Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

--Kudpung (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently had a (what I initially thought was reasonable) debate here with user DrRevXyzzy, but when it was clear that his views were extreme and intractable I gave up. No big deal. However a quick visit to his user page suggests a slightly less constructive and indeed destructive agenda. Thus far in editing terms the user's contributions are minor, but do we have to put up with people like this? danno 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Giving up is probably the best thing you can do. It's recommended in the guidelines, and it doesn't mean you lost an argument. Many long speeches fall on deaf ears anyway - see WP:TLDR. Thanks for drawing our attention to the user page. An admin will now decide if there is any breach of policy.--Kudpung (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User was indef blocked by User:WereSpielChequers early this morning and the user page was deleted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

:

Bangor, Gwynedd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has been adding a comprehensive list of bars and clubs in Bangor, Gwynedd which , although not very encyclopaedic, could be acceptable. However he also insists on adding links to the commercial web-pages of most of them. My contention is that such links constitute link spam as it promotes commercial companies in an article about a small Welsh city. We have discussed on the relevant talk page (all exchanges now copied into one place) without resolution. It has now descended into daily reversions. Some clear guidance from a respected editor would be appreciated to resolve this one way or another. Thanks.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   21:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to be a respected editor, but I do believe those links are against guidelines. I've removed them with comments in the edit summary and at the article talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think even a comprehensive listing of bars and clubs is against the guidelines as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Arnoutf (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're correct in your removal. We avoid linking to sites that aren't about the article's subject. So in articles about towns, we don't link externally to their police stations, schools, libraries, etc. ThemFromSpace 22:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as with people, any such lists should only include places with articles or the possiblity of becoming articles. See WP:NLIST. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also Wiki is not a tourism guide: not a pub crawl nor a list of nightspots.--Kudpung (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly these lists are not acceptable in Wikipedia. I have removed the lists completely. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:

PLEASE CAN YOU INFORM ME WHY THE SMALL CONCRETE BRIDGE NEAR LAKE MITTRY AZ. IS IMPRESSED WITH THE SWASTICA SINGS? THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.0.213 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The bridge was built in 1905. Before the NAZI party was even founded. A clue as to its age can be found with the stamps of the United States Reclamation Service. (USRS) That existed from 1902 to 1907.Moxy (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the swastika is an ancient symbol and was around for a very long time before it was hijacked by the Nazis. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Many Indian tribes used the swastika for many years before the Nazis appropriated the symbol, and a great number of tribes in the Arizona area used the symbol, including both the Hopi and the Navajo. GregJackP Boomer! 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

:

Newscaster article Mike Cejka continually is being vandalized in an attempt to obscure a factual personal event in his life. Numerous users continually remove any reference to his December 2009 incident, several times, Mcejka has actually removed this (Mike Cejka himself?). If this article about a person in the public eye is to be complete, a factual, referenced, and unbiased account of the incident should be in this article to uphold it's integrity. Any removal of factual information should be treated as vandalism. Again, all of this is based on facts reported by the media in December 2009 and January 2010, and is supported with newspaper articles. Many other people in the public eye/celebrities have embarrassing personal information on this site, based on factual reports (Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan, Larry Craig are great examples).Rage675 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)rage675

You seem to be telling us sonmething here but I can't actually see your question or request for help. Have you considered developing a discussion on the article's talk page? I've only seen a couple of short random comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Various different users continually remove the reference to Mike Cejka's December 2009 incident, which is cited with three articles. I have been using the Talk page for this, although it's signed with IP addresses rather than rage675. The Talk page is not helping this issue, how can we go about stopping vandals from removing facts from the Mike Cejka article? I also don't know the proper procedure to initiate the process for this, that is why I am posting this here. Rage675 (talk)rage675 —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Your two posts on the talk page were answered. However, a huge battle has been raging with over 30 reverts of the same section in the last 10 days..Seven registered users are involved, of which 4 are sysops, and one user has been blocked indefinitely (possibly not for reasons concerning this issue). Ten different IP users are involved. Users who knowingly make edits under IP adresses may be comitting a serious violation of Wikipedia rules, and may risk being blocked for sockpuppetry. (WP:SOCK). Page protection has been applied for which should prevent further editing by non-registered users. As regards the content material that is being constantly reverted, see WP:UNDUE. Hope this helps. --Kudpung (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

:

CLICKED WIKIPEDIA PAGE SAID I WAS 1 BILLIONTH USER. CLICK TO CLAIM PRIZE, PLS ADVISE - JULIA - <redacting personal information>

Obvious spam; I'll wager good money it was not actually a Wikipedia page you were on. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

just FYI ..there was a spammer that is now currently blocked . the Articles affected can be see here. An example of what was spammed is here. Moxy (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A whole series of articles have been created such as 2001–02 Welsh Alliance League, 1996–97 Welsh Alliance League, 1993–94 Welsh Alliance League etc. going back from last year to 1993 -1994. The articles are hardly encyclopaedic but probably innocuous. However , the main part of each article is a table which has been lifted wholesale from another web-site - http://www.seasidersattic.co.uk/league-stats.php - (select view against an entry to see the relevant table). The web-site disclaimer says quite clearly

"... Feel free to lift any information you may want to but please acknowledge that it came from www.seasidersattic.co.uk. Thank you."

but it does not provide any more information about any licensing conditions that apply to the information. In fairness to the articles creator, the web-site is acknowledged in the text (but presumably could be edited out by a later editor). I only came across these articles following an earlier differences of opinion with the author on a different subject (see Bangor, Gwynedd above), and I have no wish to jump in and be perceived as wiki-stalking and would therefore welcome guidance as to the acceptability of this material and its licensing status.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a policy on using content from other sources.and recommended courses of action. It's at WP:COPYVIO. I suggest you read through it and also follow some of the links that give even greater in-depth treatment for some aspects of it. That would avoid having to repeat anything here. In short, generally whatever anyone says on their website about 'feeling free to use...' still needs express permission for use in Wikipedia. Creating a Wikipedia page solely by copying content from another site is of course disallowed.--Kudpung (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case the results of the football matches are most likely not copyrighted information. What worries me though is that not only the results, but also the layout of the tables is taken from your source. The latter is likely to be copyright of the site. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, This appears to have something to do with football (soccer). You may wish to repost your concern on the talk page of WP:WPF, they may have already obtained permissions to use certain external sources.--Kudpung (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - have copied the discussion over to WP:WPF as suggested.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, there is a statement:

"Plasmodium was created in 1885 by Marchiafava and Celli."

Did the author really mean "create"? A parasite?

Regards,

Connolly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.146.235 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is referring to the creation of the genus not the parasite itself. – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:

Hello,

I have read the article on Dueling Pianos on Wikipedia and think it needs some improvement. I've made some minor grammatical corrections successfully. Other attempts at improvement (website links, adding more youtube vidoes) have been repeatedly deleted. It is almost entirely edited by one person, Matt Nichols. The article seems to be weighted in his favor with links that relate to him either directly or indirectly.

The ONLY video example is of HIM performing a less than satisfactory performance of an art form that deserves a lot more credit. The website links included in the article are either inaccurate with no relation to dueling pianos: http://www.saucemagazine.com/article/3/97/1

or an indirect link to Matt Nichols information: http://www.everythingduelingpianos.net/dpplayers.htm. Sauce magazine is a resource for, and list of, a fraction of existing players nationwide and worldwide. Interestingly, Matt Nichols is on this list.

To conclude, I believe dueling pianos could be better represented and explained on such an important and staggeringly popular online encyclopedia. It is too weighted by one person's opinion and needs to be improved.

Any advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Regards,

Voxboy1 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You probably noticed that Wikipedia has two kinds of talk pages. Those are the places to take a concern like yours about Dueling pianos. Don't hesitate to start a discussion on the article talk page with your suggestions how the article could be improved. The talk page has never been used yet, so there is a great opportunity to get a friendly discussion going. Discuss editor behaviour with the editor concerned on his/her talk page, if you think it's really necessary, but be extremely tactful because although he/she will almost certainly not assume ownership of the article, it's just possiblethat he/she is a major contributor and may not realise that there may be some bias. It's worth pointing out however, that none of the sourced references comply with Wikipedia's WP:RS, and some or all of them will shortly be deleted as spam links.--Kudpung (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had someone with a new id "Wcheck" on wikipedia add tags to a hundred of the articles I have been involved with, one after the other, but haven't done much else

As a long-time wikipedian I always welcome discussion on my edits and articles, but answering fully a hundred queries is a bit much to expect of one person.

Is there any policy's about someone focusing their critique on one person like this?

As well as the workload, it's making feel a little paranoid!

I wondered if they were a robot, but they don't have a userpage let alone anything to identify an automation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Wcheck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Back ache (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's automated, just getting a little help from twinkle. It may not be a grudge. My first guess would actually be that it's a good faith attempt to tag articles with appropriate maintenance templates. Now, while it's true that there's no deadline, there articles you've created aren't perfect, at at a quick skim, the tags seem appropriate. He probably came across one article you created, and then checked up on your other contributions. So yes, it's a bit much, but only a handful are proposed for deletion. Even the ones that are deleted can always been undeleted and userfied at your request. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently visited the page Intelligent Ground Vehicle Competition and found that it lacked references. Making my first attempt at Wikipedia editing, I located a journal article about the competition, for which I added a reference link. However, I also discovered that most of the test of the page was copied from the abstract of this journal article.

I think this is inappropriate and the content need to be rewritten, but I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure. Can you advise me? I have participated in IGVC and will gladly rewrite the page. Bill Lovegrove (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You can either tag the article as a copyright violation in the same way as other issues are brought to notice (see the existing tag on the article), or you can use any of the three levels of request for deletion (WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AfD). However, as you appear to be keen to rewrite the article, you can of course do this as long as it meets all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion at WP:N. If you have participated in IGVC, you should read WP:COI first, you should carefully source all your claims as per WP:RS and WP:CITE, and keep the article balanced and neutral. Hope this all helps.--Kudpung (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as a copyvio. Thank you for pointing this out, Bill! By the way, someone should check out Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) for copyvio... it reads oddly, and may have been deleted previously as blatant advertising. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not sure where I could find the answer for this question, so I will ask it here. I edit a number of pages in relation to Rugby union and there is a practice to maintain the current squad of players on a national team article. see this edit for example. Has there been a discussion on this topic, on whether articles should be written from an inherently stable position, avoiding the need for this type of continual updating, or not? Could someone point me in the right direction to anything relevant please? (I previously posted this at WP:HD, before realising this was probably the best place to post...) SauliH (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The direction you need to follow is WP:RU, Check to see if they have addressed this point in their manifesto or talk pages. If not, you can either repeat your request on their talk page, or ask one of the most active members (see the members list) directly on his/her talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW - if you are not already a member of the Rugby Union project, you might like to join it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am actually active at WP:RU, but was wondering if there was a more broad wiki-wide ruling (for want of a better term) that deals with inherently unstable information like current squads. For instance is the objective of wikipedia to be develop a stable reference, or one that is current and in a constant state of flux. I realize that the answer is a both/and not an either/or, but I am wondering if there is any written guidelines that remotely deasl with this type of subject instability - I guess with the intent of framing a guideline specific to WP:RU. If there is none, then I will simply begin a discussion at the WP. Thankyou.SauliH (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia policy is that all articles in the encyclopedia as expected to be accurate and factual. That presupposes that any articles that are susceptible to flux and volatile information will be kept up to date by the creator and/or regular editors. If content and references fall out of date and hence the article falls below a WP:N threshold, it can be deleted. That said, I don't think you need to start much of a discussion about it. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.SauliH (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you, Kudpung. Notability is not temporary; once notability is established it doesn't go away. It can be contested, or a subject can be held to higher standards (WP:RECENTISM for instance), but it doesn't expire.

For the matter at hand, I can recommend reading WP:ASOF. The phrase "current squad" is probably inappropriate unless it has special meaning in rugby. A section title to the effect of "2010 season" or "2010 squad", with the phrasing of "The squad as of (date) consisted of..." prior to the table with the players. The date would be the date of the most recent news article used to reference the table. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

:

I was the executor of Stephen Strimpell's estate and wrote the entry for him: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Strimpell) I wanted to add a citation at the first point where a citation was requested, but don't know how to do it. The citation is Mr. Strimpell's obituary in Columbia College Today: http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/jul_aug06/obituaries.php Can someone insert the citation for me? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.218.209 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Dear Sir,

The current article entitled just "Grady McMurtry" needs to have a change to "Grady L. McMurtry" or "Grady Louis McMurtry." This article is causing me serious personal problems.

My name is Grady S. McMurtry (Grady Shannon McMurtry). The above article is being confused with me, and it is causing me a lot of grief.

Can you change the article name?

Thank you, Grady S. McMurtry

Gmcmurtry (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done..Grady Louis McMurtry...we dont normally do this for this type of reason..but we should use full name in this case anywas..Moxy (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was reviewing the baseball players from Massachusetts and noticed that my father, Barney Olsen, of Everett, Mass was not included. He played for the Chicago Cubs in 1941. If you do an internet search you will see that he was in fact on the 1941 Chicago Cubs. Is there a way that he can be included in the list of baseball players from Massachusetts?

Thank you for your assisstance.

Sincerely, Chuck Olsen <removed personal info> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.190.10 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, We don't yet have that article written; once it's wrtten then the appropriate categories can be added. The Baseball project has a list of missing player articles, and Barney Olsen is listed on the Cubs all-time roster. Wikipedia is pretty big, but it's not complete! --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify that, Category:Baseball players from Massachusetts will only include articles that actually exist. It is not like a list, where entries can be added at will, it is instead generated automatically from articles in that category. SpinningSpark 09:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Since long time, i am under continous vandalism attempts and threats in my wikipage Maxcrc by user :Weatherextreme

He is using inflamate language and insults and threats to impose me to change the content of my wikiuser page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maxcrc&redirect=no

He has been changing the Talk pages dozens of times, and the main user page and he is sending aburde and continous threats to impose me the changes he wants.

Should I leave Wikipedia because nobody so far has cared to stop him ? This is a real shame. One user insulting, threating and vandalism other's userpage and the lattest one forced to leave to protect his data and information by a villain. I think this is not acceptable. The few information present in my userpage is fully referenced , and that user has no right whatsoever to do so.

If he will not be stopped, despite i sent requests of help 3 times, i will be forced to leave Wikipedia and the villains insulting and threating other users will be the winner. This is not a nice thing for Wikipedia. I think if Wikipedia is not able to protect his users by this kind of people, his life will be short. I am really frustrated to stay 24 hours sleepless to revert the continous changes and inflamatory words and threats by that user.

I really appreciate your balanced opinion. If you feel i have to leave Wikipedia for no reason, just to be guilty to exist as a user, so it would be really sad. Maxcrc (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure who has been blanking your user page, but removing messages from it strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy. We now have a classic example where I am unable to help you because I do not wish to pick through all the blanked diffs - many unsigned - to see which pot is calling which kettle black. However, a quick look at THIS seems clear to me who has been doing most of the editing on your user page. If you feel strogly enough, you can list the diffs yourself, and make a neutral, well worded report at WP:ANI, but the preferred way to go is to engage in a much less heated discussion about the problem with other editors who have subject knowledge about weather reporting. --Kudpung (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with at ANI for now. It appears that the reported user has been applying article policies to userpages, we are awaiting any clarification at ANI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

in the w/page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_statistical_mechanics, the correct word is "Canonical assembly" wherever stated--Alvinmmp (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see far more references, both inside and outside Wikipedia, to "Gibbs canonical ensemble" than to "Gibbs canonical assembly". If you have reliable sources for the change, I suggest you begin a discussion on the article talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

:

I am wondering about the deletion of a certain article. it was titled 'Skwisgaar Skwigelf'. a few months ago, i could go onto this site and type in 'Skwisgaar Skwigelf' and a full page article would come up and tell me all about the fictional character. but as of a few weeks ago, when i enter the same criteria into the search bar, i am sent to the page for the tv show Metalocalypse. i have no problem with this, but i am wondering where this long, well cited article went. if it is at all possible, could i get a copy of that article, or a link sending me to a site with a duplicate? he is a subject of much interest to me and this would be a great help. thank you, Lukaroast (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Lukaroast

Hi, the article was changed to a redirect to Metalocalypse, but the history can still be seen. Go to [1] and then click the tab marked "View history". Each previous version of the page is shown, and you can click on the date field of any version you'd like to review. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I work for Webloyalty and have been trying to make a good faith effort to improve the Webloyalty article with more neutral and factual information for readers. The original article only included reference to a CNET article about a Senate Commerce Committee investigation that involved Webloyalty. While there is no objection to the inclusion of that information in the article, that information alone does not give readers fair and balanced information about Webloyalty. I edited the article with more information about Webloyalty in May, 2010 using the ID Mary, Webloyalty so that it was clear who I worked for. Another editor deleted it all saying it was marketing verbiage and had no cited sources. I sought this editor's (Davidwiz) assistance twice through the Talk pages to find a way to add more information about Webloyalty (with no marketing verbiage) so that the article had a more neutral point of view. I also provided him cited sources that could be included in the article. I've received no response back from Davidwiz except a brief note saying I was a "shilling for my company which is prohibited by Wikipedia". More recently another editor added more negative information about Webloyalty. As a result, the current version of the Webloyalty article is overwhelmed with exclusively negative information which doesn't comply with one of Wikipedia's Core Pillars, "Neutral Point Of View". I've reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines on Conflict Of Interest which indicate that as an employee of Webloyalty, I should not be editing the article myself. If I can't edit the article myself and can't get the other editor(s) to collaborate, what other options are there to improve the article to a more neutral point of view? Any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Mary,Webloyalty (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Mary,Webloyalty

Well, this is a step in the right direction. It's likely that there just aren't that many editors who have the article on their watchlist to see that you're making suggestions. I'll be glad to watchlist it. If you haven't made suggestions for changes on the talk page, please do so so that uninvolved editors can evaluate them for whether they should be included. — e. ripley\^talk 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you continuing to edit the Webloyalty page. However where you have openly and honestly declared your relationship with the organisation, you will need to be extremely careful in your choice of edits, and how you word them. The best advice is: if in doubt, or if there is the slightest possibility that another editor might not agree with you, or might find your material biaesed, then don't make the edit. This may be hard to do, especially if you are wanting to clear up a point made by another editor that you know to inaccurate. Do read the entire Wikipedia policy at WP:COI. --Kudpung (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is only the second edit I have attempted. It should be simple but -

This topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus's_Discourse_to_the_Greeks_concerning_Hades makes a reference in footnote [6] to Gary Goldberg's Josephus Homepage, a most useful reference - but it uses a dead link to AOL homepages. There is a new link - http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/MailAndFAQ.htm#discourse

I thought it would be easy to just update the link, but when I click on edit I only see "reflist" inside double curly brackets with no obvious way of editing the actual reference.

Fran2244 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Fran2244

{{Reflist}} is a template that gathers together the references that are tagged with <ref>....</ref> tags in the body of the article. So to edit the reference you have to find it in the article and edit it there. In this case it is a little more complicated because the reference is within a citation template. I have done it for you. Take a look at this diff to see what I did. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the appropriate course of action to take when warning a continually disruptive editor who posts using a variety of known non-shared anonymous IP addresses as well as a registered account? I'm placing a level one notification on one of the anon IP accounts... should I place the same notification on the other four anon IP accounts and the registered account? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a limited pool of IPs and it's known he's the only user of them (how does that work technically on his end?) you can tag them with {{IPsock}} (or some similar note) on their talk-page, and escalate levels regardless of which one he jumps to for each "next" disruption. If he gets as far as being blocked at one and jumps to another, they should all get blocked (and extended on the main) for block-evasion. WP:AIV or WP:SPI are where to make such requests. DMacks (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Should Emley Moor transmitting station be considered the tallest building in the UK rather than One Canada Square? I'm unclear about the engineering or architectural distinctions between a building, a tower or other structure and how they should shape the criteria for lists such as this one. I'd be grateful for advice.--Pondle (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your question might be better phrased as: which reliable sources say that the tallest building in the UK is Emley Moor transmitting station, and which say it's One Canada Square? Beware of original research. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The BBC local page for Bradford and West Yorkshire says it's "the tallest free-standing building in the whole of the UK".[2] Elsewhere the BBC says that One Canada Square is the tallest building in the UK.[3] I'm torn about whether a transmitting station of this type meets the traditional definition of a 'building'... I guess it must...? After all, Emley Moor is a concrete structure and not just a radio mast.--Pondle (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In a case like this it is best to quote both claims and attribute them. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So I guess we should go ahead and include Emley Moor on the List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom.--Pondle (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this BBC source cites One Canada Square as the tallest building in the UK. There are also other tall uninhabited structures that are not included on the list. I think we should just keep this list for inhabited structures. Welshleprechaun 07:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and Spinnaker tower is in the list. Defining buildings and towers is a huge nightmare. List of towers spends quite a bit of their introduction explaining what in their definition is a tower and what not. Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know why my submission of "Aston Elite" was deleted,and why the "Aston Martin Owners Club" is allowed to have a listing with Wikipedia.

Osilverwood (Osilverwood (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

A) The deleted Aston Elite was an promotionally-written advertisement for a tiny, non-notable car club. Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1.The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2.Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

B) We don't "allow" anybody to "have listings". We help people create articles about notable topics. If in good faith you feel the AMOC is not a notable organization, then you can challenge its notability by putting the following tag (including the curved brackets) at the top of the page: {{notability}}. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Dear Editors:

Why was the article "Aston Elite" deleted? As recommended, I posted reasons why it should not be deleted on the Talk Page, but I received no feedback. The article was informational in content and it had good sorces, and Wikipedia lists other articles of the same subject matter/catagory.

Plase provide me an explantion.

Obie R. Silverwood (Osilverwood (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes the articel was deleted as per concerns of its notability.. User:NawlinWiki may have more information for you as he/she was the one that did the final action but was not the one to nominate it for deletion...You may wish to contact him/her on there User talk page located here -->User talk:NawlinWiki as they may be-able to give you the copy back to work on. 19:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for the article's deletion has to do with an assertion of notability. There needs to be such an assertion in the article's text in order for the article to pass basic muster (though there are additional criteria). I don't have access to the deleted article, but I know NawlinWiki has been around long enough that it wasn't likely an error. You should ask him at his talk page, as suggested above. You can have the page restored to a private workspace where you can fix it before it is put back out as an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This entry has several unbalanced and contentious references and does not fairly reflect the consensual critical view of Hart's work, especially in relation to recent poetry.

This entry repeats uncritically the claim that a book of Hart's is obscene with no explanation or documentation of the source of the criticism. Given that Hart is well known as a philosophical and religious poet these are quite extraordinary claims.

My attempt to correct the record, while maintaining the information in the paragraph, was met with the claim that these changes did not reflect a balanced viewpoint!! It indicates only that the editorial process at Wikipedia is flawed and that entries are far too easily open to vicious manipulation and unscholarly workmanship. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinralphharrison (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that sentences added here [4] such as "As has been the case with many fine Australian poets, Hart has been the subject of both unwarranted attacks and of often myopic and provincial commentary." "At a more vicious level of attack," and " Other Australian poets provoked its rejection on the grounds of what can only be considered highly exaggerated claims about obscenity, basing these claims on a single line in a single love poem." simply don't belong in an encyclopedia. They might be ok in an opinion piece as they look like your personal opinion. We have a policy against original research, please read WP:OR because our articles are meant to be based on what reliable and verifiable sources say about a subject. See WP:RS. You obviously feel very strongly about this but you need to use sources, and reverting your edit because it violates our WP:NPOV policy is understandable although I would probably have reverted it as unsourced and original research. Our editorial process would be flawed if we allowed personal commentary. You should be able to find sources that reflect the consensual critical view, find those and add them without commentary. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I discovered that my article Forward Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted I would like to get the article emailed to me if possible...

I obviously put it in the wrong venue, and would like to submit it to another venue...

thanks, Davidvalin (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Davidvalin

The name was Forward thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It was created by User:Gbdavid. Is that you? There may be license problems if it's republished without page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That article was created by somebody else, and edited by fourteen different accounts during its brief lifetime, of whom you are only one. You do not have a claim on any of the contributions by other editors; they are not your intellectual property. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) or are you claiming that User:Gbdavid and User:Gbdavid1 and User:Davidvalin are all the same person? Are you familiar with our rules about sockpuppetry? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidently he's the same person, see Forward Thinking. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by me just now, but he does say "I have always used gbdavid, gbdavid1 and Davidvalin". Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Forward thinking was restored as a contested PROD and Davidvalin has made a copy.[5] It will almost certainly be deleted again but the request here seems resolved. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to negotiate the removal of a sentence from an article, the discussion's at User_talk:Cb6#Explain. The point raised by the other party, "if we removed that one chart feat, we would have to remove everything else that has no links to sources", seems reasonable but it's not my topic and I've no intention of rewriting any of it. The topic of the article is such that the company's website seems the only reliable source for most of the material, the counter-claim being made is that the company website's inaccurate. I'm the wrong person to have become involved - I was only reviewing a semi-protected edit in the first place and the very notion of a "chart feat" strikes me as trivial in the extreme. I'm trying hard not to put the chap off editing so a third-party word might help. My alternative would be to leave everything as it stands. —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC). JohnHarris (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to put all of this on the talk page of the artcile concrened, whatever that is. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Type in my sign up: Should be Author's Advocate, but says Autors Advocate. How can I edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autors Advocate (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

−Hello. Researching the Renaissance artist Sofonisba Anguissola Date of birth 1532, died about 1622. She married in 1571 one Don Francisco de Moncada. When checking on him he is listed as being born in 1586 and died in 1635, I can only find one such Don Francisco de Moncada. He was quite prominently famous. Is there anyone anywhere who can sort this one out for me? I would really appreciate it. [email redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.127.47 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sofonisba Anguissola (c. 1532 – November 16, 1625) was not married to Francisco de Moncada, 3rd Marquis of Aitona (1586 - 1635). Her Wikipedia biography claims "marriage to Don Francisco de Moncada, son of the prince of Paterno, viceroy of Sicily". A Google search result [6] says "marriage (1572) to Fabrizio Moncada, a native of Palermo and the brother of Francesco II, viceroy of Silicy."

You can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. They specialize in answering knowledge questions. This page is for help with editing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:WiiKiBoyz ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a heading entitled "Please do not leave me messages". Ok, fine. But he/she has also redirected his user talk page to his sandbox, as you'll see if you click the talk button: WiiKiBoyz (talk). He/she has a history of constantly blanking the user page which removes the record of previous acts of vandalism/conflict, and uses threatening language to those who try to contact the user. WiiKiBoyz hasn't engaged in any clear-cut vandalism as of recent (just some minor bizarrities), but I would like to know what Wikipedia's policy is on actively discouraging communication as well as trying to obscure user history.
 ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User pages which says "User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of an account controlled by the same user.". He's free to delete anything on his talk page, but he can't redirect it the way he did. I've told him that and removed the redirect. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit-history is never obscured, as anyone who clicks on the History-link will be able to see it. I also removed the official sandbox-template from his/her sandbox. Will monitor. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I posted a brief article about a new form of poetry and someone called Dmack deleted it. I find this very disconcerting that someone I don't know can revoke and basically kill a new art form. My entry was not offensive in any way. It was a clear explanation of this new art form called "Fligban" and I feel that new pieces of art should not be muted as such. Please restore my entry, which I entered only an hour ago. What I entered was not a joke, but this person seemed to think it was.

Thank you Sean Healy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmaster007 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dmacks actually answered your question on his talk page. Anyway, the article was deleted because Wikipedia does not publish articles on newly invented concepts. An encyclopedia only publishes on topics that have previously been covered by multiple, independent sources, and not random stuff you just made up. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This page requires page protection, to ensure no IP address can vandalize this page for at least 2 weeks. Looking at the history alot of material was lost due to vandals and over the last 3 days there has been hig volumes of vandalism. Please help--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the page you want is WP:Requests for page protection as listed at the top of this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I have been having an ongoing discussion with Medeis on the inclusion of SI units in the Dzungarian Gate article (which I believe he wrote). I edited the article to include SI and to change the exact conversions of "about" units to an equivalent accuracy in SI. These edits were deleted by Medeis, we had a discussion on both his User talk:Medeis ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) page and my User talk:Metricmike ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs). After discussing the issues, he intimated that I could go ahead and include SI units. Medeis edited equivalent accuracy for heights without the use of the convert template I previously used. However, when I again used the convert template to include SI distances in a quote he deleted them yet again. Note: These edits were not reverted, they were re-edited to exclude what I had done.

I believe we've reached an impasse. He does not want SI equivalents and I do. Metricmike (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the page looks fine as it is at its most recent edit (mine). Editors should use the convert template wherever possible.--Kudpung (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what it's there for. Of course there may be disagreement as to which unit comes first when using the template. Have the relevant parties read WP:UNITS? – ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You might also want to be careful not to push the metric system too hard. Especially with your user name, you'll look like you have an axe to grind. In both China and Kazakhstan they use the metric system, so this is a good example of an article where metrics should be used exclusively, but still try to edit neutrally when it comes to the metric system. Also, keep up the good work! ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The above comments by Metricmike are grossly false. Metricmike has been engaged in a POV campaign to rewrite the article according to his POV of the inherent superiority of SI units. I have not blocked him from adding conversions according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second." I repeatedly invited him to follow that policy on his talk page, and on my talk page where he continued to harass me.

All actual measurements in the article have SI conversions and it is I who was the one who placed them there. Metricmike's sole contribution to the article was to insert metric conversions as if they were original, and to place the original units in parentheses and to insist that a verbatim quote where an author spoke figuratively of a wall of mountains, but where no measure of any actual real distance was used, must have an explicit conversion to SI as if the quoted source were actually asserting some concrete factual claim. Metricmike might as well insist that Robert Frost's poem be rewritten as "miles (kilometers) to go before I sleep." The figurative quote in the article was dealt with by linkifying mile to provide a definition for those who might seek it. Adding a conversion to a figurative number implies an accuracy which simply does not exist.

Metricmike's POV issues are obvious from just his username, Metricmike from his edit history, and from his own self description: "I live in the United States and wish the US would get on with the conversion to the much simpler and more rational System International (metric system)."

He has engaged in a campaign of harassment on my userpage, lecturing me about the superiority of SI units. He has implied that rather than faithfulness to the sources, that the motivation for my edits is my being American. He speaks in a manner I can only describe as paranoid of me "exclud[ing]" his edits rather than reverting them. As if my linkifying the word mile were somehow a sneaky trick. I explicitly told him that his edits were invalid, not because he added metric units, but because he had made it appear that his conversions were the original, and that the source units were conversions. His response was to accuse me of hostility to his POV. I "intimated" nothing to him. I openly and repeatedly encouraged him to add conversions to those few measurements which did not have them. He did not follow up, and it was I who added the conversions. His actions in placing the original source units in parentheses and adding the SI units as if they were original is in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second." This edit which he described in the summary as "add[ing] kilometres and metres where missing" actually amounted to putting the original Imperial measures in parentheses and treating the SI conversions as if they were original. He projects on to me his obsession with SI units, as if I have some bias against them, when my previous DYK featured article, Geography of New Caledonia features measure given either primarily or only in metric units. He even goes so far as to suggest that his own research method of applying a ruler to google maps is better than the mere cited reference.

I ask you not to make yourselves a tool in this tendentious POV edit war.μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are points in this issue that need to be understood by all parties involved:

• Someone wrote use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question. This sounds logical, but take for example altitude as expressed by professionals in aeronautics. They use (I belive) feet. Nevertheless the conversion template must be used. By all means make feet the first unit in the template.
• Units of measurement in the Wikipedia are no more country specific than our readers are - to argue, for example, that in the US we should only use miles, and in France we should only use kilometres, would be a completely false argument.
• Consisitency, and which uni should come first: See WP:UNITS.
• Read WP:UNITS and apply its instructions intelligently, logically, and above all, neutrally.
• Many of the posts here and on the talk pages are WP:TLDR - all involved paties please take note!
• If the parties cannot settle their disagreement, start a debate on the article talk page (or a sub page of it) using accepted Wikipedia debate format. If that does not work, start an WP:RFC which will invite much more comment from people not directly involved wit the article's content, and then abide b the consensus even if neither of you agree with it.
• Finally, if editors do not agree with WP:UNITS, they are free to start a discussion on that guideline's talk page.
  --Kudpung (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Devil's Playground (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There's WP:OWN by User:DavidOaks for at least two years:

• Introduced the word "alleged" in the lead in 2006, which has been removed many times by other editors, and questioned by other editors, and has been reinstated without inline citation against WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
• In discussions, has been resistant to any changes to the lede toward NPOV.
• Engages in reverts without comment, discussion, or citation.
• Removed good-faith uncited content though "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material"(WP:BURDEN).
• Has so far failed to contribute any citations to support claims. Claims in the article "scholarship on the subject" disputes the film's representations.
• Has a long history with the article, and a strong POV against the film.
• I need some backup, or reality check wherever I'm wrong. The article needs improvement. I detest revert wars, hence the (so far) fruitless discussion. It's possible everything the editor has done was in good faith. And I'm still learning policy after four years around here.

--Lexein (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumspringa is certainly not alleged. (For those in the UK, there is going to be a program Sunday at 8pm, Channel 4, on some Amish teenagers on Rumspringa in the UK. To call it alleged is simply wrong. Should we call Baptism alleged? Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'alleged' from the lead. Whatever the Devil's Playground (film) documentary tries to either prove or disprove, the Wikpedia article Rumspringa appears to be well documented. The use of alleged in the lead in this context is therefore probably inappropriate. It may be questionable whether Rumspringa is a Right of passage ceremony, or a period of adolescence, but it is probably not up to us to put our interpretation on it in the Wikipedia. To do so would be possible infringement of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--Kudpung (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, after running more checks, I would AGF on David's arguments, and not assume WP:OWN - he may be the major contrib, but at only 16 edits, it's neither here nor there, and consensus is not going his way.--Kudpung (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to register objection to the representations here. Parties in this discussion have not made it clear whether they think the trouble is that the lead is unfair to the film or too quick to concede its claims. Lexein is unwilling to respond to requests for clarification, choosing to seek admin intervention instead 1)EVEN THOUGH DISCUSSION IS CONTINUING and 2) EVEN THOUGH NO ONE HAS RV'd HIM/HER. Has this become the normal way of dealing with a discussion? I'm just plain, frankly offended by this behavior, on all counts. I have a good editorial history, and it's been dissed. You do not have a consensus process that is "not going my way;" you have really sloppy comminuication and an exercise of force. This is the sort of behavior that makes the wikipedia too big a tax on many good editors' patience. I am impressed by the time and prosecutorial energy Lexein devoted to collecting all those diffs in order to make a case against me for WP:OWN; too bad s/he did not bother to note how tirelessly I've worked to clean pop-culture crap out of this and articles on related subjects -- hazards, I guess, of caring about a subject and taking the time and trouble to inform oneself -- BTW, let the record show that in this very discussion, I gave and explained WP:RS for what I was saying. Guess Lexein missed that parrticular diff. Wow, gang. Just...wow...DavidOaks (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for Admin intervention, that would be WP:ANI. This is page to ask for editorial assistance from other editors. I've looked at your edits and I generally agree with your characterisation of them, but you really need to AGF here yourself. I agree with Kudpung's comments above and the removal of 'alleged'. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

History of Steamtown Peterborough: There are 2 parts to this saga - Steamtown. Peterborough Preservation Society Inc (now disbanded) and the current Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre.

There is a LOT of animosity on the part of the Preservation Society members towards the current Heritage Rail Centre that took over their assets when the Society disbanded.

I will not go into the issues that led up to a Parliamentary Enquiry and finally the disbandment of the Society.

OzDaren and Sulzer55 appear to think that they OWN the 2 sites (Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc and Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre). Note: I read somewhere that OzDaren was the son of the President of the Society at the time of the disbandment. I do not know Sulzer55's relationship to the Society.

a Very long one - many hours spent trying to engage the locals, the council, and to overcome the internal wranglings that eventually led to its failure Sulzer55 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OzDaren separated the 2 sites (his words : As they are separate entities) which is a good idea.

I think I did the split Sulzer55 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to do 3 things 1) to remove the ambiguity between the 2 sites by putting up a "hat" on each page, 2) tried to defuse the biased wording in the Society page and 3) tried to expand the Heritage Rail Centre page

no references to support the information were included - the article is based on what has been published in the local media, or what I have obtained directly from the manager Sulzer55 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No contentious statements. First person account. No references required. Note: I am a member of the Management committee and as such am actually part of the group that is the Manager's Boss - so if information from the Manager is acceptable, then why is information from his "boss" not? Horst is unaware of Sulzer55 so who is he talking to?. Editing by reversing (all) of a persons entries is close to vandalism of the page. See Sulzer55 's Talk page for a fuller discussion between both parties re the edits.Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have communicated with OzDaren on his talk page about his removal of ALL my amendments, I now find Sulzer55 doing the same thing (these 2 communicate with each other).~

nice alegation - all comms between Ozdaren and I are via wiki, we have both tried to keep the information factual and objective, as can be seen by the edit histories of the pagesSulzer55 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual? See my discussion on Sulzer55 's Talk page. There have been edits by Sulzer55 that contradict the information available on the SPRPS page! also, removal of non contentious statements relating to Steamtown today suggests a bias against the current Steamtown operation. The removal of the mention of the 3 gauge turntable is discussed on Sulzer 's Talk page (just one of several such reverts). All indicative of the direction from which Sulzer55 is coming. Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Each time I have gone back to look at the pages all of my amendments have been removed/reversed including the hats. The Heritage Centre page now has less information on it than it did when I first looked a few days ago (prompting me to amend the page). I have recently taken and added photos, added text and generally expanded the page.

see previous comments regards efforts to ensure clarity and diambiguaiton in accordance with Wikie frameworks - the pages are disticnt from each other as the logo for each entity is used. Any References to what you have said? Sulzer55 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The general public is researching "Steamtown Peterborough" and probably does not know that 2 such entities exist and therefore displaying a logo gives no indication to there being another entity that is known by the same name. I have tried to insert hats to disambiguify / clarify the situation - these are constantly removed by Sulzer55 as not being necessary. I have asked him if he is purposely trying to confuse the situation. I have had to add "the Society" to the SPRPS page due to statements such as "Steamtown ceased operations in 2005" - Sulzer55 has allowed that to remain. There is no need to reference non contentious statements - there IS a need for you to justify their removal. What references do you have to counter my non contentious statements such as ". . . and the centre is staffed by volunteers from the local community"? Reverted by you as "no references". Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

At no time have I disparaged the Society nor substantially changed their text (amending "Steamtown" to "Society" etc to clarify the situation on the Society's page).

Note: The Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre is an ongoing commercial venture (run by the local Council) and the Society is not. OzDaren and Sulzer55 are using biased language and editorial largesse to strike out at the Heritage Rail Centre for something that occurred as a result of various people's actions (mainly on the Society's part) in the past. This strikes me as contrary to the idea of encyclopedic reporting (unbiased and factual).

any evidence? I support the Centre, including both Ian and Horst, nd what they are trying to do. It is fair to say that one criticism is the lack of local rolling-stock; this was also a criticism of Steamtown itseld?

You show a very strange way of "supporting" something. For your information - Ian left the centre prior to February this year (Horst started in February) - do you need a reference to some document before you will accept that as a fact? LOL. Your continued insistence on reverting everything (using "no references" as an excuse) is still not the way Wikipedia works - add <citation needed> if you are questioning any statements. Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see my amendments upheld and a restriction placed on OzDaren and Sulzer55 from editing these 2 pages as if they were their own personal property (using them as a soapbox if you like).

Can you advise what can be done?

Just found on Sulzer55's Talk page : Howdy, someone is trying to add a personal spin to the SPRPS article and the museum one. Have a look at my talk page as well. Ideas? Ozdaren (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are the appropriate venue for trying to resolve this content dispute so I would see if any progress can be made there over the next few days. If it can't, then there are escalating levels of WP:Dispute resolution. – ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you want to see the history of the discussions - go to Sulzer55 's Talk page - there is a lot of discussion there - but my edits are still being reversed. Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote "based on ... what I have obtained directly from the manager" (Sulzer55)

Quote "First person account. No references required" (Mangoeater2)

It looks as if everyone involved here needs to read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Statements in Wikipedia articles must be backed up by references to reliable sources. Personal knowledge and conversations count as original research and cannot be used here. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does looks as if there is already plenty of ongoing discussion on the talk pages of both articles. Try to resolve the issues there, bearing ukexpat's and John of Reading's advice above in mind, and above all: everyone should make an effort to remain polite and civil - the slightest heated comments on Wikipedia just make people more intractable and less likely to accept compromise.--Kudpung (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I've only now become aware of this discussion page I'm quite disappointed at what seems like a personal attack by Mangoeater2 on me. Yes I'm related to a person who was involved in the society (I wasn't even a teenager at the time), no I don't consider the page to be my own (have a look at my edits, I have made very few). The main thrust of my involvement has been to make some very modest edits and to encourage Sulzer (who I've only communicated to via Wikipedia talk pages) to continue to add to the article on the Society. My reversal of Mangoeater2's edits were because they added nothing to the article and seemed arbitrary. I even queried a wikipedia admin about edit waring. (something which I didn't want to engage in). All parties should remain civll in this matter and not fan the flames of an argument. Ozdaren (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that progress is being made. I have apologised to both Sulzer55 and Ozdaren and have tried to explain that the instant reversals of my edits was the cause of my "attitude". I have also explained that this was a learning experience for me (and hopefully them). Civility will reign from now on - hopefully on all sides. LOL I also believe that the articles now reflect what I was trying to do originally and with Sulzer55's help (with some references and "improved" wording) this has been achieved to Wikipedia's expectations. Mangoeater2 (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:ELNO, links to Twitter (and social networking sites) should be avoided unless they are "a link to the official page of the article's subject." According to WP:ELOFFICIAL, an official link must be (1) "controlled by the subject" of the article and (2) have content that "primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." I don't think that any of the social networking sites meets the second criterion. That aside, how do you know if, for example, the Twitter account actually belongs to the subject? You may be able to "verify" that the account exists through Twitter, but that doesn't necessarily mean it belongs to the subject (could be someone else with that name or even someone posing as a person with that name). The same is true, although perhaps to a lesser extent, for the social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. Yet, I see many celebrity articles with these sites/accounts listed in the External links section. My inclination is to remove them, but I can't figure out how to apply the policy. I've seen other editors remove them, particularly Twitter, but I don't see much consistency. (I've seen lots of discussions about citing to Twitter as a source, but that's not the question I'm addressing here.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Social and business networking sites can even be evil. FWIW, I am actually victim of an extremely libellous page on quite a well known such site, purported to have been submitted by me., and I can't get it removed. That should answer what I personally feel about Twitter et al. WP:ELOFFICIAL is clear, and so is WP:ELNO #10. I remove such links, but I will be taking a closer look at how that existing policy is implemented. If you come across any examples - without specially going out looking for them - drop a note on the articles' talk pages, and perhaps start a (very) polite discussion with the editors concerned to see what their opinion on the policy is.--Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't see the point of putting in social networking sites in External links because they add nothing. It's not like a user can go to the site and get information easily. If people want to search for celebrities on Twitter, Facebook, or MySpace, they don't need Wikipedia to help them. Not sure if I agree with you on the clarity of the two policies, but . . . The article I noticed was Emma Watson, and an editor added her alleged Twitter account. I think the editor is brand new. I will take your advice and start a section on Emma Watson's talk page. Hey, I'm always polite. Okay, maybe not always, but usually. I don't know about "very" polite, though. I'll do my best.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to also leave a message on the editor's talk page explaining the problem. They seem to be citing twitter and other non-reliable sources such as imdb elsewhere. --CliffC (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I routinely cleanup external links sections and most of the time I remove the myspace and Twitter links, especially Twitter. The only times I'd consider leaving in a Twitter link are if it is the only site I can find online that is "official", or if a section of the article is specifically devoted to a subject's history on Twitter. ThemFromSpace 04:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the Watson Twitter reference and notified the newbie editor of what I did and pointed the editor to the Watson talk page and to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Watson talk page, someone provided proof that the Twitter account does indeed belong to Watson. I'm still arguing that inclusion of any Twitter account, verified or no, violates WP policy, but I think I'm losing. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed links to Twitter and a blog at Martha Stewart, with edit summary "per WP:ELOFFICIAL 'Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites'". --CliffC (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Note this post has been coped to the articles talk page to give reference to this subject.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Firstly, I am not a Canadian but this article happens to be on my watchlist. Recent undue weight edits by User:GarolStipock have turned a reasonably balanced article into almost an attack page on the CSIS, with a few digs at the RCMP thrown in as well. The article is now loaded with negative (although cited) pull quotes and in-line statements such as

"CSIS's ability to invade the lives of Canadians is unmatched in government. If it decides, in secret, that you constitute a threat to national security, CSIS can listen in on your telephone calls at home and at work, it can deploy an army of watchers to monitor and record your every movement...it can intercept and open your mail...break into your home and office...if you become a target, your family, friends and neighbours can also be subjected to this suffocating scrutiny."

Another is

"Former director Reid Morden referred to the Service as the "Keystone Kops" of the intelligence world, and veteran agent Michel Simar claimed that morale was pulummeting and the Service was now a "rat hole"."

Most of this is outside the Controversy section. Can someone more familiar with the subject matter please take a look at this article? --CliffC (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This has been posted at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Requests for comment. Moxy (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have left my comments here -->Talk:Canadian Security Intelligence Service#Undue weight. Moxy (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have that article on my watchlist too. I reverted the edits based on undue weight and other concerns noted in my edit summary. I also cautioned the editor about not maintaining NPOV. The article has had some minor difficulties over the last while, but the new material almost turned it into a joke as it was so over the top. I will take another look at the article today, and post additional comments on its talk page as soon as I have time. Taroaldo (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have now left more detailed comments on the article's talk page here. Taroaldo (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The role of an encyclopedia is to describe and inform, based on proven facts. This means that an encyclopedia is not a source of opinion or a place for introducing elements that may spark controversy or polemic. We do not want to be included in a list of quoted ources such as: The Daliy Blah says..., The Hottentot Echo says..., the Martian Gazette says... but the Wikipedia says...
The CSIS article should provide a definition of that government agency, its structure, its role, and its broad mandate. The section Controversies introduces sensationalism and is hence an open invitation for debate. Following the maxim: If in doubt, leave it out, perhaps the Controversies section therefore probably has little function in an encyclopedic entry of this kind that describes an official government agency such as the Social Security Department, The National Agency for Employment, The Police Force, the Highways Agency, and agencies for national security. The rest of the article now seems to be reasonably neutral and balanced, although a lot more inline references are urgently needed.--Kudpung (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Note. This article will require the continued attention of editors due comments such as this. If an editor is talking about taking a well-established article and reworking it within his own userpage and then making a wholesale replacement of the existing article, it indicates some concern with regard to WP:OWNERSHIP. And the issue becomes more pressing given his recent editing behavior within the article. Taroaldo (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the pages in question. Thanks for the post. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Newcomer Merk1333, editing also without logging in (from ISP 76.183.72.127), insists on his unsourced edits of Philomena, removing sourced ones. I have tried to initiate a substantive discussion on the corresponding Talk page, but without success. At Rich Farmbrough has kindly added his attempt to get a real discussion going, also without result. What can be done? Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I reverted the most-recent IP edits and put messages on both talk pages. --CliffC (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

These people are posting wrong information about Saint Philomena...What can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.72.127 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the first things to do is start a Sockpuppet Investigation. Using different accounts without very good reason and without declaring them, is a major infringement of Wikipedia policy and often results in all the accounts being from editing - sometimes permanently.

The next thing to do is for editors to regularly check their talk page. Answer messages in a polite way that will invite friendly discussion, and check for any administrative warnings that may have been sent. An accumulation of warnings without a change in a contributor's editing pattern will result in being blocked.

Thirdly, editors must sign their posts and be sure that their own house is in order before posting here. people who live in glass houses...

I will be taking a closer look at the article and its editing pattern;

--Kudpung (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a closer look at the article. It appears to have a sufficient number of inline refs to stable WP:RS, such as for example, the1962 Missal, which can in fact be downloaded, although two sepeaate refernces may refer to different sources for this download. However, page numbers must be cited, and a scholar of `Latin. will needto translate snippets for use in the references.. I would suggest that the regular contributors to this article take the time to very carefully checking all the references for accuracy (e;g; containing the material cited), and compliance with WP:RS, and WP:V, and then discuss any discrepancies in an intelligent manner and without making haphasard reverts to the article that will be considered as vandalism from now on. I have the article on my watchlist.--Kudpung (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung, for your advice on improving the article. I will see to providing page numbers and translations from Latin. I think that in fact only one source is given for the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal: the other source is for the 1920 edition, which is different. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, using a registered account and also making edits from an IP is not prima facie evidence of sockpuppetry. There is discussion going on now. In glancing at 76/Merk1333's concerns, I might suggest WP:W2W as reading for those involved at Philomena. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Atelier Bow-Wow seems to be excessively wordy and weighty given the subject corporation. Most references seem to be internal. Atelier Bow-Wow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Taroaldo (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the article has been tagged and could do with cleanup - there appear to be some reliable third party sources. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All my edits concerning these two articles have been deleted. I attempted to balance what was in the two articles above with credible sources for all my edits. Please help me out as I like these two articles to be more balanced.

CyberEditor (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please read up our guidleine on reliable sources. You used Wikipedia as a source in this edit] which is specifically not allowed. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You have also removed sources, which although tagged as unreliable or self published should be left until better can be found. Notes have been left on your talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, Thank you for helping. [[7]] seems to be semi-protected, but there is nothing saying that it is. I recently made an edit updating the article, and I was given a notice that it was "under review". I have not seen this before, can you explain? 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that you are trying above to link to an article section that may have been removed or had its title changed.if yu can provide an up to date link, I'll check the article out.--Kudpung (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is not protected, but all new edits must be approved by a reviewer before further edits can be made. This is usually very quick. Try again later.--Kudpung (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I found out it's a new thing, on a few articles they are reviewing IP edits before allowing them to prevent vandalism. Thank you very much for your help. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What source shouldn't I cite? I placed a modification to the Down's syndrome article intended to balance the extremely biased opinions in favor of terminating such pregnancies. The information I put there is common knowledge, any yet it was immediately deleted and I got a message asking me to cite sources. I tried to edit a history article and because the source I did cite had a positive opinion of The Catholic Church, it's neutrality was questioned. Why is it that neutrality is questioned every time a conservative viewpoint is expressed? I've said it before and I'll say it again. Are you really interested in neutrality, or do you just say it without meaning it? Silencing a conservative viewpoint IS NOT being neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrondaragorn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit you made (twice) to Down syndrome was unreferenced -- basically, it appears to be a conservative viewpoint, and an argument against abortion for Down syndrome fetuses, but without any indication that it's not just your viewpoint and your argument that you want placed in the article. Assuming that it isn't already in the article, what you need to do for that edit it to reference it.
Take a look at the paragraph above your proposed change. It starts with who promotes a particular view (Green and Singer), and has three references indicating that Green and Singer actually have that view. You need to find references from reliable sources that support your edit (the Catholic Church's public pronouncements could be one, and maybe a well-known opponent of Green and/or Singer as another), and place the references with the paragraph.
It all boils down to -- Wikipedia articles aren't a repository of truth (because everybody has a different version what what they think the truth is), they're a repository of what is verifiable (and that can be checked out!) Anyway give referencing a try, and if there are further issues, try going to the article's talk page. Good luck! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)