Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Tasmanian genocide

Stale

 – Fleetflame 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

History wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been involved in a protracted dispute with two editors, Webley442 and Philip Baird Shearer (PBS) regarding the treatment of the Tasmanian genocide and the possible introduction of smallpox into Australia in 1789.

These subjects have a reasonable international consensus, which is summarized ad-nauseum on the talk page, and which is not disputed very much by PBS. But the changes to the text of the page which I have tried to put in to comply with undue weight and NPOV were reverted with little explanation, by the two editors.

The main issue is that a fringe position, that of Windschuttle, is presented as if it were an accepted position. The rest is obvious from reading the talk page and looking at diffs.

I would appreciate if someone who is completely neutral could take a look.Likebox (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, after it became clear that this dispute would not be resolved, I saved a copy of my preferred text at User:Likebox/HistoryWars. The sources introduced in this text are not in the body of the article. More significantly, the general information in the international consensus is missing from the article.Likebox (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a fair bit to think about. I need to re-read the talk page before commenting, but when I do, I'll go to the talk page rather than replying here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Took a look at it Likebox. I'm familiar with Windschuttle's position and yes it is what might be called a "fringe" one, emerging within the last decade. His book generated a little attention at the time it was published, but is widely regarded as belonging to a revisionist school of history that has been criticised for racial bias. Discussion of his book could be interesting in that commentators consider it typifies an era in Australia where indigenous rights issues regressed after some movement forward between the 50's and 80's. His book could not nearly hope to represent the ideas of all other Australian historians let alone sum up all of the histories of people involved in indigenous issues in Australia. As you say, it should not be presented as an "accepted" position as Windschuttle himself set out to question "accepted" positions. Aside from that, the two articles (as they appeared in both versions when I read them) could do with some small adjustments to improve grammar and readability. The main page certainly has the mark of an entry that has been edited for political reasons rather than for reasons that might have included grammar. In resolution I would suggest merging elements from both versions, maintaining referenced sources to cover commentary from as many historians - including oral historians - as possible. Personally I tend to think of Windschuttle as a deliberate provocateur. Ultimately his book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, seemed to generate a backlash against his own opinion - which he seemed to me to suspiciously enjoy. Frei Hans (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE relevant here? – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That's why I was editing. But the two guys there won't let anything new in.Likebox (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Same editors, same problem at genocides in history.Likebox (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope somebody else can get involved, because I am not an expert on the topic, and I am currently trying to put in a majority position without help, and I am outnumbered. The discussion on the talk page has become very repetitive.Likebox (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of History wars, you may have better luck posting a request for involvement at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board; the people there would be in more of a position to help dredge up and represent a majority position than the general helpers we have here. WP:ECCN might help get you some editors more experienced in these sorts of cultural disputes. Also, if the two editors you mention are simply reverting without substantive discussion, while you're attempting discussion on the edits, you might consider WP:ANEW if it's becoming clear they're just edit warring and deliberately stalling in discussion. However, you're right that this needs more eyes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what this means, but if it means the dispute is over, then nonsense. All the pages on Wikipedia involving the Tasmanian events are wrong, and there are two editors working in close collaboration who prevent the standard story from getting written. I posted on the Australian noticeboard, and got a few comments, but no help. The editors were probably intimidated by the length of the talk page.Likebox (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag is put on items which have gone stale here at Editor Assistance requests. You have been pointed to possible solutions. That's what happens here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, I guess it's ok. But nobody new has come in.Likebox (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what "stale" means. Fleetflame 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism

Resolved

 – With thanks

-- Muzhogg (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I am very concerned about recent developments on the talk page for EAAN particularly this thread.

I consider that the thread concerned not only makes no constructive contribution to the article in question, but it is an inflamatory expression of an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

This is not the only "offending" thread on this talk page which, overall, is beginning to take on the nature of a blog page or discussion group. I have tagged the page with a "talkheader", have requested all editors to restrict themselves to edits of the article based on WP:RS and to use the talk page for constructive discussion of same.

However the talk page is, in my personal judgment, beginning to take on the nature of an open forum.

I should also add that I'm somewhat reticent about the rather derogatory marks being directed at Plantinga and philosphers in general - this may not be a biographical article, but surely throwing insults at people just because one doesn't like the nature of their work is a breach of the spirit of the "no derogatory remarks about living persons" policy?

I would like to ask whether I am right in my sense that this thread is well beyond acceptable limits, and, if so, how should I proceed.

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I slapped a {{notaforum}} on there too. Personal attacks and insults should be deleted per WP:BLP and if directed at other editors should be reported to WP:ANI, per WP:NPA. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An univolved editor (I don't have the time today or I'd do it myself) could swing through the talk page and archive anything forum-like or soapbox-y. Having previous conversations like that on the talk page tends to encourage others to do the same. Just make sure that it is some one univolved, and post a thread reminding that the talk page is to discuss article improvement, and that anything else (personal views, etc) can be removed at any time. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for takin time to make a response: I relocated the "tl|notaforum" to the top of the page - just to ephasise the point, and will take your other suggestions under advisement. I'd like clarification on one thing however. Obviously removal of material from talk pages - particularly other people's remarks - shouldn't be undertaken lightly. And I'd like to know if I, as one of the involved editors, have the right to revert/delete any POVish material? I can see where a person familiar with the history of the discussion and the subject of the article might be best placed to act on this matter, but I can also see the merits of third-person involvement. Have you any comment on this, and is there a policy/procedure/precedent on the question? I'd like to proceed with caution in order to get it right, rather than inflame what is a potentially volatile situation. -- Muzhogg (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I was not talking about removing POV from the talk page, I was referring to removing material, personal attacks and potentially defamatory stuff etc, about third parties (ie non-editors) which at least in spirit violates WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad you offered that clarification as I thought deletion was a rather strong option! I'm glad you offer the observation that the spirit of WP:BLP applies, as I've been arguing the same thing myself! -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Endeavor (nonprofit)

Resolved

 – Would just be answered, but no IP edits since. Fleetflame 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endeavor_(nonprofit)

I work for Endeavor and would love to get our entry back up! I am happy to reedit it so it meets the correct criteria!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.22.90 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI - if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of a proposed article you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles about that subject. If, however, you do wish to do so, first of all you will need to create an account -- IP editors cannot create articles; second, create the article as a draft in a user subpage. But before you do that, please read WP:YFA, WP:RS, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article had been speedily deleted previously per criterion A7, meaning the article didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. As ukexpat above indicates, however, just passing that criterion won't mean such an article will stay... the subject itself should be notable by Wikipedia's guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this anything to do with Endeavour (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem likely given the IP's geolocation (NYC) versus that Endeavour's location (QLD). But I suppose it's a trivial matter for someone with the tools to check if Endeavor (nonprofit) == Endeavour (organisation). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Nah, it's different. Check the IP's other edits, linking to something at endeavor.org, which is different from Endeavour (organisation). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaplan University

Resolved

 – Evidently edit war has stopped. Fleetflame 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaplan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a bit of an edit war brewing on the Kaplan University article, and I'd appreciate some assistance/mediation. One editor, User:Logger9, insists on inserting material that appears to be more along the lines of adcruft than encyclopedic. They may be good-faith edits, but the editor refuses to disclose what connections they may have. Affiliates of the subject organization have a history of POV edits on this and related articles. Please see the Talk:Kaplan University page for more info. Thanks! --averagejoe (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left a brief review / 3rd opinion on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have to disclose his affiliations. While the revelation of a COI might seem helpful, in reality, if the content is poor, then it should simply be fixed. Accusing another user of having a disruptive COI without substantial evidence could be seen as a personal attack, though as you may know going out and harvesting such information is likely going to be a violation of WP:OUTING.

In short, unless it's blatantly obvious vanispamcruftisement, you should just assume good faith on the part of Logger9, and try to work towards establishing a consensus, using the dispute resolution process (as you've started to do, by posting here). WP:NPOVN might be the best next step if it's a big deal; while WP:COIN might be appealing, I don't think it's going to help unless you can establish said user has a disruptive COI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Average Joe has good reason to be wary of suspicious editing on that article, given the history there (e.g., this discussion). That said, without clear evidence of a COI, it is a non-issue, and the focus should be on the edits themselves, not whomever may or may not be making them. It appears that at least two other editors are helping to watch the page, which should be enough to keep the article from becoming too POV. Discuss, and if it becomes and issue, make use of WP:3RR. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no further edit-warring on this page since question was posted. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiger dispute

Resolved

 – Be advised both parties had been blocked for 3RR. Discussion continued on OP's talk page, an edit was placed in the article that had a source, and evidently neither party has touched the article since. Fleetflame 02:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I`m new at this, so I have edited a few things on the "Siberian Tiger" article that is very wrong. The article is so bad that some might call it for a internet hoax (or propaganda), as tigers do not hunt grown brown bears on regular basis. Most killed brown bears are cubs, but the other guy wont let me give that info either. Its very rear that a tiger attacks a grown brown bear. Every time i change it, the other guy changed it back. So I got a warning. I have the documentation, but dont know how to put in references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norw73 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the problem here is clearly the lack of references, you might like to read these:

• Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners
• Wikipedia:Citation templates

Hope these help. However, I suggest you discuss with the other editor(s) on the article talk page about the changes before making them. Clearly explain why you think the current information is wrong, and show your source. This will help avoid any further edit warring. Chamal ^talk 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Grow shop

Resolved

 – Article deleted (A7) and user blocked. Fleetflame 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Grow shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can someone please help with this article and its editor. It doesn't know if it is about hydroponics (as the commercial links which shouldn't be there suggest, as does some of the description and the 380 number in the UK), or a place to grow marijuana. I tried a redirect to Hyrdoponics but that didn't stick. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's talk page is nonexistent, and you haven't even attempted to establish communication (much less consensus) with the other user, Michael 38 (talk · contribs), other than welcoming him. This is always the first step towards getting things accomplished in any dispute; then things go on from there. Fleetflame 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I welcomed him right after I posted this, apparently before your response. I could do what you suggest, but I thought that after my unfortunate redirect it would be better if someone else did. I was hoping this would be the appropriate place to ask, but perhaps not. I'm not interested in a dispute with him, I'm interested in getting him some help and frankly I don't know what the best advice would be for him. I don't think we should have an article with commercial links and suggesting there are 380 marijuana growing grow shops in the UK, but I also don't think I have time to deal with this. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A generic welcome template is not an explanation for your redirect; that edit summary is highly unsatisfactory, and I know if I had gotten one like that, I'd be scratching my head. I would say the topic and content is legitimate, if confusingly written. I suggest initiating a real discussion on his talk page or the article talk page. There are many problematic articles on Wikipedia. I don't know if this is really the right forum to announce "hey I have a problem with this article but I'm too busy to fix it...who wants to help?" --C S (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'l probably just leave it. I was in haste and that didn't help. The template was not to comment on the redirect, it was because the editor should have one. If I find time I may do something. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to start a discussion. The next thing I knew, the editor had created an article which was speedied as blatant advertising (after a bit of a tussle) and has been blocked indefinitely as an advertising only account. Not once did the editor respond to various messages on their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group

Resolved

 – User:Ewgwebteam blocked as WP:SPAMNAME/group account. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, I work for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and tried to edit the wikipedia page for us to update what environmental work we're researching and lobbying around. I copy/pasted from our website, as I was the one to write the information on our website and so I own the copyright to copy it to Wikipedia. The next day the information was deleted because someone said it was copyrighted material.... Can I repost the information or what should I do? Thanks, Ewgwebteam (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) EWG

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to release the content for use on Wikipedia. Also, please read WP:COI - you should not editing the article yourself because of your conflict of interest. Please make suggestions for changes on the article's talk page. Finally your user name appears to be in breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ewgwebteam blocked as WP:SPAMNAME/group account. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Abbot

Resolved

 – Proposed at Articles for creation. Request denied. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, there is wrong data in a bio for Jennifer Abbot, being mixed with another Jennifer Abbot. I logged into correct it. Someone named dmacks deleted the changes. Then I created a whole new bio for the USA director (not Canadian one) & this Dmacks deleted my new bio siting copyright infringe which is a lie. He is putting the wrong film War of the gods and wards info on the acandaian directors page, and this is not right. There are two jennifer abbots and the deleted new bio for the american one needs added back. Please - thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess505050 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Correction they are both exactly spelled the same, Jennifer Abbott. Here is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott

In wrongly states she made thr war og the gods film, thats by the USA director Jennifer abbott page I created the new bio for that DMacks deleted incorrectly. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:

07:38, 17 June 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "New bio" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.atlantisrisingproduction.com/3.html)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_bio&action=edit&redlink=1

There are two Jennifer Abbott directors and there should be two pages. If someone can please undo the delete. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princess505050 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Undoing the deletion isn't possible as it was deemed to be a copyvio. Why don't you create a draft article in a user subpage first so you can work on it? I suggest User:Princess505050/Jennifer Abbott (American director). I have created the empty page for you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, several editors concurred that the now-deleted article was primarily if not entirely whole paragraphs cut'n'pasted from other websites. As was explained on your talk-page, that's not an acceptable way to write an article. DMacks (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See thread below. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tags on {{surname}} pages

Discussion moved

 – On-going problem, it seems. Conversations at WikiProject, ANI, and bot operator talk. Editor in question just blocked for 31h (after discussion there, too). Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Help please!!!

We seem to have a really silly situation developing regarding editors putting {{orphan}} tags on {{surname}} and {{given name}} pages. Since the {{orphan}} tag says "Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it." and the {{surname}} tag says "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change that link to point directly to the intended article.", it obviously makes no sense to have mutually contradictory tags on the same page.

However, editors like Postcard Cathy persist in putting the {{orphan}} tags back onto such pages, time after time. The illogicality of this has been pointed out to her by several editors, (see, for example, User_talk:Postcard_Cathy#Orphan_tags_on_.7B.7Bsurname.7D.7D_pages). The justification she gives is that these pages are listed on http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_orphans.php – which is true. This script seems to list unlinked pages irrespective of their {{surname}} and {{given name}} tags. In fact, the beginning of the list is often dominated by name pages.

The problem has been raised with the script author (see User_talk:JaGa#Orphans_.26_Surname_Pages but he hasn't done anything about it. Meanwhile, well-meaning editors like Postcard Cathy are busily placing {{orphan}} tags that will only have to be removed again.

There seems to be a consensus that {{orphan}} tags should not be placed on {{surname}} and {{given name}} pages - see, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#Surname_pages and more crucially Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage#.7B.7Bsurname.7D.7D_pages in which User:PamD says she has actually made a change to Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria.

However, I am still reverting edits by Postcard Cathy and have even resorted to temporarily changing a few of the page tags to {{disambig}} (incorrectly, I know) just to get a bit of respite.

Please help sort this out.

Hebrides (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Following the rough consensus you cited above, the editor in question has been pretty strongly advised to stop tagging such "name" articles as orphans (on user talk). Is there more to do here? I will help to comb through the contribs and make sure it has all been undone, but is there anything else? Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the last 1000 contribs, it appears that a pretty thorough cleanup has been done already. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Since I posted the above this morning the Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria have been changed, and, as you say, a message has been added to Postcard Cathy's talk page. However, http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_orphans.php is still listing name pages, though I note that someone else has left a message on the script author's talk page (User_talk:JaGa#Orphans_.26_Surname_Pages) asking him to sort it out. I've spent a bit of time with AWB removing orphan tags from {{surname}} pages, but I haven't had time to do any {{given name}} pages yet. I just hope that Postcard Cathy doesn't spend this evening going through tagging them all again. Cheers. Hebrides (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like the folks at WT:O are more than handling this. The concern of course may be that there's a problem of no visible consensus. It may be worth requesting that users (such as contributions) drop by WT:O and discuss their feelings on the subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Hebrides above, I'll caution you to be careful using AWB for things that anyone could (reasonably or not) consider contentious. I know it came up in WP:ARBDATE, and while they didn't make any rulings regarding the AWB terms of use, you can rest assured that such use of AWB can blow up in your face. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Abbott USA

Resolved

 – Article speedily deleted per G12. – ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Abbott USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following a thread above, I noticed a denied Articles for creation request. Checking out the OP's contributions, I see that the article was made anyway. I don't have the on-wiki time to check this out. Could someone look it over, see if it needs speedy, afd, etc (It may be a re-creation of already deleted material, judging by the original thread). Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged for G12 speedy as a copyvio of http://www.atlantisrisingproduction.com/2.html  – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And now deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Improper cut and paste move

Resolved

 – fixed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotiabank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An I.P. editor has cut the copy that was previously at Scotiabank and pasted it at Bank of Nova Scotia, which was previously a redirect to Scotiabank. The editor has then created a reversed redirect from Scotiabank to Bank of Nova Scotia. Apart from cut and paste moves being VERY BAD, even as a regular move, that would be a pretty bold one without discussion.

I'm reluctant to fix it myself due to a CoI, so I'd really welcome some help in sorting this out. Mlaffs (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the cut'n'paste move as an improper process and will leave a note about it on the talk-page. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks! Mlaffs (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct templates

Resolved

 – Template removed and user notified about the difference. Fleetflame 02:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• edit

I don't have the time right now to patiently explain the difference between tagging an entire article for deletion and tagging a section as original research. Someone else please help, here. Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I undid it and left xer a User_talk:Clftruthseeking#Welcome.21 message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Answered

 – Answer and advice given. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to change some pages to be consistent with a website [www.countrylink.info] which has four regions and is inconsistent with wikipedia which is labelling them as one "countrylink" region - this is not correct. Some editors are changing it to reflect inaccurate information which is not what what was there before. I don't disagree with their new tables, just the fact that the information they are putting in them is wrong. They also think I am some other editor and are ignoring my suggestions made to them in good faith. Can you help me please? Lonelygirl16 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've been accused of sockpuppetry, but whomever made that accusation hasn't filed a Sockpuppet Investigations case. As to the dispute itself, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Would you mind pointing to some specific articles? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The sock tag has now been retracted. The dispute still needs looking at. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the dispute, the issue is that Lonelygirl16 is suggesting that the information in a group of articles and/or nav templates is incorrect. Looking at some of the pages in question... yeesh. contributions was asked repeatedly by the Lonelygirl16 to explain his behavior (that is, reverting her contribs to these pages). I can sort of understand where the Endarrt is coming from; he appears to have frequently used the edit summary "rv:discuss your changes first, then we'll take consensus". However, where Lonelygirl16 has attempted discussion, Endaart has ignored it. Not so good, if you ask me. Template:Strathfield platform box is one page affected by this, and is the page where Lonelygirl16 attempted discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I also talked to him on his talk page but he ignored me. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I dropped a question with Endarrt asking him why he's ignoring you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Now in discussion with Endarrt at my user talk... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or not... I asked him to chime in at Template talk:Strathfield platform box, which he did, but in an extremely terse and frankly rather unproductive manner. I'm concerned about this editor's conduct, Lonelygirl16's complaint notwithstanding. WQA might be a good next step... I'm on the fence as to whether this merits it already. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

so what happens now? do I just have to leave the templates as they are? last time I tried I got told off by Endarrt but he won't respond to my requests to talk. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. My suggestion is to explain your changes and why you think they're appropriate versus the current version at the template talk page. It'll definitely make the situation easier to discuss for outsiders. If Endarrt doesn't respond again and your reasoning is, well, reasonable... he either has to discuss it or accept it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Discussion moved

 – Discussion on-going at article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a dispute over the example section of the article. An editor has been attempting to keep "Linking Israelis with Nazis" in the article which I feel is unwarranted and poorly cited. First of all the beginning sentences do not appear to make claims which are supported by the cited sources. The lead sentence, "Many cartoons, essays, and editorials have equated the actions of the Israeli government, Israel's supporters, or the political philosophy of Zionism with the actions or beliefs of the Nazi Party during or before the Holocaust.", has hardly any relation to the sources as all given sources in the example refer only to Israeli government policy and not the broad claim the editor is supporting. The following sentence which seems to be the one intended to explain the relationship between the fallacy and the example is so poorly written (and uncited) that I can't understand what if any point its making.

"These comparisons commit the fallacy discussed in this article if they ask the reader to derive specific conclusions about desirable actions by or towards Israel that would directly correspond to how the reader would similarly judge Nazi Germany."

The editor seems to only edit articles referencing Israel from looking at his history and I think that he's just trying to push his point of view into the article. As seen in the talk page, this edit is clearly controversial and the fact that it is poorly written with at least half of it uncited makes me think it should be removed until it is better written or sourced. Mekeretrig (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look leaves me with the impression that there is a lot of original research in this article. The sources for the examples should mention the name of the fallacy in some form, and if they don't, then they and anything they reference shouldn't be there, as it is then simply a Wikipedia editor saying X is an example of Y. I presume you are familiar with WP:OR? Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

alot of original research there - there isn't a single source in that section that mentions "reductio ad hitlerum" or ties it to israel/nazi comparisons. untwirl(talk) 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (edit) - one source has just been added re:barbed wire that provides a good example of this fallacy without naming it as such. it would be a good addition but doesnt merit its own section. untwirl(talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor advocating the example has reverted my removal of the edit twice, saying its against consensus, I don't really know how to pursue having this evaluated by a neutral third party to reolve the issue. Mekeretrig (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely problematic article. It's not particularly well-defined and liable to arouse a lot of confusing discussion. My advice would be to just go work on other articles and give this up as a loss.

Regarding getting a neutral third party, there is a mediation cabal, but be aware that a mediator will never settle the dispute for you. Mediation is simply meant to initiate discussion and help participants arrive at a compromise. If the positions are such that no compromise is possible, the mediator will not decide if one person is right or not.

So there is no third party that can come and resolve this for you. That's not generally how things work on Wikipedia. You can get more opinions by requesting an RFC and if people agree with you, then that should indicate claims of your edits being non-consensus are wrong. But if the other editor chooses not to believe this and has a lot more time for this than you, you'll be fighting a losing battle. Another place to raise further issues is at the NPOV or OR noticeboards. Perhaps you'll find some interest there, but don't be surprised if you don't or if the interest dies out and you are left alone to deal with the article.--C S (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems there is already considerable discussion on the talk page now. I suggest arriving at a workable compromise with everyone....this is probably the best it is going to get. --C S (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance?

Answered

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought an edit to the 2020 Olympics wiki page was appropriate... another thought not... Please refer to complete discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cm1ij

Any thoughts from anyone? Cm1ij (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like your trying to include a political topic that most people, I would think, would not think particularly relevant to the article. It also smacks somewhat of original research. While it's fun to think about these things, we really have no idea how the charter and legalities of host countries will interact. --C S (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigan Athletic

Answered

 – Answered. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor ("he", for argument's sake) removed some content in the Wigan Athletic F.C. article, because it was not sourced. I reverted the edit, and asked him to at least give time for editors to find a source. He did not do so, and reverted my revert. I warned him for disruptive editing via Twinkle, searched the Internet and found sources for the claims he disputed, but he disputes the reliability of the sources I referenced. I have 100% confidence in the source, and I'm not sure how to put an end to this edit war. Please can I have some assistance? GW(talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to give time to source something in an article. Quoting Jimmy Wales, "random, speculative" info "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". However, the disputed sentence in the article (about it being the youngest club in the league) appears to be true. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to add multiple sources so that there can be no dispute about their accuracy. I suggest adding these two:

• http://premierskills.britishcouncil.org/the-clubs/information/wigan
• http://sports.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Profiles/Clubs/Wigan-Athletic/articleshow/3490290.cms

These two are reliable sources and should be enough to backup the claim. One is a site connected with The British Council, and the other is a well known news site. Also, you guys seem to have been waging quite a revert war on the article. I suggest you discuss things like this on the talk page in the future and come to a suitable agreement, instead of simply re-reverting. Chamal ^talk 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were in the wrong to warn him for disruptive editing. "Legally" he is in the right to have removed the unsourced edit. One could say it's not particularly collegial, overreacting for such a little fact, etc., but he's perfectly within the rules by doing so. This is analogous to if a neighbor calls the landlord on you for making noise at night instead of just politely approaching you. As a long term plan for interaction, calling the authorities on an apartment neighbor on a first offense is a very bad idea and likely to lead to future trouble. But of course as an "anonymous" IP, probably he doesn't much care about future interactions. However, with the sources given above by Chamal_N, now you are in the right to add the disputed statement. If he reverts you again, then you can simply report him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, pointing out that you are in the right with reliable sources, and an admin will take care of it. Be careful not to engage in edit-warring, particularly the 3 revert rule. Before taking anything to the noticeboard, It is best to notify the user first on his user talk page and the article talk page (there seems to be no discussion there, the dispute taking place entirely in edit summaries), that you have new sources and that further reversions will be seen by others as being in the wrong. --C S (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Response copied to OP user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

Resolved

 – OP evidently answered his own question. (Mad slinging?) Fleetflame 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

HOW CAN THE ADMIN CLAIM THIS POST TO BE RESOLVED WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ACTUAL ISSUE, WHICH WAS A DISBPUTE ABOUT THE DEFENTION OF THE HORN OF AFRICA.--Liban80 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

hi need an urgent help with this article ive contacted the admins on a previouse occation and they suggested that i reach a consensus with the parties involved.i followed their advise but this has failed. The argument centers around the defenition of the Horn of Africa.The article mentions that the term Horn of Africa refers to peninsula but it refuses to mention what lands are contained in it. this is important becouse the term is also extended to refer to a region. now most of this area lies is well outside the peninsula.and when people read the article they errounosly assume that these countries are also contained in the peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This same user posted almost the exact same request for administrative intervention a little over a week ago ('absit invidia' is him). He was told in no uncertain terms then by separate editors to discuss matters over on the article in question's talk page with the other editors involved in the dispute so as to establish consensus, and to also bear in mind that fringe issues come into play in this particular case. Instead, the editor above has been repeatedly attempting today to force his idiosyncratic definition into the article, to the point of consecutively reverting three separate editors. As I write this, he is now blocked from editing for breaching WP:3RR. I would therefore take his assurances of simply trying to "reach a consensus" with a grain of salt. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just what are you insinuating middayexpress. Have n't i made it clear in my current post that i made previous request for admin assistance. And just becouse you are unaware of certain facts, it does not make them idiosincratic. let me tell you that your knoledge is n't infinite in all matters. stop bickering and start debating like an adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that Liban80's intention is to erase a definition that is supported by multiple different sources and replace it with a personal interpretation of a source that neither contradicts the current version of the article nor supports his definition. He has accused both me and Middayexpress several times of 'distorting' or 'lying' when we pointed this out. --Scoobycentric (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Which version of this guy is blocked? Because in my opinion, they both need to be blocked.Drew Smith What I've done 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that whole double name thing is about. However, I do know that Liban80 appealed to have his block overturned, but his request was declined since he impersonated an administrator: he added a fake template to his talk page claiming that his request to be unblocked had been granted, and that it was handled by one 'absit invidia' (his other handle mentioned above). Middayexpress (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Middayexpress is adept in the use of mad slinging. but you will not distract me from the issue at hand. First of all you suggested that i completely altered the definition of the Horn. I did nothing of the sort. it states in the wiki article about the Horn of Africa that it is a peninsula, I simply added a description of what is contained in that peninsula. Ive also posted references to support my case and these were the Oxford Online reference and the Columbia Encyclopedia.I dont know how much more reliable you can get than those two prestigious sources.

As for people objecting to my defenition. there were only two individuals who disagreed with my definition in the talk page and they were middiyaexpress and Scoobycentric. and the only argument they put forth was that my describtion was a fringe. Sorry guys but the oxford press and the columbia encyclopedia's expertise exceeds yours in this area. they are not in the habit of publishing fringe definitions.

I invited Middayexpress to talk the issue over in his talk page but all i got from him was stone walling. and the issue is deadlocked.The only way i can see to resolve it, is to bring in an admin to arbitrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liban80 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How can fleetflame claim that this issue is resolved without addresing the realy issue which is the arrgument about the definition of the Horn of Africa. which was that the horn of africa is a peninsula comprising Somalia and Eastern Ethiopia, and that the term is also used to refer to a region Comprising Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and somalia.--Liban80 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I marked it resolved because evidently you answered your own question - bring in arbitration. There are many kinds of dispute resolution you may wish to try before arbitration. However, evidently no one here can help you. That's why I marked resolved. Fleetflame 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification fleetflame, i know now what course of action to follow.--Liban80 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Potential edit war at Jovan Vraniškovski

Resolved

 – Appears to be resolved for now, per OP below. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jovan Vraniškovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I seek assistance as I don't want to start an edit war with User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. I am a new user and I believe Wikipedia is about neutrality and contribution, not POV pushing and deleting others' efforts. That user initially reverted all my edits, labeling them as tendentious. I tried to start a discussion, elaborating why I consider my approach to be more objective. Unfortunately, he doesn't reply to any of the arguments, doesn't provide his own, but instead admits that he doesn't know much about the subject, and keeps insisting on his version of the article?! I provide references and proof for all statements I make. 'The other party' does not. Hope someone can help! Thanks.

Kpant (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that you have provided some sources on the talk page. Did you insert neutrally worded statements with inline citations to those sources in article? Because it looks to me as if you didn't. All material must be properly cited and neutrally worded. If not then other editors may, and in fact are encouraged to remove it, especially form biographies of living person. Please see Wikipedia:UNSOURCED#Burden_of_evidence Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, thanks for your reply! I try to do exactly what you suggest, but since it looks to you as if that is not the case, I could use some help. For example, what is not neutral in the note about Amnesty International declaring Jovan Vraniskovski a "Prisoner of Conscience"? There is also a reference included, where we can read exactly that. On the other hand 'the other party' does not argument anything against this, but simply deletes it from the article. Kpant (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, looking in further detail it looks as if bioth editors have removed material and references. I have left a note on the artcile talk page suggesting the enlistment of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. This may have to do with WP:ARBMAC though not in the way that those ANI fiascoes about how to identify Macedonia (or FYROM if you prefer) from a month or two ago. May also be a situation from WP:ECCN and/or WP:BLPN as the personage in the article is definitely a living person of religious and cultural significance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit is concerning. While I'm not clear on the WP:EL status of WND, I know it's been damn contentious everywhere else. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't aware. That source has been removed. Kpant (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any more reverting going on. How's this situation working out? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking and for watching this matter! I wouldn't know what to say more than what you can see, as the other side was never keen on discussing the issues - thus I don't know exactly why were there reverts, and why aren't there any more. I look at the things from an optimistic standpoint - assuming that there must have been some misunderstandings previously, which no longer exist - and hope that in the future we'll communicate normally. Kpant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Allen Collins

Resolved

 – OP blocked for edit warring, RFPP denied. May become a problem again, open a new thread as needed. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Allen Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Berean Hunter is vandalizing the page Allen Collins. I have repeatedly posted the following edit: "In 1987, Allen Collins met Bill Massey, Jr., and together they co-founded Roll For Rock in loving memory of Ronnie Van Zant. Both young men had been paralyzed in the prime of their lives, and they wanted to help other people. Roll For Rock hosts benefit concerts and wheelchair sports events to raise awareness about spinal cord injury and to provide opportunities to those facing physical challenges. Roll For Rock also participates in medical research that is seeking a cure for spinal cord injury. Allen's dream was to use music as a way to educate all people about ways to flourish in life despite a physical challenge" Berean Hunter is constantly accusing me of adding promotional material, using popups, spam. I am doing NONE of those things! He has threatened to block me from editing. I believe there is no good reason for his reversions. I am simply stating what Allen Collins did before he died. Please help! There has been so much negative written about Allen, and not very many people know that he really tried to help others before he died. The information is factual, I am not an owner of Roll For Rock, I recieve no money from them ever, and I would like to see these facts on Allen Collins page. Thank you very much, R4RVolunteer —Preceding unsigned comment added by R4Rvolunteer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem here is that you have been inserting un-sourced material, which has been correctly removed, as have the spam links. You have received warnings on your talk page. You need to read WP:Reliable sources, to see what is and is not considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. You have been warned for edit warring. Please calm down and cease attacking other editors. If you can find reliable sources for the information then bring them to the talk page, discuss and work with other editors. Oh, and please sign messages with four tildes [~] Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not post the same question on multiple boards. You already have a thread open at WP:NCHP#Constant removal of my edit. It is called forum shopping, it wastes everyones time and we don't like it. SpinningSpark 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And at WP:AN3#Vandalizing Allen Collins

And at WP:RPP

How many times do you need to get the same answer? SpinningSpark 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed template from section header; please don't put templates in section headers as doing so makes deep links to that section impossible, and it also may break the table of contents in some browsers. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

LOZIO 1928 Deleted

Answered

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lozio would like to add a page to wiki, how do we go about this without being accused of adding a company, we are a famous Italian fashion lable with 144 stores and we were founded in 1928, please advise us how to add a page. The page we started but has been deleted was Lozio 1928, it is no different to Gucci, or Armani, except for the reason you don't have it in your index. Please explain how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozioman (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of your conflict of interest you should not create the article yourself. Please request that it be created by posting at WP:AFC. Also, your user name appears to be in breach of the user name policy as a spam and/or group name. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the link above about conflict of interest, it is also helpful to read "Creating your first article". Athanasius • Quicumque vult 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OP indef blocked for spam. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

???

Resolved

 – Not sure what was asked for here, but answers were provided. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For a lack of creating messages at "some appropriate place", I've decided to send from here.

This is from January '9 (or '09, if you prefer)

I happened to see a notice when I got on this morning:

User talk:98.220.41.180

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Corey Taylor. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JForget 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The recent edit you made to Corey Taylor constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. J.delanoygabsadds 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

account - and perhaps logged on once or twice.

My IP address has been static prior to January '9.

Blah-blah-blah.

Although I try to keep current with some bands these days (I was born in '62 and prefer "one hit wonders from the mid '60s to the latter part of the '70s. IOW, I didn't have an idea who Corey Taylor was until I happened to look him up...on Wikipedia no less.

I do have a major suggestion:

There's a place which has a list at the top of it ...

• You are getting warnings that your edits are inappropriate for Wikipedia.

I would expect to see a reference on that page which includes this text.

e.g.

• abc defg hijk

• asdfasdf

• asas2253

I would hope each of those items are used in the expression of each one.

I know I'm probably reporting something which is just a glitch and there are all sorts of things, blah-blah-blah

I'm of the mind you can't fix what you don't know about blah-blah-blah and I'll get a reply-bot telling me all sorts of canned text blah-blah-blah.

In fact, I believe I'm right by providing an email address to see what fun I get in return

Before I finished this, I contacted three friends.

We have laid out the conditions for a wager and what will happen in response.

Please do this - I have a bottle of single malt (single barrel, no less) riding on this.

The wager is how canned the response will be & how long it will take for a reply.

Whether there's an email address which looks canned...

How direct things list how the system is put together.

The use or "We're sorry you..."

blah-blah-blah

Please do it! !!!

phil

(email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.41.180 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are asking. Any chance you could explain more clearly? – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure the complaint is that the anonymous contributor believes he/she has gotten warnings for edits that he/she never performed. I've dropped an appropriate sharedip template on there, which serves to explain such warnings to IP editors. Yeah it's a 'canned' response like the OP mentioned, but it's appropriate. It's probable the user has had his IP for that long, but you know what happens... unprotected wireless AP, friend plays on the computer, kids come over to visit... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the edits for which you were warned were these: [1] [2] [3]. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied to OP/IP talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

court documents.

Resolved

 – For now, OP blocked. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cognex Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to assert that a company is in the process of beeing sued. a contributor, arnoldreinhold has claimed that I may not use court documents as reference. For now I have just left the paragraph that asserts that cognex was denied summary judgement. However, I would also like to include the defence that was claimed by cognex. Is it not possible to cite a statement made in court or to cite the public documents that contain the ruling made by a court? I also think that arnoldreinhold is an employee using an account in the name of a colleague of CEO bob shillmans or that the colleague himself is using wiki to advertise cognex. --Cogvoid (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)cogvoid

To put it bluntly, the other editor is correct. Court documents (if published) are primary sources and are thus inappropriate for sourcing contentious information. Moreover, you not only need sources to show that such a lawsuit is occurring, but you need a source which indicates the event is significant to the history of the company per WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, WP:NOT#NEWS is compelling in this situation. A lawsuit against a company, even one as serious as a sexual harassment one, is not prima facie noteworthy or significant in the history of a company. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone forth with removing it and posted to Talk:Cognex Corporation. I would strongly recommend that you not reintroduce it before a consensus is reached at that talk page. Of particular concern in this situation is your editing history (evident on your user talk page) and even your username; it's suggestive that you've got a problem with Cognex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure where this "no primary source" legend comes from but it doesn't make good scholarship ( even encyclopedic ex orginal research) and specifically with med lit wiki encourages primary source usage. Primary sources do not establish notability but do substantiate factual claims relevant to otherwise notably subjects. Simply put, there seems to be a pervasive general bias against primary sources when the real issue seems to be notability- you never go through multiple interpretations when you have a specific point to document and that "point" is not your own, original thesis . Making a factual claim " and they are being sued[]" is not a thesis but maybe you could argue relevant and you certainly couldn't write " I knew they were dirty rats and those criminal are being sued like I always knew would happen[]". I had never heard of prohibitions against primary sources until hanging out here but when I finally saw some original wiki sources on the policies they made more sense. A court document is perfectly reasonable especially if cited in a secondary source as there is no need to force a reader to follow a paper trail. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a bit wrong with this statement. First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is thus a tertiary source. We don't make a determination of what's relevant, interesting or correct- we just repeat what secondary sources publish and presume that's significant (i.e., third party published documents whose publishers have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, like peer-reviewed academic journals and major newspapers). Also, medical articles have special guidelines (WP:MEDRS).

And as to this particular instance, we have no evidence that the court document has been cited in any secondary sources. Thus, we have no evidence that it's relevant. The burden of establishing this falls on the editor adding or restoring material. It's entirely unreasonable to use the court document itself when a secondary source has reported it, as the secondary source functions as a filter for the irrelevant garbage that's often in primary sources (especially legal documentation, if you've ever read it). Furthermore, secondary sources do a lot of interpretation and translation of what a primary source says (especially relevant in discussing things like tax law or, heaven forbid, US military contractor procurement guidelines). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does wiki seem to view "a lot of interpretation and translation of what a primary source says" as being good in some subjects and bad in others? You seem to think medicial sources are somehow different from others, as if topics about humans are sacred or distinct from mundane topics, "especially relevant in discussing things like tax law or, heaven forbid...". You may be able to argue relevance or clarity but if two secondary sources cite the same primary source , regardless of if their conclusions agree, the source would be of interest to anyone other than the casual reader. In the absence of significant secondary source coverage, you could perhaps argue relevance or original research but forcing readers to listen to billy crystol imitating elmer fudd singing bruce springsteen is absurd, you link directly to the primary source, bruce spingsteen in this case, as it is relevant AND MORE ACCURATE ABOUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS, once the secondary sources establish relevance to a wiki article ( notability an non-OR). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your rationale, but it seems to me that it's irrelevant to this particular request, and moreover likely contrary to WP:V. If you disagree with this, you may wish to elicit discussion elsewhere at WT:V or WP:VPP as a prelude to proposing a policy change. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What you are being told is more or less correct. Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources, while the transcript of a court case is a priamry source. This is in the policy for several reasons. Firstly, secondary sources are required to establish notability; there are many court cases and many industrial relations disputes in industry. Not all of them are notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia; at Wikipedia we judge what is notable by what has been covered in secondary sources such as newspapers. Failure to include secondary sources leaves you open to accusations of undue weight or even non-notable. Once notability has been established, the primary sources can be used to support specific facts, but even then they need to be used with caution. Any conclusion or interpretation of what the case means or is about has to be taken from the secondary sources. To arrive at conclusions ourselves is not allowed and is original research synthesis.

Looking at your edits, you seem to have some kind of grudge against Cognex. I must advise you that Wikipedia is not the place to settle your old scores. I must particularly advise you not to edit war which is against policy here, you have now inserted the contended material several times in one form or another. What you should be doing is opening a discussion on the article talk page with the other editors and reach a consensus with them. That is always the first step at Wikipedia, but I see no posts from you at all on that page. SpinningSpark 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One further point, please concentrate on the article, not the editors. It is not acceptable to accuse editor's of wrongdoing without evidence. You present no diffs backing up your claim that the editor has a COI. Please just concentrate on the article, or better still, a different article that does not get you so hot under the collar. SpinningSpark 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not an employee of Cognex. From 1980 to 1990 I worked for a competitor of Cognex. In 2002 I testified on Cognex's behalf in a patent lawsuit about the work I had done in the 1980s (and was paid for my time). I have not had dealings with the company since.--agr (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't even call that a conflict of interest, except perhaps in a purely academic sense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

← Situation still ongoing- Cogvoid has continued to disagree with me and two other editors on the page, and has continued to demand outside involvement. Anyone else want to step up to the plate here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have escalated the situation per Cogvoid's transition to more disruptive behavior. See WP:ANI#Possible disruption on Cognex Corporation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User temporarily blocked, ANI discussion archived, article being watched pretty closely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Status quo reigns (?)

Resolved

 – We noticed the notice. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,
I am somewhat confused by an ambiguity in WP:STATUSQUO and have started a new thread on the question here
As I am proposing an edit to a reasonably important policy guideline, I would appreciate any comment that other editors might have. Thanks. -- Muzhogg (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Village Pump for policy is probably the right place to list this sort of request for involvement. Not to say this was the wrong place to list the discussion- just that there are much better ones. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new page with a conflicting re-direct

Answered

 – Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to create a page for Texas Gubernatorial Candidate Debra Medina, but searching that name redirects me to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Medina#The_Medinas

How should I go about creating the new page?

Thanks Justin6898 (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#Navigating redirects. I also recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You could name the article Debra Nedina (politician) and create a disambiguation page. Best to work on the article in your user sandbox and when its ready, come back here if you need guidance. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied to OP user talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Outing

Resolved

 – As far as we can get it; appropriate action is taking place elsewhere (see [4]). Fleetflame 00:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:XLEAGUE.TV (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm having problems with user FirecrackerDemon (talk · contribs). This person has been using "outing" tactics against me to confirm or deny an identity several times. I have tried to remove such offending material but has repeatedly undone such edits. This person has used the following:

(personal information redacted)

The user has also used "outing" on the Administrators Noticeboard under Closure on merging several articles on the subject of XLEAGUE.TV but I have not been able to find this.

What can be done to stop this from happening? Ryoga3099 (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. That sounds like a genuine WP:OUTING concern to me. I'm going to take a closer look into it right now and either escalate it personally or make a recommendation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Escalated to WP:ANI. See WP:ANI#WP:OUTING violation?. Notified the involved parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Following the ANI thread, FirecrackerDemon's edits have been removed from the regular contributions history and will probably be formally oversighted soon. FirecrackerDemon's behavior will probably be addressed soon. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war - still unresolved, bots tagged article as vandalised and user still posting provocative messages on my user page

Resolved

 – Article deleted according to policy. Nothing else to do. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Still unresolved. Hi. I wrote a request for editorial assistance with this article some days ago. At the time the issue was that two users had removed content and almost all references and then filed a request for article deletion, claiming that the article was unreferenced. I asked for editorial assistance. One of the users involved kept deleting valid material and references from the article and then posting edit war notices on my user page. I returned for more editorial assistance and saw that someone had asked at the top of the request if the request was still an ongoing concern, asking if anything more could be done. I replied with a short post beneath the question at the top that yes the request was ongoing. I also posted a comment at the bottom of the discussion elaborating why (my user page was still being bombarded with disruptive edits by two users who pushed for the article's deletion, and I was looking for advice on article deletion reviews). When I returned to my editorial assistance request, I found that a user had archived the request claiming it was resolved. In my opinion, as the postee of the request, the request remains unresolved. In addition, a user had posted a note under my comment at the bottom of the request making it look as though I had abused etiquette. The user claimed to have moved a reply of mine to the bottom of the page. That was not true. I had already posted the longer reply at the bottom of the page myself, as well as replying with a short note to the question at the top posted by another user who had asked if the request was still an ongoing concern.

As for the article, Telepathy and war, the two users who wanted it deleted continued to campaign for its deletion until it was - even though other users had shown interest in the article and were making reasonable edits in an effort to contribute content. As an example of what was happening, a bot tagged large blocks of removed content as vandalism and another bot restored the content with a reversion. One of the antagonising users then reverted the bots revert. When I reverted the revert to the bot's restored version, the user posted a message on my user page with an "edit war" notice claiming I had made an undue revert. On top of that, the users deleting and removing content only seemed to appear when other users posted genuine contributions. When no-one was contributing to the article, they appeared to remain inactive. There is no doubt in my mind that the article was deliberately vandalised and made to appear shambolic and incoherent before an articles for deletion "panel". The article was deleted, I feel, because of these vandalisms. Even after the article's deletion the two main protagonist's involved (who I suspect of sock puppetry) have been visiting my user page to post other provocative messages. Neither user seems concerned about working co-operatively - and both only seem to want to disrupt and ruin interesting content. Both seemed to enjoy creating an "edit war" and seemed more focused on making my experience with Wikipedia unpleasant then in building genuine content.

Apart from a deletions for review discussion, which is likely to be manipulated by the two users who pushed for the article's deletion, what else would an experienced editor suggest I do? Frei Hans (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see this Wikiquette alert regarding the ongoing accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry. To summarise:

• WP:BOLD edits are explicitly not considered vandalism. This has already been explained to you
• If you want to accuse someone of sockpuppetry, then submit your evidence to WP:SSP
• Please assume good faith from other editors: I worked very hard to save some content from your article and saw it merged into Brain-computer interface. Before I became involved, everyone (without exception) wanted the entire article deleted. Papa November (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

November, before you became involved only one person wanted the article deleted: Verbal. The pair of you contrived to create an "articles for deletion" discussion within days of the article's creation. You did not work very hard to "save" anything, you worked very hard to delete most of the article. On the other hand, I worked very hard to try and generate good faith with a pair who seemed determined to cause trouble and have the article deleted. You and Verbal follow me every page I visit, creating nuisance discussions but very little actual article content. Verbal kept posting "edit war" messages on my user page while deleting vast blocks of content. You both deleted valid references and footnotes, Verbal persistently kept reverting content to his deleted versions even when it had been re-written in different styles with new content by a number of other users. You yourself visited my user page and provocatively posted a heading named "more sniping". How welcoming is that? How much good faith have you shown? How polite was it to engage in edit warring? How did you and Verbal avoid engaging in personal attacks by launching into personal attacks against someone who simply wanted to create a genuine article? Frei Hans (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

With the comment "only one person wanted the article deleted: Verbal" you are either outright lying or just severely confused. I and several other editors wanted it deleted and expressed the reasons why, that's why the AFD result was to delete it. As you participated there it would seem highly unlikely that you could possibly in good faith believe what you claimed here after seeing all those votes to delete. You aren't going to get the article restored, and you certainly won't by making false statements. DreamGuy (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion? Move on to something else. Wikipedia is a big place, and there's lots to do. The deletion decision has been made, so just let it go and find a new area to edit. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPing going on here, plus an AIV report. I suggest Hans takes his complaint to the open WP:WQA thread, and answers the concerns raised there if he can. Or just move on and WP:AGF. This should be closed. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's unresolved about this problem. I'm sorry, Frei Hans, but if you're determined that the subject on which you wrote that article merits an article, you should take the concerns voiced in the AfD in mind and work towards writing a new draft in your userspace. Fighting on procedural and behavioral points will only reflect poorly on you and will not bring the article back. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Treasury management

Answered

 – Question answered and OP shown to discussion. Fleetflame 00:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain.

Take a subject like Treasury Management .... currently requesting reference source. I have been publishing Treasury magazines and books for 18 years and wanted to direct readers to a library of free information - but you colleague keeps removing these links?

Should I place the refernce source without a link or what?

regards RobinRgepage (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. The article does indeed request some sources discussing this subject, but you've never made an edit to that page. In fact, as far as I can see, no one has added a reference to that page in many months. Could you provide a link to a diff that shows what sources you are trying to add, or who has been removing them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you editing other articles, or under another name or as an IP address (unregistered editor)? Without more details, we can't help you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The initial links were added to a number of articles under external links by 86.151.169.64 and removed by Kuru. I reviewed the website after the links were re-added today. I have not been able to find articles where the link did not lead to "The page you wish to access is only available to registered subscribers". If there is no non-subscriber content available, that would violate WP:EL. The issue was raised on Kuru's talk page and was addressed there. The editor may not be aware of the answer however, if they switched from an IP to a user name. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we make sure they know! Fleetflame 00:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in a dilemma

Resolved

 – Question answered, advice dismissed, nothing else we can do. Fleetflame 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user named YourLord. The investigation against me was hackneyed and rushed and I have reason to believe, rigged. I complained about the obvious stupidity of my persecution on my talk-page, only to have it protected so that I couldn’t edit it. I complained to the editor who protected my page but he ignored me so I took the case to an admin named Jehochman who also ignored me, meaning that I’ve had to take the case to you. I don’t know how else to get unblocked. All the people I have spoken to seem to be in on the same conspiracy. The key instigator in my plight is none other than User:IllaZilla. IllaZilla is an impertinent waif who hasn’t been on Wikipedia for especially long but struts about like he owns the place. He uses his voluminous knowledge of policies to game the system (something which he accuses others of doing) and bully other users into backing down or agreeing with his impossibly narrow view of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. He became obsessed with User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus after coming into conflict with him on Talk:Tin Man (TV miniseries). User:JOM had, as observed by many other users, made numerous positive contributions until encountering User:IllaZilla who then began to shamelessly stalk Jupiter by means of his contributions, of which he reverted most, if not all, often with very little explanation. He assumed ownership over many of the articles Jupiter edited, see in particular Azkadellia, Lord Voldemort and Megalomania, much to the annoyance of others. He rigidly controlled Jupiter’s movements like an especially domineering parent. Naturally Jupiter’s ire was evidently risen and he confronted User:IllaZilla on numerous occasions but was accused of personal attacks and trolling. IllaZilla had a habit of canvassing other users such as User:Collectonian, User:Sesshomaru and User:Arcayne to assist in his antagonising of Jupiter. Ultimately Jupiter was exposed as a sockpuppet of blocked user User:YourLord and IllaZilla gleefully bated Jupiter on his talkpage after his blockage. I advise you to look at the history of JOM’s talkpage, it’s quite shocking. I caught IllaZilla’s attention when adding a List of fictional Emos to the Emo article. This evidently aggravated the extremely temperamental IllaZilla because he then immediately accused me of being a sockpuppet of Jupiter/YouLord and canvassed various other editors, including Sesshomaru, Collectonian and User:Magidin, all of whom had been in disagreement with Jupiter in the past and opened an investigation against me. I scarcely had time to defend myself before I was blocked, on account of a slight similarity in usernames and WP:DUCK, a completely nonsensical policy which I doubt you’ve even heard of. In any case, Sesshomaru and Collectonian (two extreme deletionists) had obviously made up their minds as to my identity as you’ll see by looking at their talkpages. One of the crutches of IllaZilla’s argument was that I had created an article entitled List of fictional narcissists which thanks to IllaZilla has since been deleted. Jupiter, like many users had an interest in psychoanalysing fictional characters, something which IllaZilla frequently accused him of doing when on occasion he obviously wasn’t. IllaZilla has accused other, apparently unrelated users of being sockpuppets of Jupiter and of psychoanalysing fictional characters when they don’t seem to have been doing anything of the sort. See List of characters in Tin Man to observe what I’m talking about. With regards to the List of fictional narcissists article, the list was actually not created by me but by an unregistered user on the Narcissism page. I observed that it was getting quite lengthy and so gave the List an article of it’s own. Numerous characters on the list were personal favourites of Jupiter and this was one of IllaZilla’s reasons for blocking me when in actuality they were already on the list when I copied it into its own article. Therefore it seems far more likely that the unregistered user on the Narcissism article is in fact a sockpuppet of Jupiter, given the fact that judging by their edit summary, they share his disdain for policies, a trait which I myself do not share. On an unrelated note I feel that policies have their uses but on account of my Inclusionist philosophy I believe that they are taken far too seriously. With regards IllaZilla, by observing his contributions you’ll see that he also has ownership issues with regards to the Alien and Predator articles and to a lesser extent, with articles related to Punk Rock. See in particular the aforementioned Emo. I’m of the opinion that IllaZilla’s condescending and sarcastic attitude and tone are also causes for concern. It is also my wish that the information I have given you be filed away for future reference should some poor fool ever think to nominate IllaZilla for adminship. I further believe that it would be prudent to perhaps file an AN/I on IllaZilla because his behaviour has attracted criticism from other users such as User:Learner001. See his talkpage for other complaints about his conduct with others. User:Arcayne has expressed a view that many of IllaZilla’s deletions are quite unreasonable (see Villain) and I really think it’s high time he was put in his place. Back to the issue at hand, it is my belief that I should be unblocked or at least allowed to edit my talk-page. Thank you ever so much for your time. --User:Dominus Noster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.62.130 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Anyone else read this as a 5K personal attack? For the record, the discussion regarding sockpuppetry is at the bottom here. I tend to agree with the conclusion there, myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) All one needs to read is the first sentence in the request: I was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user named YourLord. Block evasion does not make a convincing case at all for removal of that block. Please read WP:UNBLOCK and WP:GAB for information on how to appeal a block appropriately. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I had neither the time nor the patience to navigate the vast bureacracy. Hurry up and unblock me and block IllaZilla! At once! --86.155.62.130 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I see your dilemma. On the one hand, reading the links provided is surely going to be dull. On the other hand, if you don't, you won't get your account unblocked. I don't really know what to advise. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I really don't see what's so complicated about this. Just unblock me and indefinately block IllaZilla! What could be more simple? I'm blatantly not Jupe O'Max and IllaZilla is obviously a crap editor as I've proven. --86.155.62.130 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Obvious sock is obvious. IP blocked 72 hours. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Oh no you don't. You can't just silence people for shaking up the system a little. This is Wikipedia, not Soviet Russia, though granted the similarities are striking. I realise my abrasive nature can sometimes make me difficult to deal with but it's patently obvious who should be the blocked person here and it ain't moi. The evidence given in the investigation against me is woefully inadequate to carry out a sockblock as anyone can see. Meanwhile IllaZilla as I have stated multiple times stomps about like he owns the place and puts policy before community spirit. The hypocritical "collaborative enviroment" sales pitch he spews is just another bullying tactic. Now please, do unblock me. --86.130.123.130 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Before you were ordering; now you're asking? Well, we're making progress. Maybe eventually you'll get around to following the advice we gave you. This question is resolved; don't post here again. Find somewhere else to take your complaint - preferably as far away from Wikipedia as possible. Fleetflame 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "As far from Wikipedia as possible"? Where would you suggest? Perhaps the BBC action helpline? --86.130.123.130 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60