Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Personal behavior check

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been encountering a great deal of difficulty and stress both in myself and in other editors in trying to discuss Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)#Category:Homophobia. I've tried to keep discussion policies in mind, but I've gotten in a little over my head. I seem to be only antagonizing other editors whose personal views are sharply different from my own common wisdom. I am autistic, and I have no intuitive instinct for being tactful, so I sometimes have to subdivide my cognative skills to do it (with mixed results). Please counsel me. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gilgamesh, Thanks for posting here. I'm not sure I'm so well qualified to answer your question, since I'm rarely accused of diplomacy myself, but I'll offer an opinion anyway ... I looked at the discussion at Prop 8, and also at Category talk:Homophobia, and all I saw was editors expressing markedly different opinions in more-or-less civil ways. It can certainly be a little stressful, but I didn't notice any allegations of bad faith, nor very much in the way of personal attacks.

On the content matter, I'm going to look for another category to suggest. While I can, personally, sympathise with the idea that any bias is per se irrational, I do wonder if there's some other way of identifying this as "likely to be perceived as discriminatory" without using that category. Not going to change anything yet, just looking.

I encourage other assistants to offer their own assessments too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

blanking list articles; replacing with directs to categories

By the way, just to show the intentional misrepresentations posted here in order to get an edge on a content dispute, I've never "redirected" any page to a category. I've redirected to mainpages where I had moved the correctly sourcable peoples. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 is engaging in a reckless and disruptive pattern of editing which is being opposed by every other editor involved. Bulldog is blanking out list articles and replacing them with directs to similar categories and when he does not get his way, just threatens and acts to do additional damage. See List of Danish Americans, List of Americans with Finnish ancestry, List of Estonian Americans, List of Dutch Americans, List of Norwegian Americans. This is being done in total disregard of the established pattern for articles of this type and in disregard of the WP guidelines what differentiate betweeen list articles categories and accept both as valid and is being done based on his sole and single opinion of what is correct. Help before his activiites get further out of hand. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide "diffs" of these "threats of additional damage?" Or does User:Hmains admit this is an intentional exaggeration? Bulldog123 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This editor (User:Bulldog123) had formerly proposed many dozens of such articles for deletion (s/he seems to have an antipathy for any article showing intersections of ethnic or national identity), and when those pages were voted on as "keep," s/he decided to simply be "bold" and delete huge areas of mostly sourced text without prior discussion, or to delete the articles entirely via (again undiscussed) redirects. In a recent edit, s/he stated that because the AFDs hadn't gone his/her way, s/he had been "forced" into such "unorthodox" deletion (see edit summary here). Whatever the case, it's highly disruptive, as all other editors have been asking is for prior discussion and consensus in the case of such huge deletions. Badagnani (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Note Badagnani's claim that "In a recent edit, s/he stated that because the AFDs hadn't gone his/her way, s/he had been "forced" into such "unorthodox" deletion (see edit summary here)" is an intentional misrepresentation of what was meant. If you take a look at the previous edit summaries and discussions you'll see that "I tried the ulterior method" refers to my attempt to initiate a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, which was (likely purposelly) ignored by Badagnani. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For examples of the articles blanked in the past 24 hours, see the warnings at User talk:Bulldog123. Badagnani (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what's going on, the guy just keeps blanking sourced text: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] etc. and has not really engaged in a discussion to explain him/herself Talk:List_of_Estonian_Americans#Massive removals, September 11, 2008. Meanwhile I've just added more refs and sources in case any already referenced-sourced text has been removed by User:Bulldog123--Termer (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could pick one of the lists as a test case, request comments, and try to reach consensus? That would be the AGF path, I think. Alternatively, a more aggressive approach would be to post at WP:ANI if you think Bulldog123 has blatantly contradicted the consensus at a corresponding AfD. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the irony of it is, that I'm implementing the consensus. :P Bulldog123 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This would be a logical course of action if the blanking editor chose to use "Discussion" (s/he does not). We are pleading for some action on this extreme disruption; is none forthcoming from those in whom we have accorded such trust to preserve the judicious working process of our project? Badagnani (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to go to WP:ANI. The assistants here have no more power or influence than you do; we're not (generally) admins. ANI is the place to seek an admin's intervention. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on WP:AFD a year ago was that these lists can stay (they were originally deleted and then overturned on AfD) if everyone who is not sourced properly or sourced at all be removed and/or fixed. This was not done for a year. Days beforehand I left a message on WIKIPROJECT:ETHNIC GROUPS requesting a discussion. I was ignored. Meanwhile, User:Badagnani and User:Hmains who have a grudge against me for nominating the lists in this first place have been harassing me on my talkpage User_talk:Bulldog123. I've explained to them on infinite edit summaries and discussion pages want needs to be done. Have made attempts to move ALL properly sourced material to mainpage, but have either been ignored, or tagged a WP:VANDAL. At the same time, Badagnani purposelly brings in users who don't know anything about the situation, such as User:Termer, to help in his revert wars: [8]. Bulldog123 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I understand so much that Bulldog123 removals don't make any sense to me. By removing well sourced random names from several lists with unclear reasons, at the same time for example the List_of_Scottish_Americans has been untouched by Bulldog123 even though there barely are any sources provided. Why is there for example on the list of Scottish_Americans Tim McGraw, American singer (father is Scots-Irish, mother is Italian-Irish)?? at the same time - symphony conductor IMG Artists Estonian-born conductor Kristjan Järvi etc. like many other Estonian born Americans get removed from List of Estonian Americans??‎ Sorry but the logic behind Bulldog123 actions is indeed beyond my understanding.--Termer (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're clearly not speaking to one another direct, User:Termer should realize List of Scottish Americans has not been revised as of yet. That simple. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse to ignore verification issues. Also Kristjan Järvi was never removed intentionally - she may have been lost in the constant revert wars User:Termer and User:Badagnani are instigating. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The logic, or lack thereof, behind User:Bulldog123's edits is not the issue; it is the hyperaggressive manner of editing, specifically the lack of prior discussion and consensus before blanking sourced text (and sometimes entire articles). Lack of attention to such a problematic manner of editing poses a severe problem for our project. Badagnani (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thing is. Had you responded on the Wikiproject, which I know you edit at, we could have had the discussion ahead of time. You didn't, so I rightfully implemented WP:BOLD and was met with reverts of "vandalism" and harassment by you. I'm under the impression that your mode of POV-pushing is to simply ignore the concerns of others (as had been displayed obviously on the AfDs - where, it should be noted, you requested the closing admin should be banned for closing to the opposite of your liking), and then revert them with false claims of "vandalism." I had obviously, and clearly moved everyone of verifiable X-Americanness to the article mainspace, where the page was redirected to. This is not "blanking pages" - it is a merge. The hypocrisy of complaints of "hyperaggressiveness" coming from someone who throws false threats of blocking on my talkpage (how many times now? nine?), is pretty blatant. Bulldog123 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It should also be known that User:Badagnani had a year of which to revise the issues with List of X-Americans after he reviewed the deletion of several of the lists. There was plenty of time for others to fix the issues. Bulldog123 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To Bulldog123: What exactly any list should look like usually is determined by WP:Consensus. You have made your ideas clear so much at least I think that in your opinion only well sourced 100% ethnic X-people who happen to be American Citizens should be listed? As far as I can tell there is no such a consensus achieved on WP that any of these lists of X-Americans should be based on such a formula. If you'd like to change the way people get listed, you'd need to bring it up first at talk pages, reach a consensus instead of blanking out the lists on WP as you please.--Termer (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion isn't relevant. The sources you give (not all but most) only justify a Category:Americans of Estonian descent. That's the beauty of perfect verification; if we find a reliable source that calls X Estonian, it's likely that he is well-known for being so. If it doesn't, then its just "trivial". There is no consensus on how to source properly. This isn't a content dispute. For example, you can't source somebody on a list of Estonian Americans as "half Estonian" - that's not what the lists about. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese gymnasts

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The following sections, independently submitted, appear to concern the same set of articles. In the interests of economy and consistency, please read them together. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with editor about interpretation on Wikipedia's rules and regulations

Dear sir,

I am requesting assistance that I disagree with one of the editors on what kind of information could be included in a wikipedia article and what information could not. Could I get a third party to help me?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 00:00 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Which article are you having problems with? -epicAdam^(talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese gymnastics articles

I've been having issues with two editors on articles for two of the Chinese gymnasts involved in the age controversy scandal at the Olympics, Deng Linlin and Jiang Yuyuan. Both of these articles have been subject to vandalism by people on both sides of the case and it has taken considerable effort to source and get them to a point where they don't violate WP:NPOV. However, there are currently two editors--one a single-purpose account and the other with a possible conflict of interest--who have decided the article is biased, is mean to the Chinese gymnasts, that the sources don't count, etc. and have repeatedly tried infuse the articles with their POV and delete sourced material. I've tried to explain the way RS and other policies work, but it's not penetrating. Today the SPA has gone off the tracks. He started out as a vandal a few days ago, calmed down and started talking, and is now threatening to vandalise other articles if he doesn't get his way.

I've tried asking for help at the Wiki Gymnastics project and BLP, but I think at this point most people have been scared away. I'm the only one left trying to sort this out, and I'm really losing patience despite myself. Any help, feedback, whatever would be appreciated. DanielEng (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I read over the talk pages and checked out the sources. The user making the edits is clearly just trying to cause trouble. If he is insistent on changing the information, then put him on notice that he will likely be inviolation of WP:3RR, and if he does so, then report him. If you need somebody else to revert the changes so you don't go over the limit yourself, let me know. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Epicadam. It makes me a little less frustrated with these articles to read this. The editor complaining directly above my post is the SPA account and one of the two causing trouble. I hadn't even realized he was here until I saw these two posts linked. I would definitely appreciate help if I have to revert, and will contact you. Thank you again! Best, DanielEng (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to this, the SPA editor is still all but spitting blood on the Talk Page. I've basically tried to say "I'm not answering this anymore," but apparently it's made the SPA angrier. As long as it's confined to the Talk Page, I'm guessing the best course of action is to ignore it completely? DanielEng (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O or WP:RFC seems useful in this case. If there are serious WP:BLP concerns, head off to WP:BLP/N. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance on "Jiang Yuyuan" article

This 3rd thread was submitted after the previous two but was moved here (by me) for clarity. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr blocked User:Tinbin2 as a sock of User:Tinbin, used to evade a block. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently added information from chinese sources to "Jiang Yuyuan" article. I discussed about using the chinese sources with editor "DanielEng" before adding them and he agreed that chinese sources can be used and I added the relevant parts from the original texts for easy reference of translation. According to wilkpedia regulation Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content., therefore I am obeying wikipedia's regulations. But other editors keep removing my chinese sources. Therefore, I need assistance on this matter. 08:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin2 (talk • contribs)

Note: Nobody said this user had carte blanche with Chinese sources; he was pointed toward the appropriate text in WP:RS, and since then, other editors have gone to great pains to explain everything as to why his sources and the content he has added are inappropriate. Also, this is a sockpuppet of User:Tinbin, who has been blocked for 3RR and has now used a grand total of three IPs and two different sockpuppets to try to evade his original block. DanielEng (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tinbin, you really are digging a hole for yourself here... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor's discussion page BLOCKED for IPs?

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BillCJ reverted a new section (popular culture) I added to the V Bomber article, while I was still editing refs. I undid it, added a ref and a Wikilink that shows some significance, and added a notice on the discussionboard. However, by looking at User_talk:BillCJ, this "Note to "disruptive" IP" (at #28, for heaven's sake! Is everybody supposed to find it there?)) makes me believe this editor is somewhat hostile towards IPs:

"To the "disruptive IPs: Don't waste your time posting here or responding to this - it will be removed. I can easily add dozens of fact tags to the A-7 Corsair II article. But other editors would object to the "clutter", and replace it with an article tag! Rather than spending your time tying to "disrupt" WP to prove whatever point you're trying to make, you could actually spend some time improving the actualy content of an article, such as adding actual inline citations to the A-7. I know that's not as much fun as being "disruptive", but please remember WP is still an encyclopedia - for now, anyway!"

Looks like this Editor thinks that every IP is disruptive. Consequently, his discussion page can't be edited. So, how am I supposed to get into contact with Bill if he decides to delete my entry again? Is this kind of unfriendly behaviour allowed? What about WP:Bite? Not to speak of that reverting a totally serious and certainly not vandalous IP edit within ten minutes smells of WP:ownership. Could someone pls take a look at this, and maybe advice the editor to relax a bit? 89.182.194.94 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page about your message here. You must assume good faith as the messages to disruptive IPs is not related to your content dispute at V bombers and you have made a few accusations that could be considered as personal attacks that are not relevant to this forum. As this is a content dispute a message on Talk:V bomber should get a reply from User:BillCJ you do not need to use his talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Thanks for posting here. There are a number of options available to you. First, you could register an account. That allows everyone to see your editing history and hence allows you to gain credibility from a constructive history. Second, you could use the article's talk page to discuss the article; I think BillCJ listed that among the bullets at the top of his page. Third, and I especially recommend this one, you could assume good faith and even note that BillCJ posted that message days before you edited, so it's probably not aimed at you! And, fourth, you could add the reference at the same time as adding the text, which would avoid the whole unreferenced thing.

Sorry for the long list. Seriously, don't be discouraged. Some editors here are more friendly to IPs; some have had bad experiences and are consequently more sceptical towards IPs. Stick with it. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thx for weighing in folks. Just three points in return; Firstly, I didn't ACCUSE Bill of anything, I was stating facts: He DID revert my edit within 7 minutes, his discussion page CAN't be edited by IPs, and instead of an explanation he HAS this somewhat discriminating statement on his discussion page. And he didn't put anything at the discussion page after reverting me. I'm still waiting for an answer there. God knows if he'll notice anything I post there! But he WOULD be reminded if an editor posted on his discussion page. See the difference?

Secondly, yeah, I should have logged in, but I had a spontaneous idea when reading the V-Bomber article and I didn't think adding relevant information would be controversial. Since I want to preserve my privacy, it's too late to log in now (this would link my username to my IP). And thirdly, now what's your proposal for my most urgent concern? If I get into trouble with this guy, how shall I communicate with him? I can totally understand if userpages have to be protected against vandalism, but then, a notice about this should be at the start of his pages, and secondly, how shall non-vandalizing users get into contact with this editor??? 89.182.194.94 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You can post at Talk:V bomber I guess. He's not obliged to read it, nor to respond, but that's the best place to discuss that page. He's not obliged to read or respond to his own talk either. For that matter, MilborneOne has pointed him to this page too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that reminder by MilborneOne is helpful. I just wanted to point out to Bill that I'm not one of those vandalizing IPs, and that we should dicuss it if he has a problem with one of my edits. Good that MO relayed that message. Milborne citicized an edit on that talk page, too, and even though I think he was a bit nitpicking, I changed the wording of that section. However, even though I understand the need to safeguard some editors from vandals messing up their user pages, I still think a notice at the start of the page would be helpful. Isn't there a template for this somewhere? Something like: "Because of vandalism, these userpages have been blocked against edits by IP users. If you want to discuss with this editor, pls use the discussion pages of the articles.". Imho a clarificiation like this would be a good idea.89.182.194.94 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what message you had but if I try and edit his talk page I get the message Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get that message, Milborne, because the "edit" link doesn't even show up (made me first think something is wrong with my browser or so). There's no way an IP can edit this page. So, the message you, as a logged-in-editor, get when editing this page is somewhat paradox. After all, you can edit it, so it doesn't have to concern you, but the IPs who would really be interested in getting this information can never see it. Strange.89.182.194.94 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Milborne, could you pls relay to Bill that his conspiracy theories about me are useless? To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited articles about military planes before, and I don't remember ever meeting BillCJ anwhere here. I also am not a well known editor, but just a part time contributor with very few edits, all in all (both logged in and as an IP combined). Do a checkuser on me, if you like. I don't have any problem with admins checking my edit history here, it's only that I don't want everybody to know the IP of my useraccount. And I think it's strange that Bill has a discussion with you, where I can't participate, instead of using the IP talkpage or the discussion page at V-Bomber. Somewhat impolite, imho. 89.182.194.94 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Dooctrine

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A new post was added today that while it quotes a source, it relates to partisan views expressed to explain the lack of knowledge of a candidate. The individual adding the section is clearly using your semi-protection policy to avoid having it changed or flagged just long enough for people unfamiliar with the issue to be confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azrights (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss Bush Doctrine at Talk:Bush Doctrine, and you can edit it when your account becomes autoconfirmed (takes 4 days if you make 10 edits). Your theory about an individual using semi-protection sounds strange to me. There are a huge number of autoconfirmed users and the article has been edited by 12 different user accounts today. Do you have a specific request for editor assistance? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn

Resolved

 – by use of a source. Hooray! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently posted a line stating that Canada Post issued a stamp of Audrey Hepburn. This is public knowledge, and the stamps were sold at every outlet in Canada.

I had a "bully" MarnetteD delete my entry.

Is there some way of resolving this? From what I can tell this person can be quite aggressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If somebody has requested a source then please provide one before readding something, even if you consider it trivial. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Your post to MarnetteD seemed aggressive (and ignorant of Wikipedia policy) to me, and some people easily respond to aggression with more aggression. Try being polite to avoid escalation. Note that the article history [9] shows another editor removed it for not being important. Also note that her appearance on an American stamp is already mentioned with a source at the end of Audrey Hepburn#Awards and honours, with an indication this is significant. And she did make American films. Has she made any Canadian? If stamps of other countries should be mentioned then surely it should be in the same place and not in another section. You could suggest the addition at Talk:Audrey Hepburn and see whether others support it. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you really want the addition and don't get support on the talk page, but is this little factoid worth such effort? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider this a mere "factoid." I also don't think supplying a reference for everything in pulic knowledge necessary. For the sake of wiki harmony I will re-add it with a reference and hope that that will settle the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record this editor added the unsourced and improperly placed info four times and did not respond to edit summaries or talk page messages before trying to bring about wikiharmony. MarnetteD | Talk 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese version

Stale

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

HI,

I was viewing the Japanese version of Wikipedia when I noticed, at the top left hand corner that it said: uikipideia where it should say waikipideia. (the u and the wa look very symelar).

Just pointing it out :)

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.246.47 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You should probably point that out on their website, to be honest :). But I'm pretty sure they intend it that way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert deMaine

Resolved

 – Advice offered. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

I am an associate and admirer of this concert cellist, and believe I have revised his Wikipedia biographical entry to conform to a more neutral point of view. A stub writer whose Wiki moniker is "Chubbles" had placed the "conflict of interest" notification at the top of Robert's entry, and I am hoping that this issue can soon be resolved, and the notification can be removed. Please feel free to edit this page further if it is not deemed to be enough of a neutral nature! Thank you very much.

Respectfully, Julia Grabowska ("Griffbrett") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffbrett (talk • contribs) 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The COI tag was inserted on the page because User:Rdemaine contributed significantly to the page. Wikipedia frowns on the subject of an article actually contributing to it. The best way to resolve any conflict of interest is to be bold and find reliable sources (i.e. independent, third-party sources) that reference the information provided in the article. For future communications on talk pages like these, don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically add your user name. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That page would benefit greatly from some references! --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need assistance with page Brian Schweitzer

Hello,

Lot of shenanigans going on at Brian Schweitzer. Section "Controversy" is being removed and reverted every other edit, but I don't want to get involved because I cannot be impartial. Need help putting a temporary lock on page while it is sorted out.

Also note that one of the edits comes from a [10] Montana government computer].

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. snachodog (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted 3RR warnings on the talk pages of the two editors who have most recently been adding and removing it. Further reverts without the necessary talk page discussion/consensus will merit blocks for all involved. Consensus needs to be established. Mfield (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much!snachodog (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to get frustrating. Section was out right removed again by an anonymous user. Any other steps I should be taking? snachodog (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for a few days, meaning that anonymous editors can't edit it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edgewood, New Mexico and Moriarty, New Mexico articles - potential vandalism or misunderstanding of WP:ELNO

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edgewood, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moriarty, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Today, I added links to virtual tours of these two communities to their respective articles. User:Nyttend Nyttend has, despite my explanations to the contrary, repeatedly deleted these on the basis of his/her decision that they are either spam or some violation of the WP:ELNO rules - to the point of violating the "three undo a day" standard. I've reread the spam and ELNO guidelines, and these links clearly do not violate them. I am requesting assistance in resolving this issue. --Weckerleje (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The same problem occurred with the link I placed on the Torrance County, New Mexico article.--Weckerleje (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. It's possible that you're reading WP:ELNO rather narrowly; it's not sufficient that an external link isn't prohibited; it has to be worthy of inclusion. WP:ELYES provides some balance. Perhaps you could use the talk page(s) to explain why you think the links are worth including and then there could be some discussion, rather than just edit warring. 3RR doesn't apply to removal of vandalism, so if the other editor has a good faith belief that you're just adding spam links, then s/he wouldn't be in breach of 3RR. I know you don't think it's spam, but that's why you need to discuss it, not just revert each other. Happy consensus-building, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's one fact here that is very telling on the issue of your intent in adding the links. You stated on Nyttendat's talk page that you "run a web design and hosting company". Well it just so happens that the two seemingly unrelated sites you linked to, [11] and [12] (actually you inserted three links but two are separate pages from the same site), are both designed by the same webpage design firm, which I'm intentionally not naming but anyone following those links can see this for themselves. You also added to Torrance County, New Mexico, this link which, lo and behold, was also designed by the same firm. You added another link that page, [13] and, though I didn't find the designer listed on the site, I was quite unshocked to find on the design firm's website that it too was designed by the same firm—your firm. The evidence is more than damning; it's incontrovertible. So, whether the sites you've added do or do not fail WP:EL is really beside the point. You are indeed a spammer, spamming Wikipedia, just in a way slightly more difficult to recognize than the average because as a designer, you avoid the obviousness of promoting a single site, thus cloaking yourself a bit with seemingly unrelated external links. You seem to care about your region, and some of your edits seem genuinely intended to help the articles. By all means stay around and make more good edits. However, what is going on is clear. Any further link spamming will be reverted on sight. 3RR does not apply, and if you persist, warnings and ultimately a block for spamming may result.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edgewood, New Mexico and Moriarty, New Mexico articles - potential vandalism or misunderstanding of WP:ELNO - Response

Response re-grouped --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to respond directly to the feedback I got to my original request. I'd like to thank AndrewHowse and Nyttend for the polite and thoughtful responses, here and elsewhere. As for "Fuhgettaboutit":

Thank you for your rather "direct" comments. First, let us be clear on one issue - I'd like suggest that you, and those who follow on if need be, be clear about the fact that it was I that brought this forward for clarification. I find it rather confusing that a request for assistance would be answered in such an apparently hostile manner.

I thought it was fairly obvious in the discussions, early on, that I was, in fact (through my firm; I get to do some community service things because I HAVE the firm to begin with) the author of the content in question. How anyone could see "cloaking" here - especially given my user name - is not entirely clear to me. I apologize for any lack of clarity on that issue - please understand that I do not spend a lot of time producing or editing Wikipedia articles. I am certainly the author of the content in question, and hold copyright to the imagery. There's nothing to be shocked or "unshocked" by, here, nor is there anything to be proud of or ashamed of - we do a lot of work for local and regional communities and organizations, and we do it because we are who we are, and not for some cheap advantage, as you seem to suggest. I'd be delighted if you could point me to the specific policy that forbids a webmaster from posting a link to a nonprofit site he or she has created. Please be specific, as opposed to providing a statement on your personal philosophy. I'd also appreciate a link to the policy that gives you the authority to make threats - anonymously, of course - on behalf of Wikipedia.

Please note that I am also the editor of nm-central.com, and have been for months, and have never even thought of posting a link at Wikipedia to that site because it would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Ditto for most of the other sites we've produced.

Frankly, I find your accusatory language and name-calling offensive. First, let me point out that the links are for local, community service nonprofits. And riddle me this, Batman (dating myself, here); what makes you think I need to spam these links at all? Type "edgewood new mexico" or "moriarty new mexico" (please feel free to leave out the quotes - it's more fun that way), and you'll see the virtual tours of Edgewood and Moriarty on the second page of the Google results. As for the EMIFPA link, I created the initial site AND the current one for free. There's no profit motive here. It's just useful and/or content, and I frankly think it's a shame that it won't be available to Wikipedia readers.

I'm more than a little disappointed to see this kind of attitude being displayed in response to a request for help. It will certainly affect my inclination to spend time on Wikipedia in the future. I actually took the time to track down the vandals at the local high school (East Mountain High School; see the edit history on the Edgewood page) who were vandalizing articles all over Wikipedia, and consider myself to have been a good "wiki-citizen" overall. I don't see that happening again, and to be perfectly blunt, I don't see myself developing or contributing a lot of content in the future if this is how requests for assistance are handled by the establishment. I'd like to recommend far less suspicion and much better manners in dealing with those who come to the editors for help.--Weckerleje (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One note on grouping: each section has an "edit" link to the right, opposite the section header, in most browsers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I tried that on the original response, but got a message that it couldn't be edited. The guidance suggested re-posting on the active page. Did I goof somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel attacked, Weckerleje, but you've run up against a pretty concrete community norm here. Self-linking (that is, an editor linking to a site he or she created, owns, has some stake in, etc) is heavily frowned upon, and you'll find very little good will here for people who do it. Mostly this is because we spend far more time than anyone likes cleaning out link cruft - links people make to their personal blogs, links people make to their own business, links people make to things they have a vested interest in promoting. The best way to avoid being jumped upon for posting spammy links is to not post links to things you're connected to yourself. That doesn't mean you should ask your friend Bob down the street to make an account and do it (that's called meat puppetry and it's also against the rules); rather, it means that you should suggest and describe the link on the article's talk page. Once it's there, other editors will check it out; if the link is valid and useful enough, another editor will add it to the article. I know this response may not satisfy your desire to be vindicated and have someone here tell you that your links are just fine, but honestly, we have no way of knowing if your intentions are good or if you're a slimy self-promoter, and it's better to just avoid triggering people's knee-jerk "omgspam" response and go overboard in the other direction, giving other editors control of posting "your" links. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I maintain that the links are useful and not spam, but if this is a "concrete community norm," I can accept it; certainly, this appears to be the position of most responders, here and otherwise. I do reserve the right to disagree with it, however, at least to some extent. While I agree that self-promotion should be discouraged, excluding links to content for no other reason than the fact that the person who created it provides the link seems counterintuitive to me - a link should be examined with respect to the content, and its value should be judged on that basis and whether or not the content violates realistic guidelines. Allowing "norms" of this kind to get in the way of making information available smacks of censorship. I've generated a good bit of well-received content on the web - some dating back to before Wikipedia came to be - and it seems odd to me that none of it can be linked from Wikipedia simply because I produced it (so far, nobody has raised a single objection other than this. I have virtual tours of the Grand Canyon, Sedona, the historic Waco Bridge, Mesa Verde, and Salinas National Monument, just to name a few, and you seem to be telling me that I can't share these with the Wikipedia community for the simple reason that I produced them. Frankly, I think you're selling the community short on a lot of potentially interesting content.

I'll overlook the "slimy self-promoter" comment except to note that self-promotion is not something I need - and if this is the perception of what I'm trying to do, and there's no way to convince the powers-that-be otherwise, I see little point in pursuing the matter further. I'll post the suggestion on the talk page as you recommend, and that will be the end of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weckerleje (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We're coming from very different places because I can't imagine not knowing, without ever looking at a single policy page, that it would be inherently inappropriate to add links to multiple sites I was both personally invested in and financially connected to, and to further fight over their inclusion, regardless of how pure my underlying motives were. In many settings the standard is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Even if you really believe adding these links doesn't promote the sites, do you think this activity doesn't very much have an appearance of impropriety on its face? Reading as true your statement that your firm doesn't need the promotion, adding the links nevertheless does act to promote—of course this is the case because the linked sites have prominent links to your firm included—so your actual promotional intent, or not, is not relevant to the appropriateness of the conduct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are all entries we place for iComment.com removed?

Resolved

 – Doesn't appear to be notable yet. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to add our new patent pending technologies but nothing we add sticks. iComment is a new unique patent pending technology. Please let us know how to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icomment (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately iComment is not yet notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. Please see what makes an article or subject notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are over 100 download sites that have written about icomment, reviewed it, noted its unique technology. Even AOL's staff wrote about it. Doesn't that make it notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.132.174 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the source. For example, a download website may say what iComment does and why it's unique, however that does not necessarily make the technology notable. Notability would be achieved if iComment were highlighted in a mainstream publication that details why the technology has received mass attention. If a reliable source can reach those qualifications, then the next step would be to write the article using those sources as a basis. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Lutz

Please review the article on Al Lutz. There is an on-going disagreement about whether certain information is more relevant to the article describing who Al Lutz is, or recaps of past articles Al Lutz has written. The information in question is in the "Disney Reports" section. Several recaps of the article have appeared, and then are removed due to a disagreement about the content's relevancy to the Wikipedia Entry.

205.215.210.10 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What is editorializing, and am I doing it?

This dispute is about information regarding Illinois Senate bill 0099. The bill is discussed on the following three pages: Senate bill 0099, Political Positions of Barack Obama, and Illinois Senate Career of Barack Obama.

The paragraph in question is listed at the bottom of this assistance request. I am new to the Wiki editing hobby and am not familiar with that term's use in this community. I desire to provide facts and references not currently displayed on the page, and welcome any suggestions which will make the paragraph acceptable for display.

I understand a great deal of political tension currently surrounds the subject bill of my paragraph, but the information I provide is not partisan.

Here is the paragraph in question:

Much of the outrage against Illinois Senate bill 0099 and counteroutrage in its defense revolves around explanations of the bill, even though it is short enough to warrant reading first-hand. Furthermore, a published "guideline for comprehensive sexuality education: kindergarten-12th grade" is available to explain the program. The guideline pamplet divides lesson plans up into six categories: human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and society and culture. There are also four recommended "age appropriate" levels of instruction. Level 1 is for ages 5-8, Level 2 is for ages 9-12, Level 3 is for ages 12-15, and Level 4 is for ages 15-18. Level 1 for sexual behavior consists of the following three development messages: "touching and rubbbing one's own genitals to feel good is called masturbation;" "some boys and girls masturbate and others do not;" "masturbation should be done in a private place." Level 1 for sexual health includes many developmmental messages designed to protect children from sexual abuse. For example, "no one should touch the private parts of a child's body except for health reasons or to clean them." The sexual health category also covers abortion for all age groups. The Level 1 abortion lesson has a single developmental message: "sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child." Buddyg04 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have broken the WP:3RR policy, not to mention the terms of article probation over the Barack Obama-related articles. Please "self-revert" your latest attempt to edit war the content into the article. If you do not do so immediately you may be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. (I will place a similar warning on the editor's talk page if it is not there already, then file a 3RR report) Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see this has already been reverted by other editors. You may or may not squeek by this one without a block. However, in the future do not edit war, particularly not on the Obama articles, however you feel about a subject. You should definitely not revert again because this may result in an immediate block to prevent disruption to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several fundamental principles of editing in Wikipedia that should be adhered to, especially in cases of controversial material and controversial people (politicians, almost by definition, are controversial). I highly recommend reading the following policies and editing guidelines before editing in any more articles about Barack Obama or any other political figure:

WP:RS - Sources should be high-quality and reliable. Time Magazine, for instance, is going to be a more reliable source than someone's opinion blog. By and large, opinion pieces are not reliable for anything but the opinions of their authors, and should not be cited for statements of fact.

WP:V - Sources should be verifiable. The information included in Wikipedia should be sourced to documents other people can read and verify.

WP:NPOV - Wikipedia should present a neutral point of view. That means we present the facts, but we do not editorialize on those facts. If I write, "John Smith says he is angry," that is a statement of fact: John Smith says this. If I write, "John Smith says he is angry, which is perfectly understandable given the circumstances," I am introducing my own bias into the article, and presenting my opinion as fact.

WP:NOT - There are several things Wikipedia is not, including a soapbox for espousing one's beliefs.

I highly recommend reading all of those in their entirety, and gain a firm understanding of them before diving back onto the field. --GoodDamon 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing Page Title/URL

Resolved

 – Page moved per request. Fleetflame 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My friend - British musican and writer John Moore asked me to help him change the title to his page here. We both have looked and see no way of editing it.

Here is his page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moore_(drummer)

This title is inaccurate. He is more than simply a "drummer". He played drums for a very short time during what has now been a long career as a multi-instrumentalist (primarily guitar) and writer.

We would like to know how we can change the title to his page to:

John_Moore_musician/writer

Could you please help us with that?

signed and dated

Dave Cromwell65.200.151.162 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any registered editor can move a page to an unused name; I moved it to John Moore (musician) since Wikipedia pages don't have slashes in their titles. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this.

Dave Cromwell65.200.151.162 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Victory

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found myself engaged in an edit war on the Victory page with a user (Projectyugo:Talk) who insists on posting a particular example of a Pyrrhic victory alongside the "See also" entry for Pyrrhic victory. I have tried to engage this user in a discussion, but he only responds by re-editing the page with cryptic edit summaries. I have even taken his example and added it to the Pyrrhic victory page, with proper wiki notations, but this user insists on placing this particular example on the Victory page, where it is out of place. I'm seeking an impartial third party to help resolve this issue.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're pretty clearly right on this one. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on Van Allen Radiation Belt

Resolved

 – eventually --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war in progress at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Allen_radiation_belt&action=history

Please advise.

Furthermore, the user responsible for the majority of the reversions has attempted to remove this message. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here for help. The content you are attempting to add to the article is very contentious, so you should probably politely discuss your requested changes on the talk page and stop editing the article in the meantime. Keep in mind that the editors who discuss with you there are probably going to mention your serious edit warring up until now (if you apologize for your edit warring, you might be able to continue a discussion). They might also bring up the fact that you're trying to push a fringe theory so make sure to read up on that page. Let me know if you need any further assistance. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My original edit was not vandalism, so both editors in question have violated the three revert rule (which I was not aware of.) You say the information is contentious, would you care to explain what you mean by that? You also say as a fact that I'm 'pushing a fringe theory', could you elaborate on that as well? The current information on the page is flagged for neutrality and weasel words; it explicitly makes false claims used by moon landing deniers as fact. *That* is a fringe theory. I corrected these issues and my edit was reverted without comment as 'vandalism', when it clearly was not by any definition. Now if I violated wikipedia's policies or if there was some problem with my edit that made it inferior to the prior material (which was flagged as inappropriate) then I'd be happy to discuss it and make any necessary corrections; if someone would only tell me what the problem with it was. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I never called your edits vandalism: other editors did. Your original edit removed lots of material from the article which is why I called it contentious. As you can see, I added a strike-through in my edit above: I consider your edit to be a fringe-theory and others will too, but that is irrelevant here. I was just informing you that it will likely come up in conversation and it is all up to debate here. Starting up a conversation there will probably bring to light the issues people have with your edits. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. There are certain exceptions to the 3RR rule, one of which include reverting obvious vandalism. I'm sorry to say, but your edits to Van Allen radiation belt constituted vandalism, (in particular removal of content). I understand that you are a new user and you may be unfamiliar with wikipedia policy, however rather than obstinately removing content and adding your own material multiple times, you could've dropped my a line at my talk page, or on the articles talk page. Thanks --Superflewis (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While all the reversions are unfortunate, it's not at all clear that 80.42...'s edits are vandalism. S/he removed some unsourced and fringe-ish material, and added content in its place that appears to be sourced. Should it be discussed on the talk page? Absolutely. Is it vandalism? That's certainly not been proven, and it might well not be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that the IPs edits were not "obvious vandalism". Perhaps Superflewis is a bit overeager with his new AWB tools, considering other questionable reports of vandalism at AIV (see [14]) Gnome de plume (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and accuse Superflewis of having a vested interest in the material I removed. I hope I'm wrong, and if so I apologise, but it's quite clear that the edits I made didn't constitute a malicious attempt to violate the integrity of wikipedia. His problem with them has always been with the material they replaced, he's been quite clear about that. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not falsely accuse me. I have no interest in the content that you replaced or placed up. I do however have a problem with removal of good quality content without a reason. Not explaining why remove content and insert your own material does constitute vandalism, and this becomes even more controversial is the new material is a Fringe theory. --Superflewis (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know if you have any evidence for that, 80.42..., but if you don't I'd strongly advise you to strike that. Use <s> at the beginning and </s> at the end. Each of Superflewis' reversions came after one of your changes/reversions; I think s/he's just watching IP edits that result in a net removal of characters (bytes) and often reverts those rather quickly. Her/his contributions show multiple edits per minute, seemingly using Huggle, which is a semi-automated tool for this and many other repetitive tasks. Anyway, please show evidence or withdraw that last post. Thanks --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Superflewis, the IP was removing Apollo-denier positions and adding more conventional positions. Seems like a removal of a fringe theory to me. For example, see this diff. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. No, that was MY mistake. I have added strike-throughs above. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I couldn't agree more. Please also follow suggestions to discuss the content issues on the talk page instead of discussing editors and vandalism and rules. We all make mistakes, but advice to focus on the content have gone largely ignored. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gnome de plume's edit looks to be a good compromise position to work from in that section. Everyone take it to the talk page, please. (And good lord, the edit history is horrid - 3RR is a distant memory, if that...) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gnome de plume's edit is superior to mine. If it remains I will consider the matter closed. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The point here is not the content. I honestly don't mind if you reinstate 80.42.161.45 contributions into the article. The problem I have is that s/he didn't explain why s/he editing out a large portion of the article and replaced it with their own material (I reverted it in the first place, because it looked suspicious), and rather than sending me a message, s/he pursued a stubborn policy of reverting my edits. . .I also think that this was completely unacceptable - I'd like an explanation, thanks --Superflewis (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did provide a summary after you requested it; you continued to revert my edits. 'Looking suspicious' does not make an edit vandalism, and as I understand it, knowingly falsely reverting an edit as vandalism is itself vandalism, and my reverts of your reverts were acceptable. (However, they were not productive while you were continuing to flaunt the rules, so I should have requested assistance immediately. I'll know better next time.) Nor will I strike out the accusation, given that it was properly qualified. I am not stating it as a fact, and you are free to disprove it by your actions. I will point out that I apologised in the event that the accusation was incorrect, while you have steadfastly refused to back down from your demonstrably false accusation of vandalism. -80.42.161.45 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)An edit summary would certainly have helped. Not sure it was worth having an edit war however. And retraction would seem to be appropriate and has already been requested here and at the IP's talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I was not the only editor that identified his/her edits as vandalism. Check the history. User:Fieldday-sunday together with User:Epbr123 (an admin) took his contributions to be detrimental --Superflewis (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I daresay they looked at it rather quickly; they were both editing in a rather similar way to you. I don't mean to denigrate anti-vandalism activities - they're both tedious and necessary. But now that you've looked at the content involved, do you still think the original intent was vandalism? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PHPulse

I have an editor that I have reported in the past for deletions who continually follows me around delting my entrys. He is doing it again but not instantly deleting my entrys but 'marking' them for deletion. I am following the guidelines but am new and trying my best to comply. I need a little guidance not bullying. And this editor is nothing but a bully.

His name is Sgroupace and he currently has my page PHPulse marked for deletion. He has just instantly deleted it several times. I am the maintainer of the open source project which has been around since 2001. I tried my best to comply with your guidelines and just stick to facts for the entry and not 'indulge' s that it would not get marked as spam.

But no matter what I do, he seems absolutely determined to delete it. Please help! I have no idea what to do about him and am totally new! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phpulse (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. There are a couple of basic criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia; notability and verifiability. The burden of proof is on the person creating/editing the page, which in this case is you. You'll need to find some reliable sources that indicate why the subject is notable. Feel free to post here or at my talk page if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The actions of User:Sgroupace seems to be 100% consistent with policy, in my view. The new editor User:PHPulse re-created the article about PHPulse after an admin had already deleted it as WP:CSD#G11 (spam). The recreated article is now up up for AfD. The 'totally new' editor PHPulse filed a complaint against Sgroupace at the 3RR noticeboard. His complaint was declined. Though he was advised at the 3RR noticeboard that his article would not survive without reliable sources, he has so far not added any. PHPulse should take a look at WP:FORUMSHOP, with regard to repeatedly raising the same complaint at multiple noticeboards. It might be simpler to just go and find some sources for his article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article on Pierre Laval

The article on Pierre Laval will not allow photographs to be added. I have ten Photographs of Laval that were given to me when I was at the University of London in 1950. I would be glad to place several in this article. Also in my Library I have (I can give you the exact Titles) 10 or 12 books on Laval (in English and French). I am going to suggest some severe editing to the article with detailed references (citations). As the article now stands it is (how can I say this) not very Scholarly. Please let me know how I can post the photos. (email removed) Sirswindon (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)SirSwindon

I think WP:IUP and WP:IMAGE would be good places to start. They'll explain how to upload images as well as the usage policies. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says the article will not allow photographs? (The "No free image" statement on the page is not a statement that images are not allowed, but that no free image has yet been provided.) If you are unsure how to include photographs in pages, see Wikipedia:Images. But keep in mind that we generally only allow photographs that are freely published or that can be passed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. You say the photos were given to you, but by whom? The copyright on a photograph typically rests with whoever took the photo (or whoever payed for it to be taken). Being handed a photograph doesn't necessarily give one ownership of the copyright, unless this was explicit. Regardless, you are a Wikipedia editor, which means you have the ability to personally edit articles on Wikipedia. While it may still be courteous to state on the talk page in advance any extreme changes you intend you make, you are free to do them yourself. (Also, please don't include your email address in your posts! This board does not respond to posts via email, and placing it publicly may result in more spammers getting a hold of your email address.) Someguy1221 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing fair-use rationale template

Resolved

 – Everyme 08:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have difficulties finding the template for missing fair-use rationale. I definitely remember that such a template existed, but for some reason it's not included in Category:Non-free use rationale templates. Everyme 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Everyme. I think what you are looking for is {{di-no fair use rationale}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've requested a protedit to include the template in Category:Non-free use rationale templates. Everyme 08:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I find articles that need people to contribute to them

I have pretty good general knowledge and I would like to find some articles that need some help. Do you know how I can do that? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you

Oy. That's a big question. Perhaps you might find something interesting at Wikipedia:Community portal#Todo? If you're new, then it's usually easier to edit existing articles for a while, before you move on to starting new ones. Take a look at WP:5P too for some of the things the community holds to be important. And come back here if you have questions. Thanks for helping out! --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I am starting to get the hang of this now.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) There are many ways. Here's the thing though: general knowledge is, of course, a great asset, but it is fundamental to know that all our information should be the result of research followed by citation to reliable sources. You may already know this, but it could be taken from the way you posed your question that you plan on just adding material out of your own knowledge fund. That is not to say that this can't be done, but it's not really the heart of what needs doing. Please, if you haven't already, read our core content policies, which should inform your writing. They are: Verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. Having said that, a great place to look is the Wikipedia:Community portal; a large section there is devoted to all manner of things that we need help doing. For example there are links there to requests for expansion; requested articles, general article cleanup, articles needing copyediting. There's also many articles that can be found in categories requesting help. For example, there's articles needing style editing; articles with unsourced statements. There's also projects you can join devoted to certain tasks, such as unreferenced articles the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and others. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of semi-protected page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Resolved

 – --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentsnce of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam has been vandalized by hacking. As a new user, I am unable to edit. The history reveals peristent vandalim by hacking. Mysticravenwing (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted a few hours before your post. Try to bypass your cache if you still see it. Autoconfirmed accounts can edit (and therefore also vandalize) semi-protected pages like Islam. Vandalism is not the same as hacking. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you do with editors who refuse to get the point?

Quite a few editors on the talk page for Criticism of Bill O'reilly refuse to get the point that Wikipedia allows blogs that are not self published to be used, even quoting WP:BLP, which specifically states that it can be used. They believe there is a blanket ban on blogs, despite me repeating over, and over, and over, while citing the relevant sections. There have been progress on the talk page, as the discussion has evolved, but the said editors repeatedly mention the same argument again and again as rational(s), not refuting the policy. I would like some tips on how one should deal with the issue, not help as in intervention, but rather, a guide on what is acceptable in response to it, as WP:IDHT doesn't give much in advice.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a general point without going through pages of talk page comments on the particularly subject but BLP does say Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. This appears to be contrary to your statement above. Note that self-published means by any individual or group it does not have to be the article subject which has different rules. The only allowable blogs are professional and under editorial control - not many of them around - If you could give an example of a source in dispute so we dont have to read all the posts then perhaps we could give another opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK just noticed that you have asked the questions about the sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we should not really repeat the same question here. Suggest you wait till the discussion at that noticeboard has taken its course. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CADO Systems and CADO Systems Technical Information

Could some people that aren't User:clintp or myself have a look at these two articles. I'm not "intimate" enough about computers to know how to fix the problems with the articles or even to judge whether or not the belong here in the first place. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Links to Wilbourhall.org

To Whom it May Concern: I run a not for profit website devoted to the memory of the History of Mathematics department at Brown University. The department closed its doors in 2005, after the death of its chairman, and my PhD advisor, Dr. David Pingree (see the Wikipedia article about him). For the past year or so, I have run and maintained www.wilbourhall.org to provide free PDF files of important works on mathematics and mathematical astronomy. Most of the PDF files are versions of scans from Google books that I myself have "repaired" by replacing missing pages from the original Google scans with scan of texts from various libraries. I have also made available public domain books from my own collection, including a copy of the Almagest used by Dr. Pingree himself. I have provided links to this site to several Wikipedia pages, with the only intention of distributing free PDFS. I recently found a copy of the Arabic version of al-Khwarizmi's Algebra in the original Arabic, posted it to wilbourhall.org, and then put a link from the article on al-Khwarizmi to wilbourhall.org. The link was removed almost immediately by a particular user, who stated that wilbourhall.org was a "commercial webpage promoting a particular product". It is no such thing. It does not seem to bother this person that there is a link on the al-Khwarizmi page to Britannica.com, which is most assuredly a "webpage promoting a particular product". This same user then apparently tried to remove as many of the links to my site on Wikipedia as he/she could, including a link from the page of David Pingree - my late friend and PhD advisor - in whose memory I created and continue to work on wilbourhall.org. In the course of the past year, wilbourhall.org has distributed thousands upon thousands off free mathematical texts in Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek and Latin around the world. Please ask this user to stop harrasing me. I was particularly upset at his/her cruel removal of the link from the page on David Pingree. I am only trying to disseminate knowledge and keep something of the spirit of MacArthur "Genius" Grant winner David Pingree alive.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillLoney (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 September 2008

Hello and thank you for coming here for help. Although you're free to edit articles on any subject you desire, we ask that you take special care when editing articles on subjects that you have a close personal tie to. This is especially true when adding links to your own personal website. If links to wilbourhall.org belong, please let other editors add them instead of you adding them yourself. You are more than welcome to, however, to make link suggestions and start discussions on the talk pages of the articles to which you're referring. Let me know what you think. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I will remove all links to my website from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillLoney (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessary especially if you're referring to other editors' additions. If you're removing links to your website other people added, make sure you're only removing links that don't belong. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor of Science

I am trying to answer the request on the article about Bachelor of Science with more details as well as more references. However my contributions are deleted. There are no errors pointed out. It is only said I discredit Norwegian edustion as the reason for deleting my contribution, though I think I am accurate in my writing. Can you please make sure the wikipedia can have some information about norwegian B.Sc and M.Sc. --Oivimoen (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for posting here. Well, most of the information you inserted at Bachelor of Science (in English, at least) is unreferenced. The websites provided don't provide any information on Norwegian degrees themselves. Further, the table provided is totally unintelligible; it's unclear what (if anything) that data is meant to show. I would go back and try to find actual reliable sources about Bachelors degrees in Norway before attempting to re-add information. Also, be careful if you're pulling this information off another website or Norwegian Wikipedia, as some of the information presented is still in Norwegian, which is not helpful on English Wikipedia. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is said the table addes up hours of education what is the difficulty whit this??? Is this not a allowed in wikipedia? What references do you miss? --Oivimoen (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)