Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Help Cleaning Up an Article Please?

Resolved

 – Page userfied. Kudpung (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello-

I am looking to enlist the help of a knowledgeable editor that can help me out with a Wiki article I have recently created.

The article I created was first marked for speedy deletion; I delayed the request using the "hang on" function. After leaving comments on the article's talk page, it came back that the neutrality of the article was being challenged, and it may need to be cleaned-up.

I am not sure what the next step is. At this point, will the article be "cleaned up" by an editor? Or, am I responsible for cleaning up the article before it gets deleted?

I created this article with Wiki policy/guidelines in mind, and I tried to create the article to read as neutral as possible. I am open to changes that make the article more in accordance with Wiki guidelines and would love help from others, but I am not sure who is responsible for making these changes. It would be great if I could receive some feedback from a more experienced Wikipedian!

Please let me know what I need to do to ensure that the article gets cleaned-up rather than deleted entirely.

Thanks!

-Jordan

Jordan.Gilbert (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A friendly editor may come along and help out now that you have asked here, but it is not guaranteed, so your are better off cleaning it up yourself. You should read WP:COI because a quick Google search indicates that you have a conflict. Also take a look at WP:BFAQ, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where you are the editor! :) In all seriousness, I've had a look at the article you wrote, which has been deleted at this point. I can see that you've put a lot of effort into making it a decent Wikipedia article. However, I don't think the company meets our notability guidelines. "Notable" is Wikipedia shorthand for things that have been the subject of significant published attention in reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, books and that sort of thing, generally). It's really hard to write an article about a company that's both verifiable (everything in it has been published before) and neutral if there isn't much written about it. If you have sources like this, I'd suggest that you create a draft article in your userspace and ask for comments at requests for feedback before moving it to the main site. It's very probable that there aren't such sources; if they don't exist, it's a waste of everyone's time to try to make an article. Of course, depending on your interests, there's a lot of things to do here otherwise. We have a bunch articles on Internet marketing (check the sidebar on that page for more) that could use some attention if you'd like to edit in a field related to your work. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here, on my talk page, or at the help desk. --Danger (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this article and posted it as a user draft, taking Gimme Danger and OrangeMike's (the deleting editor's) comments into consideration. Would any seasoned Wiki editor mind taking a look? The article is located at Insegment.

p.s. sorry if I wasn't supposed to change the marking from "answered" to "unresolved." I'm not 100% clear on the proper ways to communicate with the community here on Wiki.

Comments added on draft talk page. Danger (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Spy Game lead material

Spy Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor added the following paragraph to the lead of this article:

Spy Game is a true to life composite of many real intelligence operations. Spy Game is more real than fiction and is based on the life of intelligence operative Tom Golden, the son of an Arkansas dirt farmer. Golden was an army intelligence officer assigned to the Central Intelligence Agency Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War. Nathan Muir was Golden’s CIA code name in Southeast Asia, and during his intelligence operations in Indochina. Golden served a distinguished career in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), The Pentagon, and the CIA. He served in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Central and South America. Tony Scott does a great job of presenting the true to life dangers faced by Intelligence Agents in the field and the bureaucratic decisions sometimes made in Washington that are driven by politics.

These are the two citations that follow the material: "[Secret Warriors, Putnam Press 1988 by Steven Emerson]" and "[PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 12/16/1990; KNIGHT RIDDER, 12/18/1990]". The film came out in 2001.

I reverted the editor. Another editor added it back in. I reverted the second editor twice more. After my third reversion, yet another editor (this time an IP) reverted me. On my third reversion, I posted information about all this on the article's Talk page. No one has responded, and the material remains.

The first editor has been registered since March 2010 but has made only a handful of edits, most of them to Spy Game. The second editor has been registered only since February 28, 2011, and has edited only this article. The IP made only the one edit, the reversion. I'm suspicious of the editors themselves, but, more important (to me) is the quality of the lead, which is still compromised.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As the sources are published before the file was released there's simply no way to connect it to the film in such a way, it's original research if anything. I have reverted the text and explained why (my only revert) and will try to contribute to the talk page. If none of the other editors contribute to it the only option is really page protection. And if the accounts are linked the only way to verify would be via an SPI. Rehevkor ✉ 16:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthew, hopefully the reversion will stick.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It didn't stick. Yet another IP reverted. Because it's been long enough since I last reverted, I reverted the IP. I'm not real knowledgeable about sockpuppets and how they're investigated, but I decided to create an SPI and let others who are more experienced look into the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Undid revision x by Rehevkor", oh, how much I hate those little words. An SPI is probably the best avenue at this point. It's unlikely the accounts/IPs are unrelated. Rehevkor ✉ 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The SPI confirmed that Jackmartin40 is a sockpuppet of Leorojasxx. Jackmartin40 has been blocked indefinitely, and Leorojasxx has been blocked for a week. As for the IPs, the investigator said: "No comment on the IPs. Ready to close/archive." Not quite sure exactly what that means with respect to the IPs - was an investigation done?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser won't link an IP address to an account. (As a matter of policy, not as a technical inadequacy). If the problem with the IP addresses persists, you might want to request semi-protection for the article at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What then is the purpose of identifying the IP addresses in the SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Summer camp possible advert

Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI is an article about a summer camp. It seems notable and is sourcing everything but somehow has become a WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The main editor states on his talk page that is a past employee. Any help in assessing how to proceed would be appreciated. If you look at it and it seems fine, I'd be appreciative to know. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with Constant Motion (redirect) and Constant Motion (song) (article)

Hello, I am here to request some help with more experienced editors who could help me here. I'm currently expanding the article Systematic Chaos, a studio album from Dream Theater, and relative articles. The problem, it's one of the songs, which is Constant Motion, but this is a redirect to the precedent album, and there is an article which is Constant Motion (song), which really doesn't need a disambiguation. I'm just trying to keep the article but with the title without disambiguation.

Thanks for your time. --Sirius 128 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a mess. Constant Motion (song) is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Presence of Enemies where it's suggested that it doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NSONG. I think it might be best to wait for the outcome of that before deciding how to arrange any other pages. You seem to have moved Constant Motion to Constant Motion (song) 1, which isn't a page name that would typically exist here. I think it might be best to undo that move; if the song article at AfD survives then it should be at the undisambiguated title as you suggest, and otherwise the old redirect can be reinstated. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've requested that the page move be undone; this'll preserve the old history. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Review New Article / Format Help

Answered

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am not good at computers, and I am having difficulty formatting the article that I have created. Please assist. the name of the article is: Matt Urmy. thank you,

BK Monroe The Red Light Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedLightLibrary (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, notes have been left on you talk page, both about the article which has been deleted and also about COI, please note that accounts should not be shared amongst people. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hirsch

Answered

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the course of the unreferenced BLP, I took a lot of French persons articles in my watchlist. I spotted a problem wht I beleive is a problem with neutrality on this article, and I'm now accused of "exporting a wp:fr edit war". --Anneyh (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

For such a tiny stub, this article is indeed a mess. Your contribution about what he said on TV is jarring, without any context, and overtakes the entire article. Also, my assumption is that your citation to the video website is improper because it's a potential copyright violation. The editor who is reverting your changes is correct, in my view, although there should be a discussion of the issue on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your information and started a discussion on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just a detail, I have not inserted the statement, but reverted it a few times. Thanks for answering my request for help. --Anneyh (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to move Spark(fire), always restarting after failing to get a consensus to move

Over on Talk:Spark_(fire), there have been five failed attempts to get a consensus to rename the page, within four months. Every time an attempt fails, yet another attempt starts. All but one of these have been started by the same editor. The sixth attempt has just started. This all seems a bit silly. Can it be curtailed somehow? Ernestfax^Talk 19:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Two closed debates ending in no consensus for the move - the last one yesterday. The only way to curtail this is for the concerned editors to simply move on to more constructive work and stop fanning the fire. --Kudpung (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Groan! Pun warning next time please! – ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung can't help it. He's just got that fire in his belly for improving the 'pedia. Danger (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for your sparky comments and for not flaming me Ernestfax^Talk 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a total mischaracterization of the situation. There was one long discussion, split into multiple categories, ending with a move proposal that failed, with many of the oppose votes proposing alternate options. A second proposal was just made which basically no one agreed with, and now discussion is continuing. Some editors seem to insist that, since the first proposal did not pass (with the closer encouraging a continued discussion) that all discussion should end and all the concerns raised by both support and oppose !voters should be ignored. Rather than try to stifle discussion, I'd encourage anyone knowledgable about science to come participate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what is inconsistent with WP:CON here. The discussion has been civil and informative and has resulted in at least partial consensus and progress in the disambiguation of spark. The closing admin of the first move request said "This topic appears to be the primary topic, and if consensus is established, it may be moved to Spark." Per the admin's suggestion, I proposed the move to spark. [1] There was a strong consensus against the move and, more importantly, a strong consensus that there is no primary topic.[2] SInce there was consensus on no primary topic, I was able to add content to electric spark that might otherwise have gone into a primary topic article.[3] This allowed yet another editor to clean up the spark DAB page.[4] There are content and naming issues that remain at spark (fire), but significant consensus has been achieved on several issues and there has been improvement in the content of the spark articles. Rather than being told to move on I think that Yaksar should be thanked for helping to build the consensus that we have achieved so far and encouraged to continue to participate in useful consensus building discussions. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I'm sure Ernestfax has a good reason for wanting to stop all discussion other than there being too much of it, which I'm very curious to hear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was plural. I have great respect for all the editors concerned, but I think this debate over the name needs a pause. Kudpung (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The "debate" at the moment isn't even about renaming, but the creation and splitting of other types of spark articles off of the Spark (fire) article so that it is primarily and only about sparks in terms of fire. I don't see anything wrong with such a discussion. Silverseren^C 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, with all due respect (and I really do mean that in a sincere way), there seems to be progress being made in the discussion, and it will most likely be continuing, especially since, as Silver Seren pointed out, it has resulted in developments beyond just a title change. I hope you don't take my disagreement as a slight. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all Yaksar. I hope this EAR discussion has helped in some ways. Progress is indeed being made on the talk page, and I've stopped following it, so perhaps we can close this one. Keep up all your good work. Kudpung (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek

Resolved

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The link to the Steven Lloyd on the Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek page is the wrong Stephen Lloyd. The correct Stephen Lloyd is an architect practicing in Brattleboro, VT and Chester, CT. He presently does not have a website so the link should be removed. Thank you. Signed, Stephen Lloyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.92.121 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have edited the article for you. Feel free to be bold and correct errors yourself in future. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on personal entires in Silverpoint article

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

This article seems to have been hijacked by two living artists (Susan Schwalb--AKA Bluehoon, and Tom Mazzullo--AKA Marscapony) who have each entered quite a bit of self-promotional information and personal links into the page. I am not comfortable with the editing rules, and there seems to be a bit of rivalry on the discussion page. It is quite different than the articles on watercolor, or oil painting for example. 128.190.125.2 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)amy

I removed a lot of WP:COATRACK and WP:PEACOCK material.Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation issues

I invented a new word and I can't provide Citations other than from my own published works. brending — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. A page named John Zarlino was deleted in 2007 - is it anything to do with that? Please provide more details, but see also WP:COI. Kudpung (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Formatting citations

Resolved

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never posted here before so this might not be the right place to do this, but I seem to be having trouble formatting references in Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations. I formatted the first two references correctly, but when I tried to use the second reference twice (by using the second time) it didn't work and gave me some red error. I checked the Help page it directed me too, but I still couldn't figure it out even after trying to correct it numerous times. If anyone could take a look at the page and see what the problem is, that would be greatly appreciated. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done You didn't use " marks in one of the ref names. I simplified the ref name too. Rehevkor ✉ 20:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!! --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Steps to take with a non-responsive editor

Answered

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I mostly edit MMA related articles as a part of WP:MMA and we are having a problem with an editor that makes multiple disruptive edits. S/he has never posted an edit summary or anything on a talk page and I'm wondering what the proper course of action (and timeline) would be at this point. I've looked through WP:dispute resolution but most of the solutions require some kind of dialog. Thanks! ZephyrFox (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing who the editor is or some links to the offending edits, there is little we can do here. Try addressing the problem on the talk page(s) of the affected article(s) and inviting the editor to take part in the discussion. There are also template requests and/or warnings that you can place on an editor's talk page, including reminders for edit summaries. Use with discretion - friendly personal messages are often better. --Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Further research reveals this report. When warning users, it helps to use the incremental warnings at reasonable periods within the same month, to enable the editor to read and react. A final Level 4 warning will generally alert the administrators. --Kudpung (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Answered

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The links to ALL arcades on this page are "dead" EXCEPT for the link for "Video Paradise" in the 1983 list of arcades. You might want to delete the dead links. Again, the link for "Video Paradise" is valid and goes to a web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.7.135 (talk • contribs) 01:43, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

We typically don't delete dead links.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vinnie Vincent

Vinnie Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed that the section "The Vinnie Vincent Model Guitar" had some bad grammar, words in all-caps, etc, so I cleaned it up. In the process, I noticed that the entire section was unsourced and unverifiable. I removed most of it but left a few sentences. The page's original author, DAworDisDAword101 is apparently watching the page and continuously reverts the changes. I tried to be polite in encouraging him to discuss the reverts on the article's talk page, but he doesn't participate in the discussion. I added the "article ownership" warning to his talk page and tried to be polite there, as well. I've re-done the edit to the article a second time, but won't do it again, because I have no interest in an edit war. In any case, the majority of the entire article (not just the section I edited) appears to be original research. LesPaul75_talk 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Correction - I didn't mean to say "page's original author"... I believe he might be the original author of that particular section. LesPaul75_talk 18:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on the editor's talk page and am keeping the article on my watchlist. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I need help

Answered

 – Kudpung (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that I am getting banned from contributing to admin areas, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic bans for Porchcrop. See my recent talk page discussions and they say that I lack in understanding the policies and guidelines. I need help in knowing what I need to improve. Is any of you willing to help me? Thank you so much for your help. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Porchcrop. I've had a glance at your edits and the comments that have been made at ANI and the editor review. Lack of understanding is something that is fixable - but it's not something that you will be able to sort overnight. Whilst becoming an administrator is a possibility some time in the future, I think it is unlikely with your past record and it's something I think you should forget about. With that in mind, I do see a lot of enthusiasm, and would be willing to mentor you. If you'd be willing, I'd suggest you run through my adoption school, focus on changing your pie chart to be more red. I believe you could be a great editor. Worm^TT 09:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice Worm. --Kudpung (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Toque snuff ltd keeps getting deleted?

Resolved

 – Editor blocked. (COI/spam) Kudpung (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have just had to put our snuff company back on the list of UK snuff companies under the heading 'snuff' someone keeps deleting Toque snuff from the list. Is there anything we can do to stop this malicious act?

Hasn't Toque snuff the same right to be listed as all the other UK snuff companies?

Regards

Roderick Lawrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toquesnuff (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User now blocked as a spam user name.. the block and COI notice should suffice to explain for the most part. Notability might be well worth a read also. No one has much of a "right" to anything they want on Wikipedia. Rehevkor ✉ 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't see why any of the Snuff manufacturers on the Snuff article are notable. Will raise at the talk page. Worm^TT 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and made some edits, and replied on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unrelevant articles

The article G.j. Alexandrie is in several languages (not english) but isn't relevant or accurate at all. Can someone check it out and maybe delete it? Thank you --83.226.108.74 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia has its own procedures and processes; you will have to address this at the Wikipedias in question, not here in the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Correcting abusive entry

The current wikipedia entry on gang stalking has been illegitimised and locked so as to prevent redaction.

Harassment of this nature has been verified in recent court cases including that of James Walbert, who was recently recognised by u.s. courts as having five subcutaneous implants above the neck. Within the last week, a presidential bio-ethics committee was appointed to issue a report to President Obama on gang stalking by the end of this year. These facts are verifiable (see below).

The current "article" on gang stalking illegitimises it by using quotes around the term, and by using vague and insinuating language relegating reports as "examples of belief systems" instead of anything pertinent to objective reality.

The article I proposed for gang stalking uses neutral language that does not intend to assert or deny the authenticity of these reports, unlike the preexistent content which intends for the term to be pertinent to imagined phenomenon only.

This is my submitted article. More information follows below.

Gang stalking

Gang stalking, group stalking, community stalking, cause stalking or gaslighting refers to alleged coordinated harassment often involving electronic and psychological methods such as HSS speakers and classical conditioning. These activities are difficult to trace or verify, leaving few precedents for public credibility outside of cases such as the electronic harassment of James Walbert.

Anecdotal accounts generally depict gang stalking as a widespread, often international conspiracy of unclear intent, associated with counterintelligence programs such as MKULTRA and CoIntelPro. Critics propose that reports of gang stalking are rooted in psychological issues catalyzed by the exchange of information on the internet.

As you can see, this proposed entry is significantly less biased towards the assertation that reports of gang stalking can only be attributed to mental illness and is overwhelmingly more sympathetic to victims of a crime that is being reported with increasing frequency and verifiability.

The case of James Walbert is documented in many places online, despite a lack of media acknowledgement. A cursory examination of the issue will reveal that the matter is certainly not trivial and that public awareness of these pernicious crimes would prevent such occasions from transpiring so easily.

Video from the recent bio-ethics committee hearings - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0yKaE6Jy1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjcLRIFVRO0

The personal doubts of the wikipedia editors in these matters must be put aside, and a more neutral stance must be taken in this entry when the increasing amount of evidence indicates that these events are actually taking place. There are thousands of reports of gang stalking online, not hundreds, and the truth of the matter is not to be decided by click-happy wikipedia editors.

My proposed article is wholly unbiased towards why these events are taking place and whether they are authentic or imagined, outside of the case of Mr. Walbert, which is verifiable as far as the u.s. legal system is concerned. The denigration heaped on the subject in the current article can be offensive to people who may have had to endure these transgressions.

At any rate, the concept of gang stalking is so widespread in this culture that it does not need to be illegitimised as language. We do not honour the word "small" and refute the word "little" because they both mean the same thing. It is time for the cultural redaction being enacted in the maintenance of this article to cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxos (talk • contribs) — Xoxos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You need to sort this out on the talk page. Remember to assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The page is protected because of disputes - there needs to be a consensus on the talk page before this can be lifted. I see you have no edits there, this should be your first step: Talk:Stalking. Is the core of the issue is grammar and phrasing then it shouldn't be too difficult to come to a consensus.

I'm not sure how I can help you here beyond that, are you complaining about Wikipedia editors being in some way biased? Perhaps you could start a request for comment, there're also some steps in WP:Dispute resolution you could try, but only after you have drained all avenues at the article talk page. Are you asking for someone to come along and back you up? In that case, the issue seems too ambiguous for anyone to just wade in without some knowledge of the subject already. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes, I will certainly need them :) I am not sure that a consensus is possible. eg.

Phil Bridger (remove delusional conspiracy theory yet again) Phil Bridger (Once again, please take this to the talk page - previous consensus has been against including these delusions Phil Bridger (revert addition of loopy conspiracy theory "cause stalking" content -

I do not have Phil Bridger's experience with editing wikipedia and expect that I will be outmanoeuvred at every turn. Moreover, though I am not able to prove it, I would not be surprised in the slightest to find that this topic is watched by special interest groups who already have a large body of active editors to ensure that this topic does not express views they find unfavourable, which is why I am appealing to whatever authority on wikipedia there is to help to approach objectivity in this matter instead of wasting my time struggling with these offensive censors in their territory.

If no one is able to interject on the grounds I have already presented, I will pursue the protocol for request for comment as recommended.

I agree re: ambiguity. We have two sides to this argument: either these reports are in part factual, as verified by Mr. Walbert's case, or they are delusional, as suggested by an article in the New York Times. Perhaps the u.s. courts are not equal to the opinions of the New York Times journalists on the matter of reality? Especially since both have vested interests, I will once again request that an entry that is not biased against the claims of gang stalking be adopted, thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxos (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Belief that a consensus cannot be gained without even trying won't get you very far here. You should discuss it on the talk page then if that fails I provided some alternative venues for you. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page assistance (copy of message to RHaworth)

I am contacting you in hopes that you can further explain and advise on a recently deleted page that I posted, titled "Myles L. Berman" on 3/6/11 by RHaworth.

In creating the article, I tried to avoid solicitation designed to promote Mr. Berman or his law firm. Rather, I attempted to demonstrate the notability and achievements in his expertise through biographical information and works of accomplishments. Utilizing the model article of a fellow attorney (which can currently be viewed on Wikipedia), I devised the content with reliable sources of information provided for verification.

It appears that as a new page, the patrol division deleted it due to "unambiguous advertising or promotion." Can you please offer any guidance on this reasoning and the following questions? 1. How come some articles on an individual or company are considered "masquerading articles" and deleted, while others are not and left posted? 2. What constitutes notability and the legitimacy of an individual or commercial entity? 3. Is there any way to recreate a page for either Mr. Berman or his firm without it being considered advertising or promotion?

I am passionately working on social media for our company and was suggested at a recent conference to take part in Wikipedia, as it is such a large media reference globally. If there is any information or advice you could offer in regards to posting a successful, acceptable article, I would greatly appreciate it.

Myleslberman (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Evelyn Hirshberg, Office Manager, Law Offices of Myles L. Berman

The best advice I can give you is that you should work your way down the FAQ page for Organizations. This will lead you through the Wikipedia policies on advertising, conflict of interest, and how Wikipedia pages are written about businesses. You will find it very difficult to create a Wikipedia page on behalf of your company.

More bad news: since your chosen user name matches your company name, it fails the user name policy and is likely to be blocked. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

Shmuley Boteach repeated vandalism through the years - its been approved as is by multiple users and I'd like to request a block/lock and dont know how to do so. Please advise and assist ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch that page to see what happens next, and act if necessary. I have the necessary admin tools to do a block or a protect, if that's what's needed.

In other news: are you the same person as User:Jonathanglick13? I would advise that you stick to one account for editing. --Deryck C. 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bio on Richard Poirier

I revised the page on Richard Poirier that contained an inaccurate statement that Richard Poirier..."he was Marius Bewley". However, on 7 March 2011, a Mr. Charles Matthews "Moorlock" revised my change to reflect his previous script as of 21 Feb 2011. That version is not accurate. How do we resolve this issue. I want to correct this factual error and also post a new accurate bio on Marius Eugene Bewley that will provide a more comprehensive, accurate description of him and his achievements. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, Bruce Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.159.201 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to the article in question, [5] added the text "NOT MARIUS EUGENE BEWLEY.", at first glance this would not appear to be productive, and was reverted. Your best bet to address this would be to go to the article talk page Talk:Richard Poirier and explain your edit(s). Remember if you want to update this article, you should provide reliable sources to verify your editions. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've notified Charles Matthews, who reverted your edit (and also inserted in the first place what you said was wrong) to participate in this discussion. --Deryck C. 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On second read at the disputed article, I think I've come to the following conclusions:

1. There was no confusion in the original article. The original version said "He was Marius Bewley Professor of American and English Literature emeritus", which meant "He held a position named after Marius Bewley", not "He is Marius Bewley". The objection that Bruce Johnson (98.246.159.201) raised is, therefore, invalid.
2. The rest of the article seems to be accurate, according to this this post , and this external link from the article. However, inline citations will be helpful, to help prevent future disputes. --Deryck C. 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary statement "mistakenly stated Richard Poirier and Marius Eugene Bewley were the same individuals" seemed to be a simple misconception. Stating that someone is the John Doe Professor is not stating they are John Doe at all: it is just common usage in academia. Obviously the form of words can be avoided by circumlocution, but I didn't see that it had to be. The comment would have been better placed on Talk:Richard Poirier. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the grammatical change clarifies the respective positions each individual held. My understanding is that Marius was a professor in the Department of English. Richard was the department chairman and a colleague of Marius. When you say Richard "held" Marius position I think it's a confusing statement. When Marius died his position (by his name) evaporated. Richard may have still been a professor in the English Department and, perhaps, still chairman; but, I don't believe he served in a "position" that retained Maris Bewley's name. Rutgers did establish the Marius Bewley Fund to recognize outstanding student coursework as an honorarium. The language should be simple and clear to avoid confusion. BTW, since there are websites such as Feebase and others that have posted excerpts from Wikipedia, how does one correct or clarify all these inaccurate statements?

In order to provide some clarity to this situation, I will prepare a bio on Marius and post it. That way there will be some more definite information on Marius...if and when someone posts a search for his name.

Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.159.201 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently a named professorship, of the kind common to all serious universities in the English-speaking world. Are you saying there is no such professorship for Richard Poirier to hold? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the argument that if one person is ever confused by something, then it is "confusing". But I don't accept it. I mean, here it is in the New York Times of 1979: "Richard Poirier is the Marius Bewley Professor of English at Rutgers". The complaint seems querulous. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the compound academic title "Marius Bewley Professor of English" is fundamentally confusing. However, since it's a proper noun there is little we can do to solve the problem. The current version of the text has already made it unambiguous to anyone who has seen examples of named professorships. In reply to Bruce: Richard Poirier owned something (in this case a professorship) that is named after Marius Bewley, not something that used to belong to Marius Bewley. --Deryck C. 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be clearer to use the "is the Marius Bewley Professor of English" form of words (my emphasis to illustrate my change)? – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Done it. --Deryck C. 16:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nestle Chunky Candy Bars

I am curious as to whether the Nestle Chunky Candy Bars come in minatures? Who could I contact to request this? Nestle.com doesn't really comment on Chunky Bars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.176.241 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.9 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Orange Mike | Talk 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Android article Android_(operating_system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

The user User:Markpb91 is adding content to the Android article that is npov, while removing any positive references in the sections he edits. I accidently pressed 'Save Page' instead of 'Show Preview' and cleared out the section, and got a warning about an edit war, so I'm not going to edit the page until I'm sure I won't get blocked, but when he adds negative statements and I revert them, he immediately adds them back, and I'm unable to get any response from the talk page. He adds (and re-adds when I remove them to create a npov section) words to avoid such as 'unfortunately' and 'called the fragment of all things' etc., and the entirety of the Usage Share section (which he renamed Fragmentation without reason) is nothing but pro-Apple and anti-Android quotes, while he removed a quote from a developer saying that the fragmentation problem wasn't as big of a problem. From his edits of the Mac OS X article, it's clear (in my opinion) that he has a pro-Apple and anti-Android slant, and it's being reflected in his edits. My attempts to achieve a npov are being reverted by him and now I'm unable to edit the page for fear of being blocked, and I'm unsure of what to do. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You were completely in the right... Markpb91 has been warned with a level 4 warning, as I have an extremely low tolerance for single purpose accounts that are doing nothing but trying to promote their personal views on this site. If you have any other questions let me know. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and homosexuality

Christianity and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a question of neutrality in the Christianity and homosexuality article. I feel there may be a conflict of interest on the part editors involved in the article. This being such a contentious issue I feel it begs the assistance of a neutral third party to both resolve the neutrality dispute and if the consensus is that this article lacks a NPOV perhaps a neutral third party to help guide this article to Wikipedia standards. Thank You. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not how conflict of interest works. You are going after Carey for being a gay Christian, no? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was unaware of Carey's sexuality. I also see no relevance to Carey's sexuality. If there is please point it out. The conflict of Interest is the inability of editors of that article to separate themselves from their own views while writing the article. There is a partiality given to the Pro-homosexual side. I see no relevance to Carey's sexuality. The conflict of Interest relates to his and from what I can perceive others religious beliefs and his academic beliefs. He and others have to close a relationship to the subject. That is covered under conflict of interest. "Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your contribution here and on the article's Talk page speak in generalities. It would be helpful if you could be more specific as to what assertions in the article are non-neutral. Simply saying it's "such a contentious issue" preempts the usual discussion of the supposed problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Bbb23. Since most of the issues were highlighted on the talk page I didn't want to fill this with large quantities of text. From what I can gather:

• The article lacks impartiality in so far as the pro side Lists many prominent individuals to highlight their views while there are very few individuals to highlight the views of the con side.
• The article is unbalanced with most detail going to to the pro-side while it seems that their are reputable source contradicting each other and both sides seem to be of relatively equal prominence.
• Referring to the first point it seems that the best and most reputable authoritative sources are used for the pro-side while the same can't be said for the con-side
• one complaint holds that the part of the article labeled, "Views critical of homosexual behavior" contain favorable and make it seem like an argument while the part of the article Labeled, "Views favorable to homosexuality" Solely contains favorable views. Which leads to the question does this consist of an impartial tone?
• The section, "Homosexuality in the Bible" doesn't have an impartial tone. By using seem it's seems to take a stance and there is the question of what purpose that serves since it may only represent the pro-side. There is also the question if that all is original research.
• The section titled, "The Church and homosexuality" Contains a sentence on con-views while it contains a paragraph on pro-views. The title of the section suggests something other than what it is. The entire religion of Christianity can and has been labeled the church but the article doesn't refer to the religion. Instead it refers to a limited number of specific churches and/or Congregations.

There is a long debate about this on the talk page about neutrality with the argument that the article is neutral limited to the personal opinion of one individual's dislike and bad opinion of specific individuals. The other argument being that if anyone thinks the article isn't neutral they should fix it themselves and that they feel the article is neutral to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standards. This of course is my assessment of the views of the Individuals who feel the article is neutral. The other individual who feels this article is not neutral feels that individual editors have the responsibility to maintain neutrality. I agree.I feel that each of these individuals has a conflict of interest as highlighted above. I myself feel I have a conflict of interest due to my religious views and as such don't feel I would be able to represent any Christian views neutrally. I have brought this here in hopes that someone can address the issue of neutrality and help to resolve it. I apologize again that my first message lacked detail. I was following the rules of this Project page as I understand them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, but let's see if I have the situation straight (no pun intended). Serial, you posted a single message on the article talk page stating that you thought that it was not neutral, without any specific reasons as why or offering any suggestions on how to improve the situation. You have never edited this article and it isn't protected in a way that would prevent you from editing it. Thirty minutes later, no one has responded to the message you left on the talk page and you post here, accusing the currently active editors of the article of a conflict of interest, without either asking them about it first or giving any reasons why you have come to this conclusion beyond your previous statement of a "question of neutrality". Is that a fair assessment? Danger (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To address your question Danger I had read through the discussion. I saw the suggestion that the article be added up for deletion. The argument was going no where and I felt that I wouldn't be the best individual for a religious debate especially one relating to Christianity. I did agree with the lack of neutrality but felt that I had as much a conflict of interest as anyone else. I felt that everyone their had a conflict of interest.. I felt this article could be important to a number of individuals so settling the dispute seemed more important than anyone moving to delete it. I don't think it would be hard for this article to be moved into compliance and feel that the individuals who maintain the article would have a problem keeping it in compliance. I do apologies for not listing the conflict of interest in the first place but I mistakenly assumed it was obvious in the discussion on that page and wasn't aware that I would be called a homophobic for questioning the neutrality of the page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Without addressing all of your points, I have some suggestions:

• Just because you're religious doesn't mean you can't be neutral. All of us have our own personal views on the world, but that doesn't mean we can't comply with Wikipedia neutrality. If you feel so strongly that you can't be neutral, then I'm not sure how you can reasonably raise the issue of non-neutrality in the first place.
• The is no "pro" or "con" side.
• Take up each of your issues separately on the Talk page of the article. For example, if you question the Bible section, address that. Do them one by one; otherwise you'll bog down in a jumble of different things. Avoid accusations of conflicts. Just focus on the material, the sources supporting the material, the wording, etc. Stick to facts, not to what you believe to be the personal views of the editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting that just because they are religious they can't be neutral. They can be neutral but they choose not to. They choose not to separate their views on religion from their duties as an editor. I admit that my views on certain editors may be based on the article it self but my specific views on the editors in the discussion at the bottom of the talk page are based off that discussion after reading through every inch of it. It could simply be the work of one or two individuals. I don't feel it was done in bad faith but I do feel they fail to recognize the implications.
• "pro/con" "for/against" "positive/negative" "favorable/critical" take your pick.
• I have no problem weighing the neutrality. I would just have a problem giving an article on this religion it's proper respect. I would personally just remove a bunch of information to balance it out. That would simply remove the hard work put into the favorable side and unintentionally favor the critical side. I have no problem with homosexuality. I just fear my disdain for this particular religion may favor the critical side of the debate. I do feel in the end it would be neutral but I do feel it would waste quite abit of another individuals time and effort.
• I feel another individual would be able to better resolve this issue than I and not end up locked up in an edit war. There would be no unintended or at least undesired consequences.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say. You should edit the article as you see fit, and you should discuss the article on the Talk page as you see fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I only skimmed through the original talk discussion so forgive me if I'm repeating what has already been said. Editors who advertises themselves as having a vested interest in topics they actively edit are not violating WP:COI. In fact, many users exclusively edit articles on topics they feel passionately about. The editor who posted this request should include some diffs demonstrating a non-neutral pattern of editing at Christianity and homosexuality. Editors should always of course assume good faith. One can be a gay Christian and still be capable of including reliable sources in their contributions. To argue against that would probably amount to bigotry IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is no doubt that people can have vested interest in a subject and edit an article on it but people can also be to passionate about an issue which in an article like this can lead them to neglect a part of an article that does not correlate to their passion. When your vested interest in an article causes you to neglect policies like wp:npov there is an obvious issue of wp:coi. The argument on the talk page by Carey for neutrality is based on bias towards particular individuals critical to homosexuality and original research that has lead him to conclusions that particular individuals views are not worthy of inclusion in the article. The suggestion above by Roscelese that I have brought this issue to this page due to Carey's sexuality leads me to question their ability to neutrally edit that article as Roscelese is also an editor of that article. I have said nothing negative of homosexuality here or in my 2 comments on the discussion of the talk page so any discussion of bigotry on my part seems highly questionable since it implies bad faith on my part with no inherent basis behind that bad faith. This issue does not differ from any other article about 2 or more prominent conflicting views as it pertains to Wikipedia. This article as with any other article requires neutrality. In an attempt to not join in the unbalanced and highly biased debate that is playing out on that page and an attempt to not start or be a part of an edit war I have brought this issue here. I have brought it here in hopes that a neutral body more acquainted with this religion might address the question of neutrality.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My editing of the article has been minimal, actually. I have it on my watchlist, though, so I get all the talkpage conversations. I'm sorry you took my point about COI badly (and your comment shows you still don't understand it), but dude, that's what happens when you go "the page isn't biased enough against homosexuality! there must be a conflict of interest involved!"

More to the point, I'm not sure why this requires a request post as opposed to just editing the article. This applies both to you and to the IP - you go on and on about how it isn't neutral, but you can't be bothered to edit it yourself. It's not going to be possible to find a Perfectly Neutral Editor - because some editors are Christian, and some are non-Christian, and some are queer, and some are straight! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said,"the page isn't biased enough against homosexuality! there must be a conflict of interest involved!" I have tried to impress the point that there has been failure on the part of editors particularly Carey to address the issue of neutrality. The conflict of interest on his part is his inability to septate his religious and academic beliefs from his job as an editor. The views of Christians critical of homosexually many may call biased but that's a topic for a forum. The conversation at hand is about neutrality and the particular favorability of the views of Christians favorable to homosexuality. I am not nor do I feel that the IP was suggesting that anyone make the page more biased to homosexuality. I and I feel the IP was suggesting that editors of the article should equal validity to both sides represented in the article. Though initially the IP was suggesting that the side critical of homosexuality be given more prominent and deserved more weight that the favorable side. Making this an issue of bigotry seems more like a straw man tactic to me than anything else. I would gladly edit it but as highlighted in the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ" Deleting information isn't the best way to edit when there's a reasonable chance of becoming neutral eventually.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Whistleblowing

Hi there, My post in whistleblowing was removed as it was considered 'promotional'

I work for a registered charity that gives free legal advice to anyone in the UK who wants to blow the whistle on something at work, but who is unsure about how to go about this

The awareness of our free help is low and this seems a simple way to help

There is no commercial gain from quoting our existence and phone number, its is a straightforward user benefit, and I would like to request that the post is reinstated

Gary Brown Public Concern at Work <phone number redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garybrown23 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and cannot be used to promote your charity. Rehevkor ✉ 17:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted your phone number. – ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To expand on what Rehevkor has said, promotion for any sort of organization, person, or product is not appropriate for an encyclopedia; it does not matter if you will not make money from it. Look here for more details. --Danger (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Jean-François Berdah

Jean-François Berdah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

A comment has been added to the page I createdlast year that says : "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful". I haven't been able first to answer it due to a major research project, but secondly to understand properly what it's all about and how to "get rid" of the banner. There is no "contentious material" nor "libelous or harmful" content, but perhaps yes not enough sourced references. Since the page has been included in WikiProject Biography and WikiProject France I suppose that its interest is not unrelevant and maybe interesting. I would be very thankful to receive the advice of a good specialist of living biographies and academic profiles, someone who could help me to improve it and adapt more closely to Wiki standards. Many thanks in advance. Vanechka79 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) 10th March, 2011, 22:20 (CET)

I will have a search for some sources and post them on the talk page. I don't speak French nor am I familiar with the subject so I will leave it to others to judge if they're useful or reliable. Rehevkor ✉ 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham

User:Fleetham has been around for a while, but I only encountered him when he started work on articles relating to the Chinese auto industry in 2010. I have been spending about a third of my time since, trying to repair his often disruptive and confusing edits. I have engaged in countless talkpage conversations on his, mine, and article talkpages, but absolutely nothing has any impact. The problematic articles are manifold, but the biggest dispute is at Share taxi. I expanded lengthily on my problems below, but a visit to Share taxi and some digging around should make the problems fairly obvious. WP:OWN, over-referencing, chopping articles into countless subsections, and a refusal to engage in any useful conversation with other editors are the main problems I've encountered.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(I typed the long below harangue before realizing that this should be kept short - I figured I'll leave it in but don't read it if you don't feel like it)

Long List of Issues

The problems are manifold, but since Fleetham's targeted articles are rarely of interest to very many people his oft disruptive edits are rarely noted. Here is an example of one of his versions of a sentence:

In Turkey[15] and Turkish controlled, Northern Cyprus[16] dolmuş (pronounced "dolmush"[17]) are share taxis that run on set routes within[17][18] and between cities.[17]

Over referencing, many times quoting one source several times in a single sentence for entirely innocuous statements. He also treats the articles as his own personal sandbox, while reverting any edits done by any other user. Other bizarre edits such as this one abound. Here's another favorite - the result reads "Incorporated in September[5] 1953[5][6]". When asked why there are so many references he answered:

"Okay, I will reduce the number of refs as a "final step" once I finish my major editing. Some of the refs are really low quality, such as blogs or just totally random travel sites like "Moscow.info". So I do want to add many refs, and then later I will remove the lesser-quality ones." - clear ownership issues. His references almost always consist of nothing more than a URL between ref brackets, and when asked to provide proper referencing he says it would be "inconvenient".

Another method of his is chopping articles into hundreds of subsection, many often containing a single sentence. Check out Skyworth for an example of his style.

Not all of his edits are useless, but he often edits without thinking. As an example, a few days ago he began deleting pictures with CC-SA 2.0 licenses across dozens of articles. I brought this up with him and asked him to replace the pictures, but he refused and kept arguing that the license was no good. See my my talk page for an ongoing and very frustrating effort to change things (it continues into the next section). He still hasn't replaced a single photo, although he has stopped reversing my replacing them. As a further example, I like the following quote by the user himself: "I can understand why people didn't want to read a page of superscripts but all these facts need citations because I tend to add stuff that isn't true. Each fact carries a burden of truth and if that must be a superscript than so be it." (superscript mine)

Lately I have been getting tired of these fruitless discussions with Fleetham and have attempted to turn "his" articles into readable prose once again. His result has been to revert everything and now considers me a "hostile bother". Another editor supported my suggestions but has been brushed off entirely.

I hope someone could look into this, as the situation is becoming very frustrating and an enormous timesuck. Most of these articles aren't even of any real interest to me, but it is upsetting to see perfectly acceptable articles become chopped into pieces. The sad thing is that he finds a great amount of often useful sources for articles, but then refuses to adapt any of the style parameters and will not listen to any suggestions that he change.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like this might be an issue best placed on WP:ANI. Rehevkor ✉ 21:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I hope that won't be in violation of the "no double posting" policy here?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "no double posting" even a policy?

On another note, that his edits are rather broken doesn't matter. Your effort of fixing them actually meant that their efforts have had some effect. It's their reverting everyone's edit to their stuff that is the problem. --Deryck C. 00:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It says on top of the edit page not to post issues here that are posted on another noticeboard. Anyhow, I agree, his refusal to write proper references is only problematic because the user also refuses to accept any further edits to "their" pages.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are confused, so it's fine. --Deryck C. 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted over on ANI, but have so far not received any response - it will be archived before soon. The user in question has only sped up their editings, reverting and removing all edits made by others to "their" pages. I really would like for some outside voices to take a look at this situation please.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am still relatively new to WP, but I am frustrated and curious to get a second opinion. I created a wiki profile in 2008 in order to contribute to the TCM page. I have been attempting to do so this last week, but there is an editor who seems to be on WP 24/7 lawyering all suggestions and acting as a consensus. There are other very knowledgable editors working to improve this article as well, but none can keep up with the editors (PPdd) constant changes. He has changed my entries and claimed he mistakenly erased them thinking it was his addition, but never reverted the entry when I pointed out that it was my addition. He makes accusations of POV due to the subject matter and ignores the consensus on the definition of what constitutes Traditional Chinese Medicine. I find it impossible to reach any consensus with other editors since by the time we discuss it on the talk page, PPdd has changed the whole thing many times over. I just wish he could be given a time out from the page in order to allow some time for those editors with a great deal of schooling (including masters of science and doctorates) on this matter a chance to work out inaccuracies without them being changed 30 seconds later, with 10 other inaccuracies being introduced at the same time. I'll admit that most editors trying to improve this page are fairly new to WP, and that has lead to a great deal of wikilawyering and citing of rules without true care for accurate entries. Calus (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

me against everyone else

Gavin Menzies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, recently I've been trying to make some improvements to this biography of a living person, which I think is biased. I tried to do this a year ago when I was new at wikipedia, and now I'm trying again. This article has been very controversial for over two years. For me the problem, now as well as last year, is that everybody usually disagrees with me. So I'm hoping to get some neutral feedback: Are my suggestions reasonable? Am I presenting them in a manner that is clear and civil? I entered the discussion on the talk page here, and everything below this section on the talk page has been discussion of my recent suggestions.
Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am lost and not sure where to begin

Hi All,

I have hesitated regarding participation for years because I become lost and don't know to begin.

My passions are Jazz Improvisation, Afro-Cuban Jazz and Jazz Bass Guitar. I would like to help in one of these areas.

Is there a way I can help??? Where do I begin???

Enjoy The Journey, Tom Williams AKA mystic1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic1 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I placed some links on your talk page which will give you some ideas and basic information about editing Wikipedia. You can contribute to any article which interests you, or create new ones of your own. If you have more questions as you get started, please don't hesitate to post them here, on your talk page or mine. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If jumping in to the bigger articles is a little scary (I know it was for me!), you could look at WikiProject Jazz, a project for user interested in jazz. There you can find to-do lists of articles that need improvement. You could also look in Category:Jazz stubs for articles that are very short and need expanding. I see that Afro-jazz is in that category. And as Jonathan said, if you need anymore help or ideas, feel free to post here or on my talk page. --Danger (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to ask me too, especially on Jazz-funk, Fusion, or Be-bop. --Kudpung (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty dealing with User:Macropneuma

Masanobu Fukuoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having great difficulty dealing with User:Macropneuma working on the article Masanobu Fukuoka. I had originally gotten involved through an RFC to help improve a previously woeful version of the page [6] but have struggled to understand Macropneuma's objections through incredibly long talk page comments with unconventional grammar and littered with accusations of POV, personal attacks and a plethora of other wikilinks (eg. [7][8][9]). He had also tried to revert the entire page back to his last version [10] with an unintelligible edit summary.

Since then he has engaged in sarcastic (eg. [11]) or outright incivil edit summaries (eg. [12]), has been hostile in his comments on the talk page. When asked to comment on the reasoning behind his changes or to help seek consensus, he seems to refuse to detail his concerns in any clear or concise manner and instructs to 'read the talk page', which is now over 160K in size. The explanations he does give don't make much sense to me and he doesn't seem interested in answering what I consider to be fair, simple questions to try to deduce his meaning.

I believe I've made genuine effort to try to work with this editor. I have become increasingly frustrated and less able to assume good faith on his part, and I admit that I have been drawn into a few edit wars (including us both crossing the 3RR line) with him born from that frustration. Obviously I'm not happy about that, and I've made clear that if any reports were to happen I'd be reporting myself as well. I've had to warn him no less than five times to stop making unfounded accusations about me (he seems to believe anything I say contrary to his opinion is a personal attack or POV), including his comment that he has 'better editors' to deal with. I believe there is still a case of WP:OWN going on, but since the article has very few interested editors, for the most part it's just the two of us and I'm really struggling to find a way to productively work together with him.

I could really use some advice here on how best to proceed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

youngest navy seal

I have had it ,,,i am sick to be left out .My name is Michael Clayton Kelly ,,,I am the youngest seal ..I knew Scott ...Run the math ..And check the military records before you come to a false answer .I signed up when i was 16,,,i had no a school ...i was in class 106 ..when i reported onboard at udt/21 i was still 17 ...this is simple ...did Scott report before he was 18 ? /// [Redacted some material not necessary to resolution of issue]

At Wikipedia, we have to rely on independent third party sources, not the knowledge of individuals, which we have no way to evaluate. Please let us know which article you are referencing, and if you can provide sources about yourself, editors here will change the article accordingly. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP is probably talking about the Scott Helvenston entry on the List of Navy SEALs. His article and the list says he is the youngest person to complete BUD/S training. The article has a citation attached to the fact but nothing in the citation verifies this information. I have put a {{fv}} tag in the article and a {{fact}} tag in the list. If I or anyone else can not find anything to verify the information in a week I will remove it from both places. GB fan (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Update, I found a reliable source that verifies he was the youngest Seal, some of the information in the source disagreed with the info in the article, so I also updated the article. GB fan (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergence bill without seeing a Doctor

I was billed in 2009 for $688.00 now I have a court date for Mar. 25 I'm being sued for $5,000.00 or less bills were sent to my old address for the past two years(I think that this is very unethical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.10.152.19 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot help you with your problem. This is a legal issue and we cannot give you legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Chanel No. 5 re-edit

Chanel No. 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I just completed the re-editing, actually a complete re-write and re-formating for the "Chanel No. 5" page. There was (and still is) a box posted at the top of the page, indicating that the entry needed to be re-written. How do I delete this now that it has been re-written? I'm fairly new to Wiki so I need assistance with this process/policy. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Betempte (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of the new material appears to have been copied from http://en.domotica.net/Chanel_N%C2%B0_
--CliffC (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That section of Domotica is a Wikipedia mirror, albeit in a really cool format. I saw the February date too in a Google search, but I can't find any reference of when they downloaded this material. --Danger (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First, it seems like you've done a solid rewrite on a really important topic. (I have gone through obscene lengths to purchase this scent for my mother; it's good to know I'm going with the backing of some history and not just riding a fad.) Thank you.

Second, since you've addressed the issue that the tag is a notification of, you can go ahead and remove it yourself. The article still needs work, but doesn't everything? One thing that needs to be done is "wikification," adding internal links to the article so that readers can look for more information about things that they're likely to want to look up while reading and formatting the article so that it's easy to read. You can read about how to do this here. If you need any help or have any questions, feel free to ask them here or at my talk page. Danger (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The "advertising" tag can be found near the top of the article when you click "Edit" and look at the source; it is generated by the word "advert" in curly brackets. I didn't delete it just now because (sorry to rain on the parade) the article still seems to me a little too much like a marketing brochure. I would recommend taking another cut at an encyclopedic tone (perhaps with fewer references to what Chanel thought and felt) before removing the tag. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of prose which does not seem encyclopedic to me: "This past resonated within her as she contemplated the composition of the new fragrance. Somehow she would reconcile the clean and the scrubbed with the sensuality of the garden, distill these powerful, personal, childhood associations into one evocative perfume that would truly be her signature." Hope this helps. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Voltaire

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

I saw a (citation needed) in the article on Voltaire that I've been trying to provide, but could not find the means to do it.

It's under the heading "Legacy", toward the end, in a discussion of the often cited phrase "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him". A citation is requested to prove that this was part of a retort to d'Holbach and the atheists.

Peter Gay gives this explanation in "Voltaire's Politics: The Poet as Realist", Yale University, 1988, p. 265, and provides the original line in full: "If the heavens, despoiled of his august stamp could ever cease to manifest him, if God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Let the wise proclaim him, and kings fear him."

Hope that helps, and that you'll be able to provide/correct the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.61.7 (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done--and thanks so much for giving me an opportunity to edit Voltaire! Please see WP:CITE for information that will help you add references yourself next time. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

W. Ferrell Shuck, Publisher

User:Comogreg/W. Ferrell Shuck, Publisher

I want to cite these two references in the W. Ferrell Shuck, Publisher article: http://www.mopress.com/hall_of_fame.php and the Lee's Summit Journal, July 1, 1981, page 3A How? Thanks. Comogreg (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a references section, but you need to out the cites at the appropriate place in the text and supply a title for one of them. I have put some useful links on your talk page. Check out WP:CITE for specific information on citing. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Need advice about a deleted page

Hello -

I need some advice and assistance. The page Parents Via Egg Donation was created back in 2009 with the help of one of your Wiki editors Toons. We received some sound advice from him and appreciated. In the meantime I edited my own page which I didn't realize at the time was against the rules. I was banned. Thankfully Wiki worked with me and I learned the rules and was unbanned. We moved on and with Toons advice went on to gather more credible information about the organization. It's now 2011 and our page was tagged orphaned and thankfully I was able to find a writer who was familiar with our organization and has edited as a user on Wiki before and she added to our page. Shortly after, it was marked for speedy deletion. We followed the rules and used the ((hang on)) command to explain our position and it was deleted.

So, I am back now at square one, frustrated and not sure what to do next. Our organization is a service organization, at non-profit that helps thousands of patients yearly with infertility issues, focusing on egg donation. We are not self serving, and we are not promoting a single individual, we are attempting to become part of an encylopedia as we are an educational and support organzation.

If you can help, I would be in your debt. Thanks.

MDG 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnad1963 (talk • contribs)

The article you are referring to, Parents Via Egg Donation, appears to be alive and well, having not been deleted. There seems to have been a misguided attempt to delete it but it was rejected. History is a little weird, are other people involved in the organisation aware that they shouldn't be editing the article? Rehevkor ✉ 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It was in fact deleted [13] at the time of the post here. It was later restored by the same editor after discussion at User talk:Martijn Hoekstra. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Based on recent editing, the one user who looks suspicious is User:Desktop Inc, principally because he registered recently and edited only that article. I'm also struggling to see how the article would survive notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the notability issue, searching on Google found nothing notable outside of the organization's website, the same was also the case looking through news and other avenues, and I couldn't find any reference to this site in any secondary sources other than the minor ones listed in the article, and even those are very old and not significant. I'm going to go ahead and put a notability tag on the article, in hopes of having someone with more knowledge of this field with the ability to find secondary sources being able to verify its notability. Feel free to edit/remove the tag as you see fit if this is not the correct context to use such a tag. Thank you - SudoGhost (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the tag is conservative. I was going to nominate it for deletion, but I'll wait a bit to see if anything happens with it first.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

POV catagory

Howdy, I noticed Category:Israeli settlers has been created recently. I don't know the rules regarding cats but it seems to be this cat gives undue weight to an assumed political view of the person by dint of association. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to copy your question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues because it's really a thicket of differing interpretations between captured, occupied, illegally occupied, etc. that needs knowledgeable response/debate. It's possible just removing the description is best thing to do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick thoughts: (1) This is a geographical/national category that seems fairly clearly bounded. If people in it turn out to be politically aligned, it will be a place where that alignment is visible, if they disagree politically, then it will be a place of political diversity. (2) since the number of territories is small, it might be better to enumerate them in the description page than use the current language, even though it appears NPOV to me.--Carwil (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any POV issues with the cat, it seems to be created for Israeli settlers, Israeli settlements are called Israeli settlements by the international community. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with this category: living in a specific area has nothing to do with one's political views, IMHO. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a potential problem with the application of the cat. Is it about individuals or groups or maybe both? Is Israeli settlements the parent cat or are they equal in a cat tree? I bring this up due to the cat going back and forth at Israeli settler violenceCptnono (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess primary it would be for individual people who happen to be Israeli settlers. It maybe fits in other articles as well.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputes on Frot with Flyer22

I'm writing about a series of wide raging disputes that I have had with Flyer22 on the Frot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Basically, we disagree on where to place and what to call what is currently called the Comparisons to Anal Sex section of the article. This has all been documented at length on the article's talk page starting here; however, the dispute essentially centers around whether men's motivations and feelings about practicing frot should be considered factual content or perceptions and opinions and listed and labeled accordingly. Flyer22 supports the former, while I support the latter. My primary concern is that the main sources cited at length in the Debates subsection see the act of frot as a way of negotiation gay masculinity and therefore situate it in a network of perceptions about anal sex and its relation to masculinity, effeminacy, monogamy, promiscuity, and AIDS that are beyond the scope of the article.

My secondary concern is that, given my edit history, Flyer22 interprets the bulk of my edits to be supporting an "agenda" and continually claims that I am "hindering the article" or "tampering with the article". While little can be done to actualy alter Flyer22's opinion of my edits, I feel the repeated claims constitute a personal attack as they attack the contribution through the contributor and not the contribution alone.Mijopaalmc (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to wade through the Talk page debate between you and other editor, but it's heavy-going. I'll restrict my comments to two areas: your complaint about "personal attacks" and the article generally.

Flyer's comments are pretty tame as so-called attacks go on Wikipedia. Would it be better if she avoided words like "agenda": In an ideal world, yes, but in the context of the continuing debate, I'd hardly call it an attack.

As for the article, my view is it generally strays too far from the topic of frottage and into the political arena. The issue of the frot advocates and the anal sex defenders is a bit much. The article collapses into a gay political debate with health ramifications being thrown in to spice it up. Some examples of inappropriate material (in my view):

• "Gay activist Bill Weintraub, who runs the sites HeroicHomosex.com and Man2manalliance.org, is one of the more vocal frot advocates,and insists frottage is "hotter" because anal sex "cannot give you the same experience as direct genital-on-genital sex."
• "However, frot can still transmit other sexually transmitted infections, such as HPV the viruses causing genital herpes and genital warts, either of which can lead to serious health problems." (the last phrase about serious health problems is medical speculation, even if it's true).
• "Others who enjoy anal sex argue that gay men who dislike anal nonetheless have an obligation to defend the practice against purely homophobic attacks, especially so long as sodomy laws continue to be enforced in many countries." This sentence is in the Debates section, almost all of which I think should go.

The article should concentrate on a description of the sexual practice, its history, and how it's practiced. Also, any relation to other animals (no matter how amusing). The rest of it should either go or be summarized in a very brief section. It would be a topic for another article, or a redirect to another article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to wade through the wall-of-text that is the Frot talk page. While I understand that Flyer22's comments about my having an "agenda" that "hinders the article" or "tampering with the article" are very tame, I still feel that it obstructs consensus on the article, because it focuses on me as an editor rather than my edits themselves and poisons the well against me for other editors. Given the above, I called it a "personal attack" because WP:PA is summarized as "[c]omment on the content, not on the contributor]]. It may have been a tad hyperbolic, but it seems an appropriate short-hand.

As for you concerns about the article itself, the second one is actually factual, but it illustrates the difference between fact and perception-opinion that I feel pervades the Debates section. In particular, the CDC mentions:

Genital ulcer diseases include genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid. These diseases are transmitted primarily through “skin-to-skin” contact from sores/ulcers or infected skin that looks normal. HPV infections are transmitted through contact with infected genital skin or mucosal surfaces/secretions. Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infection can occur in male or female genital areas that are covered (protected by the condom) as well as those areas that are not.[14]

It is therefore a fact that both HPV and HSV can be transmitted through frot. However, to go from facts about disease transmission to value judgments about sex acts is a statement of opinion based on a perception of what an acceptable relative risk is. The problem with the Debate section is that it is rife with such transformations of fact into opinion. In fact, the central issue that the Debates section discusses arises from the transfer of fact about the insertion of the penis in to the vagina or anus during sexual intercourse to perception-opinions about gender roles during intercourse and their translation to gender expression outside of intercourse and to interpersonal, sexual relationships. In particular, the frot advocates cited in the Debates section based their opinion of "analists[15]" or "gAys[16]" on the perception that a man who is anally penetrated is treating his anus like a vagina[17][18] and therefore becomes a effeminate and promiscuous "pussy boy[19]" or "man-khunt[20]". Mijopaalmc (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Without responding to Mijopaalmc's most recent comments, I'd like to hear from other editors about the article overall. Obviously, if the Debates section - or at least most of the content of the Debates section - shouldn't be in the article in the first place, that would moot at least some of Mijopaalmc's concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

US Senate Committee Subcommittees, inconsistant names

Hey, I was looking at the US Senate Committee pages, and noticed that the Energy and Natural Resources subcommittees are incorrectly named "United States Senate Energy Subcommittee ..." rather than "United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee ..." Upon further looking I noticed that there is a similar situation with regards to the subcommittees for the "Commerce, Science and Transportation", with them being shortened "United States Senate Commerce Subcommittee on ..." Contrastly, for some of the "Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs" Subcommittee pages, they are named "United States Senate Homeland Security Ad Hoc Subcommittee on ..." whereas others use the above system of shortening them.

So my questions are 1) Should there be some consistancy here? 2) Which method should be used? Using Ad Hoc, not, or using the full title? 3)If it should be changed, I can do it myself, but am unsure how to (if I can) change the title of the pages, so how would I do that?

Although this may be more fitting for a discussion page, it involves multiple pages and may involve changing the name of a page which I'm unsure how to do, or if I even can.

Sincerely, Ezuvian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezuvian (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They should be accurate to the current title, best found from current congressional committee website information. Former titles often are good to mention too in the lead, especially if well known, since they may appear in historical descriptions of the article and/or their references. [(Ie XXX committee (formerly known as XXY committee)] To move look for the down arrow next to the star on top of the article, below search box, click it and follow instructions. But feel free to wait for other opinions before charging ahead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy link on editor "responsibilities"

At this thread this self-styled "newbie" keeps asking me for my philosophy and my reading list to challenge my explanations on the WP:OR of his proposing to reorganize the article according to criteria he has yet to prove are backed by WP:RS (and probably are not). I just can't figure out what the best page to refer him to to explain "editor responsibilities" (or whatever you might call it). I.e., that would explain that unless one is using/proposing new references, editors don't have to do this and it is WP:Soapbox or tendentious editing or whatever for him to keep asking me. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I prefer to assume good faith, my sense is he's conning you. First, he's not really such a newbie. He's been heavily editing since August 2010 and has been registered since March 2009. Second, he's a self-proclaimed historian, and I think he's trying to obliquely "show you up" as a non-expert. He's not asking you for policy; he's asking you for what you've read on a particular topic, which is at best condescending and at worst inappropriate. I'd ignore him, but if you feel you can't do that, then just refer him to the usual policies like WP:EDIT and WP:RS. If you want to refer him to WP:EXPERT, an essay/failed guideline, you could.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good analysis! Figured best way to deal with him was a nice policy link/quote. Didn't know about WP:Edit (!) Learn something every day! Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

moises salinas

This is the first time I am trying to edit a page and I am totally confused. I am trying to add important biographical info to the above article to include criminal activity of which he has been found guilty. My reference source is the mainstream press,i.e. The Hartford (CT) Courant, March 9, 2011. I thought I had edited it properly but apparently the style of the reference note is not correct.

Help! Davidmb48 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. If you look at this diff you can see what I did. GB fan (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

help taking down an autobiographical article

Frances O'Roark Dowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Last fall I posted a brief article about my publishing history, unaware that this isn't how Wikipedia works. I just wanted something to link back to the UMass MFA program page, so anyone I'd gone to grad school with could see what I was up to. Obviously, I should have done a bit more research about Wikipedia before posting. In any event, I would like the article deleted, mostly out of personal embarrassment--not at the content, which is factual--but just because it looks like I'm self-promoting. Is there anyway to take this article down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_O'roark-DFrancesdowell (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)owell

Thanks for your help!

Best, Frances O'Roark Dowell

Welcome Ms. O'Roark Dowell. The short story is that articles are generally not deleted because their subject or original author requests them to be deleted. Looking at the history of the article, it seems that it was proposed for deletion last year using the proposed deletion process, but was not deleted because another editor decided that you were notable. It is possible that if the article about you was brought to articles for deletion that it would be deleted, but it's not a guarantee. For what it's worth, the article does not appear to me to be promotional and is comparable to other articles about authors that are of similar length. Does that help? --Danger (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your prompt reply. Well, I'm glad it doesn't seem self-promotional, but it's still a bit embarrassing to have all the notations above it about it being suspicious because I wrote it. I suppose that's what I get for not investigating the rules more closely (or, to be honest, at all) and for wanting to make sure the people I went to grad school know I'd amounted to something! Again, thanks for the fast feedback; I appreciate your help.

Best, Frances Dowell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesdowell (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have added the article to my watchlist, if you have any specific concerns about it in the future it may be worth asking on the article talk page: Talk:Frances O'Roark Dowell. Rehevkor ✉ 02:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is OK and reflects the subject's notability as an author, it does however need more reliable references per WP:BLP just to confirm notability, and other editors might request these.Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Peak Phosphorus

Peak phosphorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) editor chhe has twice removed my additions to the Peak Phosphorus page. Chhe first claimed it was plagerism thenthat it contained copywrite material. In both cases this is incorrect and I have re-instated my contribution. I suspect it will again be removed and I would like a third (neutral) oppinion. I am new to Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I am misunderstanding the proceedure. Feedingtheworld (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The text you posted and re-posted was previously published on this website. At the bottom it says "© Fertecon Research Centre Limited", so I agree that this is a copyright violation. As it says on your talk page, you may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Table is moving to external links

I've added a table with images to a section of Maidenform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The table and images move down to the external links catagory.

Bfoster333 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the missing "end of table" marker. You will sort out the licensing and copyright issues on those pictures, won't you? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I note your connection with the Maidenform company. Please read the Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest and advertising, and especially this section. I suspect that much of the material you have been adding will be removed fairly soon, since it reads as advertising and does not cite any sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense on the second wave of the Spanish flu

Dear editor,

My changes to errors in the Wiki on Spanish flu have been undone. I pointed out that the "theory" of the second wave is unsupported, and referred to those who identified the virus (Mohrens and Tauberger, in the New England Journal of Medicine). 1- The reference to later 'partial immunity" by sufferers from that flu is from a newspaper article - how on earth would you be able to identify systematically that partial immunity many decades later, other than through anecdote? You can check this statement is only supported by hearsay. Epidemiologists attribute that partial immunity to the large pandemics in 1896-1900: these saved the elderly. Now you assume that the imaginary "first wave" did not touch the younger??? 2- It was this theory of the second wave that created a health scare from a mild virus. It is an observable fact that this health scare generated billions for the vaccine and antiviral industry. This creates powerful interests.

I am not ready to learn the ropes of wikipedia. Besides, I can not compete with interest groups with multi billion interests. I would like you to remove this part of the "second wave" of the wiki. If you don't believe me, you may read the paper in the New England, the most prestigious medical journal. You can check my name in the Pubmed to observe that I am a regular scientist. You may check for yourself that the history of acquired immunity is tenuous indeed (if not impossible).

Yours truly,

Luc Bonneux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.139.149 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you post at Talk:1918 flu pandemic where it will be seen by the editors most interested in the article. I have removed your email address to protect your privacy; Wikipedia editors tend to communicate using talk pages, not by email, and posting email addresses here only encourages spam. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

John Florescu page

John M. Florescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

My name is Dana Gliga. I am contacting you reffering John Florescu's wikipedia profile. I know I have been receiving a message from Wikipedia's assistance about the fact that if I don't provide references, more exactly, links about the pege yped on wikipedia website, it would be deleted. I begun to post the text about John Florescu on 4th of March and the term (regarding the possibility to be deleted) was mentioned to be about 10 days.

Please do not delete the page created, because I will send you references about John Florescu in short time. He is a worldwide very good known producer, one of the best cable television professionists. You'll see upon the links that I will send you.

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DE143AF93BA1575AC0A963958260&scp=4&sq=John%20Florescu&st=cse
• http://tv.nytimes.com/show/61357/Sir-John-Gielgud-Talking-With-David-Frost/overview?scp=11&sq=John%20Florescu&st=cse
• http://tv.nytimes.com/show/39276/After-Diana-A-Talking-With-David-Frost-Special/overview?scp=17&sq=John%20Florescu&st=cse
• http://tv.nytimes.com/show/40275/Anthony-Hopkins-Talking-With-David-Frost/overview?scp=21&sq=John%20Florhttp://tv.nytimes.com/show/154845/David-Frost-Interviews-I-ll-Never-Forget/overview?shttp://tv.nytimes.com/show/66214/Wynton-Marsalis-Talking-With-David-Frost/overview?scp=23&sq=John%20Florescu&st=csecp=22&sq=John%20Florescu&st=cseescu&st=cse
• http://tv.nytimes.com/show/59701/Robin-Williams-Talking-With-David-Frost/overview?scp=26&sq=John%20Florescu&st=cse
• http://tv.nytimes.com/show/65113/Warren-Beatty-Talking-With-David-Frost/overview?scp=31&sq=John%20Florescu&st=cse

• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/412138211.html?FMT=ABS&date=Sep%2026,%202003
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/40103250.html?FMT=ABS&date=Mar%2029,%201999

I will forward you tomorrow other sources from other websites as you suggested in your inquiry. Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards, Dana Gliga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana83art (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you need to put these references in the article. The PROD template provides a link to how to go about referencing. You don't have much time as the notice has been there for ten days! I note that you have a copy in your user space, so if it does get deleted, then add the refs to your user copy and then ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK. THe references that you have provided are not very useful as they appear, at a quick glance, to be merely TV listings. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) These URLs do confirm that John M. Florescu was the producer for various TV shows. I have added them to the article and removed the deletion notice. The article still needs lots more work and lots more references, both to verify the information given and to show that people have written about him. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with a deleted article and one that has been proposed

I helped to create both the Nefsis and Loring Ward pages. Sticking to Wikipedia guidelines, each page has/had a significant amount of reliable sources.

In the Loring Ward case, a Wiki admin deleted the page altogether without putting up a flag for speedy deletion or a flag for proposed deletion.

In the Nefsis case, this article has been nominated for deletion on the Nefsis articles for deletion page

The editor who flagged the Nefsis page and tore down the Loring Ward page citing Churnalism for both artilces – yet each page has/had references from reliable sources.

Wondering if I could get help/guidance on how to deal with this Wiki admin and if there is a possibility to get the Loring Ward page back up since the editor did not put up a flag, as common practice. Karebear 1022 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The instructions for getting the Loring Ward page undeleted or WP:userfied are on the deletion notice at User talk:Jbarbi. The Nefsis article will be decided on by consensus of the community - you are welcome to comment there if you have not already done so. --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion like WP:CSD#G11 do not require that a flag is put up, but I have commented on your post at User talk:JzG#Loring Ward and Nefsis. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Accidently deleted references

I accidently deleted the references from a page when I tried to add my own (alkaline diet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.163.176 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The references disappeared because you deleted {{Reflist}} in [21]. Your edits have been reverted. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for the right way to make an inline reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MARC MYSTERIO VANDALISM Marc mysterio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marc Mysterio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marc Mysterio Page Vandalism

I have been engaged in a disput for the past 2 days now with user KWW and now user Edjohnston whom I asked for help first. KWW has needlessly deleted numerous very notable events of this artist -- ALL WHICH ARE/WERE SOURCED!

I'm asking that the edits of KWW 03:34, 15 March 2011 are reverted. This is a copy of the conversation for edjohnston talk page:

Hi, I noticed you placed a protection on the Marc Mysterio page in 2009. It came to my attention that a user with the handle KWW is, and has been for over 2 years, needlessly butchering this article of sourced info.

I have now reverted his edits on a few occasions and added sources but this fellow is intent on killing this article, and this is a very known musician on major labels and major press.

Can you please place the article under a loock status to prevent this KWW from further vandalizing and revert the edits he may make in the interim between now and the time you get this.

He is even deleting sourced notices of the artist collab on a Grammy winner new album (Roger Sanchez) and other chartings.

This is one of the better sourced articles on this web site to it seems this KWW may have some personal issue or obession with the artist.

marc mysterio page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Mysterio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.159.213 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the history, and I'm sure you will notice that the edits I am reverting are puffery, unsourced information, and questionable charts. The anon here is either Marc Mysterio himself or one of his promotional staff. It's been a running problem on the page for several years.—Kww(talk) 03:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Marc Mysterio. Based on that, plus the recent IP edits, I've semiprotected Marc Mysterio for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't realised that other people had already figured out that we were dealing with Mr. Mysterio himself.—Kww(talk) 04:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed, can you please revert the edits of KWW as they are valdalism and were done prior to your protection and is the exact cause of the valdalism which requested the edit. @kww, I am not Marc Mysterio. Why would you think he is the one making these edits? You sound to have a personal gripe with the artist? Information that was removed, was all sourced and I even spent 20 minutes sourcing it myself. It appears info was even edited out that was previously talked about on discussion page. Sourced collaborations with Grammy Winners, MTV Awards, etc. I suggest a revert of the last edits of KWW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.159.213 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Selection websites for the Wikipedia page

Hello,

I am writing again with the request to add some websites about John Florescu's activity as an executive producer and as an cable television expert. I will forward you a selection of some articles written by or about John M. Florescu. They are in NYT, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle. I will send you also some refernces written by important personalities from the political life reffering John Florescu as a nominee for the post of Ambassador of Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana83art (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

John M. Florescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, those will help improve the article, especially those written about this person. But please don't post them on this page, since this is a general "help" forum. Instead, either add them to the article, preferably using citations, or place them on the article talk page for other editors to see and use. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dana, you don't need to ask here every time. Several editors are watching your talk page, the article, and the article talk page. I have also given you a lot of help as you will remember. You can leave a message on the article talk page or ask me directly on my talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Page locked/blocked while trying to create.

32nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can no longer edit a redirect page I was trying to create because I screwed up trying to follow the directions (I've never done this before.) Now I'm blocked from further work on the page because it suspects I'm vandalizing for some reason.

I'm trying to add a redirect from: 32nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) to: 32nd Armored Regiment (United States)

The first one ( the redirect attempt) is the one that's blocked.

Thanks for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels0132 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the problem seems to be that your target is actually called 32nd Armor Regiment (United States). Should that be moved to 32nd Armored Regiment (United States)? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing query

Can you please tell us how something important may be added to a locked page? We refer specifically to the following:

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

We would like to post a reference but cannot. We have a major reference book about the Nazi party that Wikipedia viewers should know about. How can we get the title, author, etc., posted on the page?

Thank you.

208.105.17.242 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Enigma Books editors

It should be noted that for quite some time now this IP has been used only to add books published by Enigma Books (a minor publisher in New York City) to other articles. I have given them a level-3 anti-advertising warning, as this seems to be their only purpose here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

/* External links */ we are new to wikipedia and might not understand the rules

My mom is an AKC Judge and has content on her site www.Bi-Mar.com that we thouhgt would be benenifical for article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomeranian_(dog) but we have noticed that that Miyagawa removed every edit we do. I hoping this is just because we didn't create the link correctly or something. I'm wondering if we add to the article if this might be a better way of sharing information instead of just putting an external link.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosenba (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 March 2011

It's been removed as a spamlink to a commercial website which sells Pomeranians. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an additional note to say that you are more than welcome to add your link to the Pomeranian section at the dmoz open directory project which is linked to from the article here. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Assistance needed to edit aricle with an abusive editor

Hi, I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and have run across an article with apparently an abusive old timer. I'm pretty sure they can't get away with what they are doing, but since I am learning the ropes, I'm not sure what to do.

The article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew,_Mark,_Luke_and_John

The problem is the user editor claims that it is widely called the Black Patornoster in the opening, but won't cite it. Looking online, very few if any people call it this.

A cite on origins further down provides the only citation for a Black Patonoster, but it was only for a book citing a reference to a similar (not the same) poem made by an alleged witch - "Satan's invisible world". I looked at the source the editor provided. Originally, the name of the author of the book wasn't correct either. The quote alleged from Ady in the book isn't there either. I've repeatadly tried to correct this, but the editor just keeps putting it back - while keeping the correction to the author's actual name, and is accusing me of vandalism..

Now, actually, I've never removed his material, although I feel it is pretty bad research, I just kept after correcting the quote that wasn't correct and the author's name which wasn't correct.

However, the section I put it which has sources for a possible catholic origin of this rhyme keeps getting removed. I believe that is vandalism according to wikipedia. I think it's pretty darn poor scholarship to keep information when it is shown to be wrong, and to delete information about a possible origin of a ryme when it is part of the printed literature.

Can anyone help?

I have trouble following the article, but I do have some advice for you as an editor. You should stop edit-warring. It won't help, and you may end up being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

MaxKen - I left you a note on my talk page. I think you may believe that several editors are ganging up against you. Actually we have all rolled back the edits you made independent of one another, which means that we are all seeing the same thing, Please discuss what you want changed on the talk page for the article. There it can be discussed. When you make serial repeat edits it flags you as a vandal and the software we use will flag any edits to that page as possible vandalism. Good luck! Golgofrinchian ≤TALK≥ 03:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pat Tillman quote consensus closure

Hi, can someone please evaluate consensus and close the discussion in Talk:Pat Tillman#Hew to the source?

It is a quite simple discussion about "Should we use THIS quote or THAT quote".

It had generated a lot of discussion since 8 December 2010, and so - on 9 march - I created a new heading, "Clarifying for consensus", to try and sort things out.

Without wishing to be at all biased...I think consensus is clear. But as I've actually commented in the discussion, I'd like someone else to close it off.

Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic link spam

Heat map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article above contains an external link to something called iMapBuilder which is off topic and seems to be only for the purpose of advertising a commercial product. The user's only edits are postings of this link to this and other articles, although this is the only article it remains on. Attempts to remove the link by previous editors and myself have been reverted by the original editor. I also posted on the user's talk page to indicate the reasons, although it is an IP user (203.198.150.93) so I'm not sure if that is significant. To continue trying to remove the link would just be to engage in an edit war. So, I'm not sure what the proper process is from here. Any guidance would be appreciated. Polydeuces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given the IP some standard advice. If this IP keeps spamming without discussion, you can report it at WP:AIV. If even that doesn't work - perhaps because several different IPs join in - you could try the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Help in category

Hi, On contains 27,054 Open Proxies that are blocked on Wikipedia. Those 27k separated into 199 pages. I want to take them into a single page like we do on history pages. Please help. Thank you --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)