Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

lionel delevingne

Resolved

– Change from stale. Article is being trimmed and formatted, which was the original request. Fleetflame 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi....i suppose hoary should read this....i need help....i am inept at wiki....obviously. Can u straighten up this page? I have lost all coping skill and get a rash when i open lionel delevingne's page...i started it. The quotes are from a biographical material i found relating to him from about 15 years ago.... I included the names of people quoted....is that not okay? i know there are alot of prob's with the page......it is ongoing.......please don't delete it..... thanks davidmgregory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmgregory (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The formatting is easy enough to sort out. Starting from the top, however, requires some notability. What sources do we have that would be considered independent, reliable etc, to establish Delavingne's notability in the sense used here? --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ASTD Page

Resolved

– Advised on article guidelines, as well as COI guidelines. Not much else we can do apart from directly rewriting the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks, we have added several sources to the ASTD page and have also rewritten to page to help resolve the notability and advert warnings. Can someone please review the page, and if possible, remove the dialog boxes at the top of the page? Thanks!TDCrew (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit better. However, the article structure needs some revamping. For example, the "About ASTD" section should definitely be renamed- the whole article is supposed to be about ASTD after all. Also, it's important to look at Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for organizations.

My suggestion is to go with a chronological treatment of ASTD's history for the bulk of the article. An important concern with the article as written is that it seems like the same sort of information you'd find on an official webpage- which is specifically not Wikipedia's purpose.

WP:YFA might provide some insight, as might WikiProject Organizations and their article guidelines. You should also look at featured articles on organizations and good articles on organizations for what this article should strive to imitate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take your suggestions and work on it.TDCrew (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the phrase "we have added"; combined with the name, this might lead us to believe that more than one person is using this account. Is this correct? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a group effort involving me and another content editor.76.74.8.46 (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Even so, it's concerning that TDCrew's username corresponds so nicely to the name of ASTD's publication, T+D, the article about which I'll note that TDCrew created and has been considerably involved in. The concern that I speak of (and I assume Orangemike) is more that TDCrew is a role account, and the name does imply that to an extent. At the very least, it's pretty evident that TDCrew has a conflict of interest in editing articles related to ASTD. While that doesn't bar him/her/them from working on such articles, it should definitely be openly admitted, as it is a sign of good faith that other editors love, as opposed to keeping it under wraps and other editors suspecting it but afraid to make the accusation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. In the interest of transparency, TDCrew and PKetter are the same team and both work in the same interest: beginning articles on ASTD and T+D. The accounts were begun, respectively, by the Managing Editor and Editor of T+D and other ASTD member publications. Is this okay?76.74.8.46 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That satisfies me. Like I said above, having a conflict of interest doesn't bar you from editing- if it did, from a philosophical perspective we'd all have to recuse ourselves from editing articles whose subjects we found interesting. The main thing to remember is that despite the fact that you're representatives of your firm, you don't have creative control over the article, the Wikipedia community in general does. That, in my view, is something conflicted editors forget far too often, and though it hasn't happened in this case, I think it's a serious enough concern to merit preemptively letting you know about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter family edting war - need to to resolve

Stale

– Fleetflame 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We have one editor Iwannafish who refuses to communicate, removes warnings and reverts edits. I have asked a few other editors to help out but the same thing is happening. Iwannafish also logs in with different computers IPs creating an impression of support (non-logged in edting). Please review editing history and requests to communicate. Please see Rehoboth Carpenter family.

Thank you.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's an edit war. A couple of other editors have tried to move things forward, and I'll try to help too. User:Iwanafish is certainly involved, but so are others. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to see a compromise and a decent article. The key is communication.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

==Survey==

Rehoboth Carpenter Family - Regarding Compromise Article (in Discussion section - bottom of page) dated 20 April 2009 - Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC). - I tried a rewrite on the discussion page & I hope this can help build a consensus for that article. Any other suggestions? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that might help. I suggest you let it sit for a few days and let people respond to it in their own time. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. FYI Iwannafish uses 160.244.140.202 as one of his 2 known aliases. I tried to be civil and added a picture to the current posted article and he removed it as "clutter." This means he is watching the web page and refusing to state why or discuss his reversions or anything else in the discussion page. If the compromise article had support from other wiki editors (see discussion page) would this then help? I am beginning to think the article and attempts should be deleted and consigned to the trash ...

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you posted to the talk pages of other editors who are active there, and asked them to contribute their opinions? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Several have posted a tag then, when it is removed by Iwannafish seem to disapear. Two never responded - except to remove my request from their talk page. Another stated that "conflict resolution is not my forte." Maybe so. I would really like to see some voting to support compromise or not. Otherwise all my effort to resolve this and get help is for nought. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Progressivism in the United States

Stale

– Fleetflame 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We are having problems with an editor of the article Progressivism in the United States who daily insists on re-inserting POV material in this articile, including personal opinions about the value of the [single] source used to justify his POV position. Your review of this situation would be helfpul as it is not improving. Hmains (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your attempt to make this explanation neutral, without diffs, links to discussions, links to sources or the like it's really difficult to understand what the dispute is about. Or maybe it's just me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what I should do, where. This editor User:PhilLiberty adds POV material to every article edited, with no or doubtful sources; most everything is reverted immediately by other editors who pay attention to the 15-20 articles this editor likes to edit. Some material sits around for awhile. It is just another nuisance in WP. Hmains (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it seems a complicated situation that's being made significantly worse by the fact that several involved editors are just reverting with minimal discussion. I would suggest that you should attempt to participate at Talk:Progressivism in the United States. I've left a message there admonishing the editors to stop reverting until the content dispute is settled through discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To add some background to this discussion, you need to review the editing history of PhilLiberty. On April 11 User PhilLiberty was blocked for 24 hours on a 3RR violation on the article American Revolutionary War. He had previously been blocked twice in August 2008 for the same violations. Now he is “gaming the system” by making repeated edits on the same issue w/o violating 3RR. Since his return he has on seven different times made the same edit reverts that had led to his block. Over time, at least six different editors have reverted his reverts. The discussion of this issue at Talk:American Revolutionary War is Phil against everybody else. Here are the diffs on the reverts at that article made AFTER the block:

1st revert: [1]

2nd revert: [2]

3rd revert: [3]

4th revert: [4]

different language but same basic issue

5th revert:[5]

6th revert:[6]

7th revert:[7]

The same pattern is in play at the Progressivism in the United States article. Four different editors have reverted Phil. Once again on the discussion page and in the edit histories it is Phil versus everybody else -- discussion is accomplishng nothing as long as Phil refuses to accept the principle of consensus decision making. The pattern on these two articles alone shows, IMO, a willingness to edit war on Phil's point in the belief that as long as he avoids a technical 3RR violation he is in the clear. He was warned about this behavior in August when he was blocked twice (see User talk:PhilLiberty#Disruptive Editing). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that WP:AN3 isn't just for 3RR violations, but for edit warring in general. While I don't think they like complex cases, a report there may be well-founded if you feel he is gaming the system by deliberately staying under 3RR while still enforcing his preferred version. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this prattle. I cite my material when asked. I give my rationale in Talk. I edit boldly. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As a status update, this slow revert war is still ongoing. While the last set of reverts occurred 4 days ago, if they keep happening, I suggest that the article be temporarily protected via RFPP until consensus is reached. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Swing Movement

Resolved

– Article deleted per AFD. Fleetflame 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I recently created a new page, and I was told it may have to be deleted.
I have since that time, ammended the page to the best of my ability, and I was wondering if somebody could take a look at it to let me know what else I need to do.
Thankyou!
Here Is a link to the page in question The Swing Movement --Greenenvylle (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion - it doesn't meet the relevant criterion anymore (WP:CSD#A7). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it for having questionable notability. I think they may fail WP:BAND as it is; they haven't signed, haven't released a record, and haven't had the sort of "substantial coverage" that the notability guidelines tend to prefer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

last.fm is a reliable source? Article still faces PRODing, from the looks of it. I'll check for sources or something to establish notability. Fleetflame 01:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've AFD'd the article (here). Fleetflame 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help writing the articles to Wikipedia standards

Resolved

– Neither topic found notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Both my articles are up for Speedy deletion? I really need help writing the articles Kim Hopkins and Zack Hopkins to Wikipedia standards. I am not a writer nor am I a Wikipedia authority, so I NEED HELP, PLEASE! I am willing to pay someone to get this right!

Kim HopkinsRandys1girl (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(Kim Hopkins has been deleted.)

OK, first, the names of the articles, and your username, would indicate that there may be what we call a "conflict of interest with those specific items. Probably the first place to visit in order to get an overview of creating your first article, would be WP:YFA an abbreviation for "Wikipedia:Your First Article". Once you've scanned through that, please feel free to ask more questions, we have no shortage of great folks willing to help out our new editors .. welcome, and happy editing ;) — Ched : ? 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I declined {{db-person}} for Zack Hopkins as there's an assertion of notability. It's possible that the article is eligible for deletion via another criterion for speedy deletion, such as G11 (blatant advertising).

In direct response to your request, Ms. Hopkins, as you have a clear conflict of interest in writing articles on either yourself or your son, I strongly suggest that neither you nor any paid agents do so without careful consideration of Wikipedia's guidelines in that matter. As from all appearances Zack Hopkins doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies at this time, it's very likely that you'd find yourself out both money and article if you hired someone to write an article. Best of luck! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Hopkins. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and Need Help

Resolved

– Advice given, not much else we can do with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia for less than a year and don't understand why some of the things I post on the site are taken down. The latest is last week I added information about prominent osteopathic physicians to the entry Osteopathic Medicine I was told this sounded promotional but what I am trying to do is educate Wikepedia visitors about historical osteopathic physicians. Any advice on a more proper way to share this information would be helpful. Americanosteopathic (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Americanosteopathic

There are various problems with the information you introduced. It pushes various points of view, including the prominence of those osteopaths (who says they're prominent?) and the current state of osteopathy and its relation to Still's "vision" (who evaluated this claim?). This goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Even the wording and sentence structure you're using would seem to violate that policy in some respect.

At any rate, I would recommend that in the future, when someone reverts your edits you either ask that person specifically or ask at the article's discussion page (Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States), as editors more interested in the article would be able to help you better in integrating any relevant material from your edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alice Evans' quotes

Resolved

– User warned, behavior apparently stopped. Also with advice on the article talk page there's little more we can do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago I stumbled across the wikipedia page for Alice Evans and removed the quotes section because, as far as I'm aware, that's what the wikiquote sister project is for. Note that Alice Evans already has a wikiquote page with the same quotes on it. After my edit, user DixieChic who had already reverted a similar edit [8] by user Bencey, undid my changes without any justification. I then left a message on her talk page [9] and undid her changes, but she hasn't acknowledged my message and has undone my changes again without justification. To avoid getting into a edit war I request aid from an editor in clearing this up: do the quotes belong or not? Hermzz (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted DixieChic's latest adition and placed a warning on the user talk page. I also place a note on the artcile talk page, which is the place to discuss such matters. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Natalia Dubrovinskaia

Resolved

– Advice given on how to proceed, but deletion is unlikely considering the evidence presented at the prior AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This page describes the scientific profile of N.Dubrovinskaia. This is about a living person, who is not remarkable in any particular sense. This is a scientist of modest achievement, even known for some unethical incidents (one of which I included in that page). I strongly suspect that this page was written by N. Dubrovinskaia, which would be unethical. I suggest to delete this page (this suggestion was earlier voiced by Phil Bridger, but then cancelled by someone without any explanations). I strongly suspect that user NIMSoffice, who inserted numerour references to Dubrovinskaia throughout Wikipedia, is either N.Dubrovinskaia or someone closely related (I doubt that this is a person from NIMS, an institution in Japan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.240.29 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This article already went to AfD, and its nomination was withdrawn, presumably because the subject does pass WP:PROF. Quite frankly, it seems more that you're attempting to insert non-neutral and/or unreferenced material to this biography of a living person. I can tell you that if you persist, you'll likely find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c, in support of the same direction) :This page has just gone through a (withdrawn) AfD; the general conclusion there was that sufficient notability had been established. I think it would be wrong to try to nominate the page again for deletion, so soon after the AfD. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, too, Phil Bridger actually opposed the speedy deletion on the talk page. It just looked like he supported it because he was replying to an unsigned comment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ePIPE listing

Resolved

– Article is probably not notable, but there's a userspace draft for OP to work on. Here's a link to ePIPE without the redirect. Anyone willing to jump in and help OP on the article would be appreciated. Fleetflame 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to clear up some confusion with "ePIPE", and have had no luck. I'm trying to update the listing and someone continues to change it back to point to an internal page. This is a trademarked term and needs to show the true definition, not link to an unrelated page. Can you help me with this? Jdiemert (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting. It's quite common here for a search term to have a number of possible destinations, and we've developed a sophisticated system to handle that. You can read about it at WP:DISAMBIGUATION. However, that doesn't come into play yet since we don't have an article for the term in the sense that you're using it. If you like, try writing the article, perhaps at User:Jdiemert/ePIPE. Read WP:YFA first and make sure your draft is well-sourced. Then let us know and we can take a look and advise you on whether it needs any improvements. After all that, we can deal with the naming and disambiguation issues easily enough. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the draft in your user space and moved it, and left some information on your talk page. Good luck, come back here and post your questions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that an earlier version of the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPIPE. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If Jdiemert's proposed draft is restored to article space the way it is now, it would qualify for G4 speedy deletion, as recreation of deleted material. It still lacks any external evidence of notability. If ePIPE is an important technology, someone must have asserted its significance in a reliable published source. The sources now in the draft article are advertisements, patents and directory entries. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hence the advice at the OP's talk. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell why EPIPE redirects to errno.h anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

EPIPE is the broken pipe error. But it's not obviously important enough to justify a redirect. All the macro names in the C header files don't deserve coverage. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, EdJohnston, where is your connection to all this? Fleetflame 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. I came to this noticeboard, read the listing, and posted a comment. The topic will eventually be grist for DRV or WP:COIN if the poster does not eventually get the point and find proper sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw you weren't the one redirecting or anything and wondered if you followed the OP here or what. No worries! Fleetflame 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Freeport, Maine Uncited Information

Resolved

– Unreferenced story reverted, advice given, not much else that can be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In the Freeport, Maine article, there is an IP user who has made a rather large edit about a historical event that has not been cited. Having lived in Freeport my entire life, I had not heard about the story he told, but I assumed good faith, and undid the revision until the user could cite his source. It has been re-added to the page two times since, and rather than get into an edit war, I wanted a second opinion on whether this is vandalism or not.

Thanks, Bkissin (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, IP warned. It's not really encyclopedic material anyway. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What a cool story. But without any form of verification either that this happened or is rumored to have happened (newspaper articles or books on the early history of Freeport would do it), it's not something we can include. And even with referencing, it's not clear to have been a major part of Freeport history. If we can get sources, we might have enough to write an article on the Adalfreddo Veirich mentioned in the story. It might also be worth checking if Adalfreddo Veirich is the name of some current resident, in which case it's surely some form of cryptic vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Deniers, Revisionism and Hate Sites

Resolved

– The original matter raised here has been addressed. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On the article Leuchter Report, I got into a revert war with some of the editors over adding a reference / link to the actual Leuchter Report on the WP Leuchter Report article. I was punished for 48hrs because of this revert war. After the 48hr period i decided to discuss this issue in the Talk / Discussion area of the article, but every time my talk / discussion posts were edited, I posted the links to the articles to discuss they were deleted. When discussing the reason we couldnt put a link in the Article the Leuchter Report to the actual document the Leuchter report, I got all kinds of political and emotional reasons, about being afraid that people might read the actual Leuchter Report and have doubts, or other reasons about feelings, or statements like you cant post links on a hate topic to the actual hate site and so forth. Is there someone out there who can put their feelings and emotions about Nazis aside and help to bring neutrality to this issue, and explain how I can find an arbitrator who can put their feelings and emotions aside, so we can bring resolution to this dispute and stop people from deleting my legitimate requests for discussion? Markacohen (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. If I understand you correctly, you're concerned at the way that the talk page is being edited and that other users are editing your posts? I think the actual content of the article isn't really an issue here. Assuming that's the case, then I would suggest trying to engage the other editor(s) via their talkpage(s), and if that doesn't work then you might try filing a Wikiquette alert, at WP:WQA. All of that notwithstanding, please remember that we're here to build an encyclopaedia. If the article is in good shape, then other issues might not be so important after all? Just a thought. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked also for calling other editors neo-Nazis. There is now a link to the report in the article that doen't link to a hate site, so hopefully the problem he sees is solved. He also raised his concerns here: [10]. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DougWeller, keeps digging up and dragging up the Hitler Card that I had called some editors Neo-Nazis, even after I was punished, retracted my statement and apologized. I apologize for having called some editors Neo-Nazi several times, and I was punished for 48hrs for it, so why do we keep having to drag up the past to distract us from the issue at hand right now which is this:

On more than one occasion in the discussion / talk area of the article on the Leuchter Report editor DougWeller manipulated, deleted and modified my posts for discussions about the inclusion of a link to the actual Leuchter Report from the article about the Leuchter report. He keeps deleting the links I post about wanting to discuss preventing the ability to look at the sources and discuss them. He deletes the links saying WP is not a directory of hate sites and your not allowed to post Hate sites on WP, which is totally bogus, lacking in substance and without merit. I am trying to discuss the merits of having the reference link to the Leuchter Report.

I think its wrong that another user is trying to prevent a valid & legitimate conversation and discussion about some relevant reference links by deleting, editing or manipulating my posts in the Leuchter Report Talk Discussion area. I am asking for an arbiter / admin who like me can put their sensitive emotions and feelings aside, and allow the discussion about the Leuchter Report to be open, without name calling, hitler cards, hate cards, and other emotional distractions that lack substance and are not listed as valid arguments anywhere in WP, no where does it say that you can not link to hate sites from a hate article, and there is no where on WP that says you cant discuss a hate link or hate reference when it pertains to an article about that hate in a talk area.

I feel like im being purposefully harassed because of someones sensitive feelings. I'm not making any personal attacks against DougWeller or others, I'm criticizing the behavior, not him as a person. I think DougWeller means well, he is a good guy deep down inside, I just dont think his emotionalism, political emotionalism and feelings, are not relevant to this discussion, and those behaviors are preventing the free discussion of ideas in the Talk area. Again, No personal attacks against Doug, im criticizing the sensitive political emotion and feeling based actions and behavior - not the person. I know he means well and in good faith, just I don't think sensitive emotions have a place on preventing discussion in wikipedia.

I really need a neutral moderator / administrator to help me here.

Markacohen (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason you couldn't discuss the link on the talk page, without reposting the link itself. Alternatively you could go to WP:RSN and discuss it there, since the main objection seems to be that it's not a reliable source. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Andrew. However, I'll admonish both Mark and Doug to drop the behavior dispute in favor of discussing the content dispute. Try to reach a resolution on the content and then if you think it's still necessary, pursue the behavioral dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add that a block is not punishment but is intended to prevent or discourage an ongoing problem. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I really want to be a valuable and contributing member of this this community, and I am learning a lot about how the policies, procedures and rules work. My problem is, DougWeller is preventing me from discussing these links in the talk discussion area, he keeps editing and deleting my talk / discussion posts, preventing the discussion of the links, so we can discuss their value.

My main issue is this: The article Leuchter Report should have a link to the actual Leuchter Report, and DougWeller is not allowing this, he keeps deleting the link on the grounds the link is a hate site, so can someone please tell me what the policy on wikipedia is to linking to hate sites? I cant find anything anywhere that says you cant link to a hate site, on the very article the hate site is about.

Look, I hate Nazis, but is there someone that can put their sensitive feelings aside and look at this from a neutral standpoint? Is there a way to arbitrate this without emotions, politics and feelings? I hate nazis, but seriously, the Leuchter Report should be linked to from the Leuchter Report article. I'm getting nothing what I would call pseudo intellectual red herrings where the Nazi and hate card are being thrown out, as reason to delete the links, and delete my discussion post reference links.

I make no personal attacks here, my criticism is directed at the behavior. Can we get some admin arbitration on Hate sites here, some rules, regulations, policies and procedures on whether specific and relevant hate sites are allowed to be linked to or not on the specific and relevant articles they pertain to?

Markacohen (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller is not allowing a link to the Leuchter report on the Leuchter report article? A link was added on the 23rd, what I and other editors objected to was direct links to hate sites. Why are you continuing to argue for a link when there is one, just not one from a hate site? You were asked to go to RSN, which you've done, but you continue to post here which is forum shopping/ I hadn't noticed the request to go to RSN, by the way, so will edit my comments there. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your main issue is addressed. The article has 2 external links, to scribd.com and nizkor.org.

There is policy about external links to fringe and other unreliable sources, at WP:RS. In general, they may only be used in articles about that site, which doesn't apply here. That's because they're not reliable sources.

If DougWeller continues to edit your talk page posts in a way you think is inappropriate, then please post diffs here. See WP:DIFF if you need an explanation of the process. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have edited simultaneously. Despite editors (plural, not just me) not wanting links direct to the hate sites in question, he's added them to the talk pages. What I have done is changed the raw urls so that they aren't links, ie removing the http:// bit, but leaving it easy to see what the links actually are if anyone wants to see them. Here's a diff [11]. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not forum shopping, im just seeking help on what to read and how to get resolution in conflict. We have a serious conflict here, I am posting links to the Leuchter report from the Leuchter report article, and editors are preventing this on some grounds which don't seem to have validity. I found nothing anywhere in wikipedia that says you cant link to a hate site, if an article is about that hate site. All im asking for is someone to please tell me where to read up on these taboo and controversial issues.

I just found it disruptive that the links I posted in the discussion area were edited. I was asking for people to review the material and discuss it for inclusion into the article. The reference links were edited, other times they were deleted. I was under the impression people were not allowed to manipulate, edit or delete peoples posts in the discussion area when they were valid and pertained to the article.

I will read those policies you posted.

Markacohen (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the area you wanted me to read?

QUOTE

Extremist and fringe sources Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

UNQUOTE

Markacohen (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and also note that the phrase about those organisations or individuals is bolded for emphasis in the guideline. Since the article on the Leuchter report isn't about an extremist organisation, then an extremist organisation's website can't be used in that article, by my reading. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This general area is now mentioned at ANI too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AndrewHowse: Please re-read the beginning section of my quoted post. As I think you are partially "correct" and partially incorrect. See the capitalization. Please Re-read the key words: Fringe and Pseudo Academic.

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[3] or extremist MAY BE USED AS SOURCES OF INFORMATION about those ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS, especially in articles about those ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

Leuchter Report is Fringe and Pseudo Academic - so it fits 2 or the 3 criteria, regarding linking to it.

The WP article Leuchter Report, is about a pseudo academic and fringe (pseudo historical, pseudo science) document reference source - so your supposition is incorrect about the Leuchter Report.

So once again, I have not heard an argument against its inclusion into the article that has Wikipedia substance or merit, so I am seeking a Neutral administrator who can put the poorly formed arguments against the inclusion of the link, put the emotionalism aside and put aside the taboo nature of the research document.

The reference link should be allowed to be included in the article, because the document is relevant to the article itself, because the article is about the document.

This helps bring a little more clarity to the issue. To be a good sport and to appease the sensitive feelings towards this taboo subject if I can find a copy of the report on a non-extremist or non-hate site, then would it be more valid and relevant linking to it? I do not see how just because a site is about hate, that the research document of the Leuchter Report becomes less relevant, but in an effort to bring peace to what seems like sensitive feelings and political emotions concerning hate sites I work to sooth painful feelings. I'll do the leg work to find a copy of the report from a more mainstream web site. Thanks for your helpfulness and patience, as I am relatively new to being a Wikipedia editor and just learning the procedures. You are much appreciated for taking the time to help.

My issue is I still haven't heard an argument against its inclusion with any true WP substance or merit.

Markacohen (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As Doug has pointed out numerous times, there is a link to the Leuchter Report, sourced to a non-extremist site, in the article now, and has been for a number of days. And calling that transparent piece of propaganda a "research document" is a bit surprising - it might go through as a tasteless example of creative writing, maybe. Much more important than learning "procedures" would be to learn to communicate effectively - carefully read what others have written, and don't misrepresent the situation in your writing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stephan Schulz, thank you for your input.

I'm getting a lot of tangential arguments, but no one is addressing the direct points i'm trying to make. Please tell me where I am failing to get across to you and the group who have a shared vested interest.

The issue I am asking you Stephan Schulz and Andrew Howse is concerning the actual Leuchter Report being linked to the Leuchter Report article as a reference.

The source listed is a mainstream source which debunks the Leuchter Report, what I am suggesting is on the article the Leuchter Report we have a direct link to the original Leuchter Report. Imagine a WP article about a book written in 1500's about the world being flat, we would certainly want to link to research which debunks the Earth Being flat, but if the article is about the book which claims the earth is flat, it would be very relevant to link to the actual book which claims the earth is flat. This is a specific, relevant source which pertains directly to the article.

Imagine a WP page on the book the bible. There are a zillion articles which debunk the events in the bible, would you not have a reference link to the bible itself on an article about the book the bible.

How about the Russian scientist Lysenko who published a report back during Stalin times, if you change a persons behaviors those changes can be passed down genetically to the next generation. There are a zillion articles disproving lysenkoism, but would you not in a WP article about Lysenkos published thesis not have a link to the document itself? Only links to stuff debunking it?

I am making my point here, do you kind of get what Im saying here? Can you tell me how I might better communicate the point Im trying to make, because im not getting responses which seem to reflect people are understanding the point I am trying to make here. I am relatively new here as an editor, so maybe im not using the right communication or language. Can you please tell me how to better communicate the ideas listed above and get a real response to my question, issue and request? Please?

This is what I have been typing over and over again, and no one yet has stepped forward to address my specific issue. Which is concerning the actual Leuchter Report being linked to the Leuchter Report article as a reference.

If this is about linking to a hate site, would finding a mainstream source that has a copy of the Leuchter Report be a better alternative as an external link?

Markacohen (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm tracking what you're trying to achieve. When you came here first, you were concerned that the article didn't link to a copy of the report itself. That's no longer the case; an external link has been present in the article ~~for a while~~ since 13.19 (UTC) 23 April. So, is your concern addressed, or not? If not, then what is your concern? --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That's what I mean by "carefully reading". The link Link to The Leuchter Report near the end of the article Leuchter report points directly to a full copy of the original Leuchter report, and has done so for a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The real question is: Does Mark want to link to the report, or to the report's official website? The answer seems to be that he is not content with linking to the report as presented on a neutral website. This raises the question of Mark's real purpose, and the answer can be found here. --RCS (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everything seems to be Kosher now!

I just wanted a link to the original document, because it is necessary if you are going to write an accurate article about a research document you reference to the original source - even if a taboo and controversial subject. Even better is the fact the linking is from a neutral web site, which seems to be achieved now. I'm glad all the painful, sensitive feelings, subtle political nonsense and emotionalism could be put aside and that a solution where we could all be happy has been achieved.

A big warm affectionate hug to all you guys and praise for us coming together in consensus to make Wikipedia a better place.

Please also, Again and Again, I am asking you to Please stop with the uncivilized and childish personal attacks (even if they are couched). I apologized for the personal attacks and stopped them, so now I am asking you all to please do the same and learn how to play nice.

Markacohen (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Oldman

Resolved

– Article userfied, nothing much else we can do for the time being. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was A7 deleted by me last October, after being tagged CSD and tagged for a variety of problems. At the article author's request, the article was userified last December.

In the last few days the author has finally returned to improve the article. They then copy/pasted it back to the main article space. I just now history merged the older versions from user space back to the article space.

Now, the author is requesting the removal of the remaining Article Issue box. Since I did not place that box, I would normally direct the author to the editor who did place it. Except that the tagger has since gotten themselves banned from the project for unrelated problems.

So, a fresh pair of eyes is needed to analyze the issues in the issue box, see which can be removed after the author's recent work, and which if any remain valid issues.

As I said above, I do not have the time right now to go through them, and it would be greatly appreciated if a new pair of eyes could go over the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The tags cannot come off until the issues are addressed. The links are not formatted properly, the tone is promotional, the "references" are often to Oldman's own website or to other non-reliable sources, the only editor is somebody who has never done a single edit that wasn't Oldman-related, we have no evidence that he meets WP:MUSIC -- it's a general mess. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up a lot of link problems, especially disambiguation- all but 2 of the titles in his credits section are redlinks (and honestly it might merit ditching the entire thing per WP:IINFO). Also pulled down a ref tag containing a link to IMDB which is well-accepted to fail WP:RS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Oldman closed as userfy. Article userfied to User:Lexme123/Oldman. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was my recent article on Imhotep deleted?

Resolved

– Discussion continues on Talk:Imhotep. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed caps from section heading. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I recently added a comment to the article on Imhotep saying that some scholars believe that Imhotep was the Joseph of the Bible. I am not sure why my comments were deleted and who deleted them and what I can do to stop it being deleted. I realise that some people will dispute it and my comment refects this.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the edit summary in the edit where your edits were reverted, the editor said that Wyatt is not a reliable source. If you click on the tab at the article that says "history" you can see exactly who made the edit and what his edit summary said. (Note that it also asks you not to sign edits in the article. This is normal. We only sign comments on talk pages like this.) Also, please do not use block caps. It is considered rude. Ladyof Shalott 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at your talk page, Dougweller has left you a note there explaining why he reversed your edits. Ladyof Shalott 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also gave you a welcome menu giving you some links so you would understand more about Wikipedia (eg learn why Wyatt, who was not a scholar, is not considered a reliable source here) and explained again - on your talk page - why I deleted your edits. When you made the edit above you would have seen a message saying that you had new messages. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And emailing me saying "To simply delete my edit without explanation shows a clearly atheistic bias in your editing." when I explained both in the edit summary and the editor's talk page isn't helpful. I've done my best to provide explanations and links, I don't see what more I can do. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Drnhawkins has attempted to discuss this at Talk:Imhotep, and until any such discussion gets deadlocked, to continue to attempt such discussion is all we can advise here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request guidance on resolving "unresolved" deletion request

Resolved

– Commons deletion request closed as keep; problem which precipitated this request seems to have been resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The article, Inauguration of Barack Obama, is currently undergoing a FA review. However, the audio clip for the retake of the oath flubbed on 1-20-2009 is the subject of a deletion request in which editors of the article are not parties. This deletion request has been tagged and remain open since January 2009, and the consensus there upon checking is Keep. My understanding is that the audio clip was released by a US government source, which is a public domain source. Last week, I posted a message on the user talk pages of the person who requested the deletion and the person who uploaded the file. I've not heard anything back from either party about resolving the deletion request. The editors of the article need to resolve this issue, since the audio is included in the article (and relevant for the historical record), and we need guidance on resolving the closure of the deletion request, absent replies from the parties to the dispute about the audio file. →Lwalt^♦ talk 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, although I'm no expert on Commons, that the deletion debate needs to be closed by a (Commons) admin. Try requesting closure at the Commons Admin 'board and mention, if it's true, that it's causing the FA ~~review~~candidacy to be held up? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As a postscript, note that the article is a featured article candidate (i.e, to become a FA), and is not up for featured article review (i.e., to have FA status removed). Just a minor sticking point which I thought I'd point out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian A. Vaughan

Resolved

– Article deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian A. Vaughan —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This was posted to correct a direct mistake by wiki. The page was a direct link to a candidate list in the current BC election. Your system saw showing a link to a candidate in a previous election in Alberta, for a candidate from a different party.

I deliberately placed the reference Reform BC in the post to clarify the connection.

Your editor's poofing this without any hesitation was wrong.

I've heard thousands of complaints about wiki editing history, but didn't realize is is this bad.

Haneyguy (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the reply to your message on BKell's talk page and then read WP:CSD#A7, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. – ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This appears to be directly related to the deleted article Ian A.Vaughan. I'll note that it was deleted as the article content met criterion for speedy deletion A7, meaning the article did not make an assertion about the importance or significance of the subject. I believe Haneyguy did this not understanding he could have edited the existing redirect, Ian Vaughan.

In any case, the right thing to do is to contact the administrator who deleted the article, Bkell. I note you have already done this, and have already gotten a response.

Please try to assume good faith of our actions, as we have of yours. Neither Vaughan nor any other politician has an entitlement to a Wikipedia article. Related to that, I'd like to refer you to WP:YFA, a guide to writing your first article, and WP:POLITICIAN, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for politicians. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was just an Ian A. Vaughan as well (note the space). Considering the userspace article, Haneyguy needs to read the advice given above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A description of what I think happened is at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#Unlawful links. It seems that Haneyguy is not concerned so much about the deletion of Ian A.Vaughan as the reversion of his edits to change a link from Ian Vaughan (who is a different person) to Ian A. Vaughan. —Bkell (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Note this and this pretty clearly indicate this is an autobiography situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian A. Vaughan now up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian A. Vaughan. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And has now been deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BRD, User Disruption at Serena Williams

Resolved

– In RfC's hands now. Fleetflame 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Over the last week at Serena Williams, various editors have been implementing changes to the article based on feedback for a peer review of another tennis biography (Daniela Hantuchova). This has been a long but steady process, and one of the issues was the (non)summary of the article's writing. A new editor (Tennis Expert) has been re-expanding the lengths of the various sections; this is fine, as there is no such thing as a 'permanent consensus'. However, three different editors have reverted his changes (with edit notes that the length is the reason for the change back) but the issue has not been taken to the Talk page (as BRD would seem to be most productive if this editor wanted a discussion on expanding the length). This editor has engaged in borderline disruptive behavior before, and I thought it best to reach out for larger feedback before needless edit wars/insults start over at the article. Thanks for any feedback here. AlonsornunezComments 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, while I'd like to take a look at this, past experience with Tennis expert has shown that he's not willing to entertain any outside opinion from this board contrary to his own. You need to start a conduct RfC, in my opinion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started to read about the process for RfC. I might be back here with questions! :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert has been created, though is still being set up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC is open and rolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

copyright dispute section on firescope article

Resolved

– At least, the original question is; problem user blocked. Fleetflame 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there is an ongoing copyright dispute between an opensource monitoring solution, zabbix, and company firescope. as a zabbix community member and user (not employed by zabbix, the company) i documented this dispute on firescope page. some time later, this section was silently removed by an anonymous user, but ip was coming from firescope range. i readded the section and documented removal and re-adding on the talk page. again, this section was silently removed. it was re-added by another user, requesting a discussion on the talk page. this request was ignored, and instead, section was _again_ removed, as well as details of previous removals was removed from the talk page. wikipedia dispute resolution process guidelines say "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it.", and these actions seem to be exactly the opposite.

i'm now calling for an independent party to review the process and give an advice on how to proceed.

page history, showing addings, removals, readdings... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FireScope,_Inc.&action=history

talk page history, showing complete obliteration of the previous content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FireScope,_Inc.&action=history

problems i see :

1. disputed section has been repeatedly removed silently and anonymously, even after an explicit request from another user to discuss the issue on the talk page; 2. no actual arguments or facts have been provided to counter documented information; 3. edits have been made by an interested party, which is actually removing information of accusations against them

thanks.

--Richlv (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your edits, however: the sources you've provided aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, there's the issue of undue weight- that is, whether this rather recent event represents a significant matter to the overall history of FireScope. When and if it's picked up by general media, or at least if the Zabbix or FireScope people make an official announcement (i.e., preferably not in a forum), it might be worth commenting.

As to contributions, a report to WP:COIN might be in order since his edits suggest he intends to enforce ownership of the article. Honestly... I question the general notability of the FireScope article. It really doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reported User:Firescope inc to WP:UAA as it is clearly a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy response. point taken on sources; as for undue weight, i think accusation that a flagship product is violating copyright is quite important.

general notability - i wouldn't want to even be involved in that, as i have been involved in previous edits.

thanks for the WP:COIN hint, i'll read more on that later --Richlv (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, the main problem with your edits are the quality of the sources you're using- namely, that they appear insufficient. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

contributions blocked indef for promotional behavior (i.e., not just for username violations). If he comes back with the same behavior you can probably report him to WP:SPI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

pretty lights

Resolved

– Speedily deleted again per speedy deletion criterion A7. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just submitted a page about Pretty Lights music. Instead of it saying Pretty Lights, It was submitted with the name PrettyLight. I did not know if that could be changed. Thank you for your time. Carolyne Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyne.b (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It can. Before we get into that, though, you'll need to establish the notability of the subject. Have a look at WP:BAND, which sets out the standards for inclusion of musical groups and ensembles. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article now moved to Pretty Lights. No comment on the notability, but there appears to be a peacock words problem; "electronic extravaganza band", "these two animate a club like no one has ever seen", "create a raw energy hardly found with in the electronic music genre". I've tagged the article accordingly, but this part seriously needs attention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article now speedy-deleted for lack of an assertion of notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And recreated... still the same peacock words issue. Not sure if it still meets A7. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we get any watching admin to check the deleted page and see if this is a simple recreate please (CSD #G4)? Fleetflame 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the same, from memory, but doesn't qualify for G4 because it was previously speedily deleted, not deleted pursuant to an Afd discussion. I am tagging it for A7 again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedied again per A7... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty Lights (again)

Hello, I have posted Pretty Lights twice. Both times it has been deleted. I was wondering if there is anything that can be done to guarantee that it stays on. I was wondering you believed it could be posted under another title, a sub-page perhaps. Thankyou for your time Carolyne.b (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, See #pretty lights above. There hasn't been anything in the article so far to show the notability of the band, and that's why it's been deleted. You'll need some sort of independent 3rd party coverage - myspace and such won't be helpful. Has the band been reviewed by any independent publications? That might be a place to start. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BAND. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this thread as a subthread of the original request and retitled it appropriately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversight request

Resolved

– Edit summary appropriately oversighted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the history tab for the story on Everett Ruess, the following is listed:

21:53, 26 March 2009 98.202.12.168 (talk) (7,521 bytes) (Everett was actually born in Oakland, as per his nephew, Brain Ruess, ****** - by Steve Jerman, Licensee to the estate of Everett Ruess. He did grow up and live in L.A.) (undo)

Please remove the email address which I have redacted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrpdx (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's well above my pay grade. You can request that at WP:OVERSIGHT, although it's by no means clear that it would be done. Perhaps the owner of the email address should email the request; it might be more persuasive that way. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Image links

Resolved

– Apparently resolved, according to person filing the request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a request for dispute resolution, but merely a general inquiry from a newcomer (at least in experience). I recently added an external link to an article about a particular historical building of interest (U-Drop Inn, though my question isn't specifically about that edit), which a much more experienced user edited out on the basis that it violated WP:EL and WP:NOT because it did not add any new facts, but was only a link to additional images of the building. The images were better and in greater detail than what were in the article, so provided additional visual information even if they did not add additional textual information. Was the link in violation? I don't intended to reassert my edit, or challenge the user who removed it, I'd just like to know for future reference. TransporterMan (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question. I don't know if I agree with Collectonian, who reverted the addition and responded to your inquiry at ~~his~~ her user talk page. I agree with you, that the site being linked has a number of images not included in the Wikipedia article, and furthermore I think Collectonian may have missed those extra images, considering ~~his~~ her response which said external links could include those links that had content which couldn't be included in the article for copyright reasons (i.e., the images). Whether the really do provide information or perspective that isn't already in the article is not something I'm prepared to answer. However, I don't think the site itself meets any of the WP:ELNO criteria... it's not bad as far as most linked websites I've seen go. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I dropped a note at Collectonian's user talk page presenting my thoughts on the matter, since I think the images may qualify as additional detail. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me for not putting this on Collectonian's talk page where it would be a direct response to your comment, Mendaliv, but I promised that she wouldn't hear from me again. You said that, "Maybe TransporterMan is a bit clearer on the situation now at least?" And I am, indeed: It's quite clear to me that I had the right to be somewhat confused as to how my EL violated the cited standards. At least I've not lost my mind altogether. Thank you very, very much for the help, Mendaliv, I really appreciate it.TransporterMan (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. While I'm marking this resolved, if you have more questions on this matter feel free to ask them here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Review/Intention of auto-biographical article

Resolved

– to the extent possible --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask the editors for assistance in judging whether I am notariable enough to begin an auto-biographical page, and if so, for assistance in maintaining encyclopedic integrity in the post.

The draft is on a subpage of my user page User:Msknight/Draft and I am posting the request here at the instruction of another editor. If this is the wrong place to make this request, I would be grateful for the correct location. --Msknight (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have been given advice but are not actually taking it on board. You need to prove notablity, (click on the blue text to read the notability page}. To prove notability you need to show why the article subject (yourself) is notable.

You will need to provide (ideally) in-line citations to reliable sources for the statements in the article. Check out some other biographies of living persons, e.g. Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet, Amanda Lepore, Audrey Tang. You should also take the links to your home page and others out of the user space before an editor or admin removes them as WP:Spam links.

Your article may well fall foul of original research guidelines and certainly conflict of interest guidelines, so most of the above is academic - you should not be writing this article.

As to whether you are notable enough - I couldn't find much out there apart from your web page. I suspect that notability would be challenged and the article would be swiftly deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a link to this discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michelle_Knight Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed- the main problem with the article you're providing is lack of verifiability of the claims it makes, which is especially important for biographies of living people, for which Wikipedia policies and guidelines err strongly on the side of caution to avoid libel.

As to the notability issue... it's more difficult to explain. A good, general explanation of our guidelines is WP:GNG, which says:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

While there are some specific exceptions where people who would otherwise not be considered notable are permitted in the specific guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO), in a deletion debate, the primary question that's going to come up is whether you, the article's subject, have met that level of coverage required to satisfy guidelines.

As to the actual content... I agree with Jezhotwells above- it's chock full of original research, which is extremely hard to avoid when you're writing about yourself, which is why we discourage autobiographies so much. I don't want to discourage you from editing, of course, but I can tell you from having seen this situation before, you're only going to end up frustrated if your only intent is to write about yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The links to the pages are the links to the proof that I have. The pages contain images of the artices published in the quoted magazines. To pictures of the books and magazines that were published that bore my name. In the fast world of television the references to the shows no longer exist, but I have the recordings. The records of my birth and changes ... the documents lie here.

Should a senior editor come forward, I will trust copies of these documents to them for them to see with their own eyes ... proof better than a quotation from any printed biography ... I have it, and can provide it. Should you wish proof of the film script, simply check the copyright logs of the Writers Guild of America ... you will find it so registered.

--Msknight (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well there is certainly some difficulty when the 'proof' isn't available electronically, but that shouldn't make things completely impossible. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is where I stumble. The proof of what I am saying, at least the publications, are available electronically. I used in private conversation previously, the example of "Michele Knight," and where the proof was for the assertions made on that page. Where were they taken from? Some of the personal facts stated on that page, as an example, could only have come from someone who was either close to her, read them from biographical material, hear her say them on a TV show ... where would the proof be in that case?

From where I am sitting, the only difference here is that someone else put them on the site instead of her.

Yet here I am, offering documentation and proof, acknowledging that others would have access over the article and there is an argument against which seems to boil down to ... who wrote the article?

From where I am standing on the issue it is a matter of ... who cares who writes the article as long as there is proof available to those who control the content of the encyclopedia? To the person who suggested, on my user talk, that my entry would instantly be whittled down to my name and the fact that I own a web page, my instant answer is that there is already proof about the publications. Also, if that was such a stringent requirement, then why is Michele Knights entry not whittled down to the verifiable TV experiences?

--Msknight (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the major point, which is that there's nothing here to indicate that the subject is notable. Conflict o finterest and neutral point of view don't come into play until notability is established, and it has not been established. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm trying to be clear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHowse (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 April 2009

I refer you, in that case, to how I opened the article here.--Msknight (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I think your question is answered. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed notability insufficient in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How? I am the subject of secondary source material, for a start. ie. the articles printed by a number of sources and can be seen by the editors in the external link listed as, "Page containing some of the published articles." which I put there becuase it is an external link and if I put it in the main document could be contrued as self publication.--Msknight (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You would need to cite the sources directly and let other editors verify them. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Images of the publications are right there in the page together with dates of publication. The only other verification you could get which is better than this is to contact the publications or go to a library and obtain a copy for yourself.--Msknight (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You could try citing them in the article draft; that might help to support any claim to notability. See WP:CITE to read about how to cite articles. However, beware of WP:BLP1E if there is only 1 event to support notability; it might not be sufficient. Please also note that the editors who offer assistance here do so to help other editors in their editing, not to perform assignemnts! --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - the details of the publications, dates, etc. are already in there, just not in citation form. I'm going to take a breather and then return later to change them to citation notice.--Msknight (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But another question - to use Michele Knight as an example again, among things it states, "Michele’s Italian mother, Bruna, was also a psychic and read for many well-known figures, including the late King Hussein of Jordan." - I mean, how on earth do editors manage to verify things like this?--Msknight (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the burden of proof is on the person adding the statement. In that case, if it were challenged, then somebody would need to show a source for it, or else it could be deleted. By the way, I don't think Michele Knight is notable; I've nominated that page for deletion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If she isn't notable, then I'm probably not going to be notable until the film is made and out there; we're just starting to hunt finance now (it is a relatively cheap film so should find an investor this year; focuses on energetic interpersonal relationships rather than special effects) but have a director enthusiastically on board with feature films under his belt ... this thing is going to be a reality in a couple of years.

Also, I've got problems with verifiability; I've got copies of things and even the TV shows I've noted I've got electronic copies of and can transmit electronically to a select editor, but if someone else were to try and track them down it would be difficult. I tried to get hold of Eagle Media, for example, and they don't list the works they did for other agencies and that TV show dropped off ITV Central's web page ages ago, and if they go under, verifiability dies without a trace. Also, I pulled the tape for the French Canada show and it doesn't have the station ident on it and I changed my e-mail system a few years ago so I don't even have my conversations with the company that broadcast the series ... but I have the show itself! I've got the documentation and letters of my campaigning with Downing Street, the MoJ, the CPS, etc., my certificates, but I can't put them up for the world to see.

To be honest, I took my template from what Michele Knight had written; that is one reason I'm finding myself bemused by what is being told to me.--Msknight (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like the best model. Better to look at some Wikipedia:Good articles. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll keep working on my page and come back in a couple of years to ask for another review of notability when the film eventually comes out; it is expected to cause a minor storm in a teacup!--Msknight (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To bring the conversation over to the left again, to ask a question that is still on this subject; with regards to proof, if I put up on my own web site, pictures of the newspaper articles, etc. that are no longer available to otherwise verify, is that acceptable as a means of proof?--Msknight (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, sources don't need to be available online to be basically valid. While there's a preference for using online sources if they're of comparable quality to offline ones, there's no requirement that the offline sources even be easy to view. Though in most cases, when somebody is notable or when the source is actually appropriate for Wikipedia, it shouldn't be too difficult to view the sources. Mirroring them... may help, but may just raise more questions in terms of the content of those sources.

As to verifying certain other things... let me put it this way: you cannot source to things such as unpublished letters, personal documents, e-mails, etc. Period. If you can't find another, appropriate source, then you can't include the information. Unpublished primary sources are never acceptable means for verifying article content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So if I read this correctly, a source that has been published, such as the magazine articles, I can post a picture of them on-line and that is acceptable. With regard other documents and letters, if I publish a picture of the letters on-line, that would also be acceptable. With regards e-mails, they are essentially un-verifiable even if they are published.

So ... to TV appearances where the shows are no longer recorded on-line ... how would that be verifiable? How would I present proof of the show? I've been looking on-line and can find no verification of either TV show.

As to other documents that would prove facts but would not in themselves be publishable. Is there a mechanism for their review?--Msknight (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you technically don't need to republish stuff that's already been published or otherwise broadcast by a third party; just cite the source like you would any other, and if questions come up regarding the veracity of the source, we can address that problem then. Lots of editors (myself included) have access to databases like LexisNexis and EBSCO, and can at least make honest attempts to verify certain things.

As to publishing letters, etc. there's an issue of it being a self-published source. While if you're using such sources to make statements about yourself, it may be OK (see WP:SELFPUB for some more specific criteria), it's likely unacceptable to use such sources to assert any dubious or controversial claims. Self-published sources can be a very tenuous subject on Wikipedia, but in the case of an article on yourself, it's probably quite appropriate to source things such as a birthdate, non-controversial academic credentials and to settle other minor errata that come up. Just keep in mind that generally, secondary sources will be given precedence over anything you publish yourself.

Like I said above, a source that isn't available online can still be a valid article source, as may be the case of this TV show. While it depends on the nature of the show and the claim being sourced from it, you're largely in the clear to use offline sources, provided you reference them properly so that anyone who wants to go fact check the article has a reasonable chance of understanding what the source is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Smartmatic

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Involvement of Venezuelans in an election marred with problems in Cook County, Chicago, prompted an investigation, on both local and federal levels, about the ownership structure of the company that provided voting machines in said election (Sequoia). Sequoia had been previously acquired by Smartmatic, a company with suspects links to the government of Hugo Chavez.

I have provided WP:RS compliant links, to back arguments. Alas two contributors, JRSP and RD232, both with a history of editing out information that they consider casts Hugo Chavez in negative light, are edit-warring and keep ignoring WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:RS.

Please see history and discussion page. For precedent on contributors mentioned see Special:Contributions/JRSP and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Shellenberger Alekboyd (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm. From my perspective, it seems like you're treating the opinion of a Chicago Alderman as truth; having lived in Chicago, I kind of find that hard to swallow. It may be appropriate to say "one Chicago Alderman suggested that a number of Venezuelan Sequoia employees were participating in the tabulation, and called for a federal investigation" with your source, and "However, both Sequoia and election officials have since said that the Venezuelans involved were only present to provide technical assistance, and the conspiracy suggested is "over the top"."

From a policy perspective, you're just in the wrong as they are, if not more so. While you haven't broken 3RR, you've definitely engaged in a slow edit war over this content... which isn't good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It could be argued that Alderman Burke's opinion was "over the top", if the whole issue would have ended there. However it did not, and because of Burke's denunciation Rep. Maloney requested a CFIUS investigation, which surprisingly enough, caused Smartmatic to dispose of Sequoia, instead of coming clean about its ownership structure. The very fact that Venezuelans were involved in an election that resulted in a tallying disaster prompted Burke's conspiracy theory. But Smartmatic's subsequent reaction to CFIUS' investigation did not disprove in any way Burke's "over the top" theory.

Re my edits, I am merely copy-pasting from cited WP:RS compliant sources, for I have read somewhere that Wikipedia contributors shouldn't pass judgment on whether or not what has been published is true, the test being that what's added is verifiable.Alekboyd (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, copying and pasting from reliable sources is not valid on its own. WP:SYN describes a case where reliable sources are used to advance an opinion that they don't support, and I believe it's being argued that you're doing just that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Burton Snowboards History contributions

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Burton Snowboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) So I posted my contributions to the history part of the Burton Snowboards page. I had a nice write-up and all my dates were correct. I happen to know the Carpenters directly and I was just wondering what happened to my page, and who revised it. They took out some information, switched a couple of my years, and re-worded all my sentences. I don't know what the meaning of it was but I just want to know why and what happened.

Hayden Fries (hsf55) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsf55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors came along and continued to develop the page. It looks to me as if most of your major points are still there, albeit phrased in a more neutral and encyclopaedic tone. To see what was done, step by step, go to the article and click on the history tab. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can of course edit the article again if you wish or continue to discuss changes on the talk page. Note though that personal knowledge is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Manchester United 'On Loan' section

Resolved

– --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I recently edited the Manchester United 'On Loan' section, adding the 17 year old midfielder Adem Ljajic, who was signed in January 2009 and immediately sent back on loan to his previous club FK Partizan to gain more playing chances and overall knowledge of the game. I was disappointed and in fact insulted to see this was taken down, as a die hard Manchester United fan I do not understand why this was removed as he is most certainly is a Manchester United player, I even included a news article of the sites preferred sports website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/7754739.stm). Thankyou for reading this, Scullerz (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Scullerz

The edit summary reverting your edit says it's incorrect and points to the talk page of Adem Ljajić's article, which shows he isn't part of the club, see [12] - did you see that before you added his name? Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand, he signed for Manchester in January, had all his press conferences in England, confirmed by both teams and more than likely every single sports broadcaster in the world but you are still not accepting it? Perhaps you should do some research... Scullerz (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Scullerz

I think the explanation is that he signed the paperwork but that the deal can't go into effect until the player turns 18, under FIFA regs. So, I don't think he's on the Man U books until then. I think the last sentence of Adem Ljajić#Club career has it right. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Resolved

– Not notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am still working on making these articles suitable. Believe me, these are not intended for advertisement so much as they are intended to provide as much information as possible.

Anyway, I have a question about "reliable sources" for notability.

These artists have been making albums since 1995, and have enjoyed some pretty moderate success as measured in the business. I do sort of know the composer, but as a fan and only through email exchange over this past year. The thing is, a lot of their notability material is tied up in trade mags and market listings (for instance, placing #1 one week on Amazon's New Age list, and being in the top ten of iTunes downloads - there is no place to actually verify this online or in any printed material; and being written about in trade mags that have since gone out of print - no way to look at it NOW to verify the source...)

Anyway, I am working to make this entry acceptable. Do you have any knowledge about whether these tear pages I am able to use from the artists themselves (their own collection of their media coverage) qualify as reference material, despite the fact that they are not widely available materials?

Also, does this sort of collection count as a "reliable source"? http://apsismusic.com/2007/index.htm (the press kit, reviews and interviews in particular)

- or does it disqualify it that it exists on the page of the artist, even though it is a collection of other people's reviews and interviews? Usagi Jeshika (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tear sheets and such would be poor sources, as would the press kit, since they are essentially self-published. Why not simply cite the original 3rd party reviews? They don't need to be online to be reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. That can be done. Can they be referenced even though they are not readily available to the public? Being listed on musical charts and such are actual references, but not something I believe can be accessed from years back for every artist on every major chart listing. I am concerned that the viability of the sources will be questioned because of lack of ability to check on the resource NOW. Is that not necessarily a problem?

Usagi Jeshika (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The standard is verifiability; it doesn't have to be immediately available online. Printed sources can be very good, as long as they're independent and reputable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with anonymous edits

Resolved

– I will open a discussion on the talk page if this continues. Thank you. BuffaloBob (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request guidance about how to resolve repeated reversions to Orchard Park (town), New York from several anonymous IP address. One or more persons operating form the following IP addresses: 69.204.74.6, 72.88.35.23, 74.78.91.204, 204.248.24.161, 69.204.68.248 over the past several months continues to revert to material that is not a neutral point of view, and may even be considered negative and politically motivated by some readers. This material is in the first paragraph of the article. When request have been made for references the references provided are from a blog which supports the same negative views. Is it proper to request that edits to this page can only be made from registered users? BuffaloBob (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's long term vandalism that is continuing right now you can ask for page protection at WP:RPP. Also, if multiple vandalism events come from a single IP within the space of a few hours, you can report the vandal to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I believe it's edits like this one which are concerning BuffaloBob. And looking at the content in there, I think it's right to be concerned. That sort of material really doesn't belong in the lead section of the article. And since the content is only sourced to a Wordpress blog (i.e., not a reliable source), the material should certainly be removed.

I will note however, for BuffaloBob's sake and that of anyone else involved in this article, that from all appearances, these are good faith contributions. What this means is unless you can clearly show that it's vandalism (by Wikipedia's definition thereof), you're still expected to abide by WP:3RR in removing such content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd also recommend that you see if the other editors on the article would help establish a consensus that the material is definitely unwelcome in its current form. While I think it may be acceptable if sourced better (the material hints at actual newspaper articles), since it appears to be good faith, as I said above, you're going to want to establish a consensus that can be maintained by the editors on that article. At that point, someone who constantly goes against that consensus can be considered disruptive. And if the editor(s) in question participate in a discussion, that's probably a good thing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Both excellent points. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

←