Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 19

Infidel
At the article Infidel I am having an issue with another editor over the validity of the inclusivity of the 1913 Catholic Encylopedia, and I suspect a particular direction that the article may take as well. If someone would like to help out that would be much appreciated.--Tigeroo (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason you insist on basing the article on that 100 year old source, rather than on broader, modern, reliable sources. That, in a nutshell is the main problem. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion has been noted but not agreed with. I'd rather debate our disagreement on the relevant article talk page than clutter this one.--Tigeroo (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without wading through the talk page there, let me say: (1) Articles should avoid incorporating text from the 1913 CE, as it is POV, (2) When contridicted by a more contemporary source, the contemporary source should be prefered, and finally, (3) secondary sources, where possible, are to be preferred over tertiary sources like encyclopedias. Pastordavid (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would "partially" disagree with point one, as a summary of it for you then per Using Catholic Encyclopedia material, the WP:RS noticeboard [], the Administrator noticeboard [] as well pages such as discussions on articles such as Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Anti-Masonry, Knight Kadosh and a multitude of others. In short my stand is the same as those on the aforementioned threads that 1913 doesn't merit a blanket exclusion because of its POV or age and can be used but with due care and understanding that it represents a dated Catholic POV. I agree with both points two and three and don't see an issue with removing or amending of the 1913 information in that light. I do however object to information sourced from it being removed without verifiable cause, and can undertake to substantiate the information in the 1913 from more modern sources as well. I see you are a Pastor, maybe you can take a look at the article and give us some feedback on content of the article as well.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been told it's not reliable, and you should use modern sources. Accept that and comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trollish comments will be ignored to keep this thread civil and productive. A discussion has just begun, consensus is being established.--Tigeroo (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How odd; you keep claiming elsewhere that consensus has already been established. Which it has, of course. And that consensus is that it's unreliable, don't use it except in extremely limited circumstances. Leading the Infidel article, and forming the basis for its contents, obviously isn't one of those circumstances. And please abide by WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph J. Romm
This article is all out of scale with the importance of the subject (the talk page shows concerns over the subject even being notable enough for an entry at all). I've been trying to at least tighten up the language and remove trivia and redundant info, but its being zealously guarded by one particular editor who reverts any change which shortens the entry, however valid. Recently, a personal friend of his (by her talk page at least) has begun to assist him, making claims my edits were "bad faith" or vandalism.

I'd like someone to objectively view the situation, and determine who is in the right here. Thanks! FellGleaming (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking into the edits by User:Broadwaygal, it does seem to be a clear case of Meatpuppetry, based on her past level of interaction with Ssilvers, and the fact she's never before shown any interest in this article. But I'd like a neutral opinion.FellGleaming (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think notability is established (the talk page discussion about it is two years old and a request for deletion failed) but I do agree that the article does contain information of marginal relevance or significance - e.g., what Romm's brother does for a living or an entire paragraph setting out details of a Department of Energy program that Romm "helped manage" as Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary during his tenure there in the mid-1990s. (That reads more like a resume entry than anything, and if "helped manage" is all that he did with it then the information is really pretty tangential.)  Other parts of the article do read a bit puffy to me, but not so thoroughly that removing the text is really demanded.  Perhaps you would gain more traction by identifying the things that are really beside the point and taking discussion of those to the talk page, rather than making wholesale changes to the article, which, while efficient, often simply invites wholesale reversions.


 * These are of course just one person's opinions, upon a brief review of the page and the edits. Others may have different views -  JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. When Romm was the acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, he was in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  When he was Principal Deputy AS, he "helped" run the office, but he was the #2 guy for those periods.  This office is the DOE's billion-dollar energy efficiency and renewables research and applications program.  Since this is Romm's bio, describing his activities at this important government job would seem to be definitely worth a paragraph.  I'm not sure what the basis would be for excluding it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome - thanks for the thanks.


 * I guess it's that, when you are in a high (politically appointed?) position in government, you oversee a lot of different operations and programs, with many possible levels of actual involvement. "Helped manage" -- to me anyhow -- is one of those slippery resume words that can mean as little as "I had to sign off on memos written by knowledgeable subordinates and otherwise had no clue about what was going on".  It smacks of puffery.  (Indeed given that the phrase, "helped manage", as well as the program description, tracks language from four or five nearly identical, separately and sometimes repetitively footnoted, presumably self-authored, bios of Romm, I think this observation may be well founded.)  You're right that it's his bio but that being the case then what matters first is what *he did*.  Did he devise the program, champion it, give it new direction, rescue it from moribundity (a word?), acitively direct it - what?  If none of those then the program details strike me as only so much clutter.  (By contrast, his role in "The Five Lab Study" is plainly stated, although the significance of that study is not clear.)


 * Just so it's clear - I am not saying that these segments violate Wikipedia policy or that it's *wrong* to include them -- but instead that the article does seem to go off a bit on tangents, and that -- as FellGleaming contends -- it could use a bit of tightening, and these examples seem like pretty obvious candidates for excision. It would make a better article, I think.


 * (Maybe the Romm talk page is the better place to continue this, if we are going to.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Slanted Article
I need help. I have been trying to correct a slanted article to represent a neutral point of view. Howdoyoudoit (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least tell us what the article is called...? Howie &#9742;  22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably this article, but I don't know what the concern is. Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BSFC article
Hi,

I have an issue with edit made to my post on the Wiki Article for BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumptio): Brake_specific_fuel_consumption. A fellow editor (unregistered) removed my post without any explanation (see below) diff

Can you assist me? Kind regards, Shane GTMnetwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtmnetwork (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been a one time thing, and you were able to change it back without any problems. Please remember the note on the editing page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."  If a difference of opinion over what should be included in the article becomes a problem, please ask for further assistance. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Toddst1
I wanted to put the official US Army report to the 'My Lai massacre" as it is published in the Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations into the My Lai Incident, Volume III of the Peers Inquiry. Your Wikipedia says the wounded is unknown. This is wrong as if you would only read the http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RDAR-Vol-IIIBook3.pdf at PDF page 478, you would discover the truth as there are five vietnamese suvivors, by name.  I tried to correct your Wikipedia as it is incorrect and some user erased it as vandalisim. I only put what was in the report and nothing else.  This is the official and only report as to the My Lai massacre.  If what I put on the article is wrong than the Peers report is wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.187.244 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry for Producer's Edge Magazine
This page has been re-edited, but the advertisement note is still up. Could someone edit this page further to conform with the wikipedia standards or remove the advertising warning if it does pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer's_Edge_Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.106.211 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I tweaked it a bit. I think it reads well enough now but I left the tag up pending someone else's look at it.  I'm not altogether sure it warrants a Wikipedia article.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam page deleted WP:CSD, --Hu12 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Article
I updated a wikipedia article a few days ago, and it was immediately marked for speedy deletion, I believe by a spammer. Then it was moved to my Upload Page, citing that it was bungled. The article was written with a great amount of research. It is possible that the article should be tied in with another subject, and if this is so, I apologize for not doing so. I would appreciate assistance in having this page successfully uploaded in the right context instead of being toyed with by a spammer named Ziggy Sawdust. Lessmoore (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One of our core values on Wikipedia is assuming good faith; please be sure to do so in this case. In looking at your contribution, the article reads far more like a personal essay and original research than an encyclopedia article; I can't even tell what the actual topic of the article would be. The other editor was quite correct to relocate the piece out of article space and to your personal space; it was created with the name "Upload page" and moved into your user space. I'm going to leave a welcome message on your user page; please take a look at the links included in it to learn how to properly formulate and edit articles here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What he said. Z i g g y   S a w  d u s t  16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had an article deleted that was notable,...
Dear Staff, I hope this reaches a human being, for it appears that the computer that runs Wikipedia dos run amock at times. My name is Dr. John F.Kossowan ( retired dentist) I am "notable". I found, when I did at Google.com, that there was a link to Wikipedia, two days ago, to start an article about me, "John F. Kossowan,D.D.S.". Evidently, Google.com, or Wikipedia, was getting wuite aq few requests for biographical information about me from many, many people. The reason being: I am "notable". Yes, littel old me, is a candidate for President in the USA. I made this announcement to over 390 newspapers, and The Washington Post, The New YorkTImes, and The Wall St.JOurnal, back in Agust 2007. Yes, I am "notable". I have a web site, since August 2007, with my stand on all the major issues of this Presidential Camapaign. Only 12 out of 400 newspapes, getting my weekly emails on MY STAND on the issues, requested to be taken off my email list. ONLY 12. The rest of the 390 newspapers, thought I was "notable".

Therefore, I put together, for ONE HOUR of TYPING,a biography of myself, at Wikipedia, to supply an accurate biography about myself. Again: the reason being: I am "notable".

AND, I am not just a retired dentist, but a known professional artist. I was given membership to the PRESTIGIOUS ART SOCIETY, in Boston, Mass., The Copley Art Society, the OLDEST ART SOCIETY in America, in 1991. Yes, I am a "notable" artist !!! Yes, a "notable" artist. Please POST my article about myself, an article about: "John F. Kossowan,D.D.S." that I typed up into Wikipedia yesterday, April 24th, 2008 Thank you for your attention. Obvioiusly, this is a computer mistake, where the computer's brain thought I was not "notable" simply because it does NOT know the world of art, and does not know all the Candidates for President taht Foxnews, CNN and 390 newspapers, from Hawaii to Florida, are following. Please, again, correct the computer mistake, and insert my article about myself, that so many want to read, the article on: "John F. Kossowan,D.D.S." Thank you, Sincerely, DR. JOhn F. Kossowan


 * Hello. I don't think I'm a machine pretending to be human. Your situation sounds similar to one just above (see here). I think the same advice applies to you. If not, get back in touch and I'll see what else I can do. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your article did not assert notability to the point really required by our notability guidelines. There are no immediately accessible reliable sources that seem to have covered your announcement of running for president, and the claims in the article that you "helped" previous presidents cannot be backed up either (receiving "thank you" letters from the White House doesn't really seem to fit our notability requirements). I don't seem to have been able to track the artist notability either. Having said all that, if you feel there are reliable sources that would back up the article, pelase do go to deletion review. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fred Lawlor
Can someone please review this and see if it falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS, or if the person is genuinely notable. CultureDrone (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'd say notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Indestructible (Disturbed album)
I and XLinkBot are having a problem with an IP who insists on adding Disturbed Argentina's Blogspot site to the bottom of the page, regardless of our repeated warnings. What to do, what to do?...  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Page concerning Alia Sabur
It seems that an edit war is about to develop on the page. User from IP 98.173.235.54 seems to be removed legitimate concerns that are being raised about the credibility of the news reports. Instead of arguing or referring to further sources of information, the other editor seems to be simply erasing the parts that contain the concerns. What should I do? 205.200.220.91 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Discuss it with them on the article's Talk page. Refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and take care to be polite and remember to assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia, even though they might not want to go about it the same way that you do. If this approach doesn't work out, either ask for more help here, or read the helpful information at Dispute resolution. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I've removed the latest unsourced addition to this article, as required by our policy on biographies of living people. I've also left a note on the IP's Talk page, and explained the removal on the article Talk page. Hopefully this should prevent any further problems. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect editing
I tried to edit a page, apparently I did it incorrectly. My apologies.66.210.5.90 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um ... Apology accepted? Pastordavid (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like that, Tony. Pastordavid (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven Sisters Oak
I’m afraid I messed up on my first attempt to edit an article and don’t know how to fix it.

The Seven Sisters Oak is the largest certified southern live oak tree. Located in Lewisburg, Louisiana, it is estimated to be up to 1,500 years old with a trunk that measures 38 feet (11.6 meters). This oak is also the National Champion on the National Register of Big Trees and the Champion Oak of Louisiana according to the Louisiana Forestry Association. The owner who first named the tree was Carole Hendry Doby, who was one of seven sisters. There are seven sets of branches leading away from the center trunk [1]. The Seven Sisters survived a near direct hit from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.

The "Seven Sisters Oak", formerly known as "Doby's Seven Sisters" is the current president of the Live Oak Society [2], a status awarded to it by being the largest live oak registered by the society.

[1] Southern Living Magazine, May 1986, pg 5tx [2] http://www.louisianagardenclubs.org/live_oak_society/about.html

Added name clarification, and references.

Robert L Smith (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I updated the article per your information. I can't know what you did when you tried to edit it but you ended up with three copies of the original paragraph and two copies of your additional paragraph, plus your signature (which is for talk pages, not for articles). Also, we do references a little differently than the way you tried.


 * Anyway, thanks for the additional information and providing references. With practice, you'll learn how to do it correctly yourself. Don't worry about messing up because the old versions are always available in the History and can be recovered easily. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tieto
Appearently somebody created article on Tieto as a redirect to Tiestö. Why, I do not now. Tieto happens to be a company, and I have therefore changed the article to a stub on that, but it is repeatedly reverted in a manner that I consider vandalism. I therefore request interference from wikipedia to stop this.193.15.240.59 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant Tiësto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.240.59 (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, based on the information you inserted about Tieto, there is no apparent reason that that company fits in with Wikipedia's guide to notability. If you cannot give a good reason for Wikipedia to have an article about that company, there's no point in keeping the page from redirecting to Tiësto or some other article.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

List of sex work types
Does this really belong in the main space ?? CultureDrone (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion.  Equazcion •✗/C • 18:09, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Source in Article: Tony Jackson
The article "Tony Jackson" contains a passage that should be cited: "Clarence Williams noted "He was great because he was original in all his improvisations. . . We all copied him." More than Jackson's music was copied. Jackson dressed himself with a pearl gray derby, checkered vest, ascot tie with a diamond stickpin, with sleeve garters on his arms to hold up his cuffs as he played. This became a standard outfit for ragtime and barrelhouse pianists; as one commented "If you can't play like Tony Jackson, at least you can look like him"."

How do I request a citation? (I am an absolute beginner). --Rdhclark (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested a citation; if none comes in a while, we can delete the information. Simply put "" (minus quotes) after the unsourced information to request a citation.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to recall that is discussed the book "Storyville, New Orleans" by the late Al Rose, which has several paragraphs about Jackson in the chapter about music in Storyville. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man, I fixed your ref, too. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Ferdinand Schörner
Reporting vandalism on Ferdinand Schörner. Trying to revert caused my browser to crash twice. Request assistance. Hydra2 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see why - 500k of crud can do that toa browser. Thanks for the heads up, vandalism reverted, user warned. Pastordavid (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in article link that is beyond my ability to fix
The article here

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

has a link to a book named "Bretheren" in the article's "In Fiction" section. The line in question has the external appearance:

Baibars is one of the main characters of Robyn Young's books, Brethren and Crusade.

In this line, "Bretheren" is a link which does not point to a book article. It points to this page:

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

which is clearly not the intended target. Nor does the disambiguation page list the book in question. I have an account but fixing this problem is beyond me.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmillsbridge (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Brethren (novel) is what we need. I think it's better now. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an offer of adoption
by "save the humans" My page is user:fx303 I wish to accept but being a newbie do not know how to. Any help appreciated thanks Fx303 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems re. inline citations (resolved)
Hi. I've self-nominated a bio I did on Robert E. Thacker for the DYK page. I haven't done this often, but every now and then, I get an article on the page. Problem is, I'm getting some feedback regarding a lack of inline citations. I just attempted to add a few, but to no avail. I've edited this site for years and never once added an inline citation, even to my features. Might I impose on someone to add a few so that I might see how it's supposed to be done and so that this important figure might be properly recognized? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note on your talk page. -- Naerii  20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ann Scott page
I'm having problems with a user on the Ann Scott article (french writer). He undoes everything I change, even though my changes are relevant (such as correcting errors in translations of citations in french, adding new elements found in the french press recently, adding a new lay out for the bibliography etc). His name is Olaf150 (he just created a account with a name close to mine) and also makes changes not logged in with different UK ip's. Each time he's not saying why he's undoing what I've done. There is no dialogue and he's getting obnoxious, as on his own page for example, when creating his name, near Olaf he wrote oh-laugh. I'm not looking for problems, I'm just updating this page I created a while ago for this french writer, but if this person carries on undoing everything I do, I will have to give up because he is wasting my time. Can you help at all ? Thank you very much in advance. Olaf750 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you post this at WP:ANI, with links to relevant diffs, as it's probably against the rules to register a username so similar to a current username with the intent of winding someone up. Just my two cents. -- Naerii  20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Olaf750 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User access level?
When confonted with an unfamiliar user name, how do I quickly and easily determine whether they are, for example, an admin, or autoconfirmed, or a steward, or a checkuser? I have been round and round in circles trying to find a page where I can enter a username and get a result, and I'm sure such a thing exists, but it is one of the hardest things to find in Wikipedia. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's one of the "special pages" (link in the lefthand, lower toolbox). The specific link is Special:ListUsers.  Enter the username in the specified field, and there it is. Pastordavid (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you live and learn. Thanks :-) S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New article: Intentional Customer Experience
New user. 1)The top half of my new article shows when I click Show Preview. Why doesn't the bottom half show? How do I get it to show? 2) Do you allow trademarked (TM) items? The TM is in the article title: Intentional Customer Experience (TM). 3)I cannot find my article again when I start at the beginning of the web site and type it in the search. I type Intentional Customer Experience (without the TM). Thank you for your help.  Amdpc (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Amdpc


 * The page has been deleted; it was thought to be advertising rather than encyclopaedic content. If you'd like to develop the page in your user space, perhaps at User:Amdpc/Sandbox, then I'd be happy to look at it and give you my own point of view. Others might differ, but I've been here for a while and I'd like to think I have at least half a clue by now! --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter May (writer) citing references
I need some help.

I read all the instructions about disambiguation and thought I was was doing the right thing creating a Peter May disambiguation page. And that was reversed. In my defence I would have to say that while Peter May might be famous to cricket fans, in a more objective sense, he is really not so well known (A google search on "Peter May" turns up the other two Peter Mays I listed ahead of the cricketer.) But I realise there's no point arguing this case against cricket fanatics.

The point is, that obviously because I got this wrong, people had a look at the Peter May (writer) page I'd been working on, and decided that it wasn't up to scratch.

The claim has been made that the page doesn't cite references or sources. But I have read all the help pages, and tried to follow the guidelines. The official Peter May website is listed - it's obviously a primary source available online. The other sources are not online, though. But I have listed all the publications with their dates and publishers, as recommended. And I have been precise about the television companies and dates of shows which are listed. And I have given all the details about the titles and dates of awards and nominations.

Would it help to add a link to the Peter May listing on IMDB? Peter May is a member of the Crime Writer's Association, the Mystery Writers of America, and the International Thriller Writers, would it help to add this information?

I'm looking for advice on what other references I need to add, and I want to know what I can do to rectify the situation? The article looks unreliable at the moment, and it really isn't. Janice.hally (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, You seem to have a couple of different concerns here, so I'll answer each one in turn.
 * On the disambiguation, Peter May (disambiguation) seems like a good idea, but it doesn't preclude Peter May by any means. Since the cricketer was already there, there's no need to move him. One might tweak the hatnote (italics at the top of the article) to point to to the dab page explicitly.
 * On the sources, and references, you might like to read our guide on reliable sources. You've cited primary sources, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.
 * You might also have a Conflict of interest since you've chosen a user name that appears to coincide with the name of your subject's wife. That might lead to the impression that you're not objective, and a neutral point of view is very important here.
 * I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture! Please feel free to ask more questions here or at my talk page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

SunGard neutrality/verification questions
I work for SunGard and I'm hoping an editor can advise me on next steps for article review. There are a few sections of the SunGard article that I feel do not represent a neutral point of view. I posted my concerns on the article talk page on 20 Mar 2008 but have not received any responses. Much of the business model section reads like opinion rather than verified fact. Please see Talk:SunGard for specifics. I greatly appreciate any help as I'm new to Wikipedia and want to be sure to follow the COI policy. Lapatterson (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How to keep a new article from being deleted
I created a new article called Highwinds Network Group. It was flagged for deletion. I made changes to the article, and listed numerous reasons why I felt the article was newsworthy. I also provided many references and links to build a sold case for the article's validity. Now the article is gone. I am not sure who took the article down, so it is difficult to have a conversation with them or to learn why they took it down....and more importantly....what I can do to have the article replaced.Wjmoore (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The message in the deletion log reads "Expired PROD, concern was: This company is not notable. The only purpose of this article is advertising" PROD is short for proposed deletion, and means that for at least 5 days a template was attached to the article proposing deletion for the stated reason. Nobody objected, so the article was indeed deleted. I can't see the deleted content, but I imagine that it described the company and its activities without explaining why it was notable, or worthy of inclusion here. You can contact the deleting admin, User:Jmlk17 at his/her talk page and request that they post the contents to your userspace in order to improve it. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you need help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Article has been restored. Per WP:PROD, any prod deletion can be contested by any one, for any reason - even after deletion.  Once contested, an article may not be deleted by the prod, it must go to Articles for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave Zirin Revert War
I am having a problem with another editor who insists on reverting a change, based upon verified information duplicated on the talk page, to the article of Dave Zirin. The change is as follows:

From: "Zirin maintains the opinion that the aggressive hatred toward the use of steroids by Barry Bonds is in large degree due to racism. Zirin is also one of the few reporters that believe Bonds has never done steroids."

To: "Zirin maintains the opinion that the aggressive hatred toward the use of steroids by Barry Bonds is in large degree due to racism."

Why the change? In an interview, Zirin denies the validity of this specific sentence. He says:

"Ah. Wikipedia. The source of truth for the desperate college freshmen and terminally stupid among us. I never wrote that I "believe Bonds has never done steroids." I wrote a column in 2003 called "The Case For Reasonable Doubt" where I go through the ways Bonds was breaking many of the accepted truisms about roids: I wrote, The greatest case for reasonable doubt lies in Bonds' very late career success. His unparalleled middle-aged majesty screams his innocence. Steroids and rapid 'unnatural' muscle growth puts tremendous pressure on the joints and tendons. Admitted steroid users like Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Lenny Dykstra and banned substance user Mark McGwire all saw their bodies break down as they hit their mid 30s…Bonds has thrived as he hurtles toward 40, not unlike Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, Reggie Miller, and Randy Johnson. To go by the rumors that surround him, Bonds' ankles should be snapping like toothpicks every time he jogs to first base. Also, worth mentioning that unlike oh so many others, the man never actually failed a steroids test. Is there a ton of circumstantial evidence that the man juiced? Absolutely. But he is still the best player I've ever seen. The best player of what will go down as the anabolic era."

To my mind, the statement "Zirin is also one of the few reporters that believe Bonds has never done steroids" is too strong in light of this interview. But 96.247.37.46 disagrees and continues to revert my change, even after being directed to said interview.

Some form of mediation, it seems, is necessary. Editor437 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in response. Warning have been passed around.  Blocks are next - you and the IP have both surpassed the limit for a block for edit warring.  Pastordavid (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for edit warring, questionable (unsourced) content commented out. Let's see where this goes. Pastordavid (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested page protection for now; hopefully we can encourage the involved parties to use the talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edit
Any concern with an edit like this ? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Certainly it's an entirely unhelpful edit and possibly a test ("can I really change this page"), but as for the content, if that's what your concerned about, we take death threats very seriously, but this is directed at no one. I see you reverted the edit. It's also a good idea to warn users when they make improper edits. You can explore many templates for this purpose at WP:UTM. Here I would use uw-test1, and will add that to the ip's page as soon as I finish this post by typing on the ip's talk page :Category:Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 . Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I was mainly concerned about the content because this was quite different than the normal nonsense I see.  Also, thanks for warning the user.  I generally try to do that, but in this case I wanted to come to this page first.  Thanks again, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

my lai massacre
you changed the casualties from 504 to 347 and listed it as the us army report, this is wrong and if you would only READ the Peers report you would find the right numbers. It may not be the numbers you would like to post but at least for once Wikipedia would be correct. The wounded are also listed by name and is not unknown. The only unknown is why you don't post the correct information as listed in the peers report. I expect a higher standard from Wikipedia. I am just not getting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.206.49 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

During my trips to Vietnam in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, I found out how much the Vietnamese don't know about their own history. During the "Massacre at Huế" 1968 Tet Offensive your article in Wikipedia is missing information and is mostly forgotten because it was the Viet Cong and NVC committing this atrocity. I won't write any numbers executed since Wikipedia will erase it and use a number from the NVC, since they want to forget the Hue Massacre, and there are still bodies being dug up from the massacre. Where is the rememberance day for them? I would like the reader to know that all sides, in every war do things that are unspeakable.

Linh Muc Nguyễn Văn Lýbị bịt miệng lại khi hô to"Đả đảo Cộng Sản Việt Nam tại Toà án Nhân dân tỉnh Thừa Thiên (Huế) (30/3/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.252.72 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The mistakes of Wikipedia never stop coming: My Lai Massacre, On the photo of "Women and children in My Lai, Vietnam, shortly before US soldiers shot and killed them" The Library of Congress has this photo and it says "P-40 Unidentified Vietnamese Women and Children (Haeberle #18). Am I seeing things or is Wikipedia wrong again? Now I see why Universities won't use Wikipedia as a reputable source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.252.72 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted permanently?
I think it's To whom it may concern,

I'm admittedly fairly inexperienced to wikipedia, I have donated on several occasions but haven't posted anything to wikipedia in a few years, no problems back then, having a few challenges this time: Trying to figure out how to get retrieve the article about Rich_Internet_Experience back, why it doesn't show under "my contributions", why no response from DragonflySixtyseven

* 21:42, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎ (→Why did you delete page: Rich_Internet_Experience) * 21:42, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎ (Request to undelete)

brief history: Dragonfly had marked it as an sounding too advertisment like, I updated to be more factual vs concentrating on features.

Kind regards, Charles

Havranekc (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left DragonflySixtyseven a note asking him to come and comment here...if he hasn't said anything in a few days, you might want to start a new section at the bottom of his talk page (by clicking the "add comment" link at the top)...when you're there, remember to sign your posts with ~ . I'm sorry I can't help more; as a non-admin, I can't see the contents of a deleted page. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rich Internet Experience was deleted by as a violation of criteria for deletion #11 - that is, that it read like an advertisement (aka, what we call spam here on wikipedia).  In addition, from looking at what was there, the page did not come up to our minumum threshold of notability, a key requirement for all articles on wikipedia.  Might I suggest that, rather than starting right in with a new article, you spend some time just editing here on wikipedia.  It would give you a chance to learn your way around a bit more before you write your first article. Pastordavid (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fred Durst article/74.137.85.53
User 74.137.85.53 is censoring the article, removing key references to terms such as "Get Naked" and "Nookie," even though the latter is the name of a song by the performer. He/she has also changed "Sex tape" to "tape" and modified URLs so they do not appear valid.

There is profanity in the article, however it is in the context of a quotation. What is the policy of including profanity when it is a quote by another person? Should this article be censored?Sottolacqua (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, so no, there's no need to censor the quotes, or any of the other things that the IP is doing at Fred Durst. I've left a note to that effect; if it happens again, just revert and, if the IP is persistent, report it to WP:AIV. I'll watchlist it myself, and keep an eye out. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

freemason entry
Apparently Hi,

I believe that the freemasonary entry is biased towards freemasonary. In particular the critism section seems to marginalise all critism as being either religious, political or a conspiricy theory. The political critisms are further marginalised as communist. All scandals are characterized as hoaxes and scandals.

The fact that it is a secret society does mean that it may be used to further the interests of its members in getting jobs and contracts etc. This forms the basis of the critism and it should appear in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.145.98 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's bad if a "secret society" helps its members get jobs or contracts? That's very interesting; perhaps we should change this to reflect that too.  If you're very sure there's a point of view problem, you can report it here.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Újpest FC
Evidently Hi there,

Please help me out with Újpest FC page. On the bottom of the page at the template areas there is a break row between Template:Újpest FC and Template:Soproni Liga. However if you check, both templates are okay by itself or everywhere else. Do you have any ideas on why it is like this? Thank you, --gabute (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They look alright to me; maybe it's just your browser rendering funny or something. I purged the page to see if that helps anything.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Preview" in Edit function
(1) I noticed a sentence in an article where adding "not" would obviously (to me) clarify the intended meaning.

(2) I clicked on the "edit" tab, and tried to follow instructions.

(3) While I have had a Wikipedia account for at least a year, I had to go through the process of setting a new password before I could log in.

(4) After logging in I could not find any way to create a temporary copy, but I did see the request to "preview" my edits, so I went looking for how to do that. Somewhere in the morass of instructions I saw a note to the effect that there is a "Preview Button Below the edit box" -- but I see no such button anywhere.

IN OTHER WORDS, I'M TRYING TO JOIN IN THE PROCESS, AND AS I HAVE FOUND OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN, EVERY TIME I TRY, I END UP IN A BLIND ALLEY!!!

Reichart (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Show preview" button is right beside the "Save page" button you pressed to make your above entry. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

HELP WITH A SITE AND FOR A ROOKIED.E.SANGREVALE 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I REALIZED THAT I WAS PROMOTING MY WIFES BOOK TOO MUCH, BUT I STILL WANTED TO SHOW THE WORLD WHAT INFORMATION SHE HAS FROM HER LIFE STORY.

PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS, AND IF I AM UNABLE TO, THANKS FOR YOUR DIRECTION!

THANKS

D.E.SANGREVALE —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.E.SANGREVALE (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of article
I spent 30 minutes today writing out a corrected article for the "Buster from Chicago" story. Seemed okay when I looked at it. Returned later. The corrected article wasn't there ! Just the flawed old article. I was told by you guys subsequently that I should have done this and that. Advice that wasn't available before I spent half an hour writing the correction for nothing. I know of other people who've had a similar problem with correcting a Wikipedia article. Most didn't try again. Anyhow, I'll post the corrected version (with full sources) on relevant internet websites - where it can be read without any hassle and doesn't get taken down. I should add that the "Buster from Chicago" story that's still up there at Wikipedia is very outdated and misleading, and recent research has made it obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukthesis1 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ... As I pointed out above, you're more than welcome to *edit* the article that we have already, instead of replacing it wholesale with your own work, which was not written in an encyclopedic manner and wiped out the work that other editors had done on that article. Feel free to correct and add to the existing article, that's not an issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "Buster from Chicago" article is almost wholly wrong. It's over 90 percent in error. So rather than spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to salvage from it the bit that's right, its better to start from scratch and replace it. To repeat the earlier point - the article you have up there is misleading in the extreme, and needs to be totally rewritten in the light of new research findings.


 * The talk page is the best place to bring this up. I realise that it's frustrating to be reverted without discussion, but that can cut both ways. btw, I've reinstated the text immediately below here that you, no boubt inadvertently, removed when you added your last comment. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove block from the article
I recently started to create a page in memory of renowned astrophysicist of Estonia Izold Pustylnik. It was my first attempt to publish an article according to General Help. This article is about a real person (http://www.aai.ee/~izold/index1.html). I made a mistake trying to publish it immediately. The article name is "Izold Pustylnik".

Please remove block from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moiseyo (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Moiseyo - Sorry that you seem to be getting caught by our super-efficient New Article Patrollers before you have a chance to get much done on this article. I see you have a sandbox page already started, which is the perfect place for you to build the article until there is sufficient information to add it to the main space.  On your own talk page, I am going to put some information with links for you that will help you build your first article.  I hope this helps. Welcome to Wikipedia.  Risker (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

edit war on "History of Pizza" page.
Hi. I wonder if someone experienced in the workings of Wikipedia can help with this. 2 words keep being reverted on the "History of Pizza" article by 97.92.40.152. I have tried to discuss this on the the discussion page under the heading "Origins Section Again" but this editor continues to change the words without comment. I feel I have given good reasons for using the particular words I have and have requested that if anyone wants to change those words, they should explain their reasons on the discussion page for doing so. Could someone look into this and take the appropriate action? Many thanks Shoebill2 (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of edits and added some Talk discussion. By and large I agree with the anonymous editor, who favors "mankind" over "humankind", and "flavorful" over "flavoursome".  I substituted "civilization" as compromise, and restored "flavorful".  JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Help to block user
Hi. Can you please help me to find a way to block a user who a) undoes everything I change on a page even though my changes are relevant, b) has registered on Wiki with a name close to mine to mock me, and c) writes both under his new name and a anonymous one with only his ip address showing. The page concerned is "Ann Scott" (french writer), the name of the vandal is Olaf150 and his ip address is 62.64.210.19 Thank you in advance. Olaf750 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf750 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing Sources
I just submitted an improvement to the existing Noise Temperature article. I followed the guidelines on Wikipedia for citing sources, but there is still a banner at the top of my article that says "this article does not cite any sources." What should I do?

--EEDave (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Take the banner off, perhaps? WP:Be bold. Make sure you have in-text citations -- that means footnotes or parenthetical citing. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 05:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the banner. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I´d like to post an article about a dotcom
I know that there are several dotcoms published in wikipedia, and I can only imagine that it´s because those companies are known and therefore deserve to be listed.

As such, the company I intend to talk about it´s fairly known in several countries: just google for "Kviar" and you´ll find countless newspaper articles in several languages about its doings.

Still, I do not want to seem that I´m spamming or anything like that, so first I´m kindly asking the administrators to first check to see if it´s ok before I send a first draft (of course, you are free to also check if the text I send is not biased and all)

Thank you for your kind support

Al Costa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.247.166 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to review the article for you if you post it at my talk page. -- Naerii  23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Links within a Page
What is the proper syntax to use to create a link within a page? That is, say I write a paragraph at the top of a page and want to make reference and provide a link to a subheading near the bottom of the page. In straight HTML, I would insert a link with a code reference something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software#External_links

How do I do the same think on a Wikipedia page?

For a more specific reference to what I am attempting, please see the page where I am trying to do this -- I added some text to the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software and at the end of the first paragraph under "Subarticles" added a link to the "External Links" heading at the bottom of the page. I'm not certain I used the correct syntax for this operation, however.

Please advise.

Thanks,

-Danny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweiss (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's essentially the same anchor notation. See this diff - and relish the irony that your objective can be achieved in wiki-markup while diffs cannot! Seriously, however, much of that family of articles appears to be original research rather than encyclopaedic content; the latter is based on reliable sources and can be verified against its sources. That makes it vulnerable to deletion and I'd hate to see you put hours more work into the page, only for it to vanish. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Article:Anencephaly lifted from another website
Hi,

The article Anencephaly is, for most of it, identical to the information found on the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke website.

The site is cited specifically in the text in the body of the article, but the introduction is not cited, even though it is the most intact piece of writing lifted from the NINDS site.

I haven't flag this because I'm not sure if this is a copyright infringement or just poorly sourced. I would've thought that to submit something to wikipedia, it would at least have to be rewritten in the words of an editor, rather than word-for-word from another website, even if that website is authoritative. I'm not sure however, and I've had trouble clarifying this on my own.

The details of what I'm talking about is here on the talk page.

Since I brought this up in the talk, there has been some editing. However the introductory paragraph remains the same.

Does this warrant a plagiarism flag?

- and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a copyright violation, since the NINDS website states: "All NINDS-prepared information is in the public domain and may be freely copied. Credit to the NINDS or the NIH is appreciated." So, we're certainly in the clear copyright-wise. However, you are correct that we still do not plagiarize, and the information should be properly sourced, and direct quotes marked as such. You're welcome to do so, of course. If you're unclear on how to do that, just ask, and thanks for bringing it up! Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I will be able to do so. I'm glad to have verification on this and will remember it for future notice.   I'll let you know if I need assistance.  Thanks again.  - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Contents/Categorical index
Can someone please sort this page - mayeb it's just my browser, but the page is now two screens width wide - which makes using it less than friendly. Also, about half way down, is something about a Chinese dynasty - just lurking there with no apparent connection to anything. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well spotted it had been a format error since March. The template takes input from all the related templates and one of them had been vandalised giving three horizontal screens. It definitely wasn't your browser. Thanks -- EhsanQ (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian surname categories
Category:Indian family names and Category:Indian surnames are (for some reason) sub-categories of each other... CultureDrone (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Politics, religion, caste, region. There really should be a simpler way. South Asia is pobably more diversified than anywhere else on earth. There are 1.2billion people sharing a handful of nations, with modern India at its centre. Thousands of languages, with English being one of the most cross-spoken between all of them.


 * Surnames, family names, caste names all play a part in a very very rich history. Simplicity can only offend in this circumstance. Let Wikipedia get on and add as many categories (and a few more) to articles about an important part of the world. If they intersect why not? -- EhsanQ (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment post resolution I wasn't commenting on the number or validity of categories, merely that you have two categories both of which are sub-categories of each other - this doesn't make sense. That's saying that 'A' forms part of 'B', but 'B' also forms part of 'A'.... CultureDrone (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, "A" forms part of "B" because it comes before and "B" forms part of "A" because some 'family' names choose not to be listed there. -- EhsanQ (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost archives Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky)
The article New Chronology (Fomenko)) was recently renamed to New Chronology (Fomenko-Nosovsky). About that time the link to the talk page Archives went red. Could an admin please fix this problem.  Thanks SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. No need for admin intervention ;-) — Dorvaq (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Highbridge Community Life Center
I recently posted an article named above and it was deleted. Where is the best information to give me guidance so I can post it successfully. Hclc979 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC) HCLC979


 * Hello, I just added a welcome to your talk page, at User talk:Hclc979. If you follow the links there and read some of our introductions, you'll get a good sense of what's needed. Your article was deleted because it didn't show why the subject was notable. You can address that by referencing a couple of reliable third-party publications that cover the subject in detail. Good luck! --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reader not user reporting vandalism
The article entitled Al Sharpton appears to have been vandalized. I am not a 'user' and have no clue as to how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.4.197 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was undone by an editor. Next time, read WP:REVERT and do it yourself! :) Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls
I would appreciate some third-party intervention on this. I've never been so angry as I am right now over this user's comments to me on his talk page regarding what I believe to be a clear-cut speedy. Any help would be appreciated since I really don't want to get in a 3RR or worse over this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. DarkFalls was correct here; the article clearly meets the criteria where CSD is no longer applicable. He was frustrated because your comments went against CSD, and you edit warred your incorrect viewpoint. If you don't think the article is notable enough for an article, AfD it. But in the meantime, please don't revert improvements of the article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. It wasn't what he did but how he did it. I spend way too much time in the trenches here and I don't feel that I deserved threats and plain incivility. If I bit a newbie, I apologize, but my actions were both clear and polite. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi PMDrive1061. I think the tension has already eased, and I don't want to add to it but I did want to say that I have to agree that the underlying article is patently not within the ambit of CSD A7. Articles do not need to show notability to avoid A7, nor does any investigation and posting of any evidence of lack of notability ever convert an article into a proper A7. To avoid speedy deletion on this criterion, an article needs only to indicate importance or significance. This is a much lower standard than proving notability.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, a source has now been added to the article, and there's potential for more, so it could probably survive AfD. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca Sealfon Article
Hi,

I'm not a regular contributor to wikipedia, so I'm not sure that I'm posting this in the right place, but I have serious concerns with the article on Rebecca Sealfon. The paragraph describing her work in evolutionary biology at Duke and her contributions to local debates about intelligent design are just plain false. There is no citation given for these comments and, as a researcher at Duke, I can tell you that those comments simply aren't true. Can someone please remove those comments, or I will do it myself.

--David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.41.155 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi David. The standard at Wikipedia is that unsourced content that is disputed can and should be removed and the burden is on the person wishing to include the content to verify the disputed content with reliable sources. Please see our policy called verifiability. Thus, you would be operating well within our standards to remove the content. However, I will go take a look right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just checked. A person (I assume you or someone you know) has removed the content. As you noted, there was no citation so this was proper.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a good source?
can anyone tell me how well this Technocracy Fonds Finding Aid would rate as a source, to me it looks to be good other than a small chunk that is referenced to an old article here, which im not going to use, it looks to be derived from reliable sources and created by a reliable organisation

thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs)
 * Not that this is the wrong place for your question, but there is a dedicated noticeboard that deals specifically with these issues: Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok Thx --Firebladed (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Perkins -- Photos
I have treid to figure out how to upload photos of Wayne Perkins for his Wikipedia entry. The photos that are to be used are provided by him for the purpose of completing & correcting internet info & listings such as what is shown on Wikipedia. Wayne Perkins has asked me to do this & if you need to verify, I am sure he would be willing to talk to someone there who can help get these things corrected. Also, weblinks will need to be corrected. I have treid & your spam-bot keeps removing Wayne Perkins' own personal homepage as well as other links for Wayne. Please provide instruction on how to upload these photos & links that he would like to have on his page Thanks WaynePerkins (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's quite a task you've set yourself. Your questions cover a wide range of topics, so this will be a longer answer than you might have expected.
 * First off, I'll add a welcome message to your talk page, which includes some good basic reading on how Wikipedia operates, and what we expect of ourselves when we're adding material. Some of it might seem a bit dull, but if you can stick with it then it'll greatly improve your chances of making your edits stick. There's another message already there, placed by the robot that removed your external links, and it specifies that myspace was the problem. You ought to be able to add wayneperkins.com by itself without too much trouble, but myspace links will usually get removed.
 * Photos are a bit more complex. Take a look at WP:IMAGE first, and in this case I think one photo will be enough.
 * Finally, please think about whether another username might work for you. We have yet anopther policy, on conflict of interest, which in this case would say that a person shouldn't edit the page about him- or herself. Some of your posts indicate that you're not Wayne Perkins, so editing under this name will be confusing for others and will weaken your case for making changes. You can request to change your username at WP:RENAME.
 * Sorry for the lecture! Please feel free to leave another message here, or at my talk page, idf I can help explain any of this or of you have any questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie interview
How can I insert a link to the transcript of Salman Rushdie interview on his protected page? It is at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/stories/2008/2227428.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.50.109 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 May 2008
 * If you create a an ID at New Accounts, you can edit any article. I quite like him using the Internet to source Akbar the Great (wonder if he glanced at Wikipedia now and again? Good luck and kind regards. -- EhsanQ (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to vandalize this article but then I thought I should ask.
Meiji Seika

The last 75% of the article makes no sense. I was going to wipe it out but then I thought I should ask before doing such vandalism.

Please advise and do the vandalism yourself if you agree with me. JerryVanF (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Or should we create a new article. JerryVanF (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * sorted a stub template was vandalised and added extra text. EhsanQ (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm Only A Woman
This article definately needs to go as it's a short story written by the WP editor. However, I can't find anything immediately obvious to use for a speedy delete - apart perhaps from G2 (test page) - so does it really have to go to prod ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say it'll need a prod; neither G2 nor G1 are quite right. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My first reaction was "no assertion of notability" but that doesn't apply to fiction. I also noticed that the author has racked up some warnings for disruption; I searched for evidence that it might be a copyvio but couldn't find any online. Long story short: I've nominated it for deletion. Any admin may close that discussion early per WP:SNOWBALL.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)