Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Gary, Indiana / Miller Beach, Indiana

There are two articles involved: Gary, Indiana and Miller Beach.

Undisputed: Miller/Miller Beach was once upon a time an independent municipality which was subsequently incorporated into the City of Gary. Gary as a whole is mostly black. The Miller neighborhood is mostly white. Some in Miller are not happy about being a part of Gary.

The dispute: Some editors on the Gary page and especially on the Miller Beach page repeatedly try to state that Miller Beach "is" an independent town. Additional weasel words or language with NPOV problems are used to suggest that the incorporation was forcible or illegitimate.

My position: Miller (aka Miller Beach) in fact is, today, as a legal matter merely a neighborhood or part of Gary. I don't have a problem with a historical piece on the former Town of Miller Beach, but see it constantly stating, erroneously, that Miller Beach "is" a small town, when it is not an independent entity at all. Even the other editor's edits acknowledge Miller's having been incorporated into the City of Gary as a legal matter. Constantly saying that Miller Beach "is" a small town (not "was") seems more a part of an agenda by the editor involved.

The problem: Constant editing and reverting back and forth...

How to fix the situation so that information -- however one may feel about it -- which is clearly (and admittedly) factually erroneous not be constantly re-edited back in?

See also the discussions on this topic in the Gary and Miller Beach pages. This topic has been discussed among a few editors. Xenophon777 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be a bit late, but Its nice to know that someone is interested in your problem. You seem to be the person who is right in this situation in that it is a neighborhood, yet I don't see the problem of leaving the page as a separate article. For example, Dorchester, Massachusetts was once a separate community, but was annexed by Boston. It has its own article with information concerning only Dorchester. The "neighborhoods" section should tell a brief history with a link to the article for more indepth info (I'd suggest bulleting that list). Hope this helps. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually mind that there is a separate article (though I have suggested a merger in the past). My concern is about one or more editors who insist on saying that Miller Beach "is" a town, not "was," notwithstanding that Miller was long ago incorporated into the City of Gary (which is not in dispute). It would be a bit like an editor's insisting on editing the Dorchester article to state that Dorchester is *not* a neighborhood but an independent town. Xenophon777 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in Nauru / Menen Hotel / OD-N-Aiwo Hotel

Stale

 – --BelovedFreak 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re the above articles, I'm having a hard much content that is actually encyclopedic and doesn't read like a travel guide - do these really meet WP:N ? In the history for the OD-N-Aiwo Hotel, there's a comment that notability was established because it was one of only two hotels on the island - I don't remember that coming up as a reason for notability in the past.. Anyway - any feedback on these articles, or pointers to how to improve them would be appreciated. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance, I'd recommend merging the first one into Nauru. There isn't much there to keep separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, they are both stubs so you could probably sum up their information in a sentence or two on Tourism in Nauru. Bullet the list like what was done in "Leisure Activities". Tourism in Nauru could also be merged itself into Nauru if you feel the need. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Review on policy

Something feels weird about the article John Fleming (DJ). There aren't that many references and the wiki-links seem to go to other articles which have poor references. Though I haven't looked finding other sources, I question the notability of the subject and the verifiability. I also wonder, what or where is that policy that talk about promoting your own website? --CyclePat (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean, is that this article, and some of the related articles, don't appear to have any 3rd party references. It uses references which appear to be right from the original source. That's okay, but according to WP:OR we should use some external or 3rd party sources, right? --CyclePat (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That lack of third-party sources makes me question the DJ's notability. I tagged it as such. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wickethewok added substantial information to the article and used two refs, http://www.djmag.com and Allmusic. If we're willing to accept these as reliable sources, then it's fine. You can ask about them at WP:RSN or attempt to reach consensus on the article talk page. Fleetflame 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic accepts user content, so I doubt that would be reliable. I don't know anything about DJ Magazine. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does AllMusic accept user content? I was under the impression that they used a staff of professional music critics. Of course, that doesn't preclude them accepting user content... I have used them as a source before (often) & always thought they were reliable. I'll try and see if there has been discussion on them before.--BelovedFreak 10:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They have professional writers and accept user content; I'm not sure of a way to tell what's been submitted and what hasn't. IMO, this link is probably okay, as it's credited to an AMG writer, but some might consider it shaky. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I searched around a bit and it seems that opinions are divided, although most disputes with their version of things seem to have been with regard to genres. It seems to have been accepted as a reliable source in some featured article and list candidates. But, obviously, anything that's user submitted wouldn't be reliable.--BelovedFreak 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Emarosa

Inhumer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FatalError (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - on the Emarosa page, both of these users are changing the genre from "Rock" to "post-hardcore" repeadedly and change my information as soon as I get it on the spot. WP:RS states the source needs to coexist with the fact, the album. The album redirects buyers to riserecords.com and myspace.com/emarosa which lists "Rock" as the genre. My source is Allmusic.com http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll and it's a PROFESSIONAL music metadata base review staff widely recognized even on wikipedia. This PROFESSIONAL source coexists with riserecords.com and myspace.com/emarosa as the genre "Rock", which is listed on their album. These two users have listed either OLD information or minor websites that do not coexist with the genre on the album. Their sites do no coexist with the facts which in turn makes them non reliable sources. I have the only reliable source on the page. I need these two users blocked in order to be able to make my changes because they instantly delete "ALL" of my professional information. HELP!!!!!!!! please Thisisyourwayout (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)thisisyourwayout

It appears that the changes made by User:Inhumer and User:FatalError are good faith edits. The source you point to indeed lists the band's genre as "Rock"; however, the argument made by the other users is that "post hardcore" is simply a subsection of the all-encompassing "rock" genre. I therefore see no conflict in the sources. The fact that the AMG, MySpace, and Rise Records only categorized the band by the overall category does not, at least to me, mean that the band cannot be listed as "post hardcore" as well, as the other sources say. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see what would be wrong with having both Rock and Post-hardcore as genres, as they have both been used by different sources to define the band. If you can't reach a consensus though, I would suggest a third opinion or request for comment to get more editors involved.--BelovedFreak 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

Stale

 – --BelovedFreak 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there. I am User:Troy and would like to request for help on the following.

There is a content dispute in the said talk page (the very last section and the third-last section are currently active). I did restore some of the text that was removed temporarily as there was not yet a consensus, but I still take that the original (partial) deletions were in good faith as FunkMonk likely assumed that there wouldn't be an issue. I sort of over-reacted (*oops*) as I easily took it personally when it came to the idea that the Egyptians were all "Arabized", but now, I am trying to keep things a little calm. Dab, of whom we obviously do not know eachother very well, appears to disregard my attempts, and whenever I try to respond, he appears to take offence at my comments. I have already explained that the ethnicity issue in regards to Egyptians (mostly surrounding how it relates to Copts, but also Arabs and a few berbers) was discussed to its death on Talk:Copt, the linguistic-ethnicity relation was decided on Talk:Coptic language, and most importantly, the Egyptian identity was discussed as a whole on Talk:Egyptians a while ago.

Dab, already after FunkMonk made good-faith edits, continued them when he was aware of the fact that there was absolutely no consensus. Most recently, this included adding a government newspaper, Al-Ahram, which notably deflates Christian figures in Egypt and is not reliable in the first place as it is a government source (see WP:SOURCE—you can't use sources like Al-Ahram if it is it is contentious or is biased towards the opinion; ie: the opinion of Egyptian politicians). It uses government census figures that are decades-old, and, quite frankly, there has already been discussion surrounding the Egyptian government's religion figures—even the CIA factbook and some of the Muslims admit about 10% of the population (Al-Ahram says something like 5% or 6%). He also appeared to have ignored the fact that I wanted to head towards a resolution.

Also, in regards to Zerida and his sock puppets, I, somewhat understandably, was erroneously accused as being one Zerida's mean-old "buddies" by Dab—I highly resent that. Sure, I may have agreed with Zerida's "views" on the Egyptian ethnicity, but I still withhold that I am 100% against sock puppetry.

Lastly, when I clearly explained that there was no such source that proves that all or most Egyptians are "Arabized" (specifically the Copts), Dab said that "You are welcome to present academic sources for each and every one of your claims" and "again, if you want to discuss the persecution of the Copts, bloody well do your own homework, go to a library, and dig up some quotable sources". The response should really be quite simple: "you can't prove a negative". On the contrary, if Dab feels that he should insist on making claims that all Egyptians were "Arabized", then I feel that the burden of proof is on him to add a reliable source for that.

If anyone is careful to read all of this, please kindly accept this request and see to it that we can stay on the same page. My utmost apologies for the long, complex but yet important post.

Kind regards, ~ Troy (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now doesn't seem nearly as urgent as before, but if someone is willing to make sure that everything is alright, then go ahead. Hopefully it isn't as bad as before. ~ Troy (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Gilkey

Stale

 – No further contributions from User:Gordon Gilkey.--BelovedFreak 10:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My daughter pointed out the wiki relating to my father. He and I have the same name. The entry was originally posted by Oregon State University but lacked much detail and was factually in error, particularly in regard to his military service at the end of WWII.

I fleshed out the entry and look for more editing from others.

Thanks,

Gordon Gilkey (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Gordon S. Gilkey

May I suggest requesting help at the article's two Wikiprojects?: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. The editors there have some expertise in the matter and have indicated a willingness to help improve articles. This project is meant help deal with disputes among other editors, and may not be the best to request help in fleshing out a page. If you're simply looking for general comments, you may want to refer the article to Wikipedia:Peer review as well. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've done as much as I can to improve the article. I'd like to echo the recommendation that you contact WikiProject Oregon, of which I am a member. We have produced many excellent biographies and are good at finding sources for citations. But, I'm puzzled that you've ignored the messages I've placed on your talk page so far. BTW, I don't think the entry was originally posted by OSU. You can look at the page history for more information. (And you will also see why I asked you to use show preview and edit summaries.) Mostly what the article needs now is citations to reliable sources, many of which I've placed on the article's talk page, which is a good place to further discuss any changes that need to be made to the article about your father. Unfortunately your personal knowledge of the subject is considered original research, so though it's helpful to know from you which inaccuracies exist, it would also be good to find sources to back up the accurate information you provide. (P.S. no need to write your name after you sign your posts with ~~~~--the wiki software will automatically render your user name and a timestamp.) I hope this helps! Katr67 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why my addition in article was undone?

Resolved

 – advice given.--BelovedFreak 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir: I want to seek your help. In article Ka'ba, I made an addition in the sub article "Islamic Tradition". First I tried to copy from my own blog whose url is "http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7RwkHRY8fqN59oD2VY9B?p=41", but then after noticing that copying from a web page is not allowed, i changed the wordings. I was astonished to note that my changes were deleted.

Is it not allowed to copy from ones own blog? If not, is it not allowed to add information by changing wordings from ones own blog? I want your help, as the information I want to add is important. I have already added an image, which is my own work, representing this information. But is placed in the wrong place i.e in article "Since Muhammad's time". Its correct place is "Islamic Tradition". Please guide me, how can I add the said information.

Sincerely,

Muhammad Uzair Bhaur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaur (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that your additions were reversed because they were not properly sourced. Per Wikipedia rules at WP:VERIFY, sources should consist of "reliable, third-party published sources"; blogs and other self-published sources are therefore not used on Wikipedia. If you have information from a published book, peer-reviewed journal, etc. then please feel free to add to the article using those sources. Further, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name and date stamp. Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident: RCMP Surveillance/Interference?

I had a curious experience posting a paragraph to the 'Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident'. The posted paragraph disappeared within seconds and when I tried again the same result obtained. This is the missing paragraph from the 'political response' section in question;

'Mr. Dziekanski's death occurred following a string of lethal force, police brutality and corruption incidents that have undermined public confidence in the RCMP. (reference: CBC The National: Special Edition, A Deadly Landing. http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/a_deadly_landing/your_turn_the_death_of_robert.html. In British Columbia, several municipalities without their own police departments are reviewing their contractual arrangements with the RCMP and there has been some interest in reviving the province's civilian constabulary, the British Columbia Provincial Police (BCPP) that existed from 1858 until 1950 and which was administered from the provinical capital in Victoria'.

This, to me, seems fair comment. Now had this paragraph been removed after a few hours or days, then no suspicion would attach. However, given the sensitivity of the RCMP to this issue and my previous experience of the force as a journalist, I feel I should Red Flag this as a case of suspected police surveillance and interference. Is this paranoid delusion, you might ask? Possibly so, but if you dig into the scandals that surrond the force and the potential that criminal prosecution may be forthcoming, it is not such a bizarre conclusion. Please keep an eye on the 'Robert Dziekanski Taser Incident' and other matters connected with the RCMP and let me know if you detect any suspicious activity.

Best wishes,

MacBiggles

Your edits were removed on the basis that blogs are not reliable sources as they convey the opinion of the author. See [1]. x42bn6 Talk

Mess 09:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I reposted the comment without the offending link and was just about to include a reference source (Mr. Justice W. G. Craig (retd) of the B. C. provincial court) when I received the following message;

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Robert Dziekański Taser incident. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. ThaddeusB (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the judges are not neutral, what hope is there for the rest of us? Your advice would be welcome.

What is the link for the source you have from the Justice? You have to make sure that the source provides all the exact information you are about to insert. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

W. G Craig, 'Hold Your Politicians to Public Account' North Shore News, 6/8/08 http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=135bcaad-a362-4daf-aaa5-9a278097e72b&p=3

The problem with this source is that it is an op-ed. Per WP:RS, "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." Therefore this article cannot be used to source the information you are trying to add. Is there a regular news report that provides the same information but not in an op-ed? Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the pointers. Much appreciated. It is difficult to envision such a wide chasm between 'news' and 'opinion' in this context, however; Mr. Justice Craig's articles (see also See Craig 'Tasers a Misuse of Police Power' North Shore News http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=731b0705-8295-4578-a9f7-ed13785b7797) seemed to fit the bill, because according to Wikipedia;

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.

In British Columbia, this credibility issue is complicated by the RCMP having ceased to respond appropriately as more people have come to regard the force as a law unto itself -- the provincial government has no jurisdiction, the (provincial) Police Complaints Commission is impotent and the federal government shirks responsibility. The RCMP's E Division (British Columbia) publishes a rapid rebuttal page on its website, a professional spin operation that has been working in overdrive since last November. Nevertheless, the the Dziekanski Tasering detonated long-simmering problems and represents a turning point. The aim of what I thought was a succinct but accurate paragraph was to place in context what has become a complex political crisis. Best, MacBiggles.

Also, your edit wasn't neutrally worded. The bolded parts don't really fit the bill:

...following a string of lethal force, police brutality and corruption incidents that have undermined public confidence in the RCMP.

1)Unless the source actually says that a string of officers were convicted of brutality, it's only opinion that their actions constituted brutality. 2) "Undermined public confidence" is also opinion- there's really no way to determine that. As this is an encyclopedia, articles need to be a fairly dry statement of what occurred, without commentary. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, Jeremy. I suppose I was, to put it mildly, shocked and dismayed by the unconscionably anodyne wording that failed to represent the story accurately. One only needs to look at Wikipedia's pages on 'Scandals Surrounding the RCMP', 'Ian Bush' or 'Maher Arar' to gather that the RCMP -- of today if not of yesteryear -- is an institutionally corrupt agency. Most of the Canadian press shrink at tackling such a powerful institution, although small independent newspapers have shown more courage. I suspect that if manslaughter charges are not lodged against the four constables responsible for the death of Mr. Dziekanski by December (when all enquiries are scheduled to be concluded) the contributions to the 'Robert Dziekansi Taser Incident' page will soar. ---- Best, MacBiggles.

Consensus?

I posted this on Wikipedia:Help desk and got directed to here.

Hi. I as well as a couple other editors are currently in a naming/merging dispute of an article. We have requested a third opinion, and got 2 of them. All other members support the proposed merge, as well as the users who posted the third opinions, which is supported by the official website of the event, while 1 user opposes it. If all other users support the move while 1 opposes it, is that considered a consensus? I have looked at all the other help pages on resolving a dispute, but nothing seems to work with this one user, while the consensus wikipedia page is not clear on what is considered a consensus. The specific dispute is at Talk:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Merger proposal. I do not really know where to go from here, since everyone seems to support the move expect this 1 user who is opposing it (with Original Research too). If someone sees an obvious consensus, could they close it? Thanks for the help in advance. Greekboy (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help? This whole dispute is getting so out of hand with the opposing user. Greekboy (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the compromise that was reported at WP:AN on the 18th? GlassCobra 03:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The user reverted his compromise (which moved the page to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992) since it went against what the source says and what the actually performance was performed under and against general naming conventions. (which was just Yugoslavia regardless of the political situation then) Now what we have is a general consensus to move/merge the page/information into Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest with a third outside opinion supporting this too, with 1 opposing user. And no one wants to step up and close the subject. Again, any help is appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have updated the AN, but it seemed like no one cared anyway. I agreed to the compromise because I caved in because I got no support or other opinions. It was me and this user going back and forth dozens of times. When I woke up the next morning, some members of the wikiproject had reverted some of the merger things and it made me realize how wrong it was to merge, esp when i was going against the source. So I put everything back the way it was before, and started a "real" merger proposal to the page I had originally wished to merge the content into. We are really hitting a wall here; the user won't give up even though I believe we all provided enough reasons, even getting 2 outside opinions in support of us. We need someone to come in and make the decision and close the discussion with whichever solution seems to have the consensus. Please help! Grk1011 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Greekboy (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

After a quick look at the talk and the straw poll at the MEDCAB page, I'd say there's a pretty clear consensus to merge it. In both instances, only the one user dissented. Keep the discussion at the MEDCAB going at this time. There are times when you have to proceed, and revert the dissenter when they revert you, until the dissenter gets blocked for violating consensus. You should keep discussing before you take that step, however. Your mediator will help. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the merge has gone through and the dissenter has not yet reverted, but I feel like he has something up his sleeve so its good to know that there is another option. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over verifibility of an official forum for a game article

Resolved

 – Editors found information from third-party source, rendering debate moot. -epicAdam (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors involved: User:MuZemike, User:Vin Kaleu

Article involved: Hearts of Iron III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Location of dispute: User talk:MuZemike#Forums are not good sources?

There is a disagreement between us over whether the official forum for the article Hearts of Iron III is a verifiable source. I claim that it is not because it is a self-published source. Vin Kaleu disagrees, claiming that a company's official forum (here) is indeed reliable and verifiable because it is "official communication" and a primary source. However, I disagree. So here we are, looking for someone else to help out with resolution of this dispute before it escalates any further. MuZemike (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at the talk location. Best, epicAdam (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I claim that the best source for a statement from a company about its work are messages from the company itself. If the game developers in question operates an official forum, has easily identifiable "officials" (the game creators in this case) and clearly posts official messages about their work (and the forum is open to everyone, regardless of registration), then that source should be considered authoritative and correct regarding their own work. The publications of third-party media will ever only be further repeats and interpretations of those initial messages. A good source is authoritative on what is claimed in a wiki-article; and nothing could probably be more authoritative about a company's doings then their own publications, be they web-site press releases, e-mails, phone conversations to other third party media or in this case a forum. Suppose the game developers release highly interesting information through their forums, should that information be disregarded simply because some third part site hasn't made an article about just those posts? Vin Kaleu (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I posted over at the talk page, normally forums would not be allowed. Why not just use the press release? I mean, the fact that IGN also published the release now makes the point moot. -epicAdam (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

German Pinscher Article

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

Greetings!

An unsubscribed user keeps deleting facts from this article. Please prevent this from occuring.

Thanks,

Elle —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChosenAtTara (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the IPs were reverted - a good deal of info (though unsourced) has been added by IPs, so I don't think it's that huge a problem right now. Although I see a bit of an edit war brewing between you and another named user. Perhaps you should take your troubles to the article's talk page? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's me, I've left a message on CaT's talk page about it since he immediately reverted me. I've also tagged the article as unreferenced, since it currently has no secondary sources at all. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the symbol of the waffen SS Skanderbeg is not serbian ..Its an albanian unit

Its Albanian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.184.83 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. -epicAdam (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's about 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian). The page history shows disagreement about the country parameter in the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required with Company article submission

Hello- I would like to place general public information about our company on Wikipedia, similar in nature to Quest Software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_Software

What is the best way to go about doing this without violating COI/spam/advertising rules? We only wish to provide basic and accurate public information.

Please advise, thank you in advance-

Regards, Kurt Lewis CEO SysOp Tools, Inc. http://www.sysoptools.com

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sys0pTools (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to create their own articles at any time, given that the subject meets the standards set by WP:NOTABILITY. In general, this means that information about the company should come from reliable third-party sources. That way, it's not just information publicized by the company on Wikipedia, which I believe is your main concern. If you noticed, the Quest Software page is sourced from a third-party publication ( NetworkComputing.com ) and the company is listed on the NASDAQ, indicating the company is indeed notable. As for how to create the article, you can simply click on this link: SysOp Tools and begin creating the wiki article. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the Wiki markup language, I would read Wikipedia:Introduction first; that guide will provide you an overview of how to edit pages. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best and good luck, epicAdam (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you also read Guideline regarding Conflict of Interest. One way to avoid COI problems you may want suggest that it is created by somebody else at Wikipedia:Requested articles or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business, if it is notable enough I am sure somebody will create it. When the article is created you should suggest changes and additions on the related talk page to avoid any conflicts of interest. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blockbusters (US game show)

Can you please provide assistance in ending an edit war for Blockbusters (US game show)? Two users are going in after each other makes an edit to the spelling of a particular contestant's last name ("Yung" vs. "Young"). Sottolacqua (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first problem is that nobody has provided a source for the information. If you have a source that says how many games he won, then that would most likely have his name, right? Further, if there's an edit war, that user may be violating that three edit revert rule, and can be reported there. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lou 1955 di Guido Ruzzier.jpg

Image copyright problem with Image:Lou 1955 di Guido Ruzzier.jpg

Hello! I am Guido Ruzzier - personal information removed - and I am the author of the photograph of Louis E. Sauer which is discussed in page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yvonnert#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Lou_1955_di_Guido_Ruzzier.jpg

Free publication of the photo was originally granted by me to the owner of the webpage http://www.arc1.uniroma1.it/saggio/Libri/Sauer/SauerIlaud.html

I am quite willing - being a very, very old friend of Louis' (the photo was taken in 1955) - to let anybody else freely use the image, with no restrictions, provided my name is mentioned as the author's.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get in touch with "Yvonnert" (who probably does not know how to reach me), but I'm sure you'll find a way to solve this small matter to everybody's satisfaction.

Best regards, Guido Ruzzier, Milano, Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.119.95 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Grazie! I'll leave a message for Yvonnert pointing this out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did someone undo all my work on the GSD page?

Why did someone undo all the work I did on the GSD page? The GSD wiki page is full of incomplete information and erroneous information about the breed. For example, the claim that there are only two types of GSDs is false! The King Shepherd is a mixed breed, not even a GSD variation!

One of the very most common health problems that owners of GSDs are likely to see in their dog, panosteitis (a temporary painful lameness "growing pains" in the long bones of the limbs), isn't even mentioned.

The info on colors and patterns in the breed is VERY imcomplete and while the statement about white being more visible was said, Von Stephanitz also said a good dog cannot be a bad color. Horand had white longcoated grandparents and white didn't become a disqualification until WW2...mostly due to politics and lack of knowledge about genetics, white was erroneously believed to be due to albinism.

The most dominant genetic pattern, agouti (called Sable in the USA and called "grau" aka gray in Germany) isn't even mentioned. Sable is dominant genetically over black and tan pattern. Solid black is recessive to both. There are also two different recessive dilutions of black, called blue and liver in the USA (blau or blauling in Germany for blue, and braun is German term for liver). White in the GSD is totally unrelated to the above color inheritance, white acts as if a GSD of any other color, just had a white sheet dropped over it, hiding the dog's genetic dark color & pattern.

Links on GSD color genetics where the different colors patterns and coat lengths are discussed and illustrated in photographs.

http://www.geocities.com/sahiela2/colors.html http://www.angelfire.com/wi/birkenbaum

King Shepherd isn't a variety of the GSD, it's a mix breed with emphasis on GSD appearance.

There are several varieties and they are different enough from each other that the trained eye can usually look at a dog and say if its American show, German working or East European working lines, German show, etc! These variations and others differ in proportions, structural aspects, head type, and even temperament! None of these are mentioned in the article!

One of the most common health problems in the breed is the temporary lameness disorder panosteitis. Megaesophagus also is common in the breed. A number of other problems such as hemophilia A, PRA, and genetic epilepsy, are not mentioned.

BTW, I have all the AKC & SV studbooks back to 1940, SV magazines back to 1954, GSD reviews as far back as the 1950s, SchHUSA magazines, DVG, NASA (an old working organization pre SchHUSA), GS Quarterly, as well as small numbers of issues of other GSD newsletters, magazines, etc, thousands of pedigrees and photos, and most of the really good GSD books ever published (meaning books with indepth breed info, not the basic pet care books that are almost totally generic except for photos of the breed in the book), some koerbuchs, and I have written articles on the breed, done indepth pedigree & genetic research for years, as well as having bred, shown, trained, etc, for years.

Another question maybe you can answer....why does wikipedia forbid original research? By doimg that, WIKIPEDIA AUTOMATICALLY SHUTS OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE OR EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD!

It seems quite illogical that Wikipedia has a rule to keep truly knowledgeable people from contributing!

1337 ---= —Preceding unsigned comment added by .1337. (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to German Shepherd Dog were reverted because they contained information from two websites (Geocities and Angelfire) that are deemed to be unreliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines found at WP:RELIABLE. In general, sources are considered reliable when they come from published books, journals, magazines, or third-party websites that are deemed to be reliable (such as news organizations). Original research is not absolutely forbidden, however, there are more rules governing its use. From WP:COS:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

If you have sources that meet the standards of WP:RELIABLE, please replace your edits citing those references. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi 1337. Your story is one often repeated: a new editor comes to Wikipedia, and does a large edit, without fully understanding the conventions of Wikipedia. I encourage you to begin with small edits, learning how Wikipedia works.

If you have some good research of your own (I'm guessing you're the author of those Geocities pages), probably the best thing to do is to suggest it as an external link on the article's Talk page (the "discussion" tab near the top of the page). Wikipedia experiences many people coming in and inserting links promoting themselves, but if you suggest it via the Talk page the editors will probably look more kindly on it.

As for Geocities, it depends on the subject matter. I wouldn't trust a self-published Geocities page which put forward new theories on Rocket Science, for instance. But for hobby type topics (like German Shepherd Dog), which don't attract a lot of mainstream publishing, self-published sources can be quite good and needn't be dismissed out of hand. I note that many (even most) of the sites linked to from German Shepherd Dog are also self-published, it's just that the site authors have gone to the trouble of spending a few dollars registering an official-sounding domain like dogbreedinfo.com or eastgermanshepherd.com rather than putting their material on Geocities for free. But you should let the community of editors decide, rather than being adamant that your work must go in. All the best. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit because it mostly constituted original research and as I am trying to get the article up to good article status, the information needs to be adequately sourced, with a reliable source - such a published source or a credible website. With regards to what Peter Ballard has written above, all the sources used are reliable; dogbreed.info, while indeed self-published, has enjoyed significant media coverage for their information and fact checking, having been mentioned in books, magazines etc. and eastgermanshepherd.com is the website of what used to be the official East German Shepherd Dog club. Geocities sites are not reliable and an article would not get to Good Article status with a reference to Geocities - whether it be on Quantum Physics or Pokemon. I would love to work with you on the article as you are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject, however please understand that anything added to the article must be supported by a source that is deemed reliable. ~ AmeIiorate <sub>U T C</sub> @ 02:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Source related article trouble

Resolved

 – The Spanish Inquisitor 12:43, 29 August 2008

I've recently edited the article Milan Tepić by providing NPOV tags + requesting citations. The user User_talk:Damjanoviczarko responded by adding the Serbian version of the Wiki page as source. I've reverted the edit by noting that's against policy and provided links to the Wiki policies, but he just keeps reverting my removal of his changes.

I need an admin to step in because I don't think he'll stop with this...The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the tags and removed the citations to Wikipedia. I have also warned Damjanoviczarko about edit warring. If he/she reverts again today, I suggest you report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. In the mean time, remember that discussion is the best way to resolve disputes. I see that you have engaged Damjanoviczarko on his/her talkpage and they replied. Could you tell us what the response was (since it's not in English).

Thanks. Basically, in the talk pages he says: "Everything written is true. You know nobody can find something about him from a non-Serb, non-Croat page." then rambles on about heroism. My response was "This is an encylopedia, people can't just write in what they like. You must source your material." (twice in the talk page and twice in the history page). He made no response to this. The Spanish Inquisitor (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Undisputed: a complaint has been made in the talk page that the article includes "Poorly sourced statements backed by advocacy NGOs and organizations that do not meet the requirements of WP:RS as a source (StopChildExecutions.com, gaytoday.com, youtube clips, even other Wikipedia pages just to name a few)" After a revert war (which I am guilty of participated in) the page "is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."

The dispute: 1) no other information has been provided despite requests to provide some (which makes it hard to resolve the dispute! but my appeal to the admin was unsucessful), 2) human rights groups are by definition advocacy groups but does that make them not reliable? If it does, that would seem to disqualify the vast majority of human rights complaints made, and a great many ones listed in other wikipedia articles.

My position: the RS tag appeared on the article along with other tags and with no comment in the talk page. The article had had no complaints about any of the tag issues for over a year, and in the mean time it had been extensively rewritten. (The comment above about poorly sourced statements was added a couple of weeks later after a RfC (request for comment) by me.) This seems to me a might suspicious. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a brief look and go by the reference numbers as they currently appear:

• 5: This is a website on Tripod.com. It doesn't meet RS, since anyone can create a page there.
• 25, 28, 30, 38 (possibly more): The Human Rights Watch website. This is an advocacy group, so it's natural to be concerned with a bias.
• 41: Letters to the editor page; since these are submitted by readers, it's not a RS.
• 44: Iranterror.org, the "Iran Terror Database". More slanted than HRW.
• 51: Crimes Against Humanity: Indict Iran's Ruling Mullahs for Massacre of 30,000 Political Prisoners, published by a group that, according to its Wiki page, "advocates the overthrow of the Iran government". Again, strongly biased source.

I'm not going to go through any more, since there are over 100. I think there's definitely a concern with these sources. While it's courteous to post on the talk about a tag, it's not required, and I think this case is pretty self-explanatory. The tagger's talk-page rationale seems sufficient. One thing about human rights groups: as you put it yourself, "vast majority of human rights complaints made". A complaint is not automatically true, simply because someone makes the public complaint. Nothing suspicious here; that article is a mess. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your input and will delete the mujahideen and tripod stuff. But as for Human Rights Watch ....

The Human Rights Watch website. This is an advocacy group, so it's natural to be concerned with a bias.

Could you be a little more specific???? "concerned"?? Is it or isn't it legit? Of course "A complaint is not automatically true" and the government's response (if they have one) should be given, but is a complaint by HRW notable? The problem here is the tagger's line is non-academic advocacy website are not reliable sources ... There is nothing further to explain here

But the word "advocacy," as in "non-academic advocacy" does not appear on the [Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• We routinely quote Human Right's groups like Amnestry International. If all else fails we can always attribute each supposed fact to the source. Information by Human Rights groups should not be removed, especially in an article specifically about Human rights. This is from the instructions on the POV template:

Place [The POV tag] at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page.

Whenever you add a NPOV dispute where there previously was not one, you are supposed to say why you added it, not point to previously resolved disputes as a justification of the current tags. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's okay to use HRW as sources; it just needs to be phrased that it's coming from them, not as fact. I was looking at the sources before and not the text; at least the first instance says "according to Human Rights Watch", so it's fine. Didn't mean it to sound like you couldn't use those sources, it just needs to be phrased as the view by a group. Same with, for example, PETA or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

orphan deadend unreferrenced?

Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I have read editing tips, but am confused on some of the editorial comments on our page for Rice Alliance. The page is in progress. At the top of the page there are editorial comments that say Orphan, Deadend, and Unreferrenced. I have provided web and wiki links to the Rice Alliance, Rice University and specific Rice Schools and articles related to the Rice Alliance. What other sources do I need to make our page NOT orphaned, deadend or unreferrenced?

How can I referrence awards and high rankings for our educational services without it being seen as advertising or spammy. My intention is to show outside sources opinions or rankings of the program and schools. I thought outside sources would help verify us. Can you provide me guidance?

thank you, Mary Lynn idshoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idshoes (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Idshoes (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no single great Wikigod that adds and removes those maintenance banners on pages. If you have added links and references, then you can remove the tags yourself. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I think the spam tag related more to the copy than the listing of references; the latter is generally seen as a positive. I'll take a look, convert the refs to look like refs, and so forth. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just messed with the display; hopefully it's clearer what needs fixed. For the orphan concern, only one other article links to it. To avoid the orphan tag, links pointing to it should be introduced in other articles. The tone and advert concerns come from the language- some of it sounds like it was written by a PR person (e.g. "World-class Faculty" as a section title). I removed the deadend and wikify tags; it has formatting. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that the article really needs is references to coverage in independent reliable sources. In particular, all of the statements that could be challenged need to be backed up by reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image help please

Resolved

 – Image not used on any article page, no conflict. epicAdam (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This image is actually a compilation of four or five other images. It misrepresents what is actually there but I'm unsure how to approach it; is it a policy violation of some sort? I'm less experienced in images so would appreciate any advice. Banjeboi 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It all depends what images were used to create that final compilation. If those images are in the public domain or have the appropriate creative commons license, then that image should be okay. -epicAdam (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well let's pretend that all those images are fine. My concern is that someone's artwork which misrepresents, in this case the neighborhood depicted, is misleading and a form of fraud. Banjeboi 12:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever dude, I don't see how this can be considered fraud, maybe you should look the word up. I don't care. Since you're losing so much sleep over this, (being the guy that I am) I'll happily remove it.EditorUSA (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As Epicadam notes, as long as the original photos are free (or taken by the uploader) and the composite image is only used on user pages, it should probably be OK. It's not really appropriate for use in articles, though — it doesn't seem to illustrate The Castro (or any other article-worthy subject I can think of) any better than the several unaltered pictures we already have. Also, the fact that the image has been retouched should probably be noted on the image description page (e.g. with {{retouched}}), even if it is kind of obvious. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've read the question incorrectly the first time. If a user has it on his or her personal page, then it's fine. Like Ilmari Karonen, I would not recommend that it be used on any article pages. There are a handful of pages which use a photo montage for their infobox images, but these are mostly created by simply combining photos into a gallery (see New York City, London), not photoshopped together like that into a single image. -epicAdam (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's my bad as I should have pointed to the Castro neighborhood article it was on. I have no concern if it's just in user space. Banjeboi 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear that the image is used in any article, including The Castro, San Francisco, California. Since this image is only on a user page, there's really no conflict. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medal table

I'm hoping to get an outside, neutral opinion on Olympic medal table (note:there is more than one person involved, and I need additional input outside WP:Olympics). I have tried to clarify the article to reflect that the United States has an established history of ranking Olympic medals by total, not by gold, and that any form of ranking is not endorsed by the International Olympic Committee. One editor in particular, Wikipedian06 has changed the page three times now to reflect his/her opinion that the majority of American media suddenly changed ranking methods in 2008. In my opinion, this is incorrect, but of ultimate importance is that there are no references to show that the majority of US media has ranked by gold in the past. Can someone help check the current state of the article to see if it is in an appropriately verifiable, NPOV? Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as far as I can tell from previous rankings, has always ranked NOCs by the number of golds won. It really doesn't matter what the consensus of the media is, but rather what the consensus of Wikipedia users is. If you think you can build a consensus to change the medal count to total medals instead of gold medals, then you should open a discussion on the talk page to do so. IMHO, I don't even think the article Olympic medal table should even exist. The information provided there should just go on the ranking pages, most of the information there is notable as a footnote at best. -epicAdam (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is apparently not about how Wikipedia should make medal tables but about the article Olympic medal table which doesn't display medal tables. It talks about Olympic medal tables and how they are commonly made in US and non-US media. See for example this edit by Wikipedian06. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PrimeHunter's right, the page in question isn't about Wikipedia consensus for ranking medals, but about how different media has been ranking medals and the IOC's position on the matter. Either way, a few more editors have come in and done a fantastic job helping to clean it up even further. More input, of course, is welcome. --Jh12 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. My thought is that the article is pretty much a non-article and that the information would be relevant, perhaps, as footnotes on the individual medal pages. As the article currently stands, however, it is basically just a breeding ground for people frustrated with the Olympic medal count between the U.S. and China (notice the page was only created during this past Olympics). No matter what sources are used, the page will simply be a clearing house for the opinions of various authors, reporters, etc. who have an opinion one way or another about how the medals should be tabulated. That, to me, is not encyclopedic information. -epicAdam (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A sounding point for this clarification is needed somewhere on Wikipedia, and it is important enough for Jacques Rogge to directly mention it, as well as being covered by multiple national and international news agencies. --Jh12 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Take United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I wanted to change the Olympics infobox so that it read "Rank by gold" instead of "Rank." Because the United States does not traditionally rank by gold, I thought it should be made clear what kind of standard we are ranking countries by, especially since the IOC does not officially recognize any ranking system. The editors at Wikiproject Olympics were opposed to such a clarification, but they did not object to changing rank so that it linked to Olympic medal table, a page that explains the alternative ranking methods. --Jh12 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This may be a problem requiring administrator attention. I think User:Wikipedian06 is having problems understanding the neutral point of view and is trying to push his/her vision of the "truth." The user is encroaching on the 3RR for Olympic medal table, and has been removing information and possibly disrupting several other articles. --Jh12 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism that cannot be reverted

Resolved

 – User:Ilmari Karonen 14:55, 28 August 2008

I found vandalism at article, Hugh Dancy, where entire filmography has been deleted by User:GossipGirl16, as evident from page history [2]. Revert not working, so I have copy pasted text from edit before that [3]. If this request can be directed to a more appropriate forum, Thanks! (Ekabhishek (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

It looks like your manual revert worked. Thanks for that. GossipGirl16 has already been warned, so I see nothing more to do here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for fixing this. Many edits cannot be undone with the "undo" link because there have been other edits in the same region since. See Help:Reverting#How to revert for another method to revert by editing and saving an older page version. I have posted the message {{uw-delete1}} from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace to User talk:GossipGirl16. This was only the second edit by a user who has not received warnings before, and no other reaction is needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

need help with a dispute

Hello. I am requesting assistance with a dispute over the article called OSUNY. Towards the beginning of 2007 there was an edit war over some contested bits of history, and a specific set of language was chosen as the compromise. At this time there is an attempt being made to change the article back to one side's version. In order to avoid another edit war, how may we request assistance from a senior Wikipedia editor? Art Cancro (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first move would be to leave a note on his talk page, directing him to both the article's talk page and this discussion. If he is unwilling to discuss the edits, then WP:3RR would come into play. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get other editors involved to help reach a consensus, you can try a third opinion or a request for comment. If you go for the latter, and put it in the Maths, science, and technology section, you should have a good chance of attracting editors familiar with the subject.--BelovedFreak 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson article

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was browsing the article on Jack Nicholson and it ends rather abruptly mid-sentence, it seems there is also a lot of data missing from the page such as film lists etc. Not sure how this works as there didn't seem a clear way of reporting a problem with a page, hope this gets through.

Miss sina (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looked like an inadvertent problem. Should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with a Dispute

Resolved

 – Taken to WP:BLPN. --BelovedFreak 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a dispute with another editor on a page. The problem goes more in depth than I want to say (I don't know if this will be a public comment or not). Can I discuss it with someone privately? I need some advice. Thanks!

Fiona2211814 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Usually disputes are discussed publicly where they can be handled in an open forum. However, if you need to discuss a private matter, there are ways. If you need to contact an administrator, you can contact one of the administrators here or add a post to administrators' noticeboard. Otherwise, you can send me an email, here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuits

I've got a question, do we normally mention ongoing lawsuits in Wikipedia articles? There was a dispute at the Albert Asriyan over whether to include this. The only source for this is a press release, and I'm not really sure if it's appropriate to mention an ongoing lawsuit like this. However, the wife of the subject insists on its inclusion ([4]). Does anyone know of any similar incidents and what to do in this case? Khoikhoi 08:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate. Until a lawsuit has been mentioned by reliable sources, it is necessarily insignificant, in addition to general neutrality and BLP concerns. We have to consider that anyone can file a lawsuit, and they can say anything they want in it. So we have to follow the same rules as self-published sources, and never use them as sources concerning people other than the writer. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A press release doesn't count as a reliable source for something like this, which appears to be all she's quoting in that paragraph. It looks like she's been nicely asked to refrain from restoring the material as she has a really strong conflict of interest here, has she responded to it? In any case, I agree with Someguy above- when and if the lawsuit is mentioned in a reliable source, then we can talk about it. —/Mendaliv/<sup>2¢</sup>/<sub>Δ's</sub>/ 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ted Kendall, remastering engineer - factual error

I am the Ted Kendall referred to in the above entry, and I wish to make it clear that the final paragraph of the current entry is entirely wrong. I do not live in New South Wales, I have no particular interest in fish, and I am not married to Phoebe and do not have a daughter called Charlotte. There may be another Ted Kendall in this happy state, but I'm in my own happy state, thank you. My wife, whom I married in 1992, is called Collette; we are still married; we have a son, not a daughter; and we still live in the Welsh marches.

I deleted the offending material as soon as it was brought to my attention, and it was almost immediately reinstated. I repeat, this information does not apply to me in any particular whatsoever. The rest of the article, as far as it goes, is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.105.138 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing blocks of information from articles often looks like vandalism and gets reverted. I'd suggest that it may be best to contact something called OTRS about this (which other more experienced users can explain better) as there are proper procedures in place for this sort of thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for some options and Wikipedia:OTRS for information about OTRS. I am not from OTRS but will watch the article for a while to see that unsourced claims like these don't get back in. It was all added by an unregistered editor with an IP address from Canberra, Australia.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the Biographies of living persons policy, you are perfectly justified in removing unsourced material from the article, even if it wasn't about you. As Jasynnash2 said above, deleting information from an article, particularly without using edit summaries looks like vandalism so that is probably why you were reverted. If you want to add the correct information to the article, you will need to back it up with references to reliable sources. --BelovedFreak 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Territory FM

Under the listing for 104.1 Territory FM there is a section highlighting a recent breach decision made by the ACMA. This breach is not denied and by no means is the repeated editing of the breach decision an attempt at censorship. The fact is the breach accurred, however the station as reported recieved its license renewed for 5 years. The attempt to remove this content was made because the notation serves no purpose is malicious in nature and stands out as a vindictive addition by some with an agenda who have decided to use Wikipedia to further a cause. We seek editor assistance in this matter as there are two parties continually reverting the post and threatening a restriction of access. Lantanabelle (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's notable and fact. I'm not part of any group nor do I have an agenda. I see that the removal (which is also vandalism which is the reason why I've reverted the content and warned the users) is being done by someone who works for Territory FM (Mostly due to a user Territory fm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was also removing the same content[6]) who is trying to make as if nothing has happened. The content removed is all sourced from the ACMA report who also handles the licensing of TV and Rado stations. Yes ACMA renewed the license however stated within the report is that ACMA will monitor Territory FM (Who's call sign in 8TOP) and if it breaches it's license it could face lossing the license or be forced to go on a temporary community license (Like other community stations which can be found within it's media release section). Bidgee (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the media release and the investigation report is also linked in the release. ACMA finds Darwin community radio service 8TOP breached licence conditions. ACMA doesn't do investigations into minor issues and this breach was a serious breach however the section about the breach could be expanded to include more detail which I didn't at the time have much time for. Bidgee (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If one was to read ACMA report behind the media release comprehensibley you will find the investigations were in conjunction with a scheduled license renewal. Two of the three complaint resulting investigations were found to have no basis and where dismissed. The one complaint found to have sustance was in regard to an apparent "tagging" breach which the AMCA found to be accidental. The breach of community participation resulted from apparently insufficient documentation or public access to it, as stated by the ACMA. It appears the station or the license holder has agreed to make the changes and the ACMA will check back on it. For your information the ACMA under legislation must investigate any and every complaint it recieves regardless of how trivial or significant - tax payers money at work. Your assertion the station could lose its license or go to temporary is purely speculation and your behalf and evidence again you have an agenda to pursue.Lantanabelle (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read the report the investigation didn't happen just when the station renewed it's license and ACMA also called it a serious breach. I've got no bloody agenda to pursue geez! Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have taken it upon yourself to post without forethought. As stated by the ACMA all stations go into a review period of 12 months and 6 weeks. 6 weeks for a station to complete and submit its renewal application and 12 months for the ACMA to make enquiries and process it. It appears the complaints which by their nature appear to choregraphed and timed arrived during the renewal period, so the ACMA states it ran the processes concurently. This is the point people rush in now with the internet without the appropriate "inteligence" and slap in fast food comentary on subjects they are not qualified to do so. Wikipedia is a wonderful reference tool so why use it to devalue, denegrate and besmurch? This radio station may have recieved a rapp but it must also be doing something right by its listeners to command the audience the site states. At the end of the day what is a broadcasters purpose to cater for its presenters or its listeners? Lantanabelle (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it clear that you work for Territory FM which the station dislikes having a bad image. Stop being a vandal and replace the content. Bidgee (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help. This is why we have talk pages. Please discuss the issue there. Editors who continually violate policies on edit warring will probably get blocked. Please, please, stop reverting. If you cannot come to a compromise on the talk page, please come back here for further assistance. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted on the grounds of censorship and content removal without a vaild reason which is also classed as vandalim! Bidgee (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here is not classified as vandalism. This is clearly a content dispute. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for de-listing from Blacklist

Hi -

I'm trying to figure out why a URL was Blacklisted in Wikipedia. The given reason is "spamming" -- but I'm not quite sure what this means in this context. The URL is microfinancegateway.org.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraEY (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze -Should suicide be used as a category

Resolved

 – it would seem.--BelovedFreak 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed someone changing categories here in the Freddie Prinze article .In glancing at the article I noticed various categories using the word suicide .While his death was originally ruled suicide it is now classed as "death by accidental shooting due to the influence of Quaaludes " as mentioned in the article . Should those suicide categories be removed since they now have no legal justification . Garda40 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The user who made the change is a well-known admin. I would just ask him on his talk page why he made that change and explain to him that the death was not officially a suicide. Or simply revert the change and perhaps make a note on the article talk page. The real question is does a suicide have to be intentional. I would say it has to be intentional to be called a suicide, even though that may be difficult to determine in certain cases. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply .Garda40 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute problem

I'm having problem with user:WestAssyrian. He basically just makes unconstructive edits, for example like this one, [7], he doesn't in anyway try to improve articles. He has a clear agenda in Wikipedia (spreading the Assyrian name on the Syriac names expense), I've tried to talk to him, both in Swedish and English, but the guy doesn't listen, I've reverted most of his recent edits because they are all unconstructive. What can I do with this guy? Also I'm wondering (just to be sure, since I know it's like this in svwiki), if there is a template with "X people", it is unnecessary to add the same in the "See also"-section, right? Thanks. The TriZ (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If he continues to make the changes, then he will violate the WP:3RR rule. I'm not exactly clear as to why he feels it necessary to remove that information as it is backed up by the cited source. For any future changes, you may want to refer him to this discussion. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But I will break the 3RR aswell if I keep revert his edits, his doing this on many articles and instead of improving articles we end up fighting revertwars. The TriZ (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the relationship between Syriac and Assyrian? I've briefly skimmed a few of the articles linked from Assyrian and it's unclear to me. In other words, what exactly is wrong with replacing Syriac with Assyrian? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated, but I can try to simplify it. The whole group accept the name Syriac, but those who identify with the Assyrian name, normally calls themselves Assyrian. Those whom call themselvs Syriacs normally believe in a Aramean-Syriac identity. There is also a third group, Chaldeans, some of them identify with a Chaldean identity and other with the Assyrian. The Assyrian and Syriac groups are almost as big as eachother (the Syriac is most likely a bit bigger), those who identify with the Assyrian identity mostly lives or comes from Iraq, and the Aramean-Syriacs mostly lives or comes from Turkey and Syria. Eastern Syriacs (mostly Assyrians) and Western Syriacs (mostly Aramean-Syriacs). So there is a namingconflict, where some believe they are the descendents of the Arameans and other the Assyrians. So what is wrong with replacing Syriac with Assyrian then? The problem is, is that you force an identity on a people, an identity wich they don't accept. The TriZ (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's what you can do. For example, this edit is clearly incorrect because the source clearly refers to Syriac and Assyrian. I would NOT have called it "vandalism" (what WestAssyrian is doing is not vandalism) as you did in your edit summary on the next edit. If your edits are challenged by WestAssyrian, you can refer to the source. Start a discussion on an article talk page where you can work things out. Always, always, go to the talk page and discuss there instead of reverting. I say again, reverting will only escalate the disagreement, whereas going to the talk page will forward the discussion. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But if it is intentional, isn't it then vandalism? So I start a discussion in the talkpage, if he ignores it? What can I do then? Should I just let it be, or am I supposed to revert his edits and refer to the talkpage? The TriZ (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism. It's a content dispute. If you reach a consensus on the talk page, then you can refer to the discussion in your edit summaries. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will do that. But if a user ignores it? Where am I supposed to report that? The TriZ (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You could discuss it directly with the user on their user talk page. Or you could bring it back here and we could discuss possibilities. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy on global warming denier information?

I discovered what I would call a bias in the page Methanol economy. The page said (and says again), 'The use of methane (and other fossil fuel) for the production of methanol using all the above mentioned synthetic routes has a possible drawback: the emission of a "greenhouse gas" CO2. However, the CO2 effect on the climate, if any, is the subject of debate.'

Note the quotation marks around the phrase "greenhouse gas", and the "if any".

There is no scientific debate on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has been settled since the 1930s. The question of the degree to which CO2 warms Earth has been the subject of scientific inquiry, but there is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Moreover the degree of warming from levels of CO2 is now established in the literature. There has been a debate raised by global warming deniers in the popular press, but again, no scientific journal debates the question.

Is science to be ignored here? Note the sentence in question does not cite any sources. I would call into question the neutrality of the whole article. (How does one insert one of those neutrality questioning warnings.)

Anyway, again my question is what is Wikipedia's position on anti-science statements? EarlKillian (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no such things as "anti-science" statements. The only thing of concern to Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" and to maintain a neutral point of view. Therefore if you have a source that says something to the contrary, then change the article and add your source. You may also want to look at the guideline at WP:FRINGE; however, it probably does not apply in this case. There is still a good amount of debate as to the actual effect of greenhouse gases in relation to global warming by serious scholars so to call their theories "fringe" or "antiscience" would be a stretch. If other take issue with your edits, you may want to start a conversation on the article's talk page in order to achieve a consensus. Best, epicAdam (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added back the changes you made along with a couple sources to back them up. I also created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. By the way, I think {{neutrality}} is the template you're looking for. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does labeling something as criticism count as WP:OR?

Yes, this is a bit out-there, I know... Anyway, I've ended up wanting to add one little bit to the Ctrl+Alt+Del article, after stripping out the only part I thought could be OR - a more in-depth reference to the "B^U" thing.

: [[VG Cats]] released a [[2008]] [[April Fools' Day|April Fools']] comic parodying Ctrl+Alt+Delete, entitled "Bee Up Arrow You".<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.vgcats.com/cadaprilfools/|title=Bee Up Arrow You|publisher=VG Cats|month=April|year=2008|accessdate=2008-08-29}}</ref>

User:Thrindel has repeatedly claimed that even saying that this is criticism at all (eg. putting it in the Criticism section of the article) is WP:OR, but this doesn't seem at all right to me, given the explicitly self-deprecatory nature of the parody comic in question. Are either or both of us in the wrong here? 76.105.246.26 (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're interpreting the intention of a piece of artwork, a parody, with no sources from the artist as to what the intended message really was. That's why it is WP:OR. If it is criticism, then it requires special knowledge to view it as such (ie, whatever criticisms are represented in the comic) because the comic itself does not explain them. Since you can't provide corroborating, verifiable sources to explain the criticism you feel is present in the comic, it is OR. And simply listing that "this comic did a parody of this other comic" is minor trivia. We left that link in the article's criticism section for over a month, waiting for additional sources to be found. None were. That's why it was removed, and that's why we continue to remove it.--Thrindel (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You say it requires special knowledge. I say it doesn't, given (at the very least) the explicit nature of the "Ever notice how these last two panels are relatively useless?" exchange. It's obvious neither of us will agree on this topic, which is why I've asked for an outside opinion. 76.105.246.26 (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you asked for a 3rd opinion, which you got. Was it just not the opinion you wanted to hear?--Thrindel (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm looking for an outside opinion - Knowledgeum seems, as far as I can tell, one of the "usual crop" who keep an eye on the article, and while this doesn't necessarily imply bias, I'd be happier finding someone who hasn't regularly dealt with the topic at hand, all the better in regards to the overall neutrality of any opinions given. 76.105.246.26 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have to comment on this. You requested a 3rd opinion. You recieved one. It obviously wasnt the answer you wanted. Just becuase someone may be from the "usual crop" or takes part in a article actively does not discount thier opinion or make it invalid in a 3rd opinion request. Further a 3O would have probably been dismissed as this perticular subject was already discussed further up on the talk page, even with a 3O request that was also dismissed because there were more than one editor involved. 3O does not work when more than one editor is involved, such as the case with this topic. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say it's original research. But that aside, I think that statement doesn't really belong in the article as it just constitutes a mention of a trivial reference to something else. If it's significant (i.e., it's mentioned as a parody of the other comic in secondary sources) and important to the topic of the comic, then it should be included somewhere. But to me, this sounds like a piece of trivia trying to masquerade as criticism. Hope I've been of some help! —/Mendaliv/<sup>2¢</sup>/<sub>Δ's</sub>/ 05:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help (and for politely pointing out WP:PSTS, which looking at it again seems more the issue here than most of the things Thrindel's been saying). I'll let it be, given lack of a secondary source. 76.105.246.26 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have been of assistance! :-) —/Mendaliv/<sup>2¢</sup>/<sub>Δ's</sub>/ 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Argentina: Ethnicity

Some time ago, "Dúnadan," a Wikipedia user from Spain, decided to attach a genetic study to the bottom of the paragraph touching on the background of the Argentine people. The genetic study he attached is given ample mention in "Demographics of Argentina" and elsewhere, as this user attached it there, as well.

Though questionable both in its method (320 samples - for 40 million people) and rationale (ethnicity is something typically limited to a respondent's self-identity), please let no one lead you to believe I think it should be removed from ALL pages it appears, outright; to include it in the flagship country page, however, shows poor taste and questionable judgement, as it so harkens back to the time Nazis took blood samples in an massive attempt to discover a way to determine the prescence of "undesirable genetic admixture."

To leave not one, but two such studies on the country page amounts to a thinly veiled character assassination of all Argentines and, in any case, unnecessarily so, since the studies are given plenty of mention on the "Demographics of Argentina" page (easily linked to atop the paragraph).

Wherever you grew up, please consider what such material could do to the people in your home town or land, in the eyes of whomever came accross such a thing.

Please contact me, should you have any questions.

Sincerely, John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.22.106 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Typically, as long as a work meets the standards set by WP:VERIFY, namely that the information provided is from a credible source, the information can stand. If you do not believe that the information provided is given undue weight on the main page, or violates a neutral point of view, then I would bring the topic up for discussion on the article's talk page. That way, a consensus can be reached as to what should actually be presented in the main article, and what can be left to the sub-pages per WP:SUMMARY. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather Clause

The wikipedia article about the Grandfather Clause states "The original grandfather clauses were contained in new state constitutions and Jim Crow laws passed from 1890 to 1910 in much of the Southern United States to prevent blacks, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and certain whites from voting."

The fact that it was intended to prevent blacks from voting is not in any way cited. There is not a single source on the entire page indicating that this was the case.

I also happen to know that it is not the case. I can't prove it.

But is not the burden of proof on those that wish to include it in the article?

I have modified the article 315 times and each time the revision has been reverted by some leftwing imbecile wishing to push their agenda.

I know the terms of Wikipedia must support my side. I am unwilling for there to be biased opinions in the article that have no source whatsoever. Just the opinions of a bunch of brainwashed liberals.

I do feel that assistance is needed in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.35.155 (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a nice "[1]" after that sentence, which goes to a WP:RS WP:CITE. It's also been explained to you in detail on the talk page. That you claim to not believe it (in a previous comment you made an even less believable contradictory claim) is your problem. Note that you have a pattern of edit-warring and attacking other editors on multiple pages...I'd block you myself just for that if I also weren't involved in the content. Note this appears to be an IP-hopping editor who has been blocked before for this behavior. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd weigh in since I have not worked on the subject or article. The source for the sentence does provide most of the information; however, it needs to be edited to reflect certain things not mentioned in the source. The source does not mention the term "Jim Crow laws", nor does it mention Native or Mexican Americans. Given the source provided, a more precise rewrite would be: "The original grandfather clauses were contained in new seven state constitutions and Jim Crow laws passed from 1890 1895 to 1910 in much of the Southern United States to prevent blacks, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and certain whites from voting." Whatever User talk:75.9.35.155 believes to be true is irrelevant. There is no "burden of proof" on Wikipedia; this is not a court. Wikipedia works based on sources that meet the criteria of WP:V and WP:CITE, and on a consensus. I would be careful as to who you call "imbeciles" as by doing so you have most certainly violated WP:ATTACK. Tread carefully. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. -epicAdam (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user after numerous racist outbursts. Other admins, feel free to unblock him if you think I was premature. DMacks (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

translation

1. How can I get my own articles, written in English, translated into Spanish and Russian and Hebrew?

      a) I speak/write in those three languages, but not very well.  Could I get someone to edit my own writing in those languages?
      b) What about Other languages?

2. Is there a forum for discussing translation issues?

      a) if there isn't I'd like to start one
      b) I'm also interested in Spelling and Transliteration.

-tzipcode- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.106.63 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to start articles on non-English Wikipedias, the place to ask for help would be on those specific Wikipedia projects. If you are unable to speak those particular languages well, but are able to navigate the foreign language site and ask for help, then you may wish to ask for another editor's assistance in creating the article. Or, you may simply create the article yourself to the best of your ability and then request assistance in editing and refining the prose. For a forum to discuss such Wikipedia translation issues, see Wikipedia:Translation for assistance. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. -epicAdam (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

hemoglobin or haemoglobin

Resolved

 – Active WP:ENGVAR discussion started on article talk page -epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 18:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

The original article (obtained by looking through the history) appears to have been writen with haemoglobin as the spelling (British English). According to wikipedia rules, an article may be writen any form of accepted English, but that the original form (in this case British English) must be adhered to. Should this article not therefore be titled 'Haemoglobin' and continue with this spelling throughout?

Many Thanks

James Hounslow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.204.43 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any spelling should be consistent throughout. You may wish to start a discussion on the talk page and determine whether American or British English would be most appropriate for the article. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

iCarly Episode List

• List of iCarly episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some idiot keeps changing the name of an iCarly episode to an incorrect name. They change it from iMatchmaker to iWin A Date. This really bugs me as within hours, sometimes, it get reverted back to the incorrect title. I have never read, seen, or heard this episode being called this incorrect title except here. I have always only known it as iMatchmaker. That is the correct title I will continue to put back for the episode....but it gets really annoying to have to keep correcting someone's mistake over and over.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick search on google gives 647 hits for "iMatchmaker" and 1,740 hits for "iWin A Date". This suggests that a) it's not vandalism occurring, it's a content dispute and b) you could well be incorrect in your assertion that the "proper" title is "iMatchmaker". The Internet Movie Database lists it as "iWin A Date", saying that "iMatchmaker" is a teaser title. Discussion is always key to resolving cintent disputes, and you should always try to reach consensus rather than edit warring. I know that can be frustrating when nobody responds to you on the talkpage, you can always try requesting a third opinion or a request for comment if you want to get other editors involved. In this case, it seems to me that both titles have been used for the episode, but that "iWin A Date" is probably the official one. Also, please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and remain civil. Calling an editor "some idiot" isn't going to help any situation. --BelovedFreak 10:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

POV fork

Resolved

 – Pages locked and conflict resolution under way at another assistance board. epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please advise how to deal with the Pakistan occupied Kashmir article. The article was created after the Azad Kashmir article was protected from editing. I believe this is a POV fork, I was going to ask for a third opinion on this but there seems to be more that two editors involved. What is the way forward? Pahari Sahib 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that an administrator has locked both pages until a consensus can be reached on the articles. The best way forward, then, would be to have a rational discussion on the talk page of both articles. It appears there is a centralized discussion on the issue on another noticeboard at Wikipedia:CCN#Azad_Kashmir_.26_Pakistan_occupied_Kashmir. You may wish to continue your discussions there. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Healy

I made an addition to the Wikipedia article about Robert Healy, City manager of Cambridge, Ma. Originally, the article stated that he "served at the pleasure of the City Council." This was not true and I cited that he had a contract and that it expired in August 2009. A day later, the statement about "serving at the pleasure of the City Council" was removed by him or someone else. However, my edit which described the peculiar (for North America, at least) form of government and power that this form of government gives the City manager, was also removed, despite the fact that it was footnoted and true. I immediately replaced the comment in a subsequent edit.

People throughout the world know about Cambridge, MA, particularly since it is the home of Harvard and MIT. I am a local political activist who is attempting to change the form of government in Cambridge. MA and believe that every reader of articles dealing with Cambridge, MA should be aware of its peculiar form of government.

What I write is true and documented by footnotes. I believe that if Wikipedia is removing my verifiable edits, it is infringing on my right of freedom of speech. If my edits are being removed by representatives of the Cambridge government, I would like to know how such removal can be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanghia (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Schweich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanghia (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I have reverted the edits made by User:Ckgirl120 to Robert W. Healy. I'm not sure if she deleted the information by accident or was a form of petty vandalism, but it has been undone. I have also revised the paragraph about Cambridge Needs Reform, because as originally written offered an opinion and probably violated Wikipedia's policy that articles maintain a neutral point of view. As always, you can revert any attempts at perceived vandalism by going to the article history and undoing edits; however, if another editor disagrees with your changes, it is always best to achieve a consensus by talking about the conflict on the article's talk page. If you need further assistance, you can always ask for help again here. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 15:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over how to settle a debate on album sales figures

Many, many, many websites around the world state that HIStory by Michael Jackson is the best selling multi-disc album ever with sales figures of 18 million copies (36 million CDs). It's so easy to find I won't even provide a source. However, The Wall by Pink Floyd has sold 23 million copies in the USA alone, 46 million CDs. Global figure is 30 million copies/60 million CDs but a source on this is harder to find.

Confusion arises because the album is certified at 23x Platinum in the USA. It is a double album, but under 100 minutes long. Normally, a double album (like The Best of Both Worlds by Van Halen for example) is 100+ minutes. When one copy is sold 2 "units" are added to the sales total. So when it was certified Platinum, that meant it had sold 500, 000 copies - 1 million CDs. The Wall is under 100 minutes, and counts as a single album. So 23x Platinum = 23 million copies.

So is the one with a higher figure or the one that has claims to being best selling, the one we should state is best selling?

(The Elfoid (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Me and the Elfoid have been trying to figure this out for a long time. Like the Elfoid said, there are many sources that cite HIStory as the worlds best selling, yet you can't find a reliable source that backs up The Wall. The Elfoid has a lot of mathematics going on, it might even be correct, but it crosses into original research. We also have the problem whereby The Wall was released in 1979. The Elfoid is apply today's rules over at the RIAA that probably were not in existence when The Wall was released. The RIAA has changed a lot in 30 years. The best idea would be to find a source that gives WORLDWIDE sales figures of The Wall, avoiding the confusion over the US sales all together. However even with that, if the source doesn't say "The Wall is the best selling...." then we can't say it is. — Realist<sup>2</sup> 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's seem very odd to me that we can't find a reliable source (that would get through a GA/FA review) that sites The Wall as the best selling multi-disk album. If it has sold so many copies, as the Elfoid has theorized, sources would surely be readily available online, it leads be to believe that the mathematics behind it are off. Probably due to the fact that we are applying todays RIAA rules to an album released 30 years ago. If The Wall had really sold 46 million CD's/Units in the US and 60 million CD's/Units worldwide, that would make it the biggest money grossing album since Thriller. Hard to believe. Sources would be available for this surely.— Realist<sup>2</sup> 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Who cares about how many discs an album has? It seems like a fairly silly and soon-to-be outmoded way to calculate sales. In any event, I agree with Realist. There has to be a source that says The Wall is the best-selling "multi-disc" album of all time in order to contradict the claim about HIStory. Attempts to calculate the number of albums sold on our own would invariably run afoul of WP:OR. I too find it odd that there are no reliable sources that say that The Wall is the best selling multi-disc album of all time, if that is indeed the case. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 20:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The RIAA website, which is a reliable source, gives a sales figure for The Wall as 23x Platinum and explains on the site. It's a higher figure than the total worldwide sales for HIStory. Personally I think it would be best to say "Despite sales figures seeming to be far lower than those of The Wall, HIStory is frequently cited as the best selling multi-disc album ever". (The Elfoid (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Well then, I would contact the RIAA and ask for an explanation. I presume there has to be one, most likely in the way the term "multi-disc" is defined that accounts for such a discrepancy. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 21:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly lets stop using today's RIAA methodology for an album released 30 years ago. Secondly stop looking at the RIAA sales and look at world sales, it gets rid of all the confusion in one go. Thirdly find a reliable source that actually gives The Wall this title. At the end of the day, we are debating a pointless issue. If you read the article on HIStory, we aren't saying that it's the worlds best selling multi album, we are saying that MSNBC site it as the worlds best selling. That is 100% accurate no matter how you look at it. — Realist<sup>2</sup> 21:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If the US sales for the wall are higher than the world sales for history, then it is physically impossible for history to have the higher total. So we don't need a world figure. To state that it is often claimed to be the best selling without looking at the details does STRONGLY IMPLY it really is the best selling, even if it is infact quoting MSNBC. Oh and Realist, you were asking me if the system for certification changed and when? I looked up the certifications for The Wall. It was 10x Platinum in 1995, 11x Platinum in May 1997 then 22x Platinum in September 1997. So we can assume that was when the system changed and it was recertified. It was then upped to 23x Platinum in 1999. Citing WP: common sense I would say it is obvious to anyone that unless it sold 11 million copies in 4 months, roughly 20 years after the original release, doubling sales, that the system changed at that point. Not concrete evidence I know, but a start.(The Elfoid (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

We are confused. You have explained (without proof) how The Wall doubled from 11x platinum to 22xPlatinum (then it reached 23x plat). OK that's fine, but HIStory is still at 36 million. How did The Wall double again to 46 million in the US? — Realist<sup>2</sup> 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

stub on Bo Lozoff

Resolved

 – Editor(s) involved appear to have stopped reverting edits. -epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 18:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent article in a newspaper about this person (http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A263212) which I tried to add to the external links of this article. However, it was removed. I posted on the talk/discussion section of the page, hoping to talk to the person who removed the link and re-posted the link. It was removed again. This is a recent article (August 27) that includes criticism and negative views of the person. The stub currently doesn't have any criticism or any links with criticism. I would like this view to at least be reflected in the links, however I don't know how to contact the person removing the link and I don't want to simply keep reposting it.

Is this a the kind of article I should be linking to? (as far as I can tell from the guidelines, it is) and if so, how can I either communicate with the person removing it or put it up without it getting removed?

Ray (under various IPs in the history of that page, because I don't have an account)

208.27.127.94 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have re-added the information in question, albeit with a more encyclopedic tone and made sure to reference the information properly. The issue with making such claims is that we have to be very, very careful to source information properly so that it is not found to be libelous. As this story is from a reliable source, a well-known newspaper, I do believe it is appropriate to provide the information. Should User:MaryBrig revert the edits again, she would be in violation of WP:3RR and could be reported. Also, if you plan on making contributions in the future, you may want to seriously consider opening an account. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 00:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on XBRL

Hello,

An unidentified user (ip 87.194.172.100) undid my contributions of today on this page (XBRL).

I would like to avoid an edit war, which has already started, on this subject.

Any assistance on this matter would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Lancet (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for posting here. Based on a a quick look at the most recent diffs, the issue appears to be the material relating to XBRLS, which does have its own page. Rather than adding copy about the latter throughout the article, would it make sense to concentrate it into one section? I guess it could be 'Further developments' or 'Additional dialects of XBRL'? While it's certainly frustrating, I do see the IP user's point in wanting to have this page written about its topic and not another, albeit closely connected. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello AndrewHowse, and thanks for you helpful answer. I find interesting your proposal of making a 'Further developments' section to inform about XBRLS. Indeed both subjects are more than closely connected, the actual subject is XBRL and XBRLS is its latest development. Maybe I was wrong in creating the independent XBRLS page, which has immediately been tagged for lack of notability and primary sources (I have added an 3rd party primary source since). Lancet (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My links are gone

I have a problem, I have a blog called saito-network that keeps up to date info on Mega Man, including past information videos, music, anime ect. . I have tried to post my link to your topics on Mega Man Star Force 3, Mega Man (franchise) and Mega Man (series), but all links have been deleted and I do not know the admin who deleted them. I assure you that my blog is an all Mega Man blog.

If my being 15 is a problem, then I am sure my parents will sign a consent. It was my impression that Wikipedia contains, not only past information but up-to-date information regarding it's topics, and that we should be able to post relevant information on these topics-the premise of Wikipedia. I have one of the leading information sites on MegaMan (Rockman), and am well known through most of the MegaMan forums.

If there is a problem with my site, please describe this problem.

Thank you, I appreciate your suggestions and Wikipedia's excellent information and structure.

Saitonetwork.wordpress.com admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazinglight (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem, I suspect, is that it's a blog. Under our external links guidelines, blogs aren't considered reliable sources, so are likely to be removed when used as a reference and, likely, as an external link (as you inserted it). Tony Fox (arf!) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedia is acting as both judge and jury in condemning any material coming from a "blog" as un-reliable which, sounds very much like censoring due to a personal bias, or dinosaur mentality. Blogs now contain far more information than in the past, and Wordpress.org sites are used by many different venues including businesses and legitimate informational sites to add writing style and flair to create an exciting atmosphere, and that information is painstakingly researched for accuracy, as the "blogger" would be flamed for any inaccuracy. Perhaps to avoid sounding like Wikipedia considers only itself as the most imminent and totalitarian site on the internet, it should consider each submission on a case-by-case basis. I would also think that the rest of the bloggers on the internet would be very interested in Wikipedia's views of how un-reliable blogs really are...something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazinglight (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Many, many, many blog links have been removed because they were considered unreliable. Before condemning the guidelines, please take a look at them and the discussion that developed them, and if you feel they need changed, feel free to discuss them on the talk pages. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect as a result of AfD was undone by article author

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugoy Bogayan, the decision was to redirect to the game show. Having a quick look this morning, I see that the article editor restored the original article having made no substantial changes. I've rolled back their changes to the redirect, but because the article author may think I'm picking on him (see the article talk page for their previous comments), I'd like an independent opinion as to whether my rollback is in line with WP policy, and whether the author should be warned about not undoing the results of AfD debates unless the content is substantially changed. CultureDrone (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read over the article version to which you're referring. The article still fails notability guidelines (there are zero references of notability and the subject has no real world notability outside of the tv show). I can't say whether the user should be warned because I don't know how similar the original article was to what was reposted. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster

I'm not sure that this qualifies as an official problem or not, but on this template, an IP address (70.73.106.16) keeps editing the structure of the Quarterbacks section. I believe the user feels that it should be a depth chart, however the entire template is a numerical listing of the players. I have reverted his edits with an edit comment of "not a depth chart. Players are listed numerically." I have also posted on his talk page about this and have added this to the Template's talk page. I am not sure, what else I can do to stop the person from editing the structure of the template. Any ideas? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shootmaster. You've done all you can for the moment. If the editor ignores your attempts to contact him and continues to revert the changes, he will be in violation of WP:3RR. Feel free to report him there if the edits continue. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1832 Reform Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

The way this article is currently drafted it suggests that the 1832 Reform Act had a great impact on the growth woman's suffrage - which I don't think is true.

The movement the Act mostly impacted on is the Chartist movement - which has much less coverage in the article.

As it stands the article is very misleading.

The last line in the second paragraph states

"The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement."

Women were unable to vote before the Act - so the Act could not have disenfranchised them.

The Act only disenfranchised non-resident electors and some electors living in rotten boroughs.

The Act did exclude women from enjoying the franchise rights it introduced - thereby introducing the first legislative bar to women voting which is an interesting to note but of no great moment as it didn't change anything - I wonder therefore if it is worth mentioning?

The Act did not bar women from enjoying existing franchise rights - it didn't have to as they were excluded by usage, practice and common law.

The English woman's suffrage movement began in the mid 1860's - galvanized by the reform bills of 1866 and 1867. Because the 1867 Act used the word "men" instead of the phrase "male persons" as the 1832 Act had used, it was argued by some that under the Interpretation Act 1850, that women were enfranchised - this is the only bearing I've discovered that the 1832 Reform Act had on the development of the woman's suffrage movement. To say that the 1832 Reform Act sparked it is quite unfounded.

I've removed the line I've quoted a number of times - giving my reasons on the discussion page. It is always replaced by Chrissieboy whom I believe is the author of the line and the "women's suffrage" sub-section in the article.

Singlehandedly it seems Chrissieboy is giving a view on the 1832 Reform Act which will be found nowhere else. He backs it up with a reference to:-

1) Marcus, Jane (ed.). (2001). Women's Source Library Vol.VIII: Suffrage and the Pankhursts. London: Routledge.

this quotes from a speech Emeline Pankurst appears to made from the dock in 1912. In the speech she made some contentious claims. It is on these claims Chrissieboy seems to rest his claim that women were disenfranchised.

a second source he appears to quote is

2) Rover, Constance. (1967). Women's Suffrage and Party Politcs in Britain, 1866–1914. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

I think the following words, used in the article, come from this book:-

The passing of the (1832 Reform) Act seven years later enfranchising "male persons" was a more significant event however; it was the inclusion of the word "male," thus providing the first statutory bar to women voting, which provided a focus of attack and a source of resentment from which, in time, the women's suffrage movement grew.

Taken at face value this sentence does suggest the 1832 Reform Act lit a long fuse that ignited the women's suffrage movement - I think, though, this is the result of careless writing. Rover was really intending to point out that the wording of the Act became a particular focus of the resentment which developed in the 1860s - not the sole, or even, major source of that resentment.

At most I think all that is needed to cover the Act's relevance to woman's suffrage is a brief sentence - but as so little is given to the Act's impact on Chartism even that would be unbalanced.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also unhappy with this article for a related reason: the claim that the act specifically disenfranchised women seems to be inconsistent with an (unverified) sentence in another section (1.2: The franchise) which reads: "Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of Henry VI, standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these acts, all (male) owners of freehold property or land worth at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county. This requirement, known as the forty shilling freehold, was never adjusted for inflation; thus, the amount of land that it was necessary for one to own in order to vote was gradually diminished over time.[6]" (it being unclear just what is within the scope of reference number 6) I have asked for some work to be done to make this quoted section and the one on women's suffrage, given by Ned of the Hills more consistent, or at least for work to be done to "explain away" the seeming inconsistency better, and yet Crissieboy has ignored my comments and request, even though he has continued to revert later changes to the article about the women's suffrage sentence. In fact, the amount of protection given to one aspect of this article seems to be giving it undue attention when other more serious problems exist with the article concerning inadequate referencing (either none or unreliable ones). Given the importance of this act to UK parliamentary representation and government, I think it needs greater attention from editors with some knowledge of these matters.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice you have attempted to work this out on the article's talk page. Please note that any changes to an article, especially one that has achieved WP:GA status, must be cited using reliable sources. Further, actions that are contested by other users must follow the consensus of the community. Besides lend a voice for discussion, there is not much the editors here can do; we certainly cannot force a consensus. I would simply gather your sources and continue to make your case on the article's talk page. Best, epicAdam<sup>(talk)</sup> 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

wilderness diarrhea article reverts etc.

I recently added a good deal of relevant sourced material to wilderness diarrhea and an editor reverted it to his version, which included considerably less information as well as inaccuracies and original research.

His justification is difficult for me to understand, and he often doesn't seem to respond to questions on talk page. It seems like entering an "edit war" would be futile.

POV edits

An anon user (User:131.109.225.44) has inserted text on Debbie Wasserman Schultz that appears to violate the NPOV policy. I reverted this insertion twice, and each time left a message on the user's talk page. The user has re-inserted the material both times, and has not responded to either message. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to revert a third time, so I am asking for other editors to look at the article and advise as to a suitable resolution. --Russ (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it as uncited opinion and additionally placed a 3RR warning on the IP editors talk page as if they add it again they should/will be blocked for violating 3RR. Mfield (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Various editors have issued appropriate warning messages. The edit in question violates Verifiability as well as Neutrality policies, and constitutes edit-warring. A block will follow after one more edit. SHEFFIELDSTEEL<sup>TALK</sup> 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perineum article edit war

I am asking for a few extra opinions on this. Please see the talk page for the article. David Shankbone and I have been editing the article concerning some images that I feel aren't scientific enough for the article. Review the article and the images, and the history to try and get a consensus. I don't think I am alone in my feeling about the images not being scientific, plus there are enough images in such a short article. I recently registered and am new to this, so any guidance on how to handle these situations in the future would be helpful as well. Thanks Now registered —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

mickie knuckles NPOV

I posted this in the articles talk page, but someone posted an article called "the Mike Levy incident" that is full of slander, since I am VERY new to wikipedia, I just removed it and reposted it to the talk page. Its pretty bad, and I have no idea how it could be edited to be unbiased. Spdk1 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)