Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Lee Jong wook

I edited this article Mar 26/08 and a major contributing editor to the article Pju0353 would like an explanation for my deletion of material. I have not yet replied to him/her as I am unable to come up with a better explanation than my original edit "Removed Election section and Margaret Chan para as of no real consequence; not TIMES (engineering}" and I fear that repeating myself will not satisfy this editor. Might you come up with some wording of a reply (if you agree with my edit) or critique of my edit to help me with this. Although the article required insubstantial grammar correction you will see in the posting by Pju0353 a substantial problem with English that makes it difficult for me to understand aspects of his argument and will probably be a major problem in my communication with him unless I keep it simple.

I removed the whole of the "Election" section and don't know whether any part of it merits inclusion. The material is very poorly written also. I can see that the section "Campaign for Secretary General" that s/he alludes to for Ban Ki-moon has merit. --User:Brenont (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism NPOV dispute

Stale

 – No further comment from original poster. BelovedFreak 10:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please have another look at the Buddhism article. You'll notice we're using better sources now and the problem persists. User Ludwigs2 seems particularly intransigent.

I would suggest a request for comment if more eyes are needed on the article. Pastordavid (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

mad max 1979 film of mel gibson

Resolved

 – Image replaced. BelovedFreak 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

i want to point out that the poster used for that page is incorrect as this is an australian made film i strongly suggest to add the australian poster of this film. Image:http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/auzmadmaxfeb07.jpg

That seems like a good idea except that the poster linked above is of really poor quality with the deep folds in the poster clearly visible. If you had linked a clean image I would have gone ahead and just done it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ok heres another link but you have to right click the image and save as. when saving you must save it as a .jpg file as i dont know how to upload images

http://www.movieposter.com/poster/A70-12071/Mad_Max.html

I have replaced the image. --BelovedFreak 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International Dispute

I have not been involved in this long running dispute, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International and it's talk page. I would like to improve the article but am unwilling to get buried in the contest. How can I (we) get the contestants to stop??? Ariconte (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Stale

 – Pastordavid (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may know there is a dispute between Greece and FYROM, regarding the use of the term MACEDONIA. I as a Greek, am offended by the subject article. I think that the editor should make reference to this dispute and let the users think and decide for themselves. I also think that using a public media for political reasons is immoral. I hope the Wikipedia community realises that they cannot take part on a national dispute. I hope I see a change on the title using the international term FYROM(Former Yougoslavian Republic Of Macedonia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.124.141.59 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know of the debate in general, but not of what discussion has occurred here. I would expect, though, that the article is under that title because it is a sovereign state, while the Greek Macedonia is part of the state of Greece. "Republic of" implies that it is a state. Notice the layout at Macedonia. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Greek position does not represent the majority position in the International community. See the article on the Macedonia naming dispute, which contains a very well referenced list of countries using the name "Republic of Macedonia". Wikipedia represents the neutral point of view, which among other things, requires that we represent the majority view as the majority view without prejudice. It is clear that a minority of the world's nations use the FYROM name, and as such, while Wikipedia reports that fact, but does not give it undue weight by representing it is as the "proper" or "correct name" Wikipedia does not take a side in the debate, but it does report on the status of the debate as it exists. According to a vast majority of the international community, the article is named correctly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Dispute...

Stale

 – Pastordavid (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Please forgive me in advance if this is not the proper channel that I should be going through in order to resolve this dispute. Anyway this is my problem. I edited the Nikolay Davydenko Wikipedia page a couple days ago, and changed the format of the "Tennis career" section so that it is a little easier and friendlier to read. I also updated his recent tournament results of 2008 on that section. However after doing all of this, apparently most of what I had written was deleted. I understand my work is subject to editing. However I do not believe that what I had written had infringed on any rules governing the site. Therefore can you look into the matter for me and provide me with an explanation as to why my work was so severely edited. Thanking you in advance... Sincerely.Ken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaler02 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this edit by 60.241.173.63. You can, discuss that removal on that user's talk page. More likely, though, you'll find a more inclusive discussion on the talk page for the article: Talk:Nikolay Davydenko. If you ask me, the text was removed because it was too much unsourced detail about a minor issue. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Page domination

Stale

 – BelovedFreak 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "this page needs input from more people" kind of category? I've noticed that Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories may be under the control of two users, Bubba73 and BaseballBugs. From watching the history they seem to revert most changes instantly instead of adding fact tags and on the talk page they seem to have the last say on all topics. It's not that I have any disagreement with either of them, it's just that the page could probably do with input from others to ensure neutrality. I'm concerned they may be enjoying it a little too much. Am I out of line? I'll say it again: this isn't a dispute, I don't disagree with them, I just think attention should be brought to the situation. Cheers.Kansaikiwi (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The place to go is to requests for comment, which is best if there is a particular question you have. The other option is to place a notice on the talk pages of the apprpriate wikiprojects, asking for more input and watchers on the article. Hope that helps. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that WP founder Jimmy Wales has stated that unsourced statements should be removed on sight, not just fact tagged; see WP:PROVEIT. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How to add an image & complaints

Stale

 – No further contributions from original poster since below post. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I was trying to add an image to the Teresa Earnhardt page but unfortunately it did not work, so I removed it, whilst in the process of doing this I received a message from GOLBEZ (who was invited by yourselves to be an 'Administrator') saying "Please stop trying to link off-site images and leaving example code all over the place. --Golbez (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)"

Do you think this is a very rude way to communicate or is it just me? Surely he is there to help NOT to be sarcastic to someone he has never even met? I would not have minded so much if he had offerd some form of assistance but, You only have to read the messages on his page to see that he thinks he is a law unto himself.

If anyone can offer assistance on how to add an image to a page I would appreciate it, and I would also like contact information for your complaints department, because I don't think I will get any sort of apology from him, for his extreme rudeness.

Kind Regards Raine0010—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainey0010 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 May 2008

upload images here, see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what is at all sarcastic about what I said. --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't link to offsite images on Wikipedia; the code won't process. All images have to be uploaded to the site. A better message might have been to inform the user about that, since they were obviously confused. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Golbez's comment doesn't appear to be sarcastic by the usual definition! Have a look at WP:Uploading images for detailed information regarding image uploading. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Diamond (Lawyer Article)

Stale

 – No further contributions from original poster. Pastordavid (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Diamond_%28lawyer%29

Hi there, I am having problems with the other user wikidea, I am trying to keep the case section relevant, but I keep getting my modifications undo, and now I have got an edit war warning on my talk page. I have asked for a discussion on his talk page, but so far nothing. I don't know how to continue..

Here is a transcript of the conversation so far:

Hi - I feel that the BA case about the Sabbath worker needs it's own case entry, as it is not relevant to the BA Cross case, which is about uniforms and cross wearing, and not about working on Saturdays. Cheers --TheLogster (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have completely reverted my changes without responding to the possibly of discussion, I have therefore reported the change.--TheLogster (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned before about deleting material and pursuing personal analysis of this article. If you continue to delete material then I will continue to revert it, and you can complain all you want because you will not find any sympathy. And I really do not wish to hear any more of it. Wikidea 15:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, you comments have been taken aboard. The BA Cross case entry is about the defendant refusing to cover up her cross, when BA changed it's uniform. It is not about a man not want to work on Saturdays as he is Jewish. I understand the it is relevant to Paul Diamond, and wholeheartedly support it's addition. However, I am sure will agree, that is not relevant to the BA cross entry, as it is not about wearing religious symbols. It really needs it's own entry. --TheLogster (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the article history...

1. (cur) (last) 16:39, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (Again, reverted vandalism. Deleting material which is sourced is vandalism. Take a break and come back with something new.) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 16:04, May 27, 2008 Thelogster (Talk | contribs) m (14,079 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Wikidea identified as vandalism to last revision by Thelogster. (TW)) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 15:59, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (Don't do that again. It is not up to you to censor accurate information. It is entirely relevant, because the man is representing another BA worker in another religion case. Don't vandalise.) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 15:51, May 27, 2008 Thelogster (Talk | contribs) (14,079 bytes) (Undid revision 215281623 by Wikidea (talk) it is revelnet to Paul Diamond, but not to the BA Cross case, which is about uniforms) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 15:35, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (→Cases) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 15:33, May 27, 2008 Wikidea (Talk | contribs) (14,361 bytes) (Undid revision 215275968 by Thelogster (talk) Of course it's relevant to Paul Diamond.) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 15:03, May 27, 2008 Thelogster (Talk | contribs) (14,079 bytes) (Adding citation. + Removing the other BA case where the person refused to work saturadays, as if has no relvence to the Uniform Cross case. A new case entry should be created for this person) (undo)

Anyway - I am seeking help on how to resolve this conflict between myself and wikidea.

Thank you

--TheLogster (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have not made a single post to the talk page. They, not revert edit summaries, are there for the purposes of communication. The page is currently protected from editing due to the edit war, so it may be a good idea to begin a discussion during this time. Also, calling another editor's good-faith edits "vandalism" is unacceptable, uncivil, and a personal attack. Vandalism edits are edits made in bad faith, which clearly does not apply here. It does not mean "an edit I strongly disagree with." I might suggest you remedy your own behavior before complaining about someone else's. (That being said, it does take two to make an edit war, and I certainly do not suggest that anyone is right to engage in one.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Louiche (Louie) Mayorga article

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed. no cause for page protection. Pastordavid (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism by someone I can only assume is Matt 'Dunce' Carter. Matt Carter is not Louie Mayorga, and has no business on Louie's wiki entry, as Matt never played in Testament, and was denied his own Wiki page in early 2008.

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

Can an admin semi-protect the page, or at least block the offending IP(s)?

-AKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.103.53 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

need help with image

Stale

 – Image was, apparently, not of a colossal squid. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the Colossal Squid my high school students discovered in Mexico in 2006 to the Timeline section of the Colossal Squid page, but I am not allowed to upload the image. This squid is likely to be the largest squid ever discovered and the image seems important. Can someone please upload the image for me if I send it to you?

Benjamin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjmaindancer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is 'cant.sleep.clown.will.eat.me' blocking my editing privileges?

Resolved

 – Fleetflame 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. When I log in at home, wikipedia tells me there is too much fraud associated with my IP address and I have been blocked by the above user. What is this about? I don't commit any kind of fraud and have never before edited on this site. I feel really angry; I feel as if I've commited a crime...I'm not very happy about this. For this reason, I am boycotting this site and I am letting others know that they too can be shut down by (literally) some clown who is addicted to power or has some kind of feelings of insecurity...not very nice...perhaps his "johnny" is too small? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisyface1 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like an autoblock situation, but are you sure you can't edit after you log in? Usually, that's doable. You didn't give the IP, but you're probably editing either through TOR or an open proxy, which are blocked due to high levels of abuse. Nothing against you, but it's preventative due to the vandalism coming from these. Per your last sentence, please, no personal attacks; they won't be of any help. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is your first contribution under this Username, so it sounds like you did the right step by registering. Keep trying to make useful edits. After you are established, something like 4 days and/or 10 edits, your editing privileges are upgraded and you should be able to bypass whatever that clown has put in place. I think you should still be able to participate in talk pages, so use that to let other editors know what you think needs to be added before then, if there are problems. MMetro (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Scouting content

Resolved

 – As far as we can resolve it here. Fleetflame 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have become increasing frustrated by the bias shown in the WikiProject Scouting, which appears to be used by The Scout Association (UK)for advertising their Groups to the exclusion of other Groups.

Other than general editing issues, POV, and content bias concerns, which I can live with and work around in accordance with the Wiki protocols, I am very concerned about the former "Scouting in (counties)" pages, which have been amended to only allow entries for Groups operating as part of The Scout Association - being retitled "(county) Scout County (The Scout Association). These pages are then used to provide a list of The Scout Association Groups in that county, with little additional content.

I am convinced that these pages can only be seen as advertising, and feel that they fall outside of the remit for Wikipedia. -- DiverScout (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, you could try nominating the articles that you feel are outside the remit of Wikipedia for deletion. Bear in mind that you will need to make a sound policy-based rationale for deletion: see WP:Notability, WP:ENC (particularly WP:NOT#INFO), WP:SPAM... I can't think of any others. If you believe the editors of these pages have a conflict of interest and can provide evidence for it you could make a post at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Hope this helps? naerii - talk 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll leave it a little while in the hope that the people who are acting in this way are doing so without any malicious intent and will correct their alterations so that the Scouting in (county) pages can be developed to show all Scouting activity in a location, rather than just WOSM Groups. If not, I guess I'll sadly have to do one of the above. --DiverScout (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey it's no problem, if you haven't already you should try dropping friendly notes on their talk pages and/or the article talk pages to discuss the matter. The main thing is to assume good faith and stay polite - people respond better that way :) From what you say a "Scouting in (county)" article sounds to me like something that should include all scouting in that county (otherwise the title is a bit misleading) but I know zilch about this area of articles. Good luck. naerii - talk 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I've posted a polite comment on the WikiProject site and am copying this onto the County pages. There seem to be quite a few of them! -- DiverScout (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Wead

Hello I am a personal representative of Doug Wead, and I am trying to remove some information from the Doug Wead page at his request. The information is incorrect. As a result I have received warnings? What should I do? Aaron Aarondm (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, It's not really clear what you're trying to remove, from looking at your edits. There's some wordsmithing about the marijuana thing, but no clear removal of unsourced material. You could try;

1. Discussing on the talk page. Click the discussion tab at the top of the article, state your concern, and indicate your verifiable sources. Personal discussions with the subject won't be very persuasive, because there's no way for anybody else to verify that.
2. Adding material if you can also show reliable sources to go with it.
3. You might also read our policy on conflicts of interest. We generally discourage subjects from editing their own biographies, since they tend to have, even unintentionally, a point of view. We prefer articles to have a neutral point of view.

I know there's a lot to read there. Starting a conversation on the talk page is probably best. Feel free to come back with questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the facts cited on the page (Doug Wead "has now written more than 27 books that have sold 7 million copies in 30 languages") are supported by nothing more than references to http://www.dougwead.com/doug_wead_biography.html, which is presumably self-published biography. Are such things deemed reliable sources for anything beyond the plainest biographical facts, like "born in Indiana"? JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not even that. The relevant guideline is here. Strictly speaking, we don't even know that dougwead.com is operated by Doug Wead. But assuming that it is, we can say that he says he was born in Indiana, claims to have sold 7 million books, etc. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Intercrural intercourse/sumata

Other editors have suggested Sumata be merged into Intercrural sex. An IP user on the latter's talk page claimed it was a stritcly (male) homosexual act. I countered that argument by saying the Japanese page for Sumata deals with both hetero and homosexual variations of intercrural sex. In the light of the above, I really see no reason sumata cannot be merged into Intercrural sex. It'd only be a matter of explaining the importance of intercrural sex in Japanese soaplands and health massage parlours as a way to circumvent the 1956 Anti-Prostitution laws. Further information from the Japanese article could also be translated into the english version.

Since this matter's been dragging itself for over two months now, I thought it was about time we made our minds about it. -- Ishikawa Minoru (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like what that IP said is the only discussion that has occurred, so you might want to try a Request for Comment. IMO, I don't think the merge is a good idea, as Sumata (according to the article) refers to some actions that aren't intercrural. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Troy Southgate Article

Hi Someone keeps removing the controversy section of the Troy Southgate article and I suspect it is Southgate himself. I requested protection but was denied. The criticism is a direct quote from a Sunday Telegraph article about Southgate.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Southgate

Please advise as it has been taken down 5 or 6 times. I am new to editing so please help.

Thanks,

EVOLA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evola (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is more than a one-on-one dispute; I'd say file a Request for Comment to get outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• As AndonicO told you on your talk page, you need to find more sources for the section before inserting it. Also, 98.217.67.42 (whom I assume to be you) said, "I will just keep adding the Controversy section on this page. Ask for protection if you like." This is not the attitude to take. I would definitely try to attempt a discussion on the article's talk page and see if you can reach consensus on if or how the section should go in. Fleetflame 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Really stupid question: wikitables

Resolved

 – Jeremy helped out. Fleetflame 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind peeking at User:Rootology/Sandbox 1? I'm trying to get the standard sort of infobox table on the right, say 25%-33% width, and then the "body", my images and little bit of text, in the remaining bit on the left neatly aligned, with a standard valign=top sort of look to the whole mess. The general background should be that light shade of green, #E5F3E5, from User:Rootology/header. I stared at this thing through like three dozen previews and can't get it. I can bang it out lightning fast in old HTML, but I want to get it right in wikitables... thanks, sorry for the stupid question. Edit my ugly code at will. :) rootology (T) 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just messed with it, was that what you were looking to do? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Restricted Edit: KFC (Nobodys doing the edits from the discussion)

Stale

 – Fleetflame 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The KFC page has many errors but many have provided corrections but are unable to apply as it is protected, and nobody is doing the updates. Ross.king (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Place {{editprotected}} on the talk page, and list the edits you would like to make. An admin will then evaluate the changes and see if they are appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Many have provided corrections." All I can see is Ross.king listed something on the talk page that he wanted put in. Fleetflame 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of article

In my opinion, the anonymous user Yopie is abusing the article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha. How can judgments from Italian courts be "self-published sources" ? Or expert opinions ? Guy Stair Saintys accusations are all unverified, he does not offer a single shred of evidence in support of his claims. To refer to his criticism therefore violates Wikipedia principles on Verifiability and Reliable sources.PeTom (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First, just to correct your usage, they're not an "anonymous" editor, as that refers to edits from IP addresses. It looks like a dispute that would need to go to Mediation Cabal or a Request for Comment. It looks, though, like someone has tried a new version that's a compromise edit; you might find that one a bit more neutral. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: PeTom is currently involved in a sockpuppet case. We'll see how things turn out. Fleetflame 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars moved to commons

Resolved

 – Fleetflame 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that I do not know much about Commons and how to use it. On my userpage, I had a couple of barnstars that have since been deleted from wikipedia on the basis that they have been moved to Commons. How do I get them to appear again? - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard. No need to apologise! If the image still existed on Commons it would show up fine when linked from Wikipedia (assuming another image with the same name didn't exist here, in which case it would take precedence). However, the images in question seem to have been deleted from Commons. The current versions of the two Barnstars, here, use these two images. If you replace the dead links on your user page with those they should start displaying again. Hope that helps! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute about inclusion of operation frequency of LoJack

Stuck

 – Still ongoing here. Fleetflame 02:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to resolve a dispute between myself and someone who claims to be a representative of the LoJack company. In the LoJack article, the other individual(s) have four times removed content that lists publicly available information about the operational frequency of LoJack, claiming that this information could be used by car thieves. The frequency information in dispute has 2 web citations, one of which is from the fcc.gov web site, proving that the information is public domain. I feel that this information is appropriate for the article and should not be censored. The other individual also has twice left inappropriate messages personally addressed to me in the text of the article itself. I have already reverted the attempted censorship and personal messages twice, but I do not want to be perceived as an edit-warrior. Any advice or assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you! CosineKitty (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no connection to LoJack or to the editor(s) who previously removed the information. I have read the arguments on the talk page here and in the edit summaries. I do not see how disclosing specific frequencies in necessary in an encyclopedic treatment of LoJack, especially if the information might help thieves (even if the same information is available through public sources). Since including the information might pose a security risk, and there is no demonstrated need to have the information in the article, I am removing the information for now. Please do not restore it until this dispute is resolved by consensus. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we would not remove information due to it "helping thieves", as Wikipedia is not censored. Is there any other reason to remove the information? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the user that removed the specific frequncy information three times. I was not aware that there was a discussion section in Wikipedia. I apologize for contacting cosinekitty in the text on one instance, not twice as indicated. As I said, I was not aware of the talk feature or any of the behind the scenes information at this site. To the point of this issue, I am a LoJack employee and would like to request that the specific frequency information not be included on this site. The Wikipedia site is a popular search site and is an easy place to find information. It serves no benefit to list the specific frequency information to the general public as it could be used by criminals to detect the presence of a transmitting LoJack or more importantly, by a "cop buff" or stolen car owner in an attempt to LoJack a stolen vehicle. It is very dangerous for non-law enforcement personnel to get near a stolen car and their interaction could cause them to be injured or killed by the thief. Their interference with an investigation could also be dangerous should they get involved in the locate of the vehicle. This frequency is licensed directly to the police in the states that have LoJack. If a radio engineer needs access to this information, there are numerous other professional sources for this information. I would like to recommend that a more generic term such as "operates in the police band" be used instead. We have enough crime in the world, why make it easier for the bad guys to get ahead or let a well intended innocent person gets hurt? I did see that Wikipedia has detailed information on making numerous illegal drugs so I am not surprised by users that feel that regardless of the real dangers, there must be no information held back on this site. Regardless, removing the specific frequency information permanently could save a life and would certainly make it more difficult for a thief to do his job. LoJack has a 90% recovery rate with most being found within 24 hours. It is more important to let the police do the searching then some guy with a Radio Shack scanner. Thank you for considering this request.Summitrt (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I do understand your position, but we will not remove information simply because someone might misuse it. Nearly any type of information could conceivably be used in a criminal or irresponsible manner, somehow or another. I see no reason to believe that this information cannot be verified or that it is not accurate, and technical details about the operation of a system are often important to those studying such systems. It is true that we are not a howto guide, but specific technical specifications are not a howto guide. If the article went into detail on how to build or modify receivers to receive such frequencies, that would be howto material and would be inappropriate, but all I see is a simple specification. Generally, we should provide technical information that is as specific and correct as possible, provided that such specifications are confirmed by reliable sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This article section explains why the complaint has no merit: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues If there are legal issues, they can be taken up with the wikipedia legal authorities. But until such time, there is no valid reason for exclusion. It's public information, and wikipedia does not censor information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the article's talk page, the information is widely available, hence there is no basis for censoring it here. If the info is actually in a manual available at Radio Shack, the verifiability and legality arguments have no apparent substance. So the appropriate rules-based challenge would pretty much have to do with issues such as notability and neutrality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest Yogi Bhajan

The page titled Harbhajan Singh Yogi contains information that is almost exclusively written my members of this man's cult who continue to promote his "work". If you visit http://yogibhajan.tripod.com/id23.html You'll see that this person's life is riddled with controversy and yes immorality and crime. There should at least be referrals to web pages of former cult members. I am a former member of this organization. There are hundreds of lives that were irreparably damaged by this group. A neutral person editing this page can do a service to those lives and possible prevent future victims. A fair and balanced edit should at least state that there is controversy surrounding many of Bhajan's claims to authority. Including claim to be "the Siri Singh Sahib Chief Religious and Administrative Authority for the Western Hemisphere", claim to be the only living "Mahan Tantric, White Tantric Yoga Master" and claims to be a "Master of Kundalini Yoga" none of these claims can be substantiated outside of his sphere of influence. Just the opposite. The following is a quote from the formerly referenced web site. the Monterey District Attorney pointed out that I was a member of a large crime family complete with sex, rape, drugs, smuggling, murder and more and that this 3HO Organization had nothing over on the Mafia.Hue many (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially in biographies of a living person, we must be careful that any material added be from a highly reliable source. In the interest of neutrality, this applies to positive information as well as negative. However, self-published pages from those who knew the person would probably not rise to the level of reliability required. Are there any independent sources regarding the subject? If not, it may not be notable or suitable for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Marylebone

Stale

 – When they say unsuccessful, they mean it! Fleetflame 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

tried unsuccessfully to add the name Peter Mark Roget to famous resident list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.148.77 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you describe the problem you had, please? There's no evidence of that in the edit history, so there's nothing in the record to diagnose. Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User Cquan and my article for "Steven Chayer" (I don't care if the article is removed at this point I want this guy to be more civil)

User Cquan [1]. He's mean and on a power trip and he knows it because I pointed out how mean-spirited and unnecessary something he had on his user page was and he did the following:
A) Deleted that comment I made about his callous, smug User Page in the Articles for Deletion discussion [2]
B) He then edited his user page to remove the stuff I had pointed out as mean and needless.

We have discussions over this article on both AfD [3] and the article's talk page [4]

Thank you for reading,

Drewhamilton (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

re: my son, Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy

Resolved

 – Per change of caption in article and reupload of image with note regarding incorrect USN caption. Also comments on article talkpage, parents talkpage and related editors talkpages have resolved this issue Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the photo of Michael's parents outside the Post Office next to the Purple Heart monument is incorrectly captioned as John and Maureen Murphy, Michael's parents.......... the proper caption should be Daniel and Maureen...I am Michael's Dad, daniel J. Murphy.....John Murphy is Michael's brother and our younger son...

Please correct caption ...this is the second time I have corrected the improper caption..

Daniel J. Murphy, father of Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.231.182 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

feel free to fix it yourself. This is the Encyclopedia anyone can edit. Good day! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Murphy -

I have just checked the image record. The visible caption on the photograph is correct as of this writing, and I will watch the page to try to keep it that way. The name of the image says "John" instead of "Daniel" because that is the way it was captioned by the original source, the U.S. Government. We're not really in a position to change their naming conventions, even when they're wrong, but we have ensured that what is visible to the average reader is correct. I hope that helps to address your concerns. Risker (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I only duplicated the USN caption without knowing names of the parties involved. I have reuploaded the image as Image:Parents of Michael Murphy with monument.jpg and noted the mix-up in the caption. The metadata for the image also contains the same incorrect information. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this, upsetting issue, is now resolved. I've just posted a quick comment at the fathers talk page. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

TG

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello kind sir,

I'm not sure if you're the right person for me to be contacting, but I need your help. I know you might not be interested in helping me, or anyone else for that matter, but me and the community I'm involved in would really appreciate it.

I'm talking about Tourettes Guy.

Now, I myself am not really a fan of Tourettes Guy, but one day I tried to find some information about him. Surprisingly, there was no information about Tourettes Guy on Wikipedia. After a few months, I decided to look again, because I thought "Someone must have written something by now." But still, there was no article. After some searching, I found that, not only was there no article about Tourettes Guy, writing an article about Tourettes Guy was prohibited!

I am not sure on the reasons for this ban on Tourettes Guy on Wikipedia. I've heard from many sources that this article had no important information, so it was deleted. But, there are many other similar Internet phenomenas on Wikipedia, who have the same amount, if not less importance than the Internet phenomena that is Tourettes Guy.

Because the article has been deleted, users cannot easily contact Wikipedia officials, and ask for the article to be restored.

Right now, on the Internet, there is a petition to get Tourettes Guy's article restored to Wikipedia, currently with almost 13,500 signatures. The number rises steadily each day.

People do not want to make an article about Tourettes Guy to "honor" him, or for a "joke". People want a place where they can learn about this Internet Phenomena. There is no other place on the Internet with sufficient information about Tourettes Guy. Personally, I cannot find any good reason why this article isn't on Wikipedia.

I want to be able to learn about Tourettes Guy, and I want everybody else to have that same privilege.

I am calling upon the Wikipedia Community to make things right. Please, please restore this article, so that people can learn.

Anything you do in support of this movement would greatly be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

--888gavin (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC), Gavin C. Stewart, <personal info removed> Canada

Assistants: See AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sims/members2

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This Dispute is about the way the list of members is format. ^{I know right. :)}

It is Alphabetical using the user template.

Or Just add your name to the bottom with ~~~.

There are 2 editors (including me) Which support Just adding your name to the bottom with ~~~.

And 1 supporting Alphabetical using the user template.

Requested By Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends entirely on whoever runs the Wikiproject - I don't believe the MoS covers community areas of Wikipedia. I'll look around a little more, though. Fleetflame 01:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"I know right"? Surely as breach of WP:OWN? And actually, i don't see why this is a big deal? It doesn't matter!!! FFS! Get editing instead! I am currently unable to do little more than project things, as I have exams. I really need a wikibreak but i'm afraid that all my hard work will be wasted and reverted if that's what I do. Anyway, BG7even 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that a breech of own? ElectricalExperiment 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's ambiguous, especially when it's not punctuated. I think you meant "I know, right?" in the sense of "This is a rather minor matter; please don't imagine that I don't realise that." But it could also have been taken as "I know Right" or a sort of claim to omniscience. Anyway, are you sure you want this much attention paid to a rather minor non-content-related disagreement?? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A silly dispute which smacks of "If it's not broken, don't fix it". There's a WP:ANI thread about this. I'd tend to suggest WP:RFC or WP:3O but it's a very silly thing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Help on Glitch City Template dispute.

Greetings,

I'm in a dispute of sorts about a template that has been added to a page up for deletion. It is an "in-universe" template that I feel is inappropriate, and it will contribute a negative bias to those viewing the article who decide whether to delete, merge or whatever.

The article is about a famous bug in a computer game. [5]

I've tried to reason this with the person who wants the page deleted (he nominated it for deletion), but he has simple threatened me with warnings and reverted any change I make to the template.

I am aware that the article does have problems, and is on the border of deletion or merge (which I'm against.) However "in-universe" isn't one of them. Though it does discuss fictional monsters and places, it would be hard for the article not to mention these, and it doesn't descibe it from a fictional POV, but instead it says "the player," which clearly indicates it is not in-universe. And it states that the effects are a computer bug from the very first sentence.

Any help resolving this would be most appreciated. MKULTRA333 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

American Mastiff External Links

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please stop AMowner and IP address 72.45.12.21 from moving or removing my external link to The American Mastiff Website? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mastiff I own the site and it is about the American Mastiff and I want it in the external links. The moderator AMowner mentions is a friend and asks valid questions. There is no real basis for them deleting my link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny327 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the policy on conflicts of interest. You are discouraged from adding a link to a site you own. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionaly Forum's are Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry thank you for clarifying. My site is off now and so is the other personal website.Jenny327 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, not that it matters since Jenny327 has managed to get all reference links removed, the moderator on the other board in question is an English Mastiff breeder that has a warning on her OWN website about the American Mastiff. Furthermore, that persons user name on Wikipedia is Mastiffowner and if you go back and look at the history on the American Mastiff page you can see where she tried to add negative things about the breed. That is reason enough alone not to have the other site referenced on the American Mastiff page. AMowner (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. You're confusing the question of reliable encyclopaedic information, and the behaviour of the editors who might contribute it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and she was stopped. AMowner (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Moderators - Could you please review both websites http://www.americanmastiff.org and http://www.americanmastifffamily.org and see that they are both very informative websites that we would like added back to the external links section of the American Mastiff page? Thank you. AMowner (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. In addition, both seem to be Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been erased

Hi

Im an author of 4 books- all have been legitimately published by 'real' publishers- My bio was erased off of Wiki- Im am not much of an editor and I honestly dont know the culture- but I was there with multiple links one day- gone the next

???

No one can give me a straight answer why- most have told me that I should legitimately be in wiki- conspiracy theories and vendetta rumors abound- Im confused

I mostly think that my books add to the world and would like them represented- as well as the online magazine Ive been editing for 5 years. But Im not obsessive about it. Ive been a fan of Wiki for years- but the odd and arbitrary way I was erased gives me real pause-

Just curious

Denny Sargent

BOOKS PUBLISHED:

Heal The Earth, An Environmental Textbook, Dawn Press, Japan 1991

Global Ritualism, Myth and Magick Around the World, Llewellyn Publishing 1994 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/globalritualism.html

The Magical Garden, (with Sophia), Andrews McMeel Publishing 2000 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/magicalgarden/

The Tao of Birth Days, Tuttle Publishing 2001 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/taoofbirthdays/

Your Guardian Angel & You, Redwheel / Weiser 2004 (out now) Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/YourGuardianAngel/

Clean Sweep, Banishing Everything You Don't Need to Make Room for What You Want, Redwheel / Weiser 2007 Web site: http://www.psychicsophia.com/cleansweep.html

Editor and Publisher:

Silver Star - A Journal of New Magick (online Journal, 2003-present) Site: http://www.horusmaat.com/silverstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.98 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no conspiracy theories to be had here. The article Denny Sargent was deleted on November 2, 2007 by User:JzG as a speedy deletion - his comment is that it did not assert notability. Looking at the deleted article, I'd agree. However, having said all that, if you feel that the article should have been retained, you can request a deletion review and see what other editors think. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Although an admin would have to list a copy of the page for the other editors to comment. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny sargent

• psychicsophia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Articles

• Denny Sargent
  
• Denny sargent
  

Accounts

Aion131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
72.244.206.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising

--Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Citiation requirements: Newspaper article not available online

I have recently attempted to make some changes to a Wikipedia page which were reversed by an Administrator due to a lack of a proper reference (pertaining to a statement about a living person). I received a temporary block as a result. I was wondering what Wikipedia would accept as citable evidence? My reference is a newspaper article which was printed last week in Perth Western Australia, but the newspaper article is not available online. Will Wikipedia accept this article as a reference without it being available online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightcorruption (talk • contribs) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally this wouldn't be a problem. However, in this case you are much less likely to get such a citation accepted, on the basis that you've already added controversial and unsourced information to a biography of a living person - a violation of one of our strictest policies - not to mention that your username implies that you may be a single-purpose account and/or possibly have a conflict of interest with the subject. It might be a good idea make some less controversial edits for a while and see if any other sources also publish similar material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing your contributions, I think that the non-neutrality of your prose might be an issue too. Take this diff as an example. I think that you should read Wikipedia's neutrality policy very carefully. Good luck, and happy editing! Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Information Related to My City

Theres an abuse of the info related to my city, as an istanbulian i kindly request to keep the info i provided below and not let to be edited Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul

Goldeneye1980, Istanbul

{{Infobox Settlement |official_name=İstanbul |settlement_type= |established_title= Founded |established_date=667 BC as Byzantium |established_title1=Roman/Byzantine period |established_date1=AD 330 as Constantinople |established_title2=Byzantium period |established_date2=until 1453 named as Constantinople and various other names in local languages |established_title2=Ottoman period |established_date2=starting from 1453 named as Istanbul by Ottoman Empire |established_title3=Turkish Republic period |established_date3=Istanbul since Ottoman Empire

Quoting from tr:Konstantinopolis: "11 Mayıs 330 tarihinde Roma İmparatoru I. Konstantin Byzantion'u imparatorluğun yeni başkenti seçmiş ve Yeni Roma (Lat.: Nova Roma) diye tekrar isimlendirmiştir.". And from tr:İstanbul (şehir): "Ancak; devlet işlerinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Konstantiniyye ismini kullanır." Please get your facts straight.  --Lambiam 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why am I unable to login ?

Dear Editor,

Since about an year from now, I have signed up in Wikipedia, using my username Lutfullah and have made a few contributions on talk pages and corrections on grammar and syntax (if seen) on main article pages.

Since yesterday June 03, 2008 I am not able to go beyond pointing my cursor and right-clicking onto the Log in/create account radio button. The moment I do that, an error message pops up with a bang, telling me that my Internet Explorer can not accsess this web-page and I am removed totally from your portal by my browser.

Please be kind enough to find out and tell me, here in this talk page, why this is happening. Have I been removed from your login access for any uncouthed behavior on my part, which I am yet unaware of? Is there any other reason and if such is, what remedy can I avail? It shall be very kind of you if you could find some time for me to drop a line in my Email address <removed>

Thanks and regards. 59.180.122.229 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

Hi, I don't see anything that would indicate that you've been blocked. I don't mean to be patronising, but right-clicking doesn't sound like it would be needed; a regular (left-) click should be fine. Or, does your browser have the password feature enabled? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lutfullah (talk · contribs) seems clear of of any blocks. could try the simple stuff, like caps lock, wrong pass, refreshing or deleting your cache...--Hu12 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My biographical information on Wikipedia

TWIMC: I just noticed a “conflict of interest” sticker on my page bio page. I identified myself and made some changes which were factual and not editorial or opinionated. What should I do to take off the citation on my page? I have no problem waiting until things are checked out, but am just curious as to what my next step is, if any. Thanks for any help you can give me. I know that I am not supposed to put an e-mail address in here, but my address is already public because of my public blog. If one of you would please call or contact me I would really appreciate it. I have a lot of difficulty navigating your “rules, regulations, directions and editing” etc. pages, so hope I'm doing this right. Thanks again, Charles Laquidara 808 268-1525 charles@radiowaveX.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laquidara (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can start by contacting OTRS to verify your identity. Per your edits, 1) make sure they're neutral, and B) it still needs to be cited to a source of information. It looks like a lot of the inaccuracies were uncited and have since been removed anyway. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dornier Consulting page

Hello, I have just made a handful of changes to the above named subject. I would like to know if these are sufficient or if there is more that needs to be changed. If so, please be as specific as possible so that I can resolve them. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unserwikikonto (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton page

Hi, I tried to edit the Hillary Clinton page. I realize that political pages are a hotbed and they have their own cadre of people on both sides patrolling them. I was browbeaten because my edit did not conform with somebody's conception of "verifiability" but as all intelligent people know this is a relative thing and just about nothing is perfectly verifiable. I pointed out the incongruousness of Ms. Clinton seeking Obama's VP slot in light of her disrespectful treatment of him during the campaign. That just seems common sense. I am not a heavy wiki person; I had written and edited a few articles to do with Latin and Greek mainly. So the Clinton page has been locked down by her people. Is that what Wikipedia is for? I know because of the non-professional ethic (not unprofessional) of wikipedia for the unpaid editing staff there's only so much you can do in these kinds of situations. I wish I knew more about editing wiki but I just don't have time. My edits are quick and dirty and I think substantially accurate. Thank you very much. Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyodysseus (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first edit, here, was in the manner of an editorial comment, and not an encyclopedic addition; it was not backed up by reliable sources, and therefore was quite rightly removed from what is a high-traffic and highly visible article at present. Your second edit was a personal attack on the editor who had removed the previous edit. Personal attacks are bad things. Verifiability is not an option here; it is a policy, and must be followed. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page hasn't been locked down "by her people". See WP:Protection policy, it was locked by Wikipedia administrators in order to prevent WP:Vandalism. Those who have an account older than four days can still edit the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's especially problematic by the weasel words, e.g. "people have said". A) Something like that isn't really useful to the article, and B) you'd need some kind of source for it (e.g. newspaper editorials). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Philip S. Porter article

Hello,

I have long used Wikipedia as a resource but had never joined before. I searched for "Philip S. Porter" and was pleased to find a well-written and accurate piece about one of my mentors, a living person who is prominent in the martial arts. Unfortunately somone has added a section at the end of the article entitled "Controversies" which contains inaccurate and potentially libelous information, at odds with Wikipedia policy.

I set up an account for myself as "Soothsayer12" and attempted to edit this erroneous and damaging information. Included in the orginal "Controversies" section were innuendos of wrongdoing without substantiation, global ad hominem attacks of the sort that state that "everyone" in the martial arts world knows that Mr. Porter is a fraud, etc.. This is patently untrue; reading the preceding sections of the article make it clear that he is a legitimate and important person in the martial arts. Unfortunately the martial arts world is full of bad politics (like the rest of the world!) and a few bad apples. These libelous comments have no place on Wikipedia and no place in polite discourse, either.

My edits were an attempt to neutralize the "Controversies" section with accurate and balanced information. I did not delete the section. However, my edits have both times been reverted. As a student of Mr. Porter, a member of his organization and a martial arts teacher myself with 35 years of training experience, I'm requesting that my edits be restored in order to present a fair picture of the man. If this is not possible for some reason, at the very least the "Controversies" section should be deleted in total, as it is inaccurate and potentially libelous, per Wikipedia policy.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soothsayer12 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article in question, Philip S. Porter, is sadly lacking in references; I've tagged it and made a note on the talk page asking for more sources to back up the Controversies section especially. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else removed that whole section, and rightly so. It was completely unsourced. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sernio article and help with other editors

Could some other people please have a look at this article. I'm trying to work on getting it cleaned up so that if the subject actually is notable enough for inclusion the article will be legiable and coherent (as well as formatted properly). I've been attempting to AGF and have suggested improvements and tried to enter into conversation with the "current" main editor without success. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request: How to code dates

My question is about the dates in an article. For example...

Say the article says, "In January 1956, I bought ..." Would the month and year deserve an internal wiki link seperately? Just the month? Both together?

"In [[January]] [[1956]], I bought ..."
"In [[January]] 1956, I bought ..."
"In [[January 1956]], I bought ..."

OK, a whole date. "... was born on March 27, 2001, and ..." Now, the Month and date together get a wiki link, but what about the year?

"... was born on [[March 27]], [[2001]], and ..."
"... was born on [[March]] [[27]], [[2001]], and ..."
"... was born on [[March 27]], 2001, and ..."

And finally, what if there is a date and no year? "Each March 23rd we celebrate..."

"Each [[March]] 23rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March 23]]rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March 23rd]] we celebrate..."
"Each [[March]] [[23]]rd we celebrate..."
"Each [[March]] [[23rd]] we celebrate..."

Thanks for your help. Feel free to strikeout the incorrect lines and maybe highlight the correct lines. I have read the wiki guidlines on the subject, but receive conflicting response from other people (both admins and non-admins alike). --Noxia (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My non-administrative 2c would be to follow the principle of Only make links that are relevant to the context. So, frequently, no link is needed. If the context requires an explanation of the date, then a link would be justified. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I (and our manual of style) agree with Andrew. There's no reason to link dates unless relevant to content unless it is a full date. Full dates should in most cases be linked but for display, rather than context reasons. Dates come in various formats all over the world (mm-dd-y, dd-mm-yy, etc. Wikipedia lets registered users set date display preferences for their accounts, which only works with linked full dates. With a linked date, it doesn't matter how the user has written it; if properly linked, it will display for users however they are used to based on the setting they choose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Actually, linking dates like March 23 (not March 23rd - we avoid -st, -nd, -rd) is also helpful. That way it comes out 23 March or March 23, depending on user preferences. Mangostar (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Submit article/entry

How do we submit an article/entry to be posted? Do we provide content or is it written by your editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.73.218 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We're all editors! You, me, everyone else too. First, you should read our five pillars to get a sense of what is likely to be acceptable. Then, many people find it helpful to browse, make some smaller edits, and get the hang of the place first. After that, if you have something to add then jump in! Oh, and please register an account. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia:Your first article may help, too. Mangostar (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer you bluntly, two ways: A) if you register an account you can do it yourself after four days; B) submit the content to Article for Creation, where editors will review it and, if it's acceptable for Wikipedia, will create it for you. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

photos

I am receiving an error message "Internet Explorer cannot open the internet site http:...... whenever I try and click on a picture to open it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.145.33 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is happening on any image you click on, it could be that your internet connection is timing out. Try disconnecting and then re-connecting. Pastordavid (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalker

I have attempted to resolve an issue with Iblardi...but he continues to stalk me. His actions continue even now. I have tried to make light of it so as not to give him the satisfaction of an angry reply. I do not want to get into the long-winded, verbose, never ending conversation that he does. But...I can not do ANY editing without him coming behind me and undoing them...in reverse order the articles are... 1) White Bass. 2) Fremont, Wisc. 3) Desiderus Erasmus. 4) Hans Brinker and the Silver skates. 5) Tim Moore. 6) Low Countries 7) Belgium 8) Dutch customs and ettiquette.

There are more. But these should show a preponderance of action that is contrary to Wiki-Standards. Earlier ..before I left for work...I was ready to move on and leave the Low Countries to Iblardi and his ilk. It wasn't worth the aggrevation.....Please respond ASAP. --Buster7 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I did it right....ie...I just submitted a formal request for a dispute resolution.--Buster7 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I really would like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I am reluctant to do anything on Wikipedia because the stalker will just revert it. Time and time and time again he has hunted me down and reverted my efforts. His interferance is tedious. At least I have an editing record, albiet a short one, built on good will and friendliness. He now begins to present this Trojan Horse of a defense; that somehow my editing is questionable or unusual or non-encyclopedic...and that's why he follows me around like some braying mule! Perhaps, at times, it may have a hint of some of those "newbie" qualities. Afterall, Ive only been at this for A MONTH!!!! It is a defense that he has created out of thin air to cover-up his improprieties. I have had disagreements with other editors. But there was always a meeting of the minds and we moved on. But, to anyone that looks at all the facts and the history of my involvements with Iblardi, they will see what I see. Iblardi is full of Hot Air!!! His previous history with other editors he has stalked should be proof enough. Iblardi is what I call a Right Fighter. He has to be right! This all started when I wouldn't sit still and let the "Belgians are stupid" joke exist on the Dutch page. He is probably surprised that I am NOT as stupid a Belgian as he first thought. BTW...when this is resolved, I would like to find out about a new account or something like that. No matter how it turns out, a bully like Iblardi will not let it die. His continued vandalism proves it! Please advise whats going on and how to proceed ASAP...--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Buster7 is neither a Belgian, nor a 61-year old, nor a newbie. He is an internet troll, possibly trying to make the point that it is too easy for vandals to hide behind policies as Don't Bite the Newcomers. I am now reverting his last edit on Erasmus, as it has reinstated previous vandalism. Iblardi (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from making comments that could be construed as personal attacks as they aren't constructive and could lead to consequences --Firebladed (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for the provocative accusations above. I merely observe that this user is putting up a masquerade. Normally I am not at all quick in accusing other editors. Just for the record, how can I be a "Right Fighter"? I engage in factual discussions on talk pages all the time (for instance [6], [7], [8], etc., including with the above user ([9], [10]). I am generally a cautious editor ([11], [12]). I do help newcomers ([13]) and I correct myself at times when it becomes clear that I made a mistake (removing my own contribution after a talk page discussion: [14]). User:Buster7 also created an article of questionable notability (probably taken from the cover of the book he was using for his edits on the Low Countries: [15]), which I didn't touch since I saw no factual inaccuracies. Hardly an editor who "has to be right" at all costs, it seems. Iblardi (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my Jesuit teachers was an ex-marine. He taught us, his students, calmness in the face of battle. All the facts on my user page are just that---FACTS!--Buster7 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that someone who is genuinely concerned with this issue does not post frivolous reactions like this one: [16]. And this explanation [17] about a "brother" who allegedly has been checking all of this user's contributions and has done so for years (while the user professes to be a newcomer) doesn't sound convincing to me. And even here -- a Jesuit teacher who is an ex-marine? How plausible is that? Iblardi (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am responding only for the benefit of any administrator that might read our "banter".

1. 1)My response was jovial, not frivolous. You offense is very serious so anything to do with it is certainly not frivolous. As I state elsewhere, to others, I will not let you pull me into an angry respose. My response may seem light-hearted but the intent behind it is very serious. Stop Doing What Your Doing! Leave me alone.
2. 2)You should read content better! My brother has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I guess you would call him a customer. I placed my edit, called him on the phone, asked him to give a "look-see (he is my fishing partner..On the Wolf River in WIsconsin) and let me know what he thought. Strictly as a consumer not as an editor.
3. 3)You assume that I was refering to editing at Wikipedia. How limited an outlook! I didnt just start writing a month ago. Ive been writing journals, short stories, correspondence and letters for many, many years, again, having nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. While they are in the drafting stage, I use spaces to sigify that I'm not sure of the word I want...this allows me to move on with the thought and not get stuck on searching for the "right" word.

(Whatever story you made up about what I wrote or who I am, is Your story. It really has very little to do with me. Like your interpretations of my edits they are far from the truth)

1. 4)As to the Jesuit Marine. I dont know what to say. He didn't show us any references. He looked like a priest and he said he had been a Marine. Now that I think about it...I remember a tattoo...USMC...on his bisep. Is that sufficient proof?

This is my final talk with you. At such a time when an administrator gets involved in our "situation", I will respond to any and all claims that you make. But until then, I will not respond to any request to talk. About anything. So, dont bother to ask.--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to send you an e-mail. Maybe I have been a little mistrustful. Iblardi (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work. I apologized to the user on his talk page. Reading this I realize that I got carried away by my own mistrust and over-interpreted his words and actions. Iblardi (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get articles I wrote added

Resolved

 – Good advice at user's talkpage from Xavexgoem. BelovedFreak 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote three articles about Josh Bernstein and have tried to add them to his page but they get removed. Can someone please tell me how to get the links to these articles added so others may read them,

Thank You Saqqara Aleister —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqqara D. Aleister (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Also, remember to end your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes) so everyone knows who wrote what :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing our company's wikipedia page

Resolved

 – Also replied at user's talkpage. BelovedFreak 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Our company's wikipedia page is rife with errors and non-WP:NPOV comments. Awhile back, a PR person tried to edit the page without understanding Wikipedia policies and was reversed, quite rightly. We haven't touched it since. Still, the page gets worse. How can I fix the page, or propose edits that a neutral editor can review, to correct the errors and, in some cases, add material that returns some sections to a balanced point of view? For most of the items, we can provide third-party sources that correct the errors or provide updated information. Nyph (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking this approach; we appreciate your understanding. One solution is to list some of your proposals and sources on the talk page for other, disinterested, editors to review and incorporate as they see fit. Perhaps you could try that and then come back here if it doesn't seem to work out? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could tell us what article it is, we can have a look. If the problematic points are unsourced or indeed go against WP:NPOV they can be fixed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Recurring problems with an unconstructive editor (reposted from User talk:PhilKnight)

Hello, I am posting here because of problems I have had with an editor who has, in 2 lengthy discussions with myself, refused to debate constructively, leading to many hours of wasted time and much wasted effort. I believe that if he is not made aware that his behaviour in the debates was unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the future, he will continue to conduct himself in a similar fashion in the future and many more hours will be lost. I originally posted this message on User talk:PhilKnight to seek his assistance, but he was not sure what to suggest and recommended I copy and paste the message here for someone else to take a look at. As such, that is what I have done:

(begin reposted message)

Hello PhilKnight,

I arrived on your talk page via Wikipedia:Editor assistance, because of your discription: "Reasonably experienced in dealing with edit wars and the dispute resolution process". I have, on 2 seperate occasions now, had lengthy discussions with a particular editor (LeaveSleaves (talk)) in which this editor has employed counterproductive debating techniques. I believe that this editor does attempt to make good faith edits, but whenever his position is challenged or mistakes are pointed out, he refuses to read, take note of and address the points raised in any replies. Instead he sticks to his original position no matter what arguments are put forward or evidence presented, and seems to take it as an insult if I explain where he is mistaken (with reasoned arguments, links etc) or why I disagree with his opinions. I have also taken issue with his excessive haste to nominate an article for deletion, rather than addressing any concerns he had with the article on the talk page or by editing the article itself.

Although I have no current dispute with the user, I feel certain that I will have to deal with the user's editing and discussions in the future, and I would like it made clear to him that his counterproductive debating techniques are not acceptable, so that I, and other users, do not have to waste valuable time and effort in the future dealing with similar behaviour. I have little experience in dealing with dispute resolution, so I am unsure of the protocol for dealing with such users, both initially and if they refuse to modify their behaviour, and as such your input into this would be valuable. Having said that, there seems little point in me ever trying to reason with him about his conduct, considering the obvious animosity he now feels towards me. I will now detail the history of the disputes fully, to allow you to judge for yourself the conduct of both of us, and so that you can make an informed decision on how to proceed. I should note that both of the disputes were cricket-related, but the conduct to which I refer is not.

The first dispute

This dispute started on the talk page for the 2008 Indian Premier League article, a cricket tournament that has just completed its inaugural season. The season and its corresponding article were both then at an early stage, and I had created a template, (since then improved by having nicer looking icons but essentially the same) to improve the presentation and clarity of the score summaries for each match in the tournament. LeaveSleaves very quickly objected to my edit (and all 3 of the major aspects of it) and a lengthy discussion ensued. I moved the discussion to a different talk page at the suggestion of LeaveSleaves in order to facilitate a discussion, despite my (continuing) belief that the discussion was only relevant to the original talk page, something which I stated in the discussion. As such, the remainder of the discussion took place on the new talk page. The complete discussion can be seen (under 3 headings) here: 1st heading, 2nd heading and 3rd heading.

During the discussion there were a number of occasions where he did not address the points I raised, but continued to insist that his own opinion should hold sway. Some of the links he provided (which were supposed to prove his viewpoint) I subsequently investigated and demonstrated in the discussion in fact contained information in opposition to the viewpoint he espoused. As you can see from the discussion, of the 3 issues, the main focus was on the issue of which of the 2 teams should be listed first in the scorecard (an important consideration for a cricket scorecard). I advocated that the side listed first should be the side which batted first, while he stated that it should be the home side. Incidentally, my edit had still managed to retain the information showing which side was the home side by adding an (H) symbol in an appropriate place. During the discussion, not only did he not refute any of my arguments as to why the modification was an improvement (some arguments of which I had to repeat multiple times), but he repeatedly claimed that my edits should be reverted because he knew that the consensus regarding cricket articles was for the home team to be listed first. I was initially unaware if this was true or not, but I took his claims at face value. However, whenever I asked him for specific links to relevant pages showing this consensus, he would ignore the request and continue to advocate his position. I eventually discovered, through my own efforts, that the overwhelming consensus in fact supported my format and opposed his. As you can see, I wrote a post to state this information (with multiple relevant links) and to tell his to not engage in such obviously unhelpful debating techniques in the future. I posted an extract from this post on his talk page, to inform him that his conduct was not acceptable and should not be repeated in the future, and this extract can be found here. After this post he ceased his participation in the discussion and the modifications that I had made continued in existence.

The second dispute

This occurred only over the past day or 2, and concerned the newly created article for 2009 Indian Premier League. The discussion took place on its talk page As becomes clear from the discussion, since well before the 2008 (and inaugural) season of the Indian Premier League, yearly editions had definitely been planned to occur in 2009 and 2010, not least because the players were already under contract to play during the 3 years from 2008 to 2010. There had already been an initial thread dealing with the specific dates in 2009 that the IPL was to occur, and the lack of a reference for these claims. Before LeaveSleaves posted on the page, 2 Template:fact tags had already been placed in the article to deal with this. However, LeaveSleaves proceeded to enter the discussion with a new thread in which he proposed the deletion of the article, and slapped a Template:PROD tag on the article itself, with the added text "Based purely on speculation, no official or other substantiation". In his talk thread he had posted 2 links, which he claimed demonstrated there was "no indication anywhere as to when the next season is or what are the possible changes taking place". In fact the 2 links had referred to another proposal by the IPL chief, where it was mooted that there be 2 IPL seasons inside a single year. It was this proposal that had been shelved for the next few years at least, and not the plan for a single IPL Season in 2009, which was still definitely planned to go ahead. When I saw LeaveSleaves' post I explained the situation and removed the deletion tag from the article. However, the user evidently did not give my post due consideration and instead claimed that I had agreed with his assertion that the wikipedia page was "invalid", something which I definitely did not do, and that I was contradicting myself by opposing its deletion. I attempted to explain again, and after that once more, what the articles were referring to, including extracting specific quotes from one of the articles, but still he refused to consider my arguments or reread his own links. By this time he had become quite annoyed that I might try to explain his mistake, and I myself was starting to become frustrated by his unwillingness to engage in rational debate. After this he put the article up for deletion and opened this discussion, closing the discussion when another user had added what he considered to be an adequate link. As you can see from the remainder of the discussions, all my other posts on the topic proved fruitless, and my attempt to reprimand him for his conduct was met with a tit-for-tat reply calling me "condescending and pedantic". The argument about whether a 2009 season would occur or not was cleverly avoided in his statement:

• "And for the last time, the reason I entered those links was only to point out that the information about the next season (again, the details not occurrence) is extremely hazy and unclear"

The thing which was in fact somewhat hazy was the dates within 2009 for the 2009 season, not whether the next season would occur in 2009 or not. There was also another issue raised about whether the article should be merged with another article (he proposed the merger and I opposed it).

This is the current situation with regard to this second dispute, and I have not replied to his most recent post, as I think there is no point in me doing so.

My main concern out of all this is not to do with deciding any of the issues regarding the content of particular wikipedia articles. Rather, it is so ensure that LeaveSleaves is put on notice that his debating techniques were counterproductive and to ensure that he will not be allowed to engage in such conduct again without reprimand and sanction. Considering that I (and other users) are likely to encounter him again in dealing with cricket-related, and specifically IPL-related articles, I think this is a matter of high importance.

Assuming that you decide to take this matter on, I thank you for your assistance. Juwe (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again PhilKnight, but I notice you have been editing recently and are presumably still online. I know my post is a bit of a long one, and the story somewhat complicated (I tried my best to summarise the key points) but (will you have)/(have you had) a look at it at some point? Just a simple yes or no answer would be appreciated. Thanks Juwe (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Juwe, sorry for not replying earlier, however, after think this over, I'm still not sure what to suggest. If the problems were more severe, I would recommend a request for comment on user conduct, but in this case, that would probably be excessive. Perhaps it would be better if you copied your message onto the request page of Editor Assistance, and someone else handled this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(end reposted message)

I am sorry for the length of the post, but I have tried to be as concise as possible, while ensuring I don't omit any important details. I greatly appreciate anyone's assistance with this matter.

Thanks, Juwe (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that no-one has responded, and that this issue does appear a tricky one for an assistant to intervene in (given that there don't appear to be any deliberate acts of bad faith, even if the editor should know that simply ignoring arguments put forward , and evidence given for those arguments, is a bad faith practice), I might just let this one slide. Assistants, feel free to archive this request. Juwe (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. You could have cut down significantly on the noise in that post. Essentially: you wanted to add an (H) symbol to signify the home team for the readers, and he resisted this and ignored your arguments, claiming consensus. Did I miss anything? Please tell me if I did. Note that I didn't bother to read the second. One important point that you left out: where was this overwhelming consensus? Brevity, which consists of attention to relevant details -- your evidence -- cannot be emphasized enough. By the way, you will encounter this often. PhilKnight actually basically [[endorsed this type of "I have consensus and I don't need to explain myself" behavior when I raised a Wikiquette alert in a similar incident with Jefffire. So get used to it. Sorry for the rant. Now for the solutions: use a WP:3O template the Talk page where you have the trouble. If necessary, do a WP:RfC (and please check them out; they are highly neglected). Also, check out WP:DISPUTE, where all your options are listed. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about the noise. You will notice that I didn't originally post this request on this page anyway, I merely copied and pasted from another talk page after that was recommended. I'm afraid also that you missed much in your assessment of the disputes, the "(H)" issue was only 1 of 3 issues in the 1st dispute, and not even the main issue. The listing of ordering of teams is also not as unimportant as it might seem, as incorrect ordering will often fundamentally misinform the reader about what happened in the match itself. There were also issues relating to the 2nd dispute (which I acknowledge you didn't read), but I don't think it fruitful to elaborate further. I haven't yet read your linked discussion, but the problem (in my dispute) wasn't even that he refused to explain why consensus was with him, it was that it turned out that it was unequivocally contrary to his position (something which unfortunately took hours to discover). My evidence for the "overwhelming consensus" was contained in the discussions which I linked, and specifically in my reprimand to him that led to the conclusion of the first dispute. I will point out that the tournament pages I linked to there are for the highest-profile recent cricket tournaments in the world, and that the template I linked to is similarly mainstream.

Maybe, having seen this, you will appreciate why I inserted the "noise", as without it the dispute can't be properly understood (as your post aptly demonstrated). Once again though, I now acknowledge that this was an inappropriate forum for such a lengthy and detailed post. As for the "get used to it" line, I appreciate you don't want people whinging to you about their (often self-made) problems with editors, but as you can see, I actually didn't call for any outside intervention during the first lengthy dispute, and tried to engage the other editor multiple times in the second dispute before bringing the issue up in a separate forum. My own personal view, and why I indeed brought this issue up, is that if unconstructive editors are not informed that behaving in such a way is not acceptable, not only will they continue their improper conduct, but that many other "victims" of the editor (ie frustrated constructive editors) will be driven away from wikipedia. Maybe you disagree with my assessment, but I hope you appreciate where I am coming from.

Thankyou, firstly for taking the time to consider my post, and secondly for your suggestions about resolving such issues. I will check them out, although for this issue I might just let things be. All the best, Juwe (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "get used to it" comment is just to prepare you. It's not meant to impolite. I'm sorry; I skimmed your post very fast. It is very low on my priorities (as are articles on sports, and most other information which doesn't do something to help aid our troubled world or help me somehow). What matters is that you had a disagreement and couldn't figure out how to resolve it. I agree that these people are a major problem. I personally think that Requests for Comment on Users should be displayed on all Userpages, along with other major decision. The biggest problem with WP is that so much time and energy is wasted in bureaucracy, and many things get rehashed over and over because the earlier problems are not displayed prominently. Plus, there's not much transparency in editor quality -- people count edits, but those are pointless. I've suggested a couple times that we need ways to sort through edits by size, on particular articles (see the persistent proposal). Also, getting outside input is a good thing. You may have trouble getting it, however, because surprisingly, out of the (at minimum) 500 million English-speaking people, apparently only a very small handful are interested in getting heavily involved in a free encyclopedia (and many of those appear to have been driven away by its ridiculous bureaucracy and resistance to positive change). ImpIn | (t - c) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

May also want to consider mediation (likely at the mediation cabal) if it's borderline behavior/content. It's a more open process, if anything. I know a guy who's been wanting to pick up sports cases, although there's no guarantee he'll pick it up. Just a thought. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry ImpIn, I didn't take offence to your comments. Considering that there is no current dispute with this editor, I might just let this one go and move on. Thanks (to Xavexgoem as well) for your suggestions though. Juwe (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper redirect

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a pretty offensive redirect when "Bill Clinton" is searched it involves repeated use of the N word that I'm not about to type. I have no idea if this is the correct place to report this, but it was the best I could find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladypeyton (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The user who made that request has been blocked, and the article no longer redirects. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Visual Arts

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I have searched wikipedia and I'm unable to find a category that refers to my type of visual art. Basically I create paintings that can be turned so that the viewer has a choice of perspective. I have called them 'turners'. Is there a category that relates to this type of art that I have missed? Or do I post an entry creating this? If so which category would I use to do this and as this work is personal to me, how do I reference it without violating wikipedias rules?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamazek (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Annamazek, Thanks for asking. You might find some useful tips in WP:Your first article. You'd also need to make sure that anything you write about is notable and verifiable. A good place to start might be some independent 3rd party coverage of that type of work. Feel free to post again or at my talk page if you have more questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

adding an entry

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to a straight-forward place to add an entry about a fine artist - Jennifer Delilah Thank you and I have signed as an administrator. David Davis davisde —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisde (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Much like the previous inquiry, you'll find some useful tips in WP:Your first article. You'd also need to make sure that anything you write about is notable and verifiable. A good place to start might be some independent 3rd party coverage of that artist. Feel free to post again or at my talk page if you have more questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

I have no idea what a sockpuppet is. Why am I being accused of it? I do not have an account here. I use Wikipedia as a valuable source of information. I am a real person and do not spam or hack anyone's site or email.

Blocking IPs on the web is a useless remedy for any problem I have encountered yet. The "bad guys" know how to forge the IP and use perfectly innocent IPs, such as the one I am currently assigned.

This practice is egregious and ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.148.28 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/User:Hdayejr

See WP:SOCK

--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance to ensure NPOV

Resolved

 – Good advice from Xavexgoem on user's talkpage. --BelovedFreak 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

On my User:Gary WebTrain personal page I have created content which I would like to post for WebTrain.

I have had my listing deleted once (it was too blatant and POV based), so I thought I should seek assistance before attempting another post. I have tried to contact the editor that deleted my prior listing, but have not received a response.

In the new content prepared, I have been careful to adhere to requirements. No POV is expressed, statements are simple, references are cited. I do not believe the content is in violation of any policies.

Currently, I am the only contributor.

I would like to invite others to provide content as well, I'm not sure how to do this. Perhaps an underconstruction tag ?

Assistance would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Gary Campbell 250 862-4800 (call collect if you like, I am located on the west coast Pacific Time Zone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary WebTrain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page about ways to improve the article. Best of luck! Xavexgoem (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Aids pandemic in China

Resolved

 – by User:JaGa --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, someone has written 'aids clearly started by a guy fucking a monkey and then after that the guy went off and started fucking other girls' in the article but when I tried to edit the article to delete it, it wasn't there. My technical knowledge of wikipedia isn't brilliant so if someone could work out how to remove it that would be great. Sorry if I have reported this in the wrong place. Intesvensk (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the vandalism of HIV/AIDS in the People's Republic of China was fixed by another editor. Thanks for pointing it out here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pirates of Dark Water

Resolved

 – I think.... right, Pastordavid? Fleetflame 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An unanymous user and User:StoneCold have reverted my edits for three times - while I try to follow WP:NOT, my words are useless. --Soetermans (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again! There is no reasoning to these two! One does not comment at all, the other's reason is because other pages are like this one, we (or, I, if you will) should just leave it alone! Please, someone! --Soetermans (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy, Soetermans, just came into this Pirates of Dark Water page and started to delete the work of everybody else repeatly on there. He has changed the page 4 times now. The page has been up for years like it currently is.--StoneCold (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a a collection of in-universe content: species, places, treasures etc etc. Your only argument is that "has been like that for years that everybody repeatedly worked on" and therefore I should just leave it alone - eventhough it is a bad article. And oh yeah, have you heard of being bold?

What don't you get? An encyclopedic article aim is to inform about a subject or matter - not describe every little detail! I don't make the rules, I follow them. You, however, follow your own. --Soetermans (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I could point to many tv show entries that do things the exact same way. For example, understanding who the key characters are are esssential to understanding the show. I don't appreciate the "fanboy" insult you left in my messages either. You have yet to contribute anything to the page and just deleted stuff. Your edits fail to help the reader understand the show. The fact is is that you changed the page 4 times exactly the same way in a short time period and disrupted the original piece of work.--StoneCold (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, my apologies. I didn't mean to insult you, I got carried away.

Moving on: That is not a valid argument! Even if you'd come across a thousand more of pages just like doesn't mean they are good articles in any way. Better even, you should delete the useless info just like I did (and will do, I assure you). Again and again I keep pointing at the guidelines, which are established by consensus of the users and founders of this website. The way I left the article is a good summary of early '90s animation tv-show. The way it was, before I, the bull in the chinashop, significantly edited it, was a collection of in-universe information - not suitable for a encyclopedic Wikipedia article. Example:

• The Constrictus: A "Horror-Beast" that Bloth feeds his disloyal crew and captives to. Ren is one of only two to survive the Constrictus, and the only one to escape them completely intact; the other being the peg-legged pirate Konk. It appears as a giant four-headed, worm-like, sharp-toothed monster. It lives in the bowels of the Maelstrom and is seen nowhere else on Mer.

This does not belong into the article. If anything, taking this load of nonsense out of the article will help improve understanding the show. Besides, if you know how to look things up on Wikipedia, any Internet user won't have any problem whatsoever getting this info somewhere else.

Oh, and guys? Can someone please back me up here? --Soetermans (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, you don't even say who the main characters of the show are. No Ren, Ioz, or Bloth for example. No one would understand the show after your slashing job. All you did was cut and did not contribute.--StoneCold (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked for an editor to step in, not an unanymous user - but thanks for your superb advice, thanks.

If the characters are important (which I doubt for a small-time tv-show) StoneCold or anyone could've put them - without, here I go again, THE LISTS OF VILLAINS, SHIPS, SPECIES, EPISODES AND TREASURES. For the last time, I follow the rules here. --Soetermans (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How are the main characters of a show not important? Here is a Ninja Turtle example Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles#Main_characters and Thundercats example Thundercats#Characters. A great majority of tv shows on wiki talk about the main characters. So guys like Ren & Bloth are not important to the show? It doesn't even sound like you watched the show. You didn't contribute anything. Just cut and then threw a "fanboy" insult at me.--StoneCold (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the right course here would be somewhere down the middle road. Not quite as much detail as what Stonecold is putting in, nor as much cutting as Soetermans is suggestioning. Is a compromise possible here? Are you both willing to move a little toward the middle? Pastordavid (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologised for my remark. Don't accept it? That's your problem. Whatever.

Actually, I did see the show but that's besides the point. We're talking about editing the article here. It's a small-time animation show! It had 21 episodes, and that's it. Like I said before, if you or anyone else thinks the characters are that important, go right ahead. I am talking about THE LISTS OF VILLAINS, SHIPS, SPECIES, EPISODES AND TREASURES. And what's not to understand? A handy link at the bottom of the article gives all the information anyone will ever need about the show. --Soetermans (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PasterDave thanks. As one can see from my examples above, most shows do it. I would not have a problem with the Mer Species and Crew sections being deleted. The other stuff are important to the show.--StoneCold (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. How's about that one? --Soetermans (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a good edit, PastorDave.--StoneCold (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that's a good start toward a compromise. Have a look at The Simpsons, which is a featured article in the same genre. You will notice that there is a great deal of information; the difference being that there is extensive sourceing (over 140 inline citations). I would trim back just a little more (perhaps the "treasures" section) and wait to expand further until you provide reliable sourcing for what is there now. Pastordavid (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I edited out the Treasures. Does this look good now Pastordavid? I think that is a good compromise as I deleted out 3 whole sections. Even though it got edited down more than most of the tv shows do on wikipedia, I will bit the bullet with these particular edits.--StoneCold (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of all that is good and holy, would you drop it already? Because other pages are like DOES NOT MEAN THEY FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES! I am beginning to sound like a broken record here... Any page like that is in need of a good "slash job"! Am I typing in Chinese here? I hope for your sake that in the future you will follow Wikipedia guidelines, and not your own rules. Please, don't be so stubborn and read the arguments I came up with. --Soetermans (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a neutral observer who isn't going to make a judgment one way or another, I think it might be useful if you listed which particular quotes from WP:NOT you think apply. That way, the people you are debating with will know why exactly you think the article breaches WP:NOT. Juwe (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did. --Soetermans (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, do you think the article reads like an instruction manual, a travel guide, an internet guide, or a textbook or annotated text? I just think that this might make the scope of the debate clearer to all. Juwe (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better guideline: WP:NOT#DIR, starting with "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". --Soetermans (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The PODW page DOES NOT have everything on there that existed. Not even remotely close. I clearly followed Pastordavid's guidelines of compromise. Look at all the other tv shows out there including the one's I and Pastordavid posted above. It looks like you are being selfish and not wanting to compromise. I believe I was right, but I did what ADMINISTRATOR PASTORDAVID said. Please READ HIS LAST POST. You aren't always going to get exactly what you want. Get over it.--StoneCold (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that Soetermans has stepped over the line of the three revert rule, reverting 4 times in the last 24 hours (1, 2, 3, 4). I have not blocked you from a generous understanding that we are in conversation about this right now, but any further reverts in the next 24 hours will get you blocked. StoneCold is one revert away from violating the three revert rule, which will also result in blocking. Pastordavid (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

""I would trim back just a little more (perhaps the "treasures" section) and wait to expand further until you provide reliable sourcing for what is there now."-Pastordavid. I did exactly what you said pastordavid immediately after that post, so I hope that ended the debate.--StoneCold (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Selfish? Nah, just a follower of the rules - I don't give a flying fish about whatever page, nor about PoDW. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia like an encyclopedia and that's it.

In my last serious post I commented on your ever-so flexible stance (Even though it got edited down more than most of the tv shows do on wikipedia), not about the article. But I'm content, I'm positive you will run into yourself again - on Wikipedia or in real life. Say, if everyone would park their cars on the sidewalk - something which goes against common rules - would you? That does seem like your logic: I could point to many tv show entries that do things the exact same way, As one can see from my examples above, most shows do it, many, many tv shows in wikipedia are done just like this one... Good day. I'm out here. --Soetermans (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks resolved now. By the way since we want to get personal, I am a 30 year old male with a wife and kids and work for a multi-million dollar company. My whole life has been about compromise. I believe I followed within the rules and I did exactly what Administrator Pastordavid said.--StoneCold (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done StoneCold. The articles don't belong to any one of us. Of course it's nice to show the early editors their "props" but the articles are always in a state of flux and growth. I commend you in not getting into the "drift of attack/counter-attack" ie name calling, continuing hostilities, etc. It can be hard to stay on topic. Once it was called a bad article, the combat started. Un-necessarily, in my opinion.--Buster7 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight edit-war with Clamp (Manga Artist) article

There seems to be some ongoing dispute (albeit at a low level) whether the fact that Clamp is an "all-female" (or simply female) mangaka group is noteable enough in the article.

The JP:Wiki article does contain this little tidbit but it has been constantly removed from the EN:Wiki article as "not noteable" without any explanation as to why it is not noteable.

All of the users that claim it as not noteable did so without a wikipedia username, thus making it difficult to discuss with them their reasoning or an explanation.

A talk entry was raised but no one seems to have replied to it.

I was planning on raising a RFCBio but that may be just a tad overkill for a one-word description.

Any help on how to resolve this kind of issue (or an explanation on noteablility) would be welcome.

Dasmarinas71 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's only been the one IP, this one, that's removed it three times now, with edit summary comments. That IP looks to be static, to me, so you may want to drop a note on its talk page and ask for dialogue to take place on the article talk. I'd suggest finding a couple of good sources that state the group is all-female; I'd say that's a defining characteristic of Clamp, myself, so should be mentioned in the lead. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Unfortunately for me, I haven't found any 'hard' sources that explain Clamp being all-female (the most were in short articles about their work that stated 'series X' was created by Clamp, an all-female mangaka. This made it a bit hard to try to counter that IP's edits. I'll try to continue hunting down some info but any help would be great! :) Dasmarinas71 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know some very hardcore anime geeks whom I'll consult this evening. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried leaving a message on the IP's talk page. Although it's only been 2 days, hopefully I can get a reply from the user. Thanks again for the help, Tony! Dasmarinas71 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: He's still at it. Fleetflame 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lake Victoria

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how to edit and link the reference to al-Idrisi map on the subject page for Lake Victoria. It appears misspelled on the page with an A. Also, here is a picture of the referenced map that should have its own wiki page:

http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/natmapworld1154.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.239.79 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So linked. It looks like this - [[Al Idrisi]] - and renders as Al Idrisi. The page to which that link leads has a similar image already. The about.com page to which you linked has a copyright tag on it so it's not clear that we could use that image. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove edit

Resolved

 – Looks like it's been oversighted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance this edit can be purged completely by an administrator. It contains a vicious attack on my family, and outside websites that hate me and the subject of the article have linked to this particular vandalous edit. Chicken Wing (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is... yikes. FYI, a request like this would be better served at the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents board, but there should be administrators here. (On a sidenote, I see you've edited that article, be sure to take a look at WP:COI.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about me. The vandalous edit, however, contains an attack on me and my wife. Some of the vandalism alleges a conspiracy between me and the article's subject. Chicken Wing (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The ip address making that edit has been blocked from editing directly for 1 year.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tour Dates for Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour

After numerous anon IP vandalism to Madonna's Sticky & Sweet Tour article, I provided references for confirmed tour dates

---

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

---

However, Crackers2007, feels that dates in Mexico, Brazil and Montenegro have been confirmed by Live Nation (as he or she states in the edit summary as "promoters"). I warned him or her three times on their talk page about adding unsourced materials before he or she provided reasoning for the edits. The references that are provided (as stated on my talk page, not within the article)

---

• [23] Entirely in Spanish thus I cannot navigate through the site to find information. When the link is clicked, the page opens and does not mention Madonna

• [24] This is in a language I do not know.

---

I have already reported him or her to be blocked from editing the page. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That second link is a .hr domain, which is Croatian. Google can translate it, the result is here: [25] If the translation is right, it seems to say that she will not appear there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

William L. Palminteri

My article "William L. Palminteri" has been removed. I have no idea why or who did this. Please advise. Thank you, William L. Palminteri —Preceding unsigned comment added by William L. Palminteri (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, looking at the deletion log for the page it seems that an editor proposed that the article be deleted because there was no assertion of notability and references to reliable sources had not been added. Since the content of the article is in your userspace, you can work on it there to improve it before trying to add it to the encyclopaedia. However, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is strongly discouraged that you write articles about yourself or people close to you. You should wait for somebody completely unconnected to you to write an article, and even then you should exercise extreme caution when editing such an article. --BelovedFreak 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First conty in the U.S. to endorse Senator Obama

I would like to add the following to the Senator Obama Presidential Campaign section under subject "Barack Obama": Senator Obama did not have to wait long for an endorsement. On January 31, 2007, the Democratic Party of Christian County, Illinois under the leadership of Chairman Jack Mazzotti, became the first county in the United States to endorse Senator Barack obama for President of the United States. The endorsement was recorded by Christian County Recorder Linda Curtin February 16, 2007, #2007R00725.

I am a first time editor and would appreciate your assistance in editing the above record into the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign section per your lead on the appropriate insertion location. Questions can be directed to: 72.9.124.95 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC) email address removed.

Do it yourself. Fleetflame 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy Development, Hydrogen cycle efficiency citation

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

section 6.3.1 of Energy Development cites a cycle efficiency for an electrolysis-fuel cell combination at 50% however the referenced page doesn't (as far as I can see) mention any kind of efficiency for the cycle.

I would edit myslef however I'm not aware of the etiquet as I'm a newby.

Scubadooper

We do have a template for that: {{notinsource}}. However, I've removed that information. Don't be afraid to do it yourself next time; don't worry about etiquette--if you screw something up, someone else will fix it! Fleetflame 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to insert an academic article into Ozzy Osbourne

I have tried to add a reference to an academic article[26] into the Ozzy Osbourne article under the heading "Controversies." The article in question discusses Ozzy's controversial portrayal in the media, and compares it with that of occultist Aleister Crowley. The connection stems from the fact that Ozzy sang a song about Crowley, called Mr. Crowley. The article makes some argument about the perception of both Osbourne and Crowley in the light of the Christian Right.

I have been repeatedly blocked from adding this reference by a few other editors. They have argued that the author of the article is not notable, however I argue that the reference does not highlight the author but the article itself, which is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. As an academic journal, it confers authority on those articles it publishes.

One editor argued that there was a conflict of interest, suggesting that I was in fact the author. I stated in Talk responses that I am not the author. Even if I was, however, the wikipedia rules seem to indicate that academics can cite themselves when necessary, so the editor here has it wrong regardless.

I have posted messages relating to this issue on the Ozzy Discussion forum, on my own Talk page, and on the Talk page of the Admin. Scarian, but aside from the initial arguments against my insertion, there has not yet been any response to my arguments. I need to know 1) if there really is a genuine problem with this article, because I can't see one, and 2) how I can get the thing listed online as it seems to me that it would be of general interest to readers.

ThanksWikigonish (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide a link or reference to the article in question, as your question is very difficult to answer without the specifics. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some links (see above) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I re-inserted the articles in question assuming that silence equals consent since there have been no further rebuttals to my arguments. I note that the latest attempts at posting the articles have not been "undone," and have actually been defended by other editers so far. Am I correct to assume that the last word in an argument posted on the discussion lists is effectively the last word, and so the "winning" word? Wikigonish (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The aim should never be to get the last word, but to achieve a consensus, a solution that the editors contributing to the discussion will consent to. Unanimous support isn't necessary, and compromise is often but not always involved. Discussion is key. There's more to read at Wikipedia:Consensus. Hope this helps :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I understand that there is effectively no "last word" per se as "consensus" is subject to change. Now that my edits have remained un-challenged for many days, I take that to indicate that they have been accepted, to a degree. On the first day one of my edits was made, another user "undid" it, to which I responded by reverting, followed by their "undoing" it again, which led to my being warned of being banned for engaging in an edit war. Given that I have entered into discussions and have achieved the last word there, can I take that to indicate that the edit war is over and I need not worry about threats of my being banned? It seemed to me odd that I was being threatened with such a sanction where my opponent(s) seemingly were not. But, as I said, since it appears to have ended in silent consent to my edits, the matter appears resolved.Wikigonish (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zonjati Ferero Roch Holsteiner Warmblood

Zonjati Ferero Roche Holsteiner Warmblood bread by Mrs S Voigts 2006 in Namibia. Ferero is registered with the Warmblood Breeders' Society of Namibia also registered with the SAWHS http://www.sawarmbloodhorses.com/ Sire of Zonjati Ferero Roche is Consuelo Imp Holsteiner, background of the Sire breading: BREADING:

Corofino I: was rewarded buy the judges with a 10 at his licensing test for his spectacular jumping abilities. As four year old he qualified for the Bundeschampionat and achieved 9.6 in other show jumping test. He was internationally successful under Valerio Sozzi. Corrado I: winner of his licensing and started a sky rocketing career as stud stallion as well as an international competitor under Franke Sloothaak. He won Aachen and Frankfurt and the German masters in 1994. Capitol, Farnese, Lord and Ramiro all produced world class horses. Landgraf I: was the first Warmblood sire who’s progeny turned him in a 6,5 Million DM millionaire making him one of the most successful sire Romantiker grandson of Ramzes, the outstanding sire that produced sport horses in all warmblood breeds. The Ramzes-line was identified as nick to the Achill - line. Farnese: the most outstanding representative of the Achill-line. The only Holsteiner line that can be followed right up to the early beginnings of the Holstein horse as a breed. Jumping ability and a correct foundation is the trademark of the Achill-line. Anna Tevka; GB A-Grade showjumper under Dirk Hafemeister, mother of Grannex by Grannus, a halfbrother to Consuelo Active

www.cordez.co.za info@cordez.co.za —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordez (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You might like to read WP:Your first article and then, if you have some reliable sources, you could create this article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over content of NWFP article

There is a dispute over the content of the North-West Frontier Province article, it only really seemed to be me and another editor who disagreed (from the start of this month). So I asked for a third opinion however this was removed on the basis that there were more than two editors involved. I think the ip contributor maybe a banned user (I am guessing he was banned along with an opposing editor by looking at his contribs). However I would just like an uninvolved editor to look at the page and give an opinion or advise on the merits or either edits, if possible. Pahari Sahib 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion is indeed for one-on-one disputes. For more people, you have two routes. A Request for Comment will bring in outside opinions; a Mediation Cabal case can help you reach a compromise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks :-) I have asked for an RFC. Pahari Sahib 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you request an article be split?

Can anyone tell me the tage to request an article be split, or tell me where there is a list of common tags so I can read them and find it? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at the instructions and guidance at Wikipedia:Splitting. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Celtic FC

Somebody messed up the shirts on the page,don't know how to fix it(wasn't me) ,please can anyone fix it.Thank you.YXN —Preceding comment was added at 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit has fixed it, not sure if the supporters section needs to go back though. Pahari Sahib 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to edit the history of my changes in a particular contribution of mine

I am requesting that an administrator delete the history of all MY changes to a wikipedia article that I wrote about an uncle of mine: Fritz Kachler. Of course I am NOT requesting that the history of anyone else's changes on this articles be deleted only mine. I ask this to simplify the history of the final product, most changes being very minor. Thanks in advance. Georgehwk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgehwk (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't really remove the history of edits; it has to be recorded for the GFDL. Or are you asking for your edits themselves to be reverted? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over Sybian article

I am trying to restore a link on the sybian article that was posted in January but recently was deleted by user Ronz. We have had a back and forth link dispute over a video that shows with the Sybian is and how it works. Ronz's explanation for the deletion is "wikipedia is not a how to". Is this a correct assumption? I find all kinds of information on Wikipedia including how to do certain things. I could be mistaken, but I didn't think wikipedia had a policy against posting any sort of how-to. Buttysquirrel (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not looked at your particular case but suggest you read What Wikipedia is not which discusses that articles should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this video be considered a how-to? www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEYNtIuw_Wg Buttysquirrel (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apart from anything else the video you are wanting to link to advertises the same porn site that you have previously been warned about. Given the singular nature of your contributions, you do seem to have a conflict of interest here, especially looking at what a quick google search of your username turns up: "Wanna learn how to ride the Sybian? Check out this link I pulled from Wikipedia:". So really, this link should definitely not be included in the article.--BelovedFreak 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Chafford

I'm not sure exactly where to post this, but I need serious assistance. On The 8th of June 2008, I was on IRC, when I was requested to join a private channel, which contained 3 people; myself, User:Ryan Postlethwaite, and User:Tiptoety (whom I had an altercation with earlier today, he accused me of 'Harrassment and Stalking' - [27]).
Apon entering this channel, I was instantly blitzed with questions demanding that I "tell them who I was", I explained that I had previously edited as an IP, and that I had decided to create an account for myself. I was immediately treated as a liar, and was threatend with a checkuser case.
I need this sorted out, this is completely unacceptable conduct for administrators, and the whole experience has left me quite shaken and has seriously dented my veiws of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. Chafford (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I said to you that I didn't believe you were a new user given your earliest contributions. I don't believe that you're an IP editor, simply because of the clear knowledge of Wikipedia process and twinkle seen in your earliest edits. I still don't believe you're a new editor and I am still looking into this. I discussed this with you on IRC, rather than here, simply because it was much better to do it in private rather than asking you about it in public - it wouldn't really have been fair on you. Yeah, I am considering filing an RFCU, or sending this to a CU, but I've got to investigate it further first. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can believe what you want, I just don't see why you are so concerned about me, have you nothing better to do? Evedently not. Chafford (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Have this user's contributions raised a concern of abusing multiple accounts? Using multiple accounts is acceptable in some circumstances, after all. A RFCU typically follows a SSP report. A note to Chafford about one thing you're doing and shouldn't be- don't revert on user talk pages. Users are generally allowed to remove warnings from their own page. If there is a request to block or take other action, it can still be seen in the history that they were warned. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Amateur Sports Teams

Resolved

 – --Bhockey10 --Bhockey10 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could some people more familiar with the subject have a look at Dupage Dragons, Springfield Sliders, and Twin City Stars. I can't seem to locate the criteria for notability that covers this subject and the articles themselves don't seem to assert notability. I don't want to take to PROD -or- AfD just because I'm not familiar with the subject but, could use a couple other sets of eyes. None of the articles had been updated for quite a while so if they are notable I'd like to work on improving the articles. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any specific criteria either, so the standard one about multiple independent sources providing non-trivial coverage might be the best criterion to apply. Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball might be able to offer some help too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the criteria. I dropped the league name (Central Illinois Collegiate League) into google news and got 562 hits searching all dates, and 85 for "Dupage Dragons" They look like they'd pass WP:N at first glance. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be notable per reasons above. On another note: Wikiproject baseball doesn't seem to have specific criteria but WP:ATHLETE states that "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to extend that to athletic leagues.--Bhockey10 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

article marked as a press release

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for another editor to suggest changes or clear the tag for the article Tradition, Florida. It has been changed to try to address the issue, and the user has not been able to comment on it since those changes were made.

Thanks! Kerfl772 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I see is the one-sentence sections. I'm going to mess with it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a major revision and took the tags down, I think it's fine now. Someone can re-add the tags if not. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no longer reads as a news release. --BelovedFreak 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cf template problem with High-definition_video#Types_of_recorded_medium

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See here High-definition_video#Types_of_recorded_medium and at end of paragraph 1 you'll see a Cf template that is redlink that was added back in Dec 2007. I found by accident but have absolutely no idea what the heck Cf templates do even after reading the text on them but I don't just want to blank that text. Please advise my next step or edit it as this looks like template voodoo. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit was [28] and the text added was {{cf.|Telecine}} Ttiotsw (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced {{cf.}} with {{seealso}} since Telecine has some explanation of pulldowns. There's no other usage of {{cf}}, so it might have been used in the hope that something existed, by analogy to cf. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Systematic attack on work referring to J. Marvin Herndon

Recently, I posted an article "J. Marvin Herndon" which arroused some ire and after emails and discussion, there was some recognization that notability applied here, and the article was removed from the intention to delete catagory, and edits have begun to be made. Apparently, though, the interaction triggered an assult on nearly every Wikipedia article pertaining to my work, al of which is published in world-class, peer-reviewed scientific journals. The most egregious assult seems to have been perpetrated by Vsmith. I have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but to no avail. For example, someone posted an article about some of my work entitled Whole-Earth decompression dynamics, Vsmith proposed it for deletion. Vsmith, along with D.H., was involved with removing the edit that I made to "Dynamo theory", removal which, as I explained on D.H.'s talk page, intentionally misleads wiki-readership. On the page, "Georeactor" someone had posted a quote from a newspaper article under the section 'criticism', which, taken out of context, was pejorative in the extreme. I added a brief statement ( referencing the whole story posted at http://NuclearPlanet.com/naysayer.htm )showing the context, which gave a more neutral point of view, but Vsmith removed my edit. What stands now is the unfounded pejorative characterization which is definitly non-NPOV. Another assult occurred on an article I posted two years ago, "Stellar ignition". Over time that article had been improved and an additional reference was added. Then, after I posted the "J. Marvin Herndon" page, Cquan made the page "Stellar ignition" disappear by redirecting the subject name to "Star formation" which is yet to carry any of the information content that was the basis of :Stellar ignition". Taken to gether these all seem to be a concerted attack against me and the work I have published. This is wrong. Science is about discovering the true nature of Earth and Universe and communicating that knowledge truthfully. There is no wiki prohibition about referencing one own work as long as it is done so objectively. All of my posts have been objective and fully referenced. It is wrong to claim "soapbox" and mount a systemic attack against me and my work. This is a serious matter which needs to be addressed.Marvin Herndon (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spot Welders - review request

Resolved

 – for now, at least. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve the NPOV issues with the Spot Welders article. They are a post-production and editorial house. I have updated the page since it was tagged as "looks like advertising, and i believe that in its current iteration the NPOV issues have been resolved. Would you please review the article and make any changes or else notes in the talk page? thanks! Shamus00 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's one sentence in the lede that mentions some awards won by the company. Everything else is rather peripheral and could well be removed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Listing business

Resolved

 – As explained, Wikipedia is not an advertising service. --BelovedFreak 10:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I wanted to know how i can go about listing my website http://www.letsrent.com.au on wiki. we are property management specialists based in the inner west sydney.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves2074 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Additionaly;

• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
  • Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
  • Law Of Unintended Consequences
• What Wikipedia is not--Hu12 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I want a pardon for my past edition and I am sorry for the same. Please advice me the way for pardon.

I want a pardon for my past edition on chirstianity in India and I am sorry for the same. I was influenced by some outside parties for the same. I confirm that I will not make any edition of similar nature in the future. I also confirm that I will fully abide by your policies. I had tired to contact you in past by sending an e mail but the same was not fruitful. I deeply regret my action. Please advice me the way for pardon.

Regards

R. S.

phone number removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.250.54 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit or edits you are referring to, but I would have thought that the best way forward is to simply start contributing constructively to the encyclopaedia. Also, if you haven't already done so, consider getting a user account.--BelovedFreak 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you could be more specific, as in what you changed and the date; then we can at least figure out what IP address or account you're referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This anon seems to have been editing in conjunction with another anon (also at Barclays Bank), Special:Contributions/62.189.169.182. I looked over some of their edit history and various bits of vandalism seem to have been reverted already. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Teachers Building Society page

Hello, This page has included notices about neutral content and conflict of interest for some time. I have ensured that the content is neutral and have used the Society's logo purely for identification purposes (there is another company - Teachers Assurance - that people sometimes confuse with Teachers Building Society). Can someone review the page so that the notices might be removed please? Many thanks Teachersbs (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks quite clean to me, and so I removed the conflict of interest and advertisement templates. I suppose fact of the COI remains, but I didn't see it working its way into the article. BTW, the Talk page indicates that the image may be deleted - you may want to follow up on that to get the licensing straight. JohnInDC (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The conflict of interest remains since you appear to be connected to the Building Society (from your username). Just be careful when editing pages about things you are connected to. The article could really do with some references to coverage in third party reliable sources. As for the image, it should be fine. the warning on the talkpage seems to refer to an old version. --BelovedFreak 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

why was travelonly deleted

i tried to enter information like every other travel site. Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, etc. and they all have the same information i uploaded. i think it is totaly unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gluciani (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! That page was deleted because it was blatant advertising. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article you wrote, Travelonly was deleted because an administrator believed it to be blatant advertising. Don't take it personally. Wikipedia has certain standards of notability and verifiability. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory, so many companies do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. See if you can find any significant coverage of Travelonly in reliable third party sources that will help to demonstrate notability. One last thing, I don't know if you are in some way connected to Travelonly, but if you are, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and be aware that editing articles about subjects you are connected to is strongly discouraged. --BelovedFreak 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Need feedback on what to do with an article that is being vandalized often - but in good faith

Resolved

 – JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled onto the article Todd Bentley, which needed an overhaul (no template, written as a story, bias, no/poor cites, etc.) so I got Bold and did the best I could - paring out whatever I could not not find strong references for and cleaning/organizing the rest.

I did not realize at the time that the subject of the article is in current events and extremely controversial - subsequently the page is constantly being edited (vandalized?) with opinion, unreferenced claims, and bias.

I have tried opening up the page to a neutrality discussion, but that didn't seem to slow down the edits. The editors have quite strong emotions about this subject, which I am not altogether unsympathetic to. But "watching" and cleaning potentially libelous commentary on the article has become pretty time-intensive and I'm beginning to feel like I've become endowed with some kind ownership over it. I don't want that.

I gotta figure someone out there has been in this hole and maybe knows the way out?

Thank you!EBY3221 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like all the vandalism you're getting is by IP users. I'd suggest going to Requests for Page Protection and ask it to be semi-protected. This often has to be done when the article subject makes it in the news. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice, simple, obvious solution that I, the newbie, was too in the forest to see. You're my hero of the day. EBY3221 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel loved. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of blog from recognized authority for BLP

2 Questions:

1.) Can I use the blog from a recognized authority as a source for a quote of a Wiki BLP? The blog is that of Tom Ascol, a minister and Executive Director of Founders Ministries (www.founders.org) Founders Ministries is a non-profit organization and has a Board of Directors supervising it. I'm not wanting to quote an opinion from the blog, but some quotes he includes from a sermon of a minister that is no longer available online.

2.) Two editors of a Wiki BLP page apparently have editing powers of the BLP's websites. In one case, an editor cited the sermon hosted at their site, and while he was arguing with the editor, the link from the page disappeared. Another time, the editor changed information on a page he cited, while arguing.

Can you tell me what, if anything we can do about this editing of sources by wiki editors? Romans9:11 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an editor but since did find the answer to this question straight from wiki policy...

"Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources"Johnb316 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, now can I have an answer from someone else besides the detractor who keeps causing all these problems? And from someone who has actually made a contribution to Wiki? I've already read the Wiki guidelines which this disruptive editor (read his contribs page) has posted PARTS of, and they aren't real clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romans9:11 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, Johnb, you are too an editor, anybody who makes any edit to Wikipedia is an editor :)

Romans9:11, the problem you are complaining about of people editing the sources is a very good reason we don't allow self-published sources. If you cite a blog, then the blogger decides they don't like the article, they just change their blog, and voila! Wikiality has changed once again. I would lean highly against using info from a blog, no matter how well respected the blogger is.

Can you give me a diff of the edit you are having trouble with? A guide to creating diffs can be found here. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue

Hello. I've made some edits to my company's Wiki page (MeadWestvaco) and someone felt at liberty to overwrite the changes suggesting they were PR-talk - the are not, the comments were taken directly from our SEC filing, which is a public and legal document. The content that is currently published is inaccurate and out of date. My corrections were an attempt to rememdy those issues.

I am very concerned that someone without knowledge of the company has the right to undo my changes.

Molly Wenzler (email removed by Onorem♠Dil 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.124.170.10 (talk • contribs)

You're referring to this revert. Two major problems with your edits: 1) You made it read like an advertisement, 2) you completely removed the section "Environmental record", which was properly cited. It's not acceptable to whitewash articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Talk:MeadWestvaco you've done this before, and it was also reverted. Administrator intervention might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gems TV

Resolved

 – BelovedFreak 10:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

12.186.98.136 appears to be an IP owned by Gems TV and is removing cited material critical of the company from the Gems TV article without explanation. Would appreciate some others input on this before it turns ugly. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you post this at WP:AIV. Blanking sections with no given reason is vandalism. The user has had five warnings as regards this for Gems TV? Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They've actually been blocked since you posted here. This is starting to look like WikiNews fodder... JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"KCBS-TV"

I would like anyone's help or advice in this matter. I, User: Lantana11, made a factual, documentable, and good-faith edit of article KCBS-TV on 11 June 2008 which was within an hour deleted by User: Rollosmokes in a summary fashion and without discussion (it was dismissed as "unnecessary"; all relevant information is contained in the article's archives). In fact the editor which made this deletion is one which I had been in contention with on similar subjects before; we had gone back and forth regarding another article until I gave up all efforts to reach consensus with him. This had never happened to me before, and I was so frustrated that I resorted to "sock puppetry" (a violation that at the time I did not know existed). My subsequent attempt to apologize to this editor for harsh words and to achieve friendly relations was brusquely rebuffed. As far as the edits to article "KCBS-TV" are concerned, I really have no need to promote the rightness of my information--I peruse Wikipedia merely for enjoyment--but I am beginning to feel uneasy about editing when I know there is another editor who awaits the chance to "put me in my place." Any further argument or "edit war" is not to my taste; I seek guidance or, if warranted, arbitration. Thank you in advance. Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what outcome you're looking for here. According to the history of KCBS-TV, you made 4 edits with UTC timestamps on 11 June; the 4th reverted the sum of the first 3, leaving the article unchanged. There are a further 6 with UTC stamps on 12 June which would have been on 11 June in any US timezone; the net effect of those 6 was reverted by Rollosmokes, about 2 1/2 hours after your last. Those are all the edits I see under your username; Rollosmokes has been editing that article since 9 May, if not earlier. There's no evidence that Rollosmokes followed you to that article; and his/her last revert isn't unreasonable either.

If you have other concerns then please bring them up here, or on my talk page if you prefer, but I don't see that there's a problem to solve here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking specifically at Rollosmokes' edit, I think your first paragraph was easier to read, but the second had a great deal of original research; be sure to take a look at WP:V and WP:RS. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute or Behaviour Problem

Would some new eyes have a look at The Incredible Hulk (soundtrack)‎. I placed a {{merge| Incredible Hulk (film)}} with a rationale that the soundtrack on its own probably doesn't meet notability criteria and invited discussion. Another user refuses to discuss and simply removed the merge proposal. This is not the first time. I'd appreciate some neutral eyes. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see they've removed a notability tag as well. I'm neutral to both, but discussion should still occur. A tag removal warning might be in order. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?

Not once, not twice, not three times but four times, the user Arcayne has persisted to remove sourced continuity points from this article. This follows lengthy discussion in Talk:Silence in the Library (sections 21-25), where consensus hugely overwhelmed his views. He has suggested continuity sections are removed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, which of course he has every right to do. But even though consesnsus appears to be going against him here also, he adamantly believes that his controversial viewpoint should stand while the discussion is ongoing, rather than the current legislation as outlined in the WikiProject. Despite my numerous requests on both his and my talk pages, he completely ignores my request that he leaves things as they are for now, instead choosing to level minor personal attacks on me (I find his claims of ownership behaviour particularly hypocritical). As I am rather dissapointed to receive my first warning for this, and do not wish to be caught in an edit war or be blocked, I have not reverted his removals again but have come here instead. Please can someone help common sense to pervail here? U-Mos (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Said user has now removed a comment I left on his talk page with a rather rude edit summary. What he's trying to acheive here I don't know, but it's getting way out of hand. He seems to generally assume superiority over all other editors in pretty much every edit he makes. Needless to say I'm not prepared to communicate with him further under the current circumstances. All the evidence has been presented here. U-Mos (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, are users permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages? U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Users can remove warnings from their talk pages apart from those concerning unblock requests I believe, it is considered evidence that it has been read and understood. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Considering that the diffs you point out were countered by you each time (1, 2, 3), I think the appropriate response would be something along the lines of 'hello pot, meet kettle'. I would advise you to more closely examine your edits (or rather edit-warring reverts) and look at the bits you keep editing in. I've pointed out numerous times (your discussion page immediately comes to mind) about how you should more closely examine your edits before reverting them, which rather fell on deaf ears. Look at the continuity points you keep insisting should be there. Use the discussion page to bring them up and - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - actually discuss them outside of a terse edit summary.

It also bears mentioning that your approach to any discussion is confrontational and somewhat uncivil and attack-y; you have also been asked to curb that behavior. It became such that you had to be asked to abstain from posting to me on my user talk page on at least one occasion.

I am willing to accept my own culpability in the downwards descent of your behavior, but quite frankly, it takes two to tango. This consensus you claim to have in every article we are both involved in is both incorrect, and a pretty sad excuse for personal attacks and incivility. Maybe you and I should just stay away from responding to each others' posts.

(ec)I would also point out that the removal of the warning (with the edit summary of "got it, only newbies and trolls need template warnings") was largely unnecessary, as I wasn't really edit-warring, but instead following BRD. U-Mos' dogged determination to ensure that his (contended) version of the section remain in place was rather an ownership issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User Planecrash111 vandal to page Jeff Gordon.

User Planecrash111 is continually vandalizing the Page Jeff Gordon as well as my talk page. I have asked this person to stop and provided all necessary references to support my claim. I have tried to reason with the user but they just don't want to be reasonable. Thank you for any help in this matter.--Vertigo315 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. I'll keep you appraised. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, the biggest issue is changing official referenced stats to unofficial unreferenced stats in the 2008 table. --Vertigo315 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo315 continuously vandalized Jeff Gordon for many weeks and removed content without specifying why in the edit summary. He did only a couple of times. He specified a link that said Gordon qualified 28th at Richmond, but before the race he changed engines and I changed the position from 28th to 43rd and gave a link to show Vertigo315 that this is not vandalism. Vertigo315 being the coward that he is removed it anyway and said some bogus statement that made no sense.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I warned him on his talk page and he kept on removing the warnings saying it was "page cleanup" which however it was really a cover up of evidence. Vertigo315 did the same thing on my talk page and it is still there. For some reason Vertigo315 doesn't understand the reality of reaction force which in other words is retaliation. Its like saying you threw a rock at me and I throw a concrete block back. Fair enough.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Vertigo315 seems to think that all Wikipedians are stupid enough to believe that he has been on for 3 or more years when actually he hasn't been on for 1. I'm sick and tired of Vertigo315 that I just wish that editing wasn't allowed on this website any longer due to the fact that Vertigo has started 3 of the 5 edit wars this week alone. Vertigo315 game me outdated sources and I gave him up to date references which he simply ignored.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I don't want to see Vertigo get blocked, but I would want him to show more respect, use good faith, don't use my age as a personal attack, and just go on with his life.(Planecrash111 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Okay, having taken a good look at the article and both of the user talk pages (and past contributions), I am arriving at pretty much the same advice I was going to offer at the beginning. I feel kinda goofy giving it because I am not always that good at following it myself. I will offer them point by point, so that if you decide I and my advice totally sucks, you can rip into me number by number:

1. . Calm down - You guys need to calm the heck down. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. You are not getting paid or officially recognized for any of the work you are doing here, so why in the Holy Name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are you essentially taking part in a Monty Python sketch?
2. . Put yourself in the other guy's shoes - Both of you are currently engaging in activity that is not going to convince the other person of how terribly wrong they are. They are not going to join a monastery and give you all their possessions, and go forth in a hair shirt, telling people how wonderfully intelligent you are. One of the most difficult facts to accept when editing in Wikipedia is that you (in the infinitive sense of the word) are not the smartest person in the room. Ever. The snide comments and not-so-subtle attacks on each other doesn't make either of you want to suddenly up and say, 'omigod, he's right - even if he is. By cutting them down, you've effectively removed their ability to backtrack on an incorrect statement. Be gracious; you will all too often need this same sort of retreat path yourself.
3. . Be nice - Let's face it, it's always best to be nicer to the noobs and boobs (new folk and idiots) because even a broken clock is right twice a day. By being nice and not sniping away at them isn't going to give them the best impression of Wikipedia and how this can actually be a pretty cool place to waste a few hours. Some of those noobs and boobs will be admins and bureaucrats someday (trust me on this), so if you cannot find any charity in your heart, consider the Machiavellian downside of burning your bridges. And stuff that crap about being anonymous. Your edits will come back to haunt you at the least opportune time. I've got an editor who still uses my arguments from over a year ago to claim I am but the Anti-Christ writ small and wiki-like. Grudges last a long, long time. Being nice makes it easier for yourself in the long run. Consider it karma.
4. . See rule number three again, in the off-chance you missed it.
5. . Be willing to find a solution that works for both of you - Unless one of you is the sort to be interested in annexing the Sudetenland, you are probably fairly reasonable people in real life. Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate, and it is not because a crack team of fact-checking eggheads is stowed away in the Wikimedia equivalent of the Batcave, checking the minutiae of the Wiki-en. It is pretty accurate because regular folk like you or I use what knowledge we have to help keep things accurate and cited. I haven't read every book in the friggin' world, and neither have either of you, but collectively we've read a bunch of books, so we all bring something to the table. Working together is what makes it all work. If there is no compromise, then only one side is getting their say in an article, and that skews the neutrality. That sort of problem is what brings the article dispute-locking tools out of the admin;s toolbox, and people start getting blocked left and right. It's not a pretty sight. Seek a compromise/consensus whenever possible.
6. . You are not always going to win - This is arguably the hardest lesson to learn, because we are all in thrall to the idea that the internet doesn't have to suck in the ways that the real world does. However, we are working with other real people, and their views are valid too. A more extreme way of saying this is that sometimes, you are the the dog, and sometimes you are the fire hydrant. Your view might be a minority opinion in the mainstream without you even knowing it. You might be a little wrong, or the kind of wrong that requires two whole syllables to describe (wrooo-oong!) Some chucklebutt hermit on a mountaintop says that recognizing you are wrong is the first step to learning how to be right. I say that Wikipedia is full of ways to get a larger opinion on a particular problem (Mediation, MedCab, DR, AN/I, ArbCom), and all are available to you. But sometimes you are going to lose, and lose big. Sometimes you don't have the citation you need, or you just don't want the other guy to win because they are moronic ass-clown. When you find yourself feeling that way, step away from the keyboard and go away or a bit. It stings that your version isn't in place, and the wrong one is, but that's life. You can always approach the situation again when someone notable produces a citation that you need to make your point. Don't expend too much frustration on it, or you will burn out.
7. . Time is on your side - It really is, as articles are essentially a revolving door for editors who come and go, your consensus can change along with the new editorship. It doesn't matter what last-years' consensus was, you can seek a new one (usually, the unofficial length an older consensus is considered valid is about 3-5 months, after which someone questions the whole thing ,and the process starts anew). So, it isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Ever. However, if you get blocked or banned for being an edit-warring, uncivil ass-clown, your chances of having any effect on that consensus drop considerably.

Okay, I am tapped out and tired. I hope some of it sank in. It wasn't my wittiest (that was here, and it was totally ignored, boo-hoo),but I don't think it was the worst advice I've ever offered, either. Have a pleasant evening. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In respone to planecrash111 alegations, first of all I am not trying to hide evidence as you claim, I am cleaning up my page of the garbage you posted on it trying to pretend you are an admin or something, second, I have NEVER been accused of vandalism on here and have a long list of page contributions. I do not vandalize pages. Period. And for the last time, the point of contention is the fact that you are changing referenced statistics on a page with unreferenced material. Nascar car's official statistics for starting position are where they qualified, this is in the Nascar rules and regulations. It is a fact. Nearly every race is influenced by changing in starting position at the beggining of the race for nearly every driver, many times at the last moment, making it diffucult to track. I have tried to keep a cool head over this but I have for a long time taken great pride in helping keep the stats on this page and other pages very accurate to the standards that have been set. --Vertigo315 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Kansas banner templates

I glanced over at WikiProject Kansas and noticed they have a mess on their hands with their banner template: they have 3 of them. Two of them must be from the early days of WikiProjects because they seem to be just banners without assessment capabilities: Template:Project Kansas and Template:WikiProject Kansas. The third template is the one linked to the project's assessment stats and is capitalized incorrectly compared to other WikiProjects: Template:Wikiproject Kansas. Obviously, there is no need for all 3 templates to exist. I tried doing simple redirects of the first two templates to the third, but the formatting broke on many article talk pages. Basically, I would like assistance merging 3 templates into 1. --Millbrooky (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is something you should bring up at that WikiProject too. There was some discussion of templates a while back, but it wasn't clearly resolved. Right now, Template:Project Kansas is transcluded onto 1700+ talkpages, Template:WikiProject Kansas appears on another 600 or so, and Template:Wikiproject Kansas is on less than 200. Seems like a bot would be useful to do the replacements. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You could post the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests; there's one for the Chicago project that is somewhat similar. I strongly recommend getting consensus among anyone active at WikiProject Kansas first, though. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow I never found that Bot requests page. I guess I was just impatient, trying to be bold, to get the templates working like they should and at first glance, WikiProject Kansas looked inactive. I'll go through the channels you recommended to get the mess straightened out. Thanks. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Project looks a bit under-staffed. I was going to recommend copying the good template over the other 2, but the summary matrix for the Project probably wouldn't work correctly. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminately editing my entries

Assistance to intercede for the following users:

1. Nanami Kamimura 2. Howard the Duck 3. Harlock jds

If there’s some irregularities from my previous posts Pinoy Idol, Idol Series, why targeting my other posts? Always reiterating my sources. I got my sources directly from a reputable site, which owned the franchise related to my entries. As I’ve checked the history of that entry, all of them (the users) undoing everything. Even it’s a valid edition.

Hope you can comment on this. Thanks.

Webwires —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webwires (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think you still have a lot of policies to read and understand. Concerning your edits on Idol series, they clash with WP:NFC, espcially on minimal usage. The five logos are already enough to generally illustrate the difference between Idol series logos. About twenty or so is way too many. As for sources, blogs and forums are not the best sources of info; read WP:V and WP:SPS. You can also ask WP:RS/N to make sure if your sources are reliable at all. I'm just reminding you of what you are doing, so don't take it personally on us. (Read WP:ATTACK and WP:POINT for more.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I've been reviewing the article EToys.com, because I was interested in the subject material. What I found when I read it was that one of the people editing the article seems to be a first person to the situation. I pointed that out on the talk page and got a relatively bizarre response from the editor in question. Could someone review the discussion on the talk page and tell me if I'm off base? Thanks in advance! --Silverhand^Talk 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible that User:LaserHaas has the risk of a conflict of interest in this article. However, it looks like most of his recent contributions have been reverted. The whole article is a bit of a mess; I'll try to clean it up later on. A lot of the legal stuff ought to be moved out to another article - which might or might not endure. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I had intended on doing something similar to what you mentioned when I had time, but after his response where it seems User:LaserHaas ever so slightly freaked out, I wasn't sure what to do. I looked at his talk page and it looks like this isn't the first time with this time of misunderstanding. I just don't think he understands the policies, but I could be wrong. Anyway, thanks for the looksie! --Silverhand^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a quick pass at removing all of the information relating to the personal travails of User:Laserhaas, restoring the article to the state it was in just prior to August 2007. The article needs further cleanup and citation yet. JohnInDC (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture for Article

Hi, My grandfather, Thomas Gibbons, is referenced in a Wikipedia article in the same name (He was a past police commissioner in Philadelphia). I have a photograph of him that I would like to post, however, I do not have permission to do so. I am honestly not interested in becoming a regular editor/poster, but I though the picture would be added content for the page. The photograph was taken by his sister, who is now deceased -- it now belongs to my father. If there is any way to get it posted, please let me know. Thanks so much! Carey Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careygroberts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload describes how to upload images. You'll need to show that you own the image and that you grant the appropriate licence to Wikipedia to use it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

I am requesting assistance due to recent attacks from editor User:JPG-GR.

I have already asked an administrator to help and was directed here. Here is what I asked for:

I was wondering if you could help me with an issue I have with another user. User:JPG-GR. I feel this editor is putting personal attack warnings on pages without merit. For example, he recently put a threatening personal attack warning on my talk page [29], which had no merit. After I tried explaining to him why he had no merit, I get attacked in reply [30].

What I have come to notice is that this editor is attempting to act like an administrator and believes he has the authority to meddle with every single edit other editors do. The example above was me removing a page from my user page that was defunct and he automatically jumped on me. Same with the ongoing war with another user User:Radiolbx. Not that its any of my business, since he is a different editor, but he is new to Wikipedia and unlike you or I, may not understand policies yet. It took me several months to understand a lot about Wikipedia. I sincerely feel that JPG-GR is attacking radio [31] and assuming he knows the rules, which may or may not be true. Radio is having trouble defending himself!

Both of us are human editors, radio and I. We certainly make mistakes just like everyone else. What I don't like is being attacked and put down for no reason, and having my edits torn apart. I would appreciate some intervention on this matter. If this is the wrong place for this complaint, please direct me to the proper avenue, thanks!

This was taken from the admin's talk page. I would appreciate some assistance on this matter. Thanks! Milonica (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is making my brain hurt as well as Tony's. It looks to me like you removed a link to a deleted page with a comment about "page deleted by bully" and JPG-GR templated you as a result. That might have been excessive, but I too interpreted your edit summary as calling the deleting admin a bully. I then see where you posted on JPG-GR's page with a rationale, which was inventive but not entirely convincing to me. I'm sorry that you feel under attack, but the evidence you posted here doesn't really establish a long-running pattern.

If there are more substantial incidents then please point them out, but this seems like a storm in a teacup. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't calling the admin that deleted the page a bully, nor did I call JPG-GR a bully. I didn't say specifics. If I had anything against any admin, I wouldn't have put the speedy delete tag on my own page. JPG-GR believes that the bully is "him" even though again, I didn't say anyone in particular. Also, what about User:Radiolbx? Doesn't the fact that he is afraid to edit make things worse? Milonica (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On the deletion/bully incident, I don't know who you thought was a bully; your comments were ambiguous. It might have been better to use another form of words. We might let JPG-GR speak to his/her own beliefs rather than assuming we know what they are; I don't think that will help.

On the question of Radiolbx, s/he can raise his/her own concerns if need be. I can't understand what happened there, not least because you edited Radiolbx's talkpage and that was out of line. I think I would recommend that you assume good faith and go back to constructive editing/writing. This posting will remain in an archive as a checkpoint. If there are subsequent incidents then we can consider them, but I think you're making too much out of rather little. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I can comment on that last bit... Radiolbx (talk · contribs) was making edits that had an unencyclopedic tone and were a potential conflict of interest. JPG-GR reverted his changes. The discussion turned a little nasty, and Radiolbx eventually gave up and left the project.

I'm a little disappointed in that outcome, as I believe Radiolbx was acting in good faith. I can't really point to anything specific that JPG-GR did wrong, though, and near the end Radiolbx was beginning to behave in an incivil manner, which we can't tolerate.

Disappointing, for sure, but I don't see any ongoing problem... I don't even see anything specific I can point to and say, "Ah hah, if I were JPG-GR, I would have done this differently!" I advise him of some more moderate means of dispute resolution rather than taking things straight to the Administrators' noticeboard, and he seemed grateful for the advice. I'm just not sure what other action you want taken...? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Playmate Stats

The playmate stats of one particular playmate, Stephanie Adams, keep getting removed by one or two users (who seem to have a history of trying to harass this article in particular), even though these facts have been in the article ever since playmate stats on Wikipedia were ever created, and should therefore remain in the article. Regardless of how people feel about playmate stats, until all of the stats have been removed on every single Playboy playmates's page, one playmate's page should not be blatantly vandalized. 71.167.236.169 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been a fairly controversial article for a while, and there has been much debate on the talk page about the inclusion of the stats in the article. There has been no consensus for inclusion, and so I have removed (again) the stats. If you check the editing histories of those removing versus those readding the stats, you will note that those removing have a history of editing more than just one article, while some of those readding seem to possibly be sock puppets, with history (mainly or only) editing the Stephanie Adams page. Would appreciate assistance in mediating this matter. As mentioned on the article's talk page, Jimbo Wales commented in favour of removing the stats. Wandering canadian (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it does not make sense to remove one, when they are all placed on every playmate's page. This celebrity page is no different from any other playmate's page. The only thing "controversial" is removing stats which were there long before when every other Playboy playmate's article was created. There are lots of "controversial" playmates, but they all have stats on their pages. As per Wikipedia articles on all playmates, these stats are consistent with the other ones, were always there, and therefore should remain. Remove them on every article after it is agreed to by Wikipedia. But until then, removing it on one page is considered to be vandalism. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of building consensus, it might be worth filing a request for comment. --BelovedFreak 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

article disappeared in part

Resolved

 – Explained and fixed by Matthewedwards. BelovedFreak 10:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I made considerable updates on the page "HIV/AIDS in Pakistan". after the last update all I see are the first 2 paras. The rest can be seen in edit mode but not on the regular view. Can someone help.

Thanks

Adnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnkhan (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the references wasn't closed properly. When making a reference, write <ref>website to be referenced</ref>, making sure that in the closing tag, the / is used. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Haereticorum and Diocese article naming

User:Malleus Haereticorum has moved a multitude (900+) of articles from the format of "Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo" to "Diocese of Foo" for the time period from April 2008 thru June 2008 without concensus or support of a WP:NAME guidline. Attempts to contact the user on his talk page have not triggered a response, nor has the user participated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the large scale of the moves, I think your best course of action is to advertise the issue in a few carefully chosen places directing users to comment centrally at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Diocese_titles about whether the names should be moved back and see if there is consensus either way. This page is really not high profile enough to get you a large response, and it's not targted to users especially familiar with naming conventions. I'd try posting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, maybe Wikipedia talk:Requested moves (not quite about requested moves, but many of the most knowledgeable people on naming conventions may see it there), and maybe you could post a request for comment. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started a section in Wikipedia talk:Requested moves regarding this matter; we could discuss this there if all are content with this.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Article

Take a look at the article on this playmate and you will see that numerous users (Wandering Canadian in particular) have been vandalizing the article's "playmate stats" as well as removing important information from it. It's almost as if they have some sort of personal conflict with the individual in the article and this is not a place to indirectly rant about celebrities. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have offered to discuss this issue numerous times on the article's discussion page to help resolve this difference of opinion. There are a number of anonymous and very new accounts being used to revert edits made on the page. The user above has also vandalized my user page. Help would be appreciated. Wandering canadian (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)