Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. 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.

Resolved

 – Asked and answered. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/South_Carolina-Clemson_brawl

As you can imagine from the url, that page documents a controversial event between the university of south carolina and clemson university. Someone is posting incorrect, unverifiable content, and continues to revert the article to a state lying about it.

I request that an editor lock the article, and force the party placing these unsubstantiated claims to produce citations for their claims, otherwise, they should remove the false statements they've made in the article.

see the article history for the revert trail, and requests from myself for the other party to produce citations for the disputed statements. Reverseknarf (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is currently not in the article. Also, while you are indeed right that the burden of evidence is with the editor adding the material, there's basically never any need or merit to reverting more than once. If the situation continues, please post here instead of reverting. Alternatively, you're welcome to contact me at my talk page. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:22, December 8, 2007

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On 4 Dec 2007, I posted the following information to the article Boy or Girl paradox.

One of the earliest discussions of this problem, by Martin Gardner, appeared in Scientific American . On July 27, 1997, this problem appeared for the sixth time in Marilyn vos Savant's Parade magazine column . Previously, it had been discussed in her columns of March 30, 1997 , December 1, 1996 , and May 26, 1996 . This problem, involving two baby beagles instead of two children, had appeared originally in her columns of October 13, 1991 , with a follow-up on January 5, 1992 .

Following the controversy of the Monty Hall problem, Ed Barbeau prepared two lengthy lists of references to the handful of paradoxes that are used to teach the concept of conditional probability. These references were published in The College Mathematics Journal . The fact that Marilyn recycled this paradox and toyed with her readers, without providing any references, is a glaring example of her unethical conduct.

The above was deleted by User:Dorftrottel on the same day. I can understand why Dorftrottel would want to delete the last sentence, but User:Dorftrottel did not explain why the references were deleted? I also cannot understand why User:Dorftrottel restored the following immediately under the title, when I had provided references to Gardner and Barbeau?

This article does not cite any references or sources. (June 2007)

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed

I have posted these references in the Discussion page under "Deleted References,", But I feel that the references should be restored in the Article. Italus (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you say, the last sentence definitely did not belong, it violates the neutrality policy and also without reliable sources is considered original research. I would suggest that you take a look at how to properly cite references, by reviewing WP:CITE and WP:CIT, as well as the Manual of style, to understand why the way you added the references was not the way they are done on Wikipedia. I also suggest that you ask Dorftrottel directly on their talk page for an explanation, and discuss the issue with them, as well as those editors on the article's talk page. The tags were rightly restored, because removing the section removed the references, and as you see, the article has no footnote references. The pages I list will explain why these formats are done, and give you examples of templates you can use. In this case, your templates would be Cite journal, and Cite news. Hope that helps you after reviewing those guidelines! Ariel♥Gold 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I did ask Dorftrottel at:

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User_talk:Dorftrottel#Why_did_you_delete_my_references.3F

but he did not give me an explanation! Italus (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record: Italus initially added to Boy or Girl paradox here and to Marilyn vos Savant here. I had come across the additions purely by coincidence while reading about the Monty Hall problem. On Marilyn vos Savant, I removed the POV sentence and tagged the section as POV here, looked for the user who had made the edit and thus found that very similar material had been added to Boy or Girl paradox, where I commented out the POV/OR. In addition, I cautioned Italus about OR and posted to Talk:Marilyn vos Savant. The point is that I grew indeed somewhat impatient in this case, especially after ITalus reinserted his POV accompanied with unreliable sources here, since it's glaringly obvious that Italus' main interest was and remains to insert POV into the articles. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:02, December 9, 2007

I can understand why you do not want vos Savant's unethical conduct to be exposed, but why did you also delete my references to Gardner and to Barbeau in the Boy or Girl paradox, and why are you completely misleading readers by restoring: "This article does not cite any references or sources"? Italus (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"I can understand why you do not want vos Savant's unethical conduct to be exposed" - nothing of the sort. I want Wikipedia articles to be free of POV and original research. The sources you introduced are not up to the standards of WP:RS. Look, maybe I was indeed a bit overzealous, but you should really read our content policies on original research, neutral point of view and reliable sources, and understand what was wrong about parts of your edits and be extracareful when doing further edits on those articles. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:59, December 9, 2007

Resolved

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have, for the last few days, been engaged in an edit war of sorts on the page for the TNA roster. Just shy of a week ago, a story broke about the release of a wrestler (Senshi) from the company. However, no reliable source has been given in the article to support this. As such, I have been reverting from edits that incorporate that tidbit, and leaving a note to discuss it on the talk page before making the change in the future. Thus far, my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. I left a note on one editor's talk page (NickSparrow), but that was ignored or missed as well. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. Hezekiah957 (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources are required to include information, not to exclude it. Anyway, looks like the issue has been resolved with the addition of this online source. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:01, December 10, 2007

Thanks for the response, Dorftrottel. I'm a little confused by your emphasis on include and exclude; do you mean we need a source to show that he is a part of the roster, and that failing a source, he shouldn't be included on the list? If so, I present to you his page on the TNA Roster. I can settle for leaving him as-is (active roster, with the note about finishing), but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly (for the future and whatnot). Hezekiah957 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The roster pages could be outdated, but I assume they will have to suffice as a substitute for more reliable sources, a common problem with wrestling-related articles. As far as the info of "Senshi leaving TNA" is concerned, yes, a source is needed which specifically covers that. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:57, December 11, 2007

Stale

 – Asked and answered; but further information was requested. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On Chief channel officer an editor User talk:Hscheel is ignoring requests to discuss content. He/she keeps on putting in a list of "Most influential Channel Chiefs in 2007" despite myself and another editor discussing it on the article talk page and deciding it does not belong. I placed a message on Hscheel's talk page asking him/her to discuss the issue before restoring the content but he/she restored the content anyway without discussion. I don't know what to do if the user will not discuss. Barrylb (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is unreferenced and of doubtful merit for the article. I removed it and restored the {{refimprove}} tag. Also notified User talk:Hscheel, pointing him to the imo applicable WP:V#Burden of evidence. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:36, December 10, 2007

Thanks for your assistance. That should help. Barrylb (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The user User talk:Hscheel is still persisting - further intervention would be appreciated from anyone. Barrylb (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go to this page and critique it User:Smooshette/Ballet Fantastique. It was deleted because they said it was not notable enough. Before that they said it was advertising. I posted references to articles written about the Ballet Fantastique by papers with very high circulation for Oregon. We shouldn't be discriminated against just because we live in a small state. I would really like help with fixing it so it can be posted, and maybe adding a picture, so it is put in with the right tags. Could you please help me, Christy --Smooshette (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You would be better off going to deletion review for discussion of deletion issues. It appears to have been speedily deleted three times due to notability concerns, and I'm not sure myself that the coverage you've presented in the R-G and Eugene Weekly would really work to meet notability at this point. A wider discussion would be available at DRV, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'm picking up on is the fact that there might be a conflict of interest going on with regards to that article... your use of "We" leads me to think that you are involved with the group, which, by my understanding, constitutes a conflict of interest. Sorry if I either mis-interpreted your statement, Smooshette, or am mis-reading the rules. Just thought I'd bring that up. Hezekiah957 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Hezekiah957, please pay a visit to our guideline on conflicts of interest. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:31, December 11, 2007

I said "we" in the context of people who are Oregonians who want to put something on Wikipedia. I am a 38 year old college student at the U of O and recently learned about the company through a class. They are doing something that people should know about. They are taking ballet into the grade schools, giving professional lessons, and collaborating with musicians. I went to one of their performances this Fall. It inspired me to write them a Wikipedia page, because I went to Wikipedia and couldn't find out anything about them. The Ballet Fantastique has had 2 front page stories in the Register Guard. As I have said Oregon is small, but Eugene is the 4th largest city in the Northwest and the second largest city in Oregon. People all over Oregon read the Register Guard. I would like to just have some critique of my page for now, so I can get it right, in order to take it to the deletion review, so they don't rip me to shreds. It has become a challenge for me to get this information on Wikipedia, please help me to get my page up.--Smooshette (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What you need to consider are the notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations as described in that link. Note that it suggests that most "organizations whose activities are local in scope" are not notable, and must be supported by strong sources to show otherwise. As someone who wrote for a local newspaper for years, I produced a heck of a lot of copy on ballet companies, community bands, fundraising groups, and others - that would be quickly deleted and get me a good smack if I tried to create an article on them. Local news coverage is a good start for notability, but it would be bolstered by reporting from outside - regional newspapers, and their ilk. I know you say the R-G is read all over Oregon, but it's really still a local daily (and I have read it). If they've been covered in the Oregonian, for example, that might be a good addition. So, if you have other reliable sources to add to the article, that would be the best approach to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take your advice and contact the directors of BF to find out if they have had any coverage in any other reliable sources. They are a small organization, but are doing something that is new and different with the Experience Dance Project where they bring professional dance to children might never have the opportunity to experience professional dance. Schools are cutting out more and more of the arts, because of lack of funding, not lack of the children's interest in the subject. It would be nice if I could do a page on the Experience Dance Project. Do you think I could just give it a try and see if they would be nice and leave it up? Or is it not worth my time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooshette (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it in your userspace for now, and if you have more resources to work with, add them then go to DRV and ask for thoughts among editors there with regards to moving it to mainspace. With it being deleted several times already, that's the safer way to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:N is that multiple independent local or industry-specific coverage qualifies subjects for inclusion in WP: being significant/notable within one's field is part of the criteria. If not, we wouldn't have articles about most of the world's chess champions, or some of the largest and most powerful businesses and NGOs in Canada, for instance. I am actually a little bit doubtful about the fairness of the deletions; the first two were for advertisement, and the last one was for notability. All three were by the same admin. Not to cast aspersions on that editor or any other, but it probably would have been more appropriate for a different admin to evaluate the article to ensure that the deleting admin hadn't gotten fixated on removal. As was apparent with Zeitgeist, the Movie, for instance, multiple previous removals can prejudice editors against improved articles. Anchoress (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that I will mess it up for Ballet Fantastique to ever get a Wikipedia page if I fight with the Wikipedia admin. It would be a shame, because they are worthy of notice. I agree, the Register Guard and Eugene Weekly are reliable sources, and it doesn't say anything about the sources being national in the notability guidelines. I will wait until the wiki admin cool off about it before I do anything else. How long do you think I should wait till I try again? Should I have someone else post about them?--Smooshette (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't be that quick to ascribe diabolical motives to the deleting admin; very few if any bear grudges of that sort, and most good editors welcome polite inquiries. I'd second the suggestion above that you try Deletion Review. Good luck! Anchoress (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'd recommend against viewing this as a 'fight', or that the admin has to 'cool down' - it's not an issue of anger or aggression, take care not to make it one. If anything I said in my previous post gave you that impression, I apologise and withdraw it, because that's not the impression I wished to convey. Having hard work deleted (it's happened to me) can be emotional, it can even hurt, but that doesn't mean anyone's the bad guy or that fighting is the only way to 'win'. Anchoress (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Smooshette, after reading about the Ballet Fantastique both on your page and in the deleted revisions of the article, my opinion is that the Ballet is indeed notable enough to have an article. I've looked at the Google results; it's covered by the RG, the Eugene Weekly, the local NPR station, and gets a fair amount of other notices. If you bring it to DRV I may be able to help. Anchoress gives some very fine advice in the post preceding mine as well. Note that while I'm an admin, our opinions are supposed to have no more weight than anyone else's: we just have the extra buttons. One of the odd things about Wikipedia, to me, is that we have articles about obscure aspects of video games, minor characters on television shows, but organizations such as ballet companies that serve areas of over 100,000 people, or companies that keep 100 people employed, are often deleted. But let me know if I can help, Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to fight with anyone. It really felt like I was being picked on by the editor who deleted the page. They wouldn't even talk to me I think it might have been because I am very new at this and kept making changes to the page, several times a day, and made some mistakes. I would like another chance. Do you think my test page is good enough to post? If so, then how should I go about putting it back up? Is there a process I need to go through to do it so I won't have any more problems? --Smooshette (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. how do you like these categopries I created? Feel free to suggest new items to include. also interested in just general feedback. always good to have a more interactive process/ discussion. thanks.

Category:Political charters, Category:Diplomatic conferences.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted an addition to the Morals and Dogma entry twice now adding information about a new edition of Morals and Dogma.

The first edition was deleted by "SarekOfVulcan" because he said it read like Marketing.

I revised the entry using text from the "NIV Study Bible" and the "King James Bible" Wikipedia entries to provide an neutral explanation of this new edition. Now "SarekOfVulcan" has said I need to link to an external review of the book which has nothing to do with the validity of the entry.

Please advise. JJ MillerJjmiller768 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My side of the dispute is given at WP:COI/N#Morals and Dogma.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User Graham Wellington (talk · contribs) "contributes" to Wikipedia mostly by inserting "He is Jewish" into bios. Most of the bios that he edits are of people with a criminal past or people that are not seen in good light by the larger public (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Travis Kauffman, Zab Judah, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, Joe Francis, and Paul Reubens). The Jewishness of the bios at the receiving end of his edits are either unsourced or dubiously sourced. In the past, I have followed his contributory history and reverted most of his edits. However, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive112#David Berkowitz, Son of Sam he/she basically accused me of WP:STALKing him. If I follow his contributory history and revert all his unsourced contribs am I violating WP:STALK?? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:STALK: "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. You're not violating anything, so long as you aren't harassing the user in the process. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That, and I suggest ignoring such baseless strawman accusations, just like the rest of us will. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:20, December 12, 2007

I added Jewish family history to Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Zab Judah, Michael Mukasey and many other non-criminals. Its blatantly obvious you follow my edit history and "delete first, discuss never". This is in even the most liberal terms WP:STALK. As a concerned fellow wikipedia editor, I urge you seek counseling. Wikistalking may be a prelude to real life stalking. Graham Wellington (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that brewcrewer will become an actual stalker. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Graham Wellington's reply epitomizes what I have to put up with. I need not say more. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Put up with what? I do not stalk your edits. I am a passive, peaceful editor with no agenda. You went so far as to slur me as an anti-Semite. In case you forgot, I am Jewish. My grandparents died in the Holocaust. You know full well I edit the pages of good Jews and criminal Jews alike. Please be mature and stop WP:STALK me. To be honest, I actually thought you stopped WP:STALK until you sent that message to my discussion page today. Stalk and then brag about it? Thats totally off the wall. Lehitra'ot. Graham Wellington (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider that harassment. Graham's reply, not yours, if you are constantly met with that. If the edits are unsourced or poorly sourced, they can be reverted. Graham Wellington, you really need to assume good faith. Also, to dorftrottel: I don't really understand your comment. Who's being accuse of using whom (whom, right? or who?) as a strawman? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – Assistant requested more information but didn't get it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can we get an editor to look at this article. There's a strange political tug-o-war going on with this entry which means there's a lot of reverting / vandalism going on. I'm tired of trying to be impartial when my good work gets trashed. I've just done a big tidy up and within minutes of posting it's all been undone. There's no way someone could even read my changes in this time. Check out the Talk page to see the debate.

Can someone get involved to make sure this is done in a fair and impartial way.

Thanks

--Maughamish 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what help you are requesting. Editing on that page appears to be in accord with wikipedia policies. Pastordavid (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – Assistant requested more information but didn't get it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering it is a hot topic in the 2008 Pesidentail Election, the quoting of "Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates.." may sway some users without proper knowledge of the use. The definition should be re-worded to allow the user to make that choice.

"Waterboarding is an technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment." "Waterboarding is an exercise that stimulates drowning in a controlled environment."

Thank You,

Cody Froelich Greenville, North Carolina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.28.240 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what assistance you are requesting. Could you please clarify, and provide links. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I proposed December 2007 North American ice storm for deletion with a very explicit reason. As a courtesy I advised the editor who created the article. He went ballistic on my talk page and the article's talk page and removed the request for deletion. I think he's too attached to the article because he created it. I think my proposal should be open to discussion. Can you please help? Thank you very much. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not create that article. I have not even edited it much. I just feel that just because ice storms are common, dosn't mean that the article should be deleted. Please give 209.247.22.166 a reality check. Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Juliancolton is the one who needs a reality check. I followed the normal procedure to request an article deletion and provided a valid reason for doing so, and he made himself judge and jury and deleted the request, without a valid reason, I might add. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the deletion policy clearly states that if i feel the article does not need to be deleted, I can remove the deletion tag. Juliancolton (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a step back. 209.247..., it states on the proposed deletion tag that anyone may remove a proposed deletion tag, for any reason. In fact, that is the purpose of the prod tag, to give other editors a chance to see if anyone objects to the deletion. The next step, if you feel it needs deleted, is to take the article to Articles for Deletion, where consensus among editors is sought to either keep or delete the article. I will note, however, that only registered editors can nominate an article at AFD - perhaps it is time to create an account? In the meantime, do not continue to add the proposed deletion tag - doing so would be considered vandalism, as the proposed deletion has been objected to. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is reasonable. Has consensus support and editing by a number of editors. Pastordavid (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – Assistant requested more information but didn't get it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam:

I wish to contest the decision to exclude the information on THE HEVENER CHURCH. The stated reason for rejection is that the information is not adequately supported.

I believe that this is an incorrect statement. I have supported the information with such references as: WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD; WHO'S WHO IN THE AMERICA; WHO'S WHO IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST; records of THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA; records of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY; the website: www.guthriememorial.org; records of LONGWOOD UNIVERSITY.

I also gave you the personal names and addresses of three of our dedicated missionaries:

Pastor Charles Mugisa, ((personal info removed)) Pastor Peter Lim, ((personal info removed)) Pastor David Rasaily, ((personal info removed))

Thank you for reconsidering this request.

Dr. Fillmer Hevener, Founder, THE HEVENER CHURCH--75.104.128.58 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe what you are refering to is this request for an article creation, which has been denied. Correct? (For future reference, it is always helpful to provide links to what you are talking about). The stated reason that the article was not created was that the sources you provided (a) were not all reliable, third-party sources, and more importantly, (b) they did not establish the notability of the subject. "Who's Who" is generally not considered a reliable source, as its primary function is to publish vanity biographies so that the subjects will purchase the books. The records of Longwood, UVA, and JMU merely establish that you exist and went to school there, not that you are notable. The church's website is, obviously, not third party. Is there coverage of you or the church in major newspapers or magazines? National television? Is there a scholarly book with a major publisher's imprint about you or the church? Those are the sorts of sources that would establish notability. I hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Consensus reached at talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A registered user (User:Jonamatt) has repeatedly added content that is:

1. original research,
2. unreferenced,
3. self-published (i.e. he has cited himself as an authority),
4. unencyclopedic,
5. hoax-like

to the Goosebumps article. He claims to be a part of a Goosebumps club that has "published" this "Scholarly Review." It has been deleted before by myself and another editor. User:Jonamatt relentlessly reverts the deletions.

You may view his contributions and the section he keeps adding: Goosebumps#Scholarly_Review

I am getting fustrated... I know that his material does not belong on Wikipedia, but I can't get through to this guy. What can be done to put an end to this? HELP!!!! -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Section removed; it was original research and POV. I'll discuss it with the editor in question. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But for how long? The user has indicated (Talk:Goosebumps that he will "review" the article and add it back. Furthermore, he has threatend: "If you delete this article again, I will submit a vandalism report to Wikipedia." This guy just won't give in... -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heading off to talk pages on this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Being a noob, I am in need of assistance in my wording. I am upsetting other editors with my corrections to the article. I must not be using proper wiki-language to explain myself and I don't know the fancy terms. This is a very controversial subject.

Yamashita's gold Talk:Yamashita's_gold

Jim (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I welcome some assistance with the COI claim that BlueAzure has brought upon me and the articles I have made minor edits on. In engaging this user for constructive input, I received false allegations in return. I would like to continue to contribute to WP and would like to understand more about this process. If anyone has suggestions for the one article I created on Mimi Fuenzalida, the minor edits I have made on other articles and what the process is for deleting BlueAzure's COI in a fair way, I am completely open for help and suggestions. I feel responsible for all of the COI's that have been put on the accounts I have made minor edits on and I would like to correct my errors. Please advise.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently decided to start helping edit articles here on Wikipedia and chose to start with the article on Jack the Ripper. We almost have every point that's been under dispute resolved. But the real problem is that a few editors don't like each other and, instead of focusing on improving the article, resort to snide personal comments towards the editor(s) they don't like. Other editors have asked time and time again to keep focused on Jack the Ripper and not bring up personality conflicts. But they just won't stop! If you look through the talk page and archives I would say at least half of the discussions have nothing to do with Jack the Ripper and are just certain editors arguing with each other over petty issues. I think that all of us want to get the Jack the Ripper article unlocked but a few of us can't get past things that happened months ago and keep bringing it up. I've tried to help move past all this counterproductive discussion but every time I steer the discussion back to the topic at hand an editor brings up the old personality conflicts and it devolves into an argument again. I've only been dealing with this for a month or so and I am already very frustrated, I am sure editors who have been there longer are even more frustrated. We seem to be at an impasse where any time it seems we are improving the article old personal stuff gets brought back up and we can't move forward. What can I do to put out the flames and get us back on track? - Stephoswalk (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been directed here on the advice that this is a better source of advice than Village pump.

I was wondering what the rationale for the policy on self-published sources is (see WP:SELFPUB). I was wondering if over-use of self-published sources constitutes advertising-like language. This issue is discussed here. I'll quote the relevant bits:

"Here's another question: does the overuse of self-published sources (as in, well over half the sources; especially online self-published sources that link to subscription/membership/purchasing forms) constitute advertisement-like language? The way I see it, overuse of self-published sources lends an aura of notability to those sources which may or may not be justified. Additionally, those sources make the subject of the article look more notable through their affiliation with the subject (i.e., it appears as if the article is saying, 'Look at us, we have a notable source on our side/in our ranks; that makes us even more significant')."

I'm trying to apply WP:SELFPUB to this article. I was hoping you could also jump into the conversation in the article's talk page (this section). Thanks! SharkD (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the relevant bit would be "it is not unduly self-serving". I take this to mean advertising, and it would apply here. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this would need to be applied to every source on a case-by-case basis. I'm looking more for something that applies to an overuse of self-published sources, as a whole. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any particular policy regarding overuse of self-published/primary sources. One featured article which is commonly held up as exemplary is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which has more than 50% primary/self-published sources. That said, the intro on RuneScape is a bit too pushy, i.e. "RuneScape offers both free and subscription content and is designed to be accessible from any location with an Internet connection and to run in an ordinary web browser without straining system resources" could be rephrased "RuneScape has free and subscription content and can run in an ordinary web browser."--Nydas^(Talk) 10:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:SELFPUB says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as (...) the article is not based primarily on such sources". I was wondering what the rationale behind this was. Is it a form of advertisement? Is it an NPOV issue? SharkD (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree on the pushy statement. The fact that the game runs in a browser automatically means that it taxes the system hardware more than it would if it were a compiled executable composed of machine language. SharkD (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure of what to do about this. The page List of football teams in Canada covers the scope of teams that are within Canada's borders. Without hitting the 3RR on the page, one editor has continually added the US based expansion teams, the CFL added during the mid-90's. While I understand their importance to the history of the CFL, the scope of list is only those teams in Canada should be listed, ergo the US based teams should not. I'm understand the edits were in good faith, but there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment from the editor that they understand what the page is for. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well trying to work it out on the article talkpage is always a good starting point, and I notice you posted here only 17 minutes after posting your concern there for the first time; so why not wait a couple of days and see if a discussion develops there before escalating? Anchoress (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I only posted that quickly as I did not want to run afoul of the 3RR. But the editor seems to have understood and posted it on the CFL page instead. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Editor stated he got the question answered elsewhere. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This question can probably be answered without delving into the actual content, but I'll list the story here for reference: Article: John Howard, subject: Talk:John_Howard#PNG.
The dispute was over whether or not to include well referenced information about "New Guinea Plantations" in the article. On the talk page, someone requested an RfC. The RfC attracted many comments evenly divided for and against, and so didn't achieve a decisive outcome. I then submitted a Request For Mediation to try to find some consensus. Two editors declined to participate, so the RfM was shut down. Some edit warring persists. How can a content dispute be resolved when some editors won't participate in RfM? Where does one go from there? A couple of the editors who refused RfM continue to delete the content. Is there a way to finalise this one way or another? How do content disputes like this ever get resolved? Thanks very much, Lester 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Got the question answered elsewhere. Thanks, Lester 06:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – Assistant requested more information and none was provided. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I created an entry for "Afghanistani" but I accidentally did not capitalize the first letter. Can someone please erase the entry with the lower case and create and entry with the uppercase. afghanistani. Thanks CanadianAnthropologist (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it should have defaulted to first letter capitalized (that's how the interface works); either way, it redirects to Afghanistan just fine. So, seems to be under control! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see the problem, so either someone else came behind you and fixed, or it resolved itself. Unless we are missing something? Pastordavid (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to add a simple sentence to the Predicting the timing of peak oil entry :

"In its December 14, 2007 report, the International Energy Agency stated that world oil production in November 2007 had risen again to 86.5 Mb/d ; the agency concludes to a 2007 average of 85.7 Mb/d (+1.1% over 2006), and considers a 2008 further demand increase to 87.8 Mb/d (+2.5%)."

The sentence is merely sourced by said report.

Editor NJGW is being harrassing, and keeps editing this sentence. FYI, the International Energy Agency is just what it says, an international body in charge of keeping track of these figures. Thanks for your remarks.--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in the history, I have changed Environnement2100's edit to reflect what the reference actually says. I did not delete the edit. This editor has a history of misrepresenting sources, using poor sources (about.com, French sites, dynamically updated sites, other wikipedia sites), arguing with facts as they are reported in sources without providing counter sources or suggesting compromises, and deleting sections with out discussion. This editor refuses to participate in talk page discussions despite repeated requests for this. NJGW (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This NJGW editor continues vandalism, as shown on the talk page--Environnement2100 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Hello all. Firstly, this is a content dispute. Please discontinue labeling the content dispute with incorrect label of "vandalism". Secondly, I'm not sure why the most recent edit has the edit summary of "...it's moved to the right section". I don't see anything getting moved I only see something being removed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for your intervention. I am not used to this kind of behavior : what am I supposed to do now ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the previous edit I moved the sentance to where Environnement2100 took it from. I forgot the second instance, so I removed that in the edit you are looking at. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That edit (diff) is not your edit. That edit is Environment2100's edit. Can you please explain what you mean? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry and grabbed the wrong edit. I ment this one. You can see I'm inserting Environment2100's sentence (so that it is now in two places), and removing it from one spot in the very next edit. Environment may not have realized this (s/he doesn't always look at all the changes) and just assumed I deleted the sentence. NJGW (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the said sentence is concerned by the said paragraph : it has to be there, as it answers directly the title of the paragraph. So no, it must not be moved away : editor NJGW wants to hide it away. For a second thing, editor NJGW is lying, because there are two different sentences concerned now :

• one is referring to the IEA, an international agency
• the other one refers to the EIA/DoE, a national US agency. Both agencies provide concurring figures, though not exactly the same.

Editor NJGW is trying to destroy/put away both references, obviously because he is not happy with the figures provided by both agencies. NJGW should not choose what is good and what is not : these references are totally authentic and relevant.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, sometimes it seems Environnement2100 doens't read what s/he's talking about. I'll continue this on the talk page where it belongs. NJGW (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Asked and answered. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I had (several months ago) created a page with the above title which had been subsequently edited by others. Yesterday, I created a page about myself (which I've been slammed and now know is a "bad idea"). However, the admin-editor,User_talk:JzG, who deleted my autobiography also speedy deleted the Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy page. I'm unsure of why, and seem to see this as a retribution type deletion of my contributions. The OMPT page is surely a deserving topic, as it is taught in numerous universities, is managed by not only national professional associations, but an international one as well. Numerous text books and peer-reviewed literature reference this topic. I am seeking assistance understanding why this page was deleted as such.Ekrdpt (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason cited was "CSD G11: Blatant advertising: Apparently exists only to promote the association linked." There are no "retributions" with regards to deletion, possibly at all; I can't think of a situation in which that's appropriate. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That was the reason cited, but that reason is not reflective of reality. There was no advertisement, but a link to the association which aptly defined OMPT. I could have linked to any number of other places for a definition. Should not the page have been edited vs. deleted? The Google search result for the term for site:edu should shed light to support my claims.Ekrdpt (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You could try DRV, that might get the deletion overturned. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We have provided sufficient references and sourses to this wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Biositemap) - Please remove the system heading that there is insufficient/invarifiable material on this page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.129.160 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have just learned that two link articles I posted for the article "David Cobb" were removed.

Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cobb&diff=168152542&oldid=166181713

Ben Manski, an associate of David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, removed them and commented without justification that they constituted a "hit piece" and blamed past Cobb rival Peter Camejo.

I posted the article links on my own.

I did so because I thought the articles by Joshua Frank, a noteworthy political journalist, and Carol Miller and Forrest Hill addressed a notable malfeasance in David Cobb's 2004 presidential campaign. I left them as links to allow readers of Wikipedia to read and consider which might eventually lead to a more balanced article about David Cobb.

During the campaign, Forrest Hill was indeed an ally of Peter Camejo-- and I myself was partisan to Camejo. When I first began posting at Wikipedia I tried to improve the article about Peter Camejo but soon all but gave up due to the harrassment and disiformation that I began to find posted there-- that tarred Camejo and flattered Cobb. I always tried to improve information, not eliminate it.

All of my postings have been sincere and for the betterment of knowledge. I am not an adept poster-- and still have much to learn.

It was not my intention to "hit" or smear David Cobb when I posted the links as Ben Manski claims. My purpose was to inform and bring balance to an article that lacked important information expressed in the key historical articles I linked to. That information was key because it provided a snapshot of controversies about David Cobb's nomination in 2004. It is not flattering to him, but it was honest analysis with facts.

I would have addressed my concerns directly to Ben Manski about how he made unjust charges against me, and in so doing unjustly smeared the name of Peter Camejo who had absolutely nothing to do with my posting-- but I don't think that would be realistic considering the argument and type of words Manski used when he removed my contribution to the Wikipedia.

I have involved myself about articles regarding the Green Party in the past because I am a Green and am knowledgeable about facts regarding Green party controversies of 2004-- and the articles I provided links to are key articles of bonafide political commentary and analysis.

Ben Manski could have provided links to alternative analysis-- and I would not dare remove them because I believe that truth is served by a diversity of opinion and different analysis.

Rather than go on, I hope that you can consider the issues and suggest a reasonable outcome.

I believe the historic article links should be restored. I preferred contributing the links rather than changing the article itself because I hoped that a less partisan writer would use that knowledge to write a more balanced article.

At this point I almost dare not look at other things I contributed for fear of finding similar destruction of knowledge.

Thank you for considering my plea.

Robert B. Livingston (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look through the links you had provided, and would suggest that the first one is more of an editorial than independent reporting on the gentleman involved; the second one being an interview with the article subject, I'd think would be a little less of a problem. I'd suggest that if you feel the information in these links is important to the article, you look for more mainstream sources discussing those topics - the Counterpunch articles, as I say, lean more towards opinion than reporting. You can also bring these concerns up on the article talk page for more discussion with editors more directly involved with the subject. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, as I look closer, it doesn't look like you added the interview, at least in the edit that I found in your contribs. One comment: I note that you add a number of links marked as minor edits - I'd suggest not doing that, as the minor edits box is more for grammar, spelling, etc. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I will do what you ask, which I believe is fair. I consider the Counterpunch articles credible sources-- and that is why I called those links "key" links. However, I understand what you are asking, and believe corroborating evidence can be found elsewhere. I apologize for imagining that I contributed both article links. I will try to be more careful about leaving "minor edits' checked. Thank you very much for your advice. Robert B. Livingston (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – Editor was asked to look at WP:3O. No response. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if an admin could take a look at my history with new editor User:Trgwilson. We've gotten off to a bad start and I don't think he'll be listening to anything further from me. This began when he added what I saw as a promotional link to Emmet Till; I removed it with edit summary "rv promotional link, please see WP:EL" and left this] message, not a template, on his talk page. (I was the second editor to revert and warn him for his links.) Before retiring for the night I noticed he had removed a copyright warning from his talk page without indicating there that any of the three suggested actions had been taken. I left him this message and restored the copyright warning. The next morning he began the section User_talk:CliffC#Dear_Cliff on my user page. I reviewed his contributions, reverted several plugs promoting a person at the radio station, and tagged for {{db-notability}} an article about the station's executive producer. You can see by reviewing my talk page and his where it went from there. He's gone to the Help desk to complain about my "bullying" and has threatened to turn us in for (I think) violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as at some point he identified himself as sight-impaired and later as blind. I don't care about the lack of civility, all I'd really like is for someone to tell him to participate in Wikipedia under the same rules as everyone else. --CliffC (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• This might seem redundant, but how about requesting a third opinion on the matter? As you aptly noted, the editor is probably unaware or uninformed the rules. --Aarktica (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article is no longer up for deletion. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A page I recently created as part of the Wiki Ski project has been marked as "being considered for deletion." From what I can see, an individual came upon the page while I was in the midst of creating and citing it. I see nothing on the page that warrants this "deletion" tag. Am I missing something? I have plenty of references (internal and external) and have taken pains to make sure it is accurate and unbiased. Comments are appreciated. --Rickdrew (talk)

Resolved

 – article has been semi-protected. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a controversy on the article of Julia Alexandratou.

My opinion has been written on the discussion page of the article and I have cleaned up the article accordingly. An anonymous user seems to think otherwise and constantly reverts the page to the previous state claiming that he or she does so due to my "vandalism". However he does not participate in the discussion and it is impossible to understand his rationale.

Can anyone help to resolve the issue?

-- Vyx (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A saw a page about Chris Mortensen, a reporter from ESPN. What I found on the page was highly inappropriate, and obviously posted by somebody who does not like him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.128.43 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report; that was vandalism that snuck through our recent changes patrollers. Fixed now. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User contacted me on my talk page to notify me that the question was answered. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I scaled and converted to .JPG, but I am confused with the "JPEG version available" tags. Can someone please show me how I should upload the image and add the tags in the right place, please?

Thanks in advance. Pseudoserpent (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I can help. Click here: upload Appendixcancer.jpg. Browse to your file. If it's just the same as the .gif file, then put this in the summary: {{PD-self}} File originally uploaded as ] by ] or something like that. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale

 – No further edits from this IP for 10 days. Pastordavid (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed someone made a website for Moshpit Tragedy Records which was taken down because it was unable to prove notibility. I've compiled a list of links in which the label is mentioned by others completely independent from any of the labels own press releass etc. I would like to know if this would be sufficient in starting a new page. I don't want to start a new page and have it deleted so the next person to try has that much harder of a time. Thank you here is the list. Myspace profile for upcoming film the label will be featured in, among many other prominent labels http://www.myspace.com/behindthesuitandtie

Behind The Suit And Tie Metal Recording Industry Documentary Issues Update http://www.bravewords.com/news/77302

Behind The Suit and Tie heavy metal recording industry documentary begins filming. (2007 in metal events) http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/2007_in_metal

Moshpit Tragedy Records To Be Featured In Behind The Suit And Tie Record Industry Documentary http://www.bravewords.com/news/74598

There were plans in late 2006 to rerelease the EP onto CD on Canada's Moshpit Tragedy Records (Eyehategod 99 miles of bad road EP) http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/99_Miles_of_Bad_Road

EYEHATEGOD: Video Interview With MIKE WILLIAMS Available http://160.79.51.94/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71859

ROCKET'S NEW Interview With Gary Mader Of EYEHATEGOD (Wasn't that going to be issued on Moshpit Tragedy Records first?) themetalden.com/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php?p2_articleid=4813

No Reissue for Eyehategod http://fuzzrock.com/news/news.asp?NewsID=6395

MOSHPIT TRAGEDY RECORDS Introduces Sliding Scale Download Series http://www.metalmaniacs.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1083&Itemid=66

Moshpit Tragedy Records: Free Full-Album Downloads http://ricecooker.kerbau.com/2007/09/03/moshpit-tragedy-records-free-full-album-downloads/

CD Review: Extinction of Mankind - Ale to England http://metalinjection.net/blog/2007/05/06/cd-review-extinction-of-mankind-ale-to-england/

NO SOULS LOST SIGN WITH OPEN GRAVE RECORDS http://www.last.fm/user/jamesogr/journal/2007/11/10/571209/

Moshpit Tragedy Release available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Ale-England-Extinction-Mankind/dp/B000OHF14O

"Le label Moshpit Tragedy Records met en ligne différents albums à télécharger pour le prix qui vous convient ! Ainsi, on peut se procurer BURNT CROSS, FILTHPACT, HULLUUS, POWER IS POISON... pour un prix variant entre 0$ et 10$..." (Dec 3) http://www.shootmeagain.com/news

"A small label with some really good bands. Bands included are: Extinction of Mankind, Power Is Poison, The Skuds, Hangover Overdose, Filthpact, Hulluus, and Devil's Son-In-Law." (Oct 11) http://thewaytoequality.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

"The Canadian label Moshpit Tragedy is in a good mood. They have four new ltd edition CDEPs out but are also giving them away for free download complete with cover art! High quality bands and professional recordings!" (Aug 24) http://www.attackfanzine.net/news.htm

"Moshpit Tragedy does sort of the same thing for the EPs they put up for free downloading… sleeve art and everything." http://opnd.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/a-bit-of-housekeeping/

"Mosh Pit Tragedy Records has made a very limited editon Fuck The Facts t-shirt. Only 20 have been printed" ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm

"I have a few CDs for cheap in the shop thanks to Moshpit Tragedy Records" www.apocryphalpublishing.com/

"Released a self titled 3 song demo on Moshpit Tragedy Records this year" (Corprophemia) www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=70433

"Moshpit Tragedy Records bietet zu den folgenden Terminen kostenlose MP3-Downloads der ersten Alben des Labels " http://www.metalnews.de/?metalid=01&action=comment&newsid=11748

"Des extraits des nouveaux Filthpact, Descended From Rats et Burnt Cross sont en écoute chez Moshpit Tragedy Records. " www.metalorgie.com/punk/groupes.php?id=1317

"Canadian label Moshpit Tragedy release another out-of-print album for free" www.metalmongrel.com/page2.htm

"Yo pienso que es una idea excelente en realidad pero bueno ahora leo otra noticia en la que una disquera (Moshpit Tragedy Records) estará liberando un disco ..." foros.slot-1.net/viewtopic.php?t=2474

"Három héttel ezelött a kanadai Moshpit Tragedy Records bejelentett, hogy a már nem kapható kiadványikat ingyen letölthet?vé teszik, hetente egy kiadványhoz" totalrock.hu/hirek.php

"V pořadí už sedmé album si můžete stáhnout úplně zadara u Moshpit tragedy records, nyní si album můžete stáhnout hned na hlavní stránce bez nutnosti registrace na fórum jako tomu bylo donedávna. " http://trojka007.blog.cz/0712/burnt-cross-carcass-of-humanity

74.210.1.188 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the question. Please take a look at the discussion that resulted in the article's deletion to see why it was decided by consensus the article did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Looking briefly through the sources, let me just explain that many of them would not be considered reliable, third party sources. Things like blogs, Wikipedia articles, fan websites, band sites, MySpace, etc., are not used as references to verify statements. Additionally, many of sites you list are not in English, and since this is the English Wikipedia, it is best if the majority of references are in the language most readers can understand, to allow for verification. Take a look at the notability guideline for musical groups, as well as the above policies to understand why the article was removed. Please see Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, and how to edit for additional information. Thanks. Ariel♥Gold 04:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask for a review of the deletion. However, I think you will find that the review will support the current deletion. Ariel has provided some good starting places for reading about how to write and article for wikipedia. May I also suggest this essay on writing your first wikipedia article. Pastordavid (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Original editor blocked, and seems to have left the project. Pastordavid (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A user named HappyTalk22 continues to undo edits to the Nancy Reagan article. I have only re-organized the first few paragraphs to read with better flow, these facts are cited in the article.

Please stop him/her from making vandalistic changes that reflect his bias. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, it's Happyme22. Secondly, as expressed on the Nancy Reagan talk page, I was working very hard to undue a handful of POV, non-MOS, or just pointless edits made to the page because it was today's FA on the main page. What 74.73.106.239 wanted to do to the page was single out Mrs. Reagan's "good things" in one paragraph and "bad things" in another, and argued that her buying new White House china was not an exremely significant event. I was really tied up and did not have the chance to explain to him that an edit such as that would be hurting the page and showing his own POV, because a cite was not provided and, later, User:Wasted Time R explained to him that a quick google search showed it was a big issue. Therefore we got involved in an edit war where we both used 3RR (him mulitple times) until I was warned to stop and I believe he was too by another editor. We sorted this out on the talk page and I believe everything to be under control. I would consider myself an experienced Wikipedia editor who seemed to minorly overreact; I got Nancy Reagan to GA and later FA and, frankly, there is no need for me to be blocked. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on 3RR, but usually when people are in an edit war, usually every violating editor gets blocked regardless of which editors are "experienced" and which are not. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Nancy Reagan for addition information; the IP address who started this got blocked earlier for vandalism, was unblocked to try and discuss his edits, then vandalised Nancy Reagan again and was subsequently re-blocked. Happyme22 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Dispute about images not being low-res, Dorftrottel loaded low-res versions. Pastordavid (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to get User:Steelbeard1 to understand the low resolution part of the non free use rationale. If you check and you can see I added the disputed rationale tag {{subst:dfu}} on both images due to the fact that they are not low resolution. I explained why I made the changes both in the edit summaries and his talk page but he's reverted me twice. Most recently, I've added a comment to my talk page as well. Can anyone suggest what next I should do? I'd rather not revert him again, but he doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying.--Rockfang (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded new versions of both images with resolution reduced to 300x300. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:30, December 27, 2007

Resolved

 – Pastordavid (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

75.185.144.24 blanked the page Spore (video game). Clue bot reverted it, but you are supposed to report the vandalism and give a warning, etc. Could someone please tell me how and what I should do about it? Thanks in advance. Pseudoserpent (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pseudoserpent. You can warn users and ips for generic vandalism using the {{Uw-vandalism1}} series ({{Uw-vandalism2}}, {{Uw-vandalism3}}, {{Uw-vandalism4}}), placing escalating warnings as it continues. If the editor vandalizes after the final warning (the fourth) you can then report at WP:AIV. There are also tailored warnings for particular types of vandalism. In this case I would suggest using the {{uw-delete1}} series and starting with a second level warning since the bot already warned once. You can explore these types of warning templates at WP:UTM. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not suggest reporting until they are warned sufficiently. Reporting a vandal can possibly block them. Marlith 23:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. Should I sign the warning with the four tildes? Thanks in advance. Pseudoserpent (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and yes, always sign your warnings.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per conversation on my talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago, my name (article about myself) was included on Wikipedia. The piece was proposed by several humanitarian groups, university professors, a member of the UN and a U.S. senator. I did not asked to be added but when I was, I expected my entry to remain as such unscientific and unprofessional behaviour on the part of user DGG reflects badly on my status as a scholar and scientist and his as an editor and writer. Royalhistorian (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dr Lindgren. Sorry to hear about your article's deletion; it definitely happens on Wikipedia. If you look HERE you'll see the information about your article's deletion; it was removed by MastCell in September. The first step would be for you to ask that user, an administrator, for the particulars of the removal. The deletion description simply says 'per expired PROD, which isn't very helpful as we don't know the exact reason for deletion or who proposed deletion in the first place. Good luck! Anchoress (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DrLindgren. I have a feeling, from looking at the deleted content, that it was deleted primarily because it was written like either a promotional (self-promotional?) piece or as your CV. There was a comment on the article talk page, posted by User:DGG, that said "I have strong doubts about the notability of this person, and the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented. His awards are from various unlikely , and almost crtainly unimportant places; his memberships are similarly mostly vanity societies and those providing no special claim to notability. The references given are almost all from personal web sites and similarly unreliable sources/. None of his published works except a book of photographs are from reputable established publishers. He claims to be a professor, but is only the adjunct at one distance learning school." To get a sense of the style of article that is most likely to stay on wikipedia, please read our suggestions for your first article. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued on my talk, where I replied. Please note also User:Royalhistorian, which also claims to be Dr Lindgren, and 72.24... who also claims to be Dr Lindgren and 212.72.... who may also be the same individual. Pastordavid (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal accepted (as I never wrote the original piece).

Royalhistorian (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stale

 – Pastordavid (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia Article on Franchising, you have a heading under ADVANTAGES "Less Chance of Failure."

This is very misleading and untrue. There is no source that says franchising is less risky than an independent venture. In fact the SBA just recently indicated that franchises had a higher failure rate than independents and the IFA disclaimed their earlier proclamations when confronted with the inaccuracy of this statement.

I believe that the editor who keeps putting this back into the article on franchising is doing a disservice to Wikipedia and to the public. I thought Wikipedia was looking for truth and not looking to throw out red herrings in articles to obscure the truth.

This "Less Chance of Failure" should be removed from this article.

CJKC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the above comment refers to my edits. Please see User talk:24.166.188.91 and Talk:Franchising to understand. The anonip user going by "CJKC" above has persisted in inserting unreferenced content that I and two other editors have reverted. It's beyond silly.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the information provided, it would appear that your edits are not supported by the current consensus on the article. If you wish to bring more editors in and develop a wider consensus, please try filing a request for comment. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The issue has gone by for a few days without issue. Suffice it to say, the matter is resolved. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

On December 17, 2007, User:Butterfly0fdoom disputed the statement "located in Songshan District, Taipei City, Republic of China in northern Taiwan" and "located in Kaohsiung City, Republic of China in southern Taiwan" in Taipei Songshan Airport and Kaohsiung International Airport articles, indicating they violates WP:NC-ZH, and subsequently changed them to "located in Songshan District, Taipei City, Taiwan" and "located in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan" repectively.

I don't think they violates the WP:NC-ZH because the policy doesn't prohibit the usage of "Republic of China" when describing a location such as an airport, and that geographic location "in Taiwan" is included in the statement. I find the statement "Kaohsiung City, Taiwan" misleading as PLACE COMMA PLACE format is usually reserved for political divisions, and Kaohsiung City is not a part of a political division named "Taiwan". I find the original statement far more acceptable because it describes the correct political hierarchy of political division of which the airports are located, and it also includes general geographic information.

I would like someone to serve as a neutral party to determine if the original statement, as described in the beginning of this request, violates WP:NC-ZH, or suggest a third statement that is acceptable to both of us. Thanks.--Will74205 (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid to tell you that it appears (at least to me) that Butterflyofdoom has correctly read the naming conventions. The conventions specifically state that when identifying a geographical location on the island of Taiwan, the name Taiwan should be used without the further "Republic of China" descriptor. Pastordavid (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP blocked for violation of 3RR. Has returned to editing, but not this article. Pastordavid (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

the rochester ny wiki keeps getting an additional paragraph added under demographics which talks about some families in the local area, its ridiculous, has no cites and doesn't belong on the cities wiki page. please ban the user from adding this content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.80.2 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you explained your deletions in the edit summary ? Have you discussed the deletions in the talk page ? Or have you just repeatedly deleted sections of text anonymously? To have any credence you must explain the reasons for your edits. Triwbe (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you are deleting material without explaining why, your edits are being identified as vandalism. Try discussing it on the article's talk page, and also always using an edit summary to explain why you are making the edits that you are making. Pastordavid (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Eventually you discussed your issue with User:Kingturtle. Good job for that. A couple points of caution, however. Be careful of violating the rules on edit warring: you're supposed to courteously discuss edits with other users who feel differently from you instead of continuously reverting and instead of lambasting unnecessary edits. Please sign your posts on talk pages (with four tildes: ~~~~). Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)