Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

A warning, Wikipedia's Madeleine McCann entry is about to be the subject of continual editing by members of a website with an agenda:

Tony Bennett Post subject: Re: Wikipedia on Madeleine's disappearance - a fair summary? PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:49 am On Parole User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:49 pm Posts: 1095 Location: Harlow, Essex Firbank74 wrote: Ahh...Many have tried to edit Wiki's Madeleine page to accurately reflect the (known) facts surrounding her disappearance. Sadly, the page is rigorously guarded by a couple of rapid pit-bull pro's who immediately pounce upon any edits which reflect badly upon the McCanns. Words such as 'allegedly' or 'according to the McCanns' are disallowed on the basis that they appear to criticise the saintly pair. By all means, re-edit away, but be prepared for a long and ultimately fruitless battle...the page is a joke.

Exactly my 'take' on their pages on Madeleine McCann.

Incidentally their page on Joana/Leonor Cipriano suffers from the same sort of problems.

I think there should be a concerted campaign by 3As members to ensure that a more accurate and balanced article on Madeleine's 'disappearance' appears ASAP on Wikipedia. Not by attempting edits, which I agree is doomed to failure because of Wikipedia's obvious bias, but by a well-crafted letter outlining the most serious criticisms of their article.

To this end, it would be very good if posters here could add notes of the most important errors and omissions on Wikipedia's 'Madeleine' pages

CluelessCautiousCapitalist (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've watchlisted, and would encourage other editors to do the same. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of vandalism there, I have noticed whilst on vandalism patrol. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This written to question why AFRIMERICAN is immediately deleted when posted. The last post was in 2005, and since then Afrimerican has been accepted and recognized as a distinct term of identification of Black people born in the United States by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Afrimerican is not African-American yet Wikipedia staffers redirects Afrimerican to the African-American article, which is a racist act in the action by reason it is a systemic use of the website to deny Afrimericans accurate identification as posted by same, and in deed, the act of re-direction is an indirect racist way of saying "You are what "we" say you are.

As stated before, It's your website, and you can put on it, or refuse to put what ever you like.

my concern is why is Afrimerican denied the same neutrality as items of academic racial matters as those posted by whites.

Also, A one page chapter about the Afrimerican word and definition is being written for the Book on the history of this term and the experiences with Wikipedia.

Do I need any written approval to include all the deleted Afrimerican, and related Wikipedia pages in the book.

Bruce Ameil Williams76.168.31.19 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Afrimerican redirects to African American. Have you discussed this there? It may help if you sign in or create an account with a user name. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, I --- or anyone else does not know the ethnicity of other editors, unless they declare it on their user pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The US Census Bureau seems to prefer "Black or African-American" as a description and doesn't use, according to a quick search the term "Afrimerican". As always, if you have a source to support your statements then please show it and make your case. As far as I can see, Afrimerican has been redirected to African-American or African American (no hyphen) for almost all its life, but for a short-lived entry that read, in its entirety, "AFRIMERICAN". --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as permission to use Wikipedia content elsewhere, see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for how to legally do that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Salee Amina Mohammed

Americans for Ethics in Government nominated Dr. Salee Amina Mohammed for inclusion in Wikidepia. Several sources were named to verify her credentials, and many others could have been included. Certain powerful, but possibly criminal, men who Dr. Salee Amina turned into the FBI in Los Angeles (for their alleged illegal forced sex with a minor boy and their alleged embezzlement of $28 million from her) caused their retaliation against her to slander her good name, since they were employed in County law enforcement. This is all the subject of her major lawsuit against them in Federal Court. This group of possible criminals have used a scam to delete her name from the pages of Wikipedia, calling themselves "Fugitive Recovery Agent" in order to demand the deletion of her name from Wikipedia, but no such page or organization exists. One of her enemies even tried to pretend that she financed an Islamic terrorist website, obviously capitalizing on prevelent anti-Muslim sentiment, when Dr. Salee Amina had no website and is very patriotic and internationally acclaimed for her involvement in peace conferences and interfaith dialogue. This woman, Dr. Salee Amina Mohammed, has accomplished volumes in her life and is a recognized expert, a credentialed professional and a humanitarian. She has appeared as an expert on Fox news and dozens of other T.V. stations, has been a V.I.P. guest speaker in International Business and Finance conferences along with C.E.O.s of some of the largest banks in the world, she has been a V.I.P. guest speaker along with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Congressman McDermott, she has been a V.I.P. guest speaker with the President of Chechnya, she was Vice President of the World Gold Assn., she was a recipient of a Gold Medal of Merit and Certificate of Merit from the President's Task Force (under President Reagan) and the U.S. Senatorial Inner Circle and she was a recipient of a written commendation from the former King of Saudi Arabia, just to name a few of many --- But, it seems that anyone with Internet savvy can delete their enemies' names from Wikipedia or can slander their enemies' good reputations, unjustly. This same unethical group tried to establish an Internet link that popped up porn sites whenever anyone tried to search her name on the Internet, which was also reported by her to the FBI, which the FBI investigated and corrected. I believe that if this group of enemies are so determined to defame the person who turned them in, then, they obviously have a lot to hide, if they are retaliating against her so intensely. The same group even tried getting her perfect reputation destroyed through a scam of their inventing false arrests on erroneous warrants (including for an Asian male, even though she is a Caucasian female), all of which was dismissed, and she was cleared of any wrongdoing: One of her cases which she won was even published in Lexis Law - but the impact on her must have been significant. Allowing malicious defamers to get their way and to attack innocent and noteworthy people is evil: When those people hide behind government jobs is evil at its worst, and Wikipedia has played right into their hands by allowing their defamation of Dr. Salee Amina, wiping her off their pages. It's unjust. After an FBI investigation and a County Internal Affairs investigation was conducted of the reports that Dr. Salee Amina turned in, one county employee accused of sexual misconduct was retired from his law enforcement job, and those allegedly involved in the mulit-million dollar embezzlement are still in Federal court. Dr. Salee Amina is a notable woman of great courage and considerable merit. She deserves recognition. Her lifelong accomplishments are extraordinary. These sleezy opponents, manipulating the system to defame anyone who dares to stand up against them or expose their corruption should be the ones wiped off the pages of history, not good people like Dr. Salee Amina Mohammed. Wikipedia made an error in operating on lies. (posted by Elliot Jamieson.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americansforethicsingovernment (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAPBOX. If she really is notable per WP:BIO, then please create a neutral article about her (see WP:YFA) with reliable sources per WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that Dr. Salee Amina Mohammed is currently up for CSD A7. Considering the poster's username, I'm wondering if a reference to m:ROLE is in order. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that in January 2008, an earlier version of the article (created by the poster) was deleted by AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Salee' Amina Mohammed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A new editor with an obvious WP:COI has added a lot of irrelevant personal information to this article. Can anyone help, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the additions and posted the user messages about creating autobiographies and coi. I suspect the user is new and confused about the purpose of Wikipedia, the information was certainly promotionally written and inappropriate, and he has been warned to discuss on article talk if he thinks some of it merits inclusion. Mfield (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in the copyright issues surrounding inclusion of a mug shot in an article. The mug shot in question represents the most current image of a famous incarcerated individual currently in a California State prison, and was released to the press by the prison, and has been in wide circulation. Proxy User (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Media copyright questions might be a better place for this question. Algebraist 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Proxy User (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor 203.221.217.226 refusing to learn WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM after a few warnings. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist Best & Less and we'll keep an eye on it. btw, what is "manchester" in that context? --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the definitions at wiktionary:manchester is "section of a department store dealing with household linen". —Snigbrook 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK makes sense as Manchester was the heart of the Lancashire textile industry during the Industrial Revolution. I will revise the article accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to draw your attention to something that should be removed by your staff.

It would appear that someone thinks themselves funny by adding commentary to your page regarding the "battle of Bushy Run" by creating the new name of "Bitchy Run." Of course no such battle ever existed.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Malcolm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.62.10.36 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't see it in the article (Battle of Bushy Run), but it was in the image description page for the image File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg (where somehow it had not been noticed since 8 January) - I've reverted it. —Snigbrook 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually 8 January 2008 - as image descriptions don't appear in the article the image is in, or in the image logs, vandalism can sometimes stay without being noticed there - I think this is the oldest vandalism I've seen with the exception of hoaxes (which are not obvious vandalism) and a redirect left from page move vandalism. —Snigbrook 00:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have edited two times the page LGBT rights in the Dominican Republic. the first time I placed a wrong SD tag and it was reverted by user Dpmuk (talk | contribs) who I thought was an administrador, because all his contrubutions are patrolling and removing tags.

Because the article did not meet the criteria for SD, I edited the wrong information. Dmuk, reverted my edit, and placed a source and link which does not support his revertion.

My question is. Can I edit again that page, and if I do can I be blocked based on 3RR? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You only appear to have edited the page twice, without reverting it, so 3RR is not a problem, but as your edits appear to be controversial it is probably better to discuss with the user or on the article's talk page - 3RR doesn't mean three reverts are always permitted, and on this occasion as the other user is citing sources to support his/her argument, reverting to your version, when the article previously appeared to be stable, would be disruptive. —Snigbrook 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. I have been searching for this page but keep getting only my question, I put it in my watchlist, but still did not work.

• Copy this link [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#LGBT rights in the Dominican Republic|Link to editor assistance thread on Dominican Republic]] to your user page and it will bring you straight here. SpinningSpark 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

going back to the subject: The page or source given by user does not really supports his argument alsotThe whole wording in the article is wrong as it says that it is legal admited in the D. R.. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The source in the article is a UNHCR document which clearly states that homosexual acts are legal in the Dominican Republic but that discrimination is not legally prevented. This is also what the article says. If this is not correct you will need to find other sources to reference, but I would have thought that the UNHCR would be reliable on this. The edit summary of your edit leads me to believe you are confusing sexual relations with the right to same-sex marriage. These are two different things (at least legally) but there is not reason that they cannot both be covered in the article. SpinningSpark 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I read the article and it’s like a Headline news to catch your attention, but in reality there is no law in our constitution or in our legal code which admits that two person of the same sex have rights to marry, to adopt, to be admited as couple in any club, to inherit, to be in the insurance of his parter, if they had that then it would be ok to write that it´s legal by law. Homosexuals have no special laws in our late or recent constitution which says that any human beings has the rights not to be discrimitated for their race, age or sex please read our constitution Georgetown University --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have copied this discussion to the talk page, but you have not engaged in the discuission with the other ditor which would be a good approach. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have not? I thought that what I was doing by posting my opinions here and in the discussion page of the article. Please suggest how the appropiate way to do it. So many rules in Wikipedia that I´m never sure if what I´m doing is right. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia has many rules whcih take a long time to learn, but the basic principles that guide what should be in the content are simple and straightforward. Let me try and explain some of these and where you seem to be misunderstanding them.

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that the facts can be verified by reference to a reliable source. The source in the article states that homosexuality is legal. That makes it verifiable. If it is not true, find a source that makes that clear.
• There is no original research allowed on Wikipedia. Original research includes making a synthesis from the facts in the sources that is not specifically stated in those sources. You seem to be making the synthesis that because there is no anti-discrimination legislation in the DR, then homosexuality is effectively illegal because there is no protection (my apologies in advance if I am misrepresenting you). Wikipedia must not make this synthesis, the encyclopedia has no opinion for itself. If a reliable source makes this synthesis then the article can say so, but it must be made clear whose opinion it is. It is no use asking me to read the DR constitution, any synthesis that I make from reading it is no more allowable in the article than yours would be.
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not the place to campaign for gay rights or to put the world to rights. It is not the place to criticise the laws of the DR. You may well feel strongly on these issues but the article must be factual and encyclopedic.

By the way, I am not particularly happy with you copying this whole thread on to the article talk page without comment. It makes it look like the peolple who posted in this thread actually posted on the article talk page, which they did not. This can put a subtley different meaning on the conversation. You really only needed to post a link to this thread, not the whole text.

SpinningSpark 09:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for your explanation and patient. I placed the link of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic in the article as another source to show that there is no law to admit homosexuality.

The first source says that “is legal” but if you keep reading it does not gives the date when this law was created. So the same article itself is another source to back my point. The Wikipedia article was wrong when it simply stated that homosexuality is legal in DR The DR Constitution does have a law that says that no citizen should be discriminated for race, religion, age or sex. And here is where you are really misinterpreting me, I am not criticizing our constitution nor am I campaigning for gay’s rights. That is the reason why I want this article to be clear as to what our laws and constitutions explicitly permits and allows. As to the copied I placed in the discussion page, I did it to get a consensus of other editors. What should I do now to correct this? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed the resolved tag in this discussion, because to me it is. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't know if it is the right forum but I have a query : I had a somewhat hot debate with Srobak. I might have been a bit fast in removing the term "sled" from the intro as it was put many times by an IP without reference but Srobak (who has not even filled up his User page) threatens me right off the bat of sanctions, multiple times, and even write it in my own Talk page. He goes even so far as to reverse my erasing of his comment in my own Talk page. He denies being a bully but you can make your own idea by reading the Snowmobile Discussion. He even seemed to have threaten Threeafterthree who was just trying to defend my right to use my Talk page as I want. Could anyone calm him down and tell him he is not WP's ultimate judge ? Pierre cb (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at Snowmobile page - I agree taht there should be no alternative names in the lead and to use a user generated slang dictionary, even if hosted on the University of Oregon webiste, does not meet the standards of WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. However, my point is not restart the snowmobile discussion here. I just want to know how to stop Srobak beligerant attitude ? Pierre cb (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:RFCC, but "attitude" is hard to change or police :) If you feel this editor has violated policy, like WP:3R or requires administrative intervention(ie harrassment, ect), you can escalte it to WP:ANI. For the record, I am an involved party with both users at this point, so hopefully others will step in and help, TIA --Tom (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the translation request on this singer, but I am not able to make the English link side. Could you please outline the process for me? I want to add the Englsh text as link to the already existing German article. Thank you.80.153.201.143 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IL might be helpful. Essentially, I believe [[de:Gail Varina Gilmore]] goes in the English version to link to the article in de.wikipedia, and vice versa. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The English article has not been created yet, WP:Your first article will tell you how, you will need to create a user account to get started. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted the following help request on my talk page and got sent here.

A year ago I progressed Thelema to good article status. Now a disruptive editor, User:Dan is attempting to do a major rewrite, both removing material passed as well-supported by reliable source by GA review, and using synthesis to push a POV which simply isn't true, namely that there is a scholarly consensus that Rabelais wrote from a Christian perspective. There is no such consensus, though it is one of three current and historical views current in the literature today. My attempts to give a more general and balance presentation of these views has been full reverted every time by Dan, 3 times a day. I have used full reverts sparingly, at first trying to integrate as much material from Dan's changes as is actually support by sources. He does not do me the same courtesy and now we seem to be deadlocked. How can I break this? Can someone (or more than one someone) please take a look? Will in China (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh interesting debates. Thelema looks nearly as bloated (and thoroughly molested) as Hasidic Judaism and Catholic Church. Good for Crowley. Although you really should stop Dan messing with the bits about Rabelais. Pietru (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Three-revert rule should be invoked for this kind of reversion. I see that you are familiar with the rule. I have placed another warning. If the editor persists report at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. It looks to me as if you have made every effort to discuss the matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The content i entered for Anthony F. Smith had been tagged by OhNoItsJamie as "advertising" although we followed a number of other peer sites prior to posting - which we followed the outlines pretty closely. when i inquired on what specifically i should be changing to conform i received links which were pages of information, but did not offer me specifics on how do make this specific posting align. I again inquired with this individual, a link on notability was left for me and the content was deleted without any further communication. I would appreciate any insight so I can resubmit in an approved format. (LeaderMgmt (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

I've examined the deleted article; it was so redolent of promotion, with peacock words and the like, that a speedy deletion as advertising was fully justified. I also strongly suspect a conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the edit war in the Federal Reserve article between BigK Hex and Myself, and give some advice? Thanks for your assistance. --70.125.108.39 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes; stop edit warring and start trying dispute resolution. You two have barely used the talk page at all. So stop reverting, start listing your concerns calmly on the talk page. Maybe he'll cool down as well. If you guys can't agree, try filing a request for comment. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have disputed the notability of individual articles for residential colleges at Rice University rather than there being a list of residences as is the practice at many universities: New York University residence halls, University of California, Berkeley student housing, List of MIT undergraduate dormitories, House System at the California Institute of Technology. I initially boldly merged these articles into the list, but a number of editors reverted on various grounds, so I began the bold, revert, discuss process in good faith. However, after the editors exhibited characteristics of ownership and conflict of interest in their discussions, I began the dispute resolution processes such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. However, it has been brought to my attention that these editors have now gone to Facebook to rally support to their side rather than engaging in consensus formation such as commenting on the RFC.

List of articles affected:

• Baker College (Rice University)
• Will Rice College
• Hanszen College
• Wiess College
• Jones College (Rice University)
• Brown College (Rice University)
• Lovett College
• Sid Richardson College
• Martel College
• McMurtry College
• Duncan College
• List of Rice University residential colleges

Other editors involved:

• User:Mphornet
• User:AniRaptor2001
• User:Postoak
• User:Georgewebb

Facebook rallying support:

• [1]

I'm obviously not opposed to these articles being improved, but I frankly am at wit's end with how to deal with editors who have no interest in having meaningful consensus-formation and view this as a cause. I don't know if page protection is in order until the RFC closes or what, but I need other editors' advice and assistance in dealing with this escalating issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why was I listed on these incident reports and requests? I don't even have an account on Facebook. Madcoverboy, you have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. I have participated in the discussion just as you and the other editors at the talk pages. Postoak (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree. User:Postoak had nothing to do with the facebook event. There are several other problems with this report, though. User:Madcoverboy has clearly demonstrated ownership of the articles himself, and it's not fair for him to accuse others users of this without including himself in that list. He talks about the practice of handling dormitories and residence halls at other universities, but that's not what's being discussed here. The housing systems at New York University, MIT, and UC-Berkeley have nothing to do with residential colleges at all. Caltech is a valid example, but Madcoverboy failed to mention the precedent of the housing systems at Category:Harvard Houses, Category:Colleges_of_Yale_University, and Category:Colleges of Princeton University, the systems upon which the Rice model was established over 50 years ago. The common practice there is giving each residential college its own page, so Madcoverboy was acting against precedent and the commonly accepted practice on wikipedia.

He also asserts that I haven't engaged in consensus formation by commenting in the RFC. That's a blatant lie. I've made five contributions to that discussion already, and it's been a productive discussion that I will certainly continue to take part in.Mphornet (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consolidate this discussion by posting further comments at the RFC. There's no sense in having the debate in several different places. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I would appreciate some advice on what is happening on the King of the Hill page at the moment. Last week an editor added a lot of facts (see this diff) without citations. Over the course of a couple of days myself and a few editors either cut out some of this material or requested citations for the facts added to the paper (some examples: [2], [3], [4], and [5]). In some cases, I replaced a citation used by the first editor with a fact tag as I felt the citation did not support the statement. The editor of the original edit reverted a few edits that were made to what he added and now over the weekend an IP editor is reverting the fact tags I added and restoring some of the material that myself and other editors felt were unsupported and a bit speculative. So from here I am not sure how to proceed. I've been around Wikipedia for awhile, but I haven't really run into a situation like this before (I guess most of the stuff I am involved with is rather uncontroversial). So I would like some advice on how to proceed here. Thanks. Wolfrock (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned the IP as the editor is at 3RR. You might want to try and start a more specific discussion about the dispute at Talk:King of the Hill, especially one mentioning the original research/synthesis aspects of some of the statements, then invite the editors involved (on both sides) to participate. That way you can coordinate work and establish a clear consensus. Of concern is contributions's edits there, as he/she doesn't seem to understand how WP:V works. I've left a welcome message at the editor's talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article a wee bit, and done some copyediting. Hope it's helpful! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and you tweaks to the article. It certainly does help. I'll follow up with a discussion on the article's talk page later today. Thanks again Wolfrock (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I have started a new section on the article's talk page about this and notified those who were involved. Hope this will bring some resolution to the problem! Thanks. Wolfrock (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

At the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ratio&diff=prev&oldid=279525152

I added the following bullet in the External Links Section: * "Constructing Golden Rectangles from squares, and finding the Golden Ratio." October 08, 2007

It has been deleted twice. Still, I think that video is the best and easiest example I have seen of someone explaining the Golden Ratio.

Why the constant rejection?

Angel Cruz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angellcruz (talk • contribs) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting here. YouTube isn't a reliable source so there's an automated process here to remove links to it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Over at Boycott of BNP Paribas Open by Venus and Serena Williams there is a quote made by Oracene Price stating that her daughter was booed, in the context of the article cited, because of racial motivations; she states that the crowd "took off their hoods". I stated that this was an allusion to the KKK, which seems clear but there's no direct reference to this in the article. How should I approach this? Is there a way to rephrase it to avoid the 'Citation needed' tag that's been added to the last bit? Thanks. AlonsornunezComments 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it sounds like you'd have to delete that as original research. What may be clear to you may be more ambiguous to another reader. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How would you recommend I phrase the quote, as just "...and Price said "(quote)"...or do you think I should just take it out? AlonsornunezComments 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Up to you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I give up trying to figure it out. I recall something about images interacting with refs that can cause problems but are hard to identify. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the images. I've commented them out for now. Assistance appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the commenting out that wasn't closed. The last version before you edited had an open comment, <!--, without a corresponding close (before the three image files), and I think perhaps the <references/> served to close it. When you commented out some ohther images you closed the comment and so that resolved the problem. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given up trying to figure it out. If anyone wants to give it a shot, please do. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK now. I think you and Ukexpat straightened it out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just uncommented out the images and spread them around a little for balance (pardon the pun). I think it's fixed now. – ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I would really appreciate if some user with administrative rights could move this following page:

Current Location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Brasileiro_de_Mercado_de_Capitais

Desired/Correct Location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibmec

REASON:

The name of this Brazilian private university is no longer "Instituto Brasileiro de Mercados de Capitais" since 1999.

According its own website (and I'm a alumni), in 1999 this institute was privatized and turned into "Ibmec", an acronym of the former longer version of its name. When privatized, Ibmec became a company with none associations with its previous name, and this name became its formal, legal and brand name, as it can be seen in its logo, its website and any associated material.

The former institute, "Instituto Brasileiro de Mercado de Capitais", actually already exists, but no longer have any association with the Brazilian private university and research center that this article is comprised.

I understand the implications of moving a page and, hereby, I declare that all the affirmations above are true.

If you feel need to do, I strongly recommend checking all my assertions in those following official links:

In Portuguese:

http://www.ibmec.org.br/sec.php?s=100 http://www.ibmecrj.br/sub/mg/pages.php?recid=459 http://www.ibmecrj.br/sub/rj/pages.php?recid=441 http://www.ibmecsp.edu.br/inst/pages.php?recid=25

In English:

http://ibmecsp.edu.br/english/inst/pages.php?recid=25 http://www.ibmecrj.br/sub/rj/files/english_version/index.htm http://www.ibmecrj.br/sub/rj/files/english_version/history.htm

Thank you very much for your attention,

Daniel G. Rego —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel G Rego (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please post your request at WP:RM. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can' read your Portuguese sources, and the first two english don't help: the first refers to the university as "Ibmec" throughout the history and the second never mentions anything about the name change. However, your third source states it clearly enough to justify a page move, at least to me. Ibmec already redirects to the current article, so the latter would just redirect to the former. I'll take care of it. Fleetflame 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the redirect to be CSD'd - nobody's patrolling them right now....Fleetflame 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted and performed the move. Mfield (Oi!) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mfield. Fleetflame 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Although, should it not really be at IBMEC rather than Ibmec? Mfield (Oi!) 20:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, see the third source ([6]). It says "Ibmec" not "IBMEC." Fleetflame 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But their own website here uses IBMEC. The question then is what is the most commonly used form? I already moved it to IBMEC before reading that last comment. Mfield (Oi!) 20:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just create a new article: Lack of Capitalization Skills in Brazil. :-) Based on the logo, I'd say probably IBMEC (where it is now) is the best choice. As long as all the others redirect, it's not that big a deal. At least, not to me. The people who would care (alumni, etc) will know if we screwed up and we can fix it later. Thanks again! Fleetflame 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a picture that I have succesfully uploaded to commons (Colorado & Southern 890) that I would like to move to the approprite article (General Electric U30C locomotive).

How do I do this? I see that the format image.jpg is in the template but when Ienter that all that shows up is the text.

Ksamson1 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was already answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Picture on commons, how do I get it to the article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I recently composed the Alanna Heiss article and found that, shortly after its completion, a user had marked it as potentially a conflict of interest; I assume that the user, rightfully and understandably, presumed that I work for Heiss, as my user name, Artonair, is also the name of the website for Heiss's new organization, Art International Radio. And, indeed, I do work for her; however, it is as an unpaid, part-time intern, and I have not had any actual contact with her. I composed this page not out of any opportunistic desires or on the behest of anyone who actually works with and is paid by her, but rather because I considered it surprising that Wikipedia was lacking in one; she is a very important figure in the contemporary art scene, and had even already had something of a bio on the P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center page. I do not believe that the article is in any way biased; every claim is cited and the only qualitative remarks I make - at one point I call her "preeminent" among those who contributed to the alternative space movement - are, I believe, fairly safe to assert, as any of the articles and websites I cite would attest. I have brought this up with the user who marked the Alanna Heiss page, both on the Heiss talk page and on the user's talk page; he or she has not, however, responded. What might I do in order to assert the neutrality of this article and do away with that worrisome banner? I really don't want anyone to think that the article is biased for any business-oriented or opportunistic reasons; I did this on my own and have received no benefit - not even as an unpaid intern - for having done so. I don't even know if the people for whom I intern know that I did this. Would there be some way to have a third-party look over the article and assess whether or not it is in fact biased? I have finished what I had intended to contribute to the page - maybe, if allowed, I will add a photo, but I'll have to actually bring this up with the people at Art International Radio first - and will not add anything more - except maybe a photo, if allowed - to the page, if it would be a continued concern. I am just anxious to have this conflict-of-interest problem resolved. Thanks so much for your time; I hope all is well. Artonair (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for coming here for help. I asked CyberGhostface (the user who added the tag) to comment here. In the mean time, don't worry too much. In my opinion, only a few changes will need to be made (preeminent/legendary/locus are examples of words avoided because of their lack of neutrality). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The person's banned now (all I did was tag the article for COI) so I don't know what to say here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is that those in love with a merged article ("History of terrorist groups") so dominate the "History of terrorism" entry that it is impossible to do the needed editing and addition that would make the current article into an NPOV encyclopedia article on a controversial topic. I think this is borne out by my edit history in relation to the article and the "always assume bad faith" reactions to me that I've received from mainly two editors on the discussion page. An idea I have is to perhaps eventually make a new article -- which I would title "History of terror and terrorism" -- which would have the appropriate non-obsesssion with naming groups in subsection titles, a NPOV inclusive approach to events and groups (which would also state when there are RS controversies over whether something is or is not a terrorist act or group), and a much more substantial and "all RS sides of the controversy allowed their say" introductory section (instead of the current single sentence). And so on. Is that an acceptable approach, if this goes on much longer, or are there better pathways to positive-impact editing, or at least some things I should do before making the 'write a new article' move?Haberstr (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If discussion on the talk page does not achieve consensus then you could try WP:Requests for comment to get hopefully useful comment from uninvolved editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to be careful not to create a fork article here. It is not acceptable to create an alternative to an existing article because you disagree with the POV of the original article. The right thing to do is to fix the article. It does not seem to me that History of terrorism is a different subject to History of terror and terrorism. I see from the article talk page that you are creating this because state terror has been excluded from the definition. But as you know, the article State terrorism already exists so I am struggling to understand the justification for a new article. The merge of History of terrorist groups was the result of a deletion debate, not the POV of editors at "History of terrorism". Of course, if your proto article is genuinely a new topic then by al means carry on, but I can't help feeling you are only going to be facing a merge/deletion debate in the future if you do. SpinningSpark 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I (thought I had) made my first article post on Monday, for "Ghost Radio," a novel by Leopoldo Gout. What's bizarre is that it appears nowhere in my contributions list and the log of actions on the page only mentions that an older page was deleted last October. Did I actually fail in posting it or was it taken down and if that's the case, why can't I find a record of it? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, this is a discouraging start to my Wikicareer and understanding it better would hopefully make my next attempt to post it a successful one.

Thanks very much,
Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshEnte (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an article Ghost Radio, I don't know if you created it but it was deleted as a copyright infringement (of [7]). There is also User:JoshEnte/Ghost Radio which still exists and is visible in your contributions (if the content is the same then it may also be a copyright infringement). —Snigbrook 00:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I created the user subpage so I could practice and perfect the form for the article. I don't understand two things: 1) why I can't see any record of its deletion for copyright infringement, and 2) how I can avoid the copyright infringement if I copy the text that appears on amazon (which, not coincidentally, also appears on the book's jacket) and more importantly, if i CITE where the information came from appropriately (which I did). Can you please look at the page and tell me how I can make the content safe from deletion? What needs to change? Please help, I appreciate it very much. JoshEnte (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)JoshEnte

The answer to your first question is that you can see the record. Click on the red link Ghost Radio, scroll up, and you'll see the deletion record. The answer to the second is that you can't avoid copyright infringement if you copy somebody's copyrighted text. By all means draw on sources, but you need to put the text here in your own words. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that neither jacket copy nor amazon's website is at all a reliable source. If the book is genuinely notable, you need some genuine sources. For more details, see WP:BOOK WP:NB. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's WP:NB (among other redirects) - gets me every time too. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see below - I've rewritten what I was told to be the problematic section. If this formatting and content meets your approval, please let me know so I can post it to the site officially. I'm really excited to be a Wikipedia contributer, understand I'm trying my best to know and apply the rules.

Please put this in a subpage of your userspace, e.g. at User:JoshEnte/GhostRadio2 and then I'll be happy to offer some suggestions. Thanks. I would do it myself but that's a bit of a breach of etiquette. (Although, if a couple of days pass, I might do it anyway!) --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put it in the subpage you mentioned, have a look when you can. Thanks for your help, looking forward to hearing positive feedback! JoshEnte (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently added cities to the "Liste of Cities in the State of Illinois" page I work for the JULIE, Corporation, Illinois 1 call system where we deal with EVERY city in the State, so in a sence I work for the state. I received a message saying I provided incorrect information AND YET every name I put in was clickable and went to the page for that EXACT city. EXAMPLE: East St. Louis, Calumet Park, West Peoria and others. These are Cities, Towns, Villages or Unincorporated communities.

This information is correct to the Letter and I would like to add EVERY city name that I have from the State of Illinois official List.

Thank you

Eric Username: LvJtwn —Preceding unsigned comment added by LvJtwn (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the cities you added under IP address 76.236.120.197 and 24.1.183.5 are not cities, but villages or towns as stated by the reverting editor. I am not certain of the status of municipalities in Illinois, my only information is from Village_(United_States)#Illinois. Can you cite an Illinois government document that lists these communities as cities? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I also suggest you discuss this with the reverting editor on Talk:List of cities in Illinois. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Calumet Park and West Peoria should not be on List of cities in Illinois. The very first sentence of the article explicitly states that the list does not include towns, villages or unincorporated communities. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've marked this as resolved - I'll leave the posting user a note letting them know the list should not include towns, etc. There's nothing more we can do here. Fleetflame 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

i am working in my sandbox [user:Dkpintar/sandbox], trying to make up an EN:W table for railway icons for which i have proposed more "english" and simpler names, rather than the currect ones bases on DE:W.

i have used the BS Icon: U with two dots above [german: alt0220] and have gotten a warning not to use it any more.

i know some people working in this area proposed using just an "english" U, with a redirect to the icon noted above. but i do not know how to do the re-direct. have used it twice without problem, but i've gotten a warning, which would ban me from wikipedia, for trying to use it a third time, which is the last time i need to use it.

help!?

Dkpintar (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the warnings, which presumably were placed on your talk page? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed it Dkpintar they were just code errors Template:Bs instead of Template:BS. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you! Dkpintar (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's quite an unfortunate coincidence. It might be worth moving one of the two templates if at all possible and changing the redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since Template:Bs is just a redirect to Template:Uw-spam4im, I'm going to change it to a redirect to Template:BS instead. I have already placed notices on the talk pages of every page where Template:Bs is linked from. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from archive page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem with People Discrimination that RodolfMita raise before (please see here) is still alive. After some discussion with editor User:Oli_Filth, he recognize that the name of Oscar Bonello is well known and Bonello is cited in at least four acoustics text books used in Universities of Europe and USA Unfortunately after that… he still erases again all contributions. He erased about 8 other scientist English, German and USA born cited. In fact, Oli_Filth erases ALL contributions that mentions the name of Oscar Bonello. He erases TEN Wiki articles that during 10 months were at the Wikipedia with all other editors’ agreement Yet worst, we found that some Latin American editors were permanently blocked. Is it legal to block editors of different countries only because they wished not to be discriminated?

Please note that The Audio Engineering Society (AES, New York) has been done an excellent work in Latin America with conferences and permanent meetings. Then an increasing interest by University Professors and pupils about Acoustics and Audio Engineering is rising in several Universities in Latin America. Then several teachers decided to improve Wikipedia in this fields, because now the articles are usually very poor documented, for amateurs and with no scientific support. Since we are several persons in different countries and universities, we used to communicate educational news and regional conferences, weekly by e-mail. Maybe for this reason sometimes we helped each other in the editing task. But we are not “socket puppets” We are university professors with solid scientific based knowledge. We ask you to stop the Oli_Filth vandalism and to restore the professor’s names that he has blocked Regard ---BetoVinci (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Note; this is an ongoing sock/meat-puppeting endeavour; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, there's currently a lot of energy going on down at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination) with comments like [8] and [9]. What worries me most, however, is the statements by one user on the article's talk page: [10]. I've tried explaining that these statements aren't really appropriate, but I'm not sure what to do next. Does anyone know how I should approach this? Appreciate any feedback, thanks, Spring12 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'd recommend ignoring it; sticks and stones, and so forth. But if you feel the need, you could try posting at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I'm not sure it would end up being a positive experience, however; you might end up with 2 fora-worth of ribbing instead of one. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, have you read WP:TROLL? It's not really intended for this sort of situation, but it kind of applies! --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, I just don't want to start something unless the situation fully warrants it. I've seen similar things from the particular editor on Talk:Eliseo_Soriano, and a recent comment on [11]. Spring12 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Now this: [12].

But you bear some responsibility here too -- you have made your point at the Afd dicussion yet you continue to question nearly every !vote by other editors. As I said in the discussion, this is not helping your cause. Let the discussion run its course. The reviewing admin will be savvy enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. – ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know (sigh), that's why I've tried to approach it differently throughout the discussion. Thank you for the advice, and sorry (again) if I affronted you earlier. I'll be sure to cut back. Spring12 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AndrewHowse, thanks for the help, but Shannon Rose removed your notice with the edit summary "Ha, Ha, Ha!" :-( in this edit: [13] and another editor's in this edit: [14]. Spring12 (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's her/his own talk page, and they have the right to do that. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but a friendly warning from an administrator might not go amiss, Shannon does not seem to be taking any notice of us mere mortal editors. SpinningSpark 23:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that deleting an entry from one's talk page is deemed to include reading the entry, so Shannon Rose can't claim to be unaware of the issue. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Now this (towards another editor): [15]. I'm allowed to remove the statements, right? Spring12 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Are any admins reading this today? I think we mortals need some help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask MBisanz on his talk page (he came to my mind first). Spring12 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

SpinningSpark has raised this at ANI. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks so much, guys! I was just wondering if we needed to worry about this or not: [16]. Spring12 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In the External Links section of the Twitter article is the line "Twiter is gay" that cannot be removed by clicking on the External Links edit link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr bs (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed, but your computer is likely loading an old version of the page to save time. Try purging the cache by pressing Ctrl + F5. Grsz¹¹ 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Centre Against Expulsions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Skäpperöd summarises [17] using words "particularly the Expulsion of Germans after World War II". The quoted texts doesn't contain such words and doesn't claim, that the Centre prefers post-war migrations. Skäpperöd has several times removed mu "POV" or "fact" templates. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, after opening a case in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, acknowledged I was right and changed the title of an article, to make the Centre Against Expulsions introduction correct.Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for posting here. I've refactored a little, for clarity - I hope you don't mind. I'm afraid I'm not sure what kind of assistance you need - could you clarify a little please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Skäpperöd has incorrectly described the goals of the Centre Against Expulsions. He refused to cooperate. Later he has rewritten the whole article. Now the article includes eg. a text about "Visible Sign", which is a different project, by German government. User:Skäpperöd has used Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement against me, even if he created a number of problems with this article, nort me. In an another article User:Skäpperöd has quoted a Nazi text as a source, which is a crime in Poland and probably in Germany and rationally innacceptable.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC) An another case in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.z-g-v.de. It's a site edited by anonymous people. The original table doesn't quote specific sources, but gives a long list of sources. Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have been given good advice at User_talk:Xx236#Re:_Expulsion_articles and that you should follow that. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Williams Sisters rivalry page currently has two tags on it which both seem a bit over the top to me. (One is about 'intricate detail' and the other states that page 'might need to be rewritten completely') If true, I am fine with them, but I can't for the life of me figure out what about the article is so bad. There are some problems with it, but nothing seemingly warranting those tags. Am I missing something obvious here? Thanks in advance for helping out a relative newbie. AlonsornunezComments 07:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the intricate detail bit is in reference to the listing of apparently every game they every played against eachother, without mention of how each given game was seen with regards to their ongoing rivalry. The size of that section might also be the reason for asking for a complete rewrite, but of course only the person who placed the tag knows that. Whenever you are unsure about a tag, you can take it to the talk page of the article. Tags can be removed is no justification is provided for their placement. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask Tennis expert to come to Talk:Williams Sisters rivalry and make some more concrete suggestions or direct criticisms. While TE's tagging wasn't your typical "drive-by", as he/she has been helping out with the article otherwise, it's usually helpful to explain tags that refer to less obvious problems. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am new to editing Wikipedia. I made a couple of changes to the Troubles page. These were undone. More worryingly, my contributions to the discussion page have been removed. I have left a note at the talk page of the person doing the deleting (O Fenian). Am I correct in thinking that contribs to discussion pages should not be deleted? Thanks Peter Cunningham PRPCunningham (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is discussion continuing at the article's talk page which is the correct place for this as it is a content dispute. Please also note the Arbcom notice at the top of the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first post, Peter, to the talk page was placed at the top when it should have gone at the bottom in chronological order. O Fenian moved it to the bottom for you. Then, when you re-posted, s/he deleted it as duplicative of the first (moved) post. btw, as a new editor, please tread carefully. This topic has, of course, been the scene of much discussion and drama and there are heightened levels of sensitivity there. You really should read the Arbcom notice, as ukexpat suggested; ignorance of the restrictions will be no defence. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I have recieved an WP:OR message. I have 9 references for my article. most are from the New York Times newspaper. The Screen Actors Guild help me verify information, so I do not understand this WP:OR message as I have verifiable references. did I do something wrong in the imputting? If someone is impling that the New York Times is not a credible source? then what is? Can you help me, what can I do? (email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeemac (talk • contribs) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference to original research was triggered by phrases such as "Some of this is based on my memories of him". This isn't the right place for personal recollections, I'm afraid. You could start with the guide to your first article, and perhaps write it in your sandbox (just click on the redlink); when you're happy with it then come back here and one of the assistants will be able to offer some constructive comments. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think there is the basis for a sustainable article here, but the tone is not encyclopedic - for example the Personal Life section. I suggest that you read some of the other biographical articles on Wikipedia to get a feel for the proper tone and also take a look at WP:MOSBIO for assistance. Some other useful pages to read are: WP:YFA, WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:CITE and the ultimate guide to the Wikipedia universe, Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An innovative marketing professional. Currently living in the Charlotte area. (url redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtremblay (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see our policy on conflicts of interest; it's not a good idea to write a page about yourself. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Some time ago, I helped out another editor from this page, Tomkoch, on the Denis Wood article, because he took issue with the content and felt we could do better. However, I've become rather busy in my personal life, and just don't have the time for the issues of this case. Tom wrote his own version of the article in his userspace, at User:Tomkoch/Denis Wood. It needs some work, mostly fixes to take care of potential NPOV issues (partly as Tom knows Wood either personally or professionally) and some wikification issues. After that's taken care of, Tom's version probably should be merged into the current version to some extent.

Thanks to whoever helps out with this! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a shot, so to speak. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I've fixed his citations (missing </ref> tags, unclosed "cite" templates, etc), but that's as far as I've gone. Fleetflame 14:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Koch had already merged his new content into the live version, on 4/6; I've copied some of the refs over to that - thanks Fleetflame - and I'll go back to it later. The userspace version can then be removed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I never noticed the merge. Do you plan to check it for NPOV? That should be the last issue remaining, if I read Mendaliv's original post right. Fleetflame 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I will; there are also some refs to clean up too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it guys; thanks for helping out with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In 1965 Barack Obama Sr. published an article in the East Africa Journal which he signed Barak H. Obama. This article is available on line as a PDF and is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him. See for example [18] This may mean that his original first name had been Barak rather than Barack, that he changed the spelling of his first name to Barack when he came to the U.S. in 1965 and then changed it back to Barak when he returned to Kenya. I have twice tried to insert a paragraph to that effect in the article about him but it was deleted by an editor named Bobblehead and again by an edior named Scjessey even though the source is perfectly reliable. Kindly try to help me resolve this issue as I do not know how to contact those editors. Thanks. --Groucho (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You should try discussing the change at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.. But, I'll say this much; the conclusion you're making represents original synthesis. That is, the source you have only supports that Obama Senior had an article published where his first name was spelled "Barak". Unless you can find a source that specifically discusses Obama Senior's name spelling, changing, etc., this isn't going to get into the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is that his original name was "Barack", but he temporarily adopted the spelling "Barak". Compare Keith Richards, Janie Fricke, or Dionne Warwick as other examples of people who changed the spellings of their names, then changed back. And yet another possibility is that the journal misspelled his name, which has also been known to happen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently went through a heated discussion (OK, yes, I was the one pouring jet fuel on the fire) about a move done where suspension bridge was moved to suspended deck bridge. My position was that suspended deck bridge was a totally made-up term. Long story short was that concensus was reached to maove the article back to suspension bridge. This has left me with some issues on which I would like to get input from a more experienced editor.

1. The reason that the article was moved by that editor is that suspension bridge means both a specific type (engineers use the term to describe the type of suspension bridges built in the last century that are like the Golden Gate Bridgeand the new eastbound Tacoma Narrows Bridge) and the general type of bridge (which would include historical simple suspension bridges and advanced self-anchored suspension bridges). My question is: Are there any examples of articles where this (a dual use of a term as general catagory and specific type) has been handled successfully (i.e., good or featured status)?
2. While there seemed to be concensus that the term "suspended deck bridge" is not verifiable, the editor that closed the requested move (back to suspension bridge where it came from) did not delete suspended deck bridge even though the procedure Help:Moving a page#Undoing a move allows him to that. He left suspended deck bridge as a redirect to suspension bridge. My question is: Is proposing the article suspended deck bridge for deletion (a second nomination) my only option? If not, wnat would be a better (or another) option?

To be sure you understand the previous discussion on this issue, please see the AfD discussion where I nominated for move and delete, and three requested move discussions, here, here and here. Thanks in advance. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your first question, but in response to your second one, it's probably not harmful to leave the redirect in place as a search term. Even if it isn't a verifiable term, it's possible that it's a term used by a certain group, and thus it's a valid search term and merits a redirect. Kind of like how we have redirects from misspellings. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So even though bridge engineering is a subject with the highest level of reliable sources (peer-reviewed papers, published textbooks), we should allow a term to exist (even as a redirect) that does not appear in any of those sources? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See the criteria at WP:RFD#DELETE. It sounds to me like it's a valid search term, but you might want to take it to WP:RFD anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forget that encyclopedia readers may not be experts at terminology or familiar with precise engineering terms. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, most Wikipedia editors will not be experts at the terminology either. Many will not research a topic in great detail to support their edits. So when they find that a term does not make a WP:RED LINK, they are apt to consider it a valid term. It only takes one person to edit an article, find that "suspended deck bridge" makes a WP:Blue link and start putting an WP:UNVERIFIABLE term into many articles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think suspended deck bridge should be either a disambiguation page or a redirect to an article (not yet created) about the classification of bridge deck types: raised, mid, suspended; through, semi-through, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard to find a WP:Reliable source (peer-reviewed paper, published textbook, etc.) that says that suspended deck bridge is either a valid type or category. Have you been able to locate one? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact I have found reliable sources, and at least one I contributed already in one of the many other discussions (talk pages, AfDs, CfDs, and WP:RMs) initiated by PennySpender1983. This is getting old, but anyway here we go again: [19][20][21]"suspended+deck"+suspension. Examination of these books shows that the term "suspended deck bridge" can refer to a truss bridge, a compression arch suspended-deck bridge, a self-anchored suspension bridge, and a "typical" suspension bridge. I thought at first "suspended deck bridge" referred only to the last type of bridge, but now that I know better I think Suspended deck bridge should be either a disambiguation page or an article about suspended deck bridges in general (ie, comparing and contrasting bridges of any type that have suspended decks; suspended decks have characteristic pros and cons). --Una Smith (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Una, you are correct that some of these are reliable sources. You are also correct that they use the words "suspended + deck + bridge" in succession. However, they do not provide a definition of what this term is that matches what you are saying. You are not examining these references closely. This is clear because the second reference you give is a lexicon that is just quoting WikiPedia. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. I have closely examined these references and cannot find any text that defines the term the way you are using it. This means that they are not sources for what you have stated above. You have seen that I am providing quotes from references to support my statements. I would appreciate it if you could do the same. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the [WP] at the end of that one. Okay, throw it out. I am sorry that PennySpender1983 requires a dictionary definition. Evidence of use in reliable sources normally is sufficient, and dictionaries generally do not define sum-of-part phrases. --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why it's such a problem that the redirect still exists. Look at it this way - if it's there and someone types in suspended deck bridge, they will just be redirected to the main article, whereas if you delete it, they may search for it, find the article doesn't exist, and create it. Then the two will overlap. Make sense? Fleetflame 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Editor Assistance. You can go ahead and close this as unresolved. The discussion will continue on the article talk page. I am thinking that I will look for a while longer to find a reliable source that supports what the other editor is saying and then take the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (since Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard redirects there and WP:Verifiability is the real question). Thanks. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and have posted one article, Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics. It has a box at the top of the article with an exclamation point and comments such as "needs improvement" "reads like an advertisement" and "notability in question". The article was revised by other editors and also by me to reflect a neutral point of view; more reliable references were added, yet the box at the top remains.

My next step has been to spend considerable time trying to understand what is and isn't okay in a Wikipedia article. I have revised the article further on my user subpage and done quite a bit of searching to get the best, most reliable, credible references I can find. I'd like to replace the existing article and references with the new and improved version that exists on my user subpage but before I do this, I ask for your assistance/review. However, I notice that on the user subpage, all my carefully researched references do not get listed at the end of the article and I know being able to see and verify the references is something you would need to do. Is there some where else I need to put this version so it can be reviewed? If you can access it on the user subpage, please do so. Here is my primary question: Will this version allow me (or someone else... I am not certain who that might be) to remove the box at the top of the article? Thank you. --WBancroft (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just went back to my user subpage to reread this version and there was a complete list of references. So, hopefully an editor can look at this and get back to me..--WBancroft (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, click the history tab at the top to see who did what. User:Algebraist fixed the reflist thing. I'll look at the rest, later on. Others might do too, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, should be able to remove the banners if you put this up. I have added Wikipeojwect Companies to the talk page. If you check out their pages you will get good ideas for improvemnet. Article could do with with a company inforbox for example. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tags - the issues have been addressed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have given input. I appreciate it very much.--WBancroft (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The information about "Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎" basically refers to Australian international soccer players who are of Croatian origin. This AfD concluded that the information should not be present on Wikipedia in article form; this category discussion concluded that it should not be present on Wikipedia in category form. If people don't want the information as an article, and don't want it as a category, then why is it still on Wikipedia? I would take this to WP:DRV but don't know if that is a suitable forum for what I'm after, as currently when the article is deleted the category is restored, and vice versa - any help would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you have read the discussion at [22]. Have you contacted the closing admin Jc37 as suggested there? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the category discussion and participated in the AfD. I will contact the closers of both debates to see what they have to say. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm; this is starting to look like forum shopping. The closing admin recommended DRV and when I declined to speedy it I also recommended DRV, here. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎. TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping at all; WP:DRV is a last resort, as it admits so itself: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." If we can't resolve it through the closing admins, then I'll take it to deletion review. GiantSnowman 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're misinterpreting the closure of the CfD. This was simply a case of consensus can change. The list exists. Feel free to expand it, develop it, add references, etc. - jc37 09:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Le Tourment Vert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vapeur (talk · contribs · count)

As can be seen in the discussion and history tabs, this article has been repeatedly attacked by sock puppets for the company selling the product. The same company got into trouble for "astro-turfing" on prominent cocktail and spirits blogs, as is mentioned in the article (in between advertising attacks). I believe that the article is correct right now, but will likely be reverted shortly by the company. Thanks for your assistance. While I've loved Wikipedia for a long, long time. I'm new to this whole conflict resolution on Wikipedia, so anything you can do to help is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.235.103 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the article down to a) remove the advertising language, and b) remove the blog-based attacks on the company, aiming for a neutral tone. Other editors are certainly invited to take a look, as I have a feeling it'll continue to be contentious. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the page is getting unbalanced again... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's been a while since the page has been touched. Things may be calming down. Fleetflame 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Hello I just created a new article, and am trying to figure out what to do on it next. I know it needs a lot of work, but I'm not sure where to start. The article is here. ZachInOhio (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my main recommendation would be to ask for help at WikiProject Economics, where editors more experienced with the general subject can give specific recommendations. I'll also say that "economic stimulus" currently redirects to fiscal policy, which in turn does briefly address some of the things I suspect your article would. You can look to it for advice, etc. Another suggestion would be to look for more sources which discuss the subject, and elaborate. Talk about historically-important cases of economic stimulus, research into the effects of it, similar things. I hope this helps! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that many of the items in the history section already have articles, such as the Great Depression and stagflation and should be linked. If you expand any of those titles into a sub-section, you can link to the main article with the {{main|article title}} template. SpinningSpark 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, you should probably delete the article and have the entry redirect to keynesian economics --Lebanonman19 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an internal lawyer for Jones Lang LaSalle. I have been consulted about the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jones_Lang_LaSalle, which contains text that strongly implies that a Jones Lang LaSalle marketing employee named "Tracey" edited the Jones Lang LaSalle wikipedia entry in a biased manner. By my understanding, the edits in question came from an IP address which is Jones Lang LaSalle's, but which is common to perhaps a hundred staff. The "Tracey" referred to denies absolutely that she has ever edited the Jones Lang LaSalle wikipedia entry; she understandably wants the offending text on the 'talk' page removed. Neither Tracey nor I have edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jones_Lang_LaSalle to remove the reference to her, for fear of further accusations about inappropriate editing. My question is thus this: how can this reference be removed, without that removal being viewed as (and publicly stated to be) inappropriate? thanks 210.80.128.183 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited that page until now, but I have removed the unverifiable allegation per WP:NPA. The entire talk page is a bit of a mess, to be honest, but that particular part couldn't possibly be substantiated. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still highly concerning that an IP controlled by JLL was editing the page previously (which I note is the IP which also posted this complaint). It is additionally concerning that the account, contributions is continuing to edit said page even though it seems pretty likely that it's a role account. I haven't looked into the edits, but it's concerning per our conflict of interest guidelines. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor keeps entering information to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Todd that has long since been proven incorrect. The editor now has a beef with the content of the page and does not seem interested in civil discussion about it. His issue is around an alleged use of copyrighted images on Douglas Todd's blog, as Todd is the religion writer for the Vancouver Sun newspaper. How can I stop this vandalisation? My name is Stuart Lyster and I can be reached at <e-mail redacted>.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.160.153 (talk • contribs)

I have added a BLP caution on the IP's talk page. It also would help your position if you used an edit summary explaining why you are reverting these changes. I see that you are a registered user, so please make sure you are signed in before you edit. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the second archived discussion on Talk: Polio vaccine /Edits by IP 97.89.115.184 for history of this editing dispute. I believe the following information, in whole or in part, is a valid addition to this article.

Between 1954 and 1957, there appeared to be a marked decline in the incidence of Polio. However, while this historical decline in statistics coincides with the Salk vaccine trials, it also coincides with the radical redefinition of polio. According to Dr. Bernard Greenberg's 1960 transcript of a meeting discussing the Salk vaccine: Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1957, whether or not any vaccine was used. ^[4]

According to researcher-author Dr. Viera Scheibner,^[5] 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by this redefinition of the disease before the vaccine was introduced. In fact, the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause polio induced paralysis in several countries where there were no epidemics from the wild virus. For example, thousands cases of viral and aseptic meningitis are reported annually in the U.S. which were diagnosed as polio before the Salk vaccine. Also, the numbers of cases required to declare an official epidemic, increased from 20 to 35. Furthermore, the requirement for the inclusion of paralysis in the statistics changed from symptoms lasting 24 hours to 60 days, in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms for 24 hours to symptoms for 60 days. Given such radical changes in the official definition and reading of statistics of Polio, it is not too surprising that incidence decreased radically (at least on paper).

The inventor of the IPV, Dr. Jonas Salk; testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Samuel Katz of Duke University noted the 8 to 10 annual cases of Vaccine Associated Polio Paralysis (VAPP)from the oral polio vaccine to a four year absence of polio in the west. ^[6]

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.115.184 (talk • contribs) , April 3, 2009

The editors on that page have opposed the insertion on the basis that the view is not mainstream and the references given are not reliable. Nobody here is likely to try and override that, you need to convince the other editors by producing acceptable references. SpinningSpark 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If asking at Talk:Polio doesn't help though, you might also want to try asking at WikiProject Medicine or its Neurology task force. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

There are many problems in the Deltona, Florida page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltona,_Florida . One of the editors, 70.119.127.11, has been posting very negative and biased information on this page. There are no citations for any of the items that have been added by this person under the History section. What should be done?

Thank you, Lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraprod (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the content as being POV and completely unsourced. I'll keep an eye on the article in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My father, Tom Van Flandern, was a mainstream astronomer who is noted for supporting unorthodox theories later in his career. In addition to publishing in peer reviewed journals Tom participated in extensive usenet discussions with other noted professionals. A particularly hostile anonymous user familiar with the usenet discussions is now camped on Tom's biography. He's abusive, intimidates other editors, alters cited quotations to fit his perspective, violates the no 3 revert rule and is nonresponsive to feedback.

I recognize that I am partial and have tried hard to become more conservative in approaching this article. There are several things in the article that are flatly wrong and while I've pointed out the errors I've allowed them to remain rather than excessively edit the article myself. I initially violated wikipedia policy myself both out of ignorance and frustration. The article posted after my father’s death was extremely pejorative and when I was unable to correct I repeatedly posted to the site that the VF family viewed the article as libelous. Some admins stepped in and admonished me, but then helped steer the article back toward NPOV for which I am very thankful.

However, the admins are gone now and the hostile user has returned. I've tried talking with him both on the articles talk page and his talk page without success. He's deleted my posts to his talk page (labeling them as vandalism). I'm at a loss and need help. I no longer believe this user is acting in good faith. Thanks Mikevf (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you for being open and above-board in your connection to the subject of the article. It's uncommon enough that someone with such a connection comes straight out with it.

Whew, there's a lot arguing that's happened at Talk:Tom Van Flandern. It seems to me that a lot of it is related to the aforementioned theories Van Flandern proposed, which suggests to me that the fringe theories noticeboard might be helpful, as might WikiProject Physics. But as the problem is an extremely lengthy dispute that has gotten at least cursory involvement from several editors, I don't think you're going to get much help here.

You may also wish to seek out mediation (either formal or informal). WP:MEDCAB is the place to get informal mediation, while WP:MEDCOM is for formal mediation. I've no personal experience with either, but I think having someone experienced in mediating this sort of dispute step in and help sort things out could help. It would especially help make the dispute penetrable by uninvolved editors so some consensus can be established.

I will warn you however that there is a long, long history of disputes in other articles involving "fringe theories" or "pseudoscience", so I'm sorry to say that you probably shouldn't expect this dispute to get less complicated over time. Your position as Van Flandern's son will make it even harder on you. Regardless of the "right" or "wrong" of this, it's a fact of life. My best suggestion is to try to avoid, as much as possible, any drama or anything that could be viewed as tendentious editing, because your edits regarding the article will fall under double the scrutiny of anyone else's.

I don't mean to discourage you from pursuing the dispute if you feel you're correct, however. I feel the force of filial piety as much as anyone else, and hope this situation concludes in a manner that satisfies all parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the assistance is much appreciated. I'll file a mediation request and see what happens. BTW, the identitity of the hostile editor is fairly transparent from his posts and he has an undisclosed conflict on interest but I understand wikipedia has a policy against outing. In this case the policy seems to be protecting actions that are not in good faith. Obviously this is a tricky issue. Any suggestions on this point? Thx Mikevf (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Work as best you can to handle the issue without making those sorts of accusations; soon as you do, you'll need to provide proof, and unless the other editor has openly admitted an affiliation, you'd be outing him. Revealing an editor's true identity without it being a WP:OUTING violation is a tricky, tricky subject, and almost always the focus of drama... even in cases where the editor has previously revealed his/her identity and then tried to make apparently-good faith efforts to undo that revelation. And even challenging an editor to admit the sort of COI you suggest can be viewed as a personal attack, and thus would end up biting you in the backside.

I will agree with you, however, that WP:OUTING seems to often provide a safe harbor for tendentious editors. But, in a lot of cases, said editors' agendas will become clear. Going after mediation and seeking the uninvolved opinions of many expert editors in the subject area (in this case, WikiProject Physics would be a good bet) will typically frustrate the POV-pusher side. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Mike has opened a MEDCAB case here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for the feedback, it is very helpful. Unfortunately I've recently made it clear in the article's talk page that I no longer think the editor is acting in good faith and that I believe he has an undisclosed conflict of interest. I'll retract the allegation based on your advice, seeing as there's no way to discuss the COI without outing the user. However, I'm not going to respond to his posts further as I don't think our interaction is productive. I'll await assistance from a mediator. Thanks again. -MikeMikevf (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, good luck with the case. I'm not sure what the average wait time on MEDCAB cases are, but do try to be patient. I'll also please remind you to be careful about throwing around words like "libel" and "defamation"- even if you feel it's the case, saying so can be interpreted here as a legal threat, which will result in an indefinite block. We take this very seriously; see WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)