User talk:Adrian M. H.

Welcome

New users: To begin a new topic, please click the + tab to start a new section and sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). If you need to return to an archived topic, just start a new message as normal. I will usually reply here rather than on your talk page. This keeps discussions together and makes them easier to follow.

Archive 1 • Archive 2

Another question regarding "press bias" in writing an article

Adrian,

Thanks for the reply to my question regarding an article on the Pring-Wilson murder trial and retrial. I noticed that the articles are supposed to favor "majority" opinions over "minority" opinions, but I've found that the press coverage of this trial has been universally biased against the defendant, making the "majority" opinion questionable.

The problem appears to be three-fold. First, the trial about a "rich kid" killing a poor street kid is essentially a "man bites dog" story, and many reporters reported it that way, making or selecting the "facts" fit that kind of story. The second may involve some ideological concerns by some in the press regarding reporting crimes about non-whites. The third is that most reporters have never seen a street fight except in the movies, giving it an unreal, sometimes childlike view about what really happens in these physical confrontations.

One example of press bias has to do with the knife used-- brand named the Spyderco "Military" knife. This gives the impression that it's an assault type weapon, which is misleading. It's a 4 inch utility knife (which is legal to carry), and while the situation involved a stabbing, the knife is poorly designed for this purpose. Reporters generally failed to mention this.

Another example has to do with the number of stab wounds. The press reported 5 stab wounds on the victim, 4 of which were superficial and non-life threatening. Only one was significant. By reporting only that there were "5 stab wounds" the reader was left with the distinct impression of a frenzied attack, which is not supported by the medical evidence.

It would also seem that the press generally took the prosecution side in reporting and ignored the defendant's story. They described the fight as being between the victim and the defendant, noting that the victim was "smaller" than the defendant. This ignores the possiblity that the victim and his cousin were the aggressors, making it two against one, with the victim's cousin being as big as the defendant. Except for Saltzman in the Boston Globe, virtually all the other reporters failed to note that the cousin was a bouncer at a local bar and an experienced fighter (with several arrests for assault).

My question is this: can I take a "minority view" if that view is closer to the facts of the case?

Ursa98 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject. WP:WEIGHT, which is a sub-section of WP:NPOV, states that we must not give an unfair or imbalanced amount of space to minority viewpoints, and crucially, it goes on to include verifiable statements in that. So what that essentially says is that even the facts must be given a prudent level of weight, which may be difficult to gauge. In the next sub-section, which is about research, it suggests adjusting the weight of the facts according to the reliability and reputation of their sources. WP:RS comes into play there, but there is a degree of subjectivity involved. Newspapers, though they can sometimes be prone to partisan editorial and biased reporting, are generally regarded as reliable sources, not least because they check the facts. In Britain, for example, there is a tradition of partisan newspapers (particularly the tabloids) when it comes to certain subjects (usually politics, immigration, and such like) but their reporting is rarely shown to be grossly inaccurate. I think they still take pride in getting the facts right, for the most part. Anyway... I would approach this article by listing every known verifiable fact and making a note of how many sources I have to back them up. Then try to decide how reliable each of these sources are likely to be and note that. Then you should have a rough picture of the facts of the case and how much weight they received from reliable media, which should help you to decide how much weight to give to contradicting and/or minority reports. Try to write your first draft as factually as possible – absolutely bare bones at first – and then you can fill it out to paint a fair picture of the story. Minority views can be reported in such a way as to leave a certain detachment between you and the facts; "The Daily Echo reported that . . . but was the only newspaper to publish this." I recommend that you do that either offline or in a sub-page of your user space. Adrian M. H. 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased opinion

Adrian M. H., thank you for your unbiased support in the William Remington article. Your comments were absolutely correct. If you are interested, there are quite a few of these articles regarding known loyalty and security risks that are being maintained by one person that paint a rosey picture of known communists, loyalty, and security risks. Would you be interested in working with me to clear out the nonsense, so to speak? Please let me know. Thank you. Jtpaladin 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help, though it proved harder than some 3O cases! I appreciate the request, but I'll have to decline in this instance, because I think it is better to approach multiple cases with the assistance of a variety of editors to avoid any risk of accusations of bias and meatpuppetry and to lend more weight to any consensus should it be needed. Feel free to make use of 3O or RFC, and maybe use RFF and the peer review system to get an outside assessment of specific articles without involving the dispute. Adrian M. H. 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ProfMozart and Romano-German articles

Thanks for engaging with ProfMozart about his Romano-German hobby horse. I am one of the "deleting" editors, if the term is appropriate. Xtreme racer is another. ProfMozart regularly blanks his talk page, so the history of our discussions with him are not immediately apparent. Here are the discussions regarding

• Roman German hybrid
• Fake Rome
• Romano German talk page (as this one was a speedy delete)

If you wish to peruse the history of User talk:ProfMozart you can see our efforts to get ProfMozart to provide substantive sources for his rather odd, often argumentative claims. He finally provided vague references to medieval German poems, including the Grail romance Parzifal. I do not see much hope of an article materializing out of all this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't either, to be honest. From his post at EA, I got the distinct impression that it would not be a straightforward case. I'm quite happy to leave him to his own devices and if he recreates these pages and they get deleted again, so be it. Thanks for the info. Adrian M. H. 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuals Partners in Infoboxes

I completely agree with your points regarding listing all partners, or no partners, regardless of sexual orientation or inclination. I'm not sure a consensus exists on the issue. Where should I initiate this discussion? I'm opposed to beginning it at WP:LBGT because I'm not sure that would be a neutral arena. Thanks. Talmage 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of the applicable infobox is usually the starting point with an issue as specific as this. Often, editors like to provide a link to the discussion in a post at the VP so that more people are aware of it. Adrian M. H. 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: William Remington

Adrian, the dispute is settled on the content of the article. If another editor demands the last word on the talk page, why not let him have it? Otherwise this could go on for a long time and possibly fan the flames again. Just a thought. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate repeated incivility and bad faith from argumentative editors who refuse to accept that they are being helped in good faith simply because the 3O did not meet with their approval. I have continually tried to explain things that should be obvious to him and each attempt is met with further argument and unwarranted criticism, but no appreciation for the continued effort to satisfy him. I consider the matter dealt with as far I am concerned and the editor in question has prejudiced the chance of receiving any future assistance from me. Adrian M. H. 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of third party opinion procedures

Re: your opinions on the Loyola 2L dispute. You provided an opinion before listening to both sides, as is shown by the timestamp of their opinion.

This is in violation of Wikipedia rules regarding third opinions. These rules are described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly."

Having jumped to a conclusion, you had no choice but to defend it, regardless of what the other side said. This is as absurd as a courtroom where the judge makes a decision after listening to just one side and spends the rest of the trial defending their decision against the other side.

In the process you effectively ruined the third party opinion request. I then made a second request, to give people other than you a chance to opine, yet you ruined that one too, by posting in it three times.

In the future, please follow the third party opinion procedures. --Updatethis12 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to copy your arguments from the article's talk page. Anomie did not jump to any conclusion without first investigating what is a very simple dispute, and the same applies to me. It is very clear cut, and the edit history bears witness to that. You are heading towards repeated AGF contraventions. Your edit cannot meet WP:V and therefore has no place in that or any article. Adrian M. H. 22:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Podilsko-Voskresenska Line

Hey, a user replied to your comment on Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. I won't reply for now, I just want to know what you have to say about User:Hillock65's comment. — Alex^(U|C|E) 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. Adrian M. H. 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you see this faster, the station names are only in Ukrainian in the subway itself. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hi, Adrian M. H.. I've decided to take on your medcab case. If you have any concerns about this, please tell me, otherwise I look forward to resolving the case with you. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised and disappointed that they decided to go for mediation. I came upon this dispute at WP:3O and having responded to it, I thought the two parties involved would eventually come to a suitable compromise. They were both responding positively to my assistance last night, though they began to go around in circles with their replies to each other, so I suggested that they sleep on it and discuss it further today. You can see my input on the article's talk page, and I don't really have anything further to add. I would appreciate it if you would leave me out of the dispute from now on. If it wasn't at 3O, I would not have stepped in anyway. Adrian M. H. 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I sent this message because you were listed as one of the involved parties, not realising you were only there because of 3O. I'll leave you out of proceedings then. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hope it goes well for you; I noticed it was your first case. Adrian M. H. 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

About 2007 F3 Euroseries

You have changed the 2007 Euroseries page - it said Haralds Šlegelmilhs, but you changed it back to Harald Schlegelmilch. His real name is Haralds Šlegelmilhs, so it is the correct variation. 159.148.202.14 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

verifiability is a key policy. Unless you can provide a reliable source that proves this, you cannot go against other established sources, which all refer to him as Harald Schlegelmilch. That includes, the official F3 Euroseries website and press documentation, Autosport magazine, MSN, etc. Repeated attempts to insert unsourced material may be classed as disruption. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

http://autosports.delfi.lv/public/30696.html, http://autosports.delfi.lv/public/30677.html, http://autosports.delfi.lv/public/30668.html. 159.148.202.14 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not English language sources, and the English Wikipedia has a policy about names, which extends to proper nouns in text: use the common English version where possible and since our results tables only contain one name per entry, we use the English name. This procedure is applied to all motor racing articles on the English Wikipedia. All English language sources use the English interpretation of his name as well. I suggest that you live with the established consensus and guidelines. Adrian M. H. 14:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hello, Akhristov. Just posting to let you know that I won't be involving myself in your mediation case, as I want to remain impartial and don't really have anything to contribute beyond the third opinion. But I hope that it brings a positive outcome for both you and Kuban Cossack. Kind regards, Adrian M. H. 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'll let you know what the result is. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks Adrian

You gave me some pointers on my first wikipedia submission re: footnotes (editors' section). I haven't fully gone over it all, but will attempt to make changes soon.

Sorry about the trouble: for a novice not so computer savvy, navigating this site can be a little intense.

Thanks so much for all your help! Nomoreworldwar 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. You can post again in this section if you have any more questions with which I can help. Adrian M. H. 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like your userpage

I think it's literally one of the best ones I've seen on Wikipedia, but then again, I don't look at many people's pages, your is one I stumbled across. =) Would you mind, since I'm such a noob, if I use some of the elements on your page? Maybe some tips on how to make a good userpage? Crad0010 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure; it's obviously licensed under GFDL anyway! Although, if you'd like to make your something of your own design, I can help you with that. You can get more inspiration (as I did) from the Hall of Fame at The Transhumanist/User page design and there is a userpage Wikiproject around somewhere that has a place for requests for assistance. Not sure if it's still active. Drop by if you have any questions. Adrian M. H. 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Adrian,

I appreciate your feedback on my questions about citations. I was wondering if you could check my recent contributions and see if I am doing something wrong. It has stopped for the moment but Charles usually reverts my requests for citations. Any help would be appreciated if I have erred in my edits. We seek to make the articles balanced and present all sides.

Thanks!I vonH 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Much needed dispute resolution

Can you please resolve the dispute on the List of Mario series enemies as TTN will not back down after being outvoted and out debated in a consensus discussion. He is denying admin authority and is ignoring a clear consensus against his point of view. Please tell him to stop so we can get on to more worthwhile things and make him understand that OOU info isn't needed, and there is a consensus against him and it's about time he gave up and faced the facts. Henchman 2000 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I might look into it, but if one editor is ignoring consensus, I doubt if I will be able to offer any further persuasion. If the dispute continues, I recommend using either mediation or RFC if you have not already tried both. More info at WP:DR. Regards, Adrian M. H. 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless you, dear Adrian...

Were my brother to read that subject headline, he'd ask: What are you, a nun caught in 1950...but I don't care. BLESS YOU for pointing me to adoption. This wiki world is too scary to go it alone...smiles.Nomoreworldwar 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not-trivia section heading

Adrian, I appreciate your response to my New Contributors Help Page query. I'm determined to replace Trivia as a section heading, so am soliciting advice as to what section heading would be appropriate. Considering that the surname of Kliment Voroshilov has a Disambiguation page mentioning numerous eponymous items, even more than are included in the present list on his page (which can be expanded to suit), I would not incorporate them into the body of the article. In light of this, what would you suggest? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: Done! Thanks for pointing me to the "avoid trivia" directives; that did help (upon rereading!). -- Deborahjay 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I would probably go with Eponyms as a suitable non-trivia heading. Adrian M. H. 21:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD invite

Adrian, an article you commented on has been nominated for deletion: Romano German, moved to Romano-German culture. Stop by if you wish. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that from ProfMozart's discussion page. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the West Highland Free Press article, being a lowly editor I wasn't sure that I was correctly stating wikipedia's position. All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Adrian M. H. 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Full Rigged Ships

Hello Adrian - Found some unexpected time tonight to work on the article: footnotes reformatted (I give up upon alternate special markup for repeated footnotes :), Section titles rewritten, two paragraphs repositioned, and minor text/typo editing. Hope that you like the changes. So.. back to a particular request. It is good to confirm that in spite of this article's ongoing editing, it has been indexed by Google and no doubt by other search engines as well. With that mind I will ask you again, as an editor can you sign off that this 'article' conforms fairly well to Wiki standards, and thereby can the two large boxes at the top of the page, announcing the article's deficiencies be edited down to smaller text with less emphasis. It is a bit uncomfortable, to immediately see large announcement boxes at the top of one's article that proclaim deficits. I would predict this would drive some potential visitors off the page before they has chance to read the material. best regards, Ben ~~~~

Hi Ben. I'll sort the refs for you and see if I can get a lead section in there (which is very important, as I said at RFF). I'll keep it brief (not being an expert in this subject) and you can expand it later per WP:LEAD. The formatting and layout is close enough that you (or anyone) can remove the {{Wikify}} tag (I'll take it out while I'm editing it), but I think the {{essay}} tag is still relevant. Don't be too embarrassed by a few tags; they are not there to shame anyone, but to encourage specific improvements. But there is no alternative to tags and they don't get smaller! No-one signs off articles (except in GA reviews, of course); WP is supposed to be a collaborative and classless society in which we all have to use our judgment. Adrian M. H. 14:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: There is a link on the essay tag that goes to How to copy-edit, which is worth reading, and there are further links at the bottom of that page, including the Guide to writing better articles. I have sorted the refs now, with extra data (a la WP:CITET) and no repeats, and a brief lead is now in place, which could use some expansion. Adrian M. H. 15:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Adrian -

Thanks and much appreciation for your understanding and continued editing tutorial on behalf of this article. I'll next dig into How to copy-edit, Guide to writing better articles and WP:CITET.

Now I better understand what constitutes a Lead Section, and will look closely at the markup for your revision of footnotes. Understand what you are saying about editing tags top page. Enjoy the remainder of your Sunday.

best regards, Ben Merlynne6 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Jewish Museum

Dear Adrian,

I see from previous posts that you are very helpful with novices so I'd like to ask your input on a post for The Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco. The text was submitted by my PR firm, which I've since learned was not an appropriate action. That said, the museum deserves mention and is notable for its design by architect Daniel Libeskind. Currently flagged for "conflict of interest," I'd appreciate it very much if you could help guide me on how to put this entry into compliance with community standards. Many thanks for your time.

Shann23 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it if I get a moment. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contribs show nothing but this post, so the article must have been deleted. There has never been an article at Contemporary Jewish Museum (no deletion log) so I cannot help any further unless you know the exact title that you used. Adrian M. H. 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, thanks for your response. I should have explained that a colleague of mine did the original post, and it is found as follows: The Contemporary Jewish Museum We are looking for your guidance on how to comply with wikipedia standards, thanks again, Shann23 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No wonder I could not find it – that contravenes the naming conventions by using the definite article. The first thing that I will do is move it – then I will make a quick check for online sources, because I have concerns about its notability. Because I'm not in a position to find likely offline sources such as newspaper and magazine articles about this museum, I would appreciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible if you know of the existence of such sources. In its current unverified state, I should really stub it. Adrian M. H. 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

From Special:Whatlinkshere, I found Constance (Connie) Wolf, which almost certainly fails WP:N. Again, if you know of suitable sources that will allow it to meet this guideline, let me know. Adrian M. H. 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, thanks so much for hanging in there with me. I will add several links here but many newspaper citations are on pdf so let me know how I might send to you in that format. In the meantime, here are some links that verify the status of the museum Another point in its favor is architect Daniel Libeskind, who has a Wiki page.

Thanks!!

FORBES.com http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2007/05/14/businesswire20070514006422r1.htm

SAN FRANCISCO Business News.com: http://sanfrancisco.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=118890&type_news=latest

SAN FRANCISCO SENTINEL http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=2117

If you want to stub the post, that seems fine as well. Anything to remove our "conflict of interest" flag and might that give us a way to start again correctly?

Again, I appreciate your help. Shann23 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good start. The first URL is dead, but it looks like there is enough available to demonstrate notability per WP:N, especially with the offline content. If it were just down to the Libeskind connection, that would not be enough, because notability is not inherited. That's why the Constance Wolf article will probably have to go to AFD unless specific, dedicated source material can be found that establishes her notability independent of the museum (even though those treatments will probably approach her career from the perspective of the CJM). If you would like me to use the PDFs, you can upload them to a server or file transfer site, but I don't use e-mail addresses with Wikipedia. It might be better if you make use of them yourself. Adrian M. H. 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism dispute

Hi Adrian. In case you're not watching my talk page, I thought I'd let you know I posted a response there. Thank you. Charm ©† 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes not working out

I see you've been working on my post titled Omar Yussef. The problem is that I don't understand how to "clean up" the post. You've tagged that it needs "cleaning up", but I'm supposed to guess what that means. I'm confused by the ref codings -- I believe I've followed the instructions, but they aren't showing up as they're supposed to. Can you help me with that? FOr example, there are supposed to be three references at the moment, but only two show up and the text of the third one has been moved entirely to the References section.

...In an earlier post, I said that these things were not explained in clear English and you seemed not to agree. What I meant was that Wikipedia shouldn't be all about the coding -- it should be about the content. I have all the content and references lined up, but it's very problematic for someone who doesn't understand technical terms to get that content onto Wikipedia. For example, why isn't there a simple message anywhere saying "Put your content here, click this button, and x days later it'll either be an entry in the Wikipedia or you'll have to answer questions about it"? In other words, a guide for people who aren't computer programmers like you.

By the way, did you add some codes to the footnotes? When I look at what's now on the page there appear to be extra codes in the References which I didn't put there and I don't understand what effect they are having. In any case they're not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annavollans (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP is not "all about coding" - it's pretty simple to learn (a gazillion vandals manage to pick it up remarkably quickly) and you don't need coding specialisms. No, you're not supposed to "guess" what the tags advise you to do - you're supposed to go find out. Like checking the guidelines, such as the MoS. And I'm not a programmer; read my user page and you'd know that. No, I did not add any code to the footnotes - the mess that you see there is your doing and I think it would be more productive for you if you were to figure it out for yourself. There is a simple guide at the top of my second archive if that helps. And please remember to format comments properly and add a signature. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: third opinion

Sorry, I thought I was supposed to move it when the discussion was over or when everybody made a compromise. Mr. Killigan 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Adrian M. H. 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag on The perfect robbery

I've slightly altered the wording on your deletion box on The perfect robbery in the hope that this will stop the director of the film getting upset, I hope you don't mind! LookingYourBest 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; thanks. Although there shouldn't be any need to pander to abusive vandals! Adrian M. H. 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3O

Hi, I'm Joie de Vivre. I recently had an unpleasant experience at 3O to which you are tangentially related. I wanted to ask you to clarify the meaning of something you said in an edit summary.

The sequence of events at the 3O was as follows: the first event was my request for a third opinion at 21:11 on July 12. The second event was GTBacchus responding to the request at 22:15, also on July 12. At 8:09 the next day, on July 13, I was chastised by User:DRosenbach, where they said the following:

It seems that you already have a 3PO involved. Are you unhappy with his/her perspective and wish to garner increased involvement? I don't think this is the place to do it.

This, of course, is a total misrepresentation of me, as I requested the 3O before GTBacchus responded. At 8:55, you removed the request, saying that GTBacchus had "already" provided assistance. Did you mean that he already provided assistance after my request, or did you have the same opinion of DRosenbach, that my request was superfluous because he had already provided a response? Please respond. Thank you. Joie de Vivre° 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He provided assistance without removing the entry at 3O; that is all. This might have been because he provided his opinion independently of the 3O project without seeing it listed, or he merely forgot to remove the entry while he concentrated on the task of assisting with your dispute, which can happen sometimes. When an editor notices this, usually by visiting the talk page in question with the intention of providing a response, it is normal procedure to clear out the redundant entry. This is not to be taken as anything other than regular housekeeping. It is clear to anyone who wishes to check that your request predates GTBacchus's response, and I am sure that no one would claim otherwise without first checking the history. I am sure that DRosenbach would not have jumped to the wrong conclusion without checking; do you know what prompted DRosenbach to make his comment? It reads as if he is referring to a second 3O request or similar. Adrian M. H. 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Adrian thanks for consolation on my failure/withdrawl at Afd that you mentioned on Editor requests. I only mentioned it because I must of been searching for the wrong person and was glad to be corrected and fuzzy!. I see you all the time on Ea/R and you are a great and very civil editor (who doesn't mind the odd ribbing!) Mike33 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mike. Adrian M. H. 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page tabs

Thanks for your comments on the proposal.

As I wrote when the "+ tab" issue was raised recently, I see no problem with it, based on my own experience of finding my way around WP. It logically equates to adding something new.

Several people said that it took them months to figure this out, though. So even though it's not a problem for you, it is for other people. Have you asked non-Wikipedian friends if they can figure out how to leave a comment if they see an error in an article? I've asked several of mine, and they weren't even aware they could edit the article without logging in.  :-) I think our interface needs some serious revamping to continue attracting contributions from passers-by.

Would you be opposed to one of the shorter variants, like "New topic"? — Omegatron 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the + sign. The width of the tabs is too wide when all tabs are visible, leaving the Twinkle tab for SD right under the watchlist link. Having to make sure I don't click in a hurry.

The point is to be readable to newcomers, not experienced editors with customized interfaces. You can make the tabs say whatever you want on your end. I have "edit this page" shortened to "edit", for instance.

if(document.getElementById('ca-edit')) {
        document.getElementById('ca-edit').firstChild.innerHTML = 'Edit';
    }

— Omegatron 12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I made an addition to one of the other poll sections in which I suggested a second-choice alternative of "new section". "New topic" would be OK as well. Thanks for the JS code. Adrian M. H. 13:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my page...

Hi adrian... I am confused as to why the free self help site that has helped me reclaim my bank charges was removed.... This was a mission statement and explanation as to what this self help forum is all about.... It isn't here for any commercial advertising as the site is not a commercial one....... I am not trying to be funny or rude....I am just confused as to why there is a commercial site called consumer action group on here... But the free one is removed?? All legal beagles does is support claimants....give advice....supply free template letters and offer a chat room for live help... They haven't taken any money from myself or any other member......

What would I be able to put on wikipedia to explain what this helpful site is all about???

Also under 'Bank Charges' search there is another page that explains how the charges are being reclaimed in the uk at the moment... This also has other similar sites listed and linked on it.........isn't that a bit one sided?? As again this commercial site is listed on there......they are listed as a UK business.....

Can you help explain what I can and can't put on my page please and what the other sites have done that I haven't... Thanks Russ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalbeagles (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is important that you remember to sign all posts on talk and project pages, Russ. Now to your question about the external link. There are two main factors here: First of all, you must remember that all content is subject to review by human beings making typical human judgments, so there are a swathe of unsuitable links littered around WP's articles. That is not an excuse for similarly unsuitable content to be added (indeed, to digress slightly, this is a point known as Other Crap Exists, which is often brought up in AFD debates). What it means is that there are too few good, experienced editors contributing to WP. The second issue, which I raised at NCH, is the COI. Required practice for external links with which you have any association is to propose the link on the relevant talk page and let other editors discuss and decide. If there is no feedback, it does not go into the article. WP is driven by consensus, which we have spent months or years building. Being bold is fine, as long it does not contradict another guideline, policy, or established consensus. Now to the matter of your user page. If you have read WP:UP (from the links on your talk page) you will know what we expect of user page content. WP:NOT is also relevant. Your intention is, to be frank, largely irrelevant; it is the content that has to be addressed. I opted to take a soft approach with a new user and not add a speedy nomination, but just remove the offending content and expect that you would learn from it. Normally I would WP:PROD or speedy such pages. Please take some time to get to know and understand the policies, guidelines and working practices that allow us to run this project and you will find that you get more out of it. Adrian M. H. 16:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi adrian...thanks for explaining that....but I am even more confused as the othersite that is clearly advertising on here under 'consumer action group' on here....can you check this out please.......as their page is also for a forum that is the same as ours....yet is still on here... they are a registered company in the uk 'Reclaim the right limited'.....All I want as you probably can appreciate is for our site to help as many people as possible.....

I didn't realise that by removing any links and just putting what we do would breach your policies.......my appologies for that....but I am new and couldn't understand the process you use to asses new pages and links....

Again sorry for any confusion....

Russ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalbeagles (talk • contribs)

I assume by "your", you mean Wikipedia. As I explained above, an editor cannot simply judge an edit (of any kind) against similar examples without considering whether those examples actually represent good practice or are within the guidelines. What you see may in fact not be a welcome addition and the fact that it exists is not indicator to the contrary, but merely an indicator that none of the editors who have seen it have either (a) thought that it should be removed or (b) actually decided to remove it. Once you develop an understanding of the guidelines and working practices of Wikipedia, you will be able to make such judgments for yourself and remove any unsuitable links. I cannot read the mind of the editor who removed your link, but it could have been removed for either or both of the two reasons that I had previously described. Certainly, the COI is the most significant issue and is blatantly obvious by your user name. Link additions that are subject to COI are almost always identified as linkspam and removed on sight because the addition of those links goes against established protocol. No doubt Cornellrockey will cite one or both of those reasons. Adrian M. H. 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi adrian.....sorry to seem like I am going on.....but the page "consumer action group" is nothing to do with me...

I was just trying to point out that this company has also posted on wikipedia and does the same as we do.....well sort of...they expect donations of money and are a registered business in the uk...

Sorry if I wasn't clear....I get a bit carried away as this company has personally attacked a close friend of mine on their site with inflamatory comments and slander...

I don't want to bring any animosity here or go causing any trouble.....

I just wanted a level playing field so all the free self help forums on the internet that give consumer advice are represented evenly...

I was making a page for the legalbeagles forum the one you pointed out I had made a page without considering the rules here...

Again sorry for that.....

I was just upset that the page I did was removed......yet the page the other forum posted here is deemed acceptable....even though it advertises their company...

Thanks for your time and consideration in this.......

and I just worked out the signature thing at last....lol

Russ Legalbeagles 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the Consumer Action Group. We are discussing the link to www.legal-beagles.co.uk, of which you described yourself (at NCH) as a member. Therefor you have some association with the website (COI) and your stated intention for wanting to add the link is not compatible with Wikipedia. In your last post here, you seem to be changing your story from a link addition to an article creation, but I know that you have not created an article about Legal Beagles because there is no deletion log at that red link. Looking through your contribs brought up this edit, which is totally unambiguously SPAM. Accordingly, I have reverted your revert of Cornellrockey. It seems to me that you are getting confused between external links, wikilinks and links to sources in footnotes. For example, Consumer Action Group has an article (because it is notable enough) to which there is a wikilink in the Bank Charges article. It is notable because:

1. It is the subject of multiple (at least two in this case) independent editorial sources.
2. It has been featured on a national television programme.

However, you tried to insert a link to the Legal Beagles website and disguise it as footnote! Can you appreciate how that looks? And you explain it by citing the existence of the Consumer Action Group article. Which, by the way, does not have an external link to that organisation's website, either in its own article or in the Bank Charges article. In the Bank Charges article, I have trimmed the four references of paragraph four down to just two references because there was an excessive quantity of external links being used to cite a non-controversial statement and those links could have been interpreted as a stealthy form of link spam, much like yours was. I hope that this clarifies it for you. Adrian M. H. 21:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A little appreciation

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work in handling editor assistance and third opinion requests. You're, for the most part, diplomatic and you tirelessly dig for whatever policy/guideline applies to any given situation. Keep up your great work. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks!

Adrian,

Thanks so much for your speedy reply/help!

I just added content to my article but don't understand how to verify anyhting. I have sources that will verify, but I am clueless as to how to do this...and I'veG. Klein 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC) read everything you suggested. This is really frustrating.

Thanks again,

Gary Klein user:n2ifi