Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Experiencing a problem on the Wikipedia disambiguation page for the term Wesleyan, (there are several colleges and universities named Wesleyan or that have Wesleyan in their name. 1. I separated the places named Wesleyan in one table, places with Wesleyan in their name in another. 2. I removed some obviously incorrect and unreferenced information on student body size, (the data showed 4,000 students in an institution that closed more than fifty years ago). 3. I put the places in chronological order, which makes sense, is impartial, and gets the most likely sought after institutions at the top of the list. Now I have someone reverting it to the old list again and again, with no explanation, no rationale. There previously was some earlier dispute as to this issue as well.LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Use the templates at WP:WARN to warn the vandal (I assume it's Billspilok (talk · contribs) here) and if they continue vandalising, report them. Fleetflame 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The order that you suggest by "most likely sought after institutions" is controversial. Alphabetical order is the least controversial because it does not make any claims on which Wesleyan is the most famous or "sought after" Billspilok (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical has the additional virtue of making it easy to find a particular institution without having to know the year in which it was founded. JohnInDC (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Billspiok - First, the list was by chronological order, and this statement "The order that you suggest by "most likely sought after institutions" is controversial" is therefore wrong. Secondly, this post to my talk page "Judguing from your other edits on Wesleyan University, you might have an agenda to have a particular school appear as the first one but I think this is quite biased. Billspilok (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008," is an ad hominem argument. The appropriate order for the list of colleges is not determined by where else I have posted, and you are not starting from an assumption of good faith. JohnIn DC - I wouldn't expect people to know the year any school was founded, but most people would know if they're looking for a 170 year old institution or a 40 year old one. The chronological order has been the consensus position with the exception of one poster.LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The order was an alphabetical one until user:Ychennay changed it here [1]. Incidentally, when I was digging up the order of the list another user, user:Jmabel noted [2] here that "I'm a graduate of Wesleyan in CT, but we long since agreed not to say on the disambiguation page that one of these universities is better known as "Wesleyan" than another. It depends where you live." Billspilok (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the extensive discussions at that pageLesleyAnnWarren (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. I agree that it is extensive. There is, however, no consensus. (This should, incidentally, be continued on the Talk page there.) JohnInDC (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"but we long since agreed not to say on the disambiguation page that one of these universities is better known as "Wesleyan" than another." And what does that possibly prove? We don't even know who the 'we' is he's referring to. And are we all bound by what one poster posted years ago? This is irrational. Many things are listed in chronological order. American Presidents, for example. Alphabetical is not the only neutral order. This debate is meaningless. P22575R15 (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved. P22575R15 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in a discussion with Baseball Buggs regarding the content of the Atlanta Braves page. Which I find to be slanted, but factually correct EXCEPT in the total # of consecutive division titles. I have presented plenty of data to show why it is 11 in a row and 14 of 15. And not just 14 and he contends. But he threatened me with banishment. Does he and he alone have that power? When I suggest we bring others into the discussion he ignores that plea. I ask him if he is the judge, jury and executioner for members and he ignores that. I have no with to get banned because someone uses their banishment power out of a petty disagreement.

What are my options here? MAL01159 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Options? First of all, you could go back to edit-warring against other editors at that page. That would result in a block, as BB has warned you. Secondly, you could find a reliable source that says the Braves' winning streak was 11 and not 14. Third, you could post on our reliable sources noticeboard and argue that mlb.com is not a reliable source, and assuming you are successful, you may remove any claim to there being a streak at all (unless another source is found, of course). Fourth, you could engage in discussion on a relevant Talk page (or pages, though I prefer to use just the one) and perhaps negotiate a compromise - note that to do this, you will need to be polite and respectful and to acknowledge that Baseball_Bugs is also working to benefit Wikipedia. Fifth, you could accept defeat and move on to another issue. I'm sorry if this seems like a bleak list, but I can't think of any other options. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. But why would I and I alone be the one to get banned? Doesn't it take two to participate in an edit war? Next, I would not argue that MLB.com is not a reliable source. I have used it AS my reliable source. Along with two others thus far. I would argue that MLB.com, ESPN.com AND baseball-reference.com are all reliable sources. I am open to a compromise but in my discussions with BB it seems he is wants nothing to do with that. MAL01159 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And, IS baseball buggs indeed judge, jury and executioner when it comes to banishment? I have asked him this but he refuses to answer it. MAL01159 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument isn't about 11 or 14. It's about "streak". Does a streak have to be continuous to be a "streak"? If it's not "continuous", then is it "broken", or merely "interrupted"? There doesn't seem to be any argument that the Braves failed to win the divisional title in 1994. But then, *no* one won the divisional title that year. The Braves won 14 of 14 available titles during the relevant years, but yes, there was a calendar year in the middle there in which they did not do so. Perhaps by focusing on the nature of the actual disagreement, some compromise can be reached. For example, use a different word to describe these consecutive but not continuous titles. JohnInDC (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying over and over. Also, I have no say at all on who gets blocked. Edit-warring is reported and admins judge it. At least he has stopped the edit war threat and we are talking. That's what the admins would advise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But baseball buggs has shown no inkling whatsoever in promoting a compromise. Early on, whenever the edits would get forced back to their incorrect format, I would change it again, but use different wording looking for an acceptable compromise. It would only get changed again. I am perfectly willing to change the wording around, but BB seems to want it to be his way or the highway. "Interrupted" is more like it. The Braves streak could be called 14 out of 15. The streak was certainly not "continuous". Since no one won in 1994 but a season was played. Yes, the Braves won 14 of the 14 that were recognized. But to say they won 14 in a row is misleading at best. An outright lie at worst. MAL01159 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Braves own official MLB site states that they won 14 consecutive titles. Every other authoritative source says the same thing. There were 15 years during 1991-2005, and there were 14 titles, and the Braves won all of them. There was no title in 1994. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Braves own website, and every other MLB historical web site shows that they did NOT win 14 in a row. There was no title in 1994, but the season was still played. Streak snapped. MAL01159 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What other source do you have? You have only brought up the one line on the Braves website that was contradicted in two other places on their very own web site. I keep asking you this, but what other authoritative source do you have? I have used espn AND baseball-reference. (in addition to atlantabraves.com) What do you have that trumps those? MAL01159 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what you are pointing to are "final standings", and you're applying your interpretation to them. Can you show somewhere in MLB.com that explicitly says that 1994 broke the streak? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no other source besides the final standings. 1994 was the only season that did not produce an official division winner. We are in agreement on that. Knowing that, you may use the final standings to count the consecutive division titles for yourself. BTW, where on mlb.com does it say the record is 14? I have yet to find it. I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that is not contradicted by itself. Do you have one?MAL01159 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask both editors, when discussing this, to stick to what's shown in reliable sources - preferably, references to "streak" or "unbeaten" etc, rather than simple lists of data that require interpretation. See our guidelines on primary, secondary and tertiary sources for why we strongly prefer other people to do the interpreting for us.

I will start the ball rolling: [3] says

• 2005: Utilizing 18 different rookies, the Braves still managed to persevere through numerous injuries and capture their 14th consecutive division title.
• 2006: Although their unprecedented streak of 14 consecutive division titles was snapped... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The data I provided does not require interpretation. It is plain and simple right there for all to see.

SEASON 	 	TEAM 	 	LEAGUE 	 	        W   	 L   	 PCT 	GB  	 ATTENDANCE
2007 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	84 	78 	.519 	5.0 	2,745,210
2006 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	79 	83 	.488 	18.0 	2,550,524
2005 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	90 	72 	.556 	- 	2,521,534
2004 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	96 	66 	.593 	- 	2,322,567
2003 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	101 	61 	.623 	- 	2,401,084
2002 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	101 	59 	.631 	- 	2,603,484
2001 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	88 	74 	.543 	- 	2,823,532
2000 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	95 	67 	.586 	- 	3,234,304
1999 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	103 	59 	.636 	- 	3,284,901
1998 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	106 	56 	.654 	- 	3,361,350
1997 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	101 	61 	.623 	- 	3,464,488
1996 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	96 	66 	.593 	- 	2,901,242
1995 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	90 	54 	.625 	- 	2,561,831
1994 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	68 	46 	.596 	6.0 	2,539,240
1993 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	104 	58 	.642 	- 	3,884,725
1992 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	98 	64 	.605 	- 	3,077,400
1991 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	94 	68 	.580 	- 	2,140,217
1990 	    Atlanta Braves 	National League 	65 	97 	.401 	26.0 	980,129

This was from the Braves own website. We all agree that the Braves did not win in 1994. It does not matter that no one officially won that year. The Braves did not and the season was officially played. The streak ended and started anew. There is no interpretation needed here. It is black and white. Unless we go back to what constitutes a "streak" to begin with. Does a streak need to be consecutive to still be a streak? If a player is on a hitting streak but one of the games he plays in is rain-shortened to 6 inning and he only gets 2 at bats, does that streak still continue?

I will say it again. Given the above results, to say 14 in a row is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. To say 14 in a row would lead one to believe they were consecutive when they were not. It would imply there were no interruptions when there was one. Why don't we just go with 14 of 15? That tells the proper tale and is not misleading in any way.MAL01159 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You say that the data do not require interpretation, but that is because you view your own interpretation as the correct one. My interpretation is that the Braves were unbeaten for fifteen years (from '91 to '05). Should we, therefore, put that in the article? No, because my interpretation does not satisfy wikipedia's Verifiability guidelines. Nor does yours. That's why - again - we need sources to interpret the data. If this still isn't clear, please do read the link I posted explaining why primary sources are not preferred. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

From a certain point of view, unbeaten for 15 seasons would be correct. But that would also prove to be misleading because it would imply the Braves won for 15 straight seasons when they did not. My interpretation of the 1994 season is that the Expos were the Eastern Division champions. However, MLB does not recognize that. So THAT view would be misleading as well. What is NOT misleading is saying the Braves had a streak of 14 of 15 division titles. What MLB DOES recognize is that no one was the eastern division champion. Not even the Braves. Therefore, the streak ended. So what source do you need? MLB shows the streak to be 14 of 15. What you cited above... How did the writer determine that? What source did that writer use? Because when you actually look at the data, it shows the streak to be 14 of 15. No matter what point of view one uses.MAL01159 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with everyone so far. Clearly, the data provided by MAL01159 shows that, during each of those years, the Braves played dozens and dozens of games that did not directly result in the winning of a division title. It does not matter that the division title was only awarded once per year; that still snaps their streak. Their own website showed that they played a game while not simultaneously winning a division title. I don't see any streak at all. The fact that each game did not result in a division title is irrelevant. Quite obvious, really, and does not in any way hinge upon my own personal interpretation!!!! (!!!!!!!) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to carry on this discussion on the Atlanta Braves talk page, where people presumably most interested in the subject could comment? JohnInDC (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that discussion is taking place, would anyone object to taking it to the relevant talkpage? --BelovedFreak 10:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's there now. It would probably be a good idea to archive this discussion in order to focus at that location any discussion that may still remain. JohnInDC (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --BelovedFreak 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please offer advice as to how, or if, anything can be done about the edits of User:Bardcom. As of today, 6th July 2008, the situation is becoming serious, and is almost an emergency. Please see this RfC from a few months ago. The issues raised here prevail even more so today. Please look at the edit history of this user, especially over the last week, particularly today and yesterday. Look also at his Talk page, and the archives. I and others have tried to reason with him over the last few months, but to no avail. An independent assessment of his actions is urgently required, since in my view at least, he is compromising the integrity of this enclyclopedia. If this forum is not the correct place to address this matter then please let me know. Thanks, CarterBar (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CarterBar, please provide details of which edits you are objecting to. And you have been warned many times in the past about referring to a Systematic Removal without justification. --Bardcom (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi- I hope Im asking in the right place if not please can you point me to where I should ask.

On the page under the heading "palacetheatre.info" http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk~WikiProject_Spam_459e.html

There seem to be a report saying Im a spammer can someone tell me why? most of the domain listed all go back to one site about the place theatre westcliff ,this is a site run by the crew of the theatre. If also has a link to my personal site/profile with regards to spam.

I would just like for someone to tell me why and what is going on.Im also having a proble with editors removing link to the site from the wiki listing about the palace theatre westcliff- I find this very upsetting as it was myself tha started the listing.

Chris Joker7 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Chris. Thank you for coming here for help. First of all, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you haven't been spamming, you don't have anything to worry about. Your link to static.wikipedia.org is outdated and the text you're referring to has since been archived off of that talk page. However, I believe you're referring to this edit. Basically, somebody or some bot found out that your "Things I Like" link was similar to (but not the same as) a link posted by a spammer. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A bot put you on that page because it was tracking links to watch for linkspammers, and it found that link on your user page. Not an indicator that you were adding any spam links. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not a bot, I'm a human bean. The domain palacetheatre.info caught my eye because it's a simple AdSense holding page which pointed to teaup.me.uk. It was excessive linking and did not conform to WP:EL. Further investigation found the same adsense ID and domain registration details connecting palacetheatre.info and teaup.me.uk plus a couple of other domains with dubious quality links on other articles. Some of which had also been previously removed for spam and then reinstated. It's spam, we can assume good faith and call it unintentional spam where some kind soul honestly thinks their website improves Wikipedia, but it was implicated in spam by a real person because under human review there was suspicious behaviour across a network of sites. Caomhin (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.I have started a disussion on this with the user/editor that keeps removing links to our site,is there anything else I can do to help this person understand this is not spam?

Chris Joker7 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any link that's linked in multiple articles is going to show up there. The bot watches for spam by keeping track of how many times a link is added. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, this representation you make is misleading. Your domains were removed and the edit summary was very clear as to why. You then ignored the message and simply replaced them without any further debate or discussion so I removed them again and asked for you to discuss the matter rather than simply reverting edits where a clear reason has been given for the edit. If you wish to make me "understand" why your links are not spam I would ask you to explain the connections between the domains (especially palacetheatre.info) and why you feel you need to violate WP:EL with multiple links from the same article. Caomhin (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The site palacetheatre.info and some other domain that link back to the site hols lots of info about the Palace Theatre Westcliff and one of the only only photo album with many lovely picture of the Palace Theatre Westcliff.It is also the home for the original text ot the history of the Palace Theatre Westcliff the one posted here on Wiki by myself.So I can not see how I have voilated WP:EL if you can explane this in plan languages to me Im sure I would understand.

(If you wish to make me "understand" why your links are not spam I would ask you to explain the connections between the domains)

The domain is owned by me for the crew of the Palace Theatre Westcliff for our website and I up-date the site.This being my palace of work for an number of years and far to many owners.

Chris Joker7 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

palacetheatre.info was, and at the time of writing still is, a single page with a photo, Google AdSense, a link to teaup.me.uk (featuring the same AdSense publisher ID on the AdSense there), and some webrings + the address of the theatre. The domain was spotted because of the complete lack of content of value for Wikipedia. It appears to be a domain intended to improve search rankings of the content on teaup.me.uk (with the bonus of making some advertising cash from AdSense). It makes no mention of the official Palace Theatre website, instead saying that teaup.me.uk is the Palace Theatre website which could be regarded as misleading. I fail to see what value that domain would add to Wikipedia.

teaup.me.uk was removed because of the connection to palacetheatre.info

The fact that there were 3 links to the various pages in these sites goes against Points To Remember #5

The fact that you freely admit they are your domains is a big issue with regards to Conflict of Interest which clearly says you shouldn't add links to your own domains, rather you should propose them for the community to add. Something which I requested you do upon my removal of the links the second time and you willfully ignored.

Using your own writings as a reference for edits you make also raises the issue of Original Research. If the research is not original you should instead offer the original references rather than your own writings.

In conclusion your actions have clearly gone against a number of Wikipedia policies. Hopefully the links in this response will explain the situation more clearly, I am confident if you have any queries someone watching here will be able to explain the situation better than I Caomhin (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Over the past few days there has been some difficulties in the polygamy and Christian Plural Marriage entries. In the interest of improving Wikipedia, I'm requesting some assistance in resolving the difficulty.

User Lookbeyond has criticized the Christian Plural Marriage entry. I, and a number of others feel that it is a legitimate entry, as it has been a growing Christian movement over the past 30 or so years and has defined beliefs and a number of references.

Both I and Lookbeyond believe that the article should be named Christian polygamy rather than Christian Plural Marriage, but the first people to create it disagree.

Lookbeyond has removed links, and has added a number of links all to one organization. I feel this is link spamming, and removed all but the main link to that organization. A later user [deleted all the Pro and Con links] saying that all external links should be neutral. I believe this is incorrect, because, based on other articles concerning religious issues, both pro and con links are commonly provided in Wikipedia.

The article Christian Plural Marriage was added to Wikipedia by an individual that happens to also be a member of our Yahoo Group which discusses Christian polygamy. This individual asked for help on our group, so we came to Wikipedia to help, and have been accused of self-promotion.

The user Lookbeyond feels that the external link to our Yahoo Group, ChristianPolygamy2, is inappropriate. After checking the guidelines on links to avoid, I must admit that Lookbeyond is correct that this is not generally suggested. However, I would suggest that it is appropriate in this case, because the site provides discussion concerning the issue of polygamy from a Christian view, and represents a stable site that has been in existence for the past nine years, and offers the reader the opportunity to learn more. I believe it is as appropriate as sending a reader to the official LDS site on an article about Mormons. The ChristianPolygamy2 Yahoo group link has been on the polygamy article.

Please let us know what you think. My interest is in editing Wikipedia articles from a NPOV for the benefit of every user of Wikipedia. I'm sure we'll all defer to your judgment. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming here for help. Let me start by making sure you don't have the wrong expectation: I'm only here for help. I have no intention of making a "judgment" (FYI, usually we use the word "consensus" to describe a short-term ruling/judgment by the community). If you want to come to a consensus, you have to discuss the issue with the relevant parties at Talk:Christian Plural Marriage.

"I must admit that Lookbeyond is correct that this is not generally suggested." I'm glad you were able to put yourself in his shoes. "However, I would suggest that it is appropriate in this case, because the site provides discussion concerning the issue of ..." All yahoo groups provide discussion concerning the issue of some subject. Discussion groups are discouraged and in this case I'm inclined to defer to the policy you included above: links to avoid. Also, you appear to be part of that yahoo group: if editors that don't belong to the group all agree it belongs, let them add the link. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest try starting discussions at the relevant article talkpages, and if necessary, user talkpages. (eg. User talk:Lookbeyond) Discussion is the key, hopefully other users who are interested in the topic will take part & you can reach some kind of consensus over links and the name of the article. If no consensus can be reached, a third opinion or request for comment may be appropriate. Also, please try to assume good faith on the part of other users, and avoid using words like "vandalism" quite so liberally.--BelovedFreak 12:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Arichnad and BelovedFreak for your suggestions. They are most helpful. Incidentally, is this the best way to talk to you? I admit to not having much experience with Wikipedia.

I agree with you on all points. Normally, I do assume good faith on the part of other users, but it was the user Lookbeyond that first started accusing myself and others of vandalism and conspiracy, which was untrue. After looking at Lookbeyond's actions, it actually appeared to me that he was vandalizing and promoting a single organization at the expense of the article. However, I shall assume good faith at this point, and see if we can't work this out amiably.

As for the Yahoo group link, it has been on the Polygamy article for a couple years now. At the time it was added, Yahoo groups were not on the list of links to avoid.

Well, I'll confer with people on the talk page. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The article talkpages are the best place to talk about article content. If you have further problems feel free to come back here. --BelovedFreak 22:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on a page tilted Joel Widzer. It has gone through a number of edits. I just finished a major reedit to comply with policy however, editor Daniel J. Leivick seems to have unreasonable issues with it. Could someone help out? Thank you --21:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)reagan (talk)

As you have also posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, it's probably best to let people comment there, and leave any discussion in one place. --BelovedFreak 21:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has one and only one in-line citation and no cited reference sources. The sentence has been twice reverted and it continues under attack. I'm persuaded that the appropriate course is to dig in my heels on what seems to me a matter of fundamental Wikipedia policy.

To restate the issues as I parse them: We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what are, as articulated thus far, naught but the result of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions.

As a foundation from which to build, it would appear that we need two point cleared up:

• 1. Exterior links are not the scholarly equivalent of in-line citations or reference source citations. .... Yes? No?

User: Nick Dowling asserts: "I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. (emphasis added)

• 2. I'm trying to express myself in non-confrontational terms when I state modestly that deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable a priori when no other sources are specifically cited in the article. In the absence of verifiability underlying the analysis, any and all arguments can only be understood as original research .... Yes? No?

Please see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

I'd really appreciate some suggestions about how this could have been handled differently? This dispute has been going on for days. I've already invested more hours than I'd intended; and yet, we've not even managed to reach a threshold where we identify a legitimate subject about which we have good reasons to disagree. --Tenmei (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You've crossposted this to two noticeboards, (here and Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard), please choose one. You may also want to consider removing the two notices and opening an WP:RFC on the article talk page. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I've responded on the article talk page, so just pull the post from no original research noticeboard, responded to the questions I've asked on the article talk page and wait until the other editors involved can respond to, after that then maybe an RFC. Cross-posting looks a little forum-shopping, and splits up the discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also been posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am looking to make a page based on a NPO but I don't know where to find any of the templates at. Could someone help me? --Wallaby (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, any templates in particular you were looking for? There is Template:Infobox Non-profit ({{Infobox Non-profit}}). Not sure of any others though. --BelovedFreak 11:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am requesting assistance by an editor. I am pretty new to Wikipedia and have tried to post an article about Stephen Arnold. Originally the post was done by a different user in my office who wrote the article I believe like an advert. Looking into 'Wiki rules' I can agree that the original article was bias.

However, I took over the article from my friend and attempted to make the article less bias by taking out certain words. Sadly the article was deleted anyway.

Moving forward I completely re worked the article - researching Stephen's personal life, finding references etc etc and believed this would be enough. Ten minutes later the article was deleted again. As you can imagine, after an hour spent working on the page I was slightly upset that it was deleted with no discussion.

Since then I have found that the article may have been deleted quickly since the original page had been deleted. I am therefore reaching out to any experienced Wiki users who can help me.

Please can someone help me in this instance. The page is under the heading 'Stephen Arnold.'

Regards,

Timesrunningout (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As Stardust8212 pointed out to you, you should go to WP:DRV if you want to overturn the admin decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Arnold.

As the publicist of "Stephen", as you affectionately call him, you are continuing to ignore the advice at WP:COI and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Please understand that while most Wikipedians are willing to help newcomers who want to join the community with the motivation of helping to build a free, neutral and reliable encyclopedia, several people have already spent quite some time explaining to you the principles that this article (the previous versions as well as the new one) violates, and they did so as unpaid volunteers, while you are apparently doing this because you are getting paid to promote your employer/client, a goal that other editors might not share.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question, I think at this point the redirect is the best option. I don't see any reliable sources that can assure that Mr. Arnold passes our verifiability requirements. I'd suggest, as HaeB mentions above, that you consider the conflict of interest issues involved with your writing this article, and leave it as the redirect for now. If there are substantial references providing a better basis for an article that are turned up, someone else will likely rewrite the article from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the last year, several single-purpose accounts have been set up in order to bias the 3D optical data storage article in favor of a company called "Call/Recall". They all have the same writing style and take the same abusive tone in discussions and edit summaries, so they look a lot like sock puppets. Some have even (inadvertently) identified themselves as being the same user, and some have also identified themselves as employees of the company in question (while others vehemently deny any connection). When posting from an IP, it is always in the geographical vicinity of the company in question (unles there is an important conference on the subject, as there is this week!).

The activity generally relates to (i) adding excessive references and links about the company; (ii) making inflated claims that are not backed up by the cited references; (iii) expanding the article section relating to the company to make it look more important than its competitors; (iv) using "marketing language" in an attempt to make the company appear more influential and important than it really is.

In the past we have come to uneasy compromises, or the editor has given up after discussion on the talk page. However, this time the strategy seems to be a little different. The editing takes the form almost exclusively of "undos", and the editor refuses all attempts to engage in discussion. It doesn't take place quie enough to invoke the 3RR, but it is still very disruptive.

Any advice? Comments? Thanks. • TheBendster (talk) 13 July 2008, 09:05 (UTC)

You may post evidence to the conflict of interest noticeboard. That will encourage editors who have experience in dealing with this sort of problem to watch the page and intervene when there are problems. I'll have a look now. Jehochman ^Talk 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. • TheBendster (talk) 13 July 2008, 11:23 (UTC)

username mosmof repeatedly keeps undoing edits and states that they are (NPOV) edits. however the edits that user mosmof is undoing are proven factual information but user mosmof refuses to acknowledge this information. please block them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulwelbeck (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:From your contribs, it looks like you are edit warring with several other editors to include poorly sourced (or more probably unsourced) material into the biography of a living person. Our policy on this is very strictly enforced and you'd be best advised to stop, find reliable sources for this material, and discuss it in a polite way at the relevant Talk page. Carrying on as you are will probably result in you being blocked from editing.My mistake, editor indef-blocked already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears someone managed to change the format of the wiki template itself on the Clouded Leopard page. I wasn't sure if this is the best place to report it, but it does need to be investigated by higher-ups. —168.7.232.123 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I took a quick look and it's not obvious to me what's wrong. Could you post a few more details please? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been fixed already by User:Zzuuzz. This user was messing with the templates. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, a & z. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannot recall my exact password -- does this mean I need a new account and have to begin again?~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.99.108 (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer depends on whether you registered an email address; if you did, then there should be a button "Send me a new password", but if you didn't register an email then I suspect you're stuck as there is no secure way to get the new password to you. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, I did list my email -- thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.99.18 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The subject of Tamil Eelam is a highly disputed matter in Sri Lanka and can be considered as main reason for the civil war. The wiki article on Tamil Eelam is also in dispute among two editors (who (this editor included) have two apposing points of views) and has become the subject of edit waring (the writer shares blame for that too). This article has immense potential due possibly being the only Neutral article on the subject, where as all most all articles found on the internet are either pro or anti Eelam. However to achieve this assistance of editors of neutral point of view are needed. Therefor I kindly request editor assistance. Thankayou Nitraven (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in general I would recommend a request for comment which might bring in other editors who know something about Tamil Eelam, and could help to reach consensus, or posting on the talkpage of the project that the article is part of (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation). Looking at the talkpage however, I see that a request for comment has already been made and there is a long history of dispute. Hopefully consensus can be reached, but it looks like it will be difficult. Sorry I can't be of more help. --BelovedFreak 11:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

and

Background : I met this user "Deepak D'Souza" on the discussion page of Mumbai. I didn't like the way he communicated and it seems like he didnt like the way I responded either.

He posted on my user talk page, which I read and deleted. He has re-posted that message atleast 15 times now and even warned me that I cant delete messages on my talk page, which I believe I can. I do not wish to reply to him, as I consider this to be a minor issue and do not want to get into a fight.

Can you please help me? I am willing to talk to him if you need me to. Thanks Ninadhardikar (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are permitted to remove others' comments on their own talk pages. See here. I'll drop a polite note on the user's talk page and see if that helps. JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me! What vandalism. Do you even know the definition of Vandalism. Just because you dont like something, it becomes vandalism? What about your own comments? Can I simmilarly call them vandalism because I dont like them? (I need your anser on this point) Just because I disagreed with your comments , you take the liberty of calling me rude, vandal etc whereas your own behaviour hasnt been any different from what you accused me of. Your statemnts on the Talk: Mumbai page had no proof. I pointed it out to you that the very source you claimed did not stand by your statements. So now I am a vandal! Yeah Right!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't see where anyone called you a vandal. The problem was that you keep re-adding a message to Ninadhardikar's talk page because "sorry but you cannot delete talk page messages." As both Ninadhardikar and JohnInDC told you, you can remove them. No one is accusing you of being a vandal. Fleetflame 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone called you a vandal.:have you seen the heading of this section:Vandalism on personal talk page? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, unless the mediator has something else to add. JohnInDC, Fleetflame : appreciate your help. Ninadhardikar (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved: Sorry, unless my actions can be justifiably called as vandalism accouring to wikipedia policy( and not according to some other editors whims), this issue will remain unresolved. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, you're upset because Ninadhardikar characterized your (persistent) edits to his Talk page as "vandalism", here and in the edit summaries to his Talk page when he removed those edits. Is that correct? JohnInDC (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And that isn't just it. He feels quite justified in not responding to my messages. He tried to close this issue as resolved even thoug i had left a message on his talk page(twice) asking him to respond. Im afraid we are encouraging trollish behaviour if he is just allowed to go on calling anything and evrything he dislikes as vandalism. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure what is left to resolve. He was unhappy that you kept restoring a message on his talk page, which you'd restored repeatedly under the mistaken impression that he was not entitled to remove it. He, in his frustration, described your (rather persistent) restores as "vandalism" in a couple of places. Have there been other incidents, other disputes between you two or are we now simply rehashing the original events? If that is all that it is, I would suggest that you let the matter rest. If he is not bothering you, there is really nothing more to be done. JohnInDC (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ninadhardikar has certainly used the term "vandalism" incorrectly to describe the actions of Deepak D'Souza, which would probably have been more accurately described as harassment and certainly as edit warring in violation of Talk page guidelines. I think it would be best if Deepak D'Souza stop pursuing this issue here, and (based on their contributions at Talk:Mumbai#Bombay) concentrate on being more polite in discussions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a section in this article with language that I believe constitutes Original Research. The third paragraph, primarily, where the editor has linked to an artist's comic strip (an April Fools parody), and is now interpreting the artist's intention and assigning a meaning to the title of said comic strip (even though there is no explanation in the strip itself, or elsewhere on the artist's website) and going so far as to say it's a "popular internet meme" or "common criticism", with no additional sources to corroborate this "fact" of being common or even an opinion held by more than one person.

Nobody has been able to come up with any valid sources that explain what the 'meme' means (which would then add credit to its otherwise unexplained use in the comic), and without other sources it seems like speculation on the meaning and intent of the comic strip. I've tried to remove it, but another editor continues to revert it. I'd like to get some other opinions. It doesn't seem appropriate to just say "Oh it's 'commonly known', so we don't need to source it well". I'm reading it as 'speculation' and 'unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.' as defined by WP:NOR.--Thrindel (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We have Roman Catholic Diocesan Schools in Santa Ana CA and School Of Our Lady. The first seems to be a list of schools, but then has basically an article about one school tacked on to the end. The second is a shorter article about that one school (with a lot of verbatum content). I just wanted to have someone with more time take a look at these two articles and see if anything needs to happen (such as a full or partial merge), keeping in mind page histories to preserve GFDL requirements (since there is duplicate content, someone may need to sort through the histories to find who contributed what if there isn't a page history merger). Anyway, it seems fairly complicated and thus I'm asking if anyone else can tackle the task. But I could be mistaken and there could be nothing wrong here. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some input at Torah, (which is also where Pentateuch and Five Books of Moses redirect).

Meieimatai (talk · contribs) has been re-writing the article [4], on the basis apparently that it should be "essentially an article in the Jewish religion subject area". [5] This is a substantial change from its previous focus (clear from the redirects) as an article on the Torah, but also on the first five books of the Bible from all perspectives, not just Judaism.

Particularly notable, IMO, are

• removing any mention of "Pentateuch" and "Five Books of Moses" from the Lead, despite there being extensive links to the article under those titles; and
• rewriting the section "Torah and Islam", which is meant at least to kick off with a discussion on the Islamic perspective on the Torah, changing it into in effect a discussion of a Jewish perspective of an Islamic perspective on Torah.

He also seems to think that there's no place for any material, or any point of view, which isn't based on a literalist Jewish perspective. [6][7]

I've raised the issue at WT:BIBLE and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religious texts, and asked him to hold off with persuing this until there's been a consensus view as to whether this is where the article should be going.

But he's simply steaming on, full steam ahead, [8][9] reimposing his changes regardless.

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but this could IMO urgently use some third-party input. Jheald (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have been "steaming" very slowly! I have raised several discussions in the talk page and have included detailed edit summaries for each and every edit in the article, carried out mostly to add citations of reference sources. I have been particularly careful to provide edit summaries and discuss edits of the "Torah in Islam" section, providing edit summaries for parts of sentences that I removed. Jheald seems to think there was a "previous purpose" to the article, but my only real purpose is to improve the quality of the article, possibly to FA level, which in the first instance involves restructuring the contents and providing verified references--Meieimatai 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd always known that Wikipedia was only as accurate as those who post on it - - but I was GREATLY DISAPPOINTED to find that some "Editors" and "Administrators" are actively removing any ideology/opinion/perspective they don't agree with. For instance, you get mainly one perspective on the topic of Roe vs Wade. As demonstrated below, the same applies to the issue of global warming.

Personally, I like to hear both/all sides of an issue - and then decide for myself. Apparently some Wikipedia Editors/Administrators (see below) fear letting people make up their own minds.

PS> The article below is quickly spreading across the Internet - so I think Wikipedia had better take some steps at damage control or risk losing credibility. <COPYVIO REMOVED> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.53.197 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 July 2008

Hello, and thank you for coming here for help. However, I'm not sure what help I can give. I can give one piece of advice. You state that "some 'Editors' and 'Administrators' are actively removing any ideology/opinion/perspective they don't agree with". Please assume good faith. I am not removing perspectives I don't agree with and though I agree there could possibly be some people doing this, they are the minority. "Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining a neutral point of view is very important to us here on Wikipedia. I can't comment on the articles you listed without taking a closer look at them or reading some more specific criticism, but if you have verifiable sources and a specific area you think is biased, you can post at the NPOV Noticeboard or make a request for comment. —Pie4all88 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just resending this, this time signed I wish to make a complaint about the actions of Collectonian. 1. I have put a lot of effort into the Liaison Psychiatry article. I am now under the impression that Collectonian is intimidating me with her changes. 2. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading up around the subject. Collectonian has put up a number of tags on the site e.g. needs attention from an expert, needs internal referencing and so on. 3. The quality of the article was/is (given that a significant part of it has now been removed) clearly better than the Psychosomatic Article which has no such comments. 4. More concerningly, Collectonian has reversed the changes I have been making whilst I have been looking for references (literally within minutes) and has then added that I haven't included references. 5. Finally Collectonian has removed literally all of the references I have added 6. Collectonian herself has no expertise in this subject (given the notice she has put on the site) and yet has removed a number of references.

I also have difficulty in talking on the page because the author is referred to a generic medicine page. A talk page specific to the article would make more sense. Justinmarley (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

The article does have a talk page, all articles do. That is the talk page. You just don't understand how Wikipedia talk pages work, or much about Wikipedia at all. The "redirect" is nothing of the sort. That is a project header. You'll find them at the top of most article talk pages. If you wish to start the first discussion, just hit the New Section (or +) button on the talk page, or edited it same as you did here (though preferably without repeating the same thing three times). It would seriously behoove you to read the tutorial to help you understand these basic things. Your initial efforts went against nearly every segment of the Wikipedia manual of style, and you yourself declared that you have a non-neutral agenda in your work on the article in your attempt to create a project around your "new idea."

Your work on that article was all OR with no actual valid references. A reference that a book exists is not an actual reference. They were removed appropriately as they are not references, just "here is the book". They do not support any of your claims except that the book exists. The entire article reads like a term paper and seems to be nothing but your own personal, unsupported research. Hence the tagging, the removing of false references, and your warnings. And surely you do not thing this essay-like work is somehow better than Psychosomatic medicine?? While Psychosomatic medicine isn't perfect, at least it has real references.

Don't complain and attack people just because you are not using references appropriately and you haven't taken the time to learn some of the basics of Wikipedia. Instead, actually learn from the mistakes you've made and avoid making them again. Go through the tutorial and read up on how to source an article. Use actual references that support your otherwise WP:NPOV claims, instead of adding refs that say that because the book exists, it must support your claim that they are "landmark textbooks or that people are "prominent figures", etc. Such OR statements can, and will, be removed if you do not actually source them, as is noted at the bottom of every page and in [[WP:V]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is highly innappropriate for you to respond at all, when I am requesting independent arbitration. Clearly this is an area where new rules are required Justinmarley (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

There is nothing inappropriate about me responding to your accusations about me. Your attempts to make a false claim of consensus on the article when the only agreeing with you is you is what is inappropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Although I haven't been following the development of this article, looking at the history of it, it looks like you are getting close to an edit war and could probably do with more opinions. I would try a request for comment to get more eyes on it, and hopefully reach consensus. In the meantime, Justinmarley, this isn't really the place to bring a complaint about Collectonian's behaviour - there are other avenues for that. Having said that, I'm not sure from your message above, which actions you see as wrong. Adding maintenance tags to an article, requesting references etc is acceptable behaviour. (As is responding to your complaints above). You would be better trying to work together to reach consensus. Looking at the talkpage (which I'm glad you've started using) this may be a problem as there are not many people involved. This is why I think a WP:RFC would be appropriate.--BelovedFreak 10:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the second previous comment, Collectonian's responses is innappropriate. The comment about false claim of consensus continues to remain defamatory and is contained within this forum. This is clearly against the good faith policy alluded to in this forum on several occasions. Am I missing any actions that I could be taking in this case? Justinmarley (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

I would like an arbiter to mediate the two defamatory issues initiated by Collectonian. If these are not mediated I will take further action 1. In the article I have edited, Collectonian has explicitly stated that an expert in this domain is required. I consider this to be defamatory. 2. In the previous comment to my request for editorial help (I have still not received independent help), Collectonian explicitly states that my editing of the article is non-neutral. I consider this to be defamatory. I want urgent action. If it is not forthcoming I will take further action Justinmarley (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

You might want to include links to the specific articles and discussions. For instance, I believe you're talking about this edit and edit summaries also in liaison psychiatry. I suggest you discuss this issue on the talk page or with Collectonian directly. Try to focus on a small specific change you've made to the article and avoid (at all costs) referring to anything that he has or has not done in the past. You might also want to discontinue calling things "defamatory" and threatening "further action" as it only escalates the dispute. Stay cool when the editing gets hot. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The actions persist and the document is locked. Please also see my other comments Justinmarley (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

Collectonian has in my opinion continued to abuse her position as a Wikipedia User by accusing me of sockpuppetry. I would be only too happy for an independent source to confirm that this is not the case and that collectonian continues to discredit my name. I am also concerned that this abuse has been allowed to continue. There are now a concerted series of actions directed against me and another user by Collectonian. How should I respond to this according to correct Wikipedia policy. I am most happy to play by the rules and am sure that Wikipedia must have a solution that achieves justice under these circumstances. Justinmarley (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

Steady on. Even if you're correct, there's no need to add fuel to the flames.

The correct response is to remain calm and to assume good faith on the part of others. Collectonian appears to have filed a suspected sockpuppet report that includes you, and I'm assuming that's why you're here. If not, then please post again and say why you're posting. The key word there is 'suspected'. We don't know, so we'd like to find out. That's all. This can be a somewhat brusque place, and if that's not comfortable for you then it might be better to find another place to contribute. Some people like it here and others don't; there's no value judgement implied. The SSP will be investigated by others, and you must assume good faith on their parts. Poor faith reporting is also frowned upon. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help and thank you, Andrew, for answering the question. I'd like to add: when discussing the same topic, it is preferable that you use the previous threads you created instead of continually adding new ones (most of your threads here revolve around your conflict with Collectonian). Previous threads you've added about this subject can be seen above: "Defamation", "Require Urgent Help", "Complaint", "Article has no talk section", and "Complaint" (again). Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have attempted to remain calm throughout but the actions are building up. The article I have been working on has been locked. A large number of labels have been added to the document including that an expert is required. I and another user have been accused of sockpuppetry. I am asking for help because I believe that Wikipedia is a place where people come together in good faith to contribute to building valuable knowledge for people everywhere. This is the reason I have come to Wikipedia and have been working hard on this article - because of my faith in the system. However I have found these actions to be quite shocking and believe there must be processes that can be created to help people under these circumstances. Is there any way that all of these comments can be amalgamated into the previous threads please. Many thanks. Justinmarley (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

Within the discussion group on Liaison Psychiatry, there is an accusation that I have created another account. Not only is it innappropriate for this comment to be placed in the discussion part of this article, but this is contrary to AndrewHowse's comment above that this is 'suspected'. This supports my original complaint - as in the discussion forum this point is stated as a fact. Justinmarley (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

Nothing inappropriate about it. Anyone joining the discussion should be aware of a possible attempt at creating false consensus through multiple accounts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've combined the current 3 threads into one.--BelovedFreak 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for combining the threads Belovedfreak. Again Collectonian has made comments in the discussion forum on Liaison Psychiatry which are against the Wikipedia's assumption of good faith. Furthermore it would appear that Collectonian's approach both to myself and the article in question, suggest a bias. This behaviour provides a clear example of what I consider to be bullying, that is using several years experience of the system to discredit less experienced users, to make statements of facts about a user and to consistently undermine the basic efforts towards improving an article with references and then to respond with a series of actions which make further editing problematic at best. How can I start a forum to discuss bullying within Wikipedia and contribute to developing a safer environment particularly for Newcomers? 86.140.19.252 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley Justinmarley (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

Does anyone know why Frank Schulenberg was trying to get hold of me by e-mail, if he's been able to receive any of my e-mails and if this relates to the Liaison Psychiatry article Justinmarley (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley p.p.s this was 10 days ago Justinmarley (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

I have no idea and I can't imagine that any of the editors on here would know either. Sorry. --BelovedFreak 10:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Will the allegation of sockpuppetry raised against me by Collectonian a few days ago please be investigated so that i can be exonorated Justinmarley (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley

That will take place at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justinmarley. --BelovedFreak 10:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I am disputing the neutrality of this article. There are claims that it was "biased" because several sources cited factual information from the AmeriCorps website, and in an attempt to make it more balanced - the criticism section was overloaded with articles cited mostly from the organization "Citizens Against Government Waste."

AmeriCorps is a politically neutral organization, and I feel editors Freechild and Grundle2600 are using this page as a sounding board for their political opinions.

For neutrality sake - the Successes and Criticisms should be balanced, or completely discarded - regardless of how well they are cited.

I've been running interference, because I feel it is unfair to present unbalanced criticism, but they keep putting their original changes back up. I'd like to avoid an edit war, but I feel strongly that this article needs to be more closely monitored for neutrality issues. MindyC123 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You were basically whitewashing the article. Please don't pick fights like this, but work toward compromise. I just cut it down quite a bit; some more outside views would be good on this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At first, there was an article named American Mafia which I created a while back. A few days ago, an editor created a new article named Italian-American Mafia and cut/paste all the contents of American Mafia to it. This lost the edit history of American Mafia. An administrator next deleted American Mafia as it was empty/had trash in it/whatever. I then had that administrator restore things back to how they were before the cut/paste work. The cut/paste editor then came right back and did the same cut/paste work again so all the contents are again in Italian-American Mafia (but the history is not there); this time, the editor left a redirect American Mafia (where the edit history is at). The cut/paste editor has not reacted to my request that he get this history problem fixed.

The name change is OK to me, but I don't like the loss of edit history. Could an administrator sort things out so the Italian-American Mafia has the proper history in it and the American Mafia has minimal or no history, whatever is normal had the cut/paste editor instead used a proper article MOVE request. I don't know whether the article had any Discussion, but if it did, that should be made normal also. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here for help. You're looking for the cut and paste repair page. Go there and read the instructions. If you have any questions, come back here to ask them. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix this by restoring the article at American Mafia and redirecting the other. Right now, it's vice versa, but a look at the history clearly shows that American Mafia is older. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly been adding links to IDreamofJeannieFans.net and someone continues to remove them. If I am reading this website correctly, someone is under the mistaken impression that this link is spam or the site is for marketing. It is neither.

The site is the most popular I Dream of Jeannie Fan website on the internet and currently the ONLY website currently endorsed by Larry Hagman (Tony Nelson/J.R.Ewing), with a video testimonial from Larry himself right on the front page. Soon to have Barbara Eden's personal video endorsement as well.

IDreamofJeannieFans gets advanced copies of all DVD artwork and release information from Sony Pictures. This website is also responsible for planning and executing the first ever I Dream of Jeannie convention called Fan Fest, in 2010. It is not just my belief, but that of over 1,000 fan members of this website that not having a link in Wikipedia's I Dream of Jeannie article is not only an insult to fans around the world, but the actors themselves who have thrown their endorsements behind it.

The link I have provided is strictly to the episode guide that also features links to Hulu's full video episodes as well as our forums for episode discussions.

If the link I have been providing over and over again is not suitable for this website, then I would appreciate a written explanation as to what exactly the problem is?

BriansGenieBottles (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, I would say have a read over Wikipedia:External links which gives you an overview of the guideline regarding external links. Secondly, bring it up on the article talkpage: Talk:I Dream of Jeannie where you can discuss it with other editors who work on that article and hopefully reach consensus. I have seen a few articles where editors have agreed that one particular fansite is acceptable in the external links section and yours may be, if what you say about it is true. However, it does appear that you have a conflict of interest given that it is your website, and I can't blame people for thinking that you are trying to promote your website. Also, you shouldn't take it so personally, we're not here to make sure that 1,000 fans don't get insulted. Having a link in Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as a prize. My advice would be to stop adding the link, as it is a conflict of interest and start a discussion on the article talkpage explaining why you think the link should be included. Let others decide. --BelovedFreak 10:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One final point, it's not a good idea to accuse people of vandalism for removing what they see as linkspam. That's not going to help matters. --BelovedFreak 10:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Reverend Jesse Jackson article has no consensus on the inclusion of a quotation.Remarks concerning Barack Obama

--Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have, mostly usung Wikipedia, compiled the following data about school shootings and I would like to know why it is getting deleted. It is 100% fact, compiled to show another viewpoint to be looked at on the subject. It is Neutral and I do site my sources (this site and basic division to come up with the numbers):

Despite the help of psychiatric drugs and the expertise of the Psychiatric Industry, from August 1, 1966 until 1988, 22 years, there were 10 school shootings world wide - 8 in the US. In 1988 Prozac came on the market marking a new era of stronger Psychiatric drugs. In the 20 years since 1988 to present day, there has been 60 school shootings - 40 in the US. A 600% increase - 500% increase in the US.

In all of recorded history, since man invented the gun in the Medieval Ages, over 500 years ago, up until August 1st, 1966, there had NEVER been a school shooting - ANYWHERE in recorded history. In the early 1960s Psychiatry got their drugs to "treat" mental disorders in schools. August 1st, 1966, first ever school shooting in recorded history.

Out of the past school shooters, approximately 70% were on or withdrawing from Psychiatric Drugs, the remaining 30% have not had their autopsy reports released, so the public does not know.

This seems to indicate a new profiling perspective. Only those on or withdrawing from Psychiatric drugs seem to commit these shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill-spit (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable so you need to add references to reliable sources Secondly, you appear to be drawing your own conclusions from certain statistics, which is original research. The "basic division to come up with the numbers" is your own work - and you are drawing your own conclusions from it. Also, you can't use Wikipedia itself as a reliable source. Have a read around some of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia and don't get too disheartened by your first efforts being reverted.--BelovedFreak 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There may be reliable sources that hint at this conclusion, too. The problem is using Source A & Source B to derive Conclusion C, which itself needs to be sourced... that's regardless of how iron-tight the argument is. Info coming into the encyclopedia needs to have that information provided elsewhere (the nice thing about the 'pedia, being that many sources are full of otherwise esoteric knowledge; we can condense that down :-) )

The primary reason for this is there's no expert peer-review, just us editors and other readers, of which there are millions. So it's better to play it safe and make sure you have something to back up your conclusion, instead of the possibility of inserting material that may or may not be true: you can't tell it's truthfulness if there are no reliable third-party sources. Which tends to cause a mess, since A) edits get reverted without concise explanation, which happens rather too often, causing lots of confusion and heated discussion; and B) some folks do read and cite Wikipedia (outside of Wikipedia, that is), and we owe it to them to follow our goals, which is this:

• Information provided here is neutral, and takes no sides. Information provided here is verifiable, so that you the reader know it's not the original research of our editors, but a concise representation of the information provided elsewhere. Disclaimer: this doesn't always happen, but it should :-P

Or something like that (I try!) Anyway, I hope that helps a bit :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled on this article while doing routine maintenance for TV show articles. It seems this is just one episode of a series that consisted of a whopping five episodes. Instead of deleting the whole thing, can I just move or rename it to I Married... (the name of the actual show) and the add the needed info? I'm asking because I've never moved or renamed anything before and I didn't want to totally screw up. I doubt it will be controversial seeing as no one has edited the thing since '07. Thanks! Pinkadelica 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish to contribute more to Wikipedia but ever since I have joined, I have been labelled as a sockpuppet. That has been very discouraging. I hope it will be sorted soon.Plasmons (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Plasmons

You can follow the situation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justinmarley. In the mean time there is nothing to stop you contributing to Wikipedia.--BelovedFreak 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)