Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Have read over your policies and want to make it known that Fas-Break has been a subject of numerous newspaper articles and even front page news. I can supply copies of these articles and a new one is even being written in Missouri as we speak. Does this warrant a second look at adding Fas-Break? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soat (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 September 2007

Judging from the use of the phrase "second look", I conclude that this was probably deleted. Which article are we talking about? Find it, then type the name of the article between pairs of brackets ([[ ]]) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is what is being referred to... Special:Log/delete&page=Fas-break ---- WebHamster 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah-hah. Well, if you are in no way affiliated with the company, you should go to WP:Deletion Review. Editors will form opinions as to whether they endorse the deletion, or whether the community should overturn it. Read up on Wikipedia's deletion policy just to make sure that it should really be overturned. The article appeared to be deleted because it was spam, so maybe instead of going to DR, you could recreate it as an encyclopedic article. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The above article has been deleted TWICE by editors doc glagow and mike33

The member submitting the page gayboy_ds is acting in a malicious manner and has been advised by wiki previously.

Please delete the article

the Rockin Dave taylor was removed as being copied from another website. They actually copiedfrom my website. www.midnightrock.eu and I am the legal owner of the article. How do I reinstate the article?--88.18.196.224 10:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stella Slver

• I've put a CSD notice on the article. The article's subject doesn't actually meet WP:BIO anyway and given the undue weight of the criminal allegations I'd say it was also a breach of WP:BLP too. Also given its CSD/AfD history it's a slam dunk for being got rid of.---- WebHamster 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article has now been speedy deleted. ---- WebHamster 15:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Mike33 would not have deleted it because he is not an admin. He may have nominated it. Adrian M. H. 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel my last two blocks where unfair. (I know, everyone says that, huh?) No really, they were. The last block I received was for 3 days!! and was done by an admin that was involved in a content dispute. I was blocked a day later after my edit. I think it is unfair that an admin involved on an article, and then the reviewing admin looks at my block log and uses it against me. The first incivilty block was reported by a self-proclaimed racist and troll. Blocked by Jimbo Wales himself. I believe that block should be removed from my record, because it was used against me in my recent block by an admin with a conflict of interest. How do I go about defending my blocks so they will not be held against me in the furture? Also how do I report a admin who has abused his power by blocking me? TIA. Jeeny 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you haven't been blocked. Don't worry, same thing happened to me once. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

::I'm not blocked now. How would I be able to post here if I were? I'm asking how to not let them be used against me in the future. this is my block log Jeeny 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny: you need to remove the personal remarks from your talk page before someone else removes them and/or files a report. Accusing other editors of being racists is totally unacceptable, which should be obvious, but apparently isn't. That sort of attitude probably contributed considerably to the previous blocks. Adrian M. H. 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Um, that's the point. They are self-proclaimed racists, and white supremacists. They have been banned for it. Racist is not an insult or personal attack, in this case. My god, it's a fact. Wikipedia is not censored, right? I guess you didn't look at User:Fourdee's contributions. I was insulted by his racism, so were many others, and Jimbo Wales banned him. Jeeny 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of all the details, but that does not give you the right to perpetuate bad behaviour by proclaiming editors to be racists on your talk page. May I point out that you made a sweeping generalisation in the very first line and did not even restrict your unnecessary comments to Fourdee. If you cannot see how responding to bad conduct with bad conduct in turn is unproductive and antagonistic, then it is not at all surprising that you got blocked. That kind of attitude is inevitably going to have a negative effect on other editors who come into contact with you and potentially prejudice your dealings with them. Sometimes, you can get further (in WP as in life) by mollifying people and not reacting negatively to a negative situation. Adrian M. H. 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.... two wrongs do not make a right. That makes you the flip side of one coin. The answer to bullying is not bullying. Your user page seems to say you are "on" to anyone not agreeing with you. That kind of attitude sends the message that you are on a witchhunt, not to contribute to an encyclopaedia. If you are looking for trouble, you are bound to find it. This says more about you than the people you might be going after. Self-righteousness causes toxicity in the air. If you believe that Wikipedia is "fascist" and the "joke of the internet", it might be time to take a break to explore other things. 205.212.75.97 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I please have some help arbitrating on:

Binary_economics#Uses_of_Central_Bank-issued_Interest-free_Loans

regarding the paragraph on 'alternative' technoligies, some of which violate the laws of physics as mainstream science accepts them. There's a whole lot on the talk page at the bottom.

88.108.136.7 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like some basic dispute resolution, go to the mediation cabal. EA is about helping with problems some are facing, but there are many dispute resolution "professionals", if you will, to help in this area. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a new editor and a fledgling art writer, having contributed to several American Artist profiles among other things. I'm trying to resolve conflicts with this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Downes (an artist whose catalogue was sent to me from a gallery and whose work has received much attention).

I ran into obstacles in trying to expand it because the edits were repeatedly re-edited or deleted entirely and for no reason. There is an ugly 'talk page' rant by Fountains of Bryn Mawr that discontinued and returned with similar rants and meaningless edits from RoXbo. One message accused me of being a sock-puppet and being another editor.

I explored the history of the later user, and realized that this user applied a notability tag and seems to be attacking the artist and anyone who edits or tries to expand the information, going as far as to deny the fact that she has a family. There seems to have already been a vote on the page and this is not enough, so this has gotten personal and very nasty. No other article I've edited/expanded has gotten negative response.

As an art history graduate, I feel I have so much to offer Wikipedia but now I'm afraid to log into my account because of the hate mail I'm receiving from RoXbo.

Is there a way to block the user, or a way for me to handle this issue? I don't feel that I can communicate with this person and expect a rational, non-objective response.

Thank you for your time.

Annlanding 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)AnnLanding

Well, if you would like serious action such as blocking to take place, you might want to post on WP:ANI. Until then, remain cool, assume good faith, and remain civil. That way, when you make the report, you will be blame-free. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I also add that you appear to be the unconstructive editor here. The comment on your talk page lashes out at FoBM and others who are editing the page in a way you see unfit. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the user talk has been deleted. The intention is to be constructive and expand articles according to the five pillars of wiki wisdom!Annlanding 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)annlanding

And I'm saying that comments like "Are you an art expert? No. Are you a bully? I think so. Are you biased against young talented women? Perhaps" are unconstructive. If you would like to be respected because of your "expertise" on the matter, you should go to Citizendium. But this is Wikipedia. We do not go by unpublished statements by "experts", only reliable sources. We also have a code of civility. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice clarity J-stan. Annlanding also falsely signed my username to an attacking comment on his/her discussion page. This is clear as the edit history clearly shows it was Annlanding who placed the edit which added my username signature (see below)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annlanding" This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Annlanding (Talk | contribs) at 01:27, 23 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision: "This is a response that I called you meat puppet. This is not junior high school and stop being obsessed in your little loser life with people who don't give a bugger about you. Move on to Marmalat.ROxBo 15:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annlanding"

This is 100% Annlanding's comment (deceivingly labelled), not mine. I believe this reflects a lack of integrity on behalf of this editor. Nonetheless this has been a very unconstructive time, time to let it go from my end. But for the record there has definitely been no hate mail, and the refered to notability tag for Doris Downes was put on by User 69.72.2.72, 26th MarchROxBo 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is sadly not the first occasion on which I have seen an editor make a claim and get caught out by the simple task of checking diffs. She has obfuscated her history of warnings as well [1] [2] which really ought to be discouraged by a guideline (but isn't). She has violated NPA with this edit. [3] shows another removal and the mis-attribution to which RoxBo referred. Then she has the nerve to ask for civility [4]. I think Annlanding has used up her allowance of good faith. I have not looked into the possibility of sockpuppetry, but if you have good evidence, you should raise it at ANI. Adrian M. H. 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have come to ask for external help regarding a dispute on the Samael Aun Weor article. An editor showed up a while ago and started adding material that was POV and unreferenced. This is pretty expected from a new user, and I and another editor on that article tried to explain to that particular editor why his edits were not allowed on Wikipedia and direct him to the relevant policies and guidelines. We have since then several times tried to explain to him, but apparently he does not listen or does not want to understand, because he has repeated those edits several times, claiming that he is right. It would be helpful if someone that is not involved in the subject could give an unbiased opinion on this. The editor in question is Bluemanang and also uses the IP 207.164.192.115. The sections that are disputed are mainly "Official organisms and dissenting organisms" and the headings under External Links which are currently reverted but that can be found in the reversion history. Please ask if you need any more information. Thank you in advance, Anton H 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out this. He doesn't understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't an organization, and he treats it like a bureaucracy. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't seen that. Anton H 10:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted, so no one else can :) He appears to think the administrators are an actual administration, and that you are trying to infiltrate the organization. I assume you have little affiliation with a spy company involved in infiltrating the Wikimedia Foundation, so he's probably just confused. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I hope that he will come to his senses and stop his reverting, otherwise I'm going to ask an admin to block him, it seems to be my only choice at this point. It's sad that it has to come to this though. Anton H 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article natural logarithm I had inserted a passage illustrating that the "common," or base-10, logarithms are not the simplest or most natural variety. To drive home the point, I wrote "the only thing special about 10, after all, is the evolutionary accident that it happens to be the number of fingers with which most humans are born." Twice now that comment has been reomoved—by anonymous editor(s) and seemingly on creationist grounds.

I do not wish to war, or to violate 3RR. I'd be happy to take the issue to talk:natural logarithm, but if I leave the deletion standing, is there any reason to expect the deleter(s) to join the discussion? Is it not verging on cowardice to delete anonymously? (I'm trying not to impute ill will to other Wikipedians...) If I don't leave the deletion standing, is there any reason to expect the deleter(s) to join the discussion, rather than just deleting again? If a consensus is reached, is there anything to keep the minority from ignoring that consensus?

For background on my view of the substance of the matter, yes, I imagine I could be persuaded to leave the deleted passage out. But the deletion weakens the impact and muddies the point that there's nothing special about the number 10 (beyond a cultural convention), whereas there's a good deal that's special about the number e, and that's why the logs to that base are called natural.—PaulTanenbaum 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The history appears to show that you provided only one reference for your additions, but does that reference adequately cover the entirety of your additions? Could the other editors have taken it as unverifiable and/or original research or thought? I am not keen on the essay-like tone of the writing in that article either, which your additions only perpetuated. A more positive contribution would have been made by rewriting the affected prose in a properly encyclopædic style. With regard to edits and reversions: As the mantra goes, it's "bold, revert, discuss" rather than "bold, revert, bold, revert, bold, revert" so you would help your position by being the one to open a dialogue and see what comes of it. I cannot really criticise those reversions. Adrian M. H. 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. Open the dialogue is what I shall do.—PaulTanenbaum 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase referring to an "evolutionary accident" is the only phrase that has actually been removed twice. And it should be removed per WP:NPOV. It has nothing to do with those "creationists", it's that the article should not appear to favor either viewpoint. What remains of the same phrase still gets across the same message. Reswobslc 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

My name is Karl Kolmetz - I have 7 nationally published distillation articles - 5 in Oil and Gas Journal

You were asking for additional content - I went and added some content (twice)

One of your friends Milton Beychok has decided to block my comments

You may wish to contact this gentleman.

Thanks Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkolmetz (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 September 2007

• This was done because the only thing you added/contributed to the article was a link to your own website. ---- WebHamster 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Help. I've strayed into an edit war.

I came into conflict with users User:Bugeyewoodchuck and User:Biggish_Bertha with them reverting my edits of article Brian J Ford. I'm not a very experienced user so I did some reading of the help pages and tried to discuss things, this was met with rudeness. I didn't think my edits were anything outrageous, but I posted an rfc to try to get some other views. No result. I gave up trying to make any useful edits and just reinstated the pov and newsrelease tags on the page, which they kept blanking.

Now they've been editing my user talk page, talking about embarking on some kind of vendetta against me. Which isn't very nice!

Were my edits awful? Have I been naive to expect a community involvement in the dispute? Are there any good ways to get these users off my back? Any advice much appreciated! Andy Farrell 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be my day for trawling through diffs. I have examined every edit to your talk page and every edit to the article since you first edited it, and my head hurts! For now, I will just ask whether you have raised a post at BLPN because the article does not adhere to the BLP policy. Adrian M. H. 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your hurty head. No I've not been near BLPN, hadn't found that among the masses of help pages out there. Andy Farrell 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it a go and see what comes of it. Certainly, this article needs some outside attention. I'll keep an eye open for proceedings and you're welcome to come back here whatever the outcome. Adrian M. H. 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Andy Farrell 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am need someone helps to resolve some confusion on Wikipedia Policies and Guild lines that has been going on here at Talk:Wild Adventures.

The article in discussion is Wild Adventures in the sections of Wild_Adventures#2007_Concert_Series, Wild_Adventures#Pricing including its subcategories. The problem is it seems to written like an advertisement but does not have any external links for those sections, so it does not seem to violate WP:Soap and WP:NPOV. We found a policy that might allow it at WP:NOT#DIR under section 4., stating that if they can be sourced it would be acceptable. The other person stated that he can source those prices.

So are these sections that I listed acceptable or not. IF they are or not tell me which policy's allows them or not. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 02:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned section 4, WP:NOT#DIR, which states "prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless the price can be sourced and there is a justified reason for its mention." Also, see CSD G11, which states that blatant advertising as an article should be removed, and I believe this is relevant for this section. I don't think they should be included. I don't see how you could fix that without it reading like the blatant advertising it reads like now. See as a benchmark Six Flags. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Mo Foster article an edit war is currently building up between myself and another user. The basis for this is bad faith emanating from an article I referred to AfD which was subsequently deleted by consensus. This other user is now following me round WP reverting, deleting and commenting on my edits. This has now appeared to have come to rest on an article on which I am the predominant editor (although I didn't create the article), i.e. Mo Foster. This other user (details are on the article's talk page) maintains that the personal info section of the article is in direct contravention of WP:BLP and as such has deleted it in its entirety several times now. He maintains that it wasn't sourced. I have now sourced the relevant sections and now the other user contests the sources and is making comments that imply bad faith on my use of the sources. His contrib history and talk page (and history as he deleted several vandalism warnings) will attest to the fact that he is wiki-stalking me. He is currently attempting to distract attention by appealing for 3rd party opinion, the problem is that he is only doing so on the article talk page. I rather doubt that this article is in anything more than a wiki backwater, so I am taking it a logical step further and bringing it to more public attention. Many thanks. ---- WebHamster 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It has just been listed at 3O now. We'll see what comes of it. I probably won't be able to take it myself, though, due to time constraints. Adrian M. H. 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing links to a rather odd-looking device with only 94 Google hits here. Thoughts? --CliffC 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cliff. I think that's pretty blatant product promotion. It fails the spirit of WP:EL and the letter of WP:NOT. Adrian M. H. 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for the edit-summary sound bite. --CliffC 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello:

At the large telecommunications company for which I work, my department has created a private wiki for our use. I've been tasked with creating a form on the wiki in which we can capture data and then save it. Further, the form needs to generate and send e-mail messages.

I would truly appreciate and guidance you can give me on this.

Thanks so much. Smtaggart 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)S. Taggart

This is not a question for EA, but one for MediaWiki, assuming that you are using MW's Wiki software. If you are using another form of Wiki software, then they will not be able to help at all. Adrian M. H. 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way we can confirm a translation of a few words? There is a 1930 Soviet social realism poster currently used at Breast#Disorders. User:Snowman has pointed out that we are accepting the stated English translation on good faith, and has suggested that we obtain another view of the Russian text that appears on the image. Can anyone point us towards an trustworthy editor (ie a good reputation) who is capable of this task? Thanks. BrainyBabe 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello BrainyBabe, You can request your translation at the Translation page. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I change the name of my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreambuildersco (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 October 2007

Right next to the "History" tab, you should see a "Move" tab if you are logged in. Go down to the box "to new title" and change the name. Type in your reason, but before you move it, make sure all the redirects go to the new title. Hit "Move Page" below the boxes, and then you're done. By the way, it isn't "your" article. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After 96 hours, of course. Adrian M. H. 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation..... Adrian M. H. 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hello , Im currently in dispute with a poster named Mike.lifeguard, who says he's an editor at wiki, over the article about the RMS Lusitania. I've had a line of dialogue in the article for nearly a month until he started messing with it. The dialogue is this: "Two previous non-Cunard steamers had held the name Lusitania and both were lost tragically". This dialogue has been in the article for a month or so and is reference from Frank Braynard and William Miller, two experts on historic liners. Editor or not he should not delete info that he knows nothing about. And I put the info in the body of the Lusitania's history because I didn't want to start a trivia section per the guidelines. yours sincerely User:141.161.98.98

• According to the talk page the sentence you added was removed due to being unsourced/referenced and that it didn't belong in the paragraph where you put it. Have you tried getting into a dialogue with the regular editors to see what can be sorted? BTW I reformatted your signature above so that it fits in with normal usage. ---- WebHamster 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't remove the line [5]; I'm just suggesting that you discuss changes on the talk page (per policy) and that if you can't manage to do that, then you'll be referred to the admins. Since you couldn't abide by WP:3RR, you've been reported [6]. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A year before I expanded a section in this article, with every track that John recorded with other artists. Like any other artist, I think that it could help in the knowledge of a discography. Then... a guy who only wanna know if an article is 'featured' or not came and deleted all this section. At first he said that there is no citations, then, after I made citations, he send me a message talking about other 'featured' discographies that doesn't got a 'guest appearences', and then, deleted again. His message:

Please do not re-add the information. It is an unencyclopedic blob of nonfactual information. Hilary Duff discography, Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography, Natasha Bedingfield discography are all Featured Lists of solo artists that do not contain a "guest appearances" section. NSR77 ^T_C 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My english is poor, i'm not the kind of guy involved in the wiki like this guy, but everything i can do here is a pleasure. So... Thank you.--César 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My initial impression of your description is that the other editor is doing what we all should do; use the benchmark. It is not that he cares only about FAs; it is that he quite rightly wants any article with FA potential (ie, a large percentage) to follow the standard. I'm sure that you are aware of the need and preference for a certain amount of consistency throughout the project. Adrian M. H. 12:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding this site extremely difficult to navigate and need some one-on-one assistance. I posted an article regarding a book swapping site named Frugal Reader. There is an already existing article about a similar site called Paperback Swap. I'm not sure why my Frugal Reader article was considered spam, advertising or what-have-you and the other article was approved, but I'm unable to set any kind of tag to dispute the deletion.

I'm a new member/user of Wikipedia and would really like to get this resolved. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvnsnow (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 September 2007

• There are 2 articles you should be aware of, the first one is WP:WAX which should answer your "well there's another article..." point. As for resurrecting the dead, please look at WP:DRV. Incidentally, please get into the habit of signing any comments you leave as no-one knows who's asking the questions/making the statement. ---- WebHamster 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Folks,

The biography on the Wikipedia page under my name "Cynthia Gouw" has been reportedly very helpful for community organizations who use me for community events. They just take my bio right off the Wiki page for their printed event programs.

But it is also discouraging to see that my article "reads like a resume" and is "orphaned". I'm trying to change that. But I am unsure how because your instruction page is quite difficult to navigate.

In my humble opinion, the article seems to be written in a very neutral fashion. Respectfully, I don't think it should be labeled as "written like a resume". I would very much appreciate it if you could review it. I'm very open to suggestions on how to change it, and very much welcome your advice. I've seen other biographies on people who are in my similar profession (Dale Hansen, sportscaster) that are clearly slanted, but they aren't labeled as "this looks like a resume".

Also, I am discouraged that the article seems orphaned, which I am unclear of what that means. "Katherine Creag" or "Wayne Freedman" bios seem similar to mine, however theirs aren't labeled that way.

I would greatly appreciate any advice or any consultant I could talk to. I am also prepared to compensate someone for their time and effort to assist me.

Many thanks for your consideration, time and help,

Topwinggirl75.196.10.189 05:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cynthia. Welcome to Wikipedia! The article on you isn't bad as far as neutrality is concerned, but it doesn't read like a biography. The way the data is organised by category does seem like a resume. You might try checking out some WP articles on other newscasters and models in order to get a feel for what your WP article should look like. Dan Rather, Cindy Crawford, Barbara Walters, Bill Moyers for instance. As for the 'orphan' tag, links to your article need to be added to relevant articles. Maybe do that after your article has been improved. And I assume you are already familiar with the thin ice of Wikipedia conflict of interest? This applies to folks editing articles about themselves. It's not forbidden, but it must be done with care. Consider just commenting on the talkpage of the article with your suggestions for improvement. Or, if you wish to do a complete re-write, post it in your userspace for evaluation by other editors. And finally... When outside people and agencies use WP content it must be credited. I hope your associates are doing so? Good luck and happy editing! Anchoress 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

While I realise you must be very busy, I wonder if it would be possible to take a look the entry on Robert Mugabe? I afraid it's turning a bit thingy.

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

TB77.101.75.15 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, might I say you have quite extensive contribs. Have you considered creating an account?

Second of all, your edits to the page appear to be biased. Wikipedia is neutral. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have created an account with you to try and upload a file. I thought I had successfully done this, however, I am having difficulty locating the file - please can somebody call me <removed phone number> to talk me through where I might be going wrong.

The file is in PDF format and it titled Red Hot Roulette - I have since tried to upload it for a second time and the site tells me that a file with that name already exists, however I cannot find it anywhere.

I would really appreciate it if someone can please get back to me today at some point.

Many thanks

Natalie Stack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.137.59 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 September 2007

We don't accept PDFs, so that's the biggest issue first of all. File upload is intended for images and some other media files. Adrian M. H. 11:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in having a page added to List of social networking websites as I feel it is relevant to the topic. The article can be located here User:Saracity123/Sandbox. Saracity123 03:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a sense of de ja vu. You could add a mention of Flugpo in that article, though you should make sure that you provide a reliable and independent reference source. To do otherwise would be to perpetuate the problem that currently afflicts that list. Adrian M. H. 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please inform me the way to deal with this issue? I have discussed it but the person who wrote the article originally seems to think no one has a right to change it. They have reverted it four times wthin 14 hours too. Can the page be locked, or a third party to use logic and neutrality to resolve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2007

• Articles should use reliable sources; as such, I think any content that could be challenged should contain appropriate references. Also, as you may very well be aware, OWNership of articles is frowned upon. In any event, I would encourage you to keep the dialogue going. You may want to try WP:30 as well. --Aarktica 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

I am the director of the petition project. I edited your posting because I know, from first hand personal knowledge, that many of the allegations in the posted text are false. The edit I submitted was immediately rejected. These false statements are demeaning to me and the to other scientists who work on this project and are harmful to our work.

While the Internet contains numerous false statements about this project that have been posted by its opponents, these false statements should not appear on your site.

The text I posted is truthful and correct.

I very strongly object to the continued posting of a libelous description of my personal work.

Art Robinson BS,PhD (Caltech and UCSD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 October 2007

See your talk page William M. Connolley 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Truth" is often a subjective concept, and without being in possession of all the facts, we are not necessarily in a position to judge "the truth"; we therefore have to put the quantifiable qualities of verifiability and neutrality ahead of everything else. WP:FIVE. Without introducing undue weight, all WP articles have to strive to report any and all available information (with a very few specific exceptions) that has been published in primary and secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. In other words, if you go around removing referenced material, expect a warning template, and if you want to contest unreferenced material, you should always follow due process. Adrian M. H. 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:COI. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Edgewood, New Mexico entry has been vandalized several times by an anonymous poster with IP address 68.35.156.158. I'm the author of the original content, except for the "standard" geographic information. The content is apparently politically motivated, contains false accusations against public officials, and is not appropriate to a "municipal information" type entry.

What is the procedure and/or process for dealing with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 October 2007

See WP:REVERT, WP:VAND, and WP:WARN for the low-down. And WP:3RR (because I actually saw someone claim recently that reverting vandalism is restricted by 3RR, which it is not). Please don't forget to sign your comments. Adrian M. H. 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I hope that edits such as this one are not what you are referring to as vandalism, because that is a content dispute. Edits such as this are vandalism. Adrian M. H. 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had to remove the "content" (I use the term very loosely) that you added in this edit. This is obviously completely unsuitable for article space. If you want to make comments, that is what the talk page is for. Alternatively, if you want to add a brief and informative hidden comment into a certain section, you can do so. Adrian M. H. 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and attention. I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, and still learning the ropes. I suppose this sort of thing is inevitable, especially given the strong feelings that tend to accompany these local "debates." Your comment here gives me a much better understanding of the difference between "article space" and "talk space." I'm still trying to figure out how this can proceed to mediation, etc. if the other party is posting anonymously; I'd really like to keep the "pedia" in Wikipedia for this article.Weckerleje 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As editing issues go, this is small and routine, so mediation is not on the cards at all. Since no discussion has taken place, no form of DR is appropriate. If the content that you consider to be unsuitable is added again, try to rewrite it: condense it down into one short paragraph that merely reports the issue without any inflection and find references to support it. Of course, that is what the anon should have done in the first place, but that's life. Remember that "neutral" does not mean "devoid of any negative content". It would be pretty tricky to write certain biographies otherwise! Academic now, but you could have applied escalated warnings from the first occurrence using {{uw-npov1}} or {{uw-unsor1}} onwards, or left a more explanatory talk page note in your own words. Adrian M. H. 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your willingness to bring me along on all this is greatly appreciated. An interesting aside: I looked at the vandalism example you provided, and checked out that IP address's other edits, a large majority of which involved similar vandalism of a wide variety of Wikipedia pages. I traced the IP address, and it turned out to be a server at one of the local high schools. The school administration is looking into it.Weckerleje 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. You can add {{SharedIPEDU}} to the IP's talk page so that other editors will be informed. See the template's talk page for info. Adrian M. H. 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing format:

• < >.

Thank You, Hopiakuta 02:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll need a little more information than that. Thank you. J-?tan^Talk_Contribs 02:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I, literally, do not comprehend that.

I could interpret that as evasive, that you do not want to go to that page.

Or, I could guess that you mean that directly, & that you want me to copy & paste half of a discussionpage.

That would lead to my pasting the paragraph that I dispute,.... Then, I would need to paste the entire page that that references,...

Or, I could oversimplify the problem,...

Well, to do that is to say that:

"No one @ that school knows how to spell anything."

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&action=history >. Hopiakuta 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to, wastefully, paste all of those pages here?? Hopiakuta 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be helped, you can start by revising your signature; the current form is, in a word, distracting. --Aarktica 04:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Making remarks like "...No one @ that school knows how to spell anything..." is rude, unhelpful, and could be considered disruptive. Unless you can provide reliable sources for such claims, that could be considered libelous conduct. --Aarktica 05:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, inferring that J-Stan is being evasive when he is offering to be of help fails to assume good faith. Should you decide to persist in your current behavioral pattern — including the injection of URLs without context in your posts, excessive wikiling, etc. — you could be denied any further assistance (please see WP:EA#EXPECT for more on what to expect from EA.) --Aarktica 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are literally, factually, the three interpretations that I could think of.

The only remaining one is to paste all of that data here.

If I were to do that, would you denounce that as well??

I, hereby, back-off from all three interpretations; I, am, now, left with gibberish. So, as if my original request were here as originally written, please, attempt an innovative comment.

That is, if all of the intervening comments are withdrawn, mutually.

Do you truly think that I would scribe however many hundreds, or thousands, of comments, without sincerely, genuinely, wanting responses??

So, maybe you all could begin assuming my good-faith as well. More than half the time, it does seem that that respect is simply not afforded me.

So, please, begin w/ the original comment, assume my good faith, & try to think of an alternative method of approaching it. The same should be true of all else that I'm requesting as well.

Incidentally, if a school cannot spell the name of their very own self-chosen mascot, what would you interpret that as?

Thank You, Hopiakuta 06:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem on that page, and this request for assistance is totally unnecessary. There was a minor spelling error on the page which had been overlooked; this editor corrected it and added some meta-comments in the article text about the fact that the name is often misspelled. I removed those comments as they are not appropriate or relevant to the article about the school. This is a lot of noise about nothing and I recommend it be ignored - there's no problem there. It's an article about a gifted-and-talented students' junior high school, probably written by its students, so the editor is commenting on what he sees as irony in their misspelling of the given name of the person the school is named after. Seeing as they are kids trying to do a good job on their article, I think the sarcasm is misplaced. I have no connection to this school or the article, but I'll keep an eye on it. It obvkiously could use some re-writing, but it's basically ok. Also see this.. Tvoz |talk 06:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored his ridiculous signatures. Adrian M. H. 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what was confusing. Why did he post links to start a new discussion on this page? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am having a minor dipuste with another user on the SNP page. I had added a 'controversy' section, detailing, in particular, a story about a U-turn in SNP policy regarding bus re-regulation that took place after they received a donation from the owner of a large bus company. The item was particularly newsworthy as the businessman in question is highly controversial after funding an unsuccessful campaign against the repeal of Thatcher's homophobic Section 28 law. This story was widely reported in the press, and I believe it should be featured on the SNP page, the other user - 'Francis Tyers' - disagrees and removes my paragraphs whenever they go up. What can i do? I am sure that this is a valid addition to the page and is certainly verifiable. I added to the talk page here, where you can see more details of the dispute. Templetongore 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you didn't state anywhere whether you accepted the "compromise" that User:Francis Tyers proposed on that talk page. Do you accept the compromise? To add further context, I checked out some other party articles, and they really don't talk much about specific/centralized controversies on the main party articles. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept the compromise as it is not a compromise - by only listing Souter's name people cannot see the story behind the donation, that the party was willing to accept money from a bigot, and that their promise to re-regulate the buses was later dropped (this may or may not be linked). I think people use Wikipedia as a research tool, and therefore expect articles to be balanced, i.e. feature the good, the bad and everything inbetween. The SNP did really well in the recent Scottish elections, this is good and the details are up, but they also have their fair shair of controversy, and it should be available for people to read as well. If there was another article where political controversies could be listed by party I would be happy to add the information there.Templetongore 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a compromise; but maybe you don't think it goes far enough? Won't people who click on Souter's name see the controversies related to his donations? None of the other party articles talked about party controversies on the main articles (not just Scotland, but the States as well). I'm not sure that the SNP should be any different. I agree that articles should try to be more than just a sympathetic viewpoint, but I'm having trouble trying to find a main party page that talks about controversies in such a way as you describe. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but on the UK Labour party site there is a section about their funding, specifically the cash for honours scandal. The Souter news item that I wish to include on the SNP page is essentially 'cash for policies', but at the very least it is controversial party funding (Souter is an outspoken homophobe). Is there not a parallel there?

Yes, there is. You've convinced me, I'm going to add a note to the SNP talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently posted an edit to the 'History" section (I thought), but I see it has turned up in "Mission Statement'. The edit was intended to correct an error regarding the use of the name 'Hellgate H.S.', which came into being only after Sentinal H.S. opened about 1954, not when the University of Montana opened, as stated in the Wiki 'History'. Can you shift that small paragraph up a notch? Thanks! Roger Smith, 90.5.194.60 12:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I also removed your email for privacy. For future reference, here are some helpful links: Cite your sources, Manual of style, Layout guide, First article, Article development and How to edit Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually asking this request as a reader more than an editor, but it has a lot to do with Wikipedia policies. I'm highly concerned about the article on Mitt Romney. I was just reading it today and noticed that there is no section on any of the controversies involving Mitt. I noticed on the talk page that in the "To-Do" list that #3 is "Remove any text that is unflattering or critical of Mitt." and is listed as "Done" as of Apr 9 2007. This seems to be a blatent violation of NPOV and makes the article read like a campaign advertisement for Mitt. Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm a little intimidated about trying to edit if any information I post is deemed 'unflattering' or 'critical' might be removed. Petros63 09:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• You make some valid points. My suggestion would be for you to at least raise the issue with the editor responsible for the post in question. --Aarktica 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like a third opinion/help with Talk:Fashionable Nonsense and Phil Sandifer. I'm fairly new to the controversial stuff and I admit I have been a bit passionate about some of my views. I've been criticised by Luluofthelotuseaters and taken his criticism on board. (See my talk page: User:MarkAnthonyBoyle). I'm engaged with editing (writing) Fashionable Nonsense and I am feeling harrassed by another editor. We are in something of an edit war, but I feel that he is being incivil (personal attacks) and Wikilawyering. Maybe I'm being oversensitive? Maybe I've got a reasonable case? Can someone please advise me? see below:

• Talk:Fashionable Nonsense#Undue weight
• [personal attack]
• [rephrasing]
• [diff my comments on Phil's user page]
• [reversion war]
• [reversion war]
• [reversion war]
• [Phil's idea of Lacan]
• User talk:MarkAnthonyBoyle#Fashionable Nonsense

Phil Sandifer used to go by the name of user:Snowspinner. You can see his comments further up the talk page Talk:Fashionable Nonsense#References to Fashionable Nonsense in other articles. It is quite clear that he has a strong POV. That is not the problem. It was quite obvious from the off that User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and I were on opposite sides of the fence on Lacan. We managed to put aside our differences and worked together really well. I think that article really benefitted from our work together. With Phil Sandifer, however, I feel harrassed. MarkAnthonyBoyle 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• As you may very well be aware of, EA exists to provide information to help editors on learning how to work with the community's standards, norms, and policies to achieve consensus. Seeing that you have described this as an edit war, I would invite you to step through the dispute resolution process. To that end, I believe seeking a third opinion would be in order at this point. Hope this helps. --Aarktica 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down now. If things get heated again I certainly will do that. Thanks, MarkAnthonyBoyle 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am in the middle of a dispute on the Open_xml page. I made a referenced edit. There has been an edit war. User User:HAl has in my opinion violated the 3 revert rule, used a sock puppet, and is now making personal attacks. I have filed a 3 revert rule violation in that he repeatedly removes my edit. I have filed a Suspected sockpuppet and reported the personal attack Though Hal has made other personal attacks since then. It appears that hAl thinks he is in charge of the Open_xml page. That he can remove anything he personally doesn't agree with. Even if something is referenced. He is making bias edits, especialy in anything that may be a criticism. The Talk:Office_Open_XML page is full of evidence of this behavior as well as hAl s own talk page. What I would like is someone to take a look at this who isnt involved. To make sure I am seeing this correctly. Secondly, if I did the right thing in reporting what I believe to be violations. Third, exactly what can I do to solve the bias'd editing problem and personal attacks. Thanks Kilz 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take this over to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are too many editors involved in the talk page debate now. We are strict about the two-party rule at 3O. It really should go to RFC instead. Adrian M. H. 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - despite the 10 month delay - i have a kwik query regarding my original posts... 1 - defamatory against Tony Newton (which is me) & personal attack on Nathan Soehardi (my fellow in foolproof comics) - the original posts i put up for these were 2-fold... 1st was an actual bio on us, 2nd was a parody bio our editor jason wrote about us all. As these were actually sanctioned by us - fair enough they were not real, but labelling me as someone who was logging a personal attack (esp on myself) seems harsh. can i get these 2 removed from my profile please? 2 - fictionym write up. i originally just posted a media release that seems to have read like an ad - sorry folks, just seemed a quick answer to adding info about my comic stuff. dont mind if that one stays on there - so what guidelines are there for these things... i am a part of a bigger indy comics group now & would like to update the system without being bumped off for advertising... ta! Tnewton69 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can i get these 2 removed from my profile please?"? Short answer: No. However, you could choose to select a new username, and start your editing history over with a blank slate. If you choose to do this, I would like to point you to the conflict of interest guideline, which would strongly discourage you from editing articles about you, your friends, family, company, or products you are associated, as it tends to be difficult to remain neutral, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Instead, what might be a better course of action, would be to post items you'd like to see included (or removed) from articles you're closely associated with, onto their respective talk page, and allow neutral editors to review and add/remove them as appropriate. Another thing you may wish to review is the biography of living persons policy, which is something Wikipedia takes quite seriously. This would be why a seeming "attack" on someone (even if it was you, posting a funny thing about yourself) would be seen as improper humor. Your contribution to the general comics area could be of great use, of course, but you'd need to be sure to not promote any products or companies during the course of editing. If you'd like any more assistance, there is also the very large help section which covers all major areas. I hope this was somewhat helpful, cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently "Editor Richard" is hiding from me somewhere. He wrote as follows, and I replied.

Received from Wikipedia 10 7 7 Su [edit] Inserting your opinions into articles You additions to death have all been reverted - they are poorly written, inappropriate in tone, weasel worded and clearly your own opinions. Wikipedia does not accept such material and never will. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:TONE if you wish to contribute here. Richard001 23:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And I replied... If this be your "standard of excellence," I'd can't imagine what you would consider "neutral language," that is, unopinionated. Wikipedia is virutally a solid mass of opinion, mostly dishonestly masquerading as neutral language. Still I enjoy the sides taken, for it all is exceptionable.

There is no "neutral language," especially in an age when adversarial rhetoric dominates and where "balanced discourse" does not exist. But you, secretly, know that. And if "in pubic" you insist on your opinions as truth, I wish you happiness in your illusions. Escapisms do salve the conscience temporarily.

This tends to put Wikipedia in a very different light from what at first I had thought of it. Perhaps Richard would like to define "weasel words." Does he understand what he is saying?

Headsmith 05:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Jay Dalsnathe <headsmith.comm@yahoo.com>

I can do it on his behalf if you wish? WP:WEASEL. ---- WebHamster 10:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And to add to the above, here are additional pages to review: words to avoid, neutral point of view, no original research, and Information style and tone in articles. While poor writing alone is not a reason to revert, when it is combined with issues that directly go against guideline and policy (and please note that the neutrality policy is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia), then there is a very good, and valid reason to remove those edits. Here are some more links to help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, and help improve writing style: Cite your sources, Manual of style, Layout guide, First article, Article development. Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 10:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Having just read your edits I'd say that Richard001 was bang on the money in regard to the comment he left. Your edits were indeed mostly POV, OR and contained several examples of weasel words. There also seemed to be a liberal portion of WP:SOAP too. This 'complaint' seems similarly afflicted. ---- WebHamster 11:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I am looking for assistance. I work for the Southwestern Company and I want our profile to be a bit more evenly balanced. We had a pretty decent profile for a while, but it was accused of being an advertisement and changed very quickly after that. We tried to make it factualy accurate and link to ours and external websites. A lot of that was deleted.

I understand that many people have different views regarding the Southwestern experience, but I feel the current article has a lot of personal opinion included. Especially in the Discussion page (which shouldn't be there from my understanding). The article has been changed to a negative viewpoint and referenced to a negative website. How is that different than what we did originally that was considered an ad?

Can someone coach me to change the current article? Nobody here wants to misrepresent anything or hide anything. We would just like a balanced and accurate article. Please help. Thanks.

206.107.215.5 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read that article but I'll make a few comments about how to proceed.

• For anything you add, provide a citation to a reliable source. Uncited material can and often should be deleted.
• Insist on citations for statements in the article from other editors.
• On Talk:Southwestern Company make specific suggestions for changes to the article. Try to keep your suggestions concise. In general, add a separate Talk section for each suggested change. Numerous short suggestions are easier to discuss than a single, very lengthy suggestion.
• Remind editors that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, NOT for talking about the company.
• Consider writing on a subpage of your user page a replacement article, then invite discussion about your replacement.
• Consider creating an account, instead of remaining a user who is known only as 206.107.215.5.
• If the above steps don't lead toward a consensus, then ask here again.

Sbowers3 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I formally request that I be made moderator of the afforementioned page due to several disputes that have been going on regarding the unofficial patches.

Royal Ambassador to Tessmage.com 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not how things work in Wikipedia. Editors are not "made moderators" and they are certainly not appointed guardians of specific articles. (WP:OWN?) If you want to deal with disputes, you should read WP:DR. Adrian M. H. 16:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have worked very hard on putting together a detailed chart of Toni Braxton's singles charting but one person keeps changing what I set up. I revert his changes but he just comes back and changes it agian. Ive tried to contact him to no avail. I think its important to know how she faired on US charts like dance, R&b and Adult contemporary. I just dont know what to do about him changing it all the time. maybe you can help me? his user name is Malcolmo - User:Afprep2498

After glancing at it quickly, I don't agree with Malcolmo's edit summary that your edits are "vandalism", but you are removing information, namely the links that cite the relevant items, such as the links to the chart data. Granted, those should be put into references, instead of being naked URLs in the article, but they are still being removed by your edits. I suggest that you make a post on the article's talk page explaining your changes, and why you did them, and then drop a note on Malcolmo's talk page to ask them to review your comments on the article's talk page, and the two of you can work together to create a better table. I'm sure if you post a clear explanation about what you've changed, and why, it will make sense. I hope that helps! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on the article's talk page there seems to be an element of Afprep2498 suffering from a case of WP:OWN, especially as he/she attempts, on the talk page, to warn off any other editors from editing the article. ---- WebHamster 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, I didn't check the talk page. Well, my suggestions stand, work out the issues with the other editors. Wikipedia is a community, and articles are a giant collaboration, so this one is no different. Good luck! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mam,Sir: My user name is Atkins_1957. I am developing an article in which I attempted to link out to the class of 1957 photo album which is hosted by flickr, but this was removed by a bot. How can this linkage be achieved? I can receive e-mail on <removed> (otherwise I'm not sure how to get back to this discussion since I followed a long trail of links to get here! I'll make a favorite on my web browser.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkins 1957 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 October 2007

Wikipedia does not accept external images. If you want to use an image in an article, you'll have to upload it. Make sure you follow the guidelines, though. By the way, your email has been removed for your safety. Since you have a registered account, you can keep track of this page by clicking the "watch" tab at the top to add it to your watchlist. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

After digging through your contribs, I found Atkins High School. Is that what you are referring to? To read about the bot, click here. By the way: you should add this help page to your Watchlist. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd that there was no edit conflict there! Adrian M. H. 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to be uploading images, please review the image use policy, as well as the copyright policy and fair use policy. Images that are copyrighted by someone else, or whose copyright status is unknown (such as often happens on flickr and sites like that) should generally not be uploaded unless you can be sure there is no copyright on the image. The image needs to have the proper copyright/license tag as well, or it risks being deleted. If you review the pages linked here, it will give you a much better idea of how to go about uploading images and assuring that they won't have problems. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to the article about Atkins High School. I am not interested in uploading images from flickr, rather, I want to direct readers to information about the class of 1957. In this case the information is pictures on flickr. You can see something similar in the article on Richard J. Reynolds High School. Under External Links you can see Class of 58 Reunion Site (and several others). Although this does not go to flickr, it does go to an outside site, which in turn links to their photographs. At this point we do not have a site with all the features that they have, but we do have photographs. Is this how I sign? Atkins 1957 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Atkins_1957

You will want to review the external links policy. Normally links to Flickr, You Tube, Photobucket, etc are not valid external links. External links should be placed to provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it were in a completed form, while being relevant to the content and context. To refer to an outside site simply to show a "yearbook" of sorts, I'm not sure would really be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done a rudimentary cleanup on this article, dispensing with one link that just went to the school's own wiki and gave no more info than in the article itself. It was being used as a reference but as it wasn't a WP:RS... ---- WebHamster 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've followed up with a very thorough cleaning, including moving a rather lengthy commentary/opinion section on the principal to the article's talk page, and I've linked the school's site in external links, and put the naked URLs into ref templates for the notable alumni section. The article now conforms to WP:MOS standards, with wiki links and sections, but it could still use some good reliable sources for the history section. Hope that helps explain things. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the people who actually experienced principal Carter would say that he was a collosal figure and that the school had a strong stamp of his personality on it for the 28 years he was there. I think his history definitely belongs. I will endeavor to find and cite the source of the Carter material. Relative to the photo link, I have only been told "no" so far without any positive suggestions. As I mentioned previously, the Richard J. Reynolds High School article has several reunion sites listed as external links (some of which are not current). In their class of 1979 link, the path to photos is quite short. The Chapel Hill High School (North Carolina) article has a link to an alumni website. What I am attempting to do is similar to these except that we have no site of our own at this point. In our case the school no longer exists so there is no official site. Atkins 1957 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Atkins_1957

Have you tried linking to a page of thumbnails for the group, rather than directly to a specific image? e.g. Paul Manship (I did search for "atkins high school" on Flickr but it didn't come up with anything. ---- WebHamster 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If the guidelines/policies do not permit a specific addition, then there may well not be any alternative to suggest; if an EL is not suitable – and I am not passing judgment on this particular link – then it is not suitable. You will certainly need to provide citations to reliable independent sources that cover any material that you choose to add; to do otherwise is essentially to add original research and/or unverified claims. Both of those are policies and are essential reading for all editors. There is a certain degree of leeway with them, as with others, but it is (quite rightly) limited. Avoid using other articles as a benchmark, unless you know that they are the benchmark; that kind of assessment becomes a lot easier with the experience of a lot of editing and reading. I indented your comment for you, by the way. Adrian M. H. 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I need to know what I did wrong here. I want that page deleted, if possible.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/parasitedb.com

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/parasitedb.com Chiazwhiz 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Adrian M. H. 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It gives people a (false!) impression that the site has to rely on spamming Wikipedia, which is of course not the case... Chiazwhiz 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not really a valid reason to delete that page. Might I suggest that if you have some connection with the website in question, you should not have added the link in the first place? Have you read the EL guidelines? Adrian M. H. 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I am new to Wikipedia and have not read that page. I thought the site offered some informative content that would help the reader. But if an editor found the sites to be unrelated to the topic at hand, shouldn't it be deleted? Chiazwhiz 07:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you've already commented on the talkpage of the report. It was generated by an automated Wikipedia script that edits like a human with human help, which sometimes makes mistakes. I'm not saying that was the case for you, but you should probably take it up on the bot's talkpage. A real human (probably more than one) monitors the page, and will reply to your concerns. But if the accusation of spamming is considered justified by the COI editors, you may not have any recourse. Good luck! Anchoress 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI I just put a note on the bot's talkpage. Anchoress 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Bioshock has been semi-protected now for almost a month. I left a comment on this at the admins userpage four days ago but they failed to respond to it despite being active on the wiki and answering other comments on their talk page. How long should this article be protected? It doesn't seem quite fair to be blocking anon edits for almost a month. Looking through the history, it was protected on the 16th from "perpetual vandalism" from ip 70.234.160.58. However, the page was protected for a month only after this ip user vandalised twice. From the lack of input from the admin, I get the feeling they want to just block all anon edits for as long as they can get away with it. Anyhow, any input would be great, is it right to be locked for so long, or is it as unfair as it seems to me? Parjay ► Talk 13:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"I get the feeling they want to just block all anon edits for as long as they can get away with it" I strongly doubt that's the case. Anyhow, requests for unprotection is what you're looking for. It says to "please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here" so make sure to mention that you've already tried to contact the protecting admin. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Based only on your description, it would seem that you may have a valid cause for concern. It certainly should take more than two bad edits to provoke protection. Check your facts absolutely thoroughly (study the history, etc.) because it may be worth posting a note at either WP:AN or WP:RFPP. That will depend on how you want to approach the issue; just getting the page justifiably unprotected or raising your concerns. Or contact another admin directly for assistance. Let us know the outcome. Adrian M. H. 13:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a user, WaverlyR, who has been repeatedly eliminating any negative criticism of the The Best American Poetry series from the page of that name. This user has been warned repeatedly to desist, both on her talk page and on the edits page, and will not. The links WaverlyR seeks to vandalize (i.e. remove) are representative of a groundswell of criticism in the blogosphere over flaws in the methodology of the The Best American Poetry series, as well as the cronyism which has overtaken the series. Several of the links take data directly from the pages of the series' entries themselves to substantiate the allegation of cronyism. WaverlyR is insisting on "verifiability" for any *opinion* of the series (in the "Critical Reception" portion of the article), and is deleting any link to data analysis of the series because, presumably, if that analysis appears on a high-traffic blog rather than from a media outlet, it is "unverifiable." This user--me--owns all 21 editions of The Best American Poetry series and the data at the links being destroyed by WaverlyR is indeed accurate.Burks88 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And just an FYI, attempting to 'out' another editor is a big no-no on Wikipedia. ---- WebHamster 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--Webhamster, I didn't realize, and I'm sorry for that. It will not happen again. [And I have deleted the offending material].Burks88 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look at WP:V, especially WP:SPS. Blogs are usually not acceptable as sources. WaverlyR appears to be doing the right thing. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--J-stan, thank you. I will include the specific data taken from the source material itself, and then link to the page for the source material (the BAP main page). I am trying to avoid a situation where information that comes from source material is not "citeable" because it has only been duplicated on a blog. But as I can confirm the accuracy of the information, because I own the source material, I will put the data directly on the entry and site the source material. Thank you.Burks88 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the policy about blogs as sources. I'm hopeful that Burks88 will make the necessary changes. WaverlyR 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

--UPDATE: In the interest of decorum I have relented, though I was not in error. The entry has been amended to a) remove all references to bloggers, b) remove all citations to bloggers, c) include only critical reviews from literary journals (with proper citation), and d) recite statistics taken directly from the source material, with a link to the BAP series page, which includes Tables of Contents. If any editor believes the data is incorrect, he or she should explain how, as any editor could go through 20 years' worth of BAPs (1988 through 2007) and confirm that (as indicated at the link WaverlyR protested) 12 of 29 individuals termed "assistants" by Lehman were also published in the series (that his wife appears in the series need only be confirmed by looking in the table of contents for the 2006 issue, for which a link is provided). If it is necessary to post the entire list of assistants in the entry, and which ones were selected via the Lehman-to-Guest Editor process for inclusion in the series, that can be added, but it seems unnecessary. Further: The entry, e), no longer makes any allegation as to the significance of the data provided except to note its existence, and in fact, f) I have included (though in my opinion it was not necessary) a reiteration by David Lehman that the only criteria for admission to the series is "excellence." If--having met every single demand made by WaverlyR--he or she continues to vandalize this page and remove content he or she deems "negative" (under, let us recall, a section entitled "Critical Reception of the Series" [bad reviews happen!]), under some new, as yet unstated premise, I will once again report WaverlyR for vandalism of the entry. If WaverlyR wants to add "positive" reviews of the anthology he or she is free to do that, as the proper way to balance a section called "Critical Reception of the Series" is not to eliminate reviews but to add more in order to balance the entry. I have been reminded of this fact by Wikipedia editors in the past and would remind WaverlyR of it now. Burks88 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Burks88 continues to level serious charges about the Best American Poetry series without support. He or she is continuing to reference bloggers and his links do not support his claims. Please advise. WaverlyR 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Start off with a 3O request as there are only two editors involved. See also WP:DR for the overview of the options after that. Adrian M. H. 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

These allegations are baffling. The data which has been put in the entry is taken directly from the text of the source material. WaverlyR continues to refer to as "allegations" statistics about the said source material he/she does not want aired. WaverlyR seems to believe that by keeping editors from citing sources that have compiled the data that is in the source material--i.e. blogs--he/she will have made the data itself impossible to include in the entry. The problem is that the only way to cite the source material is by pointing to the website for the series, as it would be a copyright violation to post the acknowledgements page on Wikipedia (from whence the data comes). This effort to make certain information about the series--which forms the basis of "critical reception" of the series--absolutely impervious to public recitation in a Wikipedia entry is so transparent I cannot believe it has not yet been seen as such. As near as I can tell this user has done *nothing* on Wikipedia except police the entry for the Best American Poetry series to ensure that no information about it which could carry negative connotations is ever admitted to the entry. Another user, Shoshauna, attempted the very same tactic on the very same entry and, as the history of the article showed, was warned. WaverlyR attempted to include a fawning quote about the series from the makers of the series themselves--(!)--in the section called "critical reception of the series," and is now concerned about whether the information contained in that section, which is factual (and merely references the fact that many have drawn inferences from that information--which not coincidentally would have been shown with the very same citations WaverlyR campaigned against) ought to be permitted. This is absurd and I would indeed like to know what will/can be done about it. Burks88 04:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat the earlier recommendation that I made to WaverlyR; request a 3O. You will both benefit from it. Please use indents, by the way. Adrian M. H. 08:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adrian--I think (I hope) the issue has been resolved, per my note above, which begins "update" but I realize is a little buried in the text there. Having met all of the "demands" being made by this other editor, I can't see that there is (or could be) any remaining problem. Thanks for your help.Burks88 08:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You should post chronologically on talk pages. Adrian M. H. 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Burks88 has violated the Wikipedia policy about no original research: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies" I removed the offending section.WaverlyR 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any need to quote policy here. Adrian M. H. 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've asked for a 3O. Thanks. WaverlyR 14:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is relating to the Wikipedia article Assassin's Mace about a recently released book.

Delete this article, please. The guidelines for notability regarding books clearly state "Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement". The article, however, compares the book to the bestseller The Da Vinci Code (totally unfounded, in my opinion, having read both), notes that the novel was "praised for its writing style" (but does not quote any review) and devotes an entire paragraph to a possible movie adaptation ("A movie apparently is in the works"), when the article cited only ever notes that the author "is recently said to have contacted multiple major motion picture studios, directors, and producers" and does not link to a source.

This is obviously blatant advertisement by the author himself. Please delete now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.16.163.243 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2007

I haven't looked at it yet, but your description suggests that it fails the criteria. If it fails the crireria, I recommend that you take it to AFD. Adrian M. H. 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn´t know the proper procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.16.163.243 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2007

I am in need of some mentoring by a Wikipedian more experienced than myself on issues of neutrality and systemic bias. I would prefer, if possible, if the help could come via email conversations. I feel the situation is delicate and would appreciate guidance and a sounding board for my concerns before I make public responses to some of the parties involved. (And anything on a user talk page is public). Many thanks in advance, Egfrank 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, that counts me out. I believe in the principal of keeping WP conversation on WP and I don't receive e-mail via the toolbox link. I would be willing to advise you, but it would be here at EA or on a talk page. Adrian M. H. 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would echo Adrian's sentiment. Generally speaking, Wikipedia-related items should be here, as the global, and open nature of Wikipedia is to be freely viewable by all. Certainly, there would be some situations that may be taken to email (such as illness that an editor does not wish public, but may wish to explain to another editor so the editor via email so that editor can let others know that the person may be unavailable, etc.) I will tell you that normally, adoption is between the parties involved, and others do not normally join in, although there may be times that others are invited to participate or contribute to the process of teaching, and indeed, is often welcomed. However, Wikipedia has set down guidelines and policies for neutrality and bias issues, and they are easy to read and understand, so if your question is simply relating to those areas in an effort to more fully understand them, you can review the neutrality policy and its FAQ, as well as the verifiability policy, and the no original research policy. All of these put together should give you a quite thorough overview of the area, including links to other pages that may also be of interest. I hope that is of some help to you! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess your lack of response indicates that you don't want to discuss it here. Adrian M. H. 12:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond and ping my user page. I didn't notice the response (forgot to add this to my watchlist- whoops!). The situation seems to be resolving itself on its own, but in any case I wouldn't have felt comfortable discussing it on a wiki page. I would have felt the need to abstract the situation so that the principles rather than the people involved were discussed. I didn't know how effective that would be - it is hard to discuss in the abstract how to be simultaneously assertive, respectful and kind to real people with real feelings. When kindness and respect are at issue in a conflict the first words written or spoken count a lot and set the tone for the rest of the discussion. The problem at hand centered around an established and hard working group of editors who had done a yeoman's job of maintaining a peaceful editing environment. Unfortunately, this peace did not take into account one or more significant notable viewpoints. I could have yelled WP:Notability until I was blue in the face (or my typing fingers hurt), but I didn't think policy quoting was the solution here. Egfrank 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

List of atheist organizations is a new article that, in my opinion, suffers from poorly defined inclusion criteria. To try to address this problem, I recently deleted several local organizations from the list, since they were not notable enough for their own articles. My edit was promptly reverted, labeled "vandalism," and I was told on the talk page to consult with the article's creators before deleting anything. I would like to have some other pairs of eyes take a look at the list and see what they think about how encyclopedic it is, and what could be done to improve it. Without progress toward stricter inclusion criteria, I fear this article will be an easy target for AfD. Nick Graves 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a degree of WP:OWN settling in there. Although discussion is always good it's not incumbent on an editor to request permission from an article's creator before editing an article. ---- WebHamster 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In parts, it is one of the better lists that I have seen. Then again, I used to frequent AFD a lot, so I have seen some very poor lists. The notes masquerading as references is a problem; notes should be described clearly as such and if they have to merged with refs, they should have a Notes and References heading for clarity. Given the subject matter, through footnoting is required, I think. Lists tend to be afflicted by the erroneous notion that they do not have to be referenced as thoroughly as articles, if at all. The messy use of external links does not really cut it in that respect. Adrian M. H. 13:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After a request for help here and at Talk:Atheism, two editors answered the call: WebHamster and Anchoress. The WP:OWN issue is behind us, and the two original editors of the list seem now to agree that establishment of notability through reliable sources is necessary before including an organization in the list. I believe Adrian's criticisms above are on the mark, and I will do what I can to address them. Thank you. Nick Graves 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would like some assistance on a proposed edit. I want to add some information to the Contact a Family page. There is a COI as I work for them but I want to keep my edits in NPOV - hence the request. Contact a Family make significant use of Free and Open Source software and have been praised for it. Whilst I can't provide citation for the praise (and therefore won't include anything about it in the edit), I can provide citations for things like the fact that use or interest in Free and Open Source software is uncommon in the UK voluntary sector (11% in 2007) and this to me makes Contact a Family's use of it unusual. I think this deserves a mention as it does hold some interest for people looking into Charity use of such technolgoies but I do not want it to sound like an advert. Is it okay to put this bit in or is it off-topic? If so any tips on keeping it neutral - phrasing etc.? As said I will provide citations for the edit where appropriate. Crimperman 11:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless any available sources specifically state that the charity uses such software, then it is neither verifiable nor noteworthy enough to mention. That is the best route to a neutral and unquestionable addition. Statistics are quite meaningless if they cannot verifiably be put into context. (And thanks for being cautious about it; I wish all editors were as conscientious). Adrian M. H. 11:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are verifiable sources, a magazine article on them and a case study on an independent website both of which I can URLs for. The statistics come from a 2007 study made by a national umbrella body for Charities in the UK (available on their website). I'm happy to not add this bit at all - hence asking - but if your only objection is verifiable sources, I think I can meet that requirement. The reason I asked was that what software they use seemed out of context for an encyclopaedic article about them. Would you agree? Crimperman 12:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not say that it is entirely out of context. This is one of those scenarios in which the noteworthiness of the fact/claim has some influence in deciding whether it should be included. Facts that are in some way tangential may still be justified if outside sources have decided that it is worth at least mentioning, or better yet, focusing on. With sources that report that Contact a Family in particular is unusual for its adoption of open source software, no one can reasonably argue that it should be excluded from the article. That's my view anyway. Adrian M. H. 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That in a way is part of the issue. The sources will back up a claim that few Charities use or are interested in open source software and they also provide evidence that Contact a Family uses the same but the conclusion that this makes Contact a Family unusual is my own and not cited anywhere else. Is this a problem? ( Sorry to keep on but I would prefer to ask before hand ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimperman (talk • contribs)

No need to apologise; it's good that you want to get this right. Strictly speaking, what you describe is a form of synthesis, whereby statements and/or data provided by sources are used by an editor to reach a conclusion that the sources themselves did not publicly make. From your description, it sounds as if there are no sources (or at least none that you know of) that comment on the fact that this charity's use of open source software is unusual. Only the statistics back this up. But, as you have sources that at least specifically verify the charity's use of such software, even though they don't comment on its rarity, you have enough there to write about it, as long as it is done in a certain way. The best approach would something like "the charity relies upon free and open source software,[footnote here] which places it in a minority of 11% of UK-based charities which have adopted such software.[footnote here]" That would be cast iron referencing and totally neutral. Adrian M. H. 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's very helpful and pretty much what I'll put in. Thanks for your assistance and patience. Crimperman 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's alright. Thanks for the feedback. Adrian M. H. 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to create a new article on a theologian, whose name is the same as that of a footballer: Graham Ward. I don't know how to create this new article that fits in the Encyclopedia. The article I would like to write is like this:

Graham Ward is Professor of Contextual Theology and Ethics at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. He engages in different fields, such as Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Theologies; Patristic, Medieval and Post/modern Theologies; French Philosophy; and Queer Theory. He has written on the theology of language, postmodernism, cultural analysis and christology. His contemporary research focuses on Christian social ethics, political theory and cultural hermeneutics. He is editor of three book series: Radical Orthodoxy (Routledge), Christian Theology in Context (OUP) and Illuminations: Religion & Theory (Blackwell).

Books Barth, Derrida and the language of theology (Cambridge University Press, 1995) Theology and Contemporary Critical Theory (Macmillan, 1996, 2nd edition 2000) (Edited) The Postmodern God: a Theological Reader (Blackwell, 1997) (Edited) The Certeau Reader (2000) (Edited, with John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock) Radical Orthodoxy: a New Theology (Routledge, 1998) Cities of God (Routledge, 2000) True Religion (Blackwell, 2002) (Edited) The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology (Blackwell, 2004) Cultural Transformation and Religious Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2004) Christ and Culture (Blackwell, 2005) (Edited, with Michael Hoelzl) Religion and Political Thought (Continuum, 2006)

Marcoderks 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)marcoderks

The links that will be on your talk page in a minute or so will tell you what you need to know about notability and verifiability, which always have to considered before creating any article. The name is not an issue: see WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. There is a third page about that, I think, but I can't recall its location. Adrian M. H. 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, sort of)For people that have the same name, just add something notable about that person to the title of the article. You should probably use something like Graham Ward (theologian). Once you've done that, please leave a note here so that someone can place a note on the Graham Ward page for people looking for your article. Good luck! GlassCobra (Review) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I created a new page "Graham Ward (theologian)". Can somebody arrange that when one searches for "Graham Ward", one can choose between the foorball player and the theologian?Marcoderks 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I always think that it is best to learn by doing. Read through those two pages to which I linked and you will find the two methods; disambiguation pages and hatnotes. It's straightforward, but reply again if you get stuck. Adrian M. H. 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have created an article about a children's author called Hilary Robinson. When i enter her name in the search box I am only able to view an article on a fictional soap opera character with the same name. do i need to put the article about robinson the children's author in a sub catagory on authors or children's literature...if so how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinipops (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 October 2007

This is two questions in one, really. Yes, you need to categorise articles (respond if you need to know which to choose), but – as with almost any searchable database – you also need to wait before you can expect a search result from a very recent addition. Adrian M. H. 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. things seem to be working well now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinipops (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 October 2007

I have noticed an ongoing edit pattern on SftpDrive. Someone will link to an article on WP or elsewhere about product similar to the article's subject, and then shortly after someone else will remove it. Until recently, most of the text appeared to be sales copy from the company's website. The reverts are done from dynamic addresses without logging in. A discussion about the reverts has been requested in the talk page but the reverts have continued without comment.

I'm not certain of how appropriate or inappropriate it is to link to competing products. It seems valid to me, but I'm not confident. I'm pretty sure someone is engaging in COI edits, but that's not strictly forbidden. I don't know how to get in touch with someone who doesn't have either an account or a fixed IP address. I would like to put some sort of notice about impartiality in the article itself, but I'm not sure what to use. I am looking for advice about how to proceed. It's not an important article, I can just forget about it and walk away, but I'm interested in the exercise. I don't have a horse in the race as far as the article's content is concerned. Somegeek 21:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like that phrase about having a horse in the race. Not heard that one before. Anyway, I think you're quite right about links to competitors wherever they may be discussed. There is nothing to say that we should not do that. I know what you mean about dealing with dynamic IPs; if you leave messages on their talk pages, it's like chasing ghosts. They lack an identity to which we can relate in communication, and they won't often see article talk page edits because they don't have a watchlist, of course.... If it were not for the weight of the obvious reasons in favour of anon editing, I would be against it for this very reason. There are templates for {{COI}} (that's one example) but they need more than a suspicion behind them, really. Likewise, the COI noticeboard. I can't really offer much constructive advice, unfortunately, other than keep an eye on it. Adrian M. H. 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My name is Barbra Amesbury. I have ignored my site for years until now. Today I corrected some facts and added updates..all true and verifiable. Tonight I see someone has gone in and changed the way it was written. I don't know who it is and I want to know why they did it and I would like them to stop. I would like what I had entered to be re-instated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.37.166 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2007

Please keep in mind that just because the article is about you does not mean you own it. If you would like to change the article, you can be bold and do so, but if your edits are not compliant with our policies, they may be reverted. GlassCobra (Review) 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would additionally request a review of the conflict of interest guideline. Editors are encouraged to not edit articles about themselves, and instead request changes on the article's talk page, as it is difficult to remain neutral. As GlassCobra mentioned, Wikipedia is an open, global project, not a personal webspace, and just because an article may exist about you, does not mean the article is "yours," or that nobody else is allowed to edit it. If information is incorrect, feel free to note that on the talk page, and providing URLs to reliable sources to verify it will help a lot. Ariel♥Gold 11:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Nicholas Coleridge (Managing Director, Conde Nast Publications) is currently editing and expanding upon his own Wikipedia entry. While some of the information is useful, a great deal appears to be CV enhancement! ExLibre 10:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to ask you to note here any and all evidence that you have seen, since COI cases are often difficult to prove, but I see from the history that Mr. Coleridge has been kind enough to use his real name. That said, even that is no guarantee that someone did not just pick that name fro whatever reason made sense to them (weird sense of humour maybe). Anyway, the COI noticeboard is the place to go and {{COI}} can be added to the article. Adrian M. H. 11:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been advised to seek RfAr to remove an editing restriction. I would like assistance in filing an RfAr which properly represents the facts of this case for the benefit of the arbitrators. My talk page has some details, I can discuss in greater depth as needed. Whig 00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Whig, please review the instructions provided at WP:RFAR, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to, and you can look through the various current items as examples. I'd also suggest drawing the item up in your sandbox prior to submitting it, so you can check for any errors or just proof-read it for tone, spelling, etc., you can make your own sandbox by editing User:Whig/Sandbox. Hope this helps! Ariel♥Gold 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. I will hold off on requesting RfAr for now, as the underlying NPOV dispute is now making forward progress toward resolution. Whig 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The above user has recently joined and jumped into editing and creating several articles including Christopher Wingate and Arklow vs. MacLean‎ on subjects he is closely involved with. Reviewing his recent edits I notice that he has added similar text to several articles with these edits [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] plus a few others interesting edits . I am not an expert in these areas , the edits have not been reverted and they are not obviously vandalism so I am not sure how what to do. Since I have already contributed to the PD and AFD for the first two articles I am also concered I might be a bit biased here. Thoughts? - SimonLyall 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In this context, it might help to assume good faith when dealing with such editors; for all we know, the contributor is currently unfamiliar with policies and guidelines relevant to the issue at hand.

That said, you raise legitimate points about the possible conflict of interest at work here.

In fact, the material in question can be challenged on grounds of verifiability and the lack of reliable sources; the contributions may very well be fair game for REVERT action. --Aarktica 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Christopher Wingate is now up at AfD, and I have tagged it for speedy deletion per A1: Little or no content. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, The Wingate article is deleted, but we'll see about the other problems. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And Arklow vs. MacLean‎ is now at AfD. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just noted another attempt to attack Arklow. I draw your attention to the following.

Wikipedia chat- Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.

Note the Arklow litigation involves $3.43b. To date the defendants have tried everything. If I have to take legal action against someone I will do that for either reason; The person is ignorant and has no right to interfere, or may be working for some other interest group and so litigation against them will expose either.

The information on Arklow is correct. It is not bias, in fact it does not even cover the fraud of evidence, the murder of one of my witnesses New Zealand Herald Story - Island mourns young leader of vision Saturday July 10, 1999 By Rosaleen MacBrayne. Arklow is a complex legal issue and is open to review by any of the 40 strong legal team for the 17 defendants. It has already been looked at by Professor Rick Bigwood of Auckland University. If there were any problems they would appear on the talk page. Any unwarranted attack I promise will lead to an immediate writ being served to uncover the thinking and motive behind the attack. --WingateChristopher 01:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that bit that was quoted was part of an admin coaching assignment. Don't take it as policy, just part of my interpretation of it. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice from everybody here. I guess it hasn't turned out that well but pointers here have been helpful - SimonLyall 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs

Can someone please have a quick look at the activities of user 'JanneRobert'. I have a feeling he has his mind set on re-writing the entire history of ABBA and Anni-Frid Lyngstad single-handedly and...... frankly I'm getting tired of reverting his edits/deletions three times a day.....

Thanks in advance!

Best regards

Dreamer.se 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Dreamer.se

• Have you tried talking to the editor? Many times, that seems to help diffuse the issue. --Aarktica 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: No further action necessary, according to requestor. --Aarktica 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The entry for Richard Barone is tagged with a Conflict Of Interest designation.

However, it is in fact well-balanced, edited by numerous Wikipedia contributors/editor, with sources and references properly credited and linked.

I've been watching this page, and it appears that some contributors have been deliberately vandalizing the content, and discrediting and misrepresenting the subject.

I would suggest that the COI tag be removed, and that the page be LOCKED to prevent futher tampering. Poptopics 18:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Poptopics

• I would suggest you contact the tagger for more information at this point. There is a message on the article's talk page regarding the subject matter. You can ask there, or contact the tagger directly. --Aarktica 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Try WP:3O. --Aarktica 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir

I tried to edit air bagan, however, I can't and I got the message from administrator,AKRadecki, about vandalism. Let me explained everything why I need to edit this page.

You might heard about recent crack down to people in Burma(Myanmar). Military government rule the Burma since 1962 and many thousands of people are killed and arrested. Burma is naturally rich with natural resources. These generals misuse the power and become rich. Burmese people always want and ask peacefully for democracy more than 40 years ago. However, military government arrest, torture and even kill. Tens of thousands of people are killed during 1988 demonstration for democracy. You can see recent events. Monks are highly respect in Buddhism. Military kill hundreds of monks and people who are peacefully demonstration. These monks don't have any weapon. They just pray peacefully. They did not ask release power. You can see BBC, CNN and all other TV channel. This is example of how burma military government torture people. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/02/myanmar.unrest/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/02/rivers.myanmar.beatings.cnn

I am Burmese. I know exactly actually situation. Air Bagan is owned by Myanmar Airways and Htoo Trading. Myanmar airway is government air line. Tay Za who lead and own Htoo trading is son-in-law of general Than Shwe. Than Shwe family's wealth is come from illegal drug and misuse of power. Moreover, General Than Shwe is totally responsible for corruption in the country and killing people during demonstration. One of his badly famous killing was in September 2007. Thousands of monks and people are arrested and many hundreds of monks and student were killed during and after peaceful demonstration. (you can see in BBC, CNN and all others TV news.)This bloody hand Than Shwe family own Air Bagan.

What I try to say is about the owner of Air Bagan. Everyone including tourist who want to travel with Air Bagan need to know the history of air bagan. So, they can make the correct choice. I just want to tell real owner is General Than Shwe who is most powerful person in military government.I do not wish to anything bad for wiki. I just want to inform the truth. You may know how it is bad under military government.

Let me inform to people few sentence about owner of air bagan. Please.........

Best regards

Burmese —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean1234 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 October 2007

The Air Bagan article has been protected. Based on what I have seen, I have no reason to assume that you intended to commit any vandalism. However, based on your comments here, I am concerned that your contributions may fail to satisfy the neutral point of view requirement.

That said, you can request that the article be unprotected via the WP:RFPP process. Better yet, talk to the administrator about the matter, and see if you can resolve the issue that way. Good luck. --Aarktica 22:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you could wait until october 20th. I believe editors who have been around for four days or more can edit freely. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

I just uploaded an article on Pelican Products and it was apparently deleted by the editorial staff.

I would like to know exactly why.

Furthermore, there are many brand names with pages on Wikipedia and they appear to have more product specific language in theirs than Pelican's.

Please let me know what exactly transpired.

Thank you so much.

Keith Swenson—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswenson70 (talk • contribs)

Hello Keith. I've looked at the log and it seems like the original content there was labeled as "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Wikipedia editors try to see all angles of a subject, not just the views that paint Pelican Products in a positive light. Also, Wikipedia is not an advertising service. For more information, you can see Why was my page deleted?, Wikipedia's views on advertising, and Wikipedia's views on Conflicts of Interest. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very frequently asked question. Incidentally, there is no editorial staff unless you are referring to everyone who has ever edited WP. If you edit WP, you are an editor. Adrian M. H. 09:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Editor,

I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia so forgive me if I unfamiliar with some policies.

I recently started using Wikipedia to read articles about cars/autos. I am an avid car enthusiast and come to the site often to read articles and help with the content whenever I can, whether it's pictures or pricing or.....well anything really. I am having a problem with a user (Ckatz - not sure if it's another editor) who continuously deletes whatever links I leave. I was under the impression that when I left information on a vehicle I should refer to where I got the information from and not just claim it as my own.

In one case I knew the pricing for the newly announced Smart Fortwo so I added the pricing to the wiki and also added the link to the external links section at the bottom of the page to show where I got the information. Not only is the pricing information available via the external link but there is also other beneficial information on the other site.

Another example: I added a link to user reviews of the 2007 Ford Mustang (I recently bought one and found reading user reviews beneficial before I bought). In your "External Links - What should be linked" it specifically says "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" should be accepted. The site that I linked to has reviews, discussion boards, pictures, blog entries, all pertaining to the Ford Mustang. I am struggling to understand why these links are being deleted.

I understand that I am linking to the same site on a few occasions, but the information that was missing from your site came from the third party site, so I thought that linking to them was only appropriate. I am an active member of the other site but I am not trying to spam your site with links, I am just trying to add to the already good content you have.

I tried sending Ckatz an email, as well as writing on his talk page, but I have received no answer. Not only has he not answered, since I emailed him he has logged on and deleted another link, which is why I reverted to writing to you. What am I doing wrong or what policies or rules am I breaking (if any).

Thanks for your help, --Redroller 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a few points to address here, so I'll bullet point them for clarity.

• Please check the FAQ (link in header) and its section about external links.
• You wrote that one of these sites had fora; that is in most cases enough (quite rightly) to warrant removal.
• Your comments suggest that you may have been trying to provide citations to online sources; if they were inserted correctly, they would not have been removed (at least not with any justification). You are certainly correct in your understanding that all material needs to be verifiable, taken from reliable sources, and not original thought or original research.
• Product prices are discouraged, not least because it infringes WP:NOT. Anything that you see that may run counter to a style or content guideline should, of course, not be taken as examples of good practice.
• We all of us are editors; you included.

I hope that brief run-down of your points is helpful. Adrian M. H. 20:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone edited (vandalized) an article I never edited, or read, and I got a message that a bot repaired it. I changed my password if that don't help I just wanted to let Wikipedia know it wasn't me that vandalized the page. TReubens 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any message on your talk page (in fact your talk page doesn't even exist yet). I don't think you have anything to worry about. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that you viewed WP while not logged in, at which point you would have received notification of the last message/warning to be added to the talk page for your IP. Adrian M. H. 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

While on vandalism patrol I came across Tollywood which could use at least minor help. Apparently the article was once moved, thus the name in the lead section doesn't match the title of the article. I'd go ahead and fix it but my creative energies are running low and I expect that someone else could do a better job.

Rather than posting here is there an appropriate tag I could put at the top that would signal that the article could use some help? Sbowers3 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• How about the {{cleanup}} tag? You may want to check out WP:CLEAN and WP:TC for additional information. --Aarktica 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(update) The problem was worse than what I originally reported. Tollywood and Telugu cinema are virtual copies of each other. The latter was originally a redirect to Tollywood, but then someone turned Telugu cinema into an article by copying the text from Tollywood. Since then each has been edited a bit. I've added merge tags. Sbowers3 13:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I need help from an experienced editor regarding suggestions and coding techniques for the restructuring the 'History of Video Games ...." series of articles into a more internationally correct timeline (moving from "generations" as in era to generations as in bitrate or years, expanding the tables in the restructured articles, to include more of the regionally prominent systems, and suggestions and coding techniques for spinning off whole chucks (Handhelds) of the existing series of articles into a new, separate series of articles allowing for more room and proper reading flow in the existing, reworked articles. Many thanks in advance! Lostinlodos 06:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the most suitable venue for your question would be WP:VPT, due to the nature of your objective. However, if you are more interested in soliciting comments on how to improve the aesthetics of the affected articles, WP:RFF may be more appropriate. Hope this helps, --Aarktica 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to begin. It's obvious to me (and to others by digging through various related talk pages) that the way the 5 primary articles are set up now is in dire need for a change. I guess what I'm looking for is if anyone can give me a listing of the links to guides/faqs for the following:

• guide to templates
• guide to tables
• suggestions on how to both create a new series of 12 articles from the current 7 related ones, over the period of a few days, and do so in the most socially acceptable way so as not to upset any dissenting authors about moving their work.
• an aside; where's my sandbox and how do I use it.
• any information about any other such major reworks of a collection in the past to turn to such editors for information on how they went about it.

Lostinlodos 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Being fairly new myself, I am unable to answer some of your questions. However, here's what I know:

• A general guide to templates is at Wikipedia:Template namespace. How to create a template is described at Help:Template, and Help:A quick guide to templates.
• How to create a table is explained at Help:Table. Usage of tables is described at Wikipedia:When to use tables.
• Create your sandbox at User:Lostinlodos/Sandbox
  I hope someone will help you with the rest. Good luck, and happy editing! Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You can also create multiple articles inside your sandbox, e.g. User:Lostinlodos/Sandbox/History of video games. To create any page, just edit some place to make a link to the page you want. When you save your edit (or Show Preview), you will see a link that is colored red (because the page does not yet exist). When you click the link, Wikipedia asks you if you want to create the page. This would be the "most socially acceptable way" to create your new 12 articles. Sbowers3 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.... Lostinlodos 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

After checking out this great resource of Wikipedia, and the wealth of information it contains, I'd like to inform you about our product.

It is a great way for people to reproduce their favourite artwork onto a surfboard.

This would be invaluable infromation for people who use Wikipedia for a resource tool.

Please check out our website for further information.

Regards

Ian Wallis Proprietor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.154.113 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2007

Hello, I have removed your advertisement information, as Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement, or a directory. Please review that page to see what Wikipedia is, find out the notability requirements for websites and companies, and see the Help page to learn more. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

I need an admin to remove a redirect on the new Sebacean page. Someone assumed it was the old one (which had been deleted by then anyway) and stuck the redirect in without bothering to check the content or creation date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterandersen (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 October 2007

I'm sorry, I don't understand the problem. Could you please elaborate? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article "Sebacean" (log) was deleted in an afd at 04:00 today by User:Mailer diablo. Then apparently, Misterandersen recreated it. Then User:Mailer diablo re-deleted it at 16:00 per recreation of deleted material from an AFD. You probably shouldn't recreate a deleted article (especially so soon after an afd). Instead, if you want to contest the deletion, you probably should be looking at deletion review. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now it redirects, when it was an original article. Yeah, it's a good idea not to recreate an article, as if it is done too much or too often, it might get salted, and then you can't recreate the article. And FYI, anyone can remove a redirect. I strongly suggest you don't, as your actions could lead to a block. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it specifically states that it requires an admin to remove a redirect, as ordinary folks can no longer get to a page that has a redirect on it. If there is a way for a non-admin to do it, that information is missing from the appropriate article. Also, I don't disagree with the basic reasons for the original article's deletion, but the deletion occured before I got to the page in order to rectify those problems, and the new article was a substantial upgrade upon the original. Misterandersen 04:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, it is best to not put an article up in an unfinished state, for this very reason. You can use your userspace, a subpage such as User:Misterandersen/Sandbox to draft things, save them, see how they look, etc., prior to going "live" with the article. This will help ensure it is not deleted simply because it is not finished. And if you already know this, feel free to ignore me :o) Ariel♥Gold 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Where does it state that an admin is required to remove a redirect? You probably should still look at deletion review. Since there was a very recent consensus on the subject of the article, deletion review is where you would have that discussion. However, it's a fictional subject with very few reliable sources written on the subject for verification, so don't get your hopes up. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]It requires an admin to delete a redirect, just like it requires an admin to delete any kind of article. Anyone who wants to can edit a redirect page and turn it into an article. It's simple to do, but I hesitate to tell you how if you're just going to re-create the deleted one.

An article doesn't have to be perfect to avoid deletion. All that really needs to be done is to address the concerns raised in the discussion. To give editors time for that is one reason we have AfD discussions. The concerns raised here amount to a lack of real-world context -- for example, talking about its development or literary antecedents or motifs, or relating it to the real-world significance of Farscape in general -- and no assertion of notability, meaning the article didn't say why the subject was important in the real world. Before you re-create the article or bring it up for deletion review, I suggest you dig around for some commentary on the series that mentions this subject and has something analytical or critical to say about it. Source the commentary, include a discussion of it in the article (not neglecting some brief summary of it in the intro) and there you have a suitable article on a fictional subject. See WP:FICTION for more detail about what you'll need. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like folks have pretty well covered this issue. I merely created a redirect from a redlink after an Afd. I never saw Misterandersen's version. I didn't even opine on the Afd.[11] [12] [13] --Jack Merridew 08:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on trying to contribute and participate in a particular subject area for several months now.

Each time, there is a person called Diogenes the Cynic who basically makes use of the wikipedia forum as a forum for attacking me personally, and categorically disputing and un-doing whatever I try to do.

This person has repeatedly refused to engage in any kind of dialogue and simply makes personal attacks and then puts things back the way he wants them, eliminating all comments and edits that disagree with him.

This is an incredibly serious case of abuse, since this person is using wikipedia as his own personal platform to promote himself (through a personal blog), an organization that he belongs to and other "friendly" companies.

Anyone attempting to put anything else on the area is simply discarded by him.

I don't know what his authority level is in Wiki, but it is clearly abusive.

I could really use some advice on this.

The area is on the topic of Revenue Assurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMattison (talk • contribs) 17:59, October 20, 2007

Hello! Diogenes the Cynic is not an administrator. He's an editor, just like you, and me. Also, it would be great if you could sign your posts by typing four tildes(~~~~). Unfortunately, I can't help you with the current problem. I hope someone else will. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide more information? At which locations have you had dialogue with this editor? Adrian M. H. 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad Mr. Mattison has attempted to bring this matter to resolution. However, I do not think it will be hard to review the true extent of discussions between us via Wikipedia. Mr. Mattison, a consultant who runs a small business specializing in the field of revenue assurance, has on very many occasions made alterations to the revenue assurance page in order to promote himself, principally by praising his own book and advocating people join an organization he decided to form earlier this year. Rob would like to consider himself an authority, and the formation of an association and the writing of a book might be considered sufficient to establish that. However, I have tried to point out that self-promotion is not a valid use of Wikipedia, as you can see on the talk page for revenue assurance. I also pointed out rules against promotion of websites where people cannot readily access information without subscribing or paying fees, as is the case with his association. I also question whether there is sufficient reason to accept his self-appraisal as an authority. You will see that he has not chosen to respond directly when I have explained my concerns via the talk page.

His book is self-published and his association appears to be funded directly from his business as well as there being indisputably close links between the two. I cannot deny that a number of individuals working in the field have allowed Mr. Mattison to use their names to promote his association. However, to my knowledge, Mr. Mattison has chosen not to engage in collaborative industry associations that predated his own. Obviously he is in competition with them and considers his to be superior for a number of reasons. However, his being in competition does not give him a special right to promote his own interests. For these reasons, I am uncomfortable at the motivations that Mr. Mattison has for posting to the page.

My belief is that Mr. Mattison has been using pseudonyms, or has worked with his business associates, to repeat the aforementioned violations. Most recently a new editor, with no prior record of contributing to Wikipedia and which I believe to be another incarnation of Mr. Mattison, decided to delete all references to external sources on the aforementioned article. I raised on the discussion page my suspicions about the motivation. I also agreed with another editor that we should now debate the nature of what constitutes an authority in this field in order to resolve conflicts and move on. I further suggested that the page has become unmanageable because of the repeated spam and the increasingly insidious way it had been posted. With this in my mind I suggested we simply revert the page to blank to discourage further spamming whilst the future direction of the page is debated on the talk page. The next edit of the page did not revert to the previous content but introduced new material that appear to be a statement of Mr. Mattison's views and which included yet another reference promoting Mr. Mattison's book. There was no debate and the editor posted two very obviously bogus references to give the impression that the page that he was impartial. I became very frustrated at this, as it caused me to believe that Mr. Mattison would repeatedly persist in using subterfuge to promote himself via the page. The fact that he is now complaining about my actions in reverting another editor's reference to his book reinforces my belief that the reference was published by Mr. Mattison in disguise. This adds to the existing burden of preventing repeated spam of the page; a cursory review should make it clear that the majority of contributors make no effort to reference external sources other than their own commercial sites. Mr. Mattison's actions have made it even harder to constructively discuss when it is appropriate to reference an external site (for example, a link to a useful document provided by a commercial entity) as opposed to inappropriate references (for example, a vendor that cited itself as expert in the field despite only being a very recent entrant to the market).

In short, I am now very sceptical that the page can developed collaboratively by the aforementioned protagonists, despite my best efforts to engage in constructive debate and weed out abuse. For this reason, I most recently recommended that the page be permanently blocked. It appears to me that the normal Wikipedia approach of a healthy attitude towards policing this article is not working for this subject matter. Put simply, the practices described are not well-enough defined or researched to justify an encyclopedia entry, making it prone to unsubstantiated generalization, conflict between protagonists and spam. I would be happy to work with Mr. Mattison, but he is unwilling to engage in debate or to compromise on the essential point that he is not entitled to use the page as a mechanism to promote himself. Indeed, I believe that this appeal to authority instead of engaging in debate is consistent with his other actions, including the step he took in deciding to form a rival new industry association with himself as President, instead of collaborating with others. However, my goal is not chiefly to obstruct Mr. Mattison, it is to secure the quality of the material on the page. For example, I see no reason not to cite Mr. Mattison's association after an appropriate time has passed i.e. after it has publicly published some meaningful contribution to the subject matter. The association is new and may do so in future, but has not yet. My prime concern has been to safeguard the objectivity and impartiality of an entry relating to a field that I know something about. However, after having dedicated quite some time to this cause, I no longer believe these goals can be realized and recommend that you consider the possibility that this topic area is not suitable for inclusion because of the fractious but ultimately very niche nature of conflicts between editors. With this in mind, I would be grateful for any advice on how to handle this seemingly intractable divide between self-serving interest and the true purpose of Wikipedia.Diogenes the Cynic 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adrian M.H. Some additional information is necessary. There is clearly an edit war going on at Revenue assurance. Attempts to resolve the issue at the talk page have been made, and while I see no progress, I also don't see any personal attacks.
I would be glad to see a link to Diogenes' blog.
I could also use some clarification regarding the identity of Mr.Mattinson. The account RobertMattinson was created yesterday. Previously Mr.Mattinson contributed with 75.56.49.103, and probably with other IPs as well. Identifying which edits were made by whom is likely to help understand the situation better. Therefore, I would be glad if Mr.Mattinson chose to share that information.
Both parties seem to acting in good faith, and I cannot stress that enough. I hope this dispute will be resolved. I disagree with Diogenes' proposal to delete the page. I believe it is encyclopedic, and notable, and difficulty of maintenance is not a reason for deletion. However, the page will certainly need a lot of work before becoming a decent article. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 13:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The page was now speedily deleted, so we can consider this resolved. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what the proper course of action should be, if any, so I'm hoping to get an outside opinion on the following matter.

As a music chart enthusiast, I often edit artist's pages with updated information from the various weekly Billboard countdowns. Over the past 3-4 days, there has been much back-and-forth within the Singles section of the Angels and Airwaves entry. On 19:04, 18 October 2007, I added that the single, "Everything's Magic", peaked at #111 on the charts. Since then, another editor(s) keeps changing it to #11:

17:07, 19 October 2007 - by - 84.149.110.182

22:08, 19 October 2007 - by - 217.44.97.187

12:22, 20 October 2007 - by - 84.149.122.132

16:21, 20 October 2007 - by - 217.44.97.187

09:49, 21 October 2007 - by - 84.149.78.92

14:18, 22 October 2007 - by - 84.149.67.16

Up until now, I've gone back to "fix" those edits. I've also attempted multiple times to clarify things by explaining the rationale behind the #111 ranking, and why "#11" is incorrect (within the artist's Discussion page, within a couple of the edit revisions, as well as a note under the Singles section itself).

What is the normal protocol for handling a situation like this? Is it simply part of the 'price' of allowing everyone editing privileges, and thus should I just revise the entry whenever necessary? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

PhantomStranger77 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the page you're talking about, and you're right, the footnote makes it pretty clear. If it were me, I'd probably try to contact the editors that are changing it to #11 through their "user talk" pages. I'd also add something to the talk page for the article (which you've already done I see). If it gets bad I would also maybe add a comment in the article <!-- A comment looks like this --> to request editors not to change it to #11. And like you said, once a day isn't that bad. Just fixing it when you see it isn't horrible. You might want to find a source that states they're at #111. If it gets really bad, you can ask for page semi-protection. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): Also, you shouldn't revert whenever necessary, as you might break the three revert rule, and that could get you blocked for a while (24 hours for the first breach, and a little more each time). If you can't reach a compromise just by explaining, you might need to back up your argument with reliable sources (google chart positions for the song, you will probably find something). Also, we have many tools to make reverting bad edits easier. My favorite is Twinkle. Just be careful, because you might accidentally break the three revert rule. Some editors like to practice the one revert rule, which makes for more harmonious editing. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That article is not satisfactorily cited (too few sources, poorly formed footnotes, paucity of reliable and independent sources), so I recommend that you set a standard for it by providing a citation for the information. Then it is almost completely unarguable by any reasonable person. While you're doing that, you could place your note into ref tags as well and amend the references section into Notes and References. You could perhaps split them up using the {{note}} system, like this example, but that isn't often necessary. Adrian M. H. 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking assistance with the process of reporting vandalism and false content on a particular page. Please contact me at <email removed> Thank you.68.162.234.35 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is Judge Rotenberg Educational Center and 68.162.234.35 himself looks like a vandal but I will assume good faith and not revert (but I expect that someone else will revert). Clearly there is a problem with WP:COI and WP:OWN. Sbowers3 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that someone did [14]. Adrian M. H. 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning,

I apologize for contacting you, since I do not believe I have a dispute, however, I'm not sure where to address my issue.

I've saved information under the subject user name, but how do you make it available to all Wikipedia users. Have I missed a step?

Please advise.

Thank you.

CDP Anniston Alabama 13:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors should not really be posting article content on their user pages in this way; it's not really what that space is for, particularly if it is likely to be left there. We create sub-pages for drafts and tests, like mine. Secondly, if you moved that into mainspace, it would be subject to deletion, possibly even a borderline speedy. It fails to demonstrate notability, it's unverified, and it's a bit advertorial. I'm not sure whether it could be transformed into good encyclopædic content, but you should try to work on it a lot more before creating an article for it. Adrian M. H. 14:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)