Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:39, 10 July 2009

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by .

Trying to stop unverifiable personal opinions

Stale

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from (my talk page) and (the talk page for Ericsback), I am having problems keeping him from replacing personal opinions (mainly re the formation of Enfield Town FC and its similarities to AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester). I have tried adding to the talk page for Enfield Town FC in the hope of stopping this. I don't want to ban people from editing the Enfield Town page and I don't care about information being put on there which isn't "pro-ETFC" so long as it can be verified. I don't want to get into an edit war but unless Ericsback learns that when I have pointed him to The five pillars of Wikipedia I did so for a reason, this is just going to go round in circles.

Just for the record, some of the personal opinions which I have deleted from the Enfield Town FC Wikipedia page turned up on the Enfield (1893) F.C. page but someone from Enfield (1893) appears to have removed them.

How can I stop this continual vandalism without denying someone else the right to include verifiable content (whether I like that content or not).

-- Jancyclops (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to place warnings at each instance of inserting unsourced material and if the other editor carries on, then report at WP:AIV. I have placed one warning on the user talkpage. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this procedure, though you need to be careful to avoid falling victim to accusations of edit warring. There are some very specific situations where 3RR doesn't apply, and I don't see this is one of them. WP:BURDEN of course pretty plainly applies here, and I don't see any dispute that those sections are unsourced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to need help with this. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I don't want to get struck off for removing what are no more than unverifiable opinions. Ericsback starts one paragraph with the words, "Another reason cited by many fans who remained loyal to the original club at the time of the split was that the Enfield Town supporters," but he doesn't source that comment. This is one of the comments which he put on the Enfield (1893) F.C. page. Since it was removed, he hasn't bothered reposting this stuff to that page. He definitely appears to have an axe to grind. On 25th May he said on my talk page, "I have no axe to grind with anyone, but have been accused of "vandalism" of the ETFC page, so I have to say that if ensuring that the truth is brought out into the open then I am an unashamed vandal. If you, or anyone else wants to contact me through wikipedia, then I am more than happy to speak to them because as I say, I have no axe to grind with anyone, just a desire to see that the true facts are brought out into the open, no matter how unpleasant some, yourself included, may find them." The emphasis is mine. Now, if he could cite references for what he is posting on the ETFC page I don't care how anti-ETFC his comments would be. However, he will not cite sources because he can't.

The fact of the matter is that most people in the Enfield area either don't know the reasons for the split, don't care about the reasons for the split, don't even know there has been a split (it doesn't help that the old Enfield FC was referred to as Enfield Town FC even in legal documents!), or some combination of those. Unfortunately if you say you follow a non-League club you are likely to be asked what your proper club is. The fact is there aren't "many fans" of either club!

The facts of the matter are plainly spelled out in documents from Supporters Direct which are cited as sources on the ETFC Wikipedia page. To suggest, as Ericsback is doing, that that view is only held by a minority is simply an unverifiable opinion.

He has obviously totally ignored the warning posted on his talk page by Jezhotwells. He doesn't know how to cite references by the look of it. He removed one of mine and then added in "[1]" as if that will give the reference. He has also reposted content relating to a libel case which is actually untrue. He says, "the club were also successfully sued by Costas Sophocleous, the then Chairman of Leyton FC, over false allegations made against him on a website." I must remove this because it isn't what happened at all. The true reason for the libel suit is in the club history section.

I really want to stop what is in my opinion unverifiable nonsense from being posted to the Enfield Town FC page. I don't want to get someone else banned unless absolutely necessary. Apologies for the length of this reply but I have now been accused of being "Kommandant of Stalag luft 13" for insisting on content which agrees with The five pillars of Wikipedia by someone who previously said, "However, this is Wikipedia, not Pravda," without apparently realising the irony of that comment! -- Jancyclops (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unschool

Stale

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 19:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unschool promotes unsourced material on wikipedia, could you see to that he doesn't do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.124.213 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, when you come here with an accusation, you are expected to support it with links to the article in question and diffs of the edits being challenged. Another name for it is evidence. Secondly, you should first discuss the issue on the talk page of the article concerned or with the editor. I presume you are referring to Unschool's removal of your "references needed" tags in the Stratosphere article. This does not mean Unschool inserted the original material and in any case Unschool has merely changed the style of the tagging, not removed it altogether. SpinningSpark 08:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made two edits to the article in question. In one of them[1], I merely corrected a syntactical error by whomever had placed the tag which caused the tag to read as follows: This June 2009 does not cite any references or sources. I think the tagger had been trying to place the date in the tag as he has seen others do, but the actual effect was to create the above non sequitur. In the other edit[2], I corrected the same error on a general tag, but also moved the tag to a less obstructive position, because a) there was already the same tag on a section, so I thought it redundant, and b)because the tag falsely claimed that there were no sources in the article. In its less conspicuous location, I felt, the article would still appear on any lists of articles needing sourcing, but it would not overly denigrate the article.

I would, of course, appreciate it if the anon editor would bring his concerns to me personally, so that we could have cleared these things up. For the record, no, I do not promote the use of unsourced material on Wikipedia. Un school 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki entry - rewritten for Wold News Network

Answered

– Answers given.Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The page which I had created for "World News Network" was deleted. please ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network. I agree, some of the content was copied from "world news network" website. As suggested by SOMEGUY1221, i have re-created the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network. Please may I know your opinion on this page? This time I don't want it to be deleted. smita (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there that makes this a notable subject for an article. I suggest that you read WP:First_article, familiarise yourself with it. And you still have material copied from the subject web site. This is WP:plagiarism and is a big no-no. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:CORP. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone look at "Flux Pumping" as and advert or just needing citations in textt.

Stale

– I don't know enough about the topic to help. Sorry. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put an advert tag on this,

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

because essentially all of the sources point to a fluxpumping website, fluxpump.co.uk , or are general background sources on superconductivity. The article text is largely just blue links to other wiki sources. An IP reverted my tag but left intact a link to Scirus search results on the term- which an interested reader can examine. The term is a bit hard to isolate as it does come up in superconductivity but also in plasma physics. The article is probably fixable, and maybe the flux pumping website contains reprints of journal articles but it could just use better documentation with citations through out the text, not just a few bibliographical entries at the end. Anyone want to look at this without having any topic-specific knowledge and see what your impression is?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question is a cambridge ( UK?) address which would put it oddly near the "co.uk" site cited above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.111.213.41 this doesn't prove anything and I don't want to make allegations but did want to get someone to look at the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asistence

Discussion moved

– There is an active article talk page. Any additional input there would undoubtedly be appreciated. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a major dispute on Cham Albanians article and as it seems, we need somebody to overview the dispute. Can somebody please help?Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a major problem with the present Chams article as it is full of falsifications and misquoting of its sources. Until yesterday I had no idea about but in a day (until now) I found 14 such cases in that article, indicating a consistent effort possibly from more than one editors. I really don't know how to manage the situation because I believe that there are many more such cases. I started to report the cases one by one to the discussion page and to edit the article but the falsifications are too many to do it by myself before an edit war will start again to stop any real work. Can someone please take a look to the discussion and the already mentioning cases (I will give at least eight more) to make your checking and to tell me how to manage the situation. Can we freeze the article so to examine one by one every source on it? It is impossible to do it by myself when every day new references and edits are adding (by the same person), together with the hot debate in the discussion page. Thanks, --Factuarius (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it should probably be delisted from GA status. Perhaps take to WP:GAR? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles_Joseph_Fletcher

Answered

– And copied to user talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture of Charles Joseph Fletcher, it was taken June 25th, at an inventor meeting. I want to upload but have no access. How do i get it to you guys?

Mitch Gutu SEO Space NJ www.akaceospace.com http://www.facebook.com/mitch.gutu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Fletcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEOspaceNJ (talk • contribs) 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Uploading_images should provide all the information that you need. If yours is a very new account then you may not be able to upload. in which case you can submit a request at Wikipedia:Images_for_upload. And don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~) Jezhotwells (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the image in question is one that you have taken, please consider uploading it to Commons so that it is available for use on all Wikimedia projects. Commons does not have an autoconfirmation requirement. Head over to WP:SUL first to set up single user login across all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Willig

{{

Answered

– Here and at the spam blacklist and at WP Spam. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added information about author Lauren Willig, her current career status, the name of her current best selling novel and the title of her upcoming work. I have cited all of this information to an interview conducted with the author. The website, Loaded Questions, is one that I contribute to and the interview with Lauren Willig one that I myself conducted. However, I have tried to argue that, despite my involvement, this information is important to improving the accuracy of the Lauren Willig page. None of the information is controversial. I have read the guidelines about adding information to pages and have listed my argument on the discussion page for Lauren Willig. I am newer to Wikipedia but feel like I have a good deal of information to share on author after a lengthy career in the book business and now after two years of interviewing more than 60 authors for Loaded Questions. However, another editor MrOllie has deleted every contribution I have made to the site and despite continual contact with him to try and ensure that I follow guidelines and understand why it is that this information is being removed he has essentially refused to discuss his concerns with me.

Here is a link to the page in question Lauren_Willig and to the discussion page where I have attempted to discuss the issue: Talk:Lauren_Willig

This issue has been repeated with a number of authors, many of whom have little or no information written about them. I understand that possible conflict of interest I have in being associated with the site I have cited and in conducting the interviews but sincerely believe that this information is pertinent. As it stands MrOllie has essentially said that he will remove any future information shared from Loaded Questions in general.

I want to contribute to this community and share the information and expertise that I have gained in both my professional career and over the last two plus years conducting author interviews that have been printed as part of St. Martin's Griff Reading Group Gold and in a number of other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyHewitt80 (talk • contribs)

MrOllie is correct. Yours is a self-published source, a blog; not a reliable source. Your obvious conflict of interest in posting links to "Loaded Questions featuring Kelly Hewitt" is quite beyond the pale. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help with Asmahan dispute!

I need help with a dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Dispute.2C_3O_given

This is very important, We need an admin that is directly and actively involved and takes a close look at every single one of the 7 different points I have made. And also changes the article in to what he decides.

We have been argueing over this for almost two months. Admin has to take action now.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already have a third opinion discussion open and an admin involved in the dispute so I am not quite sure what you intended to achieve by posting here. It is not the function of admins to make binding rulings on content disputes, and in any case, this is not the right forum to find administrators (that would be WP:ANB). But for what its worth, my understanding of the facts are, briefly, 1. born Syria, 2. naturalised Egyptian. Surely to goodness the two of you can find a way of stating these simple facts in the article without getting into an edit war over whether she is Syrian or Eqyptian. Phrases such as Syrian-born can be used, there is no need for Wikipedia to decide which nationality she should be described as unless there is a source that affirms she self-describes a particular way. SpinningSpark 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she was born on a boat heading to the French mandate of Syria. We need an administrator that is actively involved and helps us. We can not do it ourselves. No admin is doing that right now and the third opinion is closed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need an administrator and you are not listening so I will say it again, administrators do not make rulings in content disputes. I can give you an opinion, the same as any other editor, but I am not permitted to use my admin powers to enforce my opinion. You need an admin for things like locking a page to stop disruption or blocking editors who are edit warring, but not for deciding what articles should say. I seem to be missing where the 3O was closed. If it is closed, the 3O should have given you an opinion, if that is so why are you both not following it? It is pointless asking for the opinions of others if you cannot agree to actually use it. If the 3O is not closed then either you can expect an opinion to be forhtcoming, or if the original editor has gone away, go find another one. The fact that Asmahan was born on a boat does not change my opinion of how you should proceed, state the facts, including that one, and leave the reader to make up their own mind on everything else. SpinningSpark 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

factual updates to your pages constantly removed

Factual important updates to certain pages on your site keep being removed by someone. Granted if originally they were too lengthy, that I can understand, but please make allowances as it is my first attempt trying and I do have a disability and no acumen for complex sites. I then added just a project website link as references and again, some of that has been removed, in one instance the term Supervising Director of Animations relating to a project, details of which you do not have. Another relevant page you asked for more information then promptly removed it. All are verifiable as I am an Executive Producer and Management Company of said project and celebrities are on board, do I give up trying to update your site as I do not know what is going on. Is someone at wikipedia removing the detail and if so, may I ask for what reason, otherwise may I ask if someone is choosing to follow the links and remove detail as a form of vandalism to our project ?

Many thanks for your help in explaining things to me. Most obliged.

My reference to your records is under the chosen title of Admiral Lord Nelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralLordNelson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right you have been external link spamming the above articles. Possibly you have a conflict of interest. In any case your edits have been reverted and you have been warned about this. If you do not desist you will be blocked. Please read up on our policies. the link is on your talk page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested speedy deletion of Harkness Roses as the whole article is balatant advertising. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That speedy has been declined. Fleetflame 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the discussion for that entry but I guess if the entry is closer to a case study than something of appeal to customers it could make it but as-is it looks like a stub without much notability headed towards an ad.

[[My reply and final comment is that YOU invited factual updates on some of your pages and then you accuse me of spamming when I am the project Management Company and Executive Producer ! You need not block me as I will not be attempting to post anything else on your website pages, and this was my first attempt. I do not Spam and resent the fact you accuse me of spamming when all I have done is post a legitimate update on 'related' pages the people who feature on those pages are my project Team Members. Shame on you Wikipedia. I will not reply to anything else you may post about me, but remind you of your responsibilities not to blatantly discredit a legitimate posting nor be slanderous in your remarks, which would be inaccurate about myself, my project, and celebrity team, and any such remarks would be truly unprofessional on your part]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmiralLordNelson (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Anderson article cleanup

Answered

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I would like some help on the Wes Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I have tagged the article with the BLP Sources tag, and a lot of the article has ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[original research?]} tags. I would like some help gathering additional sources and suggestions for an improved format of the article. I've started a section on the talk page about improving the article. Thanks for your help. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like you have made a good start. You may be able to find reliable sources using this useful tool, which filters out unreliable sources. You will still need to evaluate sources found with this against the reliable sources criteria. Also, you may find useful ideas on the style and preferred format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12 Tribes related edits by Chezikah

Resolved

– Chezikah blocked from editing. Jaybird vt (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm finding that the edits by Chezikah (no user page) to be unproductive with articles related to a new religious movement. Based on that, I've reached out to him/her on both user talk page and the article discussion page to try and guide the edits into more constructive additions. I have received no response and want to avoid an edit war.

The editor appears to want to insert criticism of the the religious group as a cult. That could certainly be accomplished by adding a criticism section and giving proper citations. Edits like one where the bio infobox is "Mind control, no reasoning, racism, homophobia, lying and deception, beating of children" are repeated as is adding a list of critical External links which, not only don't apply to all the aticles, but are misformatted.

Another user, Jaybird vt shares similar concerns and should be included in this conversation.

Articles at Issue

Generally I take an inclusive appoach and try to work with other editors but am having trouble doing so in this case since my posts don't get replies. What would be an appropriate next step? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Often the emotional or connotation issues have to do with adjectives or rationalizing the credibility of sources you like. While no one would overtly or logically support genocide, you see America getting ready to celebrate it in a few days. But yet, if you described the 4th of July that way, people would be uphappy about POV. This tends to be an issue with word choice. Everyone believes in rules and wants some order, is spanking a beating? If you can stick to factual descriptions as much as possible, and let details remove adjectives, that would probably be a step in the right direction. Phobia versus prudent is based on speculation about risk-benefit. Predicting the future is hard but listing perceived risks and benefits, while may be not pleasant, is more constructive. No one, certainly no one receiving TARP money, considers the term "liar loan" to be grossly offensive even today and deception is admired by many. I'm not really sure what the difference between a religion, cult, or social group is but if you are just arguing over words you can even just attribute the source, " Source A says relgion[a] while b[b] claims they are a cult, whatever that means " So, there is some hope you can reduce it to an argument over source quality once adjectives and connotations yield to facts. Even in science, fact quality and inferences drawn, even when all parties nominally are interested in natural truths, can be quite difficult. But, in this case, since you don't need to settle and argument just document it, that may be less of an issue. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I have some reason to believe that this issue will not be resolved with mediation, but I am willing to try it. Chezikah (no user page) is not only a disgruntled ex-member of this group, but is the author of one of the sites being repeatedly reinserted into these articles: twelvetribes-ex.org. This, if I am correct, constitutes blatant self-advertising as well as POV pushing. I sincerely hope that this issue can be resolved; I want to be able to add my own insights to this group of articles, as I myself have had some involvement with this group and understand their theology on a deep level. I don't want to see my own contributions blanked out by a vengeful edit war. Here's to hoping some line of conversation can be established. Jaybird vt (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Thanks for your thoughts, Nerdseeksblonde. Whether emerging religions should be framed as a New Religious Movement (NRM) or a cult is a common discussion. There are a number of ways to accomodate divergent viewpoints along the lines of what you suggest. What I'm encountering here, is that Chezikah repeatedly posts the same thing over and over and has not engaged with my repeated requests to discuss on either user or discussion pages. I'm not sure how to avoid an edit war in that situation other than walking away and let the pages deteriate. Any thoughts on what else I could do to start that dialogue? ThanksRevelationDirect (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I do not want to be accused of edit-warring; I am very new to editing Wikipedia andI don't want to start off on the wrong foot. But in the interest of making relevant information available on a somewhat important religious group, I feel like I have to revert the malicious edits by Chezikah. At this point it becomes clear to me that this editor will not yield to requests for discussion or editor assistance. I have reported Chezikah for vandalism. I hope a few other editors feel similarly. Jaybird vt (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Supreme Deliciousness Removing Sourced Information

Discussion moved

– Please check the article talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, neither of you are using the talk page of the article to discuss this. That is what the talk page is there for. It does appear that both Ashaman and Farid al-Atrash were born in Syria and came to Egypt in their childhood, so neither of you is wrong and neither entirely right. Please make an attempt to work together. message left on both of your talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James DeVone: sniff test

Resolved

– Article deleted as copyright vio. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article, besides being written poorly, seems supicious at best. Can someone take a look at it? tedder (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have posted comments on the article page and left a talkback on the editor talkpage. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite GF efforts by myself and editors to communicate with the article creator no changes have been made. I asked for [WP:CSD#G12]] and the page has been deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to my website

Resolved

– There are no links to the site in question: linksearch results. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing the website www.teresamay.com and have asked the webmistress to pull the site, i wish to show my official site as www.teresamay.org.uk Kindly change the link on the teresa may page to this as the other site is no longer authorised as my official website. I hope this matter can be resolved amicably if not I will have to take appropriate action as the mentioned website is no longer anything to do with me.

If you wish to email me my email is <redacted>

I have changed the link back to what I wish it to be. I repeat, www.teresamay.com is no longer my official site.

Thank you

Teresa may —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogetemtreez (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points: We only have your word that you are who you say you are, but assuming that you are indeed Ms May, you have an obvious and huge conflict of interest and should not be editing the article about yourself. Please see WP:BIOSELF for advice about contacting the Foundation about your article. Alternatively please go to the article's talk page and open a discussion there about changes that you think should be made. You will need reliable sources to support any changes. I have reverted your most recent edits to a version that complies with WP:MOSBIO. I have removed your e-mail address above as this is a highly visible site on the internet and your address will be a spam magnet. – ukexpat (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Dispute Resolution

The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:

AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:

WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Earth : Since notability is the criterion, you are documenting what peopple think of thought. For looking at other articles, I find wiki pages on spontaneous generation, and presumably there are pages on alchemy, and other notable theories that a researcher could wish to investigate even though not widely held today. There would be nothing wrong with a page on theories of the origin of life that included a link to spontaneous generation or creationism ( the latter presumably has more support today than spontaneous generation). In the case of humanism, where the definition is debatable, you are just arguing about words not facts. Are you a humanist? Are you a good person? etc. If you just need to make a taxonomy of the different humanist cults, I imagine you run into selection bias- anyone can find hundreds of articles to support his own conclusion while you argue about which 99 or 101 are more credible en masse against the other group of 100 authors ( using numbers to make the rationalizations seem logical and scientific...). Is a merged article even pointless compared to say just a disambig pages with humanism_according_to_x, humanism_according_to_ama, etc? I guess with religions the group defines itself, presumably the Pope defines Catholics. Literally perhaps, you could give weight to the well-covered AHA but there are plenty of "defintions" from religious groups too. I appreciate that none of this helps, I'm just backing up a bit seeing if I am on the right track so far. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor keeps deleting my posts

I have submitted a brief explanation of Eric McDavid's appeal and time after time an editor has deleted it. I am new to posting on wikipedia so I did not fully understand how to correctly cite or reference my sources, but I have made the citing and referencing corrections and I have adjusted my post to fit the wikipedia guidelines. This editor claimed that, "A Motion to Appeal is NOT a reliable source." However, I believe it to be the ONLY reliable source regarding information pertaining to the appeal. I am not taking a stance as to the defendants guilt or innocence, I am simply providing the facts stated in the appeal. Please help me resolve this conflict.MReichel (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Apparently, your alias matches the lawyer mentioned in your controversial contribution. Furhter, there are several puffery items related to the lawyer, at least in the one version I checked. The citation is not fully documented ( please let everyone write to the PACER webmaster or higher-ups to change this, it is really silly to have a court system with an interface that is not automation friendly and the token payments discourage several investigations such as looking into this article). In the context of the larger article, it isn't clear what role this information would take but in present form it seems to be a bit much. I'm sure the other editor spotted your puffery and COI and probably reacted a bit strongly. In any case, there is a bias against primary sources in some contexts, although apparently medicine is magic since wiki seems to single this out as an area where primary sources are ok. In any case, assuming you could link to a free copy of the court documents, and it managed to get by the primary source OCD people, the comments you make about the documents would need to be quite limited, largely to things in secondary sources or otherwise "obvious" ( that dont't require original thought or hypotheses to be introduced). Simply citing the documents should be fine but the text is POV and a bit extensive. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should definitely read our guidelines - as the subject's lawyer you are bound to defend your client, and I highly doubt that this is in any way easily reconcilable with our neutrality guidelines. As such you should recuse yourself from editing an encyclopedia article about the subject. If you cannot, or indeed are prevented by your very position, from editing the article in impartial manner, then you should refrain from editing it at all. Instead you should present the material and links on the article talk page and let uninvolved editors make a decision on the material's suitability, notability and neutrality. Mfield (Oi!) 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly don't get into a double bind but we are not your parents nor a bar association. The end product, the contribution is what we need to evaluate. The problem with being too concerned about COI , rather than the result, is that it becomes difficult to get informed parties who can even put secondary sources into reasonable perspective. I have had fairly good luck approaching some business subjects ignorantly ( which are quite similar to legal issues and less aligned with scientific pursuits) , with information only from electronic sources, but those sources did tend to be SEC filings which are designed to be "encyclopedic" compared to most self-authored works from commercial organizations discussing themselves. My point being that the filings I used must have been more or less accurate as they allowed people to make certain predictions that came true. It is possible for an entity to present decent self-referrential works but quite difficult esp in an anon forum like this. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I got so taken with myself, I fogot the other example, the FDA. Had someone else not deleted my contribution, you could have read about this on the Dendreon page. I added a factual description of events leading to oncologists to perceive physical threats but my own cues to reader motivated people unfamiliar with material to delete it. In any case, the FDA needs experts but they are usually active in the field and have their own projects from which they hope to feed themselves. Yet, they do contribute to official FDA decisions that have some force behind them. You need to worry about the data or facts first, and consider COI or ad hominens when all else is lost. Normally the standard are towards disclosure, not disinterest. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathetic though I am to my editor colleagues above, there are biography of living persons concerns here which, I think, do need scrutiny. Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view and where there is a dispute, give correct weight to the various sides of an argument. I think it best to invite further comment from the BLP noticeboard.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is reliable and relates to information cited in the article then it is a valid source and should be referenced, in my opinion. It is always a bonus when content can be referenced and attributed with material that most Wikipedians can check, although I also understand that less readily available source material is certainly important when a case remains unreported. It might be wise to add references to content from news publications as well, if the appeal is reported - with links to online news websites mentioning the appeal. Overall, the actual appeal in this case appears to be primary source material and really should be referenced if the appeal is mentioned in the article. Everyone wants Wikipedia to be well regarded with good reference material - right? Frei Hans (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jury Duty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Duty_(TV_series)

i am the creator and producer of the tv show Jury Duty. Someone with the user name of ChrisP2K5 is writing false information about my show. I have changed it and they keep changing it to the false information. They are claiming that the show is cancelled and we purchased time on stations. That is completely false and I need your assistance to stop this.

Thanks, Vincent Dymon <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimon911 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our verifiability guidelines, controversial claims, or claims with potentially legal ramifications need to be cited to reliable sources. It is inappropriate for an editor to be adding such claims without a reliable source to back them. I am warning the editor and will watch the page. The article also contains a large amount of other material that needs to be referenced anyway. Mfield (Oi!) 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, there has been no dialog on article talk about this, only a slow motion edit war. Both sides of this dispute should be engaging on talk and providing sources to back their sides of this dispute, not continuing a pointless revert war. Mfield (Oi!) 05:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute on Project 86 page

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Project_86&action=history

Hi. I Would like to say that a editor called Schwabette77 is removing sourced information from the page. When I asked to the editor stop with this, he (or she) said the reason why, but not cited any proof, reliable source of what he said. Then, I come here for help, I reverted the edits that Schwabette77 done on that page. Thanks. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Summary : From what I gathered looking at two recent versions, the debate hinges over a few adjectives related to being a "Christian" band, maybe the top picture, and a quote from a band member explaining the religious aspect of their group. The quote is rather extensive but presumably the source is reliable for documenting how the group views and describes itself. You get some real zealots on these things but paragraph size quotes do come up from time to time and you would need to consider relevance and POV issues as at some point presenting a monologoue from the group ( or one of their critics ) would be more of an advertisement/soapbox than an encyclopedic description. Offhand, the ideas don't seem worthy of being yanked unless grossly wrong (I'm assuming the band describes itself as religious ) but edit for POV may make more sense. What wiki guidelines or other reasons did the redactor give ? Personally, if I find an informed contributor I tend to not yank whole sections of text especially if ignorant of the subject myself but some people take the bold editing thing a bit far...( note, I'm really tired and unlike SCIGEN my grammor deteriorates alohng with typing- if missed something please correct ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schwabette77 has been warned on his/her talk page to note remove cited information. They seem to be associated with the band in some way, and have come the the (mistaken) conclusion that that gives them some "authority" on the page. It doesn't. Feel free to return here, or take up a complaint at the conflict of interest noticeboard if the problem resumes. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested to add Template documentation

Resolved

– Asked and answered in another forum. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about templates, you may find help if you ask at Template_talk:Navbox_subgroup. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

false prophets repeated deletion without comment

On the page "false prophets" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet a group of people claiming to be wiki editors have repeatedly, summarily deleted my posts with no reason or vague claims like NPOV or references not appropriate. This includes direct quotes from the bible and the addition of modern day false prophets like David Koresh and Joseph Smith. Additionally they have tried to limit the discussion to Christian, Jewish and Islamm prophets.This is clearly bigoted. The definition of false prophet is abundantly clear from the words themselves; someone who makes a prophesy which turns out to be false. Joseph Smith's own mormon church admits he made prohesies which did not come true. My reference is from a mormon.

They refuse to discuss this on the approriate pages and delete my npov marker for thei extremely biased viewpoint. I believe it is clear and obvious that this page is appropriate for:

1. A discussion of anyone who made false prophesies. 2. not limited to Christians, Jews and muslims.

BMcC333 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

In this edit, you (perhaps unintentionally) blanked content the page had before. The best forum for discussing specific changes to this page is Talk:False prophet. Please continue your constructive editing and thank you for improving Wikipedia. Newportm (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made severall attempts to discuss this and the only response has been blanket deletions. Why is a web link given as a primary source but my web reference called inappropriate? Did you read the discussion page?

his church with claims that there are parts of it missing? 1st the LDS tried to claim they don't exist at all, and then when a museum comes up with them, they try to claim there are other parts missing?? The Museum of Modern Art is a very objective source. They know if they have all of a collection or a fragment of a collection. They have been in the collection business a long long time. The inventory of a museum belongs in an encyclopedia long before the pure speculation of other papyri with no proof whatsoever that they exist. http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=a8c1d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BMcC333 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

There is such brilliant logic that to an atheist all prophets are false?? Does wiki approve content based on fringe groups? unsigned by BMcC333 (talk)

You don't seem to understand our underlying principles, which include a neutral point of view and "no original research". Your edits routinely violated these principles, which are not to be compromised in favor of your personal beliefs. This is a cooperative project, in which we Christians are no more privileged than Hindus, atheists, Wiccans, Muslims, Scientologists or anybody else. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term is often used colloquially as an insult or colorful reference to a secular person who makes a prediction that is grossly wrong- in any case I wouldn't be suprised if you get more opinions than facts "contributed" and I would imagine some "neutral" text may help but it will probably come down to "balance" between competing POV's - this may be fine as long as the article doesn't attempt to "pick the right one." Maybe a passing comment or even disambig page may help. The general idea of the name suggests that a prophet is judged true or false the same way a scientific theory is judged- does it/he have predictive value( even today getting people to think about testability is difficult ). You can't do controlled tested on a prophecy, but you wait if it is specific enough to be shown true or false. In the religious context, probably most people associate with the more popular religions and since notability is an odd popularity contest ( vocal opponents make the topic "popular" LOL) those would probably be given more representation than "fringe" beliefs. I did note a lot of quotes and some people object to this- with a little care and editing however personally it would make sense to go to the source which is authoritative for the POV being described ( again, you don't want to support or refute it, just document it ). I don't think anyone will claim the Bible is copyright vio but some paraphrases and things like NIV notes are protected. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference in being treated the same and biased against. As pointed out in the discussion page, the page was voted to be kept and the bible has been accepted as a reference for years on that page, Only MY bible quotes are deleted with this excuse.

The same anti-Christian bias has been pointed out by others in the discussion page for unfulfilled prophesy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfilled_religious_predictions The excuse for deleting joe smith jr thre was since he did not live long enough to see his prophesy it should not be held against him??? No one forced him to predict so far in the future. It did not come true, the deletion should be reverted. I am starting a dispute resolution request for this page also. Allowing this type of bullying is not right. These 3 people can not be the only editors on WIKI. What kind of dispute resolution allows the same people who are blanket deleting to run the "resolution" I want to see some neutral, or at least new, mediators65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

Here is proof that these 2 admit they knowingly applied an arbitrary standard to my use of the bible when an established standard already existed on the page, as set up by these 2 people. What else needs to be shown to prove an obvious discrimminatory bias againt my contributions? Pasted from discussion page: The bible has been an acceptable reference on this page for YEARS, when is is used to prop up this pseudo-definition, but as soon as a real definition is given, the bible is not good enough. Who is NPOV?? 65.60.137.141 (talk)BMcC333

I attempted to remove all Bible quotes that were not the subject of commentary within the article. I was reverted. I agree that consistent treatment is necessary.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I reverted Kww, ....—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "

Yes, I did that. It remains to place my reversion in context, which you can see here, and as you can see it was hardly "without comment". I welcome scrutiny of my actions in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

65.60.137.141 (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

" (cur) (prev) 21:40, 4 July 2009 S Marshall (talk | contribs) (16,731 bytes) (Reverting to last stable version. If this happens again, I will see that the article is protected from editing until discussion is complete.) (undo) "

A threat to block comments counts as a comment? This seems to just prove my point. I do not see any rationale for blocking bible quotes when the definition of false prophets is clear and allowing ones which attempt to support some wishy washy definition. It is my opinion these are out of context and off topic. Insisting a definition is not needed is not any improvement to the article or even an attempt at dispute resolution. All we have is a threat to take your ball and go home. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

same bias in unfulfilled religous prophesies

Unlike the false prophets page, no one is making the claim a few misses can be allowed but still the blanket deletions of anything but Christian prophesies continues.

The same anti-Christian bias has been pointed out by others in the discussion page for unfulfilled prophesy as exists in flase prophets. Will the response to this request also be to remove the page? The excuse for deleting joe smith jr here was since he did not live long enough to see his prophesy it should not be held against him??? No one forced him to predict so far in the future. It did not come true, the deletion should be reverted. Allowing this type of bullying is not right. These 3 people can not be the only editors on WIKI. What kind of dispute resolution allows the same people who are blanket deleting to run the "resolution" I want to see some neutral, or at least new, mediators. As usual there is no discussion to my contribution and now I can expect the usual NPOV and improper reference excuses AFTER THE FACT. This bias is evident to all and does not put wiki in a good light. 65.60.137.141 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do wiki help pages have to do with an obvious anti-Christian bias? It is not like Joe Smithh Jr only missed a few: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/falseprophecies.htm Shouldn't wiki represent a balanced presentation?

65.60.137.141 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333[reply]

Comment: Many articles that document a POV can do it in a balanced way- I happen to look up "right to life" and "pro choice". This list however, is essentially a list of evidence that supports a given POV. Personally, I have nothing against the "adversarial system"- various parties become unconditional advocates for a POV and do their best to ( rationally ) support it as you may see in a legal trial- research groups and scholars can do the same. For wiki, with an interest in making unbiased articles, I'm not sure you can obtain "balance" even with an opposing page or "prophecies that came true." The topic is in essence loaded with no interest in obtaining balance with in the article. While there is no inherent reason for an author to add personal opinion ( inflict bias or original research upon it), the topic is inherently in support of a POV. If you had a list of "patriotic women who had abortions" or " women who ordered the execution of defensless babies out of convenience and lifestyle choices " or "counter examples to theories I don't like" etc it doesn't seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Thoughts? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability policy avoided

Discussion moved

– See AfD page. Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florinda Handcock, Viscountess Castlemaine‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A notability tag should be used instead of redirecting the article apparently to avoid the use of the tag. The redirection deletes the article without discussion. I want to undo it but am a little apprehensive to do it. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the editor's talk page. I agree it seems rather abrupt to do so without prior discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I had planned to nominate the article for deletion, however decided then to go by WP:Before (I quote "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD"). If the article's creator disagrees with my action, I'm totally happy to revert my redirection and to follow my first intention. May I add that you, Daytrivia, could have also complained at my talkpage directly.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it is always best to discuss on the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this in even the slightest controversial cases, however in such clear circumstances, I consider WP:Bold sensible. Note by the way that I gave my reason for the redirection in my edit summary.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility charts the history of generations of families who have run countries. This seems to make them inherently notable. Further, Wikipedia has categories for Countesses, Viscountesses, Daughters of earls etc., etc. Daytrivia (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the redirection has been reverted and there is now an AfD tag on the article. 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You should perhaps divide between immediate incumbents of titles and their relatives. While the first usually have had other features to make them notable (i.e. a seat in a country's legislature, a position in the civil service, a military office), the latter (wifes, daughters, sons, brothers) can mostly only exhibit their relationship/s - at Wikipedia at the moment generally an insufficient indication of notability (see also WP:INHERITED).

Categories are instruments to sort, order and collect articles, they're however not adequate to justify the existence of an article - think about that after this criterion Wikipedia would have articles about all Category:High Sheriffs of Sussex, Category:Female football (soccer) players, Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Cambridge or Category:American surgeons ...

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 11:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gate-keeping on Wavelength

Resolved

– request moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. – ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been trying for some time to add some material to Wavelength quoted below:

Spatial and temporal relationships

The mathematical form for the wave involves the argument of the cosine, say θ, given by:

$\theta ={\frac {2\pi }{\lambda }}\left(x-vt\right)\ .$

Using θ, the amplitude of the wave is:

$y=A\cos(\theta )\ ,$

which shows a particular value of y corresponds to a particular value of θ. As time advances, the term (−vt) in θ continuously reduces θ, so the position x corresponding to a chosen value of θ must increase according to:

$x=vt+\theta \ {\frac {2\pi }{\lambda }}\ ,$

in order that the value of θ stay the same. In other words, the position x where the amplitude y has the value Acos(θ) moves in time with the wave speed v. Thus, the particular mathematical form x − vt expresses the traveling nature of the wave.
In the case of the cosine, the periodicity of the cosine function in θ shows that a snapshot of the wave at a given time finds the wave undulating in space, while an observation of the wave at a fixed location finds the wave undulating in time. For example, a repetition in time occurs when θ increases by 2π; that is, when time increases by an amount T such that:^[1]

$\theta (t+T)=\theta (t)+2\pi \ ,$ or $vT=\lambda \ .$

Likewise, a repetition in space occurs when x increases an amount Δx enough to cause an increase in θ by 2π:

$\theta (x+\Delta x)=\theta (x)+2\pi \ ,$ or $\Delta x=\lambda \ .$

Thus, the temporal variation in y with period T at a fixed location is related via the wave speed v to the corresponding spatial variation with wavelength λ at a fixed time.
Using the same reasoning, it may be noted that any function f(x − vt) propagates as a wave of fixed shape moving through space with velocity v.^[2] However, to obtain a wavelength and a period, the function f must be a periodic function of its argument.^[3] As noted, the cosine is a periodic function and that is why a wave based upon the cosine has a wavelength and a period.^[4]
The sinusoidal wave solution describes a wave of a particular wavelength. This might seem to make it a specific solution, not applicable to more complicated propagating waves. In particular, the sinusoid is defined for all times and distances, whereas in physical situations we deal with waves that exist for a limited span in space and duration in time. Fortunately, an arbitrary wave shape f(x − vt) can be decomposed into a set of sinusoidal waves using Fourier analysis. As a result, solutions describing the simple case of a single sinusoidal wave can be applied to more general cases.^[1]

This material has been reverted by Srleffler on grounds found at Talk:Wavelength#Spatial_and_temporal_relationships, along with my response.

I would not take too much notice of this event were it not simply one more instance of reversion of my efforts based upon rather weak premises.

Can someone take a look at this example, and possibly look over the talk page itself to see what might be done here? Brews ohare (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the technical nature of this content, you may do better to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, where you're more likely to find editors with the competence to evaluate the question.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 exchanges on the talk page, and indeed the content posted here, suggest the text at issue is intended for a non-technical reader. There is some suggestion of POV related to generalization of the wavelength to non-sinusoids and wave packets. This probably fits a more general problem with arguing about words. When push comes to shove, these details become word games. It probably wouldn't hurt to consider the text from the POV of an ignorant reader or maybe a patent attorney arguing a claim containing the word and you may have better luck here. It probably isn't too hard to mention somewhere in the article that some people consider the general case of a periodic function and application to non-periodic things that may have an underlying "carrier" and then go on with Fourier decomposition ideas. In practice, I can't imagine the words would matter among practioners in the field- in any technical paper you would have equations and often forgive sloppy or non-standard usage ( or even intentional to make a point). I guess in these areas, where trees aren't killed, I tend to opt for broader coverage. If you can isolate it to a section, and really want to say " some people extends the defintion to blah blah " that may make more sense than deleting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the suggestion of S Marshall, I have moved this request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Brews ohare (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit dispute over mention of brief character appearances in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm a regular contributor to the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen article, and am currently holding a long-running dispute over the inclusion of some brief appearances of characters in the movie. The first one is the decapitated head of a character from the previous movie in the series. The second, the appearance of a vehicle that (although not certainly the same character), served as a character's alt mode in the first movie. The relevance of this information comes from the nature of the films' universe, in which even after being suggested dead, characters are bound to be reintroduced as having been 'repaired', had their outcome been sufficiently unclear. Taking this into account, the provided information intends to aid in the reader's ability to determine the aforementioned characters' fate. The discussion on the matter, in which other regular contributors are participating, can be seen here. --uKER (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are the view statistics links down? didn't know where to ask?

Discussion moved

– Moved to page linked below. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't get a DNS look up on the grok domain and no view stats. I was going to try to ask elsewhere but no mail contact and I didn'twant to download the chat client. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPT#Page view stats not working. Algebraist 11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colslee/once:radix

Hi! I have been working on getting this page right. Originally it was written as once:technologies but there were issues with that. I believe that I have overcome the main objections and hope to get it moving forward.

Could you take a look at the page and let me know if there are any problems.

Also, I am unable to upload a copy of the logo and screen shot to complete the page. I believe there is a block that needs to be cleared. How do I go about doing that.

This is my first attempt at creating an entry. I realise there will be issues but hopefully it will be better than my first attempt.

Many thanks. Colslee (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have some references, but not many. There are many unreferenced statements. Software articles usually have sections on their reception. It reads a little like a publicity blurb. Have you any connection with the product or the company? You can't upload pictures or move the article into main space yet as you are a new editor. You shouldn't have a download link in the ELs. The citation format is a little unusual, check out WP:Citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

posting article

Resolved

– article speedily deleted and user name blocked as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time posting article on actually wikipedia page. I createad the page on User´s page can´t figure out how to move it to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimnet (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Unfortunately, the article you have created on your user page is promotional in nature, and thus a candidate for speedy deletion as advertising. I'm going to leave you some information on your user talk page that will help you out in learning about Wikipedia's policies regarding articles about businesses; that will help you determine if the business you are writing about is notable enough for inclusion here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page tagged for speedy and user name reported to WP:UAA as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dail Mail

The creator is censoring it. He consistently deletes, or changes, any source-able facts that he feels paints the title in a bad light.

This includes him deleting a "critism" section, completely, in which every point in it had a link to the fact the paper had been fined by the Press Complaints Commision over said point.

He frequently threatens people who edit it. Threatening to report them for vandalisation. Even if what they are posting is completely sourceable and accurate.

I believe that Wikipedia is a source of fact and knowledge. Not a political, economic tool for big newspapers. The creator of the page censoring anything negative about the newspaper, and threatening users, is completely against the principles of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So - can you produce any evidence of reliably sourced material being removed by another editor. All I see on a brief glance is undourced POV posts being reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT the creator of the page and as Jezhotwells rightly says all I have done is removed unsourced POV, I have not been removing sourced material. These accusations are false. The warnings I sent for vandalism were NOT sourced comments they are unsourced POV. I think the accusers need to check their facts before accusing me with no evidence. I also did NOT delete any 'criticisms' section as there wasn't one published. My edit record shows no proof of this accusation. Christian1985 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn incorrectly reverted my edits

I would like to communicate directly with Alansohn, who reverted my edits to the article on the movie "Frida." However, I don't see how to add a comment to his talk page. When I edited the page, I corrected several factual errors and clarified several confusing points, in addition to correcting some grammatical errors. Pablito (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Papipaul[reply]

His talk page is here, and you can add a comment by clicking "edit" at the top of the page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Darwin at "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

I've never done this before and hope I'm doing it right.

Regarding the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

The article rightfully criticizes the movie for partially quoting Darwin. However, Wikipedia also only partially quoted the passage, so I completed it. Dave Souza and Shoemaker's Holiday believe the Wiki article should cut off the last part of Darwin's paragraph. This last part is very pertinent to the argument, and its suppression distorts Darwin's thought.

I have linked to the article above; here is the link to the talk page. It's the seventh subject, eugenics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Thank you for your help. Yopienso (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request: With the guy complaining about the Brazil Wax article, it was pretty easy to fill in the gaps. In this case, there is so much text and archived material would you mind actually quoting the quote central to your immediate complaint? It is rare to see the full title of Darwin's seminal book quoted any more so I have to confess a bit of interest here. There is a lot of selective disclosure in these debates and anything explicit may help. Apparently there has been a lot of discussion already, what caused this text to be more of an issue than anything else? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happily. This is the text as it stands in the article:

   "In support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book The Descent of Man:[30]

{{quotation|

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Stein stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the Nazis. However, the original source shows that Stein has significantly changed the text and meaning of the paragraph, by leaving out whole and partial sentences without indicating that he had done so. The original paragraph (page 168) (words that Stein omitted shown in bold) and the very next sentences in the book state:[30][75]

{{quotation|

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[75][76]

After "...with an overwhelming present evil," I want to include, "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage." In the original text, according to Cambridge's online version, that is the final sentence of the paragraph. You have to scroll down. It would be easier to go to the article itself and then to the History and Discussion pages. Or so I would think. Again, thank you for working on this. I do want Wikipedia to be trustworthy. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor wants to quote new sections of the book that no reliable source mentions in the context of the debate, makign this a request that his or her original research be forced upon the article, no source necessary. We have tried to explain original research to them, they refuse to listen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I'm "the editor," all I want to do is finish Darwin's paragraph. Originally I explained he was headed toward eugenics--just as the movie claims--but I'm willing to drop that. There is an unfactual paragraph in the article immediately following the quote that claims he wasn't. As long as the actual quote is in the article, I think it's fair enough to let the readers decided what he said and what he meant; the claim will fall on its face without any comments from me.

This is what D.S. and S.H. have "tried to explain" to me.

"I've removed it from the article as synthesis, drawing a novel conclusion unsupported by a secondary source. To clarify things I've also shown the SciAmn source for the selection as well as the link to Darwin's original writings. There's a case that can be made that what Darwin was advocating is the same as Dor Yeshorim, where there's some argument as to whether that can legitimately be called liberal eugenics. However, NOR policy means that we need a source for that case directly relating it to the article subject, and I've not seen one. . . dave souza, talk 08:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

"As Darwin said, "this is more to be hoped for than expected". He was opposed to coercion, and did not see a clear way to achieve the aim. However, Dor Yeshorim gets the weaker couples to voluntarily refrain from marrying and reproducing. We've used the selection that SciAm chose, if you think that's dishonest then find a reliable source making the selection you think is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

(I never brought up Dor Yeshorim and see no reason to include it.)

"Ahem, Dor Yeshorim is not about perfect Aryans. Which is why we look to reliable secondary sources to avoid the sort of WP:SYN you're committing in your interpretation of a primary source. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)"

"No reliable source quotes the version you want. I think that's the end of the story. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"

"No source on the film includes the quote you wish to include. That means you're replacing the sourced debate with a synthesised original research commentary of your own creation, intended to attack Darwin. That will never fly here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"

No source on the film includes the quote I wish to include? The Wiki article partially completed a quote the movie misleadingly failed to quote in full. I wish to fully complete it. Why is it "synthesised original research" when I go to a footnote provided in the article, notice that it has been truncated, and include what was deliberately omitted? Why am I not allowed to accurately quote from a first resource but Wiki can quote from a second resource that has left out part of the original? I am adding no commentary, only giving Darwin's own words in context. I have absolutely no reason or intention to attack Darwin. What I see on the part of D.S. and S.H. is a blatant suppression of the truth. I expect better of Wikipedia.

I have omitted here my queries and replies, which I stand by. They are all right there on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed Yopienso (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is Wiki's policy that no primary sources may be quoted? Question: Is Wiki's policy that when a quoted secondary source is found to be incomplete in such a way that it detracts from or distorts the original meaning--exactly what Stein did in the movie--it may not be completed?

If that is the definition of "synthesised original research," I am indeed guilty, and terribly disappointed in Wikipedia. I'm still hoping for a satisfactory resolution with Nerdseeksblonde's help. Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to smear Darwin by quote-mining to make it appear Darwin supports eugenics in a section about that having been done elsewhere in the quote, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is indeed putting two sources together to present a novel conclusion: the preceding section of our WP:NOR policy is Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which requires that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Primary sources may be used with care, but any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Which is why we rely on the cited secondary source for the interpretation and selection of the relevant section. Unfortunately specialist knowledge is required to fully understand Darwin's nineteenth century writings: the passage concerned is not supporting eugenics, because that subject was not developed or named until after Darwin's death. It describes the same kind of voluntary process as is nowadays used by Dor Yeshorim, and that organisation appears to reject the description "eugenics", probably because the meaning of the term was tainted and changed by misuse in Germany during WW2. Thus, you might feel that the additional text shows a "slippery slope", but the historians I've read don't share your interpretation. It's easy to be misled by such selections of text, which is why we rely on reliable secondary sources for the selection. The Descent of Man seems to have been moved to its full title of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex before my time: it's a book with two main subjects which overlap to some extent. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Summarize : If I understand this, the whole debate concerns the inclusion of the last sentence(LS) of a paragraph in a piece of quoted text. While it could be construed as changing the apparent thesis of the original author, it is objected to as being OR because the secondary source who quoted the earlier part didn't see fit to include the LS in the quote used to make that author's point. The rest of the comments above seem to be an apology for Darwin, which would certainly be OR/POV and you have to question relevance. I thought this article was about a movie, not a general debate on " resolved, Darwin was a bad man." In any case, and please correct this if wrong, the quote in question would seem to have been lifted from a secondary source ( so you would cite it something as "Darwin Work quoted in POV secondary work") and the wiki author including the ( partial ) quote apparently makes some point about the movie from this quote in a secondary source( which is presumably analyzing the movie ) . I guess I'd have to ask about relevance here- can you provide context. All the other stuff addresses a question like, " Would Darwin prefer ATT over Verizon?" plenty of speculation and it may be best to just site a bunch of secondary sources in one sentence ( " there has been lots of speculation over Darwin's attitude towards cellular carriers, some opinions include[1-n]"). Certainly the focus you have presented is more about reading the mind of Darwin than documenting a movie. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can cite the views of reputable historians on the mind of Darwin, but the sources used here specifically counter the allegations in the film that Darwin promoted Nazi eugenics. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum : - I am asking for comments above as it isn't even clear if there is a secondary source which quotes the movie's quote of Darwin as I suggested above. I would like to note some concern with this quote however from the other commenter, "Unfortunately specialist knowledge is required to fully understand Darwin's nineteenth century writings: ." While not relevant to the OP's issue, this comment almost amounts to an appeal to authority. It would probably be construed that way if uttered by a religious person explaining that only an expert can interpret the Bible or if you were selling stock in a speculative biotech company and needed to remind people to appeal to experts to interpret scientific literature ( in a field in which wiki seems to advocate citation to specialized primary sources since the above are often similar to infomercials ). If there are details we need to know about please enlighten us or just drop the comment. This whole topic is really too nebulous to even debate ( " it isn't right, it isn't even wrong" as the physicists say LOL). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to specialist knowledge is in relation to the requirement of NOR that we look to a secondary source for such specialist knowledge, not an appeal to my own authority: my knowledge is limited, and I have to turn to published sources for such knowledge for inclusion in articles. Hope that clarifies things, if you're interested, there's other wording used by Darwin in the book that can be easily misunderstood by modern readers. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my stance and request: 1. The movie partially quoted Darwin. 2. Scientific American wrote a critical review of the movie and added to the quote, accusing (rightfully so, as I understand English) him of quote-mining. However, SA did exactly the same thing, cutting off the end of Darwin's statement. 3. Wiki is not allowing me to finish the statement. The statement completes his idea and furnishes the context. The missing statement begins with the word "Hence," thereby not introducing a new idea, but the clinching statement of his paragraph. This statement has much to do with the movie's premise. 4. I believe it is against common sense, and certainly counter to intellectual honesty, to publish here only what a secondary source has edited when the original is readily available. 5. Most adamantly, I am NOT making "...analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source" within the text of the article. I am only including the sentence that has been eliminated from Darwin's own words. (I did at first insert that into the article, but Dave quickly and appropriately moved my comment to the Discussion page, where it is certainly allowable.) 6. A refusal on the part of Wiki to disallow this one sentence, "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage," could only come from the stance of presenting what the editorial staff wishes Darwin had said instead of what he truly wrote. I am being falsely accused of "attacking" and "smearing" him, when the truth is that S.H. wants him to be misrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops--sorry--forgot to sign. One more point here: I am being accused of "quote-mining," yet they are the ones who want to omit/suppress part of the quote, while I'm the one who wants to furnish the context of the quote. Doesn't that sound backwards?Yopienso (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Summary : So the quote from the movie was a central part of a SciAm critique of the movie. Part of describing the movie and the notable controversy surrounding the movie involves a comparison between how it depicted a historical figure, in this case Darwin, and what other sources claim him to "really have been like." And, of course, all the claims in dispute are rather subjective and inherently untestable- patriot, good person, racist, homophobe, good father, etc. Certainly the OR part would involve how the last sentence(LS) was introduced and if there are any sources that mention the LS. The best thing to do would be to find sources that mention the LS while describing Darwin's portrayal in the movie. If there is success here, and you start to encounter appeals to authority ( " only an expert knows how to interpret the Bible or Darwin's words") then the issue becomes bias ( "clearly the source that says Darwin was a nice guy must be right") disguised as RS issues, it still doesn't seem hard to include the source in passing along with the LS but you would then argue over how much weight to attribute to the source's comments. Alternatively, if you can find the full paragraph quoted in another work about Darwin, you may be able to say, " other analyses of this controversy[] have included the LS." If it is even relevant enough to include the quote from SciAm, certainly at a minimum I would include " the complete text of the disputed passage is from [Darwin's orig work]" but even here sometimes the primary source people get upset. Secondary sources are thought reliable by their correspondence to primary sources and on a specific basis, opinion pieces in SciAm, or the New York Times or even Nature may not be considered reliable and indeed would lack the "professionalism" normally associated with the journal unless they were peer reviewed etc. Was the SciAm work a full article or a shorter opinion piece? You don't need to decide if Darwin was good or evil, just document that there is debate about his beliefs if that is even relvant to the movie or its notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I try to be helpful, it's hard when postings become this long and involved. As the advice at the top of this page says, can you make this a little more concise and state exactly the assistance that you are seeking? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

Nerdseeksblonde: I have no need or reason or intention of debating whether Darwin was good or evil, I just want his complete paragraph included because its omission distorts the context.

Ukexpat: You can see the first concise post I made above. Nerd requested amplification. Once again, I am requesting to complete Darwin's own paragraph without any synthesis, interpretation, or comment. I cannot see why the fact that an omission from Darwin's original text in a denigrating article byScientific American means the original text cannot be quoted. If that is the case, I will appeal to the next step up the Wiki hierarchy. Yopienso (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary 2: : The specific issue is inclusion of the last sentence(LS) of a paragraph authored by Darwin as some of it was cited in the movie and then more of it in a SciAm citation. I would question relevance of any of this except to the extent it discusses the notability of the movie and the issues it raises. LS is objected to as being OR since it seems to be new evidence to support a POV ( like in the "failed religious prophecies" page discussed earlier where everything is new evidence to support a POV). I was trying to suggest that this topic tries to resolve an ill-posed question about Darwin which may or may not relate to the movie. Since this seems like a non-scientific issue, I questioned if the SciAm source was reliable for the claim- was this an opinion piece or clearly contrary to fact? At least one poster suggested this is too complicated to understand and I suggested we stick to facts, not appeal to authority( the wiki article shouldn't say " the leading authority on Darwin who everyone knows is right because of his good works and publication list, says blah blah blah"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> The issue is that in commenting specifically on a film alleging that Darwin was a bad man, two reliable sources described the partial quote given in the film as misrepresenting Darwin's intent, and cited further sentences of Darwin's text to convey that point. Yopienso wants to extend the quote further, having originally stated that "Yet, oddly enough, this article does not complete Darwin's original paragraph, footnoted above, which certainly does suggest practicing a mild form of eugenics." I've tried to convey that this is misleading and complex, that it's a question of interpretation which should be resolved by a reliable secondary source for the intent of the primary source. NOR states that "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." It's accurate to state that there are more sentences in Darwin's discussion of the issue, the question is of which sentences to cite to properly represent his views. We've cited secondary sources for the current extent of the quotation, if we go further without a secondary source related to the film, then we would also appropriately add Darwin's summary that "Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known." We can refer to established historians who are biographers of Darwin for the relevance of that quote, but they're not talking about the film. . . dave souza, talk 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you. The Scientific American article is a hostile review of the movie entitled "Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin." The opening line is, "One of the many egregious moments in the new Ben Stein anti-evolution film "Expelled" is the truncation of a quote from Charles Darwin so that it makes him appear to give philosophical ammunition to the Nazis." The movie quoted Darwin from pp. 168-169 of The Descent of Man. SA made the quote more complete, and I wish to include the last sentence of the second paragraph of the passage in question. Yopienso (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification of your objection. The film is a propaganda movie promoting intelligent design pseudoscience, and we have to avoid giving equal validity to the arguments promoting that pseudoscientific view: Scientific American well represents the majority view, which has to be given due prominence as required by WP:PSCI. We've described the creationist quote mining and the mainstream response, you seem to want to extend the quote to counter the mainstream view by implying an argument not made by any secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Darwin would have picked ATT over VZW : LOL, ok we all have our opinions. But, if in fact the SciAm article is a movie review, irrespective of what you may think of the content, does it carry the reliability of a SciAm article or is it closer to a letter to the editor ? I've written comment letters to various federal agencies, are those backed by the full faith and credit of people who aren't seeking blondes? You can't just cite an unreliable source, use the name of the wrapper to inherit reliability, and then claim it must be reliable because I KNOW EVERYONE THINKS THE VIEW IS RIGHT ( no reliable sources to follow, or is it common knowledge? ). In short, the quote from SciAm then becomse suspect as a movie review, not a reviewed article. How's that? If that is the only source for the expanded quote, it seems the whole thing goes other than, " isolated opinions have sought to clarify the opinions expressed in this movie[]". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The National Center for Science Education page covers the same issue, and similarly omits the sentence being discussed, so we've two reliable sources presenting the mainstream view about this specific aspect of the film. Movie reviews are covered in other sections. There's been some useful discussion on this on my talk page and on User talk:Yopienso, so I'm hopeful that this is getting resolved. While other secondary sources give Darwin's views on this issue, they're not specifically related to this film. . dave souza, talk 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Review as RS : Originally, you claimed a "SciAm" source and now claim a movie review is a reliable source about Darwin's attitudes. What about an editorial in Psychology Today? Would that help? I'm not familiar with the NCSE but it sounds like an advocacy group, certainly if they have a view on the movie it may contribute to notability as would comments from well known Creationists, or other established organizations, that make statements based accurately on primary sources. In this case, the reliability of the secondary source would seem to relate to how well it represents the primary sources. At issue here is a single factual matter- does the LS exist and could it be reasonably related to the prior few sentences in the same paragraph. I would think that if you can find a Creation site that makes this point, what grounds would you have for determining their opinion to be less credible than the NCSE on this issue, given that you consider a movie review to be a reliable source about Darwin's mental state? If this debate, trying to read Darwin's mind , is somehow central to the movie it still just needs to be documented, not resolved and a list of citations that discuss the topic further, even if not in the context of the movie, would seem worth mentioning at least in passing. Also note that this is not about evolution versus creation, this seems to relate to a debate about Darwin- would he have supported eugenics, trans fats for minors, or inter-racial sex? Personally, I'm always concerned when there are efforts to repaint historical figures into today's perceptions of goodness, especially after just celebrating the genocide of the American Indian. If you believe in scholarship and science, you probably believe that deception does not contribute to human advancement and cultivating an honest explicit and stark attitude towards all aspects of Nature is quite difficult. I would just be careful not to romanticize historical figures. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this up another level, then.

As regarding this Wiki article and my request, the character, opinions, or mental state of Darwin when he wrote The Descent of Man have absolutely no bearing or relevance and I have not once introduced them. All I care about is what he actually wrote. Furthermore, I do not attribute those ideas to present-day evolutionists, nor speculate on whether Darwin would believe differently were he alive today. One beautiful thing about science is that it, well, evolves, if I may, as new discoveries are made and insights gained.

"The film is a propaganda movie promoting intelligent design pseudoscience,..."

It is undeniably a propaganda movie. What is promotes, however, in not intelligent design pseudoscience, but the idea that those who promote or even suggest there might be some credibility in intelligent design pseudoscience are ridiculed, discounted, harassed, or removed from their professional positions. I believe this is true, though it's not worth it to me to argue the point. Anybody who wants to pursue the truth may read a letter to Richard Sternberg from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel which declares, "...our preliminary investigation supports your complaint....Nevertheless, the current investigative file reflects support for your allegations....Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI." Etc. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488

But I'm not introducing this issue into the Wiki article about the movie since I now understand, as Dave puts it so forthrightly, only mainstream thinking is allowed. It is not worth my time and trouble, nor yours, to open debate on a propaganda piece--the Wiki article--about a propaganda piece--the movie.

Background: I watched this movie with my husband three nights ago, and as is my habit after watching almost any movie, came to Wiki for its take on it. (Sometimes we agree, sometimes disagree; I usually pick up some interesting trivia. In my other life, I do trivia. :) Maybe that's what I'm doing now...) Initially I believed Wiki's account, and informed my husband of the movie's errors and deceptions. Further investigation proved that although the movie does indeed contain errors and the producer deceived several prominent scientists about its title and its premise, Wiki's report is not altogether true and honest, either. It's the typical clash between creationists and evolutionists that I find so unworthy of both sides. Creationists don't grasp the fact that a belief, however pervasive and however long entrenched in the popular psyche, is not empirical science.

Disappointingly, evolutionists fall into the same trap: their personal worldviews and philosophies of life are not empirical science merely because they are believed by empirical scientists. This doesn't discount the volumes of solid science evolutionists process. Their beliefs, however, particularly in presentations for the layman, frequently find a voice. I refer to TV series and books by Asimov, Sagan, Attenborough, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, as well an, notoriously, National Geographic and even Scientific American. (Their review of Expelled... does bear their cachet.) And all this runs together to form the "mainstream." Again, just because philosophical views are widely held by the intelligentsia and their followers doesn't make them true. I'm not saying they're false, just that they're not science.

So, the next step is for me to figure out how to appeal to the next level of Wiki hierarchy. Thanks to all for your input. My respectful disagreement on the issue diminishes in nothing my regard for you as individuals. 209.161.180.190 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird--I did sign that post with the four tildes. I'll try again--could be because I included a URL. I was required to type in some words to make sure I wasn't an automatic spammer. 209.161.180.190 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, rats--I opened Wiki in another window and that signed me out. :( Yopienso (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Conclude: If you care about provoking the Nazi issue, then it seems you would look at quotes or things they did- they they cite the part the movie did, irrespective of it accurately reflecting the politically correct Darwin? The only reason for caring what Darwin said is to substantiate some claim about him which may have little to do with the movie or what the Nazi's perceived or desired to promote. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a technical review

List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article needs a technical review. The ranking of this page has several problems and doesn't make sense. It was built with possible bias, and with serious methodological erros. I already had discussions with some users on the talkpage, but some users are retired or were blocked to editing on Wikipedia. I also posted some sources to support my view. How do I get an expert review of this article? Thank you very much.--Italodal (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT, assuming good faith is a fundamental principle in Wikipedia, otherwise you have reverted the article too many times because your arguments, also the article has been protected it two times or moved because of it and you have received some warnings because your behavior [3],[4],[5]. Users have explained you in differents ways about this technical review and everything is right. --Prodigynet (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All users, or all of yours accounts? Prodigynet, TownDown, Jesusmariajalisco maybe be all the same user. Or all friends. All of you are mexicans and made changes almost in the same time! Anyway I think the best way to solve this is ask to editors a technical assistance to evaluate the article. I didn't have bad behavior, not disrespect anyone or threatened to block anyone. I think that article is simply supported by personal opinion and bias without any source. I posted the source speaking why we can't compare the provinces between countries.--Italodal (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All of you are mexicans"? That's a personal attack, something we do not permit around here. Criticize the edits, not the editor(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with "expert review" is, Wikipedia is anti-expert. In other words, your credentials are irrelevant to Wikipedia.
The theory is—you can decide for yourself whether you agree with this—the theory is that all editors need to do is quote sources. In other words, if there's a source that says "Black is white", that can appear in Wikipedia. (This is why we have an article about, say, "Bigfoot". Because what's said here doesn't have to be true, it just has to be sourced.)
If someone's saying things that are wrong, the best answer is to quote a different source that says why they're wrong. If your source is more reliable than their source, then your source will be given more weight.
So you can end up with an article that says: "Professor White (1993) said X. Professor Green (1997) disagreed, saying instead Y. Doctor Blue's study (2003) disagreed with both, taking the view that Z."
So I'm afraid your question has no answer: there is no mechanism for a "technical review by experts".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But note also WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are relevant - we should not give undue weight to minority views. So if there was some support in reliable sources for the position that "black is white" it may be given passing mention in the relevant article as a minority theory. If, however, it was a single whacko blogger positing such a theory, it should not be mentioned at all. – ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixtoo biography does not cite references

Sixtoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the biography on living DJ Sixtoo does not cite any references for the content contained. was wondering if it were possible to obtain / request this from the original author, or delete page altogether seeing as it does not adhere to the guidelines for articles on living persons. Joejacksonsalute (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)joejacksonsalute[reply]

I have tagged it for references. – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance on disputed positioning of material

The dispute concerns the Wikipedia entry about me, Peter Hitchens. I make no secret of the fact that I edit this site (though I did not originate it, and try to limit my interventions to correcting factual errors or inserting missing facts). For some years the introductory paragraph mentioned that I had worked for many years for 'The Daily Express'. Earlier this year, I removed this from the introductory paragraph(for reasons I explained on the Talk page). The fact is clearly stated in the body of the article. It is its prominence, not its presence, that I think misjudged. One editor. Philip Cross, initially objected but then seemed to have accepted my argument. Now another anonymous editor has taken to re-inserting the material. When I removed it and explained why, this anonymous editor simply re-insterted it without comment. I have objected to this on the talk page, amd explained my actions. But he or she persists in doing this. I would prefer to avoid a tedious edit war. Can anyone help? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the page and will keep an eye out for recurrences. Whatever the content should be is a matter to hash out on the talk page as you are trying to do, and the other editor involved appears to be refusing to participate in that discussion, which is not appropriate and represents a potential conduct issue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to S. Marshall. Since I posted this the same anonymous contributor has made several other contentious ( and in my view hostile) additions to the entry, which have been deleted by another editor unknown to me. There is no sign of any attempt to explain this behaviour on the Talk Page. This may betoken more and worse problems to come. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the vandalism/contentious editing persists it will be dealt with accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Wars (again)

The talk page on history wars had a lengthy debate (about 450K) about the genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines. This debate was never settled, but an editor took the step of archiving the discussion. I requested that at least the last 200K of the discussion (from june 09) be kept for future reference. I am hoping someone could please help put that page right once and for all. It is not acceptable to have fringe historical positions like that of Keith Windschuttle be presented without counterweight, as is happening there.Likebox (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that the current version of the article is OK. I would like assistence here to make sure that the talk page is not archived.Likebox (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have been politely informed of how to go about linking to archive sections, etc. So there really isn't a problem is there? Archiving is neccessary to keep talk pages manageable. You could add a search box to the archives if you wanted. See Template:Archive box. There is little point in maintaining length discussions on talk pages as it deters editors from adding new points or contributing to existing discussion. See WP:TLDR. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is a clear issue of undue weight--- the opinions of certain Australian figures are given much more weight than their minority status in the literature deserves. The problem was never fixed, and the debate was longwinded. It seems silly to keep repeating it, since the positions are always the same.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Vice President of Promotion and Artist Development = speedy deletion?

Why does Wikipedia mark my entry as a candidate for speedy deletion? I wrote an article about Joel Klaiman who is EVP of Promo & Artist Development at Universal Republic Records, of UMG. I cited my sources as well, as a press release, can someone please help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimblot (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you have added a hangon tag. Now you need to create an article talk page by clicking on the red linked talk page link and explain your reasoning there. The article currently has virtually zero content. You need to establish the notability of the subject, assess this against the WP:Notability (people) criteria. So far his notability appears to be for being fired by Sony Records in 2005 [6], so it looks like the subject fails to meet these criteria, so other information needs to be found and sourced. Hope this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined, see talk page. However, as far as I can see the Google hits just report his firing and hiring... – ukexpat (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Festival Article The_green_festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki, and need some help. I posted an article on the Green Festival and it is flagged for deletion as non-significant event. I was going to add pictures, links to acts performing such as Lennie Gallant, etc. But there is no point if the article is going to be deleted.

If there is a space issue on Wiki, or if there is a problem with the content, then I would agree. As neither applies then I do not understand why a significant event such as this, promoting such good principles, would want to be deleted.

Other events in the local area are listed, and have been for some time, that were established in the same way. As the names 'grow' that perform at the festival, the links will also grow and we would look to do our best in keeping the details factual and linked.

As I am unskilled in Wiki then I need help to apply the correct process to resolve this.

Thanks,

67.201.144.51 (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Seth Stein, Michael Wysession (2003). An introduction to seismology, earthquakes, and earth structure. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 31. ISBN 0865420785.
^ For example, the classic d'Alembert solutions to the wave equation take the form of two such waves propagating in opposite directions with the same wave speed: $y=f(x-vt)+g(x+vt)\ .$ See Karl F Graaf (1991). Wave motion in elastic solids (Reprint of Oxford 1975 ed.). Dover. pp. 13–14.
^ Alexander McPherson (2009). "Waves and their properties". Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography (2 ed.). Wiley. p. 77. ISBN 0470185902. … a periodic wave is any function f(x) whose value varies in a repetitive and perfectly predictable manner over discrete intervals of some variable x.
^ Aleksandr Tikhonovich Filippov (2000). The versatile soliton. Springer. p. 106. ISBN 0817636358.

[Stein-1] Seth Stein, Michael Wysession (2003). An introduction to seismology, earthquakes, and earth structure. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 31. ISBN 0865420785.

[example-2] For example, the classic d'Alembert solutions to the wave equation take the form of two such waves propagating in opposite directions with the same wave speed: $y=f(x-vt)+g(x+vt)\ .$ See Karl F Graaf (1991). Wave motion in elastic solids (Reprint of Oxford 1975 ed.). Dover. pp. 13–14.

[McPherson0-3] Alexander McPherson (2009). "Waves and their properties". Introduction to Macromolecular Crystallography (2 ed.). Wiley. p. 77. ISBN 0470185902. … a periodic wave is any function f(x) whose value varies in a repetitive and perfectly predictable manner over discrete intervals of some variable x.

[Filippov-4] Aleksandr Tikhonovich Filippov (2000). The versatile soliton. Springer. p. 106. ISBN 0817636358.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 681: / Line 681: @@
 :Right, you have added a hangon tag.  Now you need to create an article talk page by clicking on the red linked '''talk page''' link and explain your reasoning there. The article currently has virtually zero content.  You need to establish the notability of the subject, assess this against the [[WP:Notability (people)]] criteria.  So far his notability appears to be for being fired by Sony Records in 2005 [http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop-np&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcoop%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fimages%2Fcustom_search_sm.gif%3BLH%3A65%3BLP%3A1%3BVLC%3A%23551a8b%3BGFNT%3A%23666666%3BDIV%3A%23cccccc%3B&adkw=AELymgXjZUsUwSheo5dhUjIhzobExy5yEs9MfefQANjNMzxKT03IpzbZmsoIIfN82Lj5wIgBIBxTNSRvuflvgR41zNO09K0PeOpEWcEwsCpmNUMG-1biyjBQDEEntKWvbW2b959kdE1j&boostcse=0&q=%22Joel+Klaiman%22&btnG=Search&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0], so it looks like the subject fails to meet these criteria, so other information needs to be found and sourced.  Hope this helps. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 ::Speedy declined, see talk page. However, as far as I can see the Google hits just report his firing and hiring...&nbsp;–&nbsp;[[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 03:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
+== The Green Festival Article {{La|the_green_festival}} ==
+Hi,
+I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki, and need some help.  I posted an article on the Green Festival and it is flagged for deletion as non-significant event.  I was going to add pictures, links to acts performing such as Lennie Gallant, etc.  But there is no point if the article is going to be deleted.
+If there is a space issue on Wiki, or if there is a problem with the content, then I would agree.  As neither applies then I do not understand why a significant event such as this, promoting such good principles, would want to be deleted.
+Other events in the local area are listed, and have been for some time, that were established in the same way.  As the names 'grow' that perform at the festival, the links will also grow and we would look to do our best in keeping the details factual and linked.
+As I am unskilled in Wiki then I need help to apply the correct process to resolve this.
+Thanks,
+[[Special:Contributions/67.201.144.51|67.201.144.51]] ([[User talk:67.201.144.51|talk]]) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)