Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 51

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 45

←

Archive 49

→

About the reliability of the quality control and genetic algorithms article.

Resolved

– Per poster Drew Smith What I've done 08:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about the responses of the senior editor Marcel Douwe Dekker, who during our discussion about a possible conflict of interest issue regarding the article "Genetic algorithms and quality control" escalated his actions after each disagreement.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article itself is beyond my level of comprehension. However, the medal on MDD's user page is a reference to edit counts. It does not convey seniority. As for conflict of interest, if your articles have been published prior to wikipedia, they are acceptable to use. However, if wikipedia is the first place these articles have been presented, they need to be removed.Drew Smith What I've done 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you've been using the talk page. I added a comment there and I'll try to keep an eye on the conversation. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The wikipedia article is a version of an article posted in our site I believe since 1997, presenting our published work on that subject. There have not been any financial projects related to that research, therefore there is not any financial conflict of interest. On the other hand, I am proud that this is the first published application of the genetic algorithms in the field of the quality control, as you can easily verify searching any scientific database. The Clinical Chemistry, the journal I first published the research on the QC and GAs in 1993, is the journal with the highest impact factor in the field of the clinical chemistry. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year. Regarding the importance of the subject, a search for ("genetic algorithms" AND "quality control") of the Scopus scientific database gives 347 articles published in scientific journals. A search in Google gives 16500 pages and in Google Scholar 3900 pages. I will post part of this response at the discussion page of the article.Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote: Google scholar and Google books give no hits on the topic "quality control and genetic algorithms".

This is misleading. As a matter of fact Google Books gives 638 books for ("quality control" and "genetic algorithms"). Some of them are referencing my article. And as I have written before a Google Scholar search for the same terms gives 3900 articles. Some of them are referencing my article as well.

Then escalating his "edit war" he posted the deletion tag. I am just astonished! Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are right in this case. However, take a look at WP:COI and WP:NOR before doing anything else. If the edits you want do not compromise any section of either policy, try one more time to reason with the editor. If he/she still refuses to cooperate, take it to WP:ANI.Drew Smith What I've done 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If the admins at ANI don't take your side on this, I implore you to keep a level head, and accept their "ruling". The biggest mistake people make is thinking getting angry will help. If you lose your cool, you may end up blocked from the site. And I can't stress enough how important it is to make absolutely sure your edits comply with the above policies, or the admins at ANI will "gut you like a fish".Drew Smith What I've done 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an other editor can explain Aristides Hatjimihail, I have no problems with the content of the article. I just think it doesn't have to stay in this isolated article. Better to move the content in a more appropriate context. Aristides Hatjimihail (or an other anon) has been referting the wikification, see here, and afterwards opposing every suggestion I made. The deletion nomination is simply the last option to let the Wikipedia communicty decide wheter the article should stay, be merged, or deleted, since Aristides Hatjimihail is unable to respond to any suggestion I made. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am not looking for any conflict and am not delivering any false information. If I search for the term even in Google, see here the googlerate is 2.280, but I can'not find more the 19 actual links to the combined subject, see here. These 19 hits all seem to relate to this one wikipedia article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The proper way to suggest a merge is through a merge template, not an AfD template.Drew Smith What I've done 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I did add that template. I even added two. But Aristides Hatjimihail didn't respond to this procedure. So I started a new procedure which he could not ignor. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You didnt try talking to him at his talk page about it.Drew Smith What I've done 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think talking with him on his user talk page was absolutely necessary. You discussed things on the article talk page and that was a great start. Nominating for deletion was probably the wrong thing to do since he never tried to remove the merge tags. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the nom for deletion was wrong, I disagree that talking on the talk page is unneccessary. When dealing with uncomunicative editors, the talk page is the first place you should go.Drew Smith What I've done 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has tried reading the actual papers found by Google Scholar, does anyone know if the Hatjimihail algorithm has been implemented and used by anyone outside his own group? When I used Google Scholar I found that there were a number of citations of his 1993 paper in Clinical Chemistry. What I haven't found yet are any actual uses of his algorithm. Some of the papers just appeared to be bibliographies. Actual usage by other scientists would suggest real influence, and thus notability. A 2001 paper by Boyd and Savory had only this mention of of Hatjimihail's work: GAs have been applied in the development of optimal laboratory quality-control schemes (5 ) and for optimal wavelength selection in infrared spectroscopy (6). In this sentence, 'GAs' means genetic algorithms and ref 5 was Hatjimihail's paper. This does not represent actual usage of his algorithm, though perhaps his work had some inspirational value for Boyd and Savory. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- actually, the fact that he has published these papers is enough for notability. No one actually has to use the algorithms.Drew Smith What I've done 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect, publishing, of itself, does not establish notability, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Notes and examples point 6. SpinningSpark 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment by EdJohnston gives me the opportunity to share with you some thoughts about the citation practices. Although the number of citations is undoubtedly a measure of the impact of a scientific publication, the citation practices are often unfair, though not always intentionally. There is too much pressure during the scientific publication process. What I tried to describe in Quality control and genetic algorithms is a general method to optimize QC, a concept that could be used to solve QC problems, not the particular application in a clinical laboratory setting. However, it is interesting that if you search carefully in a scientific literature database (e.g. Scopus) among the articles about (QC AND GAs), you will find that all of them have been published after my Clinical Chemistry article, and that at least several of them are based on the concept I have proposed in that article, without citing it. Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes the reference has to directly support the statement in the article. It has nothing to do with supposition, common sense or presumed truth. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Conjecture is WP:Original research Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the conflict has been resolved. I would like to thank all of you for your support and encouragement. The Wikipedia is really democratic! Aristides Hatjimihail (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Content I created is still blocked by false copyright concerns

Discussion moved

– To AfD. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I created an entry titled "idirect" and received a possible copyright issue error. I've posted on the discussion page for "idirect" that nothing violates copyright law and I posted an email from the company stating it was okay under GFDL to post the material. Yet, the copyright issue still displays and I don't understand why.

Thank you.

Photoguy11579 (talk)Photoguy11579 —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I think that's somewhat moot. The content you posted is promotional and would be subject to speedy deletion. Perhaps a better approach would be to post a new page at User:Photoguy11579/VT_iDirect and then come back here and ask for some constructive criticism. Remember to include references to verifiable sources in order to show notability. You'll probably find these tips on your first article helpful too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm tagging the current one as such since nothing's changed on the article in quite some time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

...which got declined, but then taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VT iDirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over info about raw milk

Discussion moved

– Discussion underway at Talk:Raw milk. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles

Raw milk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - main article, with centralized discussion
Lactose intolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United States raw milk debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milk allergy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lactose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved editors

Phil Ridley (talk · contribs)
Mark7-2 (talk · contribs)
Ronz (talk · contribs) - editor making this request

Discussions

Talk:Raw_milk#Moved_to_talk_for_discussion - centralized discussion
User talk:Phil Ridley - welcome message, advert1 & 2 notices, comment by Mark7-2, request to join discussion by Ronz
User_talk:Mark7-2 - request to join discussion by Ronz

Phil Ridley, a new editor, added the exact same information about raw milk to the five articles listed above, which is now under dispute. Currently, the revised information is still being disputed in the first three articles. Because neither editor has responded to my discussion on Talk:Raw milk after two days while still changing the information and removing my tags, I decided to remove the information from two of the pages and notify both editors directly of the talk page discussion.

I'd like suggestions on how to proceed. Direct help with the dispute is also welcome. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if everything is as you say it is, then just keep trying to talk to the editors. If the problem persists, see if you can get a full protection of the article to force them to discuss. If this doesn't work try WP:ANI.Drew Smith W hat I've done 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations. Mark7-2 has now joined the discussion. I'm going to wait for Phil Ridley. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. Phil Ridley continues to add the material but has yet to respond to all the requests for discussion. An ip with no other edits, 77.103.93.207 (talk · contribs), has joined the editing, and has made a brief comment on the talk page that doesn't address any of the concerns. I'm guessing that this ip is Phil Ridley. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitly the right way to go. If the user opens up to discussion, but consensus can't be reach, try wp:medcabal or wp:medcom. If there is still no discussion, and the user begins reverting once the protection is up, go to wp:ani. I am afraid there isn't much we can do, specifically here. If you simply need a neutral 3rd party, I can provide some assistance, however I don't know much about the field.Drew Smith What I've done 05:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

possible severe confliect on Dendreon page

Resolved

Hi, I needed some guidance on the Dendreon page. Another contributor has shown up but I'm not sure how to react to his sweeping deletions. He seems to be flagging copyright violations all over the place when quoted material is either clearly fair-use ( in one case he took out a section that quoted a few lines from a long meeting transcript ) or could be remedied by reducing or eliminating a direct quote. In other cases, he has taken upon my own comments, suggesting things need to be cleaned up, with a decision to delete everything.

There are clearly many pieces of this article that needed to be edited and fixed but it isn't clear that his editing is based on knowledge of the topic of the policies. He is generally attacking material unfavorable to the company.

One other contributor in the past made unsupported claims which I was able to verify and so I added citations. I would expect another contributor to act similarly or point to specific factual problems or simple comment out section pending better integration or style edits.

Any more neutral parties care to comment?

Thank.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a neutral party is needed. (the "another" contributer) Shubinator (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After a discussion with above author on my talk page, I am going to try to revert most of his edits but it will likely be a mess. I would like to simply remove all of his deletions and make the few small changes needed so someone unfamiliar with the topic can decide which ideas are unsourced or not. The basic problem seems to be that I critiqued my own work as a service to reader and others who know material but he took this the wrong way. Citations are often applicable to whole paragraphs as would be clear if he looked up, instead of deleted, references.

Copyright violation claims, AFAIK, are frivolous but I'd be happy to get another opinion. Most citations are to journal articles on government web sites and quotes are confined to pieces of abstracts or, worst, entire abstracts. Others are from advocacy groups that are happy with publicity. In at least one case, a quoted exchange is from an FDA transcript with citation several sentences away but the whole passage was deleted for unknown reasons.

While he summarily accuses me of bias, he fails to point to specific contributions that reflect bias and himself has singled out material unfavorable to the company.

In short, the material was probably accurate and in conformance with all policies but just not well edited. I can find no legitimate reason to retain the recent deletions but am not sure how best to back them out.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits until we've discussed this, and come to some sort of an agreement. Most of the discussion is taking place on Nerdseeksblonde's talk page, and my rationale is there. For reference, this was the article before I stepped in. A neutral party is welcome. Shubinator (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

cool- I didn't know the earlier version could be conjured up so easily so this has produced one useful result if nothing else...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Clicking on the "edit this page" tab on an old revision will show the wikitext for that revision. Shubinator (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce 2

Resolved

– IP blocked temporarily

IP address making huge text edits, including significant section blanking, without any talk page discussion or edit summaries. Similar problem was raised here and resolved a week ago. I'd revert myself, but I have a CoI, so I prefer to not edit the article myself. Mlaffs (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to what looks like last good version and reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That particular IP address now has been blocked for 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that was vandalism, per se - obviously th IP editor should have sought consensus, used the edit summary, etc., and I don't disagree with restoring what was deleted, but most of what was deleted was unsourced, and the article is a mess of bulleted lists and redlinks. Deleting unsourced material isn't necessarily wrong. I think there was enough reason based on their comment here to assume good faith (and of course warn the user about using the edit summary, seeking consensus, and the like.) I agree with what the IP said at the article talk page "Until someone wants to take the time to do this article properly we should keep it simple." Am I way off base? Dawn Bard (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Though I will note there's a single reference in there that's being used as a "general reference", while the rest of the page uses the standard footnote citations. The problem with that general reference is that there is no pagination or anything similar. What else is problematic is the IP's removal of sourced content (e.g., the controversy sections)... though there may be a valid WP:WEIGHT argument against their inclusion. The whole article needs to be restructured in my opinion. It may be worth consulting the people at one or more related WikiProjects' talk pages, such as WT:ECON, WT:FINANCE and WT:BUSINESS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User repeatedly making unsourced but possibly valid changes to biographical article

Answered

– per below. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is Wayne Allwine, the voice of Mickey Mouse, who died very recently. The article makes use of the Yahoo! News obituary for Mr. Allwine, which states that he is survived by five children from a previous marriage.

68.231.193.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continually makes edits to change this to four children from previous marraiges, removing Allison specifically. We have no source that verifies this, except his biography on the Disney Legends web site, which states that he and his widow "shared" four children (we know for a fact they had no children together, so this refers to children from previous marriages).

I almost posted this on the BLP noticeboard, but couldn't find confirmation that the recently-deceased were covered under the policy.

Based on my discussion with the IP user on his/her talk page, I suspect there may be truth to the edits he/she is making, but we have no reliable sources that confirm it. I don't want incorrect information up there, but Yahoo!'s article is pretty unambiguous.

I need help resolving this situation.

-- Powers ^T 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, WP:BLP applies to recently deceased people in the sense that their immediate family are being directly affected by the article. However most of the concerns associated with BLP die with the person; that mainly being defamation, which at least in the jurisdiction where it matters to Wikipedia, does not apply to the deceased.

As to the sources, the obit is not just any old obit, but an article written by an Associated Press writer, which makes it a reliable source. That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, but by policy it's presumed correct until another source of equal or greater reliability contradicts it or directly refutes it.

That said, if there's reason to doubt the article, the right thing to do is just remove the information altogether. Strictly speaking, we don't have to cover that detail of Allwine's life; with all due respect to him, his notability is based in his film and television career and not his family. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The user says that she is one of Allwine's ex-wives. She provided detailed information that we can't use because of sourcing and verifiability concerns. She won't go to the talk page to discuss this. She provided a couple of links that verify the four children but they're both blogs and thus inadmissible. I will likely remove the contentious information from the article at my next opportunity, but I don't know if that will satisfy the complaint. Powers ^T 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think her complaint is credible, you should just remove the incorrect info altogether per WP:IAR until something better comes along. Like I said, it's not essential to have that information right now... WP:DEADLINE and all that. I'd also leave a note at the article talk and perhaps even a hidden note in an HTML comment in the article saying not to re-add information about children without discussing first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You've come very close to describing what I've actually done. Powers ^T 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, no kidding. Anyhow, I've also watchlisted the article. When I get some time later today, I'll try to do a run of LexisNexis and see if I can't bring the holidays a little earlier. Maybe Variety has something... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I can at least say at this point that the media sources out there far and away indicate five children and not four. Aside from the Associated Press story, Reuters and The Times each have their own which appear to be original reporting (i.e., not sourced to the AP newswire), both of which say 5 children. The Los Angeles Times also says 5, and I'm torn between saying it's sourced to the AP or that it's original. A lot of other newspapers and magazines use the AP, Reuters or LA Times articles as sources. Additionally, to rebut the Disney Legends site, on the 20th D23, which appears to be an official Disney fanzine or fan club, ran a rather long story on Allwine's life which indicates 5 children (though no names given). The best source in favor of 4 children I could find was a story run by Agence France Presse... which in my book goes a long way, but not to the point of overriding everything. Few if any other articles source the AFP story. A lot of articles simply don't mention the children.

I've also done some basic searches on Google Books to try and find something from before his death, which wouldn't have been affected by the mistake the anonymous contributor suggests, but to no avail. My best guess from the sources I've viewed is the D23 article is the oldest, and it's possible the AP newswire, Reuters and The Times articles source that one, or they all source the same release.

What I would suggest at this point, however, per an extremely restrictive interpretation of WP:BLP is to keep the number of children out for awhile. My thought is this: if we report the number incorrectly, no matter which way, it will negatively affect Allwine's survivors. If he had 5 children and we report 4 (by name or not), at least one is negatively affected by being ignored (if not all at having their sibling/step-sibling ignored). If he had 4 children and we report 5, they're all negatively affected because someone outside the family is being said to be a family member. I say that, as we have at least some cause to suspect something's amiss (the conflict from AFP, less-reliable sources and the anonymous contributor along with the possibility of a single shared source of all the other obit articles), we continue to exclude any mention of Allwine's children from this article. Though like I indicated, that interpretation seems a bit extreme to me given the burden of evidence we have, and I wouldn't mind looking to more experienced editors for advice.

Anyway, I'm all tapped out for ideas of where else to find info. The D23 article mentioned something called a "life celebration" to be announced at a later date. I'm not sure what that is, but I'm hoping it entails a new round of "Disney history" and "Mickey Mouse history" publications, as they'll surely reflect the accurate number. The folks at WT:DISNEY might have additional thoughts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your legwork. I've never seen this before, where we have two incompatible statements from what are normally considered extremely reliable sources. I don't know if we have a standard practice in this sort of situation. For now, I will agree that we should leave any mention of kids out entirely. Powers ^T 23:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. By the way, my advice in a non-BLP situation where you have two conflicting reliable sources would be to, rather than pick one, use both and discuss the disagreement (or even better, look for discussion of the disagreement in secondary sources). Of course in the case where the dispute is because one article is more up-to-date than the other, you go with the newer one... which is what should probably be done after a few months with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Consumer Cellular

Resolved

AnsweredDrew Smith What I've done 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to post an article on Consumer Cellular. They're part of the Portland business community, and have proven to be very active in the area. They've also been one of the "Silicon Forest" companies to keep going after 2001. The page has been deleted four times, possibly because in the first two attempts it was posted by marketing people who did not understand the Wikipedia regulations. When I wrote about the company, I had several citations showing their involvement in the community, both as a local organization & as part of the Portland business community - and the article was still deleted.

I would like to know how I can better convey the significance of this company to avoid invoking the dreaded A7 CSD Would stressing only community involvement help? Consumer Cellular were also the first phone company to partner with AARP and continue to be one of the only cell phone companies catering to seniors - would mentioning that help or would that make the entry sound like a brochure? Thanks, PDX sunshine (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an important guideline to consider here is WP:CORP. Can any of the criteria here be met? If so, then write the page in your userspace, perhaps at User:PDX sunshine/sandbox, and then come back here for some constructive criticism. btw, I've refactored your post a little for clarity - I hope you don't mind. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:CORP and have included several citations that verify the significance of this company from outside reliable sources. Please take a look at User:PDX sunshine/sandbox. Any & all constructive criticism is welcome. PDX sunshine (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got enough to avoid both speedy deletion via WP:CSD#A7 and to avoid deletion though WP:CORP notability concerns. I'd drop a message to the admin who deleted the original version, NawlinWiki, before moving it back out to article space however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of formatting fixes in the text - feel free to revert them. It looks ready for prime time, though. As Mendaliv pointed out, it would be good to contact the deleting admin first. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Would moving the current draft out to the articlespace title necessitate a WP:HISTMERGE? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PDX sunshine has since contacted NawlinWiki, but it would appear NawlinWiki has not been available lately. Even so, I think it might be best to wait a little longer before just being bold and getting the new version moved out to article space. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting my account or permanently disabling it along with user name

Answered

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have caused irrevocable damage to many relationships regarding an edit I made earlier today. Thanks to the admins that helped to delete the history to protect some names...I am now requesting that my account be deleted. I am so horribly hurt over this incident that I want to delete my account to make right a wrong. Thanks you. Account: Maehem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We actually do not have a mechanism for deleting or disabling accounts. You can simply blank your talk page and walk away - see Right to Vanish for more information. There does not appear to be anything sensitive remaining in your contributions that is visible to non admins, but if you are still feeling concerned you can apply to vanish per the information in the link above. Mfield (Oi!) 06:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're free to exercise your "right to vanish" at any time (see WP:RTV), and by simply not using your account again you can consider it "deleted". However, due to technical and copyright constraints, Wikipedia accounts are not generally deleted. And considering WP:ANI#Sensitive information reported and undone. Please help delete edit history, which you posted and has been resolved, I think you needn't worry about your other edits.

I am very sorry if you feel you have damaged any relationships due to your activity on Wikipedia. I don't mean to sound terribly unfriendly here, but what do you want us to do about it? Wikipedia is not MySpace. We can't unsay whatever you said; even if the edits are deleted or oversighted, they still made impacts in the relationships of which you speak. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict in China Airlines article regarding WP:NC-TW

Answered

– Advice given on where to proceed with this, though apparently nothing's happened. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, there's some conflict going on in the China Airlines article, a user is insisting on changing the reference "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan". His grounds is that the preferred style is the latter wording. However, the preferred style documented in WP:NC-TW is the former wording. The opposing user, User:Pyl seems to be in the center of a lot of edits in regards to this, which can arguably go against NPOV, as well. I'd like to ask for some outside input to bring an end to this before it becomes a full-on edit war. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2 may be related to this, though indirectly... plus it's only just begun. And, yes, Pyl is a party of that mediation. You may wish to tap the other involved parties for advice or involvement... though be forewarned that it may lead to more arguing.

As to how naming convention guidelines work, yes they're guidelines which means they should be binding, but I promise you they're at least disputed, and Pyl is definitely permitted to argue that the Taiwan naming guidelines aren't appropriate. Whether he's correct is open to debate. I can suggest asking at WT:NC-ZH for input from people more involved in creating that and related guidelines. Also WT:TAIWAN may be helpful for finding interested parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Help Please at Plantation of Ulster

Discussion moved

– Conversation appears to be on-going at article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in an ongoing dispute with another editor regarding the Plantation of Ulster wikipedia page and more specifically the "Plantation in Operation" section. I'm new to wikipedia so am not sure how everything works but I do have substantial knowledge of the history. I have kept updates on the discussion page explaining what I have been doing.

I rewrote the section on the "Plantation in Operation" providing detailed and extensive references including book page numbers. These references were directly related to claims made in the section. References have since been moved to sentences to which they are not related (I have though reverted these changes). The references have also been condensed which obscures their meaning as they are no longer directly attributable to claims made. I have discussed these issues on the discussion page of the above article in detail. Details can be found under "Plantation in Operation" and "References" on the discussion page.

I would appreciate help in this matter. I would like to see the section returned to my version with uncondensed references.

Thank-you.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing, because it appears from this and this you are forum shopping. Now I have provided you all the links you need on your talk page on how to edit and I have tried to keep you out of trouble. I've used the talk page, here and here but one only has to look at your last comment of "I would like to see the section returned to my version" to see what the problem is.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't that bad a case of canvassing, and doesn't really cross the threshold of what's considered disruptive. The links to the related discussions basically resolve the situation. The discussion should be held in one area... likely the talk page of the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is canvassing though, and I do agree that it isn't that bad a case. Thanks Mendaliv for your reasonable advice. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for canvassing. I thought I was adhering to guidelines by contacting other editors in order to resolve a dispute. I have one question, is the talk page of the article the same as the discussion page?--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I see that it is.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory - request for additional eyes

Discussion moved

– Extensive discussion at article talk. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am seeking the input of other editors on a dispute about content that I regard as a POV problem. I'm also concerned that the article has been overenthusiastically pared down to the point of meaninglessness. The article in question is Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory.

The article was nominated for deletion a couple of weeks ago. The lengthy, and enlightening, discussion can be found here. Over the vigorous protests of the nominator, it was determined that the article described a sufficiently notable subject, and should not be deleted. It was also generally acknowledged that the article contained a lot of puffery, undocumented claims, links to unreliable sources, etc., and could do with a cleanup. The nominator undertook this task, ultimately removing about 85% of the article’s content. See a before-and-after with this diff.

I claim no subject area expertise and have been keeping an eye on things simply to ensure that the article is not pushed too far in the other direction; so I’ve commented on original research and POV statements where I see them crop up. See the Talk page beginning about here. Over time the main response to my comments, by the nominator / principal editor, has been largely to whittle the article down further still. (I suspect some good information is being lost but I haven't the time to become a subject area maven just to check.)

The immediate dispute centers on just a couple of simple sentences. I am concerned about two things – one is the parroting in the article of a claim by the Cherokee nation that the subject group is “fraudulent”. I think the claim needs to be tempered – it is, after all, just that group’s opinion. The second is the editor’s insistence on tacking on a gratuitous skeptical qualifier onto one claim made by the subject. My edit fixing these two edits is here and my comments can be found on the Talk page.

I acknowledge that this is now a pretty trivial issue, but I have watched this article slowly shrink further and further down into what is now a stub – effecting, almost, a de facto deletion – and I think a few other eyes on it might prove helpful. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In the course of my entering the foregoing, the article's been shaved even further. Perhaps my request is even more directed toward the latter concern, then. JohnInDC (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been reduced because what remains is all that can be verified about the group in question. JohnInDC seems to want to allow the group to make unverified claims and remain unchallenged and uneditted. Re: the further deletion, since the claims of the NCNOTL are unverified, as JohnInDC agrees or has at least acquiesed to, then there is little point in mentioning those claims at all. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Even pared down to what it is now, the article referred to is longer than the stub about the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, which is a legitimate federally recognized, historically documented Indian tribe. By the way, before the deletions of spurious material, the article was tagged for conflict of interest, original research, notability, and conflict of interest issues. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't make heads nor tails of this dispute at a glance. All I can suggest is to try and get people involved from WT:IPNA who may have access to relevant materials, and get sources however you can to expand the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I asked for help over there. Link. JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Stale

hi

Apparently I was blocked for adding comments that were in the public domain from sources such as the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) and the United Kingdom based broadsheet newspaper ‘The Observer’, to an article, which throws doubt on the published credentials of that organisation. I was contacted saying the report was resolved but the comments have not been replaced, nether can I find the reply.

Is it now that Facts and Reports from internationally recognised unbiased sources that throw doubt and may challenge the perceived stance of an organisation, are not allowed on that / their page?

If that is the case then pages concerning, for example a ‘Flat Earth’ cannot be challenged on that page.

– — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contact cascade (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the nature of your edits that got you blocked, it's the way you went about making them - you broke the three revert rule. Once it was apparent that your edits were controversial, maybe after they were reverted twice, you should have discussed them on the article's talk page, which is where content disputes should be dealt with, at least to start with. – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you were blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. No edit wars please.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also the way you introduced your material was un-encyclopaedic, Please read up on how to edit and add to articles, especially the way to go about citing sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a bit of a problem with the RSPB. See here and also the block (in May 2008) noted on his/her talk page. I've no doubt it's a sincerely-held concern, but this might not be the right place to express it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

D.C. statehood movement

Stale

User:Carolinapanthersfan has added information to this article three times. Previous two times the information was reverted and he was asked to provide a source for the information. His last revert had the following edit summary: "I don't need a source. YOu just support this. THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED". His claim to not need a source is in direct violation of WP:V. I am requesting assistance because I do not want to run afoul of WP:3RR. Thank you for your help. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I undid it with an edit summary comment, along the lines of yours, that it does indeed need a source. (Though even if he finds one the point is going to have to be made in the article a bit more artfully.) If he reverts it again it he'll have a 3RR problem, or something close enough to one to seek admin assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also added a suggestion on the user's talk page that he raise his concerns on the article talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor responded by removing additional material from the article, arguing that it wasn't sourced either. I've reminded him of Wikipedia:Point and with luck this will still resolve itself smoothly, but it appears to be moving in the other direction. JohnInDC (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the editor a note urging the use of the talk page again, and keep an eye on things. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Editor has now removed the same pre-existing material twice more, and hasn't responded to pleas to take his concerns to the article Talk page. Like epicAdam, I don't want to become half of an edit war. Is this behavior suitably disruptive to warrant an entry at WP:ANI? JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given the editor a stern warning, and if the disruptive editing continues, I'll take more emphatic steps to deal with it. In the meantime, can I suggest that you rummage up a reference for the section that he keeps removing? That would certainly spike his concerns. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to be the expedient thing, wouldn't it? It turned out to be easier to remove the one sentence that couldn't easily be sourced. The rest of the paragraph contains what ought to be a pretty uncontentious framing of the issue, along with two or three other factual statements that are supported by wikilinks to the referenced organizations. Thanks for helping keep an eye on this. JohnInDC (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Kirkland, Washington

Resolved

– page protectedDrew Smith What I've done 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm near 3RR with a user who is using rotating IP addresses to revert changes to Kirkland, Washington. He wants to include non-NPOV content regarding The Eastside Sun newspaper and will not engage in efforts to discuss it with me and one other named editor on the talk page. He's also been using bogus edit summaries like "revert vandalism". What can be done? -- Brianhe (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've pitched in here with a copyedit, and some comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, and I requested temporary page protection against IP based edits. Encouraged the IP to get a login. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who contributed to a resolution to the Kirkland, Washington / The Eastside Sun matter. It looks like having several third parties edit the two articles has helped. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Orthodox Union of Saints Peter and Paul

Discussion moved

– Discussion underway at WP:Catholicism Drew Smith What I've done 04:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We have an editor blanking the page, and claiming (on their user page):

"The information about COUSPP was removed as it contained malicious links and much of the information posted is factually incorrect. The creator of the entry included malicious links! Finally, as a founding member of COUSPP the entry was posted without permission from COUSPP or any member constituent."

So we have several issues. 1) Factual correctness, 2) malicious links, and 3) permission to have the information on the project.

I do not have time to give the page the thorough check it likely should get, so can someone else give it a verification pass please? I'm not quite sure what "malicious links" is supposed to mean. Maybe to sites critical of the group. If they are such, and meet WP:EL, then there's no reason for them not to remain. As for the permission issue, if there is no copyright violation or plagiarism going on, then IMHO it's a non-issue, as we do not generally need the subject's permission to have articles.

So I want to know if the blanker has any real basis to their complaints, or if they are a garden variety vandal, who should be handled as such. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have left another warning on their talk page. If they blank the page again, please report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin myself. :) I was hoping that someone with more time on their hands could help determine whether there was some nugget of validity to the editor's claims, and thus whether or not I should be treating them with kid's gloves or not. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. On the editor's user talk, he's currently explained the problem a bit better. He says "In the COUSPP article there are malicious links against Bishop Tom Bodkin's name to an article in the Brighton Argus." I would assume he's complaining about this article... and woah. ED-esque deceptive linking. The article details a completely unrelated scandal. Per WP:BLP, I've removed that particular link and will be checking the others for appropriateness given their context. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As to factual accuracy, I will note that a large proportion of external links in the article are to what I would term primary sources or are simply tangential external links which are being used instead of redlinks, and really shouldn't exist per WP:NOTLINK. TexasAndroid is absolutely correct that this article needs a good long look. I would also suggest requesting involvement from people at WT:CATHOLIC, WT:X and any other related WikiProjects, whose participants would be more familiar with the particular concerns involved in writing about this topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I've really no idea how to address the factual accuracy issues in this article, I've added it to WikiProject Catholicism's To Do list under "Verification". Hopefully the people at that project will take a look. If this is deemed a more serious issue requiring immediate attention, then we really should be holding a discussion at WT:CATHOLIC or WT:X (whichever is more appropriate). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Article on Casale Media (pop-under ad company): Negative info systematically deleted by anonymous users

Resolved

– Drew Smith What I've done 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello-- I got involved in this because like millions of other people I wondered what this popup was doing on my computer screen when I had adware, spyware and popup blockers. Casale Media is one of the worst offenders in the world in invading your computer screen unasked.

Casale Media apparently has people who systematically and anonymously delete all negative info (not just from me; other users complain about this too) about the company.

This negative info (that Casale Media irritates millions of people) IS one of the main facts about it and should not be deleted. Casale Media is basically spam.

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and don't want to get involved in an edit war with anonymous users who seem to be doing this as part of their job. What should be done about this kind of commercial abuse?

Thanks. Evangeline (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems likely that the information is being removed by people related to the company. However the information being removed is sourced in every case to forums and other unreliable sources which are inappropriate for sourcing that kind of information. However, I'm sure there are appropriate references somewhere to support something. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the inappropriate information and also cleaned up the article somewhat for readability- subsequently stubbifying it. Despite Evangeline's feelings that this should constitute an exception to WP:SOURCES, the commentary about the company annoying computer users should not be restored unless there's some sourcing to back up the statement. And even so, it would need to be appropriately worded; "Such-and-such reported in 200x that a large number of computer users felt that..." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Julie Myers

Resolved

– Page full protected 1 week.Drew Smith What I've done 04:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Julie Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User USA12345 has spent the last year exclusively editing the article, and has lately taken to repeatedly inserting a chunk of text that contains what I believe to be off target accusations about her former organization in general, down to defending a spelling error. I've tried to dissuade the user relatively politely, but the copy keeps coming back verbatim. I'm at a loss. - JeffJonez (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the particular bit of information reliably sourced? Is there a sound reason for the spelling error(i.e. a purposeful spelling error that has been copyrighted as such)? Has this editor engaged in discussion, or is he/she ignoring all attempts at discussion?Drew Smith What I've done 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the edit history, and the questioned edits. First of all, stop. You and USA12345 are engaged in an edit war, and no matter who is right or wrong, edit warring will get the page protected, and could lead to blocks for both of you. Second, USA12345's edit (the one I looked at anyway) seems OK, but is missing two of the key points, particularly "without an escort" and the bit about her defence. USA12345's version sounds better written, and I think a good compromise would be to use his version and add the missing info. Just my 2 cents.Drew Smith What I've done 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, but I'm not sure what you mean about USA12345's edits being better written. The content in question is being deleted entirely and reverted. Much of the content seems reliably sourced, but not attributable to the Julie Myers directly. That is to say, most of the content is "stuff that happened at ICE," Not "stuff she herself did". - JeffJonez (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that both versions are essentially conveying the same message (with noted exceptions) and that his version just seems to use better wording and phrasing. I'm not an expert in the subject matter, but it seems to me if she was involved in any way, or deffended in any way, the actions of ICE it should be included. But like I said before, the bit in question seems to essentially say the same thing, just using different wording.Drew Smith What I've done 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was looking at. However, I see my mistake. I didn't scroll down and see the rest of the material. All I saw was the rewording of that first paragraph. I'm not sure about the content in that extra text, and as I said before, I'm not an expert in the subject, so I am requesting page protection, as a means of forcing USA12345 to communicate with other editors.Drew Smith What I've done 04:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took another look at the article, and it appears that she is not only part of ICE, but that she is part of running it. Again, I'm not an expert on the subject, but it appears that as long as it is reliably sourced, it's ok to add. Another way of looking at it is "Stalin didn't physically murder thousands of his own officers, but we include it in his article because he was a part of it." Or, "Hitler didn't murder 6 billion jews by his hand, but it is included because he had a hand in it."Drew Smith What I've done 04:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to Stalin and Hitler aside, The Myers article should mention these issues, but the details seem more relevant to the agency as a whole (ICE) article, rather than expounded on in such detail here. Axes are easier to grind in non-biographical articles. These quibbles aside, thanks again for your effots. - JeffJonez (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I wasn't comparing her directly to Stalin and Hitler, rather than the articles themselves. I could also say "Abraham Lincoln didn't personally free any slaves, but it is included in his article because he had a hand in it." But meaningless comparisons aside, the only thing to do now that it is protected is to try to actively engage the editor in discussion. I have been advised by the protecting admin that if he is unresponsive, to request an unprotect, and he will be blocked. If this happens, you can get on with editing.Drew Smith What I've done 04:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter family

Resolved

– Blocked for editwarring & multiple accounts. If problem resumes, use WP:SSI or WP:AN3 as appropriate. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Iwanafish, alias 125.199.58.121 and 160.244.140.202 has repeatedly and frequently reverted to old formats. He violates 3RR and refuses any discussion despite the efforts of several editors. See his talk page and the talk page for Rehoboth Carpenter family. While primarily focused on Rehoboth Carpenter family his behavior has spread to John Carpenter (bishop), John Carpenter, town clerk of London, and Culham. ANY help to get him to communicate or to get him blocked as needed would be appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that many attempts have been made to communicate, and he has ignored every one of them. Perhaps you should post this at wp:ani, and see what the admins think. Should be a fairly swift block to me.Drew Smith What I've done 09:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's a clear 3RR violation, WP:AN3 is your venue. Be sure to report it pretty soon after it happens. You can also report the editor to that board if they're just barely skirting the limit in a blatantly obvious manner. Or even if they're just generally edit warring (though this requires a more thorough description). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like contributions got blocked a couple days ago for edit warring. Said user's block has expired however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Declan Ganley

Stale

Drew Smith What I've done 03:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person. There has been a fairly NPOV article in place for some time, until a major revert to an old version was made this morning by an unregistered user using an Oireachtas IP (the Oireachtas is the Irish parliament). I reverted to the previous version after that but since then there have been reverts by other users. Please advise to avoid an edit war! Thank you in advance. Midos (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading the history correctly, it seems like a one-time event. This diff is the major revert you mentioned? It appears that the article has returned to it's smaller version; I'll keep an eye on it.

--AndrewHowse (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Just in case, this might be relevant too: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#User:QuotationMan and Declan Ganley etc. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a couple of reverts throughout the day but the discussion on the talk page seems to be getting somewhere now. If it's not inappropriate, I would be grateful for your view on whether the current version or the reverted version is more suitable – my feeling is that the current, pared-down one is more conservative, but there are others who disagree. If you have the time your views would be really appreciated. Midos (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Various disputes at Strategic bombing during World War II

Answered

– answeredDrew Smith What I've done 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Strategic bombing during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are a few thing going at Strategic bombing during World War II, and I'm actually posting here to ask about where these various disputes can be resolved. There was a bit of support when I suggested that we post a request for comment, but now I'm not sure WP:RFC is the right venue - there are issues pertaining to civility, reliability of sources, edit wars, content disputes, NPOV disputes, assumption of bad faith, etc. So, yeah, it's kind of a clusterf*ck. Given that the issue stems from the involved parties not believing that each others' sources are reliable, is WP:RSN a good venue? Or WP:AN3 to deal with the edit warring? Or WP:WQA? I think all parties need to stop editing the page and go over each source thoroughly, but I don't think that will happen without some degree of enforcement. Thoughts? Dawn Bard (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing details, what is wrong with a neutral statement (" controvery exists about blah, some view points include [1-zillion]" or are the sources thought to frivolous? And even a few citations to the effect, " beliefs tend to follow [ insert adjective here ] membership" etc. You don't need to settle an argument, just state it exists.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been that the parties are disputing each others' sources - calling them Nazi propaganda, historical revisionism. It's not so much that they are calling each others' frivolous as they are calling them deliberate misinformation. But I will take this suggestion to the talk page and see if anyone bites. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could just say that, " the nazi's generally believe blah [blah author] but this is dismissed as propaganda by the foos[ foo author]." History is not testable and in any case, it would be difficult to dismiss a notable belief merely because debate exists about its reality ( any atheists on the religion pages?).

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thrikkunnathu Seminary

Resolved

– Maybe? Stubbed & Protected. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thrikkunnathu Seminary is an article that I have been watching and editing for some time.

This Seminary and Seminary church was under the ownership of Unified Malankara Church(Now Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and Malankara Orthodox Church).Currently the church's ownership is disputed by the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and Malankara Orthodox Church. church's ownership is disputed by the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and Malankara Orthodox Church.

An editor seemingly from one of these two churches is trying to put a onesided view about the ownership, and I have been reverting them to a neutral point of view. Some kind of negotiation must be made to ensure that NPOV is maintained.

--ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the first place to discuss a content dispute. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, from all appearances you've neither attempted to discuss things at the article talk page, nor have you even attempted a discussion at the other editor's user talk page. You're right that some kind of negotiation must be made- between yourself and the other editor. Once this is underway, and has hit problems, it's appropriate to request outside intervention, per the dispute resolution process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I requested the other editor to talk about it in the talk page of the article, he/she responded by reverting my edit i.e. request in the talk page. --ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Lijujacobk.

I've examined what's happened here, and I agree that you're acting correctly by bringing your concerns to the article's talk page. The editor who removed your comment did not act correctly.

I will assume that your comment was removed accidentally, and I have put it back.

Because there's a dispute, you should seek consensus before making further changes to the article, but so should other editors.

If you have further difficulty, and particularly if anything you say is removed, please either post here or ask me on my talk page (which is linked from my signature).

Happy editing!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The other editor is not responding to my invitation for a talk but is just doing what he is always does. You can read both articles put by me and him and see which one maintains an NPOV. Please help. --ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If the other editor is not trying to reach consensus, and is pushing his version despite current consensus, or lack there of, request page protection.Drew Smith What I've done 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stubified and protected the article owing to overwhelming WP:BLP worries, an utter lack of sources and edit warring, for starters. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleopatra Jones

Answered

– answered Drew Smith What I've done 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to write about my mother the real Cleopatra Jones. She was a civil rights leader in New York during the 60's - 80's. I am not sure how to write about her since there is a fiction movie that everyone associates with her name. To find out more about the real Cleopatra Jones go to www.cleopatrajones.org

I need your suggestions,

Thanks,

Delores Bunch-Keemer Granddaughter of Cleopatra Jones Founder, The Cleopatra Jones Crusade, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delores789 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting here. You could request that somebody write an article about her, at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies#Civil Rights Figures/Activists. Or, as a lesser alternative, you could write an article yourself; you should read WP:YFA first and then draft the article at User:Delores789/sandbox -just click on the red text and you can start. Then come back here and ask for some constructive criticism. I call that a lesser alternative since you have a conflict of interest and you will be challenged on the neutrality of the article.

Please don't ry to add material to Cleopatra Jones; there are other ways of dealing with that and I'll be glad to help you once there's a decent article about the real-life person. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Do you have any non-self published sources? WP:V R.Vinson (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just discussing what the title should be, if this article should exist, I would recommend that it be titled Cleopatra Jones (activist). If the article is created under that title, to help people find it, you can put the following at the top of the article about the movie Cleopatra Jones:

which would display as:

--Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement over WP:TPG Keep on topic

Resolved

– I guess - per OP comment below. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On talk:Chinese room, I deleted an off-topic comment by Likebox, provided reason in edit summary. This was undone by Dlabtot. I deleted the comment again, stating explicitly and in detail on the talk page why the comment has to go, and why Dlabtot's reasoning is not applicable. Dlabtot reverted again, classifying my argument as "wikilawyering or creative reading of the policy", accusing me of having made my decision "arbitrarily and unilaterally". Previous experience with him leads me to believe that I have no way of reaching consensus with him. Likebox' comment and the argument so far are found in sections deleted section and Computer Haters.

I request advice from an editor experienced with WP:TPG, and especially with deletion of off-topic comments.

Thanks, Paradoctor (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If another user thinks it's relevant, then it's relevant. Why do you think it must be deleted? And furthermore, Dlabtot has responded to the comment with an on-topic response. To be frank, I think you should just drop it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, doesn't seem particularly out of order. I suggest that you leave it. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"If another user thinks it's relevant, then it's relevant.": By that argument, we shouldn't remove vandalism, spam or hoaxes. More importantly, Dlabtot doesn't think it's relevant, or else he would have made a case. Instead, he chose to level unsubstantiated, untenable allegations at me.

"Why do you think it must be deleted?": It's long-standing policy (letter and spirit), as I've shown; it is practiced all the time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]; and it prevents results like this one. If you don't want to read the review: the result is that the archive does not have a problem with off-topic comments, it almost entirely consists of off-topic comments. Now try using such an archive for encyclopedic work. That's the reason why off-topic posts have to be deleted, in accordance with policy and practice.

"you should just drop it": Why? If I'm wrong, I need to know, if I'm right, Dlabtot needs to know.

Now on to my actual reason for coming here: I specifically asked for someone experienced, in order to answer this question: Is there any reason to believe that my actions in this matter were not in keeping with the letter and the spirit of WP:TALK?

Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"doesn't seem particularly out of order": Please explain what about Likebox' comment is not off-topic?

The insipidness of this argument suggests that it should be treated like "flat earth".: "Insipidness" is Likebox' personal opinion, irrelevant. The flat earth article is considerably longer than the Chinese room article.

"It is a transparent appeal" ... to ... "probably still is": Again, entirely Likebox' opinion. Not even a hint of having anything to do with improving the article.

"this transparent to refute, nobody bothers": By Searle's own account, there have been "over a hundred published attacks".

And of course what I said in the reply to Mendaliv. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines are just that; guidelines. While I have no opinion as to whether this particular discussion should be considered an exception, guidelines are typically not something which should be rigidly and unwaveringly enforced. Article talk comments are generally given wide tolerance because of a great deal of other behavioral guidelines which would go against the routine deletion of "off topic" commentary (e.g., WP:BITE, WP:AGF). I'd even argue that to routinely remove talk page comments, especially very shortly after their posting, constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL (except in the case of blatant Wikipedia vandalism).

There's a striking difference between policies and guidelines, by the way (see WP:PG). While policies are not intended to have exceptions (e.g., WP:BLP), guidelines are much more relaxed and don't enjoy the wide consensus policies do.

In light of this, let me ask you again, why must this comment be deleted? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"guidelines are typically not something which should be rigidly and unwaveringly enforced": Who does? We're talking about a particular case, not in generalities. I do have a good grasp of of the concept of slack, and when to apply it. Below for more.

routine deletion of "off topic": Nothing "routine" about it.

"WP:BITE": Not applicable, Likebox is not a newbie. Neither is he new to Chinese room, he tried to soap the article, got deleted (not by me), and is now soaping the talk page.

"WP:AGF": Immaterial, I did not delete the comment because I was concerned with his motives.

"routinely remove talk page comments": Again, there is nothing routine about it. If you want to see routine, check out the talk pages I linked in my previous reply.

"In light of this, let me ask you again, why must this comment be deleted?": Sigh. :-( Why do you bother to reply if you don't read what you reply to? I answered that one already. Also: Quote Talk:Chinese_room/Archive_1: "This is all Original Research. Where are the sources that are making these arguments/counterarguments?". Even a superficial scan reveals that most of the archive is original research or otherwise off-topic. I'd be surprised if substantially more than a quarter held up under scrutiny. What percentage of a talk page must be off-topic before you pull the brakes?

"see WP:PG": I did, more than once. That I used "policy" instead "guideline" was a lapsus. But since we're there, I noticed slight discrepancies between what you stated, and what can be found there:

"While policies are not intended to have exceptions": "a standard that, with rare exceptions" (my emphasis): otherwise IAR wouldn't make sense

"Talk page guidelines are just that; guidelines.": "not mean that it is appropriate to ignore guidelines simply because they are guidelines; like the policies, they exist for good reasons"

"guidelines" ... "don't enjoy the wide consensus policies do": "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus and apply to all editors."

Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question. Why must this comment be deleted? Above you said it must be deleted because of long-standing policy (which WP:TPG is not). In your initial removal, you said it was because the comment was irrelevant to the article (though another editor has replied to the post with an on-topic remark). I repeat: why must this comment be deleted? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"long-standing policy (which WP:TPG is not)": As stated above, it was a lapsus. And the only relevant difference is in expected frequency of exceptions.

"another editor has replied to the post with an on-topic remark": Sure, after it was restored, by him. And since the reply was on-topic I didn't delete it.

"Why must this comment be deleted?": That's the default behavior stated in the applicable part of the guideline. Try this one: "Why should an exception be made?". Paradoctor (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so the thread is now relevant? I've got to say any further discussion about this particular thread is moot. But about removing talk page commentary in general, I'll tell you this much: In my experience, the sorts of things that are generally removed are blatant vandalism and trolling, blatant incivility, blatantly off-topic remarks (e.g., discussing olive oil in an article on mathematics) and discussion from a user who is blatantly and repeatedly (i.e., following warnings) breaking WP:NOTMYSPACE/WP:NOTFORUM with their use of discussion pages.

But to address this particular incident in hindsight, even if it was right on to remove the commentary, once it was restored, the wrong thing to do was to make a big deal out of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a battleground. The right thing to do would be to ignore it unless the comment itself is severely disruptive (i.e., interferes with your web browser, contains dangerous personal information or spreads libel), and return to article writing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a battleground.": Thank you so very much. That was what I needed to be reminded of. Yes, that was a sarcastic remark. Don't worry, the matter has been settled. Thank you for your comments. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help. To explain the application in this case is that, quite frankly and with all due respect, your argumentative attitude both here and on the article talk page is in no way conducive to a collegial environment. And furthermore, you're flat-on-your-face wrong in your interpretation of the spirit of WP:TPG- your application of it at this point is probably in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Where did you ask the author of the comment to redact it because it appeared off-topic? Where did you remind the author of WP:TPG? Why, once the thread became on-topic and the point was then moot, did you continue to protest its restoration?

If you still disagree with my understanding of community standards, I would suggest you ask for further involvement at WP:VP and WT:TPG. I will say that if you want an idea of what's normally done in a similar situation, you look to the standards for archiving talk pages. Note particularly, that talk page archival generally isn't to be done unless there's a consensus at that page to begin doing so. Thus, if a consensus is required to uncontroversially archive old and dead discussions, how reasonable is it to simply delete a good faith contributor's comments fifty-eight minutes after he made them without any attempt to discuss it with that editor? And furthermore, how reasonable is it to then protest that comment's restoration once the applicability of guidelines have been called into question, and it's clear there is no consensus on that page? It's absolutely unreasonable, of course. Please take this into consideration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, my understanding of community standards was fundamentally wrong. As was my understanding of the proper behavior on talk pages. Thank you for a valuable lesson. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob. By the by, in regards to what I mention below, would you care to comment? I think if you and the other editors at that article are deadlocked, it might help to get outside involvement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you. As I said, the matter has been settled, kindly check the page again. Ragards, Paradoctor (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

...the heck is going on here anyway?

Following some deeper looking at the discussion at Talk:Chinese room, I'm concerned about the tone of discussion going on there and the incredible length of discussion about what appears to focus on one dispute. It looks like there are basically 3 editors in that article who have been in an argument for over a month now. What's going on in this article? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified Vandalism

Answered

– Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:81.97.41.159 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Stop adding unsourced info and vandalising Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yes (Pet Shop Boys album), you will be blocked from editing. - eo (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you kindly tell whoever sent this to me that I am ... repeat ... NOT GUILTY on this!!!

I did view the page but in no way was I editing it; if I had done it was purely by accident.

Please inform the user who unfairly reported me that this is the case!!!

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.41.159 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history of the article I can see that someone from the IP address 81.97.41.159 made eight edits between 19:45 and 21:33 UTC on 15 April 2009. These included the addition of uncited material and a personal comment. This is why a notice was left on the uesr talk page for IP address 81.97.41.159. Now this may not have been you, whover you are, but if editors do not create accounts and log in then we can only use the IP address to post warnings. That is why the text: This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address is added to IP user talk pages. Insulting language such as that posted above won't getyou very far on Wikipedia. If there are any other ways in which we can help, please reply. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

removed personal attacks--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't a big deal. I've added {{ISP}} to the IP's user talk page, which explains that old warning messages may be intended for someone else. I generally consider it a good idea to place such tags when the IP editor is either extremely disruptive (sometimes the realization that we know who their ISP is scares them off) or is upset at finding warnings on their user talk page (like this editor). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about this.

Discussion moved

– Moved to respective AfD discussions. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WinGeno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AfD
WinShell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AfD

Hi I have been contacted through wikipedia (see email below) by User WinShell who is also the same person as User:WinGeno regarding my creation of WinGeno and my editing of WinShell article. Ingo is the creator of the two programs in question keeps reverting my edits and has asked me through the page history the following "(@Gioto: Please leave the pages about my software as is. Thanks.) (Tag: reference list removal)" & ‎ (I rather preferr to maintain my own page. Thanks.) (Tag: references removed)

I will not be watching or editing the pages in question, nor will I be acknowledging his email to me.

I believe that Ingo has a mistaken belief about what wikipedia. And how the internet works in that if you publish something, it is then in the public eye and can be referenced.

I do not want to get into a editing war with him.

Thank you gioto (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Email: WinShell and WinGeno Wiki pages Monday, 1 June, 2009 7:01 PM From:"Winshell" To:"Gioto"

Hi,

I would really prefer if you could leave the wiki pages about WinShell and WinGeno alone. I disagree with the changes you are doing and do not want to have references to my personal web site nor Mutabor. Please respect that.

Thanks & best regards,

<personal name redacted> Jezhotwells (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So what exactly do you need help with? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've listed both contributions and contributions at WP:UAA for violating WP:IU and WP:SPAMNAME. I think the requestor just wanted to bring this matter to the attention of someone more experienced who could help resolve the dispute. UAA won't necessarily resolve it- the editor will be free to return with a non-promotional, non-role account name if blocked by UAA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And both have now been blocked. Gioto, you can of course feel free to edit the articles in question. You aren't ever required to respond to an editor's emails if they're unwelcome. Definitely bring things back here if there's more trouble in the future! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv is correct I was bringing it to people with more experience than myself in these matters. WinGeno is a good program as there are few that are free like it. I don't expect any further issues. Thank you gioto (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have sent WinShell and WinGeno to Afd as neither has sufficient references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability. – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ansfelden

Resolved

– Image uploaded. Drew Smith What I've done 07:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can upload it yourself via the special:upload page, or you can go through the channels to have it officialy imported (sorry, I don't have any experience improting from other wiki's, so I don't have a link to that page). Try asking at the WP:HelpDesk.Drew Smith What I've done 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed section title; please don't put templates in section titles! It makes deep links to the section itself not work. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I will keep it in mind in the future. James470 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It had been suggested by a couple of other people to just download it from there and upload it here, but the second person who suggested that was concerned about preserving the file's history. James470 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, there are official chanels you can go through to get it properly imported, but I don't know them. Perhaps the helpdesk?Drew Smith What I've done 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded it to wiki commons from German Wikipedia. The original licenses was public domain, so should be OK. You can find it at Wappen_der_Gemeinde_Ansfelden.jpg Jezhotwells (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a bother, but your URL seems to have two or three extraneous characters. I tried deleting the stuff after ".jpg" and that seems to fix it. James470 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, James, one of the curly brackets got mixed up. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Newcomer needs help to sent deletion request

Discussion moved

– Deletion review underway: WP:DRV#Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was closed with the decision to merge the article into Mahmudiyah killings. I and others strongly disagree with it. I discussed the decision with the closing administrator [here]. There is also a discussion of the involved people [here] As the closing administrator did not change his decision, i want to file a deletion review request. As I am a Newbie. How is the best way to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking. And it doesn't matter how many votes there are, but rather the weight of the arguments given. If the delete side had a more convincing argument than the keep side, the article must go. If you want to write up a new one, ~~get yourself an account~~ and give it a whirl, but keep in mind all the relevant policies.Drew Smith What I've done 07:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If (and only if) you believe the closing administrator misinterpreted consensus in the discussion, you can request a deletion review. This is an appeal of the closing admin's interpretation, and not a redo of the AfD itself. On the other hand, if you believe you have new sources or something that alleviates all the merge/delete rationales in the AfD, you may wish to kick off a rewrite in your userspace and then talk to the closing admin. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank's! I just got it submitted. [[8]]. I am not used to the interface. If time someone could check if it is technically ok. Not the content. Just the Headline and text formatting. But i think it's ok and i also put a banner at the closing administrators page. But i am not sure how to put a banner onto the article page to announce people that the article is under review. But i think someone will take care of it. Thanks again. Iqinn (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you submitted it fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over scope of category

Stale

I'm looking for help with regard to the conduct of User:Otto4711 concerning Category:2004 United States election voting controversies.

The category was nominated for deletion. Otto4711 favored deletion, writing, "absent the far-too-tangential inclusion of people like GWB, Barbara Boxer and Jesse Jackson, there are about three articles that would go here, making this a small category." His view did not prevail, however, and the CfD was closed as "no consensus".

Otto4711 then went ahead and implemented his view anyway. He removed most of the articles from the category, without discussion at Category talk:2004 United States election voting controversies or on any of the article talk pages. An example is Cliff Arnebeck, a lawyer who is notable solely because of his litigation concerning the 2004 United States election voting controversies. Otto4711's stated rationale was "a person is not a controversy".

I considered this an unduly narrow interpretation of the category, one not consistent with the handling of other categories, and certainly not one that should be implemented without consensus. I expressed my opinion on Otto4711's talk page, started a thread on the category talk page where the issue could be discussed, and edited my note on Otto4711's talk page to point him to the new thread. I then restored most of the articles to the category.

Otto4711 made one post to the category talk page, reiterating his view that "Individual people are not controversies," and then reverted most of my edits, so as to again remove from the category several articles that had been in it for quite some time.

Otto4711's position is not consistent with how we handle categories generally. It appears to be an attempt to implement his view of the category even though he was in the minority in the CfD discussion. I don't want to get into a revert war with him, but it appears that he will just keep reiterating and acting on his personal opinion, regardless of the CfD and regardless of what anyone else says on the category talk page. JamesMLane t c 06:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed people who have such a slight relationship to the topic as to make the categorization silly (like Tom Feeney whose article says nothing about 2004 voting controversies, for instance, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones whose connection to the controversy was to object to certifying the Ohio vote) and from articles like George W. Bush and John Kerry who, if they were included in every category that touches some aspect of their political careers, would be in hundreds if not thousands of categories, making the categories on their articles virtually useless for navigational purposes. Yes, I do believe that the category should have been deleted at CFD, but I do not appreciate being accused of trying to somehow subvert the will of the people (all four of them who !voted in favor of keeping) by removing articles that even some of those who wanted the category kept thought didn't belong. The category system is not intended to be an index of every aspect of every subject. It is supposed to be for defining characteristics of the article's subject. There is no way that the 2004 voting controversy is defining of Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Common Cause (which does not mention the 2004 controversy at all) or the vast majority of the other articles that were included. I'm sorry that this other editor has decided to make accusations of skullduggery in his edit summaries but if I find an article that is miscategorized I see no reason not to remove the category, regardless of how I might personally feel about the category. Otto4711 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction of occasional errors is one thing. You removed, by my count, approximately 17 of the 20 articles in the category, effecting its near-deletion despite the CfD result. You persisted in your actions even after being informed that this major change was objected to, and you have not discussed the dispute in good faith. Edits by me and others on the category talk page show that some of us are willing to discuss specifics -- I pointed out that I myself agree with you about Common Cause -- but your approach remains to do as you please without regard to anyone else's views.

I didn't accuse you of skullduggery. I accused you of unilateralism. On Wikipedia, that's a pretty serious charge by itself, without being hyped up. JamesMLane t c 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment – there are 'list categories' and 'topic categories'; see WP:CAT, 2nd section. Category:2004 United States election voting controversies is named like a list category (eg Category:Wine is a topic category ('topics related to wine') and Category:Wines is a list category, of particular wines). Otto would be correct in saying 'A is not an XXX' to remove A from a list category 'Cat:XXXs'; so it depends on whether this one is to be viewed as a list category. Would 'controversy' be better? (I think a singular category name would always be a topic category ... fish, sheep etc apart.) I would personally like to see in Category:2004 United States election voting controversies an easy way of finding related articles or subarticles and applaud the idea of redirects, so that an article on say GWB would only be included if it had a substantial related section (several sentences) that the redirect would target directly. One advantage of the redirect idea is that it avoids category clutter; the redirect 'GWB and the 2004 United States election voting controversy' is categorised and GWB is not. Occuli (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You could call it "controversy", as in "the controversy over whether the election was conducted fairly". It's seemed more logical, however, to say "controversies" -- not because it's intended as a "list category", but because there were multiple controversies (were would-be voters prevented from registering? were electronic voting machines hacked? etc.). JamesMLane t c 21:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to make a page without violating wikipidia rules

Answered

– it seems. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I want to bring to the attention of wikipedia readers a company rankabove.com "... RankAbove maintains popular and well-liked profiles within each network, and uses these profiles to squash or deflate upcoming negative stories about your brand before they become popular and visible..." - This text was copied from rankabove reputation management product page

I have tried to edit a page for this company but it was deleted as an attack and violation of wikipidia ruls of conduct.

I think this kind of activity is what makes wikipidia less reliable, and the least we can do is bring it to the public domain.

If someone agrees, please help me edit a page that conforms wikipidia rules. Thank youOtreblaiD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Hi OtreblaiD. Have you looked through the comments on your talk page, including a guide on writing your first article? An article on a website like RankAbove should follow the notability requirements for websites, and should be written in an encyclopedic manner to reflect the pros and cons of the site (e.g. include info on competitors), and should be written from a neutral point of view, and should not come off as an advertisement masquerading as an article. Remember, Wikipedia is not just a collection of all websites out there, so there must be something notable about the site.

You may want to give it a try in your user space and then post it to WP:AFC for review before posting it.

Also, may I ask why you are passionate about this topic? 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm passionate about this topic because I love and care a lot about wikipidia, I view wikipidia as one of the most important projects of our time. Ever since I came across that topic, I feel I should do my best to protect wikipidia from this approach that uses the encyclopedia as a framework for promoting ,dishonestly, commercial interests, thus causing ,in my view, enormous damage to wikipidia reputation and the readers. I will try your suggestions. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtreblaiD (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you care about this, but I'll note that I don't see any reason to act on this for a number of reasons. First off, Wikipedia's aim is to write an encyclopedia in line with its five pillars; what you're suggesting would seem to break the tenet of maintaining a neutral point of view. Secondly, I don't see any evidence that the company in question has expressed an intent to violate Wikipedia policies or disruptively edit Wikipedia pages, and furthermore I'd recommend exercising care in accusing parties of misdeeds they have not committed. Third, even if their company's direct intent is to disruptively edit Wikipedia, and they have done so in the past, without any significant coverage of the company and its actions in reliable sources, there's no reason to mention it; to do so would violate policies on verifiability and maintaining a neutral point of view, as well as guidelines on notability. Fourth, consider the philosophy in WP:DENY; an active effort to combat such behavior or write about it may only serve to encourage it or drive clients to such a company. In all, I see an overwhelming set of reasons not to write about this subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the company has openly admitted on their site that they edit pages using the profiles they maintain to dishonestly edit wikipidia (among other) online resources. Since they work in this deceiving manner, I don't think one is able to gather concrete "evidence" to prove it. I know for a fact they have edited more than one wikipidia page. I just think that the least that can be done is to add a wiki page that describe their work, If they don't violate any specific rule (which I found hard to believe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtreblaiD (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds like original research, and definitely very biased to say the least. I'm reasonably sure there are project-space means of dealing with SEO and brand-management type firms who disruptively edit Wikipedia. Writing an article to complain about someone just isn't how we do things here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mendaliv, Sounds fair and reasonable. How do you deal with these kinds of activity? Where can I found info on these project-space means? OtreblaiD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

As a co-founder and employee of RankAbove, I gotta respond here. The above user is a sockpuppet spammer (he also made edits as 79.180.118.152) who has been called out for spam by multiple users and caused a page to be locked. He's just angry with me for reverting a bunch of spammy links he made to an article. Take his comments with a grain of salt.

As for our reputation management product, it's just about cleaning up the SERPs for a client via SEO (pushing positive or neutral pages), and not about removing spam (which doesn't much affect reputation) from Wikipedia. We're the guys Coca Cola calls because the web site KillerCoke.org comes up when you search for their brand name, not because someone made some Wikipedia edits to their page or left a bad comment on Digg. As for the above line from our site, it's completely accurate: We maintain profiles on social networks and social bookmarking sites to help prevent negative stories from reaching the SERPs or help positive stories get there. As Wikipedia is not a social network (trust me, I'm avid watcher of the List of social networking websites and a faithful guardian of its no redlinks rule), we have little to do here.

As Mendaliv said, there is no proof of us doing anything untoward in Wikipedia, nor have we. Our primary product is SEO for large web sites backed by a SEO platform we are building (that's my job here). As Wikipedia links are NoFollow, they have little value for us. Plus, our clients generally have little need of backlinks; they are focused on structural advice and search optimization for the long tail of large sites (i.e. 10,000+ pages).

My edits bear me out, while OtreblaiD has only made edits to one company page, to which he certainly bears some sort of grudge and to which he has only added spammy external links in violation of general Wikipedia policies on external links. He has also seeked to besmirch my name and that of my company. If OtreblaiD would really like to help out this community, might I suggest he do one of the following:

Make some constructive edits to other Wikipedia pages that follow WP guidelines
The page he primarily edits, Peer39, is a mess and could use some real work.
Combat real spam, vandalism and COI edits in Wikipedia using great available tools like Twinkle

--FeldBum (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not throw around accusations of sockpuppetry. If you have some evidence of wrongdoing, please report it to WP:SSP. However, the IP edits you point to were made before the user created an account so it is hardly sockpuppetry. Besides, this is only a problem if it is done abusively - deceptively pretending to be two people in a vote for instance. Editing without logging on or editing from different accounts for different purposes is acceptable if done openly. Even if the user had already created an account they could simply have forgotten to log on. You say RankAbove has little to do on Wikipedia, may I ask what purpose your presence here serves in that case? SpinningSpark 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So maybe it is simply spam, but not sockpuppetry spam. Either way, he has been called out for it and caused a page to be locked for it. I've been a Wikipedia user/editor since 1995; long before RankAbove was founded and quite independent of it. I'm here doing what most Wikipedia editors do: adding knowledge and trying to protect Wikipedia from spam and vandalism. I think I do a pretty good job of it, and this user has a vendetta against me because I reverted his edits (of adding multiple external links to commercial sites to a Wiki page). --FeldBum (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a vendetta against you. I told you that all I care about is the truth. I suggest you don't make any false accusations without proof. The deceiving way in which rankabove operates, makes the possibility to gather evidence impossible. I do suggest that in the future add a disclaimer for every contribution you or one of the employees of rankabove make, That states that you are working on behalf of a client and specify the name of the client. If all is legit and in accordance with wikipidia policy, then in my view there is no immoral fault, but if you build for years a respectful identity just to exploit it once in a while for the interests of your clients, then I think it is very wrong and dishonest .OtreblaiD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

<outdent>I have just taken a look at the deleted RankAbove article and agree that the deletion was justified as the article stood. OtreblaiD, I suggest you desist with this campaign until you have some real wrongdoing to point to. Everybody works for some company and would have a conflict of interest if they wrote about it. Until that happens, please, let it rest. Please also read the material on the right way to write an article left for you by Mendaliv. Feldblum, the article you say was the cause of the bad-feeling between the two of you was Peer39. You appear to be saying that this is unconnected with RankAbove and you have no WP:conflict of interest while editing it. Have I got that right? SpinningSpark 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got no COI with Peer39. I know the guys there; the Israeli start-up world is pretty small, but they are not a client and I've got no reason to "manage" that article. Take a look at Peer39. It's a mess, filled with an unprecedented amount of external links. I was trying to reduce that and wikify the article a bit. I never had a problem with competitors being listed, just with a long list of external links to competitors. I made similar edits recently to Domain appraisal, smiley and sabalan, all with the same lack of COI. A long list of ext links helps no one. --FeldBum (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It now depends who you choose to believe, and whats more likely. I know for a fact the rankabove and peer39 are associated, Contributions were made by rankabove employees to the peer39 page in accordance with the description on their reputation management product page. I have gone through the list of competitors on the peer39 page history and it seems strange that links to fake competitors home pages were left out, while real competitors links were deleted. I am not responsible for these edits and I it is my impression that it is clear that the contributions made by rankabove are biased. I'm not an expert on wikipidia policy, just starting to learn it. That is why I wrote here to consult and get assistance. Thank you SpinningSpark OtreblaiD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

It is not a matter of who I choose to believe at all. It is next to impossible to verify that editors are who they say they are on Wikipedia, let alone their motivations. Attempts to do so may even put you in breach of the WP:OUTING policy. In the end, it does not matter. We go by how the editor behaves - are their edits of benefit to the encyclopedia or not. I see no evidence that FeldBum has made any disruptive edits at all, so there is no reason that Wikipedia should have a problem with him, whoever he is. FeldBum has openly stated his connection with RankAbove without being asked and has now further stated he has no connection with Peer39. These statements are now a permanent record in the archives of this page and could be referred to if there is a problem in the future. Other than that, I advise you (OtreblaiD) to walk away from this conflict, you are unlikely to achieve anything by it.

On the matter of external links, the general principle here is to keep them to a minimum. The official site of an organisation should be linked in an article about that organisation, but not to other organisations. Stated in policy, we should avoid any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Peer39 should have a link, but in my opinion, all the links to competitors should be deleted. You can still, of course, wikilink to competitors in the body text of the article if they also have articles on Wikipedia and mentioning them would be relevant to the article. Internal wikilinks are usually desirable whereas external links usually are not. SpinningSpark 10:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

avoiding promotional style

Answered

– Asked & Answered, advice followed (at least some of it). Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have attempted to post information about a company but the article had been withdrawn due to appearing promotional. It has been re-written with links added. Can I email the new article to you for review please? Strategy2009 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't anyone to whom you could email an article for review, but if you posted your draft article in your userspace, say at User:Strategy2009/Sandbox, the editors here and administrator who deleted your entry could provide some advice. I will note however that if your draft is unequivocal spam or advertisement, it will be deleted pretty quickly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The page at your sandbox is too promotional, and has no references to establish notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I hit the page and it struck me to be loaded with puffery. I would like to contrast that to this article for which I also solicit additional input on notability and NPOV,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdseeksblonde/Marchywka_Effect

The one review seemed encouraging and upon rereading I encountered unsourced puffery myself ( which isn't too surprising since I have a personal POV that is hard to eliminate on my own).

One trap people slip into , not just here but everywhere, is to mistake puffery for substance. If you make it a pattern and practice to edit this out you may not sell too many used cars but should make a better entry :) Adjectives that have connotation while meaning nothing, incomplete comparisons, in short things that can't be factually shown to be true or false, even hypothetically ( historical claims are almost untestable but hypothetically new evidence could be discovered etc. You can't prove that cell phone carrier "X" is cheaper unless you have something to compare it to etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There is, in fact, one reference, and I have fixed the formatting.
Start by finding reliable sources about the company, which should be third-party, independent of the subject, and have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. (Good reliable sources for a British company would be the BBC, the Times or other broadsheet newspapers, etc.) Then write what the sources say. Please do not write what the company says about itself unless third party reliable sources agree.
Content in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and encyclopaedic in tone, and you should be in a position to prove that the company is notable according to Wikipedia's standards before moving the article into the mainspace. If the company is not notable, it should not have an article.
I suggest that in encyclopaedic writing, you should employ much fewer adjectives (about a tenth of the number you have in the existing draft) and less business jargon. Strive for plain English, and use short words and short sentences.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Semmelweis Society

Answered

– Also, since the OP does not edit often, copied to talk page. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings: I am one of four corporate board members. You will find my name in these corporate documents: [9].

Our website at [10] also reflects the membership of our current board.

We don't know who edited these pages, but our President, Roland Chalifoux, is a practicing physician in West Virginia. Whoever posted a reference was not hyperlinked and there is no information to support this claim. There was controvery, but it was related to individuals who wrote things that now appear in this entry.

Semmelweis is an organization that fights retaliation against physicians. Your website is being used to perpetuate retaliation. Help! (e-mail redacted) Clark Baker (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What article are you reffering to? Is the inserted information sourced or unsourced? If unsourced is the information truely libelous or merely incorrect? Are you familiar with our policies on conflict of interest, biographies of a living person, and what wikipedia is not?(all hyperlinks lead to the relevant policies) Also, we have no way of really verifying who you are. Even if we could, information from you would be considered a "Primary Source" (see WP:RS for more info on sources) and we generally use "Secondary", and even "Tertiary" sources. While "Primary" sources aren't strictly forbidden, they are discouraged, and generally very difficult to verify. One of the founding priniples of wikipedia is "Verifiability, not Truth." Glad to be of service.Drew Smith What I've done 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not very clear, but the controversy you appear to be referring to is the alleged revocation of Dr. Chalifoux's license in the state of Texas. This fact is referenced to this article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I cannot read the whole article without paying but the lede is enough to verify the claim. If this is actually untrue, then you need to provide a reliable source which makes that clear and the article can then be amended. I presume it was not hyperlinked because it against our guidelines to hyperlink to sites requiring payment to read. As for who edited the page, you can find this out by clicking on the "History" tab of the article. In this particular case the information in question was inserted in this edit by User:Keepcalmandcarryon quite some time ago (July 2008). SpinningSpark 20:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Spiningspark for informing me of this discussion. I concur with the above that reliable, verifiable sources are needed for this and every other article on Wikipedia. As far as I know, such sources state that Chalifoux was allegedly involved in at least one death, and that, as a result of this and other complaints, Chalifoux's medical license was revoked in Texas. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

genre issues with Korn

Resolved

– Some talk page discussion happening, page protected. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am posting here because there has been non-stop genre edits to the page. Firstly, edits to the title genre are usually changed to nu-metal or to alt-metal, so I umbrella termed it to metal, I even explained it many times, but there were still changes by various IPs and a certain user User:Portillo to the title genre, specifically nu-metal or alt-metal again, which were reverted by me. Wiki Libs changed it to rock recently, which was fine by me, but was still being changed around, I had to put a note to it.

Now, about User:Portillo, he/she comes by every now and then, usually making the most disruptive edits. Such as the genre title issue before, or something he does: if it was rock to the title genre, he would also add to the table genre rock. These edits were reverted not only by me. Rock is the umbrella term, and was meant to prevent conflict between the nu-metal and alt-metal issue. It is not Korn's literal genre. Though, when I revert them, he doesn't seem to revert it back for a period of time. Plus, he doesn't bother to use the talk page to explain his/her edits clearer.

I am asking for assistance on the page just to straighten things out.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, please don't refer to good faith edits as vandalism. And as to the situation... basically my advice is that if there's a dispute over their genre, it's a contentious issue, and thus the genre needs to be sourced. Simply discussing what should be in there because it's obvious isn't correct; it needs to be sourced. If they're nu-metal or alt-metal, there should be a magazine article or album insert somewhere that says Korn are nu-metal or alt-metal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Even articles I have seen take sides with the genre clash, VH1 describes them as alt-metal while Rhapsody describes them as nu-metal. There are multiple genres which can define a band, a prime example is Weezer, and they have umbrella termed the title as rock. Why I am here is because I'm having trouble maintaining the umbrella term. Making edits that take neither side and neutral pointing the issue.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 03:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of music articles I've seen tend to list the specific genres of music which the band fits, rather than the umbrella terms alone. But of course music articles aren't my specialty. Maybe someone else around here can help you, but if not, asking at WT:MUSIC might be your best bet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My simple suggestion would be to double genre them. I've seen many books, movies, bands, plays, etc. etc. with up to five genres. Saying Alt-metal and Nu-metal, is probably more acurate, as some songs are alt, and some are nu. This is both a compromise and more accurate than an "umbrella" term.Drew Smith What I've done 04:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try negotiating with this idea.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 04:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted by User:Fair Deal, unless if you think I should revert his edit, we are right back to the beginning of the conflict.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 01:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have requested page protectionDrew Smith What I've done 03:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability issue on Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric

Discussion moved

– Now at AfD. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 13:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The author of the Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric, User:Guswen (who seems to be Lukaszyk, he sent me an email) removed the notability tag twice without justification. I believe the page is not notable, nor well cited. The author wrote a paper and I see the page as a promotion. Also I have doubts about his expertise. It would be best if a probabilist can help, but any editorial assistance would be appreciated. Since I have little experience dealing with this kind of situation. --Memming (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I should think he's right to remove the {{notability}} tag in this particular instance. The problem isn't notability; it's that the article needs to be better-sourced using inline citations.

I need to look up which template to add to address that, but I'll find it shortly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Duh, it's {{refimprove}}, I should have known that. I'll add it to the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is from a single source, which is a paper written by him. The paper is not notable in the community (the paper have not been cited so far). If this article shall be allowed in wikipedia, why shall I not put all my papers where I define new quantities into wikipedia as well? I think we shall wait until it receives sufficient amount of attention academically before putting into an encyclopedia. --Memming (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well beyond my expertise, in that case. I'll do two things: 1) post a note on the relevant Wikiproject (here) to ask someone better qualified to evaluate, and 2) tag the article for expert attention.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article talk page, I would say that thee is a clear conflict of interest here. The author should declare their interest and be open with other editors. If the article subject is just a PhD paper that is not cited elsewhere it may not be notable, yet. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just put it up for AFD. It'll be a snowball delete, I assure you. COI promotion of a concept that the author named after himself and is only used in one paper he wrote....it's open and shut. --C S (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! I'll put it on AFD now. --Memming (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My name is Szymon Łukaszyk and I created this article on March 25, 2007 (under probability metric) but until now there were no such an intense discussion like the present one.

I actually removed the notability tag twice: once - because I added additional reference to my PhD thesis and after changing the article's name as User:Memming suggested, twice because I added yet additional (though indirect) reference. If User:Memming has "doubts about my expertise" I share his standpoint that an editorial assistance of a probabilist would be highly appreciated and it seems to me that we just have such a discussion ongoing with a User:Melcombe who is a PhD statistician. I just do not see a reason why the community insists on deleting this article. When I wrote my thesis 8 years ago we called this metric a "probability metric" (or a "measurement metric"). Since after discussing this issue on the article's discussion page it appeared that "probability metric" is too general name for this concept I consulted it with my supervisor and we concluded that the present name of the article is fairly adequate. But if the name is the case let us simply change it e.g. to a "measurement metric".

As for the concept of this "metric" itself. I am its author but I do not work at the University any more (mainly for personal reasons) and I am unaware of any further research on this idea though it proven successful in approximation methods of mechanics.

As I already mentioned I wrote this article not to self-promote myself or my work but to provide an information about this concept, let it live its own story and maybe inspire further researchers. I am obviously open to further article's editions like [one] by User:Michael Hardy who introduced an idea of D(X, Y) = E(|X - Y|) though it later happened incorrect.

Everyone can verify the information provided in the article and repeat the calculations to obtain the same results. And I am sure that some inconsistencies and flaws that are still present shall be removed thanks to discussions that we are having right now.

There is no element of the article that would appear as promoting my private or commercial interests apart of the article's title which I propose to change to "measurement metric".

Szymon Łukaszyk --Guswen (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)/.

Wikipedia is NOT a journal, nor a forum. It is an encyclopedia. Discussion and advancing ideas is good, but I do not believe wikipedia is a place to develop research ideas. I would definitely agree with the article evolving in scholarpedia on the other hand, but not here. You say you are not self-promoting your idea, but you are trying to let more people know about your idea which is not already very notable through wikipedia. Why is that not self-promoting? --Memming (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Projects like the radio station or other "catalog/yellow pages" type projects not withstanding, I think they want to avoid a collection of, no offense, trivia with the notability criterion. To adopt the mantra of home flipping, you only need to find 1 or 2 of the billions of unrelated humans on the planet to express interest in your idea or home as large as your own interest to make it work out :) Did someone move the Marchywka Effect request?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to a separate section below, because I thought it was not related. --Memming (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How to a real estate agency

Resolved

– At least for present purposes. User:JustRent indeffed as an inappropriate user name. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to list our Sydney real estate agency, Just Rent Sydney. Just Rent Sydney . Can you please suggest an appropriate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustRent (talk • contribs) 10:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is an encyclopaedia not a directory. Please read WP:What Wikipedia is and WP:What Wikipedia is not. You would probably be best served at Yellow Pages Australia or [11]. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a radio station project or some other project and many of these entries, while just stubs, don't have obvious notability beyond "local" audiences. Personally I don't care one way or the other but one holding company tried to list himself, I flagged it as an ad but I guess if you will list radio stations the companies are ok too? Even each convenience store has its own personalities and characters, not sure how far you want to take this for items of local commercial interest. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a piddling little US radio station to AfD and was told there is an unofficial guideline that all radio stations with FCC licences have notability. My own opinion is if that's the case, it should be in the notability guidelines. It certainly is not true of real estate agencies. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Realtors have licenses don't they? It would be more notable for "pirate stations" to broadcast I would think. By extending this criteria, I would think anyone who can be found in a FOIA request could be a bio candidate. What about amateur radio operators? They are FCC licensed and certainly there is a public interest in their emergency response capabilities even ( @#^$ firefox keeps hanging...) today. Seriously, can amateur operators get their shacks pictured? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Radio_Relay_League

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JustRent reported to WP:UAA as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD removed by original author - what should I do

Resolved

– Article deleted per CSD criterion A7; contributions indeffed per WP:IU. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I put a CSD on Arthur Kade for 'Blatant hoax'. The original author removed the deletion block almost immediately, with a lovely 'how dare you'. While the article may not be a 'blatant hoax' (and rather just a 'hoax') this editor has gone about removing it themselves, which I though was frowned upon. What should I do? Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - do you use Twinkle? If so, there's an easy to send them a note about it. I'll take care of this one. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the author. They shouldn't have removed the tags themselves. However, I believe that this is not a hoax. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 12:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow it took me a minute or two to notice the username - the real problem in this mind is that this is autobio. I have warned him, and removed the puffery and inappropriate links. As much as I dislike someone to do this, a quick google search to me makes it look like he'll survive notability, but if you disagree there's always AFD. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 12:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the username to UAA as disruptive/misleading; the user claims not to be the subject, which would make this impersonation and thus disruptive per WP:IU. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Arthur Kade has now been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

Resolved

– Apparent vandalism reverted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I found some vandalism in an article that I'm having problems reverting. I think there are at least 4 edits today (june 4th) that are probably vandalism in the Udaipur article. They appear to be vandalism because they removed large sections and added nonsense words. I suppose they could be in the process of a major edit, but it doesn't look that way. I'm not certain how to "undo" pages that go back several revisions, and I didn't want to further complicate the matter for people who have a better understanding of how to revert vandalism. Thanks, 167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Those edits have been reverted by User:AndrewHowse. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Lilo & Stitch episodes

Resolved

– List of Lilo & Stitch episodes unblanked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone have blanked all the list of episodes, and I can't find the one who did it. Therefore, I can't undo the damage done. Will someone please help me undoing the vandalism. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:REVERT for help with reverting to an earlier version. – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

←

→