Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

MacGuffin: Problems With MacGuffins

Was going to post this into request for mediation, but this sounds faster, could lead to something more effective.

Involved parties

1. MMetro (talk · contribs)
2. ILike2BeAnonymous (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• MacGuffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Attempted editing of NOR/POV.
• After revert, posted a citation needed for the dissent from the original ciation.
• Requested discussion on ILike2BeAnonymous' talk page
• Created section for discussion on article talk page
• Waited several weeks for any sort of response

Issues to be mediated

• The way the citations are used in the section Problems with MacGuffins has been misused since its original creation on May 13, 2007 by Neale Monks. This user lists the citations, but then proceeds to disagree with it, even though both examples are from highly regarded members of the film community. No contributor has offered any citation to support the idea that these members are in disagreement to the industry consensus, or if there is indeed a problem with the definition of a MacGuffin.
• The Ebert quote is also highly unusual in that it tells fans of Transformers who would otherwise flood his inbox with so-called enlightenment, to check out Wikipedia's entry on MacGuffin.
• I, MMetro, seek to eliminate the section entirely, since stripping the contribution's dissent removes any point to the section. The quotes have already been moved to the Description section. ILike2BeAnonymous has reverted two attempts of editing the Problems section so far, duplicating the quotes in the process.
• As ILike2BeAnonymous has not offered any more response as can be found in his edit summary, discussion on the topic has reached a lull, and the need for WP:NOR objectivity by a third party not affected by fandom, mediation is requested as to whether the citations and synthesis were proper.
• The creator of the controversial section is unavailable until at least after January 1st. If he can understand my problems with his section as he made it and can successfully answer them through rectification or justification, further mediation may not be necessary.

In any case, thank you for your time, patience, and advice. MMetro (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it has taken a while for anyone to respond to you here. There are not many of us carrying the workload here, and it occassionally takes a while for us to respond to requests. I have looked over the article, and glanced at the talk page and history. The point of conflict is not immediately obvious to me (I can be dense at times). Could you please post some specific diffs that illustrate what you are talking about? Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Template: Timeline of iMac models

There's been some dispute going on the Template: Timeline of iMac models for a while between me and another user. Basically, I made some changes to Template: Apple hardware since 1998 and the objection raised in regards to my edit (that changed a consensus on what naming convention to use) was overturned by a new consensus. With that consensus established, I attempted to apply the same naming convention to the iMac timeline, where Kaomso has decided to use a different scheme (which he has provided sufficient and solid backing for). I've had the article locked as we were in edit war mode and we're getting no where in discussing, as we're both adamant that our own position is the correct one. There's quite an extensive argument on the talk page.

Assistance from a neutral party would be appreciated, as there is no Wikipedia guideline for this, only community consensus. We need someone to judge which scheme to use or propose an alternate scheme. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied as you requested. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't supposed to tag that anyways. I'm continuing discussion; sorry (again) for my late response. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor may be needed, as the opposing editor continuously refuses to accept the situation as it is. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected, and it appears that Arachnid is helping you sort through the dispute - which is good, because the talk page immediately confused me. Any further help on this one needed? Pastordavid (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Endocrine disruptors

Request mediation, or guidelines on neutral point of view. I have had referrenced de-bunking sections deleted twice, with no counter referrence. One of the major scientific papers underlying the concept of endocrine disruption has been withdrawn, and the author prosecuted for scientific misconduct. I feel that this needs to be mentioned in an article about endocrine disruption. Neutral does not mean "biased in my favor" There are several articles in peer-reviewed scientific journal questioning the validity of the concept. Pustelnik (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what article you are needing help with. Can you provide a link? Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

what is required to keep an article on wiki...and survive the editors?

Hi,

In short, I'd like to know what is required for me and others to create a wiki entry on "Phoon" or "Phoons"...and not have it rejected by the powers-that-be in the Wiki organization.

In the last few years, several people (fans of phoons.com) have emailed me, the webmaster, wondering why there isn't an entry in wikipedia on "Phoons." I sigh and tell them what has happened: I wrote up a wiki page several years ago, and it disappeared. In the last year or two, my brother wrote up another page (not knowing that my earlier attempt had been deleted), and his page was shot down by Wiki editors. He asked what needed changing--he would do whatever was necessary--so that the page could remain. They denied his request.

Does the topic need to have worldwide reach? I can demonstrate that this topic does. If you search Facebook or Flickr, you will find groups devoted to displaying photos of Phoons. If you search for Phoons on Google, you will find that people mention it in their blogs and web pages. You will find online articles around the world about Phoons and phooning. So, it is EASY to demonstrate that this has worldwide reach.

But the prime proof of the worldwide reach of Phoons is the more than 3000 photos taken by individuals around the world and submitted for posting on http://phoons.com.

Things I would want to write about: (1) history/origin of phooning and the web site (see http://phoons.com/cgi/questions.pl), (2) description of the pose (see http://phoons.com/cgi/tips.pl), (3) history/evolution of the website (e.g. http://phoons.com/o/wayback.html).

So, what can I do to satisfy the editors? It struck me that the coincidental reviewers of the wiki articles we wrote happened to dislike phoons for some reason. Rather than work with us to establish validity or worldwide reach, it seemed like the notion was shot down just because people didn't think it was cool or something. But I now appeal not on coolness--skip that!--but on history/definitions/facts. If you have looked at facebook or Flickr or Google, you have confirmed that phooning has definitely been part of the internet and is just as valid of a topic to capture in the Wiki as many other topics that are fully supported. (The wiki has articles on specific companies' video graphics cards; it has articles on episodes of TV cartoons. Why, then, would an article about a real-world world-wide-activity not be allowed?)

Thanks for your consideration and help, John

Javawriter (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)javawriter

The general notability guideline is that Phoons "is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unfortunately, Blogs and other self published sources don't usually count. If you can find an independent, reliable source, it might work. Please read through the deletion policy, and then you can take it to deletion review. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The article in question was previously deleted by consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoon, in October 2006). If you have, as noted above, the reliable sources to re-create an article that clearly establishes notability, you can consider recreating it. I would be cautious about doing so, however, and be sure that you have good, indisputable sources first. You may also want to read the following essay on writing your first article. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of notable comments by notable person re Bhutto assassination

Stale

 – conversation appears to have died down since Dec 31. Pastordavid (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article "Benazir Bhutto" are sections on her assassination that include domestic and international reactions to the assassination. Some editors have taken it upon themselves to exclude any and all international reactions that do not emanate from heads of state.

Consequently my contribution on US presidential candidate and former US First Lady Hillary Clinton's reaction to the effect that the Pakistani military might be responsible for the Bhutto assassination and that aid to Pakistan should be limited to humanitarian purposes has been excluded. This, despite the fact that my contribution does not violate any wikipedia rule whatsoever nor is it disruptive of the page. My attempts to restore the vandalized text have been met with threats about the 3-reversion rule. Here is the text:

On December 29, 2007, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated that Benazir Bhutto might have been murdered by Pakistani troops and urged diversion of all US aid to Pakistan away from the military to social and humanitarian programs.

---

No actual reason has been articulated for the removal of Clinton's reaction; only the personal POV of the offending editors that Wikipedia should exclude international reactions from non-heads-of-state has been mentioned, and that's not a reason, that's just their personal opinion of the way that they would like to see wikipedia operate.

The facts are that Clinton is a notable person and her statements on the Bhutto assassination are notable and currently displaying in over 3,500 google news entries. Other excuses (not reasons) that were articulated included that the views of other presidential candidates were not mentioned; that the item is "clutter"; and that Clinton has no personal knowledge of the assassination. None of these have anything to do with either Clinton's notability or that of her remarks. No good faith has been shown on the part of the offending editors, who have yet to come up with a single legitimate reason why the item should be excluded.

I want Clinton's reaction restored to the international reactions section of the Benazir Bhutto assassination section, as well as the notable international reaction of any other notable person, whether head of state or not. I want the unwarranted threats of 3-reversion blocking rescinded. I want the editors involved to learn that vandalizing an article is to be taken seriously, and that, yes, their actions ARE vandalism.

Mothra (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This would open the door to thousands of comments by public figures, which might make the article a tad unwieldy. Unless Hillary Clinton has some inside info, her opinion on the matter has no more notability than that of Britney Spears. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not dependent on "inside info", but is demonstrated by widespread distribution. If over 3,500 google news items display Britney Spears comments on the Bhutto assassination, then those should be included too. Mothra (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you take to be the minimum standard for the number of Google hits for the exact same quotation, for it to be considered "widespread"? 1,000? 500? 50? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Red herring. 3,500 independent google news sources meets the "minimum", whatever that may be. Mothra (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whose minimum? What if I think it should be 10,000? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's minimum, which is defined as "sufficient sources". I strongly suggest that before commenting further that you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Mothra (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that writeup that indicates a notable person's comments on a notable topic are necessarily notable themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another red herring. Notability means "worthy of notice". A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Clinton's reaction is both worthy of notice and in fact has received significant coverage in independent sources. Mothra (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor that 3,500 qualifies as "widespread". As was pointed out on the original page, there are 892,000 Google hits on "flat earth". Thus, the flat earth concept is 250 times as noteworthy as Hillary's comments on this subject are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. There are only 57 hits for "flat earth" on Google News (not 892,000 as you claim) and many of them deal with some bread product. Bear in mind that I'm talking about 3,500 independent articles from reliable sources on Google ***NEWS***, NOT on Google Web: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+clinton&btnG=Search+News Mothra (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the figure of 3500 cannot be substantiated. Searching for Clinton and Bhutto on Google News does produce over 3500 "hits", however, searching them leads to the articles being exhausted after about 740 articles. That's about 80% of the argument gone. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar considerations apply to all the people whose reactions that have not been censored. Hillary stands at about 3,500 while these are the numbers (sometimes quite meager) at google news for the others:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,031 for bhutto UN Security Council http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+UN+Security+Council&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 4 of about 5 for bhutto Amr Moussa

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Amr+Moussa&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 427 for bhutto Manmohan Singh

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Manmohan+Singh&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 872 for bhutto Gordon Brown

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Gordon+Brown&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for bhutto José Manuel Barroso

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Jos%C3%A9+Manuel+Barroso&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,411 for bhutto george bush http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+george+bush&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 2 of about 34 for bhutto Tarcisio Bertone http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Tarcisio+Bertone&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 116 for bhutto Pope Benedict XVI

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Pope+Benedict+XVI&btnG=Search+News

Results 1 - 10 of about 31 for bhutto Qin Gang

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto+Qin+Gang&btnG=Search+News

Mothra (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that many media outlets parrot something Hillary (or any notable figure) says does not make what she says notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, significant coverage from reliable sources is PRECISELY what makes what she says notable. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mothra (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, where are you quotes from Huckabee, Obama, etc., on the same subject? I'm sure they also had something to say about it... unless... unless... you're specifically trying to push Hillary's viewpoint? Here you complain about alleged "partisan POV whining." [1] Yet you don't appear to be interested specifically in any candidate's comments except Hillary's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet another in a long series of red herrings posted by baseball bugs. If bugs wants to post some notable comment by some other candidate, then by all means do so. Add to wikipedia, not detract from it. And by the way, I'm opposed to Hillary's election. Mothra (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think they should be there, so I'm not about to do that work. If you think candidates' comments should be there, then you need to do the work to find all of the candidates' comments, lest you further paint yourself as partisan, i.e. POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the lack of good faith by the vandals has been fully documented, it is once again time to ask the ultimate question: When, where and by whom was the decision taken by wikipedia to exclude international reactions by non-heads of state? I've already asked this question at least twice without getting any response. Mothra (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You began the "lack of good faith" by bringing up the accusations of vandalism, partisanship and censorship, when in fact it's a content dispute. And I say again, if you're going to publish one candidate's irrelevant and self-serving public comments, you need to publish all of them. Stop hassling us and get to work looking up that info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is dodging the question. Again. Neither he nor his tiny band of self-appointed censoring thugs have any authority to delete what is clearly legitimate material. He has failed to cite any wikipedia policy at all that would allow deletion of notable comments by a notable person regarding the Bhutto assassination as part of the international reaction to the assassination just because the notable person in question is not a head of state or happens to currently be a candidate in a US election. The numerous dodges, red herrings and outright dishonesty in defense of vandalism by this troll are a textbook case of what wikipedia should NOT be. Mothra (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And now we're thugs. What policy compels us to include random comments from random public figures who have neither any first-hand knowledge of an event nor any authority (at present) to influence the event? His original complaint was that the comments by some guy named Calhoun were still in the article. That guy's comments are equally irrelevant and are gone. The user Mosura appears to have some personal reason for insisting on including only Hillary Clinton's comments and not being willing to provide some fairness and balance by providing other candidates' comments as well. Why is Hillary any more notable than any of the other Presidential candidates? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wristwatches

I've recently found myself developing a minor interest in wristwatches (though not to the tune of buying anything fancy). This is a subject about which I do not claim to know anything; however, I do hope that I have retained two things:

1. My wits. It seems to me that a wristwatch is either a device for telling the time (reliably and accurately) or a fashion accessory or something in between. Yet a number of articles on wristwatch brands make grand-sounding but opaque claims for technological wizardry, or allude to looks (while avoiding terms such as "fashion accessory"), while spending as much space as possible on which celeb has been an "ambassador" (which seems to mean "shill"), or is said to be an "aficionado" (wearing the watch without being paid to do so?), and which movies have "featured" a particular toy. (WP seems to be backing up corporate advertising here: Company X pays a pile of moolah to the producer of Movie Y to provide close-ups of Product Z, and WP then writes this up as if it says something significant about Product Z.)

A number of other things about watches are skipped over rather quickly. For example, how many of the members of Category:Watchmakers actually make watches, and how many merely repackage movements from elsewhere? (I also wonder about other things, such as the percentage of people paying more than such-and-such who are grotesquely rich, and the percentage who are insane -- but I realize that my curiosity about this is unlikely to be answered in an encyclopedia.)

All in all, the material in en:WP looks less like encyclopedia articles, more like fansite articles.

2. My editorial standards (reflecting my perception of en:WP's editorial standards). Over the past couple of weeks, I've applied my editorial stiletto to a number of these articles. One has been Rolex, which has led to amicable disagreement here in Talk:Rolex (maybe even agreement), and my threat (yes!) immediately below this. More concretely:

1. I littered the article with {{fact}} flags
2. Another editor removed all these, saying that each claim is explained somewhere within one or other of the sources listed at the bottom
3. I politely threatened to revert that second editor's edit
4. [no response]

Sanity check, please. Where's the problem: somewhere in the articles, somewhere in me, or a bit of both? Have your say in Talk:Rolex and perhaps also (if it's in me) my talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Including diffs would be nice. I'm looking at the Rolex article, and it seems to be pretty active. You're probably referring to your edit where tags were added and edit 1 by Tasoskessaris and edit 2 by Racklever where tags were removed. It seems like some of your tags were readded by Tony1. Since then, some of the tags have been re-removed (bad) and some of them have been sourced (good). Let me know, either way, if recent changes have satisfied your content dispute. You might want to see the policy on adding unsourced material. You should explain yourself on the talk page and in edit summaries, but often times the rule of thumb is: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:V) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer request for assistance

I am new to Wikipedia.

I am a subject matter expert, recognized by the U.S. Department of Energy as the top in my field.

I believe that non-renewable, unsustainable, bad-habit, obsolete energy sources are contributing to serious worldwide problems, like global warming, energy insecurity, and fighting unpopular oil-related war.

After decades of successfully demonstrating cost-effective, sustainable, alternative energy energy solutions (primarily solar heating and COOLING) I wish to return to society from the bountiful gifts, talents, skills, and experience I have accumulated in three decades as a second-generation energy research scientist.

A number of the Wikipedia articles need significant updating, such a "Passive solar building design." I've spent days entering public-domain information I've developed for the U.S. DOE, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Building Technology group to several potentially-valuable Wikipedia articles.

Two editors in particular (Dymonite and Anastrophe) have performed many major undo's of almost everything I entered, even though some of it has proper authoritative Wikipedia-style citations, etc.

All of my professional life as a successful scientist, I have gladly submitted to peer reviews and style editors who have helped me a great deal, but these two just delete my generous contributions without being at all helpful to a newcomer subject matter expert. It flies in the face of Wikipedia's Welcome credo, inviting people like me to offer uncompensated stae-of-the-art information contributions. Their resistance to the new information I offer is emotionally frustrating and highly de-motivational. Why should anyone suffer at the hands of unhelpful, unfriendly, uncomplimentary Wikipedia editors.

One thing especially gives me a problem. I have updated weak paragraphs that have no citations at all. Some of my updates contain citations, some are not. The editors have undone almost all of my valuable input (with and without citations) because some of my lines had no citations. BUT they leave the previously- existing lines with no citations at all in place. What kind of biased editing is that? Why delete MY input, but leave existing content (of lower quality than my own) in tact? They are violating the original spirit that launched the popular article in the first place.

I am indeed frustrated, but willing to try again, if I can find some friendly assistance to overcome anonymous self-appointed editors who apparently know very little about the subject matter, but want to inconsistently enforce issues of "style" over valuable new "content."

I agree that my Wikipedia knowledge and style need improvement, but I claim to be among the world's foremost authority in my specialized area of expertise.

I have read what the Wikipedia helps say - sounds good to me. Now I turn to you for much-needed assistance with my improper style (but not content). Please scan my new profile Escientist (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. For future reference, try to be succinct when describing a situation. Also, try to include links to edits you're referring to. For example, you're probably referring to edits like this one: diff. When there is a conflict regarding material that is un-sourced: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (verifiability) In other words, since you are trying to add material, and someone else wants to remove it, it is your job to source it. Also, discussing the details of a content dispute is encouraged. This discussion often happens on the talk page of the article in question or on the talk page of an individual user. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Escientist allegations about me are incorrect. I have not been involved in deleting large sections of his contributions. I added some editorial comments about my concerns about the style of his entries. Being a scientist he would understand the issues in publishing an article in a peer reviewed journal written in the same editorial or rhetorical tone. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the content or his credentials. Much of this subject material can be found at credible sites such as eere.energy.gov, energystar.gov, greenhouse.gov.au, ornl.gov. But in contrast, the language used at these site are written in a neutral, unbiased and well referenced manner.Dymonite (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

* For the documented proof of my allegations of biased wholesale material deletion, please see the detail of long lists of weeks of large deletions by Dymonite and Anastrophe in the History of "Passive solar building design" and other future-energy-solution articles. Major portions of what I laboriously entered were completely DELETED, not just "editorial comments" as is falsely stated above. It certainly contradicts the Wikipedia Welcome credo of trying to be helpful, not destructive with total impunity.

The above Dymonite false denial of the "undo" deletions of major portions of my generous Wikipedia input material (that I developed for U.S. DOE and ORNL) is beyond a shadow of a doubt a provable untrue statement. If this statement is clearly false, how can we believe other invalid statements by an apparently-biased "volunteer" anonymous editor? If my perception is wrong, please help me understand the hard documentation.

As a second-generation research scientist, I have always invited and appreciated CONSTRUCTIVE criticism peer reviews, but I’ve been quite frustrated by un-negotiated mass deletions of my Wikipedia contributions.

Since being a Wikipedia editor is an uncompensated volunteer position, I am quite curious about how some editors can obviously be deleting new material for perhaps 10 hours a day, all week long. (Check the time stamps.) If Wikipedia is not paying them to do this, then WHO IS?

Special interest groups (like the fossil fuels industry) pay 35,000 Washinton D.C. registered lobbyists to buy influence that corrupts legislators to vote for things like $14 billion in oil company subsidies, (while they are making more net profit than all other companies). Although Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and present both sides of important controversial issues, some FULL-TIME editors appear to be paid to bias Wikipedia content in favor of their special interest group.

Since legislators’ staff often begin their gathering of Internet knowledge about a subject with a glance at Wikipedia, a paid, biased, anonymous Wikipedia editor can influence legislators for less money than registered lobbyists spend to buy clandestine subtle influence. Hiring a full-time Wikipedia editor to biased critical content, could be a subtle new media manifestation of information corruption that costs less than advertising or lobbying.

Biased Wikipedia editors seem to allow the material they want to remain (regardless of non-compliance with Wikipedia rules), while they stringently apply Wikipedia editorial rules as excuses for deleting valuable material that does not support the message that they are apparently being paid to project. Anonymous editors with hidden agenda make this difficult to prove, but it seems to be the only reasonable explanation for very-biased editor behavior (other than possibly over-inflated egos of young people with nothing better to do than demonstrate their power over the more-qualified content contributors). The name of their mind game seems to be “consolidate power and influence with editorial style that trumps alternative viewpoint content.” IMHO

This behavior is driving away valuable subject matter experts, who are not paid to spend 60+ hours a week learning subtle Wikipedia editorial games, and fighting with editors paid to bias special interest group Wikipedia content (or simply boost their geeky ego). Who knows?

I would still appreciate basic assistance with an unbiased editor who is interested in future energy solution subject matter. Frustrated Escientist (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. "For future reference, try to be succinct when describing a situation. Also, try to include links to edits you're referring to." I'm sorry but you're ignoring my suggestions. I kind of need diffs so I don't have to sift through all of Dymonite's and Anastrophe's edits. You also didn't talk about any of this on the talk page. Please talk this over on the talk page (try to be more succinct there too). "FULL-TIME editors appear to be paid to bias Wikipedia" You need evidence or you need to assume good faith (please read that link). More importantly than all of this, is you can't add material that unsourced especially when other people disagree with your additions. Thanks for editing, Wikipedia needs more subject matter experts. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i can't speak for dymomite, but i'm certainly not being paid to edit here. are you familiar with argumentum ad hominem? you seem far more interested in impugning the character of other editors than in editing wikipedia. have you clicked the "help" link to the left, which i've pleaded with you to do on several occasions? learn the basics of editing wikipedia. familiarize yourself with the most important policies, which are - for lack of a better term - set in stone here. Verifiability. Reliable sources. No original research. No synthesis. Neutral point of view. these are just a few of the core values of wikipedia, and all edits must conform to them. add material that meets these criteria, and your edits won't be reverted. Anastrophe (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Escientist, before careful about jumping to conclusions about the motives of other editors. I have independently examined the edit history of Passive solar building design and it appears the editors you mention are acting entirely properly. The content they cleaned up was not written in the neutral point of view and style required for Wikipedia and it appears they did their best to salvage what they could of what was there. Also, a lot of the content was moved to separate articles where the topic could be fully explored, so I hope you realise that is the case. As an expert, your contributions are highly valued but you MUST have a look at how our articles are written and make sure you write appropriately. Barrylb (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ian Schrager Entry

I represent Ian Schrager and am having a very difficult time keeping submissions intact. It seems some people are letting their personal opinions effect their editing. As I see other entries of similar personalities, it does not appear that this entry is being fairly treated. For comparison's sake, please see Andre Balazs and Martha Stewart.

I need some assistance in working out a compromise of the entry and then placing some-sort of partial lock on the entry

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annachase (talk • contribs) 18:54, January 2, 2008

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Any submissions to Wikipedia will likely not remain intact. As it says whenever you edit a page: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. ... If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." That being said, you're more than welcome to argue your points on the talk page for that article. Try to keep your conflicts of interest in mind and out in the open. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation assistance

Hi,

I'm wondering if you can help me with some trouble that I'm having with a citation in the article Heavy Metal Umlaut.

In that article there is currently the following statement:

"Although spellings such as reënact and coöperate have largely fallen into disuse, this use of the diaersis mark, or trema, is still used in some English-language publications."

To me, "some English-language publications" is vague, and I would like to change it to something like:

"Although spellings such as reënact and coöperate have largely fallen into disuse, this use of the diaersis mark, or trema, is current in many prominent English-language publications such as The New Yorker and and MIT's Technology Review "

However, one of the editors is insisting on a citation for this. I noticed that he had earlier rejected a citation that referenced another Wikipedia article, so I tried citing the journals themselves and providing examples. But he rejected this on the grounds that it constituted "original research".

Can you please help?

Thanks!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which editor rejected your citations? With such claims, yeah, you'd need citations. Wikipedia is generally not acceptable as a source. I don't see how providing a reference is OR, though. I'll have to contact the editor directly to see what's going on. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! To all interested editors, the discussion is found here. It appears that you didn't cite a source, rather just stated that the New Yorker uses it. That is OR. I suggest finding a reliable source discussing the use of the diaereses in modern english, rather than just finding an instance of it. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermmm... I'm not sure where to find a reliable source that will confirm that a certain publication spells a specific word a certain way. Any suggestions? Any idea why it is OK for the Wikipedia article on diaeresis to make the same statement without complaint? I'm kind of stumped!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying the source should confirm that the New Yorker or MIT's Technology Review uses it, just maybe the article should discuss the general usage of the diaereses in today's grammar, and perhaps it should mention that modern publications also use the mark. Just a suggestion. And it should be cited on the Diaereses page, but for some reason it isn't. Also, it's less of a problem because it doesn't limit itself to its usage in Heavy Metal contexts. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is, what little I have learned about diaeresis usage I have learned from the Wikipedia article, and from my own personal observations. I really don't know where to go to find a reliable source. Do you have any suggestions where to start? I'm new to the research game!

Is it really worse to state that The New Yorker and Technology Review use the diaeresis (which anyone can easily verify for him- or herself simply by reading the publications in question) than to say "some English-language publications"? Statements like that raise the question "Which English-language publications? My nephew's 'zine? The monthly newsletter of the National Association for the Advancement of Bushisms?" To me, mentioning these publications is the lesser of two weasels. What are your thoughts?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cayra

Resolved

 – Deleted at AfD. Pastordavid (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cayra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone look over Cayra, including its edit history and the talk page discussions? We're having a dispute over the notability of the article topic. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to be covered in multiple independent sources, which would make it presumably notable. I don't think it needs a tag for notability. However, it does need to be re-written removing any OR, and inline citations need to be used, influencing the context. Please stop (both parties) reverting each others' edits, you might violate the 3RR, and administrators have been notified at ANI. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. However, the issue is whether there is even a single independent source that meets WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Help editing the wikipage for cayra

A third party is requested for help editing the wikipage for Cayra.

The issues are well documented on the talk page. Essentially what we have is a refusal to engage in the talk sections or justify radical edits to the page on the part of one editor. I have repeatedly attempted to engage this editor in reasoned debate, which he avoids.

I am asking this editor to justify his complaints against this wiki entry. Again, the details are on the talk section. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Wikieditor9999 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

I made a post at ANI on this, as there seems to be an edit war. Just a notice. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The ANI has been refused: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Notability_issue_at_Cayra --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my bad. I've replied at the Cayra talk page. Since we can't seem to agree on the sources, let's just try to find new ones. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists page - criticism section

Hello,

There's an ongoing dispute regarding the criticism section of the Union of Concerned Scientists page that I don't think can be resolved by the three people paying attention to the page. Please see the latest entry in the discussion page - "Falwell" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#Falwell.

Of chief concern is whether or not the article should include instances of people referring to the organization as "scientists" given criticisms cataloged in the article that the name of the organization is misleading. If someone knows if there is a Wikipedia policy on this sort of criticism, it would be helpful. Additional perspectives would be good even if there is no particular policy in this regard.

Thanks, (LabcoatJesus (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by LabcoatJesus (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith, Interior Designer - Deletion Review

Hello and Happy New Year!

I submitted an entry for Will Smith, a finalist for HGTV Design Star Season 2, and it was deleted. I am not sure as to why. He is listed as a contestant ont he HGTV Design Star entry. He was a fan favorite, which is well documented on the HGTV website, through blogs and fan voting. As a matter of fact, he was predicted to win the show, with the viewers voting him the best room on all projects put to a vote. Unfortuately, he was voted off by the judges before it reached the decision was to be made by the viewing public.

I made edits to the entry the was filled with facts only, based on an interview directly with him and information from HGTV. With this being said, can you please tell me why his entry was declined and what can be done to get it back and linked to the HGTV Design Star page? Thank you in advance for your response.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonita Perry (talk • contribs)

First, it would help greatly if you would sign your talk page comments using four tildes (like this: ~~~~). I will be happy to ask other editors to review the deletion, as I think it probably should not have been speedily deleted. However, it will most likely then go to an extended deletion discussion, and the end result will most likely be the same. The reason is that, at least in previous cases that I have seen, being a contestant, even a runner-up, on a reality show is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If he then went on to get his own show ... start his own notable company ... etc, he would then be notable.

As I said, I will be happy to help you to pursue this, but don't expect the end result to be much different. Leave a note here letting me know how you would like to handle this. Pastordavid (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time making an entry into the Wiki system. There is a lot to learn in terms of characters and symbols being used to communicate. At any rate, thank you so much for helping me with getting Will's entry as part of the Wikipedia system. I know it seems that he is not as notible because he did not win, but you should see the response he is getting. Kind of like, the Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard win. At one point, you would have thought Clay won. Thank you again for your help, and your patience while I learn proper wiki communication. <Tonita Perry>Tonita Perry (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)</Tonita Perry>

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Your statement above that "the entry the was filled with facts only, based on an interview directly with him" is not relevant. The issue is whether the facts were verifiable. So whatever you do with the Will Smith article or future articles, please be sure to include verifiable references to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

danger of edit war

i request guidance as not to slip into an edit war, which i have no experience in. please look into what is happening at "cuba in angola". thank you. Sundar1 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page, asking for details. Since he is a German native speaker like myself, I ignored for once the rule not to use another language on talk pages. This is not because of any intention to collude or conspire with the user, but because native speakers can usually exchange info far more efficiently using their own language. I will of course provide detailed translation of any relevant comments on request. Dorfklatsch 17:31, January 9, 2008

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (Conflict of interest and criticism)

Please explore and provide feedback into the discussion open regarding the CRSQA, Glenn Hagele, and the biased nature of the current article. Talk:Council_for_Refractive_Surgery_Quality_Assurance#Conflict_of_Interest_Analysis.2C_Editing_History_and_Glenn_Hagele. I am suggesting user Ghagele be prevented from editing the article further due to this obvious COI (for which he has received two warnings) and that more information is added towards the criticism of the association. --SirDecius (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Contact Us

Dear Wikepedia

Thank you for your response. I hope you may be able to catch up with people who are abusing your site using the IP address you sited by my suggestion that you should contact ISP - AOL. It is not long ago that I got to know thast AOL is using Proxies for its customers. However, one suggestion I would like to make is for you to try to make easy access to "Contact Us". For today just as the last time I contacted you, I had to go through a long path. The very first time I contacted you after registering was much easier. The reason I am saying this is because not all the FAQs contain the answers and people might get frustrated and fed in their efforts to reach you. If access to you is easier you would be able to give help to many more people.

My sincere thanks to you because your site Wikepedia is helping me a lot to know many more things than I would otherwise have known all by myself. It is a useful site and abusers should not be allowed to misuse the site. Once more my sincere thanks to the staff - men and women of Wikipedia.

Kind regards.

DR CLEMENT AKATENG MD.

P/s: Please could you also change "Save page" to "Submit page" for it is not clear as it stands that saving the page would actually get to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRCLEMENTAKATENG (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. FYI, please try to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). To address to your suggestions, there already is an ongoing attempt to contact ISPs regarding non-logged-in extreme vandalism. Also, there is a "Contact Wikipedia" link on the left of every page underneath "interaction". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nax Box design

Template:American Civil War Menu

Just read the page history... Foofighter20x (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. What do you need help with? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war going on...Malinaccier (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps eight edits in less than four hours (when the page has barely 100 edits in its almost two years) seems like an edit war. Speaking as a long-time editor of the page, there's no there there. User made three changes on the menu. Talk consensus approved two, but disapproved flag icon changes. User then submitted another flag-bearing draft, which wasn't approved. Immediately thereafter, user began methodically applying flag icons to many ACW battle infoboxes. User then placed large flag icons inside the template which I reverted. When I commented on the mass flag insertion, user left heated response on template talk, and posted here for assistance. Foofighter20x, who has five of the eight template edits which constitute the "war", is not in violation of 3RR; I've got two, and User:Hlj has one. And the current version is the one User:Foofighter20x left! (I did restore a previously used base template.) An edit war, what a hoot! BusterD (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've answered the questions raised here and here. Another established editor has tried to compromise with user here. Not sure how much more deference user requires. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom (standard) JamesMSnell

Help

If you take a look at the editing history for Atom (standard) you'll see that JamesMSnell reverts every edit, no matter what...I simply fixed the Disamb links and he reverted, fixed them again and left him a note on his userpage and he reverted again....I am confused as to what to do from here...it looks like he wrote the initial article and treats it as his own? I don't know...help? Legotech (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked as well. I'm really not sure why the reverts were done, it's possible they were in error. I saw nothing wrong with the disambig repairs upon looking at them. Still, I would give him some time to explain why he objects before going back to it, no good ever comes of edit wars. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it's generally helpful to provide links to pages in question. The article in question here is Atom (standard), and the user is JamesMSnell. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I forgot to make them links...I'm relatively new to the editing game...I wasn't really paying attention when I redid the dabs, I use wikipedia cleaner and only realized after I hit send that the page was way out of order (WC alphabetizes the pages that need help) Comet (programming) is another one where someone seems to have 'adopted' the page and I noticed before I re-edited that one. Thanks again for the help...Wikipedia can be a scary place to go alone ;) Legotech (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars: unsure how to proceed

I've had some back and forth on the article's talk page with some wikipedians with far more experience, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere (read: they refuse to agree with me :)) I am a Classics PhD and can state with absolute confidence that the term (Greco-)Persian Wars as used by every reputable, published historian refers to the Persian invasions of Greece in 490 and 480-479 BC. Period. The intro of the article seems to acknowledge this, but then states that the war began in 499 and lasted until 449. This is inaccurate. The seeds for the Persian Wars were sown in 499, and hostilities continued until 449 (and beyond), but scholars do not include these events under the rubric of the "Persian Wars" proper. I suggested that (e.g.) the aside about Macedonian unification was off-topic, and apparently offended a rather ardent nationalist, among others.

Look, I am a man of peace. And it is not my intention to turn every classics-related article into my own personal fiefdom. But the historical convention that the Persian Wars = 490-479 has a long pedigree. I tried to point this out, and Wetman accused me of an "artificially atomized" view on the matter. This is absurd. Others have complained that the article is too long (what are the guidelines, btw?), and narrowing the scope of the article to its proper focus would help immensely.

I foolishly went in guns blazing on the Pandora article a while back (newbie enthusiasm), and don't want to cause more trouble than necessary. But the thing is, I'm right. Ask Victor Davis Hanson. Ask Thomas Martin. Ask Peter Green.

Any thoughts? Please visit my talk page. Thanks! Ifnkovhg (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance,links on the article Easy Listening and Beautiful Music

Good Afternoon,

We am trying to find a way to incorporate links to our personal hobby broadcasting internet radio streams. A few times now,we have added links only to have them taken away. We just don't know what to do. Only the AM/FM radio stations are mentioned and none of the internet radio stations. Can you help us. We are very new here and really don't understand how this website really works. Incidentally,for a good period of time,the links were active. Then we discovered they were taken away. We put them back and within an hour they were gone.

Can you help us with our message ? We are talking about deletions made on these two pages. Thank you again.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Sincerley, RJMB (User name: Ryanjames)

Where will you respond to us ? We just don't know how this all works. I guess we click on "my talk" right ? Ryanjames (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan. Thank you for editing Wikipedia. To find out more about why someone has removed text, you can always click on the History link at the top of every page. There you will see who made the change and sometimes why it was changed. You can always ask that person why they made the change (try to be polite though and if they're short in their response, try not to take it badly). In your specific case, you've just been adding too many links (all of which also happen to be commercial sites). Please read the article on adding links and you'll see that concentrating on adding links is usually not helpful. The suggestion there is to add content, not links. If you have any more questions about external links, ask here and I'll reply here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

help with biased contributer

hi, I've made some edits to the Michael Jackson page (for style, not content), and found that there is a contributer (User:Realist2) who's only wiki edits seem to be Jackson-related and who seems to be, in my opinion, overly-controlling with regards to those pages. This person reverted my edits, after which I left him a note User_talk:Realist2#Do_not_revert. So far, so good. However I noticed on her/his talk page that many other editors have had similar experiences with Michael Jackson pages, and so I would like to ask someone with more experience if there is some way of dealing with editors who have taken control of a page. In fact just right now, I've noticed that the last time I made a contribution to this page (months ago) this user also undid my edits.

p.s. I don't actually care about Michael Jackson, but I do find it annoying that my edits were undone, and I feel that Wikipedia's purpose is being subverted when someone through sheer persistence (some of us have jobs!) takes over a page.

p.p.s. looking back on his/her other contributions I found other questionable behaviour, such as [2].

Thanks in advance. DiggyG (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NT2

Hi. Could someone take a look at the revision history for this dab page - specifically the comments made on 16:00, 3 January 2008 by Limetolime - is it 'common knowledge' that 'NT' stands for 'National Treasure' ? I certainly wasn't aware of that over this side of the Atlantic... CultureDrone (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea. It probably should be a redirect. It's in official usage for the first one, and at best, vernacular in the other. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored it as a redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Republican Presidential Race Is Being Fraudulently Portrayed

Please help! This is time sensitive and should be deleted or corrected STAT!

At Republican Candidates for 2008, there is a Straw Poll map, and figures, that create an ENTIRELY FALSE PICTURE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE.

1) BOGUS numbers have been posted (ALL favor Ron Paul and portray him on the top, yet, in reality, he is on the bottom!!!!).

2) The BOGUS map could influence the elections and should be DELETED IMMEDIATELY.

3) The caucuses that began in Iowa, are continuing in the coming days, with most culminating on February 5 (Super-Duper Tuesday). This web site map and incorrect figures is a blatant attempt to influence the caucus votes in favor of ONE candidate, Ron Paul, by portraying him AS THE FRONT RUNNER, WHEN, IN REALITY, HE IS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PACK!!!!!

4) Because it is so very time sensitive, this map should be deleted immediately OR CHANGED TO THE OFFICIAL FIGURES, and the numbers should be corrected to the OFFICIAL VERSION.

5) Official numbers are easily available from the GOP headquarters in every state!! For example, the author of this BOGUS MAP has Washington State marked for Ron Paul, yet I have the "official results" for Washington State in front of me (they were sent to all PCO's from the GOP HQ in Seattle) and I can clearly see that Ron Paul is in the BOTTOM TIER. (Thompson and McCain are in the middle tier, with Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani in the top tier.)

6) There are also a number of additional links (that look like source information for all the candidates), yet, when you click on the link, you are lead directly to Ron Paul sites. Some ask for a donation. Some ask you to join their organization. Some describe how wonderful Ron Paul is and why he should be president. Also, none of these "source" links go to any other campaigns, only the Ron Paul campaign. No IMPARTIAL poster would do anything this biased.]

There is no way to change the colors on the map, so there is no to correct the map, so, it should be removed.

Ron Paul is at the bottom of the pack, and remains there. [Proof: Look at the Iowa results and the New Hampshire results.]

I have never seen anything this blatant on Wikipedia, or anywhere. Someone is "using" this site to promote a man who polls at the very bottom of all the Republican candidates, yet, by looking at the map, and the numbers behind their names, it is clear that someone is "in the tank" for Ron Paul. This is not the type of behavior that one associates with a free democracy, but rather, looks like a rigged "banana-republic" that would call for Jimmy Carter to oversee. I am stunned that this is actually on the Republican web site.

To say this bogus spot is not up to Wikipedia standards is an understatement.

I have followed the results of numerous polls for over a year, and I find that the results follow a pattern. I have also participated in Republican straw polls in my own area (Washington State) and Ron Paul has never come in higher than 7% in any poll that I am aware of in this state. He came in at 3 % in my county. Every straw poll in Washington State has had Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee coming in top with Thompson and McCain in the middle category. IN EVERY POLL, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul have been in the bottom. I have noticed Ron Paul coming in anywhere from 0 % to 7 % with his average at about 3 %.

Any headline that puts him in the TOP is completely disingenuous and can only be meant to influence and mislead the public, and particularly the Republican voters.

Someone has added a clever qualifier, that calls for the "latest poll," which allows them to disregard the OFFICIAL poll (which would be done with thousands of Republican voters so that they can, instead, post the results of any obscure group that (amazing coincidence) always happens to support Ron Paul. This means that any group of six supporters can call a "poll" and all vote for Ron Paul and then call the entire state for Ron Paul. [Notice that they have even listed a "family picnic" as a poll.]

It is easy to create situations in which Ron Paul supporters can prevail, and Wikipedia is putting false numbers before the voters (especially when voters are going to the polls in the next few days (Feb 5 is Super-Duper Tuesday) and by then it will be too late). Ron Paul supporters can "call for a poll" (in a phone booth, or over the Internet) and then use that "poll" as the "proof" that Ron Paul is really popular. Anyone can schedule a meeting, and then call for a poll, and if there are two people there, and they both vote for Ron Paul, that "poll" will be called at 100 % for Ron Paul, and then posted on the map as a yellow state. That is completely fraudulent. ALL STATES WILL SUPPLY THE RESULTS OF THEIR STRAW POLL AND THOSE OFFICIAL NUMBERS SHOULD BE USED. In fact, I have the straw poll results for Washington State and I know exactly where Ron Paul is, and he is on the bottom portion of the list, with Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson all above him. It is completely BOGUS for this map to be maintained in such a fraudulent manner.

If the author of the map insists on using the "latest" excuse for a meeting between half a dozen people, to mark an entire state, and, in essence, invalidate the prior votes of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS, then those six people should be marked as a pinpoint of yellow for the state among THOUSANDS OF PINPOINTS IN OTHER COLORS THAT WOULD ACCURATELY MARK THE STATE. There is no way in the world that a "poll" of half a dozen invalidates the votes of tens of thousands!!!

If the author of the map is not interested in validity, then why are they posting?

Please help! This is simply awful. I just found it tonight because I was writing an article on Ron Paul polling so low, and I found this.

... added by User:Suttonplacesouth

You don't clearly say where this terrible map appears. You seem to be implying that it's in United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008, but that article has no map. So just what are you talking about? (Please go easy on the capitals, bolding and exclamation points.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the relevant article is Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008‎. My suggest for User:Suttonplacesouth is to be bold and make any changes you think are appropriate. You can also discuss this on the article talk page. Barrylb (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah.

Absurdity 1: The source cited for these figures was [fanfare] Ron Paul's website. (Hello? Unbiased sources, anyone?)

Absurdity 2: That Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008‎ would be regarded as an encyclopedic matter right now. (Hello? Anyone heard of "Wikinews"?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This article says more about the absurdity of straw polls than about biased editing. I glanced through the cited sources for several polls and the article accurately reflects the poll results. The simple fact is that straw polls are not representative samples of the voting population and the results do not reflect anything useful. The editors appear to have tried to be neutral in so far as they had images of many different candidates. I'd say the editors did the best they could with the bad material they had to work with. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Straw Poll was won by Duncan Hunter who consistently polls at 1%. I am the author of the map and I did it so that the information could be easliy presented. I am not a Ron Paul supporter but a Rudy Giuliani supporter. Basically what this article represents is the grassroots support for a candidate. Opinion polling by state has its own article, Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. Also, for editors who have a problem with election-related articles please visit WP:USPE and look at the progress we've made. Stop trying to run away good editors to inferior projects.--STX 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is over the colors of the map. They reflect a bogus picture. Elections are about voting and about majority numbers. This map looks like a "tool" for Ron Paul. It is supposed to be representative of grass roots support and yet entire states are being "assigned" to folks who do not poll out of single digits. It looks as though Ron Paul is leading in many states, yet he is consistently in single digits. This misleads the readers. There is only ONE conclusion to be drawn when one looks at the map. How can you call anything "representative" when it causes folks to draw a completely different picture. What is the "Texas Straw Poll" and when was it conducted and how many people were involved? And, how can it be MORE representative than all the other polls in the entire state? IOW, how can you "call" for Duncan Hunter or for Ron Paul when the aggregate tells an entirely different story? That is deceptive and no one benefits when there is a deceptive map on the screen. The point is that folks who poll in the low single digits cannot win a state and it is deceptive to color an entire state for someone who polls in the single digits. How can a single poll (like the "Texas Poll") be more representative than all of the other polls conducted all over the state? How can you, with a straight face, take a single poll (which only represents a single segment on a single day) and disregard hundreds of other polls in favor of the one? If you are going to do that, then you need to change each map as you get differing information, and that would be an awesome task. In fact, straw polls do vary, I have been at one where Rudy was the winner and another when Romney was the winner and another when McCain was the winner. However, in every straw poll I have attended (and in every result that was has been either mailed or emailed to me, there is one certainty and that is that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are at the bottom. They are always in single digits. They have never even gotten "out of the cellar" in any poll. There used to be four on the bottom, but Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback have both dropped out so that leaves Hunter and Paul. The official figures are available from the RNC or any of the State or County offices. Why are you not using official figures since they more accurately reflect what is going on in the country. What is the point of reporting little pockets of support if they are not reflective of the majority. That is what polls and elections are about. They are about the majority. If honesty is your goal, then why not put all the colors that won in a state. In Washington State, that would mean Giuliani and Romney at this time. Why are you so eager to color for Ron Paul? Why do the colors not change? And, why do so many of the "source" addresses go straight to the Ron Paul site? That sure does look like this site is eager for Ron Paul. At any rate, this is not a fair site because it does not reflect the actual elections in the state by those who will be delegates, and those are the only ones who matter at this point. To take numbers by high school students, or at a picnic, or at some sort of community event is not representative of the race. This is a case where only Republicans are allowed to vote, so why are non-voters being reflected? This truly makes no sense. The map is not accurate for the coming caucuses. It is not accurate for Republican voters. So, what is the point of the map? Who is it supposed to inform? Who is it supposed to influence? Suttonplacesouth (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the more measured tone. The place to post an objection such as this is the article's talk page; if after having posted it you still think that the article is effectively controlled by some person or interest group that is misusing it to express a certain point of view, then you should ask here a second time. But the main discussion should talk place there rather than here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement regarding external links on stereoscopy

Short version: Do stereoscopic galleries belong in on the External Links section?

After the links just kept growing, it seemed to me as if they didn't so after posting my thoughts on the stereoscopy talk page, I removed almost 10 of them, plus a handful of product catalog sites. One fellow (most recently MrAdventur3) seems to have used a few different accounts, to get his back, and continues to be quite insistent. Please let me know what's what!

Thanks, Jeff / JeffJonez (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest being bold and making the changes and arguing your case on the talkpage of the article. Marlith ^T/C 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing for two weeks, and that one gallery link keeps popping back up. If I made the wrong call and crufting up the external links with personal gallery projects is fine, then I've got a few of my own to add! :) Since MrAdventur3 has flat out said he doesn't consider my opinion valid, someone higher up the food chain needs to make a call. JeffJonez (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the links again, and warned the user. I also watchlisted the article, and will help to watch it. Pastordavid (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revising Snowball (Animal Farm)

The article, "Snowball (Animal Farm)," contains an irrelevant paragraph in the section, "Exile." The paragraph follows a description of parallels between Snowball and Trotsky. It compares several other characters (in a sentence or so per character) to specific people involved in Stalin's administration, etc. The paragraph is irrelevant because it contains these off-topic comparisons without relating them to Snowball in some way. For this reason I suggest that this passage be moved to another article or simply deleted. However, this seems to be too large an edit for me to partake of without having the support of others. I would like to know if you find the passage relevant and act accordingly. Jean Girard (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations, seems to be the same person

copyvios posted to article Guillain-Barré syndrome. A short history of these is on the article's talk page here. What should be the next step? User has been warned and must be well aware of the disruption caused. --CliffC (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It has only happened a few times and you only warned them once. Also, it was by an editor that, sadly, is on an unregistered IP which is changing due to their ISP. What I'm saying is that there is a very high chance that the user didn't see your only warning. This time, tag their page with {{subst:nothanks}} or {{subst:uw-copyright}}. Consider checking out the user template messages page for more information. "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." If it happens a third time (which it probably won't), then you can consider {{subst:uw-v3}} or {{subst:uw-v4}} (because persistent copyright violations are vandalism). Make sure to use an appropriate edit summary when tagging their user page with the warning. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no way he is not aware of all this because of all the hullabaloo on the article's talk page after he dumped scores if not hundreds of copyvios into that article and other medical articles over a three-month period last year until he got caught. His mess ended up causing everyone's contributions over those three months to be purged; that's all on the talk page if you'd care to look at it; also there are lots of warnings on the talk page of the first IP mentioned in the link above. I do not agree that his IP changes because of his ISP; his IP stays stable until he's caught, sorry if I sound angry but he needs to be found and banned. I disagree that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously, based on what I have seen so far with the person in question. I know this is all the same person, so I don't see much point in starting a new progression of warnings; however I have done as you advise and posted the warnings. Thanks for the reply. --CliffC (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any time! I'm glad I could help. "I disagree that Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously" In this case, "Wikipedia" means you, me, and everybody else; we take copyright violations seriously. Ah, I never saw .186, I only looked at .108 and .27. I also didn't notice that you were adding warnings to the "User" page instead of the "User talk" page. Usually warnings go on the "User talk" page. I've moved the warnings you added. I hope you don't mind. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

problems with Veloce Publishing entry

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me. What do I need to do bring the 'Veloce Publishing' entry up to scratch?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by SIWKI (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the article reads like a catalogue of all the published works. Read these suggestions for your first article (click this link), there's some great tips in there. In short, the article needs to tell the reader why the company is notable (why it's in an encyclopedia), and needs to provide proof of that notability by using sources that come from a source other than the company (ideally, newspaper, television, books from other publishers, etc). As the article currently stands, it could be deleted because it does not tell the reader why the company is important/notable. Also, the list of books published is a bad idea, summarize the types of books published instead. I hope the information here, as well as the information on the pages linked to in this note, will help you. One last thing that may be helpful for you is Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest. Best of luck, and happy editing. Pastordavid (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Flavor of Love

I'm contemplating deleting a section of a table titled "Notable facts" (under the Contestants section) on the Flavor of Love (Season 2) page. The content is unsourced and virtually impossible to verify (I tried). Would it be too bold to delete that section? I don't think any of the "facts" are that notable or encyclopedic. I'd propose this on the talk page but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion going on there. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like there's a conflict to resolve here. State your intentions and reasons on the talk page, then do the deed! JeffJonez (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Just wanted a second opinion. Thanks! Pinkadelica (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to avert edit war

I've continually added sourced information to the article Military history of African Americans‎, specifically in the section concerning Black Confederate soldiers. This information is continually being deleted by one or two other users who in my opinion are demonstrating a clear bias that they do not want this information written. I've attempted to discuss the situation on the talk page, but have gotten no where. Could an administrator and/or any other possibly interested parties please tkae a look at the situation. Could the page maybe be put on lock down to avert an edit war? If I'm wrong I'll back off, but I think the sourced & referenced information I've added in no way detracts from the article. Sf46 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help setting up auto-archival of my talkpage.

I'd like to set up auto-archival of my talk page. I saw on Help:Archiving a talk page that there's three main bots used to do this, but I don't know which one is best and I'm slightly worried about screwing up. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One way to go about it is to just archive by hand. That is, start the page User talk:Zenwhat/Archive 1, and manually cut and paste items onto that page. I can't say I know much about the bots, as I manually archive (and we do on this page as well). Pastordavid (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is too tedious. Letting bots do the work for me is so much easier. I guess I'll just send a message to each bot-owner. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do it for you. Marlith ^T/C 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for rename

I would like to rename: "Novo Nordisk Engineering" (danish company)as the companys correct name is now: "NNE Pharmaplan". I have no account. I have just become aware of the problem. Is it possible, you could do it for me?