Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Hello -

If you take a look at the edit history The Falls Church wiki page you'll notice that there is a bit of a conflict emerging as to the content of the page. I would like to request help to avoid this before it gets out of control.

What can we do? There is clearly a dispute as to which church "The Falls Church" refers to - and currently there are two congregation laying claim to the title. It may seem petty, but it is an important issue for the members of both congregations.

Is there a way that we can have a moderated discussion that ultimately leads to a comprehensive article that tells the history of the split in the congregation and where the two congregations have gone since?

Thanks, 71.178.115.183 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Make the main article a disambiguation page and create two articles named The Falls Church (location 1) and The Falls Church (location 2) where the two different churches can have articles. This is standard practice at Wikipedia, and allows us to have dozens of articles about, for example, people named John Smith or places named Springfield. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and don't use the words "location 1" and "location 2". replace that with the actual municipality/locality that the churches are in. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The version of the article you restored was actually decidedly non-neutral. As others have stated, the article should focus on the church itself, and it does. If the spin-off church is notable, it should be placed on its own article, and not be coatracked onto the existing article. If it is not notable, then there is no need for even a disambiguation. The version you restored also failed the neutral point of view via a lot of opinionated statements. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check whether Brighton kukasira falls within Wikipedia's notability criteria. Thanks, -- Bryan (talk|commons) 23:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for A7 speedy deletion and creator templated re autobiographies. – ukexpat (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Now deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Baythorne End is seeing quite a few reverts, but none of which technically violate the 3RR. If I make one more revert I think I'll be doing just that, so I thought I'd bring it here. The talk page of the article appears that an editor believes that they have ownership, and looking at the page history I'm inclined to think that the main 'reverter' is operating under both an IP and a registered account. I've attempted to talk to the editors involved, but until bringing it here I've heard nothing. Another editor did get involved and warned the IP, but this seems to have made no difference. I believe it's the ownership issue that makes the other user(s) revert my edits (of which were done based on guidelines such as WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT) rather than the actual article content. Cheers. Booglamay (talk) - 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are doing the right thing in pointing this user to the article talk page. I have issued a standard warning about article ownership to User:010579stubbs who had not previously been warned on this issue and this article. Hopefully that will now put him/her in a more collaborative frame of mind. However, I also need to warn you that waiting for 24 hours to go by before you redo an edit to avoid 3RR, as you did here is also not acceptable and is considered "gaming the system". This can still get you blocked because you are going against the spirit of the policy and are not acting in a collaborative manner. I sympathise with you because the edits you are trying to insert are useful and should be completely uncontroversial (a reference list template and a more specific stub template). I think we should assume good faith at this stage and assume that 010579stubbs (and the IPs if they are different persons) are acting out of inexperience rather than maliciously. What you should do next is explain carefully and politely on the article talk page exactly why you want to make those edits. If stubbs is indeed a good faith editor then I would expect him/her to co-operative with you in improving the article. What you should not do is simply revert the article back and forth until we all get dizzy. SpinningSpark 02:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Booglamay (talk) - 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an iconic golfer missing from Wikipedia pages and I would like an article written about this person. I realize that I can do this myself, but here's the problem.....most of the information required for an article is in Japanese. This golfer is actually referenced on quite a few Wiki pages but her names is in red, indicating no article is available. The golfer is Michiko Hattori. I am a big fan of women's golf, and the LPGA, and a friend tells me Michiko is one of the best golfers she has ever seen play...I can not find career stats on her, however. She is mentioned on a lot of English websites, but these mostly have to do with her early career in America. She visited the USA at age 15 and won the U.S. Amateur title, one of the youngest winners in history. She then attended the University of Texas; apparently she was one of the best collegiate golfers ever and was twice named Collegiate Golfer of the Year, and was a Honda Broderick Award winner as the nation's top collegiate player/athlete. This information is available online but she decided to play professionally in Japan, instead of on the LPGA, so all of the online stats and other information on her career is in Japanese. As I said above she is mentioned on Wiki pages such as Japan LPGA Championships (1998 winner) and Fujitsu Ladies page (1999 and 2004 winner). Other than the fact that she is very famous in Japan and has been leading money winner of their tour, I can find no listing about her career stats, how many professional titles in Japan or Asia, how much money, how many times leading money winner, current status, etc. I did visit the Japan LPGA site where there is a lot of info on her, and attempted to use translation tool to get her stats, but this did not work. Is it possible for someone to write an article on Michiko that gives all of here career stats, not only from early career in USA but also her professional career in Japan/Asia, and her status in Japan (or tell me where I can find this information myself!). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.112.42 (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A number of things you could do, you need to add her name to requested articles at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#Golf which will notify other users that an article is needed. You may get a better response if you ask at the wikipedia Golf project. You could also start the article without the stats as long as it had enough content to establish notability then ask the Golf project for help. MilborneOne (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Another approach is that she almost certainly has an article on japanese Wikipedia, which might be ja:服部道子 but I cannot be sure, not being able to read Japanese. You can request a translation at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/ja or you can try directly contacting one of our Japanese translators from here Category:Translators ja-en. SpinningSpark 14:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.112.42 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As a university lecturer, I am well aware that many students use Wikipedia as a first port of call and I check items to make sure they are not cheating. However, the editing of Wikipedia gives cause for concern. I have mentioned previously the problem of 'pack surveillance' by groups with an agenda (the RCMP's E Division counter-spin department and fellow travellers spring to mind) but even fairly bland topics are a problem. I thought I would help out by expanding one story and found it deleted before I could include the source. It is the last time I assist on a Wikipedia story and students found to be using the site without attribution will receive a zero. MacBiggles ----

One thing to note is that you need to always fill in the edit summary when making an edit. Failure to do so will often trigger a revert as drive by additions of unsourced content and vandalism are rarely accompanied by full edit summaries. You should undo the revert and add in your reference before saving. There is a policy of removing unsourced content for obvious reasons that you surely understand from your lamenting students not providing attribution. Simply putting 'adding names, reference to follow' in the edit summary would probably have avoided the reversion. Mfield (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing some work on the Hollywood orchestrator Conrad Salinger and believe there is a serious error in his date of death.

I know the Internet Movie database and other sources give it as 1961, but I have found his obituary notice in Variety newspaper, which states 18 June 1962. Other newspaper reports suggest 17 June 1962.

As this is a pretty serious change, should I wait until someone confirms it with an official Californian death certificate? I have posted my concern on his Talk page, but so far no one has come forward.

If I make this change, can I also report the error to the Internet Movie database people too?

Thank you for your advice.

Best regards

GBS2 (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a search on http://vitals.rootsweb.ancestry.com and it looks like his COD says June 17 1962. In any case, I would always trust newspaper and magazines over IMDb. Is the Variety obit, or any other newspaper article, available online? Mosmof (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Offline sources are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. The requirement is that others are able to verify the source, not can verify it online. Variety is certainly included in that. And correct, IMDb is widely regarded here as to be used with caution. SpinningSpark 23:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, THis might be a simple question... but I need some help in Re-naming my personal page. Also I am not sure how to make it public so people can search and view it?

I read the help and it says you need to click the move button, but I can't find it :(

Anyway can someone please give me a hand - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonw11 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The move button is aligned with and, in the usual skin, to the right of, the edit button. If you move your user page, presumably to The Spin or somesuch, then it will automatically be public. Before you do that, please make sure it's neutral. For example, "With a cutting and irreverent look at the media each week" needs to be sourced to an independent 3rd party using those adjectives. Oh, and then delete the redirects (auto-created when you move) from your user and talk to the article and its talk; otherwise messages for you will go in the wrong place. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at my article, Bio of Leo Goldberger, to see if it qualifies in terms of the criteria for final inclusion --or let me know what editing I should make, or, if I should just forget it. Thanks.

Lg4 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not ready for inclusion, as there are no independent sources listed that discuss the subject extensively. See WP:N and WP:BIO for more information on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done a little clean up but it does need more references and wikification. – ukexpat (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to request input for my first article. I want to make sure that it conforms to the standards. A quick review of what I've written on my user page would be appreciated. Arenier (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done some initial clean up and formatting. Presumably the image in the infobox is a placeholder? – ukexpat (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

On 11th Novermber 2008, vast amounts of the article Cadence Capital Ltd were bulk-deleted.

This looks like valdalism to me.

I could not see any talk on the Talk page before it was bulk-deleted.

What is the ideal way for replacing the original material under Wikipedia reules/guidelines? Thanks Palindrome101 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this revert? If not, which delete/revert are you referring to? tedder (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am mainly talking about that change by 203.206.217.252, but also about the serveral ones following it, which all just seemed to be fiddling-around with the small section that was left. Does this look like vandalism to you? Is it OK for period to simply delete 80% of an article with no comments on the talk page (that I am aware of). Palindrome101 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment would be helpful, of course, but it isn't mandatory. It appears the removals were to make the article adhere to the policy of a neutral point of view and to keep the page from looking spammish. tedder (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think the edits are entirely appropriate -- they clearly remove the non-neutral POV and spammy stuff yet still leave the article as a valid stub. It needs more references though. – ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you guys have spoken, so I will leave it as it is. The article before this drstic intervention contained many verifiable facts and references to respectable sources. They have all been bulk-deleted. The company's non-compliance with ASX Corporate Guidelines was all documented, referenced, and factual. However, preumably you considered it not "NPOV" to point out that a company is not in compliance with corporate governamce recommendations. If you think a wholesale delete is a good way to deal with one or two quibbles in a detailed article, I can see why so many articles on Wikipedia are short and bland, giving no insight into the subject matter. Is this the final "court of appeal"? Can I seek further review, or am I bound under Wikipedia rules to accept this as a binding decision? Palindrome101 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do want to emphasise that the material about Cadence not being in compliance with ASX corporate governance guidelines was all strictly factual. It included references to the ASX guildelines themselves, and to the sections of Cadence's Annual report where the company declared itself to not be in compliance. What is there about these documented facts that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia? Have you checked the sources? Do you dispute the fact that Cadence is not in compliance? I researched this quite intensively, and I would appreciate the courtesy of a detailed reply about why these documented facts do not belong in an encyclopedia. What makes these facts "non-neutral POV or "spammy"? Honestly, I don't understand. Palindrome101 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

From my look at the article, the problem is that much of the material that was removed was not an encyclopedic definition, but was analysis of the company that devolved into minutiae that only investors would be interested in, not people looking for a short explanation of who the company is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an investors' bulletin, and the section removed was leaning towards giving undue weight to the company's financial and governance issues. Personal analysis - or original research - is also inappropriate here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SYNTH, POV and OR aside, I wonder if the firm meets WP:N. Most of the deleted content was sourced to ASX filings and press releases, and a quick search in Google yielded nothing specifically about the company in reliable sources. I've tagged the article with a notability tag, and if nothing suggesting the firm's notability comes up in coming weeks, the article can be listed at Afd. 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk • contribs)

After reading the comments in the above discussion, I've proposed the article for deletion. If nobody removes the tag, this will allow five days before the article is deleted. If anyone has the time and patience to find commentary on this company in the business press, the situation might change. To justify keeping the article, we'd need to find something better than reprinted press releases and reports issued by the company itself. And if true sources were found, they would have to testify to the company's importance in some way. (Stuff like 'Cadence Capital Limited is an investment fund' wouldn't justify keeping). I looked at a version of the article prior to the trimming but I wasn't convinced that the sources listed were reliable sources that actually spoke about Cadence itself. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I need help with a discussion page where I and other editors are trying to get a constructive and neutral discussion going on. But... uh, some editors have decided to disregard this effort with behaviour such as disregarding citations from sources and claiming them to be part of a racist line of argumentation, repeatedly attacking other editors that they are POV pushing, taunting them, ..... or ignoring arguments....etc. Not discussing in a constructive manner to improve but disruptive with no verifiable sources. There is also a very similar sacrastic tone of conversation coming from two differently registered editors.....

I hope I can get some appropriate advice.

I am linking one discussion page but there are other pages concering the same issue, where similar behaviour from the same editors has taken place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Buni%C4%87/Bona [1]

Thank you in advance.

Caboga (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a disagreement in Ear training about whether an external link should be included. I and another editor are interpreting the link policy differently, and each of us are certain that we are right. It would be helpful at this point if a senior editor would provide an "authoritative" answer one way or the other. Thanks..! aruffo (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware the edit war. I have posted you both warnings (so as not to be seen to be taking sides) as you both should be aware of WP:3RR in cases like this. You run the risk of an immediate block for continual reversion/edit warring. I am assuming good faith on your part as you have done the right thing in asking for assistance. The link in question is a non notable blog source which makes it unreliable as a reference. It does not appear to be commercial in nature so it isn't really removable by that reasoning. Asking the editor in question to explain fully why the link should be included on Talk would be the correct course of action. Mfield (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to discussion on article talk that took place before and has taken place since this issue was raised here. Mfield (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please review this article. Although the school itself may be notable (though it doesn't make clear as to whether it's the Texas or Virginia school), and the article may have started out as a history of past results, this article is now heading more towards being a 'news' page - especially where it mentions specific people's names. CultureDrone (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sending to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to Peter Frank on Wiki, there is a list of similar names and only one actual Peter Frank who is listed as "Peter Frank (art critic)." This makes for awkward text to have to include (art critic) after his name so that it will create a link directly to more information on him, in articles that mention Peter Frank. Is there a way that this page could be set up as a page for Peter Frank, with forwarding links at the top of this page for any other similar names? I know that I have seen this done on other listings.

Peter Frank is an important person in the art world, especially on the west coast where he has been a director at several museums and has had reviews and his commentaries published in many major newspapers, national and international art magazines and other publications. The Wiki article on him is very small especially considering his accomplishments, but others who know his details will not be able to contribute if they cannot find him or if it is difficult to add him to another article. For example: why would a museum where he is the director want him listed as "Peter Frank (art critic)" in the text about the museum when (art critic) while it does accurately describe one of his many roles in the art world, is a lessor position than "Museum Director" and might even imply a conflict of interest. It would be like listing a President of a University as an instructor!

Please take a look and consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiteArtist (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The parenthesis can be hidden from the text by using the pipe character "|". Entering either of the the following links: [[Peter Frank (art critic)|]] or [[Peter Frank (art critic)|Peter Frank]] will return this: Peter Frank. In situations where disambiguation becomes necessary, these parenthetical notes are needed, see WP:DAB. However, they can easily be hidden using the "pipe link" as I show above, which makes for more readible text. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good beginning resource for special characters on Wikipedia. The pipe character might be the most commonly used one. Very useful to get to know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but it seemed the best suited to my query.

In the articles Dakota Fanning and Elle Fanning, for some time the articles have been titled with their common names, but the first paragraph of each has begun with their entire names (i.e. Mary Elle Fanning and Hannah Dakota Fanning) I am sure I have read somewhere that this is the accepted wy of using names in an article where the person is best known by an alternative form of name. Have I imagined this, or is there an actual formatting convention?

Also, on more than one occasion, User:Defender Of Justice has changed this so it reads "Elle Fanning, first name Mary" or similar. As this did not read well as a sentence I reverted it in each case, then supported my decision on the talk page of each actress, citing examples of George Eliot and Gordon Brown articles beginning with full, if not best known names. I also added this information on User:Defender Of Justice's talk page. He then altered it again, not adding an edit summary at any point or replying to any of the talk page threads. I placed a polite request on his talk page to reply to any or all of the talk page threads if he disagreed with me; he then proceeded to delete my entries from his page without replying.

I do not want to start an edit war, so could someone advise me as to whether I'm in the right, and how I could respond better?

Thank you Jomunro (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. However, I am having a heck of a time finding the part of the MoS that covers this. Anyone? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything specific in the MoS at a quick glance, but this is a common-sense usage - the version that Defender Of Justice changed to is unwieldy, to say the least. It makes far more sense to list the full name first, then point out (as in Dakota Fanning the regular usage. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. from WP:MOSBIO. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I signed up just this morning in order to place a link on the city of Ashtabula, Ohio page. I live in the city so I happened to look it up and found that at the bottom of the page in external links were two listings for message forums that are locally run. I also run a local message forum so I signed up and added my entry. this was so that a real user was attached to the entry as opposed to an anonymous entry from an IP only.

One of your people, a volunteer apparently, has removed my entry twice. Here is the history:

(cur) (last) 18:45, 13 November 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) (16,153 bytes) (just because you live in the city doesn't mean that your webforum should be included in the article about the city.) (undo) (cur) (last) 16:29, 13 November 2008 Booch 21 (Talk | contribs) (16,223 bytes) (I own this site and live in Ashtabula. Do not delete it again!) (undo) (cur) (last) 15:26, 13 November 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) m (16,153 bytes) (Reverted edits by Booch 21 (talk) to last version by 76.188.239.157) (undo) (cur) (last) 14:18, 13 November 2008 Booch 21 (Talk | contribs) (16,223 bytes) (Added external link to Happy Hacker BBS II) (undo)

I have asked for an explanation for removal of my entry and still keep the other two entries there. This is extremely unfair and is a double standard in my opinion. If you allow even one forum to be listed, then any should be listed. If not, remove them all. I'm asking for a consistant and proper solution to this.

Thank you. Booch 21 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those discussion forum links should be included. I have removed them per Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #10. Mfield (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the end of the world but my userboxes on my userpage are in a very random order. Can anyone tell me why and fix it?--Megaman en m (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't appear in a random order to me, they are from left to right in the order you have them added in the code. Is it because they are getting pushed around by the language box on right? How are you expecting them to appear, in one column? Mfield (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a few spaces between the header and the boxes, but it's still in the same order, so it isn't pushed back by the babel box.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But the order is correct if you go left to right in rows. If you squish the window up horizontally so they appear in a column then they are in the right order, no? Mfield (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is how my userboxes appear:

+ + +

   +

+ +

I would rather want them to appear like this:

+ + +
+ + +--Megaman en m (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Try this (within the nowiki tags)

==Userboxes==

<table style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 250px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">

<tr >

<td >{{User Wikipedian For|year=2008|month=6|day=10}}</td>

<td >{{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}}</td >

<td >{{user tattletale}}</td >

</tr >

<tr >

<td >{{User:UBX/Twinkle3}}</td>

<td >{{User:NASCAR Fan24/Userboxes/Friendly2}}</td >

<td >{{User:JohnRussell/wikipedianumedits|1,700}}</td >

</tr >

</table >

It's a bit clunky, but it ought to work. Looks OK in Firefox, anyway.

--AndrewHowse (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanks.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous entry moved here for grouping. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The discussion page for this article has reached consensus but vigilante editors are ignoring the discussion page and removing content, in one case accusing ME of vandalism. I don't know what to do. 68.46.139.114 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be seen to call someone racist, no matter how obvious that racism appears to be. The way around this is to find sources that describe him as racist and then the article can say that he is described as racist by the sources. We can report that that is others description, we cannot come to that conclusion ourselves, that is not what an encyclopedia is for. It strikes me that this guy might well be happy to self-describe himself as racist. If that is the case go look for where he has written that and then you can use himself as the source. SpinningSpark 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone research and clarify what Mr. Kambon's academic credentials are? And whether he has written anything which has been published and, if so, where. I think most people get his sense of anger, outrage, frustration, etc. Obviously in the context of fighting racism we are all part of the problem or the solution. Mr. Kambon has chosen to be on the side of the problem, not the solution. I think many social problems have been around for a very long time and that shouldn't leave us feeling that we can blithely ignore racism, sexual exploitation of women or children, poverty, unequal justice, etc.; however, it is the positive gains in our progressive society that receive so little media attention. Perhaps just mentioning the positives alarms some people who fear that it will create apathy or passivity. Racist organizations like the KKK or spokesmen for the same organization receive media attention and there are articles in Wikipedia concerning them. Mr. Kambon might not be speaking for any particular organization, he might not be speaking for African-Americans generally. He is a voice apparently specifically for African-Americans with a racist point of view, but not all because they wouldn't necessarily all agree with Mr. Kambon's final solution, that is the extermination of white people. In any case, I think Wikipedia should treat Mr. Kambon the same way a member of, say, the KKK would be treated or perhaps a white supremacist who is unaffiliated with the KKK and covered in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps there should also be links with other individuals who have supported "final solutions" like, say, Hitler.

I think it's unnecessary for me to state my own emotional and moral abhorrence for racist agendas, racist rhetoric, and hate-mongering in general. As a society, we have many individuals we can admire for any number of reasons: President-elect Obama, Senator Diane Feinstein, Camille Paglia, Al Gore, and so on. But we don't understand the world we live in by only studying the nice guys.

Thank you. And thank you for the wonderful work you do. It's much appreciated.

Yours,

C. di Bellacosa

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.144.24 (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that Kamau Kambon has been nominated for deletion, discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination).  – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering making my first WP:AFD, but I don't want to just do it if it's inappropriate. The article is List of dodgeball variations. It seems pretty hopeless to ever establish notability or get it properly referenced. Would it be correct to go ahead and AFD it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, that was me. -- Intractable (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty appropriate to me. Without references for all the facts, this should just be a list of variations and that could be included in the dodgeball article itself. There's a lot of unverified claims about rules and games being created by non notable individuals. It's been tagged as needeing references for a long time with non forthcoming. I'd support a deletion. I say get one other vote here saying its worthy of AfD then go for it. Mfield (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The prod was deleted with no explanation so I'd say go ahead and force the issue. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Start an AFD... It will probably result in a consensus to merge back to the parent article on dodgeball, but starting the AFD is a good way to generate some discussion and establish consensus to do so... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have drafted an article on Leonard J. Marcus that you can find at User:Writerejm. As I have drawn from biographies written and/or approved by Dr. Marcus, I want to be sure that the tone meets the neutrality standars of WP. Thanks. WriterejmWriterejm (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it reads a little like a resumé/curriculum vitae, and has a sprinkling of weasel words that should be avoided. Also take a look at WP:MOSBIO for some formatting and layout guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I feel the Wiki on Hyperreality is grossly in error in many places. I'm generally considered an expert on this subject being both a psychologist and having published articles on the subject. I'm also delivering the opening keynote speech at Design Cinema next week in Istanbul on reality, hyperreality and virtual reality, in which I've been asked to define each as they relate to immersive digital entertainment.

Rather than deleting the items I strongly disagree with, I left them, but posted an excerpt from my upcoming talk that more clearly defines Hyperreality. I also pointed out why some examples giving in the page are incorrect.

Someone deleted that discussion and I can't find out who did nor can I find out why. I'll give you an example of the silly and wrong examples posted on that page: Someone claims that a new flavor of soft drink that a person has never tasted before would be hyperreal experience. This is incorrect. The would be a real experience. Hyperreallity refers specifically to technologically enhanced reality that maintains an isomorphic relationship with the real world. For example, manipulating a molecule with a tunneling electron microscope would be a genuine hyperreal experience because the person is using hyper-extended sense to examine and manipulate the real world.

Can you help me find out what happened to my article and why it was pulled? I'd appreciate any help you can give.

e-mail address removed - the volunteers here cannot respond by e-mail

-P- Thenar Peter Plantec —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenar (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The way to find out what has happened in an article is to click on the history tab. All past versions of an article are kept on Wikipedia and a deleted contribution can just as easily be restored if it is agreed it should be kept after discussion. The history tells me that user:Mgiganteus1 deleted your contribution to hyperreality giving as reason WP:OR. This means original research which is not permitted in encyclopedia articles. Original research (in the context of this article) is an analysis which has not been published in reliable sources. If your ideas have been published, then they can be added to the article with a suitable reference. If the addition is controversial in any way, then there could also be issues of neutrality with posting your own work and it might be better to post on the article talk page and leave it to other editors to add to the article itself. In my opinion however, deleting some of those more dubious examples would not be controversial at all, especially as none of them are referenced (except for the very last one which is attributed to Lisewski). Another difficulty with your contribution is the first person style. Wikipedia likes a dry third party tone - see the manual of style at wp:mos#First-person pronouns. I hope that has helped to clarify the situation. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Spinning Spark...you've clarified it. I'll put in the published references and delete the incorrect references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenar (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I spent three hours of my free time adding interview links to different musicians' pages so that fans of those musicians could read more about them on my site (www.markprindle.com) and this jerk Ckatz deleted them - for no reason! Are you telling me that people reading about these artists on Wikipedia would NOT benefit from external links to reviews with them? What is Ckatz's problem!?

Best, Mark Prindle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.3.134 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has been advised regarding this on his IP talk page; I'd add here (since he has now identified himself as being the site owner) that his edits also fall under the conflict of interest guideline. The links were removed in cases where they were simply spammed to the external links section, based on a review of the site, a look at the sheer number of links added, and also on an assessment of the notability of the site from a past FA review. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you would be advised to read up on WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:LINKS before adding any further links to a site that you run to Wikipedia I am afraid. Mfield (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Flashbaxx and supporting anonymous IPs have been adding links for the above site. Where anonymous users have reverted/changed his link he was put a blocking notice on the discussion page. The primary article we are having difficulties over is A&R where he wishes to keep reposting the link which is not really related to the article, but a site for selling services to people who wish to contact A&R people. He has a second link on the article, which may be acceptable, as it is "interviews with A&R people." According to Domaintools he has 31 entries across WP. He has had a number of editors posting to his talk page including me regarding spamming, but he just blanks the page. On some pages he makes unverified claims for his company. Quite frankly my opinion is he is using Wikipedia as an advertising tool to the detriment of Wikipedia. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31 hours for edit warring. If he continues to push for this edit, please re-report them to WP:ANI, make note of the warnings and prior blocks, and of this discussion, and an administrator will act again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I ran across this user talkpage while doing R/C patrol yesterday, it triggered Lupin's badword list (that posting has since been removed, the one there now is innocuous, but the page history makes it clear). I first thought it was vandalism, then realized that the postings were all made by the talk page owner. My next thought was that they were personal attacks, including death threats, but some seem to be snippets of dialog from a film article the user has recently edited. Who knows, maybe the user needed a scratchpad for notes while watching the film? So I left it alone, but this does raise some questions in my mind. What are the boundaries for posting similar items on one's own talk page? Does it matter whether the postings are quickly removed, as they were here? And does this circumstance require any editorial response? I've reviewed WP:TALK, WP:TALKPAGE, WP:ATTACK and WP:HARASS and can't get clarity. I will be happy to mind my own business if that's the way to go. Thanks in advance, Chuckiesdad (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely very weird. I note that each edit overwrites the previous one so it continually changes. Buried in there is a level three warning for vandalism (on own page)[2]. This has been entirely ignored. There is little useful editing going on. It might not be exactly vandalism but it is definitely disruptive and many of the posts are abusive. Give a level 4 warning, which will probably also be ignored then take it to WP:AIV. SpinningSpark 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I concur with weirdness. User is actively editing articles now so I'm posting L4 and will monitor the talk page. Best regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look at the following articles. They were nominated for deletion and the debates were closed on 2008-02-18 with a consensus to merge the contents into the main article Miss Tourism Queen International. The mergers were completed already, but someone has reverted all the edits recently. Miss Tourism Queen International 2004 Miss Tourism Queen International 2005 Miss Tourism Queen International 2006 --Ped Admi (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They were created in June 2007, hardly recently... – ukexpat (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Following the AfD, these articles were turned in to redirects. They were forked out again within the last week, which is the point Ped Admi is raising. A deletion debate does not have the force of statute law. It is quite possible, in fact encouraged, that a deleted article can be recreated PROVIDED that the issues that caused its deletion (NPOV, RS etc) have now been addressed. A user that recreates the same article over and over only to have it deleted again is disruptive and will be subject to admin action. However, a good faith attempt at a new version of a deleted article should be treated on its own merits. So the question for you is, do you have a problem with these articles as they now stand? If you do then your first action should be to discuss with USer:Angelo De La Paz who may very possibly not be aware of the previous deletion debate. If you cannot agree on the way forward then your option is to nominate it for deletion again. You could try a speedy deletion template ({{db-g4}} recreation of deleted material) but if there is no agreement amongst editors then the speedy could be challenged and you will have to go to AfD anyway. Part of the problem is that the articles were not actually deleted but were redirected which gives the impression that an article is expected there one day. If that is not the case then the AfD should be for "delete", not "merge". SpinningSpark 12:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia. I made some edits to the Causes section of the French Revolution. They took out some unreferenced, inaccurate information and replaced them with accurate information referencing seminal sources on the French revolution. Someone reverted my changes. What do I do.

71.56.22.144 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)David

Hi, thanks for posting here. When User:Shoessss reverted your edits s/he used the edit comment "Please take to talk page". You can see those comments if you click on the history tab; the talk page is under the "Discussion" tab, and is linked as Talk:French Revolution. Please come back here if you have other questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

btw please consider registering an account; it makes it easier for you to track your contributions, and for other editors to communicate with you. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note on the user's page explaining the reason for the reverts and left a welcoming message. Need any help, just drop me a line. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Can an experienced editor look at this article page and corresponding discussion? [3] [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Buni%C4%87/Bona and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Buni%C4%87/Bona) One group of editors are trying to get an improved and correct version on the article with facts and sources included going on.

Another group is claiming consensus version as a justification for their edits with no relevant sources, included either in the article or discussion page. All efforts to obtain the discussion on this consensus version either by searching or asking the others editors to include a link to it have failed. This consensus could not be found, editors have repeatedly asked the other editors who seem to have inside knowledge of the claimed consensus to post a link in the discussion, but they never did. All efforts to get a new constructive discussion on the consensus going has been turned into a farce with a line of attacks,insults,.....and statements that sound like some kind of political propaganda. The other editors continue using this "consensus version" as a justification for reverting edits. I would also like to know what an editor can do when other editors do not adhere to certain Wikipedia policies and are not willing to be cooperative but go on with insults and making up their own Wikipedia policy along the line of Orwells some animals are more equal than others? I thought Wikipedia was a democratic place. Thanks and Regards,Caboga (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If talk page discussions have come to naught, the next step is dispute resolution. – ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I already looked at the dispute resolution page and there after talk discussions are not helping, then a request for editor assistance is advised. Therefore by writing this request I already followed steps in the dispute resolution process. What are you specifically advising next? RegardsCaboga (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There are escalating levels of dispute resolution. See Section 5 of WP:DR. – ukexpat (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

One or more persons have changed the disambiguation to make special mention of the Britney Spears album named Circus. I and one other person have reverted the disambiguation to the generic form. I have also created a Talk page item asking those who wish special mention of the Britney Spears album to explain why it deserves special mention. My most recent reversion to default disambiguation was itself reverted without comment. I'm reluctant to just revert it again and get involved in a reversion war. Suggestions for calm resolution would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondolo (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment on the talk page, I agree and have reverted. There's no reason for a special mention for Britney given the other many disambiguations. I have warned the IP to use edit summaries too and they have been referred to talk. Further undiscussed reversions without explanation should be treated as vandalism and count to 3RR. Mfield (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I Want to Hold Your Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor by the code name Pathhdog is continually and arbitrarily deleting important information regarding the Beatles recording I Want to Hold Your Hand. My information which I have written on for over 35 years, is not only the product of 40 years as a musician and careful audio analysis of the track including a 4 track isolated version lent to me by a contact in England for research, I have also validated my theory about the inclusion of a Hammond Organ superimposed on Lennon's guitar from unimpeachible sources in England who do not want me to mention their names. Additionally, my text which regardless of whether its classified as an opinion, theory or fact, at minimum has just as much, (and in my opinion, far more) credibility as any source listed on the page that Pattdog seems to consider indisputable fact when in actuality, outside of an eyewitness account or statements made by either George Martin, any of the Beatles or the associated engineers, Geoff Emerick and Norman Smith (who died this year) is absolutely no more accurate or fact based than any other claim - in fact, the preponderance of source material listed on the I Want to Hold Your Hand article source section, is purely speculative guesswork and subjective opinion. The various websites or books listed, are simply an authors opinion or observations, nothing more. Outside of Mark Lewisohn's "Beatles Recording Sessions", Geoff Emericks "Here There and Everywhere", one of George Martin's books and two other books on the subject, the others have absolutely no proof regarding what occurred during specific Beatles Sessions, so therefore, as a cited source, according to the most strict criteria of what constitutes a factual source, they do not merit any more credibility than my assertions that are constantly deleted.

That said, my attempt to insert what I believe to be based on my research, is just as valid and as any so called observation of a Beatles recording made by the other authors. Therefor I vigorously protest and take offense to the self appointed guardian of the Beatles article on I Want to Hold Your Hand, Patttdog. This is hypocritical at minimum when a specific editor claims to uphold the highest standards of accuracy and sourcing then allow an unlimited selection of bogus, poorly written, source material to be used as the irrefutable, Gospel of Beatles recording information.

IN closing, I am asking Wikipedia to allow my special, edit on I Want to Hold Your Hand regarding the instrumentation, which in its current state, is erroneous and is thus misinforming the public on the details of the Beatles, most historically important recording. I have tried at least a 8 or 9 times to include my information only to find that Patttdog keeps deleting it for reasons that are his own. Unless he was there in Abbey Road Studios on October 17, 1963, he has no right to pass judgment on what is accurate and what is credible concerning that recording. Thank you --daystrum-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdaystrum (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for your edits? If not they are original research and have been correctly reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. We appreciate your desire to contribute to the encyclopaedia.

I think what has happened is that you've run into an application of the verifiability policy. Just like any other encyclopaedia, statements made here need to be verifiable, from reliable sources. Contributors' own research needs to be published elsewhere before it can be used as a source here. If I read your description correctly, it would be considered original research (unless it's been published somewhere already) and so could be challenged. I'll leave some links to other material on your talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Your research seems to be quite interesting, but it's original research and would have to be covered in other sources before we could accept it here at Wikipedia. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a redirect which was (apparently) under discussion. However, I can't find any indication of what the outcome of the discussion actually was - the log of that day has (again, apparently) been deleted... I tried using Twinkle to resubmit afresh to RfD, but it complaiend there was no target... but the target article does exist... Any ideas ? CultureDrone (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a special subpage, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 12/Mac list of redirects created by a particular user. The page you mention is listed there. User:Mac appears to have created many rds, and appears to be blocked at present. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I can't see any rationale for the redirect anyway, so I'll request deletion. CultureDrone (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Before I start having possible 3RR problems with this article, can someone give me their opinion. The author had service times included within the article - I removed these as being non-encyclopedic, the author put them back, I've reverted them again - is there an opinion on whether church service times are suitable for inclusion in the article or not ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that service times are unencyclopedic and verging towards promotional, why else would they be there but to attract people to attend? Similar in my view to adding contact details to company articles etc. I will revert. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also deleted the phone # from the ibox and, per discussion at Template talk:Infobox church, deleted the phone # field from the ibox template. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor named Srkhan2 has been moving pages around and I can't figure out how to move them back. When I try to move the page to the original name it says it already exists. (their contribs) Copana2002 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked and the moves appear to have all been undone. SpinningSpark 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An individual user gives a wrong and false comments about a company, and post his comments against the company, to avoid this what should we do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbmbala (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please tell us which article you are referring to so that we can review.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The article about Pankaj_Mishra is libelous and Wikipedia:Coatrack. They are several WP:BLP violations. The famed indian auther is branded ant-hindu in the controversy section. The user Zuppeandsalad is the author of those edits and is engaging in edit war. I have brought this to the attention of BLP notice board and have not heard anything. Please advise

Below is the section from the controversy section of the article

Mishra's polemics regarding Hinduism as a religion and the modern history of nationalist movements among Hindu people in India such as the BJP have generated some disquiet among some Hindu circles within India. His book Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond was reviewed by The Economist (1 July – 7 July 2006 issue) and provides an example of the analysis and commentary that have made Mishra controversial in India. His remarks against Hindus have earned him accusations of being an anti-Hindu, and of "pandering to white pro-Muslim audiences in the West". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancrusader (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not crosspost the same issue on multiple boards. Give the administrators there time to reply, but in the meantime you could add the fuller post you have made here which could give them a better understanding. Meanwhile I have deleted the unreferenced passage in accordance with WP:BLP policy. SpinningSpark 22:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing the Sparta article for some time. LuxNevada has repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of certain material. Even after I have included the operative part of his/her material into the article, doing my best to keep the article within Wikipedia guidelines, LuxNevada has refused to accept my edits and has restored the material in exactly the same form over and over again. I no longer feel that he/she is making edits in good faith, or is willing to accept that his/her edits are liable to be removed if they are unnecessary, and request third-party arbitration. An edit war has already been only narrowly avoided. Lexo (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like the perfect sort of dispute for the Third Opinions notice board. Perhaps if you posted there, you could get someone to mediate the dispute! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will seek another opinion there. The dispute continues and is now heading in the direction of a full-blown edit war. Lexo (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to give my side of the story. User Lexo has been repeatedly removing the section on Eugenics from the article Sparta. This section had been written into the article by other editors (not me) prior to Lexo's edits. I have pointed out to Lexo that this is important information about Sparta, as evidenced by much mention of Sparta in the article on Eugenics. I have received no convincing reply from Lexo as to why this section should not be included. Also Lexo insists on removing information about the treatment of Helots (the majority inhabitants of the area ruled by Sparta) from the introduction. Opinions welcome! Thanks, LuxNevada (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the paragraph in question, and to my opinion it does not fit within the scope of the article. The first couple of sentences are part of the history of Sparta. Everything else, i.e. what Hitler or other west Europeans of the 20th century felt about the ancient Sparta does not serve anything in the article. Also, I never heard the term Eugenics before, but comparing the info in the related article, I thing it is not the appropriate title for the section. I removed the information I think is irrelevant, but I thing the entire section needs rewriting (including the title).MaNiAδIs^{τάλκ-Autographs} 05:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UN-HABITAT has just uploaded its glossary but this glossary is not searchable and would like to have it searchable. It is also quite long how do I better the presentation so one does not have to scroll down too much.

Thank you.

Stella —Preceding unsigned comment added by UN-HABITAT Library (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I'm not sure if the glossary should even be included; it doesn't seem to be encyclopaedic. Could you explain why you think it should be included, please? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the glossary from United Nations Human Settlements Programme as it was clearly inappropriate there. – ukexpat (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has been spamblocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking for some feed back as what to do if an editor seems to be vetoing a group consensus over and over again. I've never gone through the process of whistle blowing when I feel like Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are being broken so I'm a little unsure what to do (or if I'm even right!).

At the Major League Soccer article, there is a table listing teams, cities, stadiums, etc. like most typical sports league articles do. Not long ago it was a very sparse, rough looking list with little info. I expanded and reformatted but got reverted by a user named Grant.Alpaugh because he considered my edits "irrelevant" without an attempt to compromise. I took my plea to the MLS Talk Page and several other editors there supported my improvements. Others and I have made a little leeway trying to help him understand he is acting very pushy but he still insists on having his "look" and things his way. I'd encourage editors that enjoy digging into an easy dispute and sorting out the "politics" of Wikipedia to read the talk page section on this issue I'm discussing. Grant frequently gets in edit wars with others (see page history, not just recent history), seems to take ownership and veto others' edits, and rarely assumes good faith (IMO). If one reads the many other sections in the talk page, you'll find other editors have brought up his habits as well.

If I'm the one out of bounds, I don't mind being told so. Thanks for any help --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think you should concentrate on the content, rather than the other editor. I can see that Grant is a frequent contributor to the talk page but I am not going to start trawling through every issue there as you suggest and try and decide who is right and who is wrong. If you really think that you are dealing with a long term abusive editor you should be taking it to WP:ANI not here. But I do not think you really believe that and neither do I.

A quick scan through the history shows that Grant reverted your new table (with an explanation) and then was reverted by you without explanation. This led to another round of reverts after which Grant went to the talk page, as he should. Who knows, if you had left an appropriate edit summary the first time it may have gone to the talk page sooner. As far as I can see the information content of the table is now per consensus and Grant has shown every sign that he accepts this, or at least has not attempted to revert it.

The dispute is now revolving around whether the table should be 80% or 100% and the size of the font. This is getting fairly lame imo and may be a sign that neither side wants to be seen to be defeated. I urge you all to think of the benefit to the encyclopedia instead. I also advise you treat this as a new issue and not a continuation of the previous dispute. Draw a line under it and start discussing this afresh. Grant raised the formatting issue on 16th Nov and you replied then getting the support of one other editor. There has been no discussion of this issue since. It does not seem to me that there is the same consensus over formatting as there was over table content (perhaps other editors just do not care so much). Rather than try and resolve it here, other editors on the page should be encouraged to take part in the discussion as they are the ones who really care about the article. Put a note on the talk page calling for more comments or a straw poll. Oh yes, and you might want to note that while the Manual of Style does not say a great deal on tables, it does state a preference for wikitable class here. SpinningSpark 09:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dawud Salahuddin redirects to David Belfield, but Belfield formally changed his name to Dawud Salahuddin. Shouldn't the redirect be the other way around? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call the guy by his "current" name? I'd rather not change it myself, as I don't know the hard rules on this. Proxy User (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From a look (admittedly a cursory look) at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), it seems the policy is to use the most well known name as the article title. I don't know which is more well known for Belfield/Salahuddin; the way to go might be to examine the sources cited in the article. The style guidelines indicate that generally the "best known" name should predominate and that there's no expectation that we use the "right name." Article examples: Consider Bill Clinton as an article which uses the "newer" name, and Cat Stevens which uses neither the singer's original name, nor his current name, but the one by which he is most famous. -- Why Not A Duck 23:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He's primarily a figure "in the news." The "news Media" uses Dawud Salahuddin, I have almost never seen David Belfield, except as "former". Proxy User (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_37#Revert_war_developing_on_Morton_Feldman the ban on the anonymous user expired and they are now once again repeatedly making the same edit from the same IP address — can they be banned again? Thank you. SethTisue (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The correct term is blocked. A ban is a formal sanction which is only imposed by the community or arbcom after a long and thoutful discussion. And, I just gave this IP a 3-month block. In the future, if this behavior returns a third time, it may be more helpful to report this to the incidents notice board. Toodles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, the correction, and the advice. SethTisue (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if an admin with COI sniffing skills could talk a look at this users contribs Special:Contributions/Randolph_Polasek. I'm stepping away because my immediate reaction is to revert every change the user has made given that the user's website for his book screams "JFK nut". Thanks for the help. —Noah 02:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all recent edits have been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) has been making unneccessary reversions to genuine edits - see his talk page for a list of complaints from editors in the past 10-15 minutes - and yet won't accept that his reversions have been hasty. Please can an admin have a polite word, as he seems unwilling to talk to me. GiantSnowman 22:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the user has already been blocked indefinitely per discussion at WP:ANI#User:Fatal!ty speedy deleting OSU season pages (which is probably the more appropriate forum). --Mosmof (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Jones, unable to explain to his students why the German citizens allowed the Nazi Party to exterminate millions of Jews and other so-called "undesirables","

I can't believe something clearly wrong like this is part of a serious article in an online-encyclopedia. Does the writer honestly believe that all the German people knew about what was going on in the concentration camps? 87.246.64.2 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially as that is not the way it is worded in the referenced essay. I have changed it to paraphrase the essay more closely. Mfield (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I would be really grateful for some assistance to resolve the two disputes currently displayed on the Telereal page: Telereal

Any advice / support would be hugely appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellemarketing (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. I think the crux of the issue is that there's no indication that the subject is notable. In other words, why does Telereal need to be covered here? Are there any substantial pieces in independent publications? The accusation of COI, or conflict of interest, probably arose since the page was created by User:Telereal Marketing; such user names usually indicate PR spam rather than independent interest. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that this article has not been nominated for speedy deletion either as spam or as not indicating importance or significance - my finger is hovering over the Twinkle CSD button.... – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Article has now been speedily deleted per A7 of the speedy deletion criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have written the authorized (by his immediate family and music industry) obituary for songwriter Alan Gordon, who died just this week. The article should take the place of the information that is on his page, as it contains that history, but correct and with more details. How do I enter this write-up on his page? Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeto (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I took a look at your edits to the page, and you seem to have pasted a press release into the article, three times over. The editor who reverted your changes was concerned, amongst other things, that there might be a violation of copyright. In any event, any changes you make must be verifiable from reliable sources, as well as encyclopaedic in nature and written in a neutral tone. I'll add some more links to your talk page with some more information on our primary policies and criteria. If you have more questions then please feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And also note that you may have a conflict of interest if you are a friend of the family. – ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Editor, I got a post to provide fair use rationale on this image uploaded and am lost. I took the photo myself; the statue is in the square in Doylestown, Ohio and I hoped to add it there. If you approve it I, the author, give all rights to copy, use, whatever. Thank you for indulging a newbie. Checkpoint one four (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TimTay has fixed the licensing info on the image page, see Image:Doughboy summer.jpg. – ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried comment but got an editing conflict. In future you might want to upload images directly to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used on other projects. --TimTay (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion, please - I don't usually follow the Lives Of The Stars, but I happen to have David Spade on my watchlist because I followed a vandal there last week. Yesterday I removed this edit from the article; today it reappeared slightly modified as this. Similar material was added here to Sheridan's article. Cited or not, is such material acceptable for Wikipedia celebrity articles? It just seems trashy. --CliffC (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't what would be termed a reliable source, and even then there are no hard facts only rumors and gossip. I am reverting both them per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. I have also posted to the editor's talk explaining all of that in more words. Mfield (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me to make 2008-09 Nordic Combined World Cup more like an normal wikipedia article about a Nordic Combined season? I cant do that myself. Zoggoemila80calgary (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How's that for a start? The races need tabling really, I'll have a look at that, and add some categories. Mfield (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You should refer to 2007-08_Nordic_Combined_World_Cup for how to table it up. Mfield (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a little copy-editing and grammar fixes, hope that helps! Skinny87 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I then had a look at the other language versions after someone added the links in. The German one had a nice table setup, so I ripped it off and translated it. Only thing I am not clear on is what HS should be changed to as a discipline. I would assume it is short for Hochsprung which is literally High Jump, but that's no doubt not the English term as that is a different sport completely. Someone with more relevant knowledge should swap those instances out for something more obvious to English speakers. Some of the flag templates didn't work as they are obviously designed to work differently on German WP, so I had to fettle them around to add the town and winner names separately. It should be a good start though for future filling in. Hope that helps you. Mfield (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WebCite and Zotero have BOTH been useless to me! I'm trying to cite some sources before they become linkrot, but for some reason the tools I'm using aren't working. Zotero won't even appear when I right-click a website! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to create new cites or reformat old ones? What articles and sources are you trying to cite? Did you try Makeref if they are new cites and Reflinks or Citation bot if you are converting existing ones? Mfield (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to re-format old ones on the Chinese Democracy page in the Dr. Pepper lawsuit section.--Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned out some pointless brackets on some other partially completed refs lower down that were making the bots skip (unrelated to your problem though) and then ran Reflinks on the article including a bot cite overwrite. It performed some overwrites on the Dr Pepper section. Did that fix it? Mfield (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the two clipped refs you were referring to, I stripped them back to bare URLs and ran reflinks again. I think all is good now? Mfield (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and sorry it took me so long to reply on this, connection's kinda slow. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian2 keeps vandalising the FIV article!

90.201.151.14 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can only assume from your vague request you are referring to Feline immunodeficiency virus. Seems like the only recent edit Wikipedian2 made was reverting blantant vandalism by an IP. Trying to accuse him of vandalism isn't going to achieve anything. Suggest other sources of amusement. Mfield (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to assume good faith in your message but my troll detector is beeping... – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

I have some concerns regarding this article but am not really sure where to start Tudor Rickards there are so many TAGS that could be used i'm not sure what one would be the best?

While Tudor Rickards could possibly be notable enough for inclusion, his article reads like an advert for his business and methods and is not properly referenced. I think there is a lot of original research in there. I would appreciate it if an admin could take a look at it if you get chance. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, {{coi}} for certain. The article has been extensively edited by the subject and people who have met him. It seems pretty biased and unobjective too. Has it been nominated for deletion before? Mfield (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't think it has been nominated for deletion before. Is that an option? Funnily the main article is so long that my browser wont let me edit and put a tag on it. I have just tried. I'm using Firefox. Thanks for having a look. Ponty Pirate (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I put COI, OR tags on it & nominated the article for deletion. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have tagged it for G11 speedy deletion - it reads like a resume/curriculum vitae - clearly inappropriate in its current form. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD was declined, so it went to AfD, which closed as keep. The article still needs work however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am worried and concerned about a possible edit war beginning on the article entitled "Cult of Personality" LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Personality

Specifically, I am speaking with Editor R. Fiend in his (her?) continually removing evidence of the alleged CoP forming around President-Elect Obama. There is a link for Hugo Chavez in there and the source for that one is also an opinion. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence to support a CoP around both individuals.

I am speaking with R. Fiend on his talk page, and hope to hear back from her (him?) soon. However, I am a newby here and the last thing I want is to be booted (or warned!) before I get my feet wet.

However, I also do not want this to degenerate into an edit war. I believe (my opinion) that given the fact that it appears as though R. Fiend seems to be doing most of the CoP Obama editing, I am concerned about her (his?) motives.

That is not a statement to be made lightly, nonetheless, I have concerns. Wikipedia should be agnostic whereas opinions and politics lie. I believe we as a resource and we as Wikipedians should be fair, even-minded, even-handed, and completely neutral.

However, I did wish to make you aware of the situation.

Happy trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to be wary of anyone who claims that there is "evidence" of "cult of personality" forming around any politician. Unless, like Kim Il Jong, a politician is actively and blatantly cultivating the CoP, it's generally going to be a matter of opinion. And right now, most of the talk of CoP around Obama seems to come from self-published bloggers and fringe-y pundits like Michael Savage. If you're going to cite Krugman, first, attribute him instead of the vague "there is evidence of alleged..." sentence, and second, keep in mind that Krugman was much more outspoken about his claim regarding the cult of personality in the Bush admin ([5] and [6]). Mosmof (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Mosmof! Thank you for taking the time to write back, I appreciate it. I'm still a newby and am not sure in which way to write what you have suggested so that it could be presented in a factual, non-opinionated way. Although, to be blunt, somebody somewhere is going to get offended no matter what you do. Would something such as this be acceptable?

"According to columnist Paul Krugman, the Obama Campaign was '...seems dangerously close to becoming a Cult of Personality.' "

Happy Trails!! Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about anyone being offended as much as keeping everything NPOV and verifiable. Krugman saying Obama supporters "seem dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality" (emphasis mine) is not the same thing as "evidence of alleged cult of personality developing", especially when in the next sentence, he gives an example of what he believes an actual cult of personality looks like. You have to be especially careful with a concept like CoP, since it carries a pejorative connotation, and is near impossible to verify. And you should also be careful to draw a clear line between a CoP-like fervor among supporters around, and actively crafting a CoP. Whatever you think of Obama and his supporters, drawing a parallel between Stalin/Mao/Kim Jong Il and Obamania is, I think, intellectually dishonest (and keep in mind that pundits, some more subtly than others, are drawing Hitler parallels without actually saying so). For that reason, I don't believe Obama belongs in the article. He simply doesn't fit the definition provided in the article introduction, and that CoP "arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise" Mosmof (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Mosmof! Again, I do want to thank you for writing back to me, I do appreciate it. Please don't take what I am about to say as an argument, but I'm not sure that I agree with you. Here's why:

Recently, we've seen several news organizations openly admit to their pro-Obama bias. MSNBC comes quickly to mind, as does The Washington Post, both of whom stated that their coverage was biased. Two days ago (Wednesday 19-NOV) I was watching CNN during "The Situation Room" and one of the two anchors was openly laughing that nobody was shaking the hand of President Bush during some function or other. He stated that he couldn't see the President. The other anchor thought that was a bit excessive, as did I.

I'll be honest in that I don't like President Bush. Nevertheless, he is my President as will Barack Obama be when he takes the Oath.

Given these examples (simply Google them, or ask me and I'll provide a link later) isn't it possible that Mr Obama could be using said outlets for openly flattering comments and commentary?

We just saw on MSN how when Gov. Palin "pardoned" the turkey that the headline was that turkeys were dying behind her. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, that's not exactly unbiased. True it was, but if Mr Obama or Mr Biden had been there, I'd be willing to bet my entire year's salary that that line would not have been there. (Mr Lieberman, perhaps. His own party seems disgusted that he adhears to his conscience, but that's another matter.)

My only point is this: with several examples of major media organizations stating openly their pro-Obama bias, I believe it is possible that Mr Obama might be willing to manipulate them to produce favourable articles. Note that this is also my opinion, and while there is anecdotal evidence to support it, there is no proof. Also, I am not stating that he would, only that he could.

But again, I want to thank you for taking the time to write back. Considering some of open hostility I've gotten on several newsgroups, you come across as very mature and well spoken. Frankly, I don't believe there is a better way to have an honest discussion.

Happy Trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could I please have assistance with dispute resolution on LNER Peppercorn Class A1. The issue is trivial but the underlying principles might be applicable in other cases. There has been a long argument at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 which has proved impossible to resolve. The issue is whether Tornado is, or is not, the 50th member of the class. I maintain that this is a matter of opinion but MickMacNee maintains that it is a matter of fact because he has references to prove it. I believe that references are irrelevant in this case because references can only be used to establish facts, not opinions. Please advise. Biscuittin (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. I took a quick look, so I might have missed some subtleties, but it occurs to me that "member of the class" is going to be difficult to resolve until the class is defined more fully. If one means "locomotives built to a particular design", then the conclusion will be different from the case in which one means "locomotives commissioned by BR to design specification such and such". As to the matter of the "controversy", are there any reliable independent sources which describe the controversy? If there are, then it might be a legitimate part of the article, although it might fit better in the specific article on the tornado. If there are no sources, then it doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia, I'm afraid. I hope that helps, --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tackle this subtlety: Does an opinion become a fact simply because it has been published in the Railway Magazine? Biscuittin (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a universal answer to that, but sometimes it's parsed like this: "Bob Jones has said blah blah blah" and then it's sourced to where he was quoted. That tends to be in the context of a paragraph about "Some commentators say X, while others say Y". --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In this case the quote from the Railway Magazine is: "From its earliest days, the A1 Trust regarded 60163 not as a replica or copy of any one of the 49 Peppercorn A1's, but as the 50th member of the class". Thus, the statement is the opinion of the A1 Trust and should not be claimed as an immutable fact. Biscuittin (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And as you say, we prefer facts to opinions. However, it is a citeable verifiable fact that the Trust has made this statement. That is, while the class remains loosely defined and therefore its membership can be subject to debate, there's no problem with a statement that the Trust has taken that position. Indeed I noticed a reference to this in the article; the text there doiesn't seem to be causing any problems at all. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with the text. My objection is to the heading which states "Tornado - 50th member of the class" as if this were a fact, rather than an opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The main issue actually is really rather simple. Tornado was never a BR locomotive. Hence, since we have to follow the LNER/BR classification, it was never classified. It could never have been. Secondly, from a article flow point of view it is better to list it separately at the end in a preservation section. Thirdly, the point of it not being an "replica" is really to do with them not building an exact replica but they can make modifications to. Fourthly, the stock list should match published sources (e.g. Yeadon, Longworth), which are historical works and would not be amended to include it. MacNee seems to be confusing a list of names with a stock list (including build and withdrawal dates). Tony May (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia policy to match or even emulate historical paper volumes. There is no way any reader is ever going to be confused into thinking that despite all the explanatory text, and the 40 year difference in build years in the table, that it is a BR locomotive simply because it appears at the end of a table. If anything, leaving it out only serves to be disruptive as it attracts its addition by IPs who see the obvious chance to update the article, which given the supporting sources is not an unreasonable step. MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Locomotives in preservation and locomotives in service are dealt with separately in all other articles. The table is a stock list. Tony May (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we were going to get some outside help here but it seems that we are just going to have a repeat of what has already been said. Biscuittin (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the edit war seems to have re-started at LNER Peppercorn Class A1. Biscuittin (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a dispute template to the relevant section. Biscuittin (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As this page is to request help may I suggest that the discussion is held on the article talk page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micromercurialism&diff=236963377&oldid=236646653

Eubulides rightly acknowledges that "[my] article's text appears to consist mostly of copyright violations. The list of references, which is the bulk of the article, is copied from pages 21–36 of a paper (in German) by Mutter et al. 2005 (PDF), PMID 15789284. The 247 citations are copied verbatim from Mutter et al. to Micromercurialism, with only one minor change that I can see"

However, Dr. Mutter and I have collaborated on this entry of Micromercurialism and I have the email from earlier this year to substantiate it. Further, Eubulides redirects to "Mercury Poisoning" which has very little to do with micromercurialism, and in fact is so stated in my text early on.

I was away for three months and unable to work on this important project which rightly lays out the role of chronic subacute mercury exposure. I had intended to eventually cull a lot of the references whiuch I had placed there (with Dr. Mutter's consent) until I had finished the subject.

I wish micromercurialism to be reinstated as its own independent topic and cease being redirected.

Thank you

Bruce R. Dooley, M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdooley (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for posting here. If the content is copyright, then it can't stay here. Perhaps a precis or abstract would work? Please, be careful about our conflict of interest guidelines too. This isn't the right place for publishing your original research; eventually somebody else will write the article if need be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could give me an opinion as to whether the content on these pages (below) qualifies as advertising. In every single case the same Book, it's Author and the Author's status is mentioned, not as a footnote reference, but within the content of the article.

I (and others) have previously tried removing it but invariably it gets reinstated, sometimes with a pithy comment. Each to his own... As per Wiki's suggestions I've contacted the person behind the edits some time ago to try and resolve this but I never had a reply.

I believe that this is advertising / self-promotion that doesn't enhance the quality of the articles it's featured within. However, I could be wrong which is why I am seeking another opinion and I'm happy to let this drop if you feel that's for the best.

This is the history of one of the pages where the edit reversals have recently happened again: [7]. This is a list of edits made by another user, in each case trying to remove the reference to the book. [8] All of these edits were subsequently reversed.

David T Tokyo (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

From the contribution history it looks like spamdalism to me. Will revert and warn soon. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help - much appreciated. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sirs

I recently added a link to Guy Browning's wikipedia page. - http://www.jla.co.uk/conference-speakers/guy-browning

Guy is an artist represented by my agency for corporate speaking and after dinner speaking engagements. The link I added to his page includes articles specially written for JLA and video footage of him speaking that is only available on our website.

To me this seems a valuable and useful addition to the information on Wikipedia about Guy and his activities outside of the books he writes and his agency Smokehouse.

The biography for Guy has no citations - but goes on to mention he is a comedian who avoids telling contentious or political jokes, the video on my site features him telling gags as part of a speech, which reaffirms the original editors prose.

Where I have pages with unique content such as commissioned articles written about key topics I would like to add them to Wikipedia. I am not trying to use Wikipedia as a 'linkfarm' as I know that the links from this page are not used by Google or similar search engines to boost my page rankingds due to the no follow instructions given to spiders.

You'll also notice on all of my pages on the site where there is a Wikipedia page we are hapy to drive content this way as we believe the more information a client of ours has the better understanding they will have if they should decide to contact us about a booking.

Best regards

Rob

PS. The biography of Guy Browning is currently out of date, his latest book is called Maps of My Life which was published in October 2008 by Square Peg. I would try and update it but whenever I make an edit they seem to get reverted within seconds anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdevani (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the link was removed because it was considered linkspam in contravention of WP's external link guidelines, even if that was not your intention - it does look spammy when his agent adds links like that to the article. Because of your conflict of interest, I suggest that you open a discussion about that and the the new book, gain consensus then someone will edit the article (or not) accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me to be appropriate as an "official" Web site of the subject of the article. I would think it is no more "link spam" than the overtly commercial "official" web sites of popular musicians. Proxy User (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read it? "Official" or not, it's touting his after dinner speaking, therefore promotional, therefore spam. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And there for, along those lines so are virtually every official musician web site here at Wikipedia. Do you as well object to those? I'm not trying to start an argument here, but honestly, I see little difference between the two, and those sites most certainly are found to be acceptable at Wikipedia. Do you object to *any* web site listing *anywhere* at Wikipedia that shills some product central to the notability of the subject? Remove the links to all commecial software companies as well, they shill for the company. Pepsi and Coke: there are products for sale at their web sites, remove the links. The Metropolitan Museum of Art sells posters at their site, shall we remove thin link? See where I'm going? Discuss, please. Proxy User (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No I am not advocating that at all, and for the purposes of this discussion other articles are irrelevant. In this context, a link to a page on his agent's website that specifically touts his availability as an after dinner speaker is spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is his official Web page. It contains substantial biographical information. WP:OSE discusses articles, not legitimacy of external links, which are not mentioned nor alluded to. If being "spammy" was the criteria for external link removal, Wikipedia could free up terabytes of storage space by deleting all those 1's and 0's.

This discussion would be more appropriate on the Guy Browning talk page, but for the record here, I think the link is inoffensive and perfectly legitimate. Honestly, I wonder if Browning is even notable enough to have a Wiki article. Proxy User (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The link is spam, pure and simple. It has been added to the profiles of a number of UK celebrities/personalities and subsequently removed as spam. The Guy Browning article has a number of problems that need to be addressed, most notably it needs to be written from a neutral point of view and needs its weasel and peacock language removed. I don't doubt the subject's notability as I own one of his books.--TimTay (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia. I've been doing some editing and I came across this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Lime. I'm a fan of the band Scarling. It needs some help but every time I try to change it, it gets reverted to its redundant original state.

Any editing help would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.112.1 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on there, but it's been done again. Could I suggest you go to the talk page and inquire as to why editors are removing your edits there? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise clicking the "show" link to look at User:iMatthew's userboxes pops up a non-worksafe image, Image:Sam Masterbating.jpg. The image is show as being in use on a number of user pages. Any idea what gives? William Avery (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after a long hunt, I finally found it, but it seems it's taking a while to propagate. Try purging the cache of any userpage with that image. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Genius! William Avery (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please fix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity

I cannot entirely disagree with Cpfriscia <remove copied personal atack> But I think Wikipedia should provide more information.

Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.220.131 (talk • contribs)

That was vandalism that was self-reverted by the user within a few minutes. I have removed your repeating of that content as such content should not remain posted for viewing anywhere. See WP:BLP. The user who posted it and blanked the article's content was warned, albeit, not with the level of warning I would have used given the nature of the vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Fuhghettaboutit!

There is a person who keeps changing the Mi-Ki breed page. They sound very much like a disgruntled buyer. Claiming the dog is nothing more than a mutt has health issues and gives vague references to puppy mills. I feel it is very unfair to allow a post like this to stand. Like any other breed of dog, there are good breeders and not so good breeders. I have changed the page to something more nuetral 4 or 5 times now and they keep switching it back. I'm sorry I really don't understand all your rules and regulations. It is not my intention to create a fight on your site. but i would sure like to see something a little less biased on this page. I did get a message telling me not to change it again without going to "talk" i don't understand. i went to the discussion page and foun d that rather confusing too. I'm afraid I don't have several hours to research this site on how to edit correctly. Is ther some kind of quic reference guide that i can use for assistance?

Thank you

Annette

Mi-Ki person

Please feel free to contact me via email if you choose

(Email address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi Ki person (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, here, here, and here, you appear to be trying to remove large portions of the page and replace them with your own version. I would advise you to discuss with the other editors what you feel the problems are with the article and what improvements you would like to see. The best place to have that discussion is at Talk:Toy Mi-Ki. BradV 02:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I’ve received a message [9] with link to [10] explained [11] I was unable to comprehend how my edits were matched to “area of conflict” - Estonian history—particularly post-World War II history in regards to my concerns about [12] - legal matters and legal acts interpretation – together with correct addressing the time of historical event existence. I try to made as wider as possible explanations on talk page for newcomers editors and for editors which not familiar with historical political geography, economics, demography and legal scope of responsibility of the different multi-national Institutions. Thank you in advance. Jo0doe (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above editors' contributions have been disruptive to the articles due to poor readibility; moreover he engage in edit-warring and other mischief. An example of his approach:[13]. The edit history is quite clear [14]: it overwhelmingly consists of either low-level edit warring (doesn't violate 3R, but has been reverting other people's works every few days for months if not years) or unpleasant arguments on the talk pages that take up others editors' valuable time. He has been warned of such behavior here: [15] and here: [16] Despite such warnings he continues to smear others, such as here when he implied that members of the Ukrainian community abroad are Nazi collaborators or murderers: [17] and when he even accused other editors of supporting Nazi collaborators: [18]. It's great that finally someone is doing something about this. I know that I have been provoked by this editor but if you think that I'm just another edit warrior, feel free to look at my own record of contributions, particularly barnstars received for working cooperatively with those who have different viewpoints [19], etc. and compare it to that of the editor above.Faustian (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Evryone new your personal opinion about my edits [20] But please stop this never ending "Austrian officer" [21] approach. You know it's far reached from reality - as same as new order in Europe from [22] and I think your comment related to my recent [23] and forgot to [24]. Thank you to end your effort to put others in misconseptionJo0doe (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed my achivements is tiny [25] [26] - but it's notable - per WP:NOHOAX - no more "Makivka and Black forest" by barnstarned editor. WP reliability is a mustJo0doe (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular assistance you need here. An administrator banned you from "all pages related to Holdomor ... due to persistent violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX". You can talk to that admin if you need further clarification, but I have no idea what you expect to achieve by forum-shopping. —BradV 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to advice of how this case [27] related to my edits (becouse I was unable to find any similarity nor been warned about this specific case nor how I was able to persistent violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX at numerous articles of this topic which A)Most of them I never editing B)Uploading a Maps at Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic is now called a WP:SOAPBOX violations? Or may be my intent to call "joint statement" a " joint statement" but not declaration and Detailed explanation at talk page for editors which not familiar with International Law and Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court and demography is persistent violations of WP:TALK? May be I've missed an important thing - so may be someone able to advice. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fakhriya Taha Muhasen

I don't have any experience with the policy WP:ONEVENT. Also, does the article pass notability in general? Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No. —BradV 03:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Now redirected to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think we should highlight the refrence tags (in beteen ref/ref) to blue or something to better distinguish the material and references. What do you guys think? InternetHero (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a good idea. I would love colors on the markup, red for tags, blue for wikilinks, green for refs, black for text etc. I have no idea who implements that or where to ask mind you, I have just noticed though that if I copy an article text out of the edit box into my favortite text editor Smultron and set it to display Pascal syntax colors, then all the cite refs turn green. What's the chances of that. Now off to hunt for a Wiki aware text editor. Mfield (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Something like this is listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools; I've just started using wikEd for firefox and it certainly helps to highlight different types of content, although it doesn't go quite as far as InternetHero suggests. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"currently Mozilla, Firefox, SeaMonkey only" :( Looks like I might have to switch to Firefox for WP and keep Safari for everything else. Mfield (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that it does work in Safari (as it says it does in User Prefernces) - woot. Am off to update Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools to reflect that. Mfield (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe this article is using false information and also has a lot of slander within it

82.39.42.72 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you were more specific about what parts you consider to be false or slanderous. At first glance the article looks well written - it has 79 citations, compared with just 7 requests for citation.--TimTay (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article includes the cities of Turkey for no good reasons. Larger Urban Zones is a Eurozone project performed by eurostat, the statistics office of the European Union. Turkey is an EU candidate and as such is not covered by eurostat. The user Palaron keeps reverting to edits that include Turkey and citeshttp://www.urbanaudit.org/help.aspx as a reference. I went to this reference by Eurostat and there is no mention of Turkey. I feel the inclusion is a blatant political move to promote Turkey as a candidate and that falsely misprepresents Eurostat. Many thanks for your help.90.202.140.209 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. The continuing battle of the reversions is achieving nothing. You need to contact the editor who is reverting your changes and ask them to engage in the discussion that is open on article talk. The editor is an established editor who will explain their reasons. The article certainly needs to make clear why certain non EU cities are included (which they every right to be as they are included in the project database), and I have posted a message to that effect on the talk discussion. Mfield (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The front page of the Urban Audit website states "Following a pilot project for the collection of comparable statistics and indicators for European cities the first full-scale European Urban Audit took place in 2003, for the then 15 countries of the European Union. In 2004 the project was extended to the 10 new Member States plus Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey." - meaning that Turkey is within scope. The list of city profiles includes cities from Turkey. Based on those two data points and reading the text of the article I cannot see whey Turkey should be excluded. --TimTay (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I've just written an article about a comic book guy called Jim Connolly within my user area. I've been trying to 'move' the page to be labelled as simply 'Jim Connolly' in the main site but I either don't have the right to do this or I'm a complete idiot. Please can someone help me as I've created a couple of redirects I don't really want. Cheers

Rhubarb rubber101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhubarb rubber101 (talk • contribs)

I don't think you'll be able to do that, exactly. Jim Connolly is a redirect to a disambiguation page James Connolly (disambiguation); that's pretty common practice here for a name (or names) that might refer to several different people. The best thing would be to set up the page you wrote at Jim Connolly (illustrator) and then it can also be listed at James Connolly (disambiguation). By the way, try not to put so many external links in the body; they should go in a separate section at the end. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume you'd like the page at [Jim_Connolly_(1978-)] to be deleted, since it's a redirect. I can't see any more...? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I might nominate Jim Connolly - Illustrator too, once the (hopefully) last move has occurred. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just moved Jim Connolly - Illustrator, to Jim Connolly (illustrator). – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been back and forth of whether or not to include a detailed episode guide or simply list the issues presented in each episode with a link to the show on A&E's website. Some feel that the episode guide is a place to check for updates to previous subjects of the show while others feel the guide does not consistently describe each episode or the issues tackled therein. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this User's edits? He/she has made many, many unreasonable revisions, calling them "minor" changes for material he/she personally disagrees with including changing direct and cited quotations. Many of these edits are in support of Conservative issues. Thank you. 71.174.9.166 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Unpopular Opinion appears to be just removing vandalism I would suggest his reversion of your edit at Parents Television Council because of the words used appeared to be vandalism, but as you say it is part of the quote. Unless your edit is reverted again it is probable no big deal and should be left, but if it happens again leave a note on his/her talk page. If others revert your change to remove the quoted words then it may be worth an explanation on the article talk page particulary that wikipedia is not censored. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to remove vandalism.[28] There are thousands of school kids adding stuff like "suck my dick" to articles everyday so I mistook his edit as vandalism. My intentions are not to censor anything; what I did wrong was to not read the edit summary properly I guess. Just a note on my talk page would have gotten my attention to this sooner than this complaint here, but your choice! -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP has facility for detailed text to be hidden in a text box which can be shown simply by selecting SHOW. There is a good example at Bernoulli's principle#Derivations of Bernoulli equation. I would like some information about how users create these hidden text boxes. Is there suitable explanatory information somewhere on Wikipedia? Dolphin51 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, You might find Help:Collapsing to be a good introduction. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC) =

Thanks. Help:Collapsing seems to be about tables. I am trying to create a box in which to place a lot of detailed text that is rather inappropriate to the Wiki article itself - very much like the high-powered equations inside the boxes at Bernoulli's principle#Derivations of Bernoulli equation. I tried doing this using the Sandbox, but the text didn't wrap properly - it ran off the page to the right. I am trying to find some information about how to ensure the width of the box doesn't exceed the width of the screen. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only seen text fail to wrap when there's a space at the beginning of the line, but there might well be another problem here. Where's your code? If you used a a general sandbox then you might consider putting the text at, say, User:Dolphin51/Sandbox. Then come back here, or to my talk, and let me know where it is. I'll see if I can help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Andrew. I will check to see if there is a space at the beginning of the line. If it isn't there, or removing it doesn't solve the problem, I will get back to you with a personal sandbox. Dolphin51 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this. I recently changed my signature to "Ray" from the previous "RayAYang." I did this mainly because I want to project a more informal image in discussion; use of a full name in the signature goes counter to that. The particular problem is that "Ray" is another registered (albeit inactive) user. The policy at Wikipedia:Signatures admonishes us to avoid possibly misleading signatures. I guess my question is, do you think there's high potential for confusion in this signature change? Ray (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, given User:Ray made only one edit which was 6 years ago and to his own userspace. I doubt anyone will have any concerns about confusion with such an inactive account, but if you prefer you might also consider usurping the name "Ray" and effectively moving your account there. Euryalus (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give the WP:USURP option some thought. Ray (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Adzlcfc made some apparently disruptive edits, such as [29] , [30] and several edits to John Cleveland College [31]

After they were warned twice, they made a minor edit to my talk page [32]

But now they have made rather serious comments on user talk:Adzlcfc about the editors who notified them of problems with their edits.[33]

I am unsure of the appropriate next step. Should one initiate further discussion with the user, pointing out that veiled death threats tend to offend? Should the incident be reported on one of the discussion boards? (which one? wittiquette allert, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)? Thank you. Zodon (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yowza... I dropped a request for someone at WP:ANI to look into his user talk page comment. I think that's completely unacceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And he's been indef. blocked as a result of it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Zodon (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)