countries". But that is what they are, and there is no alternative. Its certainly not a subdivision! BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The definition of country can be changed there if you wish, but the CIA citation I provided does not consider those places countries. The citation is valid, regardless. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The matter was extensively discussed some time ago and a full table of citations is retained at Countries of the United Kingdom to which you have been directed. You have one citation only and the relevance of that was also discussed. Bringing the matter here without checking that prior history is getting close to forum shopping. --Snowded TALK 09:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The CIA is not the single authority on this matter. The British government and many other sources (alot of which can be found on the Countries of the United Kingdom article) lists England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as countries. It is there for reliably sourced to say they are countries and any attempt to change it will be like stepping into a minefield. If you really want to challenge this, please post on the Scotland article talk page about changing the fact its a country. You will see very quickly that there is no room for compromise on this matter. They are countries, end of story. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I realize that one source does not make it valid. The point of this edit dispute was that I made valid edits. I provided a valid citation. These were reverted without discussion, and without further citation, even though I requested both, and provided both! I am not particularly interested in "proving" these great places are or aren't a country or not; I am interested in my reputation as a valuable contributor. The reverter of my edits was NOT considerate enough to reply with consideration, and did not provide any counter citations as you gentlemen are now. I appreciate finally getting the record straight and must impress on you that your follow up replies here have been much more valuable than the initial concern given my edits by the reverter. Regardless of the contents validity or not. Kwami has not been kind enough to assume good faith and provide the valuable discussion with citations that I am getting right now from you gentlemen. // Mark Renier (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh i see, sounds like just a misunderstanding then and is best for all sides to move on. The country issue is a sensitive matter, changes to the status of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries are always reverted so please dont take it personally. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I realize that one source does not make it valid. The point of this edit dispute was that I made valid edits. I provided a valid citation. These were reverted without discussion, and without further citation, even though I requested both, and provided both! I am not particularly interested in "proving" these great places are or aren't a country or not; I am interested in my reputation as a valuable contributor. The reverter of my edits was NOT considerate enough to reply with consideration, and did not provide any counter citations as you gentlemen are now. I appreciate finally getting the record straight and must impress on you that your follow up replies here have been much more valuable than the initial concern given my edits by the reverter. Regardless of the contents validity or not. Kwami has not been kind enough to assume good faith and provide the valuable discussion with citations that I am getting right now from you gentlemen. // Mark Renier (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The definition of country can be changed there if you wish, but the CIA citation I provided does not consider those places countries. The citation is valid, regardless. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are considered countries by the BBC and the British Government - [19]. There is no alternative way of describing England than a country. You may also like to take a moment to read Sovereign state and Country articles, not all countries are sovereign states. The article Countries of the United Kingdom goes into detail and provides many different sources about this matter.
- Common Problem: I'm not familiar with this controversy but from comments it probably transcends a single page and may be ok to discuss here. I guess the problem amounts to which overgeneralization do you want to make the norm? Presumably you could say that "the hierarchy or political boundaries are a matter of controversy. Source foo says blah[] and source doodoo says asdf[]" but then the problem is when you say "land of oz" which defintion do you presume to apply to that sentence? In this case, it would seem that "UK" is just a term and doesn't change anything such as command chain of military, tax requirements, currency differences, or travel restrictions that you may associate with various boundaries. For that matter, things like the EU. You can mention these things in the article if the political issues are notable ( and of course usually that is a big deal ) and hopefully minimize the misunderstandings that arise if one editor says the "the country UK" for example. I'm not sure if wikipedia can actually evaluate with merit- that is, if the CIA def is counter to most examples of "country" as defined by others then you could maybe argue them to be a fringe group but one that is probably of interest to a wiki reader. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no simple neat answer to this - as with many subjects in Wikipedia. England, Scotland, Wales are countries, also nations, part of a state called the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the Uk - it is probably not a country or nation. Ireland is a country that was divided at Partition in 1922 into Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, which later became the Republic. Until 1998 the constitution of the Republic claimed the national territory as the whole island of Ireland and for many the ultimate aspiration is that the whole island become one state, which may happen at some point.
- Scotland has limited self government and may yet become independent as it was until the Act of Union. It is probably all rather complicated for non-nationals, but that is how it is - complicated. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The issue has been debated numerous times on the talk pages of all the pages you listed, and to my knowledge, every one has resulted in the use of country. Personally, I'm only directly involved in Greenland and I think, along with lots of others by the looks of the talk page, that country is the correct wording. As for the removal of cited content, I think that is a matter for the talk pages, not here. As for the UK, I live there so I can tell you country is the only way of describing England, Scotland, etc. and this is officially acknowledged. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- PS. Having seen the edits in question, I think the term 'vandalization' is uncalled for Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you could just call it "foo" and discuss the controvery but also a footnote just saying you have decided to take the blah terminology for consistency, not to take a side. Quotes around foo may make point more clear. Alternatively, you could make up a word as is done in some places but I don't think that would work here :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help everyone! I believe this issue has been resolved sufficiently. // Mark Renier (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
"Chinatown, Vancouver"
Dear Editor:
Regarding the first line in the "Chinatown, Vancouver" article: I propose that this line needs to be re-stated as, "Chinatown in Vancouver, British Columbia, is the largest Chinatown in Canada and one of the largest in North America." Such a statement contains integrity and would avoid and replace an irrelevant, numerically unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and almost certainly inaccurate phrase, including the relatively extreme superlatives. The appropriate idea to be conveyed is that Vancouver's Chinatown is indeed the largest in Canada and one of the largest in North America, rather than an imprecise comparison with other specific Chinatowns and even more significantly, a comparison BETWEEN two OTHER Chinatowns, certainly an inappropriate statement to be present in the first line of "Chinatown, Vancouver." Clearly, therefore, references to San Francisco's Chinatown as well as New York's "Chinatown" (by the way, which one? - there are multiple in the city proper alone) should be eliminated entirely from this context.
Furthermore, the phrase in question itself is clearly inaccurate, given that the Manhattan Chinatown of 2009 enumerates about 80,000 to 90,000 Chinese residents and is apparently experiencing a very recent resurgence of immigration from Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces, while San Francisco Chinatown's proper could have AT MOST (and unlikely) 60,000 such residents, if recent Census place/zip code estimates are an accurate indication. Additionally, it is important to note that Chinatown boundaries have further blurred in recent years as they have expanded, and there are no official Census counts for such "Chinatowns."
Restating the line as I propose endows neutrality and integrity to the content of the article and strengthens it to encyclopedic quality.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
thmc1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmc1 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- The proper place to discuss this is at the talk page of the article in question, which in this case would be located at Talk:Chinatown, Vancouver. --Jayron32 06:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
First time assistance request
Conservatism in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been actively editing Wikipedia for three and a half years, and today is the first time that I have been accused of participating in an edit war. User:The Four Deuces has told me that in editing the article Conservatism in North America, I have violated the three-revert rule, about which I had never heard before now although I now understand the reasoning behind it. I was not under the impression that I had been reverting; I thought I was implimenting suggestions from the talk page. Nonetheless, I do not wish to continue the discussion further alone as User:The Four Deuces has threatened have my account blocked. I have worked very hard on improving Wikipedia over the years and wish to be able to continue to do so. The vast majority of my edits are small and uncontroversial, so I have never been in a situation like this before; any advice in how to proceed would be much appreciated.
The controversy is as follows: User:Rick Norwood and User:The Four Deuces believe that the Conservatism in North America article should not exist. Still, they have refrained from starting a deletion discussion, as I suggested they do. Instead, they have redirected the page to Conservatism in the United States, which they have both agreed is an inappropriate target. While I have attempted to respond to their concerns from the talk page by supplimenting the information on the article with further citations and information, they have reverted my edits four times in a row. From the discussion here and here, I gather that they have decided to avoid the three-revert rule they quoted to me by alternating reverting my edits between them (and on another article I am not involved in editing). As I stated before, I would be grateful for any advice you might provide. Neelix (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted the lasted deletion, posted a note on the deleters' page and a note at the article talk page mentioning the discussion here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I note that the comments you have posted from the other editors' talk pages suggest a deliberate attempt to avoid the 3 r rule and if this persists then it should probably be taken to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Conservatism in North America originally had sections about Conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in Canada. Around November 2005 the article was split and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. In 2009 Neelix edited the re-direct page to restore it to an article with separate sections on conservatism in Canada and the US.[20] I reverted it back to a re-direct page[21] and Rick Norwood set up a discussion on the talk page.[22]
If Neelix disagrees with the separation of the article into American and Canadian articles then he should recommend a merger of those two articles rather than create an article that duplicates the other two.
When it was pointed out to Neely Neelix that there were more than two countries in North America and that articles require a lead explaining the relationship between the subjects discussed, Neely Neelix added a section about Mexico and a lead. The lead that Neely Neelix wrote stated "For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic" (actually only the US and Canada were discussed) and added references from two other sources that were taken entirely out of context. One was a book about gender identity in the Caribbean, the other was about religion in Canada. The quote in the first book actually referred to "North America and Western Europe" while the second was discussing religious not political conservatism.
Based on the talk page, Neely Neelix has no idea what connection if any there is between conservatism in the three countries. He has merely grabbed a redirect page and written an alternative article. When asked to justify that this is a separate subject he adds a lead that is pointless and misleading.
The Four Deuces (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment on Neelix's statement: Neelix should have stated that he had turned a re-direct page into a new article rather than claiming that Rick Norwood and I deleted the article and turned it into a re-direct. Also it is unfair to say that we have alternated in deleting his work. Rick Norwood mentioned the existence of the article to me at Talk:Liberalism in the United States#Laissez-faire. Here is the conversation:
- As I've mentioned, Wikipedia has way too many articles that overlap: Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, Modern liberalism in the United States. As best I can tell, several of these articles came into being as follows. Someone's edits to the earlier articles were reverted, so they started a new article. I am not sure of this. But I do think that the ideal would be two articles: Liberalism and American Liberalism. With all the articles getting so many edits, I doubt that is practical at this time. I do think we could at least get rid of Conservatism in North America, which seems to be just cut and pasted from other articles, and says nothing about North America outside Canada and the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted Conservatism in North America back to a redirect page. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have made no agreement with anyone to alternate editing. You can look at the edit history here[23] to see that claim is false.
The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally in the example that Neelix uses where he concludes that I am colluding I clearly state, "Although Introman is clearly a disruptive editor we are still expected to follow dispute resolution and to avoid edit-warring and to evaluate each of his edits on the merits." We were discussing a very disruptive editor (see User talk:Introman) at Classical liberalism. You will notice that I had already set up an RfC on that subject[24], I did not perform any reverts on that article that day (Sept.14)[25], that besides Rick Norwood and myself, User:Snowded and User:FormerIP also disagreed with Introman,[26] no editors agreed with him and Introman was blocked for edit-warring after making five non-consecutive edits in three hours.[27] It is easy to understand Rick Norwood's frustration with Introman but I certainly made no agreement to revert his edits and certainly never discussed Neelix. However, after setting up an RfC and obtaining outside editors' opinions it appeared Introman was unwilling to form consensus for his edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think Neelix is sincere in his edits, but they are hasty and full of errors, and after explaining my reasons on the talk page I reverted what he had done. My only reason for reverting was the reason given. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have already provided several reasons for the existence of this article. 1) It is an encyclopaedic topic which has been the subject of scholarly study on many occasions. 2) It is supported by citations from reliable sources. 3) It is a parent article for the Conservatism by country articles in North America. User:Rick Norwood has stated that my copying of portions of the Conservatism in Canada and Conservatism in the United States articles is not appropriate; I disagree. A summary of those two articles should be located on this one because it is a parent article. Such summaries are quite often the same as the lede sections of the articles in question.
- As another sidenote, I do not appreciate name-calling. My username is Neelix, not Neely.
- Although he or she has not mentioned it in this discussion, User:The Four Deuces has again removed the content of the article and reverted it to a redirect. User:Jezhotwells recommended that the persistence of this type of editing be reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Is this something a neutral third party should report or am I in a position to bring it there myself? Neelix (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted the article back and inserted tags for WP:SYN and other failures of the article and await the administrator's reply. Question: if an article is moved, what happens if an editor re-creates the original article using what is now a disambiguation page? If we go through the time-consuming process of re-merging Nelix's article with the US and Canadian articles, and he re-creates the article, must we go through the entrie process again?
- Although he or she has not mentioned it in this discussion, User:The Four Deuces has again removed the content of the article and reverted it to a redirect. User:Jezhotwells recommended that the persistence of this type of editing be reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Is this something a neutral third party should report or am I in a position to bring it there myself? Neelix (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Neelix, why do you insist on keeping an article that basically dupllicates information contained elsewhere and about which you appear to have no knowledge or interest or willingness to improve?
- The Four Deuces (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would not make sense to merge the Canada and United States sections into their corresponding articles; they were taken directly from them for the express purpose of being summaries, making this the parent article. This article is not intended to be a duplication of information but a synthesis which will eventually include summaries of the individual country articles. Take the National symbols of Belarus article as an example. It is a parent article in which there is a summary of the Flag of Belarus article, the National emblem of Belarus article, and the My Belarusy article. This is not meaningless duplication of material; it is an example of the appropriate interdependence of articles.
- Again, I do not appreciate the insults. The assertion that I do not have knowledge about conservatism in North America is neither justified nor relevant. We are discussing the notability of the topic and the corresponding validity of having an article dealing with this topic. My willingness to improve the article has been demonstrated in my responses; I have made appropriate changes to the article whenever a reasonable suggestion was placed on the talk page. I would gladly continue to contribute to the article, but I do not wish to do so if further editing could be construed as edit-warring or if it is likely that my edits will be reverted, as seems to be the case at the moment. Neelix (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- The National symbols of Belarus quotes their constitution that says: "The symbols of the Republic of Belarus as a sovereign state shall be its national flag, national emblem and national anthem." The article provides an external source that shows a connection between these symbols. What is the connection between conservatism in Canada, the United States, Mexico and (since you now state include the Caribbean as part North America[28]) numerous other nations? Is "North American conservatism" an ideology that is distinct from South American, European, Asian, African and Australian conservatism? Please provide sources. Just because two words or terms can be strung together and still be grammatically correct does not mean there should be an article. Also why do you think that North American conservatism should be the parentarticle. Do you really believe that Toryism in Canada derives from American Republicanism? I notice btw that you have created a lot of stub articles, most of which are about legitimate but obscure topics. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have not suggested the existence of anything called "North American conservatism." The article I created is called "Conservatism in North America." Similarly, there is no unified "North American religion," but an article about "Religion in North America" is justified. Religion in North America is not a distinct concept from religion in other continents, but in order to organize articles properly, it makes sense to deal with the concept of religion on a continent-by-continent as well as a country-by-country basis. Religion also varies significantly from country to country in North America, but that does not discount the article. In the same way, the "Conservatism in North America" article is an important one to develop and maintain. Neelix (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- That article probably is not justified either. Do we really need thousands of articles that group unrelated topics just because they exist in Canada, Mexico and the US? Movies in North America, Education in North America, Government in North America, Presidents of North American countries, Laws in North America? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have not suggested the existence of anything called "North American conservatism." The article I created is called "Conservatism in North America." Similarly, there is no unified "North American religion," but an article about "Religion in North America" is justified. Religion in North America is not a distinct concept from religion in other continents, but in order to organize articles properly, it makes sense to deal with the concept of religion on a continent-by-continent as well as a country-by-country basis. Religion also varies significantly from country to country in North America, but that does not discount the article. In the same way, the "Conservatism in North America" article is an important one to develop and maintain. Neelix (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, why don't you carry on your discussion at the article talk page. This page is for requests for assistance, not suited for debate. If you want outside opinions you can start a request for comment - instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be OK to copy-and-paste this discussion onto the article talk page so that we have a record of it? We've made some progress here and I'd prefer not lose that. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine with me. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate tags being placed
An individual, Davemon, persists in placing a tag on the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) entry. This has been going on for several weeks now and seems to be retaliatory against some edits that another user and he clashed over on another entry - Triple Goddess. I am complaining because I believe that the secondary sources on this entry are similar to the secondary sources used in similar entries regarding Asatru and Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. If you look at the date that the tag was left, it was left soon after he and another individual who worked on the entry for Celtic Reconstructionism clashed regarding an entry about the Triple Goddess. I am complaining that this individual is retaliating over such disagreement by adding this tag to the entry. Michael Meehan (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have you tried discussing this directly with the other user on the article's talk page or on their user talk page? – ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- yes - it has been discussed with him on the article's talk page by several individuals all with good rationales as to why the tags are inappropriate, but he continues to place them. The article does have secondary sources and I am curious as to why Celtic Reconstructionism is being discriminated against by having tags placed when other Reconstructionist Religions are not when those have similar sources?
- As you have reached an impasse, perhaps you should open an WP:RFC. Instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- yes - it has been discussed with him on the article's talk page by several individuals all with good rationales as to why the tags are inappropriate, but he continues to place them. The article does have secondary sources and I am curious as to why Celtic Reconstructionism is being discriminated against by having tags placed when other Reconstructionist Religions are not when those have similar sources?
National Historic Route 66 Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yesterday, I "saved" our article but I can't determine what is supposed to happen next. Just wait for editing from you folks? Nationalroute (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well I moved it to a correct capitalization. Why don't you edit it yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also put some handy links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nationalroute indefinitely blocked by Orangemike - breach of username policy. I have tidied up the article a lttle, but needs serious editing. 11:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also put some handy links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Craig Martindale
L. Craig Martindale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is actually a compliment. I have known Craig and Donna Martindale for years. I actually looked this up to see what was going on with him, since I haven't heard anything recently. I know that Donna and the children are doing well, but I don't live in the same area.
I wanted to say I appreciate your decency in not allowing statements that are unsupported. Craig was a great man for many years and helped a lot of people in many many ways. He was strong and hardworking and encouraged, pushed and inspired others to be so as well. He helped many people achieve more than they had ever dreamed, helped many get delivered from addictions and spiritual, physical and mental weaknesses and become whole.
But the best of us can be tricked and make mistakes, and hurt those we love most, and I and many have no less love and compassion for him as a brother. We know that we too, fall short. And most particularly, Donna and the children would not be blessed by having more aspersions cast upon him.
They are still faithful, serving members of The Way International, which is an excellent Biblical Research and Teaching organization. It is a challenging thing to confront mistakes such as he made and make sure they never happen again while having compassion for him as an individual, and for his wife and family, who are kind and loving people and who endured great pain.
Thank you again for being decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion needed on Fashion (Heidi Montag song)
Fashion (Heidi Montag song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has proposed a merge to Heidi Montag or Lady Gaga, and despite that it's been made very clear that this song meets notability per WP:NSONG, we still cannot seem to reach consensus at Talk:Fashion (Heidi Montag song). A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. D.C. Blake (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- As the editor who has nominated the article i would like to point out that the song was never released officially, has not recieved extensive independent coverage, does not have a cover art and contains a lot of fan-cruft. Heidi Montag as an artist apparently has one lowly charted song but surely the argument that this is sufficiant enough to make her notable and hence "Fashion" deserves its own page is illogical. This information could easily be contained on the artist's own page. There is no clear argument as to why this song itself is notable. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
- OK, please discuss the merits of the case either way on the article talk page, not here. You may get editors from here looking in or you could request a third opinion at WP:3RD. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note that a third opinion has been given at the article talk page. PGWG (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, please discuss the merits of the case either way on the article talk page, not here. You may get editors from here looking in or you could request a third opinion at WP:3RD. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
wikipedia dead tree source verification and copyright
I've been threatening to dig up some dead tree sources from several decades ago, probably magazine articles. I'd like to cite these and provide online verification. Fair-use would cover a short quote but I'd like to scan the pages and send to wiki for at least internal usage. Anyone know copyright issues or wikipedia issues here? I guess I could upload the page CIA-style or like google books and blank out most of it except for a short fair-use part but in the past wikipedia has objected to even short excerpts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to upload scans for verification purposes. The essence of WP:V is that the source must be capable of verification, which in this case would mean someone else getting access to the materials eg in a library and checking for themselves. It does not mean that you have to make those sources available for verification. Millions of our articles refer to books that are not available on line and we assume good faith when the editor using them cites them as a source, because theoretically another editor could find those books in a library and check them. We do not require books to be scanned and uploaded for verification. The same applies in this case, in my view. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's right, it is the original article or book that is what is cited. Putting source sources on-line sounds like a good idea but is highly likely to be a violation of copyright. Another issue with on-line scanned images of artciles which I have encountered frequently whilst doing GA reviews, is that it is not possible to verify whether the on-line scanned version is a true copy of the original. If the source is a Google Books or JSTOR or Lexis-Nexis then we can assume good faith but on other sites that is not so. Out of copyright or GFDL material can be hosted at WikiSource. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming it would hold up in court, just it is easy to type ( witness the amount of vandalism ) but harder to forge images ( hardly difficult, but in the absence of an obvious COI and motive not as likely ). OK, it is hypothetical at this point as all I have found is old Readers' Digests I can't find the radio magazines. I'm still not sure I understand how that would be against fair-use and when easy seems like it adds a little bit of credibility. If nothing else, you may provide more context up to fair use limits that wouldn't make it into an article- certainly volunteer spare time edits are likely to have context issues even if literally accurate quotes are taken. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll say it again. Scanning old magazines and books and putting them online somewhere is likely to be a violation of copyright AND does not guarantee the authenticity of the source, so it is not a viable idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming it would hold up in court, just it is easy to type ( witness the amount of vandalism ) but harder to forge images ( hardly difficult, but in the absence of an obvious COI and motive not as likely ). OK, it is hypothetical at this point as all I have found is old Readers' Digests I can't find the radio magazines. I'm still not sure I understand how that would be against fair-use and when easy seems like it adds a little bit of credibility. If nothing else, you may provide more context up to fair use limits that wouldn't make it into an article- certainly volunteer spare time edits are likely to have context issues even if literally accurate quotes are taken. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's right, it is the original article or book that is what is cited. Putting source sources on-line sounds like a good idea but is highly likely to be a violation of copyright. Another issue with on-line scanned images of artciles which I have encountered frequently whilst doing GA reviews, is that it is not possible to verify whether the on-line scanned version is a true copy of the original. If the source is a Google Books or JSTOR or Lexis-Nexis then we can assume good faith but on other sites that is not so. Out of copyright or GFDL material can be hosted at WikiSource. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Lama Pai article
Lama (martial art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am trying to clean up, source, and save this article. I am a real wiki newbie and so it is a bit intimidating as far as editing (though I have written a lot about the subject and can provide the info at least!). Would anyone like to help? Comment? Assisst? Particularly with style and the tags and so forth Nysanda (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
* Section moved to bottom. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason, I have recently been seeing the Article Creation Wizard around a lot lately. Maybe it could help you? I would be willing to assist with technical matters, but I am not familiar with the subject of the article. Intelligentsium 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, A license was submitted on 3 Sept. for profile of John Prendergast deleted due to license absence. Profile has not yet been reinstated and my emails about this to permissions have not been answered. Just need to know when profile will appear on wiki and/or if there is a problem.
thank you, Nell Jespah (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you have followed these procedures here: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Did you receive an OTRS ticket number or any reply? 7 01:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This has been resolved, thank you. Jespah (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor search inquiry
It seems like that Wikipedia also allows anyone to search the editor(s) of a particular sentence or paragraph of a given page without browsing all the history of the edits consecutively.
I do not know how to search this in the WP special search. Does anyone know? Thanks. Couchworthy (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, that capability does not exist in the project's current internal software, although someone somewhere may have designed some sort of external tool to do so. You can find Wikipedia's special search functions here. Just click "Advanced." --Dynaflow babble 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is WikiBlame along the lines of what you're looking for? Intelligentsium 02:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Daniel 11
Daniel 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi I entered a new paragraph at the bottom of the page about an alternate interpretation of this passage that places the fulfilment in the 20Cth century. About two hours later it was just deleted with no comment whatsoever. I don't want to get into a fight with the individual that just deleted it (User Erbce) but also don't believe that wikipedia is served by only representing a single view on the subject even if it is the majority view. What should I do if anything? There is no point me rentering the paragraph if he is just going to keep deleting it. Any assistance appreciated - thanks 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Did you get your addition from a reliable source?. If so, you need to credit that source. By the way, the editor did make a comment - the edit summary says "original research". In other words, it looks like you're adding your own thoughts rather than those of an established, published source.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- The same goes for your additions to Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, which have also been deleted. Wikipedia only reflects published, reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
ok thanks for explaining that. So I can only refer to material from published books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- OR is usually less subjective than determining the reliability of a source for the claims substantiated from that source. If you can find sources on less popular interpretations, there may be credibility or "fringe" arguments. In some cases with testable claims, like perpetual motion machines, you have different debates than with predictions about the future. Generally the concern is documenting the state of human thought on a topic, not deciding merits. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Arthur Wellesley: Irish or not?
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Arthur Wellesley's identity should be defined as Anglo-Irish, or simply Irish. There are some important contributions to the discussion. The main points for defining him as Irish are 1. He was born in Ireland 2. His family had been in in Ireland for at least 5 centuries before his birth. 3. His family shares a similar heritage with some of the most common Irish family names Burke, Fitzgerald, Fitzpatrick, Barry etc.
Main points defining him as Anglo-Irish: 1. He was a member of the Protestant ascendancy. 2. He did not engage with/or affiliate himself with Irish peasantry. 3. He went to high school in England.
I can not argue with any of the points above which support an Irish definition. The points which support an Anglo-Irish identity are, i believe, weak and irrelevant. Even if he can be defined as anglo-irish (although see Dunnettreader's posts), being anglo-irish, by anyone's definition, is still being Irish. At Wellingtons birth Ireland was a country, defined as the Kingdom of Ireland, and with its own parliament in Dublin. So I believe we can conclude that Wellington based on the status of the country at the time, the location of his birth, and the geneology of his family.
Can you please provide help with this current impasse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micielo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 September 2009
- This reliable source [29] uses the term Anglo Irish. If you can find some sources describing him as "Irish (Anglo-Irish)", then i have no problem with the change being made, but it does not sound quite right to me. Saying Anglo Irish clearly does not ignore the fact he was Irish, it ofcourse is also stated in the introduction he was born in Dublin. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are also a WP:SPA, your account has been open 10 months, with the exception of one edit to a talkpage about a non related matter, all your other actions have been about Wellington. You made one edit Daniel O'Connell about Wellington where you added:
- "* "The poor old Duke [of Wellington]! What shall I say of him? To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.""
- apart from that all other actions have been around the issue of if he should be described as Irish or Anglo Irish, including a couple of posts on someone elses talk page about the matter. Could someone else please take a look at this and then close this request, thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)