Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 36
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Image upload assistance
Stale. -epicAdam(talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Bond Exchange of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Common threads merged. -epicAdam(talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I urgently need help, i need to upload our new logo to your page and i cant do it!I wasted 4 hours in trying! how can i upload your need logo to your page? Please come back to me.
Thanks, Caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besa321 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- What was the logo and which article is it going to be placed in? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming back to me so quickly. The logo is in Jpeg format and i would like to upload it to the Bond Exchange Page on Wikipedia, but it doesnt give me any option to import the logo. It looked like it can only be done by a wikipedia administrator. Can you help me with this, can i maybe email you the logo or how does this work? Thanks, Caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besa321 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. As a registered user, you should be able to click on "Upload image" on the left-hand navigation bar. You will then be able to go through the upload process. I have placed a welcome notice on your talk page which discusses how to add images to articles once you have uploaded the logo. Should you need assistance adding an image to a particular page, you may also want to ask for help on the article's talk page. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
need help with uploading a logo
Merged common threads. epicAdam(talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Help me, i need to upload our logo to our wikipedia page- can you please help me with this? this is very urgent and i am struggling alot!!!
Regards Caroline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besa321 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE HELP ME, i uploaded images to our webpage and it is a big mess up. Can someone please assist me, i need help, i cant do it alone, i am struggling and i am messing up the page, please assist me
Regards Besa321 (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP -NEED URGENT HELP
Merged yet another common thread —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE HELP ME, i uploaded images to our webpage and it is a big mess up. Can someone please assist me, i need help, i cant do it alone, i am struggling and i am messing up the page, please assist me
Regards
Besa321 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, it's not a big mess really. You just need to make sure that the fair use rationale contains all the requested answers. Whilst you are at it though, you should be aware that when you say 'our company', I presume that means that you have created an/or you are editing an article about a subject that you have an involvement/connection with. Be aware that this will create conflict of interest questions. I have been following this article, indeed I was the one that added all the improvement tags, I can see that the company is probably notable, but references are needed to confirm that notability and you should really declare your interest in the company on the talk page and let other uninvolved editors help create the article to avoid it getting deleted for COI/spam reasons. Mfield (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have added some requested info into the fair use template which will stop the bot sending out the dire warnings that seemed so worrying. Mfield (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Delhi Public School Society
Resolved. Advice given. -epicAdam(talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Delhi Public School Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have been working on the above article for a little while now to counter the ridiculous amounts of advertising found in it. While that activity is nearly done by now i am left wondering about the structure of the article. The article is about a rather large school organization/community, and covers each individual school in it. Due to it covering 26 different schools the focus of the article is rather blurry. I am thinking about migrating each school to a separate (stub) article to improve readability of both ths sub and the main articles, but since this is a rather large operation, i would like to have some feedback if this is a good idea before simply doing so. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like a good idea, but I would recommend waiting to create each individual stub until you know that section can stand on its own. In my experience at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and deletion review, it is loosely acceptable to have stubs for secondary schools, but not primary schools. Without references and an independent sign of Wikipedia:Notability in terms of national awards/press coverage, a primary school article is unlikely to survive a deletion review and will simply wind up back in Delhi Public School Society. In terms of secondary schools, you will want to make it clear that it is serving age ranges/grades equivalent to around 11-18 years of age. Please note, however, that all stubs should still have references (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources). I also recommend showing some form of notability to avoid problems. The actual length of Delhi Public School Society does not seem bad to me yet, but as you pointed out the focus should be on the organization as a whole instead of individual schools (e.g. American school district articles like Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District, Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District, Los Angeles Unified School District, New York City Department of Education). You may wish to ask for additional input at WikiProjects: this article is covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Removing all the advertising shortened the article by about a third, so the length is less indeed not an issue now. A large problem with the article is that there is absolutely no source included. Hence, as i stated on its talk page i estimate that a G11 on the initial version would have about a 75% to succeed. The issue you raised is interesting though; From my experience a school is virtually never removed(Though i tend to avoid articles on schools for this reason), unless its blatant advertising . From what i can see only a handful of schools in the article indicate clear notability by winning prizes or having similar achievements. The rest can be summed up as: "We got X Students, Y,Z,A,S,D as facilities and mr O is the principal." I think that having a word with both wikiprojects is indeed a good start to finish the problems with this article; Thanks for the suggestion :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Need assistance with a ref. that keeps getting removed
Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam(talk) 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Port forwarding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have added a ref. to a site I found that shows the user how to setup port forwarding for the router model. Found it to be very helpful and informative. E dog95 continually keeps removing the ref. yet always keeping the portforward.com ref. I would think the the ref PcWinTech.com - Guides on port forwarding your router/modem is valid.
Any help on this matter would be great. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.95.131 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Two problems with your addition of a link, the first is that Wikipedia is not an instructional manual but also the link you added is a home made web site and not considered a reliable source. So in my opinion the link should not be added, but in any case it should be discussed on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see what your saying about Wikipedia not being an instructional manual. But I don't agree on the website being a home made website. Cause portforward.com is also home made and it is listed on the page as well. But I wont fight the fact that Wikipedia is not for instructional manuals. Thanks for you time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.95.131 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have not looked at other links on the page, if you think other links are not appropriate under External Link guidelines then they can be removed but I would suggest discussing it on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Capitalization dispute
Resolved. Provided recommendation for appropriate forum. -epicAdam(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Dredg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm dealing with a capitalization disput with another editor, and I'd like to get some feedback from third parties.
Basically, a band's name is "dredg". Lowercase. It's stood as lowercase since 2005. Under WP:Proper Names it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I realize that a consensus was reached on trademarks, that names containing no capital letters should be capitalized, but there is no information on this in relation to a proper name.
PEiP (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for posting here. Determining the proper capitalization for the article can only be achieved by a consensus at the article, since there is no particular guideline in this case. I would suggest that you open up a section on the article's talk page, and then request help at Third Opinion or Requests for Comment. You will get more response there than this forum, which isn't particularly monitored by the larger community. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing and RfC
Resolved. Asked and answered. -epicAdam(talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Is there any legitimate way to bring an article RfC to wider community attention? Everyme 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- You may post limited, neutral, and open notices on the talk pages of the article's appropriate WikiProjects, related articles, and specific users (e.g., those who may have an interest in the outcome of a dispute) directing them to the talk discussion. Request for Comment and Third Opinion are initial steps in dispute resolution before the wider community. If those efforts prove fruitless then the process moves up the Dispute Resolution chain, potentially getting to the point of arbitration. This is the only process by which disputes can be brought to the attention of the wider community. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know DR inside out and unfortunately, your reply doesn't answer my question. Arbitration is not the way to go as long as it is strictly a content issue, since ArbCom has no authority over content questions and frequently dismisses cases on that basis alone. But I should have made my question clearer: Is it ok to post in a central forum like VP?
- Also, please note that sections on this page are marked resolved only after the user who requested assistance states his satisfaction with the reply, or alternatively, if the discussion has been moved to a more appropriate place or resolved in another way that includes the original poster's agreement or the unambiguous irrelevancy of his/her agreement. Everyme 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, the Village Pump and other central forums is for discussions about Wikipedia itself, not individual articles. It is for that reason that WP:3 and WP:RFC were created as the places for community attention to article disputes. People who care about an article or subject (or users that are just interested in helping) will go ahead and comment at RfC. However, simply spamming other forums in order to garner attention is not only inappropriate but it will probably not result in additional comments at RfC. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- In other words, like I expected, there is nothing to bring an RfC on an article talk to wider community attention. Too bad, since some article talk pages are hounded by POV warriors rather than a representative cross-section of Wikipedians. Oh well, you may now mark this resolved. Everyme 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, the Village Pump and other central forums is for discussions about Wikipedia itself, not individual articles. It is for that reason that WP:3 and WP:RFC were created as the places for community attention to article disputes. People who care about an article or subject (or users that are just interested in helping) will go ahead and comment at RfC. However, simply spamming other forums in order to garner attention is not only inappropriate but it will probably not result in additional comments at RfC. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
local title blacklist Question
Resolved. Page redirect active and valid. -epicAdam(talk) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)In the attempt to create a re-direct from a non-existing page about pianist Elisabeth Leonskaya (as it is often spelled - including in wiki articles) to her existing page on Wikipedia (Elisabeth Leonskaja), I got the following message:
The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.
The content of the page I created was:
- REDIRECT [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlaurson (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for posting here. I just checked the page Elisabeth Leonskaya and it does redirect correctly to Elisabeth Leonskaja. I fail to see what would have created the notice above. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Procedure
StaleI'm not sure whether this is the correct forum to post this question. If not, consider it a request for advice as to where to post it instead.
As far as I can understand from the policy pages, Wikipedia's "ultimate weapon" for resolving content disputes, & in particular enforcing NPOV, is RfC. My experience of these, both posting them & responding to them, is that very few people respond, so they don't actually fulfil their purpose. So would I be correct in concluding that in fact Wikipedia simply hasn't got an effective procedure for dealing with these matters, & is simply anarchy, the law of the jungle? Or am I missing something? Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I've noticed the same thing - the RfC system for articles is weak and not really well traveled. However, beyond that point there are also guided processes that can help out - mediation can be useful, and usually sorts out the problem if it's a case of multiple editors fighting it out over an article. Informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee for formal mediation are both options to be considered in cases where an RfC hasn't paid off. If that flops, there's always arbitration, but that's kind of the nuclear option - not to be taken lightly. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that arbitration applies only to behaviour disputes, not to content 1s.
The basic point is this. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has no effective procedure for dealing with propagandists, as long as they're even moderately subtle so as to avoid sanctions for misbehaviour. Mediation would seem to be pretty irrelevant to such cases. Peter jackson (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, article RfCs may be disppointeingly under-attended, partly due to some technical glitches. Luckily, there are many tools available for resolving content disputes and editor conduct issues. I think the best introduction to this is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - and my advice is, always do your best to carefully distinguish questions of content from those of conduct. Hope this helps, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd already read that. I see now that the issue has already been under discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by technical glitches anyway? There may be problems placing them, but none in responding, surely.
The substance of your response still fails to answer my question: does Wikipedia have an effective procedure to protect itself against distortion? As far as I can tell, no, & the page linked above seems to confirm this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How to stop someone consistently interfering with an entry
ResolvedI have added extra material to an entry (Dolphin Square) in the belief that it adds extra information of interest and use to the reader. Someone called Charles Parker has been consistently removing some of that material.
After an exchange of views, I made a amendment is the spirit of goodwill and the hope it would stop him interfering. Unfortunately, it has not.
His persistent meddling is based on his own value judgment of what is interesting and what should be included. He quotes the Wikipedia rules with gay abandon and I doubt if he even considers that his interpretation might be incorrect.
If Wikipedia is to have any standing, it must contain as much verifiable information about a subject as it can. Insisting on his own narrow interpretation of the rules, Charlie Parker is working against the best interests of Wikipedia.
Constant interfering by such people will only drive away those of us who are trying to make a genuine contribution.
Brenmar (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, Thanks for posting here. First, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Labeling others' edits as "persistent meddling", and some of your uncharitable edit summaries are not helpful. Second, I don't think it's quite right to say that Wikipedia must contain as much verifiable information about a subject as possible. Better, I think, to say it should contain the most pertinent verifiable information. User:Hughcharlesparker makes a good point on the talk page about the subject being the square, not the tenants' association; your arguments would carry more weight if the association had played a noteworthy part in the square's history, for example. I've moved the external link to a section headed "External links"; perhaps that will suffice. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, this was also in good faith posted to WP:3O by User:Hughcharlesparker -- I responded on the article talkpage, but wanted to note that I concur with AndrewHouse. regards, --guyzero | talk 08:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Possible vandalism: William Direen
ResolvedWilliam Direen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, second time vandalism on this page. I am writing on behalf of the person whose page appears here to request that his identity and page be removed from Wikipedia. Can you effect this please? He is fed up with defamatory vandalism and is concerned that is is threatening his career as a teacher. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoem (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. There is no way to keep vandalism occurring. The only thing we can do is correct it when we come across it and block users who frequently commit vandalism. When you correct vandalism, live a Warning on his or her talk page. That way, if the vandalism continues you can ask an administrator to block the user and prove that there is a history of vandalism. Rarely, administrators have the option to protect or semi-protect certain high-profile pages from vandalism, but that would not apply to William Direen. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Possible vandalism
Resolved. Vandalism reverted. -epicAdam(talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Can somebody check Meijer and iCarly. I suspect vandalsim, and I do not know exactly how the 3RR works, to fix it myself. Maniadis (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Also Check Saint Christopher. Maniadis (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. 3RR only applies when one or more editors are constantly changing a page back and forth, usually in relation to a particular dispute, but is not vandalism. As for vandalism on the pages you reported, each appears to have been corrected by another user, as is often the case. If you see a case of vandalism, you are free to edit the page and undo the action yourself. There's no need to report it here. If there is a user who is persistently vandalizing a page, please follow the instructions at Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Tyler Hansbrough
ResolvedThe name of Tyler Hansbrough's mother is Tami Hansbrough not Tami Wheat. This needs to be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheelmom (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, her maiden name is indeed Wheat. Tyler is the son of Tami Wheat and Dr. Gene Hansbrough. [2]. For precision, I suppose it could be changed to Tami Wheat-Hansbrough, but news sources seem to split one way or the other. --Jh12 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
G. B. Caird / Lincoln Hurst
ResolvedG. B. Caird (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lincoln Hurst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Could someone review these articles. They're both by the same editor and, whilst no doubt notable, are totally unreferenced/unsourced. I've tagged them as unreferenced and original research (due to the tone of the articles), and asked the editor to add references, but all that happened on the Caird article was that the bibliography section was renamed as references and the maintenance tags removed. Due to the number of edits I've made on these articles about this issue, I've probably already violated the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:3RR, so would appreciate some third-part input to the issue - either on my talk page or that of the editor concerned. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at each article. Whoever the editor was that had removed the tags has apparently stopped. However, as for the article on G.B. Caird, the article does seem to cite references, it just uses parenthetical references (author, year, and page number) instead of the more familiar citations we're used to. The Hurst article, however, is different. Those citations are not valid because they don't provide the book or page numbers, and much of the article remains uncited. Let us know if there are any future issues with maintenance tags. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Commercial SPAM
ResolvedI keep coming across UK towns and villages that have various commercial sites listed under "External Links" that usually have no relevant information on them. These include www.britinfo.net, placename.ukontheweb.net and others. Typical is this page Sutton-in-Ashfield. Is there any way these sites can be reported so they can be removed? --jmb (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- If they're in violation of the external links guidelines, feel free to remove them yourself. Wikiproject Spam might be interested in helping out as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I usually delete if it is a page that I am familiar with but usually just leave something on the Talk page if it is page that I have not visited before and leave it to the regular users. It was more a case of notifying someone who can track down all the other instances from the same source so will try WPSPAM. --jmb (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
My edits always get wiped out
ResolvedI've been trying to edit this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_graduate_business_school_rankings&action=edit§ion=2) to add my business school (Ross school of business , ranked # 1 by Wall Street Journal in 2006), but the edits alwasy get wiped out the next day. This is absolutely true information - so why are you wiping my edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.112.18 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that the list in question is aimed at the current number-one schools, not those from the past, according to edit summaries left by the editors who have reverted your questions. You may want to take that up on the talk page of the article, if you feel that's not the best approach. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandbox message
ResolvedThis evening, in my Wiki account, when I clicked on "Sandbox" to test some editing, I found the msg "I just banned your ass!". Fine - I no longer want anything to do with your group. Your BB35 article still contains 52 errors. IronShip (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Someguy1221 left a message on talk to explain the source of this misunderstanding. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Charging to create Wikipedia articles. Violation?
ResolvedI found this craigslist advertisement. I believe what this "trusted wikipedia administrator and editor" is doing is in violation of the self-editing rules. Should I be able to pay money in exchange for the ability to dictate what is said about me in an article? Ditto a corporation or the corporation's products.
Here is the ad:
http://miami.craigslist.org/mdc/bfs/879572449.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.140.118 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for posting here. No, that ad is a scam. No single user (including administrators) has ultimate control over what pages are created or what content is available on pages. Any actions made by administrator to do so would be immediately reversed and the offending admin would most likely lose his or her position. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam(talk) 14:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Where to give warnings about vandalism
ResolvedUser "Prncss destiny" has repeatedly vandalized the "Flint Central High School" article. It appears she has a vendetta against a former teacher. I've reverted this change at least twice. In order to report the vandalism I first have to give a warning. I'm unsure where to do that exactly. Clintp (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)clintp
- You can try the Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Maybe they can block the account. --Maniadis (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the warnings are intended for the user's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
List of Western Lawmen
ResolvedSirs:
I added Charles Birkenfeld, constable, Tucson, AZ, (c 1910), his wife and children. Additionally, I added that his daughter, Anna Lena married Emil Kielberg.
Emil Kielberg was the son of Emil Kielberg, pioneer, for whom the Kielberg Dam, Kielberg Mountain, and Kielberg Canyon are named.
The additions made were deleted by one R Haworth, as being "geneology".
This was my answer:
"My post re: Birkenfeld, Kielberg ARE historically significant. Living in the UK, I doubt that you would know that there is a Kielberg Canyon, Kielberg Peak and Kielberg Dam named for Emil Kielberg, who owned several thousand acres, upon which these places stand. Emil Kielberg and Charles Birkenfeld are my great-great grandfathers. They were pioneers. To summarily remove my entry, assuming these were geneological references only, is presumptuous, on your part. Mccats9876 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)"
I would like my additions restored, and if you wish, I can provide you with the census page from 1910, Tucson, AZ showing my ancestor Charles Birkenfeld, and his occupation of constable.
Sincerely,
Mccats9876 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- The article about Charles Birkenfield and Kiellberg (about Emil Valdemar Kielberg) were deleted because they failed to provide any evidence of why Charles Birkenfield or Emil Keilberg were notable (refer to WP:N) it was just genealogical information. It did not include some of the information you mentioned above so all the reviewers saw was just genealogical info. Have a read of the notability guidelines and if you recreate the article make sure that they actually mention why the individuals were notable. Note that neither of the articles were referenced please also have a read about reliable references. Might also be useful to read Wikipedia:Your first article. You can also ask for the deleted articles to be restored by asking at deletion review. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
help request
StaleBlanked section started by banned user sock. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Technicolor Web of Sound External Links Request
ResolvedMy name is Paul Moews and I own and operate the Technicolor Web of Sound - 60s Psychedelic Internet Radio (www.techwebsound.com). I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and noticed that my site had been provided as an external link in one of your articles (Neighb'rhood Childr'n). Since this was what I assumed to be an already approved link that our organization didn't post, I though it would be OK to provide other TechWebSound external links on other Psychedelic Artist Article Pages (i.e. - Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead). I posted some links similar to the one already posted above and within about 5 minutes I was contacted by a few editors who said I was spamming Wikipedia! Technicolor Web of Sound is a legitimate reference site for bands of the 60s Psych era and has been officially endorsed my many artisits on the site. Below are the comments from the editors (and they removed my links right after I posted them). I tried contacting "John" on his talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John), but I did not get a response back. I also tried contacting "Ward3001", but I couldn't see a way to directly get a hold of him.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--John (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to The Beatles. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FINAL WARNING
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Grateful Dead, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Ward3001 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clear this misunderstanding up with someone at Wikipedia with hopes of getting approval to list Technicolor Web of Sound as a valid external biographical link for bands like the ones mentioned above.
Thanks much! Paul - <email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmaze (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- User:John (an admin) and I did the reverts. These links are spam -- pure and simple. They add no new information to the articles (or links already in the articles), and are simply a means for advertising Technicolor Web of Sound - 60s Psychedelic Internet Radio (www.techwebsound.com). The links were reverted per WP:EL. And to my knowledge, Paulmaze (talk · contribs) never messaged me on my talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there. I wrote the article on Neighb'rhood Childr'n and included the link to TWS because there is so little info on them on the Internet (I didn't check print sources). And I thought it would add to the article per our external links policy. Paul, we have a saying around here about "other stuff", which means that just because you see something somewhere on the wiki, doesn't necessarily mean it's OK. I think you were acting in good faith adding those links, but if you read the Spam policy, you will see that unfortunately, since you have a conflict of interest in that you own the website, your actions were that of a spammer. I'm going to run this by WikiProject Spam just to be sure, but I think adding the links to articles about bands on which there is already a ton of information isn't going to help those articles in any way. Note I reverted the deletion of the TWS link on the Neighb'rhood Childr'n, for the same reasons I stated above. Sorry you got such a rude awakening here on Wikipedia. I'll post a link to the disscussion when I post it. Thanks for understanding. Katr67 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC).
First of all, I did leave a message to "John" last night/early this morning...here it is:
Technicolor Web of Sound Bios You Deleted Not sure if your going to get this or not, but Technicolor Web of Sound is a legitimate source for Beatles, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, etc., bio information endorsed by many of the artists featured there themselves. The bio information would be considered very uselful by WikiPedia users....this is not spam. Please reconsider your deletion of the bio links we posted and get back to me either way at paulmaze@techwebsound.com.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmaze (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You might want to have a look at this comment and this thread. Ward3001 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Second of all, there are other bio articles posted on Wikipedia from All Music Guide, etc. that are consistent with and sometimes provide even less info than Technicolor Web of Sound, so I don't quite understand your logic. I will admit that I know it wouldn't hurt my site to have the TWOS articles posted (go overboard and call it spam if you must), but the main intent was to provide value added information on the bands from a very reputable and popular source for music (TWOS). Katr67 - You're absolutely right in saying that I did receive a rude awakening here at Wikipedia and was very surprised at how unprofessionally I was treated. Thanks for your feedback though!
- I see there are first a low-level warning, but that you proceeded with linkadditions before the second warning was given. It is the common practice here to first start with good-faith warnings (and hopefully a welcoming template), hoping that the editor will react to that and consider the policies and guidelines. If there are concerns with edits, in the end things add up to final warnings and maybe stronger measures.
- What I would suggest is to consider the use of your links appropriately. If there are already links there (also to other, similar, sites, better or worse) then don't add yours without discussion (see this). If the article is small, and you can add content, then consider doing that, and using the link as a reference. Where the link does add to the article as there simply is not much information available elsewhere, you can consider adding the link to the external links list (but first try and see if it is useful as a reference). For the discussion cases, try to contact a Wikipedia:WikiProject, those are places where editors with the same interests come together (you can often find them via talkpages of some pages you are interested in, many wikiprojects have banners on articles where they are interested in). Also discussion on talkpages is a way forward. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Please note the time and date stamp of the warnings - They started at 2:11 and ended at 2:33 (22 minute total to go from first warning to final notice). Over this period of time, I had manually added approximately 7 reference links. By the time I received the final notice, I still hadn't realized what was going on...There were no e-mails sent to me even though I had formerly registered a username and e-mail address. I had to discern what was going on through the cryptic warning messages placed on the pages that I had edited. By the time I had figured out what was going on, I had already been bashed as a spammer, etc.
- Paul, you might try not posting in bold (it may or may not have been your intention, but this is seen as shouting and is generally not a good idea if you're trying to win people to your cause) and try signing your posts with 4 tildes ~~~~, which automatically appends a signature and time and date stamp to them. (You also don't need to copy and paste posts from other pages--it's easy to provide links to them--we call these "diffs"). As for being treated "unprofessionally", it's true, we all all volunteers, and thus all amateurs. I think instead of focusing on being labeled a spammer and who said what when, we should move on and figure out if there's a way you can contribute your undoubtedly excellent information to Wikipedia. Us volunteer editors work very hard to keep Wikipedia useable and free of advertisements and nonsense. In fact, hundreds of editors spend their time only doing this work, otherwise the encyclopedia would be full of garbage. So hopefully you will see why we take a rather hardline stance against any perceived spamming. Unfortunately sometimes good faith editors run afoul of our rules because of this. You might check in with WikiProject Music (put a note on their talk page--see WP:TALK if you need help with how to do that). Since they think the AGM link is a good reference, maybe you could find out if they would want to find a way to use your links. Wikipedia is kind of complicated--I hope this helps. Katr67 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to belabor this issue or rile up Paulmaze any further, but just in the interest of getting all the facts on the table, note that between the time of the first warning (2:11) and the final warning (2:33), Paulmaze added the external link to six articles. Two of those were re-adding after the links were removed and identified as spam in edit summaries. One of them was after the second warning. I fully agree with Katr67's comment that the warnings may have been a "rude awakening" and, in retrospect, I wish that a standard welcome message had been posted. I am quite willing to assume good faith by Paulmaze up to this point, but that is not a justification for continuing to add the links inappropriately in the future. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to worry! I won't be posting any more articles/links, etc. on Wikipedia in the future...consider this issue closed.
HMHS Page Issues
ResolvedI'm a new user, and I added a section about the Marching Band to the Haddonfield Memorial High School page. It is properly footnoted/sourced, and certainly relevant to the topic. However, someone continues to delete the entire section. When I asked them to please stop doing it because the section is relevant and properly footnoted, the individual deleted it again and said "nobody cares." Can you give me some advice on how to handle this?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarchingColonials (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Marching. The first removal of your edits was by an IP located in New Jersey. The second removal was by a different person editing from Maine—just random separate instances of vandalism. What you can do is revert and warn. There are a large number of warning templates for all manner of things located at WP:UTM. Most of these templates are intended for the talk page of the user you are warning. In this case, I would use {{uw-delete1}}. Further blanking by the same individual would result in escalating warnings by you. They are intuitive; just go up in number: {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}} and {{uw-delete4}}. If a person continues to make problematic edits after a final warning, you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. But what happened here so far is just run of the mill, one-off vandalism. Don't worry too much about it. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
StaleI'm trying to clear unreferenced (and almost certainly unreferenceable) mentions of where Duel of the Fates appears out of its article, but have met resistance along the lines of, "If you take out that uncited trivia, you have to take it all out!" I'm hoping some other editors could take a look through the recent history and content, and weigh in on whether these unreferenced factoids about where the song allegedly is played merit inclusion in the article so we can build consensus, rather than simply having a low-speed edit war. Thanks for your review, JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Adding a page
ResolvedApologies if this is a dumb question. I am creating a page and am not sure how to add the Head to the page. Also, once I have saved my work, is there another step I need to take to submit it? And, how soon will it be searchable in Wikipedia? - 4mscollins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4mscollins (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like another editor responded to your {{helpme}} already. You might want to beef up the page by demonstrating some independent coverage as mentioned in WP:Notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
consecutive unwarranted edit undo's by "Collect"
Resolved(cur) (last) 00:38, 17 October 2008 Collect (Talk | contribs) (13,559 bytes) (→Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later: unsourced per WP:RS) (undo)
I request PAGE PROTECTION for section 4.2 of the Charles Keating entry.
This person that goes by "Collect" refuses to allow my sourced edit of the Charles Keating entry and repeatedly undoes my addition of the material. I have addressed their concern by citing the source of the information I have posted yet "Collect" continues to undo my addition of Section 4.2 discussing how Mr.Keatings'immediate family profited from the purchase of RTC properties.
Please assist me in creating a clear picture of the nature of the topic described by re-including section 4.2 of the Charles Keating entry. see the history of the page. I've cited the source of information for the citation which is the official municipality County Recorders' Office of Maricopa County Arizona. "Collect" seems to think that the office of the Recorder of Maricopa County Arizona is not the repository of officially recorded deeds to real property in the municipality that it is.
Arizona Biltmore (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't forum shop this. It was already at the 3RR noticeboard. You just got warned for edit warring there, you're trying to keep unsourced material that violates WP:BLP. Collect's reverts in defense of policy are not actionable. Your reverts in contravention of it, are. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'm not sure if you understand reliable sources. This edit, [3] which includes a sentence that starts with "Verification can be found by doing a title search...", isn't accurately siting a reliable secondary source. Dayewalker (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Was that to me or AB? :) ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- AB, of course. Sorry for any confusion, I edit-conflicted. Dayewalker (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Was that to me or AB? :) ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'm not sure if you understand reliable sources. This edit, [3] which includes a sentence that starts with "Verification can be found by doing a title search...", isn't accurately siting a reliable secondary source. Dayewalker (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
New searchable article throughout Wikipedia
ResolvedSteve Thomson from Trilogy Records Group International (with offices in Toronto, Canada & Paris, France, and affiliates in Los Angeles, California & New York City, New York). I would like to create and add an article on the label & one of our newest artists, Joyslam. We have been having extreme difficulty in adding our article let alone adding a jpeg image of the band. This is what we have so far. Could you please assist us to have this article become a searchable article throughout Wikipedia/Media Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Steve Thomson.
Trilogy Records Group International —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyslam (talk • contribs) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for posting here. Please take a look at WP:5 Pillars, which will introduce the concepts we believe to be important here. WP:Notability will be especially relevant, and also WP:MUSIC which helps to determine which music articles are worthy of inclusion. Please feel free to post again if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Serious issues with one of your editors OhNoItsJamie
ResolvedI am having a serious issue I CANNOT resolve with one of your editors. I have been a wikipedia contributor for years when there was very little info outside of technical references. I copntributed to much of the greentea information and if you check tyour historical data have had a reference to (blacklisted) on the green tea page for years and years. This latest issue occurred when I simply moved one of my citations I already had on the page to the first instance of the issue being reference rather than later on the page where it was referenced again.
You editor has exihibited a clear bias in this case and is intent on simply punishing me for questioning his judgement and removing every legitimate reference I have provided rather than approaching the matter in a balanced way. My interest now is simply getting my original references that had been on the GREEN TEA page for years back on it in line with other references that currently exist on that page.
This is from the talk page of OhNoItsJamie
Greentealovers Links Jaime, before this latest brewhahah I had a legitimate reference link to the history of green tea in China that had been there for *YEARS*. (link blanked because blacklisted). Your concern was that I moved it up to the first citation of Chinese history (where it should be by all rules of citation) rather than where it was. Your reaction was to delete my greentealovers link entirely form the page - whch exacts an unfair and unbalanced penalty and is not acceptable. If you agree to return the original link to the Chinese tea history -OR- to readd the legitimate reference to Kissa Yojoki - the Book of Tea with the first line of what the book of tea actually says with a citation to an image of the actual book its history and the line then I will agree not to add new links to the page from greentealovers despite having legitimate history and resources on my site to cite. Otherwise its going to be a continuous back and forth of with me placing information links and corresponding claims to Wikipedia staff on a continuous basis regarding your approach. I have a legitimate claim to being treated differently and with a bias when its clear other vendors with relevant citation resources exist on the page. Again my problem at this point is that you have removed a citation thats been there for YEARS. I was providing good primary information to the green tea page when Wikipedia was still primarily techie based and the need for information to extend it and make it more useful was welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No. Links to get tenure, and that one does not meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Why was the Chinese reference reliable for years and then all of a sudden not???? Why is Stash Tea references or the various other tea company citations any more reliable??? Why is my historical referencing any different than Citations [3], [4], [5], [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to delete those if you don't feel that they meet reliable sources guidelines. Any further addition of links to your own commercial website will result in it's blacklisting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You've just gotten to the crux of this entire conversation and my frustration with the bias you've displayed. I don't have an interest in deleting/questioning other people's references. Those links are just as justifiable as mine yet you displayed a bias and *ONLY* deleted my link -- and I didn't even add a new link. I simply moved a link that had been on the page for years to the first instance of Chinese Tea history on the page where citation grammer would legitimately say it goes. If you had an issue/disagreement you should have simply undid the change and left it where it was. That would have been the end of the discussion. Unfortunately, you decided instead to punish me for disagreeing with you while leaving the rest of the links that clearly met the same criteria as mine. So you are forcing me to question your judgement because your actions are clearly not fair and balanced. I question the appropriateness of playing policeman only with my links and than telling me I should be doing the dirty work of deleting the links of others...Jpeizer (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
And I notice that you are continuing to cherrypick while we are discussing this deleting only my links while leaving others of the same disposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing more to discuss here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your tea selling site. See also WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see, but it is a vehicle for others to promote their tea selling sites and you are more than happy to allow that while deleting ONLY my link which has been there for years previously? And you will stick to that assertion using all the tools in your power to censor only me because I have been presumptuous enough to question your judgement. Jpeizer (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quick summary The link in question is a tea-selling site owned by JPeizer (for evidence of that, I can temporarily undelete the article he wrote about himself). It's a pretty straightforward WP:EL and WP:COI issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- In general, it looks like the tea-related articles need more regular reviewing for inappropriate links. While editors there may have thought the links were fine, they need to quickly learn that repeated spamming of links, especially with complications such as a COI, could get them blocked and their link blacklisted. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, this was an unfair accusation against Jamie; see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Greentealovers.com (permanent link) for a subsequent full airing of this matter. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
ResolvedI am curious about how to handle vandals. I'm new to cleaning up vandalism and someone keeps editing my article for The-Dream. IP address 82.36.86.157, I have already removed the vandalism and located the IP address, what do I do now? -Bmedick (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- You could try dropping a warning on the IP's talk page, such as {{uw-vandal1}} but they're often ineffective. However, it does help to build a case against that IP if it turns out to be persistent. By the way, you might like to be careful with words like "my", for fear of raising suspicions of ownerish behaviour! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review request
StaleI listed this article for peer review almost a week ago, with the aim of getting it to FL status, and I have received no feedback as yet. Could an editor experienced with featured lists give this one a go? "Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark of the Year/archive2"
Thanks in advance --Flewis(talk) 03:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Requesting administrative assistance
StaleIs there a way to alert administrators to a backlog in a more efficient manner than simply tagging it with {{backlog}}? I fear that this category may not be monitored on a regular basis, and the page that I want updating, Image renaming, finds itself alongside Requested articles and Good article nominations—there always is, and always will be, a backlog on these pages (it doesn't make a real difference for the backlog tag to be there), but the issue I want seeing to could be dealt with in 20-30 minutes. Therefore, it seems a bit silly to stick on the conveyor belt of what could be a long-winded procedure. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- You could leave a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to get admin attention if it is seriously backlogged. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup Help
StaleWould somebody please help me clean up the older versions for the following images?
w:Image:Beatles Blackbird.jpg
w:Image:Martha My Dear.jpg
w:Image:Let It Be.jpg
There are some differences Between versions and users have started to get confused. Thanks in advance. 04:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Fefogomez (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed my message has been overlooked. Did a post in the appropriate board? 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Fefogomez (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps not overlooked, but not understood either. I know nothing about image file management, but are you suggesting it's possible to unintentionally link to an older version? Surely any update would take the place of older versions in any article that linked to it? I guess not, from your question; could you clarify please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. I am sorry I did not explain this well. What I wanted is to clean the house. When I say "clean the house" is delete older versions of the images I pointed out in the above post, leaving only the current one standing. Is this possible? Administrators have an option visible for each image in the history of the uploads, that allows them to delete older versions in the history record, that appears at the end of the page, containing the current image. Thank You. Fefogomez (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Got it. I believe that's possible, but I'm not an admin. Generally I think we prefer to maintain the history, unless there's something egregiously illegal in an older version. I think you need an image-specific noticeboard ...--AndrewHowse (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- ... how about WT:Creation and usage of media files? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
BJU Mentions in popular culture
StaleUnder the page for "Bob Jones University," I've attemped to add the following to the Mentions on Popular Culture section, but someone keeps deleting it:
- Rich Merritt described his 14 years at Bob Jones in his 2005 bestselling memoir Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star.<ref>[http://www.aumag.org/coverstory/July05cover.html "Survival Guide"], ''A&U Magazine'', July 2005, by B. Andrew Plant.</ref><ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3491/is_/ai_n29204543 "Out of Uniform"], Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide, Sept - Oct 2005, by Cindy L. Abel.</ref><ref>[http://www.metroweekly.com/arts_entertainment/books.php?ak=1707 "Active Duty: Rich Merritt Reveals His ''Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star''"], ''MetroWeekly'', August 4, 2005, by Will O'Bryan.</ref>
Please add this and freeze it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westie Boy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Westie Boy, thank you for posting here. From the information that I could dig, this looks like a case of conflict of interest. Both the article Rich Merritt, and the addition of the comment in the BJU article look like they have been made by an editor who is related with Rich Merritt. In cases like this it is very difficult to write in a neutral style and they are generally considered as a bad idea (see Wikipedia Tutorial and Autobiography). Notability of the person is also in question here, is this person well known for his autobiography to be part of popular culture? I will have to agree with the editor who removed the comments, probably not! Additionally, Wikipedia has very strict policies when it comes to advertising. --Maniadis (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at what has been written so far for Rich Merritt. There is plenty more to add. He's famous for his appearance on the cover of the NY Times Magazine article about gays in the military, LONG before his autobiography. Since his autobiography he has written another book and magazine articles. He's known for his television appearances, newspaper articles and radio interviews, etc. The "editors" who insist on removing his entires are biased, pro-BJU individuals who probably adhere to BJU's notorious homophobia. BJU is well-known for its extreme religious stances and these editors do not want others to know there are people who grew up there, yet have left that brand of fundamentalism.
The notability of the person question has been confirmed. Thank you for keeping this part of the article intact.Westie Boy (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Help Regarding Deleted Article
ResolvedDear Editors,
I recently wrote an article stating facts about a new band with a trademarked name who are members of ASCAP and it was deleted by Wikipedia editor "Angel Of Sadness" due to "lack of importance." (A7)
I believe I have complied with all the guidelines in Wikipedia but since I am new to writing articles for Wikipedia, my question would be:
Is there an editor who can help me re-post a version of this article so that it meets all the criteria required by Wikipedia?
Thank You, Celia8 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Thanks for posting here. That was MIXISM? I remember seeing that and in fact I suggested it didn't assert any notability, which is a criterion for inclusion here. Perhaps you'd find it useful to read WP:BAND and then you can decide if there are sufficient grounds for the article to be here. If there are then you need to cite them in the article; if not, then it might be best to wait until the band meets the requirements before trying to repost.
- If you like, you could ask User:AngelOfSadness to copy the deleted page to a page in your userspace so that you can work on it there before you bring it back. And if you think I might have a conflict of interest because I tagged it in the first place, then please say so here and another assistant will respond. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
StaleFrequent disputes over the article lead have left me wondering how best to approach the situation. For example, a source called "Artscroll" and a phrase "sect of Judaism" were removed by another editor[4] according to consensus in Talk[5], but one editor assumes I am simply reverting to a disputed version[6] without reading my changes which had nothing to do with the disputed source and phrase[7]. I leave messages on her talk page[8], and in the article talk[9] and revert back her removal telling her no such disputed content is found[10] in the changes to the article and for her to point it out[11]. She reverts the first revert[12] and a second[13] with an explanation that has nothing to do with the reverted material, and posts a threat for 3RR[14] and then just posts a 3RR warning on my discussion page[15], leaving no message as to what her dispute is. I then get this big idea that she is not even reading her talk page or other talk pages, and I decide to "edit" the article again making note in the edit summary (again) that the phrase "sect of Judaism" is NOT found anywhere in edit at all[16]. She gets banned, and I get banned for "edit warring."
Then today, I post in the article's talk page requesting feedback to correct a source's quoted paragraph (actually its my fourth such request by now without response) by copy-pasting it from the Google books source[17]. I then edit and correct the article's quoted source to match the exact Google book source[18], and yet a different editor reverts my change[19], assuming I'm "edit warring" without actually reading the edit I made[20], nor even bothering to respond to my post for feedback on the article's talk page[21]. He assumes I'm edit warring and reverts all my changes, then totally ignores my objections to the inaccuracy of the source and just posts a new section saying he's tired of "Edit warring!" In fact, both of these editors are doing this to me, leaving me without a way to constructively add or correct content to the article - EVEN WHEN I POST IN TALK. I feel as if I am being harassed and railroaded by these non-Messianic Jewish editors into not being able to contribute to the article constructively, and I need advice on how best to garner support for constructive editing of the article without violating WP policies, and maintaining good faith both of these other editors. inigmatus (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Help with mass-revert
StaleI'd like to request admin assistance reverting a large number of what I'm almost positive are vandalism edits by 207.99.246.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who inserted an incorrect Category:Military equipment of Mexico template in quite a few Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms articles such as Browning Hi-Power and AMT AutoMag V. I understand that admins have access to an automated script which can do this.
It would also be helpful if the IP could be given some censure for the vandalism, unfortunately at this point I don't think they've been given enough warnings to warrant a vacation or ban.
Deleted photo
ResolvedSomeone has (inexplicably) deleted the ancient photo (wawragood.jpg)from Heinrich Wawra von Fernsee as well as from the english and spanish entries which were verbatim translations by unknowns of my contribution. I wonder what the reason for such vandalism could be and am considering discontinuing my contributions to Wikipedia should an explanation, apology and reinstatement of the photo fail to ensue.Tusbra (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image appears to be there on Commons, and was linking just fine in previous versions of the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Help with Chromium carbide
ResolvedI've noticed Chromium carbide this page trys to download a file when you access it, either from googl, internal links, or a internal search. What gives? Was it vandalized or something. Please take a look. Thanks, Iepeulas (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it seems to be fixed now. I don't see any edits recently. Weird. Iepeulas (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
All content concerning BRU and TOLIS Group have been removed from the backup articles
ResolvedOur technical staff have (on more than one occasion) created entries for both the BRU line of backup products and TOLIS Group, Inc. the company responsible for the product in a manner similar to the entries in existence for other commercial backup applications.
In many cases, there has been no explanation for the removal while other times the use of copyrighted materials has been listed as the problem.
I understand your status concerning non-GFDL content, but we are the owners of said copyright and therefore provide our consent for the content to be included within our mentions within Wikipedia pages.
What are our next steps to getting approval for our products to be included in much the same manner as other commercial backup applications?
Tim Jones
President/CTO
TOLIS Group, Inc.
tjmac@tolisgroup.com
64.140.176.30 (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, you seem to be having some trouble with some of Wikipedia core principles. please read WP:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for reasons why creating articles about subjects you are directly related to is a bad idea. Then WP:Notability, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox points 4 and 5 for issues you may be running into with the articles themselves (that per WP:COI you shouldn't be creating yourselves). In short, articles about your products and company need to be written neutrally, by a non involved party, and need to establish the notability of your company and products, which needs to be backed up by reliable third party citations and references. Mfield (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- And concerning the copyrighted materials, I am not sure of the specific material in question - is it images or say text copied from your own website? You cannot merely provide consent for material to be used on WP. Anything included would need to be released under a CC or GDFL license permitting both commercial and derivative use. You would need to license your content with a suitably permissive license for it to be included as all other content on WP is free to be hacked up, redistributed and used for profit - to quote the very page I am trying into "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Mfield (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Twinkle and AfDs
StaleDoes anyone know if there is a minor bug on Twinkle ot the AfD process at the moment. I flagged R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts for AfD yesterday and have noticed that, although everything seems to have been created, the link to the AfD discussion itself is a redlink in both the article, and the warning added to the author's talk page.... CultureDrone (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Should I do it?
ResolvedFirst of all, I apologise if this request is in the wrong place.
I am interested in creating an article, but would like to ask the appropriate members of the community if it is worthy before I invest the effort in doing the research etc.
The article would be about Ursula James - who is a key figure in the world of clinical hypnosis and hypnotherapy.
Thousands of students have been trained by her. She has taken hypnosis and hypnotherapy training to the medical schools of GB ensuring that doctors of the future are trained in and understand the concepts and methods, and she has recently set up the MSHA (no money involved, so this is not a plug - www.msha.org.uk) which aims to develop new, robust research in the field. She has been on TV and radio and in countless articles.
However, outside of the world - okay the UK - of clinical hypnosis she is not known. (Her latest book is just about to be published in the USA so that may change).
Comparable names who are in Wikipedia include Milton Erickson and Paul McKenna.
Regards, PB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.36.233.87 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for posting here. I think one key criterion for you to consider is notability. In particular, the part that reads
is important here. You mention "countless articles"; are there some that would help to meet that criterion? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article
- Having taken a quick look I don't think there is any problem with her meeting our notability guidelines. However, when you create the article, be sure to create it with enough content so that her notabiliy is apparent in the page created. In other words, don't start the article with one sentence and intend to keep adding later or soon; it's liable to be deleted out from under you quickly. Second, start right off with including some inline citations to reliable sources. Some reliable sources are here for example. Here's what I mean (this is actually usable in the article if you create it but you have to take out the hardbreaks I put in):
As of 2001, James was Director of the London College of Hypnotherapy.<ref>{{cite book
| author= Peter A. Mackereth & Denise Tiran | title = Clinical Reflexology
| publisher = Elsevier Health Sciences | location = [[London]] | page = 12
| date = 2002 | id = ISBN 0-443-07120-9}}</ref>
- Then, at the bottom of the article you'd create the following section:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
- All of which would format like this:
As of 2001, James was Director of the London College of Hypnotherapy.[1]
References
- ^ Peter A. Mackereth & Denise Tiran (2002). Clinical Reflexology. London: Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 12. ISBN 0-443-07120-9.
- Be careful also to write in a neutral tone and place neutral facts; avoid peacock language. I Hope some of this is helpful. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
What to do about a seemingly spurious sockpuppet claim?
ResolvedThrough a discussion thread on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball, it came to my attention that someone had expressed a concern that User_talk:Farawa is a sockpuppet of User:ECW500. I looked at the editing patterns of ECW500, the confirmed sockpuppets, and some of the suspected sockpuppets; the edits are entirely vandalism and there is a favourite set of topics. Farawa's edits are nothing like these ones. In addition, the sockpuppet template was added by an anonymous IP address as its first edit, and the IP address subsequently edited one of the favourite pages of ECW500. What are the appropriate steps to take to deal with the expressed concern? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I took a look and, like you, found nothing supporting the sockpuppet charge and therefore simply removed the suspected sockpuppet template. If the IP wants to add an accusatory template, it needs to be supported with something other than the bald-faced assertion leveled by its addition. Yet there was not even an edit summary accompanying the addition. Problem solved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Need assistance please
ResolvedMoved down to here since it goes with the immediately following repost. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I posted a response to what I believe to be editorial oversight but have not received a response in over a month...Could anyone help me please? I would at least like the courtesy of a response from the people keeping the page from the wiki-site but if the problem is mine in the execution I would also apologize...I believe I am using the talk page correctly though. Thank you.
UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Thanks for posting here. I don't see any posting of that sort, (see Special:Contributions/UTAPROF ZXQ) so perhaps you could explain your question here and one of us will offer some suggestions? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) Having looked at your contribution history, may I assume the subject of the editorial oversight you are referring to is the deletion of "community college futures assembly"? and your posts about this to User:L'Aquatique talk page and to your own? L'Aquatique responded to you here and advised in pertinent part that "If you find proper reliable sources, feel free to repost the article..." Personally I would not have deleted this as blatant advertizing but we do not overrule other admins' judgment calls lightly. In any event, you are free to repost the article. There is no guarantee that it won't be speedy deleted again, or that it won't be taken to articles for deletion (a deletion debate forum where articles are more closely scrutinized, rather than what the article experienced before, which was speedy deletion). What I suggest, though, is that you first go to the draft that is on your user page and add some independent reliable sources which verify the information in the article and cite them directly in the text, using inline citations (see WP:CITE for lots of information on how to cite sources). You have only one inline citation cited in one paragraph so far, and all of the sources listed in the notes section are not linked to any particular text and are to publications by one person. Citing reliable sources throughout the article is the best way to gird it against speedy deletion. Also, go through the article and remove any words or statements that appear to be on the peacock end of matters. Then repost the article. By the way, when you do, the article should be created without quotation marks around the name, and I assume that each word in the full name is part of a proper noun, so it should probably be named Community College Futures Assembly. If the article gets speedily deleted again you do have the option of taking the article to deletion review seeking to overturn the deletion. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case then I can understand why you would want to use a wiki, but this isn't the right wiki for that purpose. You might find this comparison of wiki farms helpful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for help
I have posted talk comments, sent in requests for help and this will be my last request if I do not receive any help. I have tried to post a web page about a community college conference at the University of Florida...the "editor" feels it was blatant advertising but I am from the University of Texas. I have not even had the courtesy of a reply. I can certainly understand now why academia has been shunning wikipedia.
I am also one of the first academicians to publish textbooks via open source through Bob Young's LULU website...in fact, my Cisco textbooks were very well received. I even thought about publishing my next book through the wikibooks link...but I have to tell you I am completely exhausted and exasperated with the whole wiki process...I cannot even get the courtesy of a reply to the so-called editors who seem to wield the power over content. If that is your policy to strike down and run then I feel I need to turn to other avenues.
So, for one LAST TIME...can anyone resolve my issues regarding the wikipage on the Community College Futures Assembly?
UTAPROF ZXQ (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I left a detailed post for you 7 days ago at your first request for assistance, higher on this page (and soon to be archived): Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Need assistance please. You have not responded there. When a user posts to this page seeking assistance, normally any responses are posted back on this page as well, unless the user requests that a response be placed on their talk page. So have you read that previous post? Since your post here implies that you did not read that previous message, I am going to post to your talk page now, dropping a link to this post to make sure you are aware of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Submitting an article
ResolvedI would like to write an article about my company Quired.com.
I see that you are not supposed to write about yourself but I see similar ventures such as HULU.com do have articles written about their firm. (I would assume by an outside source)
The term Quired does not exist in Wikipedia and in our world means the act of interacting with video, audio, photos and blogs to help one discover and share an experience.
What would be the protocol for consideration of Quired being added to Wikipedia or how to do you attract attention to have an editor write an article on a venture.
We would also like to add a feature to Quired.com which would incorporate articles found in Wikepedia based on the profile members interest.
Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldup (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's good to see that you've read our conflict of interest guidelines and are asking first - that doesn't happen very often. Generally, the articles that we have on other similar companies are written when they have reached the point of having enough reliable sources to meet our notability requirements, by an editor who finds the topic of interest and decides to contribute the article. The problem most companies who write their own articles have is meeting the reliable sources guidelines or being too promotional - they write it more to advertise the project than to be an encyclopedia entry. Essentially, what you're best off doing is waiting for some media coverage to come your way (I just did a Google hunt and didn't turn up a whole lot of coverage thus far outside of press releases, which are not reliable sources), and an editor will quite probably come along at that point to produce an article. Hope this helps! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- You might also list yourselves at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
ALR revisons to DCEETA
StaleUser:ALR edits DCEETA asserting that the verifiable source NYTimes is speculation. I deliberately overused quotes from sources to prove unoriginal content. what can be done to stop vandalsim, censorship of article? Dogue (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
How to change IP number to User ID?
ResolvedA couple of times I've forgotten to log in before editing an article and clicking "Save page", so instead of my User ID, my IP number appears on the "history" page. Can I change that IP number to my User ID after the fact? Kotabatubara (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I recall, this was done at some point. But it is not allowed now. If an edit falls under an IP, so it will always be, unfortunately. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Some people place a redirect on their IP page for just this reason: if they are contacted through a historical edit the contactor will be redirected to the correct account. However, I personally would not recommend this - it identifies your IP to possibly undesirable entities, also your IP may well change, depending on how your ISP goes about assigning them, and you have no control over this. SpinningSpark 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
New editor needs help
ResolvedPlease see new article Military Balance written by User:Jack332 and the comments on my talk page under the subject of Military Balance. I believe this new editor needs more help and reading pointers than I know how to provide. Can someone help this editor? Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Needs comprehensive sourcing, or AfD'ing. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have left a welcome template for the user with some useful editing links and a comment on the talk page. However there is no sign that Jack332 is making any effort to correct the problems. There is very little in the article that is salvagable unless citations are provided - and even then it needs a lot of work starting from the title all the way down. I think it is time to AfD it, the editor has now been given ample warning that this could happen and it may provoke him into doing some work on it. SpinningSpark 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Subpage in an article page
ResolvedCan anybody tell me what is the proper action for a misplaces comment which was probably meant for a talk page,
but the user created an subpage instead? look at Talk:Self-injury/Comments.
MaNiAdIs-Talk-GuestBook 09:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Usually it will require a history merge and deletion of the subpage, but in this case, since Wikipedia is not therapy, I'll leave a message on their talk page and speedy-delete it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted here, but I posted the original content to the ip's talk page and I hope you don't mind but I reformatted both of your comments (just indenting) so that they would work with that content placed. By the way Maniadis, I also substituted the welcome template you left and manually placed your signature in place of mine (the template has to be substituted to work properly; when I did so, it replaced ~~~~, which still appeared as tildes because of the transclusion, with my signature rather than yours).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedSeveral edits have been made to this page within the past few hours that consist of vandalism. Aside from warning messages, how can this issue be resolved?
Here are a list of vandalism edits that have been made today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248021050
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248020648
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248014645
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248005241
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248004762
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248003540
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248002908
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clue_(film)&oldid=248002409
Sottolacqua (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Most if not all of those apear to have come from Alexthehooligan (talk · contribs), which is an inauspicious user name. You could tyry pursuing that under Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames, or you could also try WP:AN3 since it's a clear WP:3RR violation. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- For clearcut vandalism like this, a more appropriate place to report is WP:AIV. Usually, it is required that the vandal has had several warnings, including a final (level 4) warning, before administrators will block. SpinningSpark 17:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama
ResolvedI searched for information regarding the year Senator Obama ran for U.S. Senator. In the article with this bio information it states a derogatory remark that I cannot believe is in there. I do not know how to edit the article as it states in your "editing comments". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.237.33 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- You mean where somebody added "He's half monkey"? It was removed almost immediately, but thanks for the message. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
My edits are considered vandalism
ResolvedI have received the recent 2 messages:
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to GC (gene) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoygabsadds 02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Talk:GC (gene) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Res2216firestar 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My edit in the talk page explained the issue in the article. It is clear that my edit was not vandalism but it seems the above 2 people are taking action without reading the material I post. Now perhaps they may be trigger happy, but the material I submitted is sound, and to remove my explanation from a talk page (without reading!) seems a tad over confident.
Note the second user won't allow me to leave a message on his page.
The article was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GC_(gene) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.43.26 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello. The unfortunate situation is that we get thousands of vandalism edits every day—not just kids inserting dirty words, but sophisticated insertion of intentionally erroneous information designed to fool those who are not experts. Because of this, an infrastructure has developed to stamp out these problems and you are an unfortunate casualty. I am not making an excuse for what occurred but trying to help you understand why. A great number of these edits come from users editing without accounts (by their Ips by default). Those who fight these edits look for certain hallmarks, such as no edit summary being provided. You have to understand that it's not just a little problem but a raging firehose of crap being spewed which results sometimes in less than careful reversions. Your first two edits were not accompanied by edit summaries, and are meaningless to non-experts so they were reverted. I think your third will not be because it's prose, and you did leave an edit summary. Hey, I just checked and there's some nice messages on your talk page showing that the error or the warnings has been found, removed, and an apology given. Please stick around and don't let this sour you on the project as a whole, and please do sign up for an account, which has many benefits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am picturing a "raging firehose of crap". I think that about captures the levels of vandalism we get... Seriously, great turn of phrase. I rofled... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hee. It is a rather brown-colored metaphor. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am picturing a "raging firehose of crap". I think that about captures the levels of vandalism we get... Seriously, great turn of phrase. I rofled... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)