Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Pov on title- Kerela nadvathul mujahideen

Stale

– Can't say I know enough to help here, but the original poster got handed a 3RR block. Pastordavid (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

It like to keep this simple. The issue under discussion involves a religious movement which recently had a split. However, i am able to resolve the issue between the two split groups. But the problem arises from a third group which keeps vandalising the article in a demeaning manner( current status) The group which brandishes extreme islamo facist ideas is currently threatning what youngsters look up on the net or wikipedia. If you check the article presently, it appears very self demeaning. Thus i would like to know what can be done? We can get a common ground between the two parties but will need to keep the article locked afterwards and can also include criticisms in the article but not as the main title. Is that possible?!...thank you

joeJoeblckw (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Butterfly Effect oversided plot

Stuck

– Anyone with mediation experience would probably be welcome to help out. Fleetflame 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a number of editors wish to ignore the policy WP:PLOT and continue to let the oversized plot section persist. A few editors feel that the plot section is necessary because the storyline is "complicated;" time travel is involved and multiple timelines are introduced. I have noted this fact and suggested that they extend a plot summary that is already in the article to an extent that sufficiently explains the plot to those who don't understand. The editors still persist to keep the bad plot section up though, with almost no notable edits to it. I would revert again, but I may violate the WP:3RR so I have come here. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help. Please do not use reverting to resolve things. I see you've joined a conversation on the talk page, my suggestion is to continue working the issue there. I've added some text I hope will help. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism or edit war?

Resolved

– Possibly, user has been blocked. Fleetflame 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A reference that I added to the following article has been removed repeatedly by an anonymous editor (IP121.72.145.82): Getting_Things_Done (history). Yesterday I left a warning on the anonymous users talk page. He calls my addition spam (which it is clearly not) and refuses discussion on the issue. I consider this person's behaviour vandalism but found that the Wikipedia definition of vandalism is rather strict. Therefore I ask your advice on proper action. Thank you! Lausianne (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at the edit history and it's a little confusing. Am I right in thinking that you're trying to cite the priacta.com page as a source for the "over 100" statement, and the anon IP is reverting that? There could be a concern about citing a commercial site that appears to be selling some of the software mentioned, I suppose. Is there another way of supporting the statistic? btw, it appears that neither you nor your IP co-editor have made many edits to anything but this page, so other editors here might be somewhat sceptical of any claims to neutrality from either of you. That doesn't mean you're not neutral, only that it might be harder to convince others.

The usual solution to this is to take it to the talk page. Neither of you has been using edit summaries beyond "Undid ..." so it might be helpful here to try to understand why you're reverting each other. Perhaps that's worth a try here? --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. Thanks for your comments. Yes, I did add the priacta page as a source for the over 100 statement. Not only for that, but I think that there should be a link to such a list anyway. As I understand, the priacta list used to be on Wikipedia and was removed for some policy reasons that we don't need to discuss here. (Although there are several other software lists on WP, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistical_packages, e.g.)

There are of course several lists of GTD software on the web. I added a link to this particular list, because I think it is the best quality and therefore most useful list. Just to support the statistic, any list would be good enough if it has just enough relevant and up to date entries.

Priacta is a commercial site and they do offer one GTD program, as far as I know. What I care about is whether this fact influences the general quality of the list or by creating a bias of some kind. I don't think that is the case here. (A quick check on Google search for 'gtd software list': 235k hits, #1 WP, #2 Priacta. The list does not need promotion.)

I do not claim that I am neutral myself, as my own software (freeware) is on the priacta list, too. My software is on several other lists as well. Therefore, and in the interest of the best quality for the article, I don't mind which site is cited, and I agree that the best way would be to find the best citation in an open discussion. If anyone has a better suggestion for a citation, fine.

If the anonymous editor agreed as well, there would be no problem. Since he has shown no interest in a discussion, keeps deleting the link without giving a justified reason or alternative, and neglected the 3R rule (I admit having been close to do the same), in my opinion he should be at least be officially warned if not banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lausianne (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

He or she has various messages at his/her talk page, but that doesn't always have the impact one might hope for. Perhaps you should just leave it be for a day or two, wait for the IP user to get bored, and then come back to it. Banning IP addresses is tricky because it has the potential to affect other innocent users if it's a shared IP, or a shared facility in a library, school, etc. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you're trying to cite there, as the page is keeping count. You might consider going to Requests for Page Protection and ask for it to be semi-protected a week. That might be enough to make them lay off of it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy, for coming in. I took a break for three days, then added the link again. The guy reverted it immediately (plus time shift to NZ). So I will follow your suggestion and ask for protection. Lausianne (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Using image from French Wikipedia

Resolved

– At least here, Seraphim is helping on his talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a nice image of Alexandre-Étienne Choron in the fr.Wikipedia article on him. I have just translated the article for en.Wikipedia, but can't figure out how to link to the French image. Please let me know what to do or just add the correct line of code to the article, whichever is easier. Many thanks. bmwilcox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwilcox (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's public-domain, it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, allowing its use on any Wikimedia project with a simple wikilink. I'll be happy to upload it there if you like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism

Stale

– or maybe stuck.. The debate is lively and on-going at the talk page - but it isn't clear how productive it is. Pastordavid (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help me in settling the NPOV dispute for the first three paragraphs of article titled "Buddhism". I used the most neutral and widely accepted info for this intro yet other editors disagree and have reverted it twice. Pasta4470 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that neither you nor the other editor involved in the dispute are citing reliable sources for your perspectives, but instead seem to be relying on personal knowledge. I believe that this is the core of the problem. We shouldn't write articles based on what our editors think, we should write articles based on what our sources think. Perhaps you could find some sources to back up your position? You may even find that in some ways they back up his, this is pretty normal and would also lead to improvement of the article and settling the dispute. Hope that helps! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome take #2

Stale

– Seems to be a bit of POV pushing (maybe) here. There are two or three other editors engaged on the talk page - feel free to jump in if you're up to it. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Posturewriter (talk · contribs)

Assistant Editors; The COI issue of last month relating to the Da Costa's syndrome page has been renewed again so I would like assistance from NPOV editors, particularly history editors, relating to 5000 words of criticism of me and my contributions on the WP:COIN and the discussion and User Talk pages in the past 12 days. Could you please ensure policies are being complied with appropriately. Most of the research history of J.M.Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Wood O.B.E., Mandel Cohen, and Paul Dudley White has been deleted from the article page as cruft. Posturewriter (talk)posturewriter

Assistance on Biography article

Resolved

– Vandalism does not appear to have resumed. Please file at WP:AIV if it returns. Pastordavid (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on Mary Pallant biography. Vandalism from an opponent candidate's campaign has added incorrect content. Content was removed. Specifically, Pallant never filed for the 2006 election, although she had considered it. Would like article watched for possible banning IP address of perpetrator/s. The opponent's campaign has vandalized other internet biographies regarding Pallant. Expecting more to come as the primary nears. Current perpetrator has IP address of 97.94.110.201, however may also use 97.94.110.164 Thank you for advice or assistance.--Jurnei (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Halo:combat evolved

Resolved

– Article semi-protected for vandalism. Pastordavid (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

we need some help keeping the page like an encyclopedia, not an tips and tricks encyclopedia. !Mjriley! (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)!Mjriley!

Brian Davison (Drummer)

Resolved

– Wish there was more we could do - but not without sources. Pastordavid (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the surviving partner of Brian, and would like to post a 'true' obituary, since those in the national press contain ommissions and inaccuracies - perhaps the text I posted yesterday is too long?

Please help.

here– is the text again: <text removed> Life-Partner of 29 years to Brian Sloo Cottages May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granny Ya-Ya (talk • contribs) 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mrs. Davison. I truly understand your wish to post this content somewhere. It might even be considered a part of the grieving process, to want to tell everyone the real story of someone who's suddenly gone and you miss terribly and whose full story is not being represented in the press (or is being inaccurately depicted). But, and it a big but, you can't do this here. Wikipedia is just not the correct place for this material. I 100% know based on you post that you are his widow and know of what you speak but that is irrelevant for purposes of an encyclopedia. Our content must be that of a tertiary source—by definition it must come from a synthesis of material already published in reliable sources. Sorry for the bad news, and sorry for your loss.--68.237.236.152 (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

External Link question

Resolved

– Big is not equal to reliable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin of the Fn Forum - a discussion forum about weapons made by the FNH company. We are an OFFICIAL forum, actually sponsored by the company itself. They have provided some financial backing to us, and also participate on our forum.

There are several entries on Wikipedia for their various firearms. In the past - our site ( www.fnforum.net )has been listed under some of the various FN weapon entries. I noticed that we were no longer listed - And I re-added us today.

Since then, the user "Koalorka" has been removing my link as an "External Link," and he is stating that it is not allowed. As we have over 6000 members at the moment, and also are the source of official FNH information (being released on our site) - I think it is entirely fair to include our link.

Please give me some advice on how to proceed. --Mistershipwreck (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As you are an admin of the forum, it would appear that you have a conflict of interest in the matter. The way we recommend proceeding in such a case is to suggest the link on the talk page of the article(s) you believe it would be appropriate and helpful for, and state how it passes our external link guidelines. Other editors who are not burdened by conflict of interest may then choose to use the link, if it would in fact be helpful to the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

can I go back in years to find a certain article??

Stale

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a specific article that was written and I would like to know if I can type in a name and all the articles will up up on that subject...

(sorry for the spelling) lol

Thanks Dori—

You can use the Wikipedia search box to look for a particular word or phrase; if there is an article with that exact name then you'll get the article and otherwise you'll get some close matches. You can also use Google - type "subject site:en.wikipedia.org" to get all references to 'subject' on the English-language Wikipedia. If you need more specific help then please post again here with a more specific question. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't find re-submitted article

Resolved

– Article was userfied; user has edited it there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Last night I revised my previously deleted article and clicked "save page" once done editing it. However, this morning when I put the title of the article "Saloon Doors Emporium" into Wikipedia's search window, the article did not come up. Is there something more I need to do? Thanks, Curt --Q12345q (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just found it in your user space, at User:Q12345q/Saloon Doors Emporium. It's not in the main article space, because it was deleted and I think you've talked to User:Jonny-mt about that. You didn't ask, but I took a quick look anyway and I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, primarily notability and verifiability. So, if you moved the page into article space again, it would likely get speedily deleted again. The best thing might be to read Wikipedia's 5 pillars and then you'll have a good sense of what ti would take to get an article included. If your subject doesn't qualify, that's OK. Have a look around and you'll soon find something else to catch your interest. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

De Cheezy Fanito's

Resolved

– Nothing to be done. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I need some one to do some research on De Cheezy Fanito's and add the info to the article named De Cheezy Fanito's because I only have my psp to use and it sucks please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armordcrab (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

De Cheezy Fanito's was speedy deleted G1. Not unreasonably so, based on the cached version at Google. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking subscript

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to wikilink The O2 in an article. If you click on the article you will notice that its name is The O₂, which works fine... However when I put the two brackets for wikilinking either side it doesn't link it to the article. I shall demonstrate below.

What's up with [[The O₂]]?

If this isn't the relative place to report this then please let me know and I shall ask it elsewhere. Any help appreciated! bsrboy (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The trick to this is to distinguish between (i) the name of the page and (ii) the way that name is displayed. The name is The O2 and that link works fine. It's displayed as 'O₂'. If you want to link to it and display it with the subscripted form, then you'll need a piped link, and it'll be a lot like this [[The O2|The O<sub>2</sub>]], which will display as The O₂. OK? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I already tried that, but I guess I must've done something wrong. bsrboy (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it worked now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism NPOV dispute

Stale

– No further comment from original poster. Beloved Freak 10:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please have another look at the Buddhism article. You'll notice we're using better sources now and the problem persists. User Ludwigs2 seems particularly intransigent.

I would suggest a request for comment if more eyes are needed on the article. Pastordavid (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

mad max 1979 film of mel gibson

Resolved

– Image replaced. Beloved Freak 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

i want to point out that the poster used for that page is incorrect as this is an australian made film i strongly suggest to add the australian poster of this film. Image:http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/auzmadmaxfeb07.jpg

That seems like a good idea except that the poster linked above is of really poor quality with the deep folds in the poster clearly visible. If you had linked a clean image I would have gone ahead and just done it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ok heres another link but you have to right click the image and save as. when saving you must save it as a .jpg file as i dont know how to upload images

http://www.movieposter.com/poster/A70-12071/Mad_Max.html

I have replaced the image. --Beloved Freak 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Stale

– Pastordavid (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may know there is a dispute between Greece and FYROM, regarding the use of the term MACEDONIA. I as a Greek, am offended by the subject article. I think that the editor should make reference to this dispute and let the users think and decide for themselves. I also think that using a public media for political reasons is immoral. I hope the Wikipedia community realises that they cannot take part on a national dispute. I hope I see a change on the title using the international term FYROM(Former Yougoslavian Republic Of Macedonia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.124.141.59 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know of the debate in general, but not of what discussion has occurred here. I would expect, though, that the article is under that title because it is a sovereign state, while the Greek Macedonia is part of the state of Greece. "Republic of" implies that it is a state. Notice the layout at Macedonia. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Greek position does not represent the majority position in the International community. See the article on the Macedonia naming dispute, which contains a very well referenced list of countries using the name "Republic of Macedonia". Wikipedia represents the neutral point of view, which among other things, requires that we represent the majority view as the majority view without prejudice. It is clear that a minority of the world's nations use the FYROM name, and as such, while Wikipedia reports that fact, but does not give it undue weight by representing it is as the "proper" or "correct name" Wikipedia does not take a side in the debate, but it does report on the status of the debate as it exists. According to a vast majority of the international community, the article is named correctly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Dispute...

Stale

– Pastordavid (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Please forgive me in advance if this is not the proper channel that I should be going through in order to resolve this dispute. Anyway this is my problem. I edited the Nikolay Davydenko Wikipedia page a couple days ago, and changed the format of the "Tennis career" section so that it is a little easier and friendlier to read. I also updated his recent tournament results of 2008 on that section. However after doing all of this, apparently most of what I had written was deleted. I understand my work is subject to editing. However I do not believe that what I had written had infringed on any rules governing the site. Therefore can you look into the matter for me and provide me with an explanation as to why my work was so severely edited. Thanking you in advance... Sincerely.Ken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaler02 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this edit by 60.241.173.63. You can, discuss that removal on that user's talk page. More likely, though, you'll find a more inclusive discussion on the talk page for the article: Talk:Nikolay Davydenko. If you ask me, the text was removed because it was too much unsourced detail about a minor issue. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Page domination

Stale

– Beloved Freak 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "this page needs input from more people" kind of category? I've noticed that Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories may be under the control of two users, Bubba73 and BaseballBugs. From watching the history they seem to revert most changes instantly instead of adding fact tags and on the talk page they seem to have the last say on all topics. It's not that I have any disagreement with either of them, it's just that the page could probably do with input from others to ensure neutrality. I'm concerned they may be enjoying it a little too much. Am I out of line? I'll say it again: this isn't a dispute, I don't disagree with them, I just think attention should be brought to the situation. Cheers.Kansaikiwi (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The place to go is to requests for comment, which is best if there is a particular question you have. The other option is to place a notice on the talk pages of the apprpriate wikiprojects, asking for more input and watchers on the article. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that WP founder Jimmy Wales has stated that unsourced statements should be removed on sight, not just fact tagged; see WP:PROVEIT. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How to add an image & complaints

Stale

– No further contributions from original poster since below post. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I was trying to add an image to the Teresa Earnhardt page but unfortunately it did not work, so I removed it, whilst in the process of doing this I received a message from GOLBEZ (who was invited by yourselves to be an 'Administrator') saying "Please stop trying to link off-site images and leaving example code all over the place. --Golbez (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)"

Do you think this is a very rude way to communicate or is it just me? Surely he is there to help NOT to be sarcastic to someone he has never even met? I would not have minded so much if he had offerd some form of assistance but, You only have to read the messages on his page to see that he thinks he is a law unto himself.

If anyone can offer assistance on how to add an image to a page I would appreciate it, and I would also like contact information for your complaints department, because I don't think I will get any sort of apology from him, for his extreme rudeness.

Kind Regards Raine0010—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainey0010 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 May 2008

upload images here, see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what is at all sarcastic about what I said. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't link to offsite images on Wikipedia; the code won't process. All images have to be uploaded to the site. A better message might have been to inform the user about that, since they were obviously confused. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Golbez's comment doesn't appear to be sarcastic by the usual definition! Have a look at WP:Uploading images for detailed information regarding image uploading. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Diamond (Lawyer Article)

Stale

– No further contributions from original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Diamond_%28lawyer%29

Hi there, I am having problems with the other user wikidea, I am trying to keep the case section relevant, but I keep getting my modifications undo, and now I have got an edit war warning on my talk page. I have asked for a discussion on his talk page, but so far nothing. I don't know how to continue..

Here is a transcript of the conversation so far:

Hi - I feel that the BA case about the Sabbath worker needs it's own case entry, as it is not relevant to the BA Cross case, which is about uniforms and cross wearing, and not about working on Saturdays. Cheers --TheLogster (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have completely reverted my changes without responding to the possibly of discussion, I have therefore reported the change.--TheLogster (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned before about deleting material and pursuing personal analysis of this article. If you continue to delete material then I will continue to revert it, and you can complain all you want because you will not find any sympathy. And I really do not wish to hear any more of it. Wikidea 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, you comments have been taken aboard. The BA Cross case entry is about the defendant refusing to cover up her cross, when BA changed it's uniform. It is not about a man not want to work on Saturdays as he is Jewish. I understand the it is relevant to Paul Diamond, and wholeheartedly support it's addition. However, I am sure will agree, that is not relevant to the BA cross entry, as it is not about wearing religious symbols. It really needs it's own entry. --TheLogster (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the article history...

(cur) (last) 16:39, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (Again, reverted vandalism. Deleting material which is sourced is vandalism. Take a break and come back with something new.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:04, May 27, 2008 Thelogster (Talk | contribs) m (14,079 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Wikidea identified as vandalism to last revision by Thelogster. (TW)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:59, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (Don't do that again. It is not up to you to censor accurate information. It is entirely relevant, because the man is representing another BA worker in another religion case. Don't vandalise.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:51, May 27, 2008 Thelogster (Talk | contribs) (14,079 bytes) (Undid revision 215281623 by Wikidea (talk) it is revelnet to Paul Diamond, but not to the BA Cross case, which is about uniforms) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:35, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (→Cases) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:33, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (Undid revision 215275968 by Thelogster (talk) Of course it's relevant to Paul Diamond.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:03, May 27, 2008 Thelogster (Talk | contribs) (14,079 bytes) (Adding citation. + Removing the other BA case where the person refused to work saturadays, as if has no relvence to the Uniform Cross case. A new case entry should be created for this person) (undo)

Anyway - I am seeking help on how to resolve this conflict between myself and wikidea.

Thank you

--TheLogster (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have not made a single post to the talk page. They, not revert edit summaries, are there for the purposes of communication. The page is currently protected from editing due to the edit war, so it may be a good idea to begin a discussion during this time. Also, calling another editor's good-faith edits "vandalism" is unacceptable, uncivil, and a personal attack. Vandalism edits are edits made in bad faith, which clearly does not apply here. It does not mean "an edit I strongly disagree with." I might suggest you remedy your own behavior before complaining about someone else's. (That being said, it does take two to make an edit war, and I certainly do not suggest that anyone is right to engage in one.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Louiche (Louie) Mayorga article

Resolved

– Vandalism removed. no cause for page protection. Pastordavid (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism by someone I can only assume is Matt 'Dunce' Carter. Matt Carter is not Louie Mayorga, and has no business on Louie's wiki entry, as Matt never played in Testament, and was denied his own Wiki page in early 2008.

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

Can an admin semi-protect the page, or at least block the offending IP(s)?

-AKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.103.53 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

need help with image

Stale

– Image was, apparently, not of a colossal squid. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the Colossal Squid my high school students discovered in Mexico in 2006 to the Timeline section of the Colossal Squid page, but I am not allowed to upload the image. This squid is likely to be the largest squid ever discovered and the image seems important. Can someone please upload the image for me if I send it to you?

Benjamin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjmaindancer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is 'cant.sleep.clown.will.eat.me' blocking my editing privileges?

Resolved

– Fleetflame 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. When I log in at home, wikipedia tells me there is too much fraud associated with my IP address and I have been blocked by the above user. What is this about? I don't commit any kind of fraud and have never before edited on this site. I feel really angry; I feel as if I've commited a crime...I'm not very happy about this. For this reason, I am boycotting this site and I am letting others know that they too can be shut down by (literally) some clown who is addicted to power or has some kind of feelings of insecurity...not very nice...perhaps his "johnny" is too small? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisyface1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like an autoblock situation, but are you sure you can't edit after you log in? Usually, that's doable. You didn't give the IP, but you're probably editing either through TOR or an open proxy, which are blocked due to high levels of abuse. Nothing against you, but it's preventative due to the vandalism coming from these. Per your last sentence, please, no personal attacks; they won't be of any help. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is your first contribution under this Username, so it sounds like you did the right step by registering. Keep trying to make useful edits. After you are established, something like 4 days and/or 10 edits, your editing privileges are upgraded and you should be able to bypass whatever that clown has put in place. I think you should still be able to participate in talk pages, so use that to let other editors know what you think needs to be added before then, if there are problems. MMetro (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Scouting content

Resolved

– As far as we can resolve it here. Fleetflame 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have become increasing frustrated by the bias shown in the WikiProject Scouting, which appears to be used by The Scout Association (UK)for advertising their Groups to the exclusion of other Groups.

Other than general editing issues, POV, and content bias concerns, which I can live with and work around in accordance with the Wiki protocols, I am very concerned about the former "Scouting in (counties)" pages, which have been amended to only allow entries for Groups operating as part of The Scout Association - being retitled "(county) Scout County (The Scout Association). These pages are then used to provide a list of The Scout Association Groups in that county, with little additional content.

I am convinced that these pages can only be seen as advertising, and feel that they fall outside of the remit for Wikipedia. -- DiverScout (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, you could try nominating the articles that you feel are outside the remit of Wikipedia for deletion. Bear in mind that you will need to make a sound policy-based rationale for deletion: see WP:Notability, WP:ENC (particularly WP:NOT#INFO), WP:SPAM... I can't think of any others. If you believe the editors of these pages have a conflict of interest and can provide evidence for it you could make a post at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Hope this helps? naerii - talk 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll leave it a little while in the hope that the people who are acting in this way are doing so without any malicious intent and will correct their alterations so that the Scouting in (county) pages can be developed to show all Scouting activity in a location, rather than just WOSM Groups. If not, I guess I'll sadly have to do one of the above. --DiverScout (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey it's no problem, if you haven't already you should try dropping friendly notes on their talk pages and/or the article talk pages to discuss the matter. The main thing is to assume good faith and stay polite - people respond better that way :) From what you say a "Scouting in (county)" article sounds to me like something that should include all scouting in that county (otherwise the title is a bit misleading) but I know zilch about this area of articles. Good luck. naerii - talk 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I've posted a polite comment on the WikiProject site and am copying this onto the County pages. There seem to be quite a few of them! -- DiverScout (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Really stupid question: wikitables

Resolved

– Jeremy helped out. Fleetflame 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind peeking at User:Rootology/Sandbox 1? I'm trying to get the standard sort of infobox table on the right, say 25%-33% width, and then the "body", my images and little bit of text, in the remaining bit on the left neatly aligned, with a standard valign=top sort of look to the whole mess. The general background should be that light shade of green, #E5F3E5, from User:Rootology/header. I stared at this thing through like three dozen previews and can't get it. I can bang it out lightning fast in old HTML, but I want to get it right in wikitables... thanks, sorry for the stupid question. Edit my ugly code at will. :) rootology (T) 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just messed with it, was that what you were looking to do? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Restricted Edit: KFC (Nobodys doing the edits from the discussion)

Stale

– Fleetflame 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The KFC page has many errors but many have provided corrections but are unable to apply as it is protected, and nobody is doing the updates. Ross.king (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Place {{editprotected}} on the talk page, and list the edits you would like to make. An admin will then evaluate the changes and see if they are appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many have provided corrections." All I can see is Ross.king listed something on the talk page that he wanted put in. Fleetflame 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars moved to commons

Resolved

– Fleetflame 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that I do not know much about Commons and how to use it. On my userpage, I had a couple of barnstars that have since been deleted from wikipedia on the basis that they have been moved to Commons. How do I get them to appear again? - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard. No need to apologise! If the image still existed on Commons it would show up fine when linked from Wikipedia (assuming another image with the same name didn't exist here, in which case it would take precedence). However, the images in question seem to have been deleted from Commons. The current versions of the two Barnstars, here, use these two images. If you replace the dead links on your user page with those they should start displaying again. Hope that helps! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about inclusion of operation frequency of LoJack

Stuck

– Still ongoing here. Fleetflame 02:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to resolve a dispute between myself and someone who claims to be a representative of the LoJack company. In the LoJack article, the other individual(s) have four times removed content that lists publicly available information about the operational frequency of LoJack, claiming that this information could be used by car thieves. The frequency information in dispute has 2 web citations, one of which is from the fcc.gov web site, proving that the information is public domain. I feel that this information is appropriate for the article and should not be censored. The other individual also has twice left inappropriate messages personally addressed to me in the text of the article itself. I have already reverted the attempted censorship and personal messages twice, but I do not want to be perceived as an edit-warrior. Any advice or assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you! CosineKitty (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no connection to LoJack or to the editor(s) who previously removed the information. I have read the arguments on the talk page here and in the edit summaries. I do not see how disclosing specific frequencies in necessary in an encyclopedic treatment of LoJack, especially if the information might help thieves (even if the same information is available through public sources). Since including the information might pose a security risk, and there is no demonstrated need to have the information in the article, I am removing the information for now. Please do not restore it until this dispute is resolved by consensus. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we would not remove information due to it "helping thieves", as Wikipedia is not censored. Is there any other reason to remove the information? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the user that removed the specific frequncy information three times. I was not aware that there was a discussion section in Wikipedia. I apologize for contacting cosinekitty in the text on one instance, not twice as indicated. As I said, I was not aware of the talk feature or any of the behind the scenes information at this site. To the point of this issue, I am a LoJack employee and would like to request that the specific frequency information not be included on this site. The Wikipedia site is a popular search site and is an easy place to find information. It serves no benefit to list the specific frequency information to the general public as it could be used by criminals to detect the presence of a transmitting LoJack or more importantly, by a "cop buff" or stolen car owner in an attempt to LoJack a stolen vehicle. It is very dangerous for non-law enforcement personnel to get near a stolen car and their interaction could cause them to be injured or killed by the thief. Their interference with an investigation could also be dangerous should they get involved in the locate of the vehicle. This frequency is licensed directly to the police in the states that have LoJack. If a radio engineer needs access to this information, there are numerous other professional sources for this information. I would like to recommend that a more generic term such as "operates in the police band" be used instead. We have enough crime in the world, why make it easier for the bad guys to get ahead or let a well intended innocent person gets hurt? I did see that Wikipedia has detailed information on making numerous illegal drugs so I am not surprised by users that feel that regardless of the real dangers, there must be no information held back on this site. Regardless, removing the specific frequency information permanently could save a life and would certainly make it more difficult for a thief to do his job. LoJack has a 90% recovery rate with most being found within 24 hours. It is more important to let the police do the searching then some guy with a Radio Shack scanner. Thank you for considering this request.Summitrt (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I do understand your position, but we will not remove information simply because someone might misuse it. Nearly any type of information could conceivably be used in a criminal or irresponsible manner, somehow or another. I see no reason to believe that this information cannot be verified or that it is not accurate, and technical details about the operation of a system are often important to those studying such systems. It is true that we are not a howto guide, but specific technical specifications are not a howto guide. If the article went into detail on how to build or modify receivers to receive such frequencies, that would be howto material and would be inappropriate, but all I see is a simple specification. Generally, we should provide technical information that is as specific and correct as possible, provided that such specifications are confirmed by reliable sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This article section explains why the complaint has no merit: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues If there are legal issues, they can be taken up with the wikipedia legal authorities. But until such time, there is no valid reason for exclusion. It's public information, and wikipedia does not censor information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the article's talk page, the information is widely available, hence there is no basis for censoring it here. If the info is actually in a manual available at Radio Shack, the verifiability and legality arguments have no apparent substance. So the appropriate rules-based challenge would pretty much have to do with issues such as notability and neutrality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Marylebone

Stale

– When they say unsuccessful, they mean it! Fleetflame 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

tried unsuccessfully to add the name Peter Mark Roget to famous resident list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.148.77 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you describe the problem you had, please? There's no evidence of that in the edit history, so there's nothing in the record to diagnose. Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

re: my son, Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy

Resolved

– Per change of caption in article and reupload of image with note regarding incorrect USN caption. Also comments on article talkpage, parents talkpage and related editors talkpages have resolved this issue Nk.sheridan Talk 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the photo of Michael's parents outside the Post Office next to the Purple Heart monument is incorrectly captioned as John and Maureen Murphy, Michael's parents.......... the proper caption should be Daniel and Maureen...I am Michael's Dad, daniel J. Murphy.....John Murphy is Michael's brother and our younger son...

Please correct caption ...this is the second time I have corrected the improper caption..

Daniel J. Murphy, father of Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.231.182 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

feel free to fix it yourself. This is the Encyclopedia anyone can edit. Good day! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Murphy -

I have just checked the image record. The visible caption on the photograph is correct as of this writing, and I will watch the page to try to keep it that way. The name of the image says "John" instead of "Daniel" because that is the way it was captioned by the original source, the U.S. Government. We're not really in a position to change their naming conventions, even when they're wrong, but we have ensured that what is visible to the average reader is correct. I hope that helps to address your concerns. Risker (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I only duplicated the USN caption without knowing names of the parties involved. I have reuploaded the image as Image:Parents of Michael Murphy with monument.jpg and noted the mix-up in the caption. The metadata for the image also contains the same incorrect information. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this, upsetting issue, is now resolved. I've just posted a quick comment at the fathers talk page. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

TG

Stale

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello kind sir,

I'm not sure if you're the right person for me to be contacting, but I need your help. I know you might not be interested in helping me, or anyone else for that matter, but me and the community I'm involved in would really appreciate it.

I'm talking about Tourettes Guy.

Now, I myself am not really a fan of Tourettes Guy, but one day I tried to find some information about him. Surprisingly, there was no information about Tourettes Guy on Wikipedia. After a few months, I decided to look again, because I thought "Someone must have written something by now." But still, there was no article. After some searching, I found that, not only was there no article about Tourettes Guy, writing an article about Tourettes Guy was prohibited!

I am not sure on the reasons for this ban on Tourettes Guy on Wikipedia. I've heard from many sources that this article had no important information, so it was deleted. But, there are many other similar Internet phenomenas on Wikipedia, who have the same amount, if not less importance than the Internet phenomena that is Tourettes Guy.

Because the article has been deleted, users cannot easily contact Wikipedia officials, and ask for the article to be restored.

Right now, on the Internet, there is a petition to get Tourettes Guy's article restored to Wikipedia, currently with almost 13,500 signatures. The number rises steadily each day.

People do not want to make an article about Tourettes Guy to "honor" him, or for a "joke". People want a place where they can learn about this Internet Phenomena. There is no other place on the Internet with sufficient information about Tourettes Guy. Personally, I cannot find any good reason why this article isn't on Wikipedia.

I want to be able to learn about Tourettes Guy, and I want everybody else to have that same privilege.

I am calling upon the Wikipedia Community to make things right. Please, please restore this article, so that people can learn.

Anything you do in support of this movement would greatly be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

--888gavin (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC), Gavin C. Stewart, <personal info removed> Canada

Assistants: See AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sims/members2

Stale

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This Dispute is about the way the list of members is format. ^{I know right. :)}

It is Alphabetical using the user template.

Or Just add your name to the bottom with ~~~.

There are 2 editors (including me) Which support Just adding your name to the bottom with ~~~.

And 1 supporting Alphabetical using the user template.

Requested By Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on whoever runs the Wikiproject - I don't believe the MoS covers community areas of Wikipedia. I'll look around a little more, though. Fleetflame 01:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"I know right"? Surely as breach of WP:OWN? And actually, i don't see why this is a big deal? It doesn't matter!!! FFS! Get editing instead! I am currently unable to do little more than project things, as I have exams. I really need a wikibreak but i'm afraid that all my hard work will be wasted and reverted if that's what I do. Anyway, B G 7even 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that a breech of own? ElectricalExperiment 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, especially when it's not punctuated. I think you meant "I know, right?" in the sense of "This is a rather minor matter; please don't imagine that I don't realise that." But it could also have been taken as "I know Right" or a sort of claim to omniscience. Anyway, are you sure you want this much attention paid to a rather minor non-content-related disagreement?? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A silly dispute which smacks of "If it's not broken, don't fix it". There's a WP:ANI thread about this. I'd tend to suggest WP:RFC or WP:3O but it's a very silly thing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

American Mastiff External Links

Stale

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please stop AMowner and IP address 72.45.12.21 from moving or removing my external link to The American Mastiff Website? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mastiff I own the site and it is about the American Mastiff and I want it in the external links. The moderator AMowner mentions is a friend and asks valid questions. There is no real basis for them deleting my link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny327 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the policy on conflicts of interest. You are discouraged from adding a link to a site you own. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionaly Forum's are Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry thank you for clarifying. My site is off now and so is the other personal website.Jenny327 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, not that it matters since Jenny327 has managed to get all reference links removed, the moderator on the other board in question is an English Mastiff breeder that has a warning on her OWN website about the American Mastiff. Furthermore, that persons user name on Wikipedia is Mastiffowner and if you go back and look at the history on the American Mastiff page you can see where she tried to add negative things about the breed. That is reason enough alone not to have the other site referenced on the American Mastiff page. AMowner (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. You're confusing the question of reliable encyclopaedic information, and the behaviour of the editors who might contribute it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and she was stopped. AMowner (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Moderators - Could you please review both websites http://www.americanmastiff.org and http://www.americanmastifffamily.org and see that they are both very informative websites that we would like added back to the external links section of the American Mastiff page? Thank you. AMowner (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. In addition, both seem to be Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get articles I wrote added

Resolved

– Good advice at user's talkpage from Xavexgoem. Beloved Freak 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote three articles about Josh Bernstein and have tried to add them to his page but they get removed. Can someone please tell me how to get the links to these articles added so others may read them,

Thank You Saqqara Aleister —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqqara D. Aleister (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Also, remember to end your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes) so everyone knows who wrote what :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing our company's wikipedia page

Resolved

– Also replied at user's talkpage. Beloved Freak 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Our company's wikipedia page is rife with errors and non-WP:NPOV comments. Awhile back, a PR person tried to edit the page without understanding Wikipedia policies and was reversed, quite rightly. We haven't touched it since. Still, the page gets worse. How can I fix the page, or propose edits that a neutral editor can review, to correct the errors and, in some cases, add material that returns some sections to a balanced point of view? For most of the items, we can provide third-party sources that correct the errors or provide updated information. Nyph (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking this approach; we appreciate your understanding. One solution is to list some of your proposals and sources on the talk page for other, disinterested, editors to review and incorporate as they see fit. Perhaps you could try that and then come back here if it doesn't seem to work out? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could tell us what article it is, we can have a look. If the problematic points are unsourced or indeed go against WP:NPOV they can be fixed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper redirect

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a pretty offensive redirect when "Bill Clinton" is searched it involves repeated use of the N word that I'm not about to type. I have no idea if this is the correct place to report this, but it was the best I could find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladypeyton (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The user who made that request has been blocked, and the article no longer redirects. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Visual Arts

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I have searched wikipedia and I'm unable to find a category that refers to my type of visual art. Basically I create paintings that can be turned so that the viewer has a choice of perspective. I have called them 'turners'. Is there a category that relates to this type of art that I have missed? Or do I post an entry creating this? If so which category would I use to do this and as this work is personal to me, how do I reference it without violating wikipedias rules?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamazek (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Annamazek, Thanks for asking. You might find some useful tips in WP:Your first article. You'd also need to make sure that anything you write about is notable and verifiable. A good place to start might be some independent 3rd party coverage of that type of work. Feel free to post again or at my talk page if you have more questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

adding an entry

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to a straight-forward place to add an entry about a fine artist - Jennifer Delilah Thank you and I have signed as an administrator. David Davis davisde —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisde (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Much like the previous inquiry, you'll find some useful tips in WP:Your first article. You'd also need to make sure that anything you write about is notable and verifiable. A good place to start might be some independent 3rd party coverage of that artist. Feel free to post again or at my talk page if you have more questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance to ensure NPOV

Resolved

– Good advice from Xavexgoem on user's talkpage. --Beloved Freak 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

On my User:Gary WebTrain personal page I have created content which I would like to post for WebTrain.

I have had my listing deleted once (it was too blatant and POV based), so I thought I should seek assistance before attempting another post. I have tried to contact the editor that deleted my prior listing, but have not received a response.

In the new content prepared, I have been careful to adhere to requirements. No POV is expressed, statements are simple, references are cited. I do not believe the content is in violation of any policies.

Currently, I am the only contributor.

I would like to invite others to provide content as well, I'm not sure how to do this. Perhaps an underconstruction tag ?

Assistance would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Gary Campbell xxxxx(call collect if you like, I am located on the west coast Pacific Time Zone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary WebTrain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page about ways to improve the article. Best of luck! Xavexgoem (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Aids pandemic in China

Resolved

– by User:JaGa --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, someone has written 'aids clearly started by a guy fucking a monkey and then after that the guy went off and started fucking other girls' in the article but when I tried to edit the article to delete it, it wasn't there. My technical knowledge of wikipedia isn't brilliant so if someone could work out how to remove it that would be great. Sorry if I have reported this in the wrong place. Intesvensk (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the vandalism of HIV/AIDS in the People's Republic of China was fixed by another editor. Thanks for pointing it out here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pirates of Dark Water

Resolved

– I think.... right, Pastordavid? Fleetflame 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An unanymous user and User:StoneCold have reverted my edits for three times - while I try to follow WP:NOT, my words are useless. --Soetermans (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again! There is no reasoning to these two! One does not comment at all, the other's reason is because other pages are like this one, we (or, I, if you will) should just leave it alone! Please, someone! --Soetermans (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy, Soetermans, just came into this Pirates of Dark Water page and started to delete the work of everybody else repeatly on there. He has changed the page 4 times now. The page has been up for years like it currently is.--StoneCold (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a a collection of in-universe content: species, places, treasures etc etc. Your only argument is that "has been like that for years that everybody repeatedly worked on" and therefore I should just leave it alone - eventhough it is a bad article. And oh yeah, have you heard of being bold?

What don't you get? An encyclopedic article aim is to inform about a subject or matter - not describe every little detail! I don't make the rules, I follow them. You, however, follow your own. --Soetermans (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I could point to many tv show entries that do things the exact same way. For example, understanding who the key characters are are esssential to understanding the show. I don't appreciate the "fanboy" insult you left in my messages either. You have yet to contribute anything to the page and just deleted stuff. Your edits fail to help the reader understand the show. The fact is is that you changed the page 4 times exactly the same way in a short time period and disrupted the original piece of work.--StoneCold (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, my apologies. I didn't mean to insult you, I got carried away.

Moving on: That is not a valid argument! Even if you'd come across a thousand more of pages just like doesn't mean they are good articles in any way. Better even, you should delete the useless info just like I did (and will do, I assure you). Again and again I keep pointing at the guidelines, which are established by consensus of the users and founders of this website. The way I left the article is a good summary of early '90s animation tv-show. The way it was, before I, the bull in the chinashop, significantly edited it, was a collection of in-universe information - not suitable for a encyclopedic Wikipedia article. Example:

The Constrictus: A "Horror-Beast" that Bloth feeds his disloyal crew and captives to. Ren is one of only two to survive the Constrictus, and the only one to escape them completely intact; the other being the peg-legged pirate Konk. It appears as a giant four-headed, worm-like, sharp-toothed monster. It lives in the bowels of the Maelstrom and is seen nowhere else on Mer.

This does not belong into the article. If anything, taking this load of nonsense out of the article will help improve understanding the show. Besides, if you know how to look things up on Wikipedia, any Internet user won't have any problem whatsoever getting this info somewhere else.

Oh, and guys? Can someone please back me up here? --Soetermans (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, you don't even say who the main characters of the show are. No Ren, Ioz, or Bloth for example. No one would understand the show after your slashing job. All you did was cut and did not contribute.--StoneCold (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked for an editor to step in, not an unanymous user - but thanks for your superb advice, thanks.

If the characters are important (which I doubt for a small-time tv-show) StoneCold or anyone could've put them - without, here I go again, THE LISTS OF VILLAINS, SHIPS, SPECIES, EPISODES AND TREASURES. For the last time, I follow the rules here. --Soetermans (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How are the main characters of a show not important? Here is a Ninja Turtle example Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles#Main_characters and Thundercats example Thundercats#Characters. A great majority of tv shows on wiki talk about the main characters. So guys like Ren & Bloth are not important to the show? It doesn't even sound like you watched the show. You didn't contribute anything. Just cut and then threw a "fanboy" insult at me.--StoneCold (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the right course here would be somewhere down the middle road. Not quite as much detail as what Stonecold is putting in, nor as much cutting as Soetermans is suggestioning. Is a compromise possible here? Are you both willing to move a little toward the middle? Pastordavid (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologised for my remark. Don't accept it? That's your problem. Whatever.

Actually, I did see the show but that's besides the point. We're talking about editing the article here. It's a small-time animation show! It had 21 episodes, and that's it. Like I said before, if you or anyone else thinks the characters are that important, go right ahead. I am talking about THE LISTS OF VILLAINS, SHIPS, SPECIES, EPISODES AND TREASURES. And what's not to understand? A handy link at the bottom of the article gives all the information anyone will ever need about the show. --Soetermans (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PasterDave thanks. As one can see from my examples above, most shows do it. I would not have a problem with the Mer Species and Crew sections being deleted. The other stuff are important to the show.--StoneCold (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. How's about that one? --Soetermans (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a good edit, PastorDave.--StoneCold (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that's a good start toward a compromise. Have a look at The Simpsons, which is a featured article in the same genre. You will notice that there is a great deal of information; the difference being that there is extensive sourceing (over 140 inline citations). I would trim back just a little more (perhaps the "treasures" section) and wait to expand further until you provide reliable sourcing for what is there now. Pastordavid (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I edited out the Treasures. Does this look good now Pastordavid? I think that is a good compromise as I deleted out 3 whole sections. Even though it got edited down more than most of the tv shows do on wikipedia, I will bit the bullet with these particular edits.--StoneCold (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of all that is good and holy, would you drop it already? Because other pages are like DOES NOT MEAN THEY FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES! I am beginning to sound like a broken record here... Any page like that is in need of a good "slash job"! Am I typing in Chinese here? I hope for your sake that in the future you will follow Wikipedia guidelines, and not your own rules. Please, don't be so stubborn and read the arguments I came up with. --Soetermans (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a neutral observer who isn't going to make a judgment one way or another, I think it might be useful if you listed which particular quotes from WP:NOT you think apply. That way, the people you are debating with will know why exactly you think the article breaches WP:NOT. Juwe (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did. --Soetermans (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, do you think the article reads like an instruction manual, a travel guide, an internet guide, or a textbook or annotated text? I just think that this might make the scope of the debate clearer to all. Juwe (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better guideline: WP:NOT#DIR, starting with "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". --Soetermans (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The PODW page DOES NOT have everything on there that existed. Not even remotely close. I clearly followed Pastordavid's guidelines of compromise. Look at all the other tv shows out there including the one's I and Pastordavid posted above. It looks like you are being selfish and not wanting to compromise. I believe I was right, but I did what ADMINISTRATOR PASTORDAVID said. Please READ HIS LAST POST. You aren't always going to get exactly what you want. Get over it.--StoneCold (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that Soetermans has stepped over the line of the three revert rule, reverting 4 times in the last 24 hours (1, 2, 3, 4). I have not blocked you from a generous understanding that we are in conversation about this right now, but any further reverts in the next 24 hours will get you blocked. StoneCold is one revert away from violating the three revert rule, which will also result in blocking. Pastordavid (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

""I would trim back just a little more (perhaps the "treasures" section) and wait to expand further until you provide reliable sourcing for what is there now."-Pastordavid. I did exactly what you said pastordavid immediately after that post, so I hope that ended the debate.--StoneCold (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Selfish? Nah, just a follower of the rules - I don't give a flying fish about whatever page, nor about PoDW. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia like an encyclopedia and that's it.

In my last serious post I commented on your ever-so flexible stance (Even though it got edited down more than most of the tv shows do on wikipedia), not about the article. But I'm content, I'm positive you will run into yourself again - on Wikipedia or in real life. Say, if everyone would park their cars on the sidewalk - something which goes against common rules - would you? That does seem like your logic: I could point to many tv show entries that do things the exact same way, As one can see from my examples above, most shows do it, many, many tv shows in wikipedia are done just like this one... Good day. I'm out here. --Soetermans (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks resolved now. By the way since we want to get personal, I am a 30 year old male with a wife and kids and work for a multi-million dollar company. My whole life has been about compromise. I believe I followed within the rules and I did exactly what Administrator Pastordavid said.--StoneCold (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done StoneCold. The articles don't belong to any one of us. Of course it's nice to show the early editors their "props" but the articles are always in a state of flux and growth. I commend you in not getting into the "drift of attack/counter-attack" ie name calling, continuing hostilities, etc. It can be hard to stay on topic. Once it was called a bad article, the combat started. Un-necessarily, in my opinion.--Buster7 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lake Victoria

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how to edit and link the reference to al-Idrisi map on the subject page for Lake Victoria. It appears misspelled on the page with an A. Also, here is a picture of the referenced map that should have its own wiki page:

http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/natmapworld1154.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.239.79 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So linked. It looks like this - [[Al Idrisi]] - and renders as Al Idrisi. The page to which that link leads has a similar image already. The about.com page to which you linked has a copyright tag on it so it's not clear that we could use that image. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove edit

Resolved

– Looks like it's been oversighted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance this edit can be purged completely by an administrator. It contains a vicious attack on my family, and outside websites that hate me and the subject of the article have linked to this particular vandalous edit. Chicken Wing (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is... yikes. FYI, a request like this would be better served at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents board, but there should be administrators here. (On a sidenote, I see you've edited that article, be sure to take a look at WP:COI.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about me. The vandalous edit, however, contains an attack on me and my wife. Some of the vandalism alleges a conspiracy between me and the article's subject. Chicken Wing (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The ip address making that edit has been blocked from editing directly for 1 year.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy Development, Hydrogen cycle efficiency citation

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

section 6.3.1 of Energy Development cites a cycle efficiency for an electrolysis-fuel cell combination at 50% however the referenced page doesn't (as far as I can see) mention any kind of efficiency for the cycle.

I would edit myslef however I'm not aware of the etiquet as I'm a newby.

Scubadooper

We do have a template for that: {{notinsource}}. However, I've removed that information. Don't be afraid to do it yourself next time; don't worry about etiquette--if you screw something up, someone else will fix it! Fleetflame 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Amateur Sports Teams

Resolved

– --Bhockey10 --Bhockey10 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could some people more familiar with the subject have a look at Dupage Dragons, Springfield Sliders, and Twin City Stars. I can't seem to locate the criteria for notability that covers this subject and the articles themselves don't seem to assert notability. I don't want to take to PROD -or- AfD just because I'm not familiar with the subject but, could use a couple other sets of eyes. None of the articles had been updated for quite a while so if they are notable I'd like to work on improving the articles. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any specific criteria either, so the standard one about multiple independent sources providing non-trivial coverage might be the best criterion to apply. Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball might be able to offer some help too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the criteria. I dropped the league name (Central Illinois Collegiate League) into google news and got 562 hits searching all dates, and 85 for "Dupage Dragons" They look like they'd pass WP:N at first glance. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be notable per reasons above. On another note: Wikiproject baseball doesn't seem to have specific criteria but WP:ATHLETE states that "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to extend that to athletic leagues.--Bhockey10 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

article marked as a press release

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for another editor to suggest changes or clear the tag for the article Tradition, Florida. It has been changed to try to address the issue, and the user has not been able to comment on it since those changes were made.

Thanks! Kerfl772 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I see is the one-sentence sections. I'm going to mess with it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a major revision and took the tags down, I think it's fine now. Someone can re-add the tags if not. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no longer reads as a news release. --Beloved Freak 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cf template problem with High-definition_video#Types_of_recorded_medium

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See here High-definition_video#Types_of_recorded_medium and at end of paragraph 1 you'll see a Cf template that is redlink that was added back in Dec 2007. I found by accident but have absolutely no idea what the heck Cf templates do even after reading the text on them but I don't just want to blank that text. Please advise my next step or edit it as this looks like template voodoo. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit was [1] and the text added was {{cf.|Telecine}} Ttiotsw (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced {{cf.}} with {{seealso}} since Telecine has some explanation of pulldowns. There's no other usage of {{cf}}, so it might have been used in the hope that something existed, by analogy to cf. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spot Welders - review request

Resolved

– for now, at least. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve the NPOV issues with the Spot Welders article. They are a post-production and editorial house. I have updated the page since it was tagged as "looks like advertising, and i believe that in its current iteration the NPOV issues have been resolved. Would you please review the article and make any changes or else notes in the talk page? thanks! Shamus00 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's one sentence in the lede that mentions some awards won by the company. Everything else is rather peripheral and could well be removed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing business

Resolved

– As explained, Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --Beloved Freak 10:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I wanted to know how i can go about listing my website http://www.letsrent.com.au on wiki. we are property management specialists based in the inner west sydney.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves2074 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Additionaly;

Need feedback on what to do with an article that is being vandalized often - but in good faith

Resolved

– JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled onto the article Todd Bentley, which needed an overhaul (no template, written as a story, bias, no/poor cites, etc.) so I got Bold and did the best I could - paring out whatever I could not not find strong references for and cleaning/organizing the rest.

I did not realize at the time that the subject of the article is in current events and extremely controversial - subsequently the page is constantly being edited (vandalized?) with opinion, unreferenced claims, and bias.

I have tried opening up the page to a neutrality discussion, but that didn't seem to slow down the edits. The editors have quite strong emotions about this subject, which I am not altogether unsympathetic to. But "watching" and cleaning potentially libelous commentary on the article has become pretty time-intensive and I'm beginning to feel like I've become endowed with some kind ownership over it. I don't want that.

I gotta figure someone out there has been in this hole and maybe knows the way out?

Thank you!EBY3221 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like all the vandalism you're getting is by IP users. I'd suggest going to Requests for Page Protection and ask it to be semi-protected. This often has to be done when the article subject makes it in the news. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice, simple, obvious solution that I, the newbie, was too in the forest to see. You're my hero of the day. EBY3221 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel loved. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gems TV

Resolved

– Beloved Freak 10:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

12.186.98.136 appears to be an IP owned by Gems TV and is removing cited material critical of the company from the Gems TV article without explanation. Would appreciate some others input on this before it turns ugly. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you post this at WP:AIV. Blanking sections with no given reason is vandalism. The user has had five warnings as regards this for Gems TV? Nk.sheridan Talk 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They've actually been blocked since you posted here. This is starting to look like WikiNews fodder... JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)