Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

bias descriptions of organization and incident involving MV Mavi Marmara

MV Mavi Marmara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) _ the description of IHH _ the organization which purchased this ship for the Gaza Freedom Flotilla AND the narration of the account of the raid are biased

"The IHH is also a close supporter of Jihadist movement in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya. It has been accused of holding links to al-Qaeda and its leader is allegedly active in recruiting and arming would-be jihadis"

"Israeli Naval Forces communicated that a naval blockade over the Gaza area was in force and ordered the ships to follow them to Ashdod Port or to be boarded. The boarding started at 2 a.m. on 31 May 2010 and was completed by 8. Unlike the other vessels on the flotilla who came peacefully, dozens of Mavi Marmara's activists armed with knives, bats and metal pipes confronted the Israeli naval raid and immediately attacked the soldiers.[8] [9] In the violent clash that followed, nine activists were killed (according to the UN Report[10])"

PIDFweb (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources. And "PIDF = Palestine Internet Defence Force" does not lead me to believe you care that much for neutrality. So how about an admin formally notifies him of the sanctions and counsel him on NPOV.Cptnono (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This sourceIsrael Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is hardly neutral either. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

hmm _ thanks for response and for the information concerning the author of this _ however your decision over our neutrality based upon our name is a little tough! this is obviously not the place to continue any discussion on our neutrality but i feel i have a right to respond to the comment _ we exist to defend against israel 'Hasbara' efforts (a page on wikipedia that is also in dispute btw!) _ Would we be allowed to edit the Mavi Marmara page to at least counter the definition of IHH and maybe add a link to them in some way _ and also supplement the lack of details on the actual incursion by IDF? If you would be kind enough to tell me that's okay then we will have a go at our first edit on Wikipedia and _ i assure you _ do all we can to respect the neutrality that is obviously so important for this encyclopedia (I hope i've replied in the right place btw _ i did click your link but it said you reply on the page so hoping this is the right place PIDFweb (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you read our conflict of interest policy and suggest possible edits on the artcile talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal compressor … General help

Hello wiki editors, please excuse my typing, I am disabled and and using speech recognition. Currently it does not interact with wiki very well. Additionally I use a mini keyboard that does not contain a full set of braces and other symbols useful in the wiki markup language. A great deal of what my 57-year-old eyes read concerning the wiki markup language is confusing and does not make any sense relative to my I/O resources. However I'm having a great deal of fun trying to turn centrifugal compressors into a respectable encyclopedic article.

All my questions concern my efforts to update: centrifugal compressor

first as a newbie and a very poor editor I have made numerous updates just for the sake of small changes. I have currently discovered that keeping Microsoft word open on the left side of my screen and Wikipedia open to the article on the right side of screen has helped me increase my productivity, decrease my mistakes, and reduce the number of edits that I am burdening the wiki servers with. Is there an external editor which has all of the markup symbols selectable by mouse?

Second I have made mistakes incorrectly specifying a fair use details of graphics I have uploaded to wiki. Again my bad, my learning curve. What is the easiest way to correct this?

Third as an semi-expert in the field of turbomachinery aerodynamics, 35 years of experience working with very well known experts in the field, 11 years of consulting for the leading consulting firm in the world I am having a little difficulty in properly referencing the article as it is written. For example the similarities between different kinds of turbomachinery is self evident through first principles of physics. However, finding others that state the same thing in professional papers, journals or books is difficult. In fact most of the most advanced textbooks do not cover the science in as much detail as would be learned working for NASA or other aircraft companies. I will continue to make every effort to properly reference the article. Do you have any comments that you can share advising me in this area?

Fourth do you have any advice on dealing with pseudo-experts who insists on having non-academic content to articles? Going further, there are articles similar to centrifugal compressors; other dynamic turbomachinery that are improperly or incorrectly written. Is there a general overall category within physics or engineering that would allow an overall umbrella to be placed on this topic? In this way centrifugal blowers, centrifugal fans, axial compressors, axial turbines, radial turbines, mixed flow compressors etc. can be merged together so that they share specific subtopics. Specifically the fundamental physics of all that I listed are identical, this I can footnote with many textbooks. Am I allowed to delete poorly written articles and redirect to centrifugal compressors? Can centrifugal compressors be renamed?

Fifth and final I am not a mathematician and seriously need advice on the best way to write fundamental physics for dynamic axisymmetric turbomachinery. There are interval forms of continuity, energy, momentum and equations of state. There are differential forms of continuity, energy, momentum and equations of state. The equations can be written in Cartesian coordinates as outlined by NASA or polar coordinates is used by everyone else… GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce… You get the picture! The equations can be expanded to show the complexity of the full three dimensions or they can be written in a simple one-dimensional form. Is there board of mathematical experts I can help in this applied mathematics?

Thank you very much your help and your time, Martin koronowski,Mkoronowski (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise important points about the accessibility of Wikipedia to those editing using speech recognition or similar software. I do not have an answer to this but the Wikipedia:Help desk may be able to help. As you have noted many articles are not well written or contain inaccurate uncited statements. This is remedied only by editors working to correct this, and your help will be valuable. The question related to physics may be best answered by members of the WP:WikiProject Physics. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accessibility may also be of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Addressing some of the questions not answered by others;

• External editors. You may be interested in WikEd and Wikipedia:Text editor support. Microsoft word used as an external editor (and I guess most word processing packages) might solve your problem with selecting special characters by mouse although you can already do this with the standard editor screen so I am not sure what more you are looking for.
• Fair use details of image file. Click on the image and then just edit the page as normal to correct the details. Unless you uploaded the file to Commons rather than Wikipedia, in which case you will have to go there it edit it. However, I am not sure that Commons allows fair use at all so in this case you will have to upload it again to Wikipedia.
• The question of citing basic physics facts can be difficult especially when working on a more advanced article with advanced references. If you look hard enough, however, you can usually find what you are looking for. In one article recently I wished to state the purpose of an interrupter circuit used with an induction coil. I think I looked through about thirty texts which all jsut assumed the reader knew the purpose before I found one that actually stated it and I could cite. Failing that, if a knowledgable editor on reading the source could reasonably be expected to come to the same conclusion then it is ok to say it in the Wikipedia article - I'm sure that is stated in policy somewhere but I can't find it right now.
• Non-academic content - see WP:TRIVIA and WP:Popular culture
• Redirecting - this is allowed but it may be best to discuss with other editors first on the relevant page - ditto with renaming. Writing a "summary style" article with links to the individual articles may be more appropriate. Poorly written is not a valid reason for deletion or redirection, but it is a valid reason for improvement.
• Mathematics - as well as the wikiprojects already pointed to, there is a reference desk WP:RD/MA for mathematics and WP:RD/S for science.

SpinningSpark 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

thankyou, this is of great help! Mkoronowski (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A general problem with a particular user in several articles

Hello, For quite a while now, I have been having a dispute with User:Charlesdrakew. I feel as if he has been 'spying' on me. Several of the articles I created, he nominated for deletion or support its deletion if it had been nominated. When my IP had been falsely (this has been resolved with no consequences) accused of being a sockpuppet, he was the one to nominate, with no reason whatsoever. It started because my friend in real life, had been again falsely accused of being a sockpuppet and because I had supported him in his case, Charlesdrakew nominated my IP for blockage. He interrferes with everything I do and comments on it. When i had changed my signature very recently, he straight away made a complaint that it is too bright and distracting and he was the only one. He also was talking about me, quite unpolitely to another user. He thinks the articles I created are 'stinking piles of orginal research' and that they do not deserve to be here. He makes these accusations, often with no sensible reason. He also has been reverting some of my edits, always quoting WP:NOT and I have made sure it is all OK with that guide. I am worried that User:Charlesdrakew, will just find and try to delete any article or even some edits I make and it will waste my work and time. Another example, is when I had placed a 'See also: List of bus routes in ...' on two towns pages. He reverted them claiming Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but I have seen several like them on other pages, so I decided to add it. I would really appreciate some help with this as it has become extremely annoying.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide specific diffs of the edits in question? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here they are

1. [1] 2. [2] 3. [3] 4. [4] at 09:16 and 09:19, 21 April 2011

I can't find any of the ones of the sockpuppet investigation as these have been archived/deleted. There were more, I'm just not sure where they were. Thanks.  Adam mugliston  Talk  07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite normal that an editor on finding a problem contribution might check through a few of the other contributions from the same editor. If you do not want your work to be changed, added to, or deleted then you should not be editing on Wikipedia. The nature of this place is that nobody owns the work they contribute and that anybody can edit it. The only discussion should be on whether the work conforms to our policies and guidelines. On your specific examples;

1. A list of bus routes most definitely comes under WP:NOTGUIDE in my opinion except possibly in an article about a bus company.
2. Pretty much the same comment as 1. but not so clearcut. Do you have any reliable sources that indicate these details are actually notable for an encyclopedia entry?
3. Same comment, bus timetables are not notable and fail WP:DIRECTORY, although a summary of bus frequency might be acceptable. The rest of that edit is WP:MOS style issues.
4. This is precisely the same edit as #3.

On the matter of politeness, first of all, the etiquette here when making a complaint about another editor is to inform them and provide a link to the discussion. You have failed to do this but I have now done it for you. I agree that saying 'stinking piles of orginal research' is not very complimentary and need not have been so harsh. However, the comment does manage to be about the edits rather than the editor. Personal attacks on editors are not tolerated here but you must expect, and not be sensitive about, criticism of your work. The most productive response to such a comment is to provide references that show that your work is not OR. SpinningSpark 13:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC) and 13:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know I don't own anything and all that, but what I am tryinng to get through is that he has been commenting and going against verything I do and I think he is picking on me, which is not right. I realise things will be critised, but he does it to everything. Is it really that OK that he looks through what I do, I consider that spying and that is not right.  Adam mugliston  Talk  14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit history, and mine and everyone elses, is public and available for anyone to review. If Wikipedia did not want that to happen there would be no access to allowed to user contribution lists. Looking at a contribution history is not spying and addressing policy and guideline issues found there is not picking on you. Stalking an editor for the purposes of hounding them off Wikipedia is not allowed, WP:STALK states "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". If you think this applies to you then please offer some diffs showing edits which are clearly designed to spoil your enjoyment as opposed to merely putting right something that is against guidelines. SpinningSpark 14:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Would telling me to 'stop pissing off grown-ups' or 'take your lists of bus routes somewhere else' be an example of the above?  Adam mugliston  Talk  14:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already seen and spoken to the editor about those comments. They were not included in any of the diffs you originally provided so I was not aware of them when I first responded. My answer remains the same however, the most productive way forward for you is to find references backing up notability, or else accept that bus timetables are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bus company publications do not count because they are not independant, but newspaper articles discussing bus timetables would help establish notability. SpinningSpark 16:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not here to be told that the articles I create are notable or not. I am here, because I feel that Charlesdrakew is specifically picking on me. I have found evidence of his previous bullying not me, but to other users and by this I assume he is likely to do it again. Charlesdrakew for some reason does not like me and chooses to try and either upset or annoy me. I have friends, who create similar pages, like me and he never comments on their work. Their work is not backed up by what you call 'secondary sources', either. I have also asked you whether 'stop pissing off grown-up editors' and 'take your lists of bus routes somewhere else off Wikipedia' could be reported under WP:STALK. If you are unable to help me, please say so, so I can go onto mediation, failing that RfC, faling that arbitration. As for the notablity of the articles, that is just your opinion and interpretation of the guides. There are several people who say that the pages are notable.  Adam mugliston  Talk  16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you complain at a noticeboard about the behaviour of others, you can only expect that your own behaviour will be put in the spotlight too. See don't shoot yourself in the foot. The fact that other articles exist with similar problems is not an accepted reason for creating more of them, see WP:other stuff exists. As I said above, I have warned Charlesdrakew about incivility and I am prepared to take further action should he do it again. What were you hoping would happen? SpinningSpark 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for someone to tell Charlesdrakew to stop picking on me or something of that, so he doesn't appear wherever I edit and not revert my edits, before I have the chance to get suitable sources.  Adam mugliston  Talk  18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The way to get him to stop reverting your edits before you have a chance to get suitable sources is to get the suitable sources and put them in the article at the same time you are putting in the content. As far as the picking on you, it sounds like SpinningSpark has discussed being civil and is willing to take further action if he isn't. GB fan (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us get one thing straight here first. I have never accused Adam of being a sock puppet or supported any such accusation. I did point to an IP to be looked at during the investigation but that is not the same thing at all. I initially got some similar articles by User:Wilbysuffolk deleted before finding others written by Adam. I have advised Adam that he may be better off working at Wikia where original research will be accepted. This would be in his own interest as the stuff he is doing here is likely to be deleted when the Wikipedia community sees what is going on. I have had to crack down on attempts to spread this stuff into settlement articles and I will continue to revert text which is not supported by inline references to reliable secondary sources as required by WP:Cite. There are a number of editors, some of whom should know better, arguing in AfDs to keep this type of article and this is leading "no consensus" outcomes when closing admins treat these as a ballot instead of going on the quality of arguments put forward and upholding WP quality standards. And one more thing. The supposed quotes from my talk page paraphrase what I actually said and therefor should not be in quote marks. Have a nice day.--Charles (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam, you're getting a bit aggressive here. Although it's good that you're aware of the existence of an escalation route for disputes, I really don't think an arbitration case about bus routes would be a good idea for anyone involved. (Although some former bus related articles are also covered by Arbcom sanctions, including possibly the now-userfied Judaism and bus stops which was deleted in an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops - note the extensive use of secondary sources as references.) It would be a good idea for you to discuss these problems with your mentor rather than continuing this approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles, some time ago, about 2 months I think, you have nominated my IP address as a suspected sockpuppet, after Wilbysuffolk was a suspected sockpuppet of Crouch, Swale. You can't deny that. And how do you explain reverting a see also on a town's page, how is that against WP:NOT? You don't seem to understand, that it's not easy finding 'secondary sources', as bus routes are not the most popular subjects in press. I have reserved a book from my local library, but due to Easter, I won't be able to collect it until Tuesday. This is a book recommended by Stuart.Jamieson, and I hope to find sources there. Yes, you have 'advised' me to go to Wikia, but it was not in a polite manner, which is expected here in Wikipedia.

Adam, does it not occur to you that I could not have known that it was yuor IP? I reported an IP which I assumed at the time to be Wilbysuffolk's. You may have just forgotten to log in, but one way or another it was a sock puppet edit.--Charles (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really follow by any definition of "sock puppet edit" that I'm aware of. If it's not the same person then it's not a sockpuppet. (It might be a meatpuppet, but that is a different thing...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Given how closely these editors have been working together that is not a big difference.--Charles (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Demiurge1000, I do hope I will not have to go on to arbitration, but if all other methods fail I may be forced to do so.  Adam mugliston  Talk  17:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, well, anyway, you should talk to your mentor before doing so. (Maybe I said that already...) I do note that feelings have been running sufficiently high that Charles has engaged in what I consider some inappropriate WP:CANVASSing on this issue; I have left a note about that on his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over what constitutes "mainstream".

Discussion moved

 – to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional reserve banking Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the behavior of BigK Hex with regard the Fractional-reserve banking page. He has repeatedly been undoing edits on the grounds that he claims that the views being added are "not mainstream".

I and others suggest that most of the edits we are making are indeed "mainstream". So the argument revolves around the definition of "mainstream".

One may wonder how there could be any confusion about what is mainstream - the answer is that there is a (perhaps surprising) disconnect with the descriptions that appear in "textbooks aimed at students" and "peer reviewed research papers"/"The words of senior central bankers" who are of course the people that actually run the system of fractional reserve banking. It appears that the way that banking works in practice is too complex for students and so a simplified (and sadly misleading) version of the truth is placed in the textbooks. Much in the same way that a story about "electron shells" is taught to chemistry students because the real quantum mechanical explanation of electron energy levels is too complicated.

AFAIK, wikipedia considers research papers to be higher ranking than textbooks for students, so presumably the view of research papers is what wikipedia considers "mainstream".

A possible exception to this is if the research papers are very few in number, published in non-respected journals or the papers are too new and there has been no time for counter-papers. But in this case, particularly thanks to the recent efforts of Andrewwardjudd, we now have a large and varied collection of high quality papers and quotes from central bankers, that AFAIK are entirely unchallenged in the research community.

BigK Hex appears to be oblivious to the weight of evidence building up against him and merely repeats his claim that our views are "not mainstream". I have made repeated strenuous efforts to reach a consensus with him about the definition of mainstream on the talk page and elsewhere, but he keeps walking away from these debates, either declaring himself the winner before the debate is over, or refusing to answer, or he makes claims that we've had the debate before, so why discuss it again. His refusal to reach a conclusion in the debate on this leaves me and Andrewwardjudd unable to edit.

What can we do? Reissgo (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, when you make a complaint about another editor, it is good etiquette to inform them and provide a link to where the discussion is taking place. I have now done that for you.

There is a very long discussion on the article talk page and you have not provided any specific diffs to make review easier. I have not read all of the conversation (and it is unlikely anyone else here will either) much less understood this very technical dispute. However, a few points are clear to me on reading some of it;

• You are being opposed by other editors besides BigK Hex
• The arguments against you centre around undue weight rather than outright opposition to inclusion
• The opposition seem to be perfectly willing (in fact keen) to discuss issues on the talk page

Given those points it would seem that it would be possible to have agreement that the material you wish included goes in in some form. This requires you to enter into dialogue with the other editors. I suggest that you post on the talk page draft text to go in the article and then open a discussion. This is much better than back-and-forth editing in the article which is never a good thing. Concentrate on addressing their concerns about UNDUE, POV and FRINGE and hopefully you will be able to achieve a consensus. Try to modify your draft as concerns are raised. Stay away from arguments about who deleted what, why and when - this is never productive - concentrate on the facts and the sources that back them up. Honestly, this is the best possible chance of moving forward on this, content disputes are a nightmare to resolve any other way.

If you really find that you are stuck and cannot move forward then opening an RfC might be the way to go to get more editors involved, but really, make every effort to come to an agreement amongst the editors on the page first. Keep the RfC focused on as specific a point as you can, making the request too general will result in the RfC never coming to a conclusion. Keep it neutral - remember that the paragraph immediately below the RfC template is included in the transclusions so it is important that this sums up the issue properly without showing any bias to one side or another.

SpinningSpark 13:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just posting here to let User:Spinningspark know how much I appreciate the effort that s/he must have put into responding in such a thorough manner. Spinningspark is correct on every account, so there's little more that I could possibly add. Thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I will note that, from my observations, User:Reissgo seems to get frustrated when people do not address his requests -- although they've already been addressed with an answer that he may not have liked and then he decides to merely repeat the same request weeks or months later. BigK HeX (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SpinningSpark for your efforts. Unfortunately I feel it still leaves me rather stuck for several reasons. First, and simplest of all is that I do not know what RfC stands for.

I wish to address the key points you concluded one at a time:

*"You are being opposed by other editors besides BigK Hex"

This debate goes back a long way. Over the years I have found that I have been able to be able to debate with most editors in a reasonably constructive manner. I can not think of a case where other editors have walked away from discussions before they are completed like BigK Hex does repeatedly.

*"The arguments against you centre around undue weight rather than outright opposition to inclusion"

You are perfectly correct, but the "undue weight" revolves around "mainstream or not", so your point is not really in conflict with what I am saying.

*"The opposition seem to be perfectly willing (in fact keen) to discuss issues on the talk page".

In general, you are perfectly correct. Almost everything I want to discuss is answered by other editors and we have constructive debates. I say "almost" because there is one exception. That exception is the issue of what constitutes mainstream. If that issue is left unresolved then BigK Hex has the ability to remove my edits on the basis of "not mainstream" or "undue weigh- (because not mainstream)" at any time. He has done this repeatedly over a very long period.

I note that you say "Keep the RfC focused on as specific a point as you can" - well I could scarcely be more focused in my debating - there is only one issue - that issue is "what constitutes mainstream in the eyes of wikipedia".

With regard links to previous discussions. I did not realise that this was the place for them, but one such link is the (current) last comment in [discussion] on a cabal case (that seemed to fizzle out). Just in case it is no longer the last - the entry I think you should see is the one starting with the words "The position can be summarised as follows". BigK Hex never responded. Reissgo (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, RfC is Request for comment and is system for getting more editors involved in a discussion in order to help gain a consensus. The question "what constitutes mainstream in the eyes of wikipedia" is much too general for an RfC. However, as you already have a debate open at the mediation cabal, an RfC would be inappropriate, as was starting this thread here. Please continue to try to resolve the issue there and do not forum shop. SpinningSpark 09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of RfC, but sadly, I am still completely stymied as you say my issue is too general for RfC. The mediation cabal, did indeed seem like a good idea, but the editor that took up the case had only been on wikipedia for one week(!) and clearly did not have the experience or commitment to see it through. The case has just ground to a halt and I see not sign of it coming to any conclusion. I am not very knowledgeable about all the wikipedia systems myself, so I have no idea about what should happen in such a stalled case. This is precisely why I came here. This seemed to be the place to ask for advice. You say "Please continue to try to resolve the issue there", but if BigK Hex's last contribution to the debate there was to say "I will make no more contributions" then what can I do? Reissgo (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean RfC is unsuitable because you could not construct a specific focused question, I think you could if you put your mind to it. It is unsuitable because the issue is already being considered at the mediation cabal - and you took it there. Whatever problems you are having there, it is not appropriate to open a discussion on another forum until that one is closed. Take the problems back to the mediation cabal. If the current mediator is not capable of dealing with the issue, ask for another, or an additional mediator to become involved. Last time I checked there were some very experienced editors involved there. The biggest issue there as far as I can see is that BigK Hex has not agreed to mediation, or at least their name has not been put on the list. That is the first thing the mediator should be addressing, it won't go anywhere otherwise. SpinningSpark 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "and you took it there"... actually I didn't. Andrewwardjudd took it there. I would not have chosen to take the debate there myself because I once tried to employ some kind of mediation before with BigK and he refused. I made my points in the cabal before I had noticed how inexperienced the mediator was. Re: "The biggest issue there as far as I can see is that BigK Hex has not agreed to mediation" - ok so now the mediation is completely stuck. Re: "If the current mediator is not capable of dealing with the issue, ask for another, or an additional mediator to become involved." - I don't know how or where I could do that. The "Submit_a_request" page does not seem set up for people to say "can I have a more experience mediator please". Reissgo (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the error on who opened the thread. But you must deal with this on the mediation cabal page. State the problem and your request on the case page, and if that does not get a response take it to the project talk page. They must give you advice on any further steps, it would be very poor etiquette to do it here while the case is still open. I am going to formally close this thread now, please stop posting here. If you want to discuss that decision with me, talk to me on my talk page. SpinningSpark 07:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

Bob Parlocha

Hi, I am inquiring as to how to edit the Bob Parlocha entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Parlocha). Under the syndication section, we also carry his show from midnight until 6am seven days a week, and are not mentioned in the article. We also carry his show when other programs are not available. We are a public radio station located in Princess Anne, MD, on the campus of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, call letters WESM. Our website is www.wesm913.org if you would like to veryify our program schedule.

The section reads: Syndication: A decline in jazz radio audiences led KJAZ owner Ron Cowan to sell the ailing station in 1994. A leading fine arts station in Chicago, WFMT (through "JSN", its satellite radio affiliate), agreed to syndicate the show Jazz with Bob Parlocha, which he records in Alameda, California. The evening show was picked up by KUVO (Denver), WRCJ-FM (Detroit) and several other public radio stations, including Kansas and Alabama.[3] The leading jazz station in the western United States, KKJZ (Long Beach), began airing his program in early 2007.[4][5] The show is also carried by CJRT-FM in Toronto, Ontario.

We should be inserted somewhere in the above text. Thank you. 131.118.113.47 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If this fact has been noted in reliable sources then it can be added to the article together with citations to the source. However, it is advisable not to edit articles on a subject with which you yourself are associated. While this is not strictly forbidden it is often difficult for an involved party to write in a neutral way (required by policy on Wikipedia) and it is often best to wait for an independant editor to come along and take an interest. While it may be some time before this happens, it will eventually if the topic is truly notable. SpinningSpark 12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Disagreement in 'Human skin color' and 'Sun tanning'

In the articles Human skin color and Sun tanning (see also the talk page), I have added the following modifying statements (in italics) intended to neutralise what I consider as biased or unnuanced information:

Sentence 1: Tanned skin has been shown in the United States to be viewed both as more attractive and more healthy than pale skin, but not by the whole population.

Comment to this: This formulation gives an impression of that all Americans view tanned skin as 'more attractive and more healthy'. Critical objections: Which survey is this? Who has made and ordered the survey? Who answered the survey? Is the survey generally representative or maybe based on e.g. the readers of a fashion and lifestyle magazine? What are the concrete results of the survey? Do these results make the formulation above correct?

Here are the two sources to which the references show:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01527.x/abstract

Quotation: «The sample consisted of 191 students with a mean age of 14 years from five Victorian secondary schools.»

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/6/1009

Quotation: «Methods. A cross-sectional study, from all 50 states, of 10 079 boys and girls 12 to 18 years of age in 1999. Data were collected from self-report questionnaires [...]»

It is ridiculous that a person has used these marginal surveys to conclude with that all Americans consider tanned skin as a status symbol etc.

Sentence 2: [...] making tanned skin seem fashionable, healthy, and luxurious, but not by the whole population.

The article strongly gives an impression of that tanned skin colour completely has taken over 'the exclusivity' or that that nearly all persons in the Western world consider tanned skin colour as e.g. «fashionable, healthy, and luxurious». An academically untrained person reading these articles, might believe that 'exclusivity of tanned skin' is consensual. The formulation should be nuanced as quickly as possible.

I do not know in depth the American society, but I believe that e.g. in the political élite of this country, it is hard to find a white man who has tanned skin.

Otherwise, many formulations in the article seem to be cut out from an advertisement, yes, if not added by the producers themselves.

At the same time, I would like to make one aware of the user Ckatz, who has removed these neutralising statements. One may remove biased statements, but should not remove statements intended to nuance biased information. Furthermore, I marked a formulation with {{Who}}, but also this was removed by this user. It could indicate that this user is more interested in politics than in objective information.

I have started a discussion about this, but it is feared that this will be more based on personal opinions and agendas rather than science. That is why I find it best to ask for editor assistance already now.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source Examples says: "Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." I would argue for deletion of the polls and susbtitution of a reliably sourced opinion: "According to GQ Magazine" or some such. We should not say in Wikipedia's voice "Americans like a tan", at least not based on that kind of evidence. However, your good faith edits didn't really fix the problem, but created what I call a "POV quilt" ("Joe Botz is regarded as one of the most intelligent people in the world, except by those who think he is stupid"), and may have been reverted for that reason. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your assistance. It is a humourous term and example. (When that is said, it shall be added that my addition was modifying, and not directly opposing.)

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

John Wesley Powell

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The article on John Westly Powell says he lost part of an arm in the Battle of Shiloh (1862). The photo of Mr. Powell taken in 1871-1872 shows him using his left arm. However, the photo dated 1897 shows him without the left arm. Is this just the way one of the photos was reversed when reprinted? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.136.205 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

John Wesley Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Well spotted - yes, it looks as if one of those photos has been reversed. The one online source doesn't say which arm was injured, but perhaps one of the book sources might clear it up. I am copying this thread to the article talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What is protocol for an edit dispute with a named Wikipedia editor

Discussion moved

 – discussion continues at Talk:Battle of the Falkland Islands#Secret Service Section Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I added a piece to an existing page. My edit was verified by two cites to two sources by named experts, one a contemporaneous memoir by a professional in the field, the other by a recognised academic specialist.

When I returned, I found that my piece had been re-edited by a named editor. He too had added a citation - to an anonymous review on a blog.

I do not think this re-edit conforms to Wikipedia's own citation guidelines. However, he told me in the 'Talk' page that if I remove his re-edit, he will put me on the block list.

How should I proceed?

My disagreement is logged in the 'Talk' section, headed 'Secret Service Section'. The URL is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section

Hubertgrove (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the wordpress source as unreliable, as it is a blog. WP:RSN may provide confirmation of this. I have left a comment on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Jezhotwells, and the note you left on the talk page. The editor in question seems rather angry now. I have suggested I will remove his unsourced edit after one week. Is there anything I can do to protect myself and the re-edit if he goes crazy? Hubertgrove (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

Policy on transgendered people?

Hello all. I'm trying to avoid starting a nasty editing war with a certain "RafikiSykes" and another user, so I wanted to get some assistance from a third party. I had noticed that a large number of transgendered individuals recorded on Wikipedia had their birth names included in their articles. Being a transsexual woman, I understand firsthand how often transsexual peoples' birth names are rooted out and used by people who are convinced that the transperson in question is "faking," and in some sense, still their old gender, which has to be "revealed" by disseminating that birth name. I believe that it's a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy to assert that transpeople have to be hounded by their birth names, even though they are not that person any more, in a personal and legal sense. It seems that the only two times it would be acceptable to use the birth name would be if 1. the transperson explicitly and publicly gives permission to use the birth name, or 2. the transperson did a major amount of public work in their old gender.

"RafikiSykes" and the other user claim that because a transperson's birth name has been disseminated, that makes it a matter of public record. But in this sense, the name serves no purpose other than hateful gossip, hanging an albatross around the neck of people who've had their personal information carelessly thrown around by transphobic individuals. I don't think that removing birth names from transpeoples' articles removes any valuable information from an article. 69.244.221.134 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this from the top of the page to the bottom; it's just Wikipedia convention on discussion pages like this. No big deal. Danger (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should treat the birth name of a transgender person (or anyone who has changed their name) as both privacy issue as covered here and as possibly negative information. This means that unless the name is well sourced to reliable third-party sources (ie not gossip type sources or efforts by opponents to smear the person) or to the person themselves it should not be included. Using primary source documents like birth certificates or court records is not acceptable.

Another aspect of birth names is whether the name is relevant to the article. If reliable sources generally include the name when discussing the person, then I think it is reasonable to include it, especially if the person's change of name/transition is a significant part of their notability (like Micheline Montreuil or Ben Barres).

In general, I would suggest that when you remove a birth name to make a note on the talkpage of the article explaining why you have done so. As a controversial piece of information, in biographies of living people those who add the information must provide sources like those I've described above. I would caution you, though, against mass deletions of well-sourced name inclusions. Those I think are a matter of editorial discretion on whether the name is relevant to include and should be discussed on an individual basis.

You may find Wikiproject Gender studies helpful for discussing issues related to individual articles. Danger (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats-on/exhibitions/identity/image-gallery.aspx Ms Ashley has released this info and similar can be found for the others if needed. you chose to start deling various names from articles in many cases those people themselves have discussed a previous name etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposition that birth names of transgendered people are a private matter that should be dealt with case by case (has the individual released the information or was the individual notable under the prior name) and always reliably sourced. However, I wanted to add that there are circumstances where even reliably sourced information is trumped by other Wikipedia policies. A reliable source for a birthname is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion. Agree also that under WP:BLPPRIMARY, birth certificates and other public records are never acceptable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm the other user involved in this debate. I don't know about the other articles which this IP attempted this name redaction but I can comment on the two which I've contributed to: Enza Anderson and Nina Arsenault (who both get coverage in my local media). In both cases reliable sources were originally used for their names: The Indian Express for Enza's name (the link has since died and Wayback Machine doesn't log the site) and I believe one her columns in Fab magazine was the source for Nina's name. I've since updated the link for Nina's name to an article in Eye Weekly. I do agree with Danger's statement that their birth name should be sourced to the same standard as their date of birth. Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And a side note: we have a different user who has started editing the Nadia Almada article in removing her birth name, which is sourced to an interview with The Guardian. Tabercil (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the name from Enza Anderson. I've been unable to find any mention of her birth name in any sources and it doesn't appear pertinent to the article anyway. Danger (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Understandable - I've no luck in finding a fresh source myself. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

http://replay.web.archive.org/20060322192500/http://www.fabmagazine.com/miscthings/archive/288.html for enza so have put back the birth name mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit War on Charles Harrelson article

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

Hello,

I am seeking assistance regarding an 'Edit War' that is going on in the wikipedia article on 'Charles Harrelson'. I beleive I have been adding factually accuracte and verifiable content to the article only to have it deleted by the user Nkgal and others. The facts that I have added are specific to the murder of Sam Degelia Jr. One of the accomplices in the murder is a man named Pete Scamardo. It appears from the edits that there is a systematic attempt to keep any unfavorable about Pete Scamardo off Wikipedia. Can you please review the article edit history and the current edits and advise accordingly. How do I keep the facts and reference material on wikipedia? Should I use WP:DR? Thank you for your help and consideration with this matter. Sam Degelia (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to understand that you uploaded to Wiki Commons are not WP:RS. The discussion at the talk page has raised issues which you have not addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that your user name suggests a conflict of interest here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hoping to add several external links across several articles, but don't want to seem spammy.

I have links to a large amount of free media (produced by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Perfroming Arts), including media specific to arts topics, but also non-arts topics that influence or are influenced by the arts (some are audio, some video, most with contextual articles or teacher instructions). These resources are created with subject-matter experts and are intended to be distributed for free and without advertising. I would like to add these resources as external links to corresponding Wikipedia articles, as appropriate.

For example, we have a multi-part audio series about the influence of the space program on the arts (including episodes on Sputnik and Voyager). These seem like appropriate additions to the Sputnik and Voyager Wikipedia pages.

But understandably it would seem suspect if I started adding dozens of links to dozens of articles in a short period of time. Is there a recommended way I can do this without setting off the spam alarm? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyneal (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the best wat would be to upload these free files to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used in Wikipedia in many languages. If there is a lot of material, please contact: Sue Gardner, Designated Agent, Wikimedia Foundation, c/o CT Corporation System, 818 West Seventh Street,Los Angeles, California 90017,Phone: +1 (415) 839-6885,Facsimile number: +1 (415) 882-0495, who wil put you in touch with the right people. If you just want to add ELs to a few articles, I suggest that you announce your intent on the appropriate article talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John Prendergast

Discussion moved

 – to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#John Prendergast Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An article I edit, John Prendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was tagged with Conflict of Interest without the editor alerting me to his concern. He tagged the article, after I told him that I would have appreciated his communicating with me prior to reducing the size of a photo in the article. He never responded other than to place the COI tag.

I have since demonstrated that I am eager to make the article compliant with Wiki protocol and don't know why the subject of the article should be penalized for what seems to be my misunderstanding.

Additionally, these tags appear on the discussion page of the article:

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.

"The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.enoughproject.org/content/john-prendergast-co-founder. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2009090310049544.

"This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission."

Don't the above three paragraphs indicate that the article is acceptable?

Several editors have written extensively about this article representing a COI, yet none of them has suggested any edits nor made any edits to the piece.

I would appreciate an unbiased opinion.

Thank you, Jespah (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The COI Noticeboard discussion is here. It would be good, I think, to keep the conversation in a single place. JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

Ágnes Heller

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

The Ágnes Heller article urgently needs editorial attention and arbitration. There are ongoing political events in Hungary on which opinion is highly polarized. Individuals are being vilified without factual basis or justification. This happens in the Hungarian partisan press, and the practice is now spreading to Wikipedia entries. There are far more people ready to smear than there are people able to defend against smears. Stevan Harnad 03:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the issues on the article talk page. I see no discussion there at all from the involved editors in this dispute, please take it there first. Nor do I think you need to attract the attention of more uninvolved editors - I see that User:DGG has now started cleaning up the article who is a very experienced editor whom I have a great deal of respect for. There is also uninvolved User:Demiurge1000 who has made this very complaint on the talk page, that the people at war in the article are not discussing where they should, on the talk. There are also a couple of IP editors on the talk page who seem to agree with you about the bias and may be willing to help with some encouragement. Edit warring is not tolerated here and I advise you to follow that link and read the policy. This edit in the article by you is totally unacceptable. Commentary should not be placed in the article (talk page is for that) and sarcastic WP:POINT commentary should not be placed anywhere. I wish you the best with cleaning up that article but I think it is too early to start to call for arbitrators. SpinningSpark 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

EDITING an article

Well, I found an article with gross errors, but no 'EDIT' button..?? I checeked with FAQ and HELP and everything says "push EDIT button"... So, how do I correct obvious and gross erors in an article..?? By the way, the page was on Barry Soetoro and the first paragraph had at least 3 factual errors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.179.201 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, is currently semi-protected because of Repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material. Semi-protection means that only user who have registered a username and have done 10 edits and been around for at least 4 full days can edit it. You can request changes by going to the talk page, Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and adding a new section with this template, {{Edit semi-protected}}. Then in th the section clearly explaining what needs to be changed. Both what it says now and what it should say. Be sure it is either non-controversial changes or that you provide reliable sources to back up your changes. GB fan (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Grading question

I just edited a stub, making it bigger with more references, but I need some help with grading it. It is still categorized as a stub, and I do not know how to change this, and if another editor has to grade it. The article is Allomerus decemarticulatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please help, and thanks. Riceowl2014 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Any editor (including the editor who wrote it) can give any article any grade from Stub, Start, C or B as appropriate. In this case I think the article is B class, and I've taken the liberty to edit the talk page for you. The WP 1.0 bot has already been set to update quality statistics automatically using the grading we've provided on the article's talk page. --Deryck C. 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A nice clean, well sourced and well researched article. I concur with 'B' class. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with somebody changeing personal information

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

Hello,

My name is Steve Morales. I'm with a media company that handles all Tiki Ghosn's online media. Somebody keeps going into his page and changing the win-loss record to reflect a loss from an opponent.We have all the documents and proof of a win. We know who is doing it and I change it back everyday. I was told to contact Wikipedia so the account can be frozen. How do I go about this?

63.111.216.123 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Steve Morales

I think you need to contact the OTRS team about this, prove your identity and have them make sure the article is not edited to give incorrect information about your client. See Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) about how to do that. --Deryck C. 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note to other editors, the article is Tiki Ghosn. 63.111.216.123, have you taken a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability? As it stands, the source given[5] shows Genki Sudo as winning the fight against Tiki Ghosn (assuming that's the fight you're talking about). - SudoGhost (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it back, since the source given reflects a loss, and it matches the rest of the article which states 8 losses. (Also after noticing Genki Sudo's last name, just wanted to note that my user name is from the UNIX command Sudo, and has nothing to do with this person). However, after doing some digging, I found this[6] which shows that Tiki Ghosn won the fight. 63.111.216.123, do you have any other sources that can verify this? - SudoGhost (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter for OTRS, it is irrelevant whether or not Mr. Morales is who he says he is. Mr. Morales needs to point us to the official results of this sport. Is there a governing body with an online page showing official results? The article cannot be allowed to disagree with sources the article itself links to on anybodies say so. The only way it can be changed is to provide better sources. Only after that is done would we consider locking the page to protect it. SpinningSpark 09:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

new user help desk problem

Answered

 – Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked a question on the new user help desk but it posts with a light blue box around it and does not format to fit the page. I have tried to correct this but I can't. Can you fix this for me please? Also, please tell me why it happened. Thank you.Pdos123 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdos123 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That happens when you indent, you need to start typing all the way to the left. "It's not a bug, it's a feature." --CliffC (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to deliberately indent, use a colon (:) to provide the indentation. More information on this and other aspects of formatting at Help:Wiki markup. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Sweden-United States Relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

It became better when Thorbjörn Fälldin became Swedish prime minister in 1976, and following Olof Palme's death in 1986 and the succession of Ingvar Carlsson as new Prime Minister, Swedish-American relations significantly improved. This also due to the official excuse from the american vice president Walter Mondale in 1978 stating that "In the case of Vietnam, you were right and we were wrong".

Where did the author find this information? It cannot be found elsewhere. It would be helpful to give references for this statement.

Friederike2009 (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You should tag the suspect passage by placing {{cn}} after it. If there is no response after a reasonable time, you can then delete the passage. Alternatively, you can delete it straight away if you are reasonably convinced it is wrong. SpinningSpark 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I contact the author?

Friederike2009 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of the article, Talk:Sweden – United States relations, is the best place to contact the author(s) of the article. You can also check the history to identify who added what to the article; in the case of the Mondale quote, it was added in January by an unregistered editor.[7] —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I determine who edited changes?

Richardson, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently discovered an entry in this work titled: Richardson, Texas. Upon reading it I found it to be rather one-sided and biased and I attempted to add some paragraphs to balance the information. However those paragraphs subsequently disappeared without notice or comment and I am trying to determine who did this so I can determine what I did wrong.

As it stands the article is largely copied straight from the website posted by the municipal administration and seems to have come from the Chamber of Commerce. My posts presented facts derived from the city-manager's most recent budget, a 500+ page document available publicly which tend to be more realistic than the website. I also linked to a site which is contracted by the city to publish the City Charter and Code of Ordinances, factual, public information which is publicly owned.

Please direct me to a person with whom I can discuss changes to this article. Thank you. Cor resident (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You can look at the Help:Page history of the article to see the record of edits to it. Sounds like this would be a good topic to discuss on the WP:TALKPAGE of the article. DMacks (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The OP had already posted to the talk page but has not had a response. This edit in removing one of the OPs posts has the summary "Deleted unreferenced, opinionated and inaccurate information. Also deleted a dead ref. link". However, the ref provided by the OP was not linked anywhere so could not have "gone dead". The other editor would seem to believe that only online sources are acceptable which is a misunderstanding. SpinningSpark 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, the article reads exactly like a municipal promotional piece, and needs a thorough rewrite for encyclopedic neutrality and tone. Any material taken verbatim or closely paraphrased from another website is a copyright violation and can be removed at any time without further discussion. In extreme cases, the Wikipedia article may also be speedily deleted.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Repurposing (television broadcasting)

Repurposing refers to the practice in which a series is rebroadcasted in order to make additional revenue, either on the original network that it was aired or another cable network. Repurposing may occur in a short period of time, it may happen in a very short window such a few months, a few weeks, or even just a couple of days.

Once the television and broadcasting companies adapted to cable, it was said that the practice of original run repurposing marked the first significant adjustment to distribution practices beginning in 1999. Some will argue that the role of conglomerated ownership actually caused concern as networks announced repurposing arrangements that actually favored products from commonly owned studios such as — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedom (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have something you need assistance with? GB fan (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It may have had to with three near identical articles with merge banners: Repurposing (Broadcasting); Repurposing (television series); Repurposing (Media Industry). Having examined them, I have performed the merge and redirected the pages to Repurposing (television series). Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate cite

Boutonnière (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article on boutonierres inadequately cites my book History of Men's Fashion: What The Well Dressed Man is Wearing (Pen & Sword, 2008): the list of flowers for persons and occasions clearly derives from my book (at pp 160-163) and there is no note to reflect this; the same probably goes for the earlier reference to the gardenia. Moreover the publication details of my book need to be cited, please. Nicholas Storey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.39.255.103 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've standardized/improved the format of the Storey citation and cited it for the list following "Traditionally, certain flowers are associated...". Hope this helps. --CliffC (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing for Indian Journal of Scientific Resaerch

Please included my journal in the name of Indian Journal of Scientific Research(IJSR) published from Varanasi,India on behalf of Global Academic Society in the month of July and December.All the journal information are available on journal website www.ijsr.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.25.84 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

writing an article

In writing a new article - how long do i have to write it? For instance, I would start, write about 50 words then have to log off to do something else...Would my first essay be deleted after x amount of time or can i come back to it when time is available? Sources - whilst i understand the basic concept of sources, as I regularly use these when writing a book, I have read the advice on this, but is there a 'template' article that shows how to include sources and citations for editors? 12:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)