Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 48

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Greetings. We need additional editors to help at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The article has been damaged by a group of single purpose and sock puppet accounts. A small number of editors have been trying to repair the article, but we need more editors to help establish consensus. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 10:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested previously that WP:ARB9/11 be applied to continued edit warring over the article's contents. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all been tried, but to make it work, we need more editors to be involved, otherwise there is no consensus. The disruptive accounts have been trying to drive off reasonable editors, and they have been partially successful.  If more editors watch the page, this will help counteract any problems. Jehochman Talk 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me join Jehochman in the call for more attention, and more practical involvement, in the editing of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and other articles related to the September 11 attacks. My view of the problems is somewhat different from Jehochman's, but I fully agree that a difficult editing process tends to discourage editors, especially those who want to discuss things in a constructive way. As with probably all articles, the talk pages contain relevant information on the editing process, and in this case, on the substance of the disagreements between the involved editors. --Cs32en (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on Noah's Ark
Full protection just expired, so it might be premature to say anything about status. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What can I do concerning an article that is patrolled by a small handful of people who revert every edit done on that page (they never contribute, they only revert)? They delete everything and then charge me with being involved in an edit war. I placed one sentence describing a minority view. Backed it up with credible sources, including Time magazine supporting that this view was reputable. They delete, delete, delete and send me vandalism notices. Thanks for your help! Blahzzz (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like you've already participated in discussion at Talk:Noah's Ark, which hasn't resolve in your favor. In any case, the wrong thing to do is to keep reverting while discussion is ongoing. You aren't performing vandalism, but you are edit warring, and are close to violating WP:3RR. As to where to escalate the discussion, you've come to the right place. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, one of the edtiors reverting is I believe a major contributor, none of them 'revert every edit'. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe that waht you claim is true, see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD to have a better understanding of how things work on Wikipedia. If it was, instead, an attempt to mislead others about what's really going on there, it obviously won't work. Either way, you won't get anywhere by insisting that you have to have what you want the way you want it in an article when lots of others edit it too. If you want complete control over your writing you should get a blog. DreamGuy (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Minnesota women's ice hockey
Can someone look over this page for me? It would be greatly appriciated!

Che bella giornata (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Che_Bella_Giornata


 * Seems OK. Did you have a particular question? --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're just looking for a general look-over, or advice on where to take the article, I think you might find WikiProject Ice Hockey helpful. As I assume this is your first article, if you haven't already, you might want to read "Your First Article" which gives some good advice. I've also posted a welcome template to your user talk page with some additional helpful links. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I Am A Lonesome Hobo
“I Am A Lonesome Hobo” is a song written and recorded by Bob Dylan, released in 1967 on his 8th studio album, John Wesley Harding. The lyrics to “I Am A Lonesome Hobo” [1], where a man openly admits to being a hobo having “tried my hand at bribery, Blackmail and deceit,” yet has “served time for ev’rything ‘cept beggin’ on the street.” Dylan style often leans towards writing ballads where he allows his listeners to get inside the minds of social outcasts, a perspective that every day people may overlook or misunderstand, and through these stories society can relate to and learn from people that are typically socially rejected. This “hobo” has seen it all, once being an affluent yet selfish man unable to trust anybody. As the song reaches its final verse, the hobo offers advice to the common people, asking them to, “stay free from petty jealousies, live by no man’s code, and hold your judgment for yourself lest you wind up on this road.” This man’s warning before his departure holds true to the writing style that Dylan approaches with the ending of many of his songs, offering a story about someone’s reality and ending it with his personal take on the matter introduced. [2]The song also features some of Dylan’s most controlled singing, most likely a rhetorical decision on his part for a hobo would typically be known as a mumbling nobody, yet Dylan almost seems to put this character on a level socially where no one would typically place a vagabond. Looking at the time in which John Wesley Harding was released, some may argue that the songs on the album may have been a reflection of Dylan's life at the time. Having become such an idolized figure in the 1960s counterculture revolution, Dylan's work was closely scrutinized by his fans as he sang of morally unjust occurrences of the era. When Dylan went electric in 1965, his previous fans who nearly religiously worshiped his ability to write songs found him to be a sellout to the mainstream rock n roll and rejected his decision to do so. The following year Dylan was in a motorcycle accident in Woodstock, New York, leading to his decision to go subterranean for the mean time. John Wesley Harding, being the first released album by Dylan since his accident, strayed away from his earlier work on Blonde On Blonde. The lyrics to I Am A Lonesome Hobo could have been relating to Dylan's emotion about his fans feeling betrayed by the turn in his musical approach, leaving him feeling like an artist that no one could possibly relate to. He ends the song telling his listeners not to judge anything unless they themselves have been on a similar road, and of course, they could not relate to being a popular artist and the pressures that come along with it. ^ tells the typical riches to rags tradition ^ The song also features some of Dylan’s most controlled singing http://www.western.edu/faculty/bking/ssna/shows/10.html Keys To The Rain: The Definitive Bob Dylan Encyclopedia By Oliver Trager

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.27.213 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You added this to the article, and another editor removed the paragraph "Some may argue..." probably because it's unsourced and opinion. How else can we help? --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Collapsed copy-pasted article for brevity. I think this is one of those cases where we'd use an "unclear" template. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will note that the article reads a lot like an essay; I've tagged it accordingly after doing some minor cleanup and WP:MOS conformance. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Trouble finding somewhere to post article
I am currently wanting to post an article about Sunnyside Cottages in Grandlake, Colorado. I don't exactly know where to put my article and would love some advice on a proper place to put it. Thank you.

Boarderbum18 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Brandi J.Boarderbum18 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of article? What are they, and why are they notable enough to have an article about them in an encyclopedia? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The most obvious thing to do would be to post the article at Sunnyside Cottages. That said, you probably will want to read "Your First Article" before going through with making one. Not to sound pessimistic or unkind, but judging from the content you put in Grand Lake (Colorado), you shouldn't be surprised to find such an article deleted, perhaps speedily. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always draft up your proposed article in your own user space, for example at UserBoarderbum18/Sunnyside Cottages. Then ask for advice at WP:Drawing board as to whether it meets the standard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaves band
Hi there,

I'm a member of Leaves and I'm trying to update the bands history. It always gets changed. I do have references but they are not links, would it help if I used them?

The information I was trying to put up was of the same sort as other bands pages I looked at so I don't really see why mine always get edited.

I hope this can be resolved.

Regards,

Hallur Már HallssonLaufskálinn (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's because you're not citing any references. We don't really know if editors are who they claim to be. The only sure way to check the validity of content is to show references. Please see WP:RS. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you need to cite references for the content you're putting in. There's one or two other minor issues with your edits, but the big one is lack of references. And of course, by references, we mean published references, preferably third-party ones.
 * On that note, I'd just like to kind of remind you of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which gives advice on editing articles about subjects with which you're associated... in this case, you're editing the article on a band of which you're a member. While this isn't forbidden, it can cause trouble as some editors assume that because they're closely connected with a subject, they have the best possible insight for writing an article. Those same editors may act almost as though they own or have full creative control over the article, which they do not. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium
Short and Sweet: Just want a second opinion on my edit of Depleted Uranium. I posted to the talk page before making the edit to shorten the introduction and got the go ahead to make the change. Change made and now another editor made the claim it violates WP:LEAD but more importantly: he reverted my edit's anonymously on the basis that I have made "slanted ideological edits" before. That's obviously false but I digress. The assumption of good faith has it's limits, and I'm about to give this guy an eSlap. The entire thing smells fishy and fake but all I'm really asking for is a review of my edit to see if it was fair and maybe some constructive criticism. -- $$\sim$$  ℗  papajohnin    ( talk )( ? )  05:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am concerned because Papajohnin says on Talk:Depleted uranium that he "left the specific health concerns in clearly and provided general context for the health concerns" but in fact he has been deleting all mention of any specific health concerns from the introduction of that article, against WP:LEAD's direction to summarize the controversy. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for this, since the article has been fairly stable for the past year or two with the discussion of specific effects in the introduction. I am not sure what he means by "I'm about to give this guy an eSlap" but that doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. Please see the talk section linked. 207.62.246.65 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a bio..
Hi, I'm a pretty experienced photographer from California. I've traveled to most of the islands of Hawaii, the Fanning islands (Republic of the Kirabati) and Mexico for some of my shoots. I shoot under various motifs and Have made many magazine cover as well as being a published author in photography and have a few books out. My question is, could I be aloud to put my bio on here? I also raise funds for charities and belong to the PSA. I would love to be able to add my experiences to wikipedia. I'd also like a basic rundown of the do's and don't because I don't want to get in trouble with the editors. Thank you for any help... Johnnyswords. Oh, as well as the books on photography, I also have written some editorials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may already know that Wikipedia has certain guidelines for determining what subjects are sufficiently notable for inclusion, and in your case the appropriate guideline would be the one for creative professionals (see WP:CREATIVE). A good rule of thumb, and our most basic guideline for notability, is that if you have "received significant coverage in reliable sources" that are independent of you, then you might be considered sufficiently notable to have an article on yourself (see WP:GNG, which explains the specifics of this). A good example would be if there have been at least two magazine or newspaper articles which focus largely or entirely on your work, or at least two books which discuss you or your work in a substantial manner (or any combination thereof); either of which should have been authored by someone unconnected to you.
 * That said, it's important to keep Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines in mind (see WP:COI) if you intended to write or edit that article yourself. As you may have gathered from other requests on this page, while it isn't expressly forbidden for you to write or edit an article on yourself, it's frowned upon by the community at large because editors can be very protective of articles to which they are closely related (e.g., removing content critical of the subject or enforcing a specific verbiage). I don't mean to suggest you'll behave in that manner, but it is enough of a problem that it merits preemptively informing you.
 * While I understand that this doesn't directly answer your question, I do hope it helps explain things somewhat. Please leave a response here if you have further questions or would like a deeper look into this specific request. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should think the way to do it is to write the article in your own userspace, here: User:Johnnyswords/Johnny Swords. Take your time, make it look good, and include plenty of reliable sources. When you have a complete draft in your own userspace, post again here and ask for comment.  When and if editors here concur that it's ready, ask an experienced editor to move the material into the Wikipedia mainspace, to avoid conflict of interest problems.  If you need any help with formatting the article while writing it, please do feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your own talk page.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'll gather outside references and write it in notepad, then place it in my practice area for editor approval. I Have news paper articles and cover photos, would these be appropriate references? Johnnyswords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles are generally good references, yes. See WP:CITE for tips on how to lay out the reference. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are about you, rather than by you, yes. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aristotle#Ayn_Rand
I think that it should be mentioned in Aristotle that Ayn Rand claimed to be strongly influenced by Aristotle and she also claimed to an aristotelian. Two editors disagree with me. I ask for some external feedback.

You can read the disccusion here: Talk:Aristotle.

Thank you for your attention and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The key issue is person A has an interest in topic B: should person A be mentioned in the article that deals with B, where here A is Ayn Rand, and B is Aristotle/Aristoelianism/Aristotle's legacy. I say: no, never, unless there is something about A's interest that helps readers understand the subject matter of B.  If I understand them correctly,  Wareh says: maybe a few such As are good to include, but we need to have clear limits; and Randroide says: if A is notable, the such inclusions benefit the article on B, regardless of how many such inclusions there are.
 * I think Wareh's position is the top of a slippery slope whose end is Randroide's position, which in turn I believe would, if generally accepted as good policy, have a deeply pernicious effect of wikipedia.
 * I do think there is a way out in this case, without a battle over policy: if editing will can be found, an article perhaps titled Aristotle's impact on modern thought could be started, organised into three sections: pure reason, dealing with the impact of the Organon, the metaphysics and the rhetoric, practical reason, dealing with ethics, politics, &c, and science, dealing with what happened to the Aristotelian scientific tradition. I understand that Rand says that her philosophy of rationality was founded on Aristotle's Organon: this I think would make her relevant to the section on pure reason. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Chalst. Could you please present your ideas at Talk:Aristotle. I think it is better to have our debate in one place.


 * Meanwhile, I shall take the liberty of pasting your block of text (and my reply) there for the sake of continuity. Please feel free to paste my blocks of text here if for whatever reason I ignore you think that the discussion should be also here Randroide (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Will to Power (band)
Hello, I'm hoping somebody can help me with something I've gotten myself snagged into. The musical group Will to Power had a few dance-pop hits in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including a medley of "Baby I Love Your Way" and "Free Bird", which hit #1 on the US pop chart. Before I ever edited that page there had been an ongoing campaign that seems to try and discredit and disparage a former of the group, Suzi Carr. The talk page for the group's article is full of one or two editors screaming in all caps about how untalented Carr is, how she made few contributions to the group, etc. The editors are a few anonymous IP addresses, AKAThe Beast and the newest one, GLOBALCREATOR. I edited the article last summer and added a referenced sentence from a book I own, The Billboard Book of #1 Hits, that indicated a bit about Carr's role in the group. This sentence has been trimmed to omit the reference to her over five times since then, and I've re-added it repeatedly, most recently about an hour ago. GLOBALCREATOR just took it out again. I tried being polite to the original editor, AKA The Beast, leaving a "welcome to Wikipedia" tag on their talk page and answering a question politely. My hunch is that the two users are the same person and that this is a vendetta against Carr, somebody I have never met, although to them I would be considered one of her "cronies".

I wasn't very civil this last time I re-added the sentence and I took it a step further, calling out some of the blatantly pro-Bob Rosenberg info (somebody else I've never met) and trying to trim out what I called "fancruft". I feel like I wish I had never bothered with this page, since I never really liked their music anyway, but now I guess I think if I just let it go then intentionally inaccurate information will be passed off for truth and believed. Maybe I'm putting to much importance onto what exists in Wikipedia, and I'm definitely feeling a bit better having vented some of this out, but I don't really know what to do. The majority of the article, if I can be blunt, reads like somebody was looking for something to do in between snorting lines of coke. One of the editors uploaded a picture of Carr that may have been just to show what she "really" looks like, because the comment mentions how it's not airbrushed like other pictures of her, but when that editor was asked to provide a fair-use license, the new user began editing the page. I just focused on one paragraph originally, and now I need advice. Thanks to whoever reads this, and I'm interested in an opinion from somebody outside of this. Thank you. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you attempted to discuss this on the article's talk page? That's the first thing to do in a content dispute like this. – ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well hmm. I dropped a note at 's user talk page asking him to use edit summaries, which seems to be an issue here. I will say however, the spot where you're adding the note about Carr isn't the best place. It seems kind of like you're dropping the first mention in mid-sentence. But let me say this; you've got to at least try to talk things out on the article's talk page. As much as the volunteers here would like to step in for every case, watchlist every article, help clean everything up... it's just not a possibility, and frankly what's needed on that article is a policy- and guideline-based consensus. You can take the first step towards establishing that by assuming good faith of the other editors and trying to start a discussion at Talk:Will to Power (band). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added what I hope is a thoughtful request to a new section on this talk page, although you have to scroll past a whole lot of Suzi Carr-bashing to get to it. I also invited the two editors I mentioned above to participate in a discussion on their respective talk pages here and here. Mendaliv, I hadn't thought about the possibility that I was burying that info inside a sentence, so thanks to you (and Ukexpat) for your input. I admit I am a bit worried about how this will turn out, but I'm willing to give it a go. I want to believe that something good will come from this, and I hope I didn't waste anybody's time on this forum, or post this where I shouldn't have. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it- that's why we volunteer here. Come on back here and drop a message if you need more help. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

<---I think I need some more advice (sorry!), and I don't think this is resolved. After starting a discussion on the talk page and inviting the two editors I mentioned above to participate, I got a helpful response from another editor, but nothing from the two in question. It's been a week, so I began doing the best I could to accurately and neutrally describe the early years of the group, up to and including the first album, with specific references. I wound up using the book I have often (but not exclusively), because it gives a descriptive account of these years, but this is the one that kept getting deleted before (because it mentions Suzi Carr, I'm guessing). A major edit that I made in good faith was undone by GLOBALCREATOR with no edit summary besides the default, so I asked the user on their talk page to let me know why. I stopped myself from undoing their undo's to my edits, because that seems to have "edit war" written all over it, and I don't want to go there. I'm suspicious of a COI with this, but I'd appreciate some advice on how to proceed. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I checked out the article, and it seems everything you tried to add was cited to reliable sources. I reverted globalcreators edits, and posted about six links in the middle of the talk page that verify most of what thebeast and global were trying to disprove. It doesn't appear that global is interested in discussion and you should probably present your case to ANI. D  rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  03:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, Drew, and for getting involved with this (I clicked each of the links you added on the talk page and you're right, it seems like discussion isn't a priority). I have no idea why this has turned into such a crusade on their part, or mine either for that matter, but I can tell that the level of bashing and denial is a bit disturbing, and I feel like I'm trying to stand up for somebody I don't even know. The little I know about ANI is that it's better to keep it short and to the point (a challenge for me), but I'll work on a condensed version of this and see what happens there. I'm grateful for your input. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggested thread for ANI:
 * User X and User Y have been reverting edits on article Z almost to the point of an edit war. Each time I changed the information added and used reliable sources. Users X and Y have gotten hostile and will not discuss changes but merely revert every legitimate edit on my part. User Z has stepped in from EAR and agrees with me and provided more sources. However, administrative action may be needed. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot at ANI, it made me a little nervous doing it but shining a light on it is the best way to hopefully reach a conclusion. I am certainly willing to acknowledge anything I did wrong, and the way I wrote the article doesn't have to be the way it reads forever. I admit to being a bit stubborn about this, but this woman did participate in some of the hit songs the group had and doesn't deserve such bitter hostility and/or animosity. Thanks again, Drew. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew R. Smith
Hi, I'm relatively new to wikipedia (under 2 weeks I believe). I have already created several articles, joined a wikiproject, and had one of my articles featured in the DYK section of the main page. My issue is that the wikiproject I joined, WP:AQF is nearly dead. I have taken many measures to revive it, and am doing a fairly good job. I even created a portal for the projet. However, there are still some thing that I just haven't had the opportunity to learn on my own, that need to be done. The newsletter for the project hasn't run since 2007, and I'd like to get a new one up and running. I can create the thing fairl easily on my own, but I'm having problems with delivery. Simply cutting and pasting the newsletter onto every users talkpage is exhausting. And my requests for bot assistance have been largely ignored. There are other parts of the project that I'd like some assistance with, but this is the biggest issue. I'm not asking for someone to do these things for me, but rather to collaborate with me and teach as we go. Thank you for your time.  D   rew   S    mith 02:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to suggest a solution for newsletter delivery, have you looked into using AWB? It can appear kind of daunting, but it's a great tool for making semi-automated edits. Basically, you'd have a page that keeps a list of participants, and feed that page into AWB, and then automatically append a new section with the newsletter to each user talk page. I'm really not sure what other projects to for delivery though... you'll want to look into that for when/if AQF grows significantly and semi-automated delivery isn't an option.
 * AWB is a solution from another perspective too; I don't know to what extent AQF puts a banner on related pages, but you can use AWB to quickly add such banners to related article talk pages. From there, you would hopefully get recruits from people reading related articles and having an interest in AQF articles.
 * Another piece of advice I'd give is to look to related WikiProjects and consult their coordinators, especially if it's a young project. You may be able to pick up some helpful hints. Otherwise, it looks like a lot of the infrastructure for the project is already there. I'd imagine a good way to get the project some attention would be to get a new FA and get it listed on the main page. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some projects have their newsletters delivered by a bot (WP:GM for example), as is the Signpost. Having said that, I am not sure how one makes a request for your newsletter to be delivered by bot, but I am sure one of the other regulars will. – ukexpat (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't know what measures you've tried, but you might ask an owner of any of Category:Newsletter delivery bots, or you could post a request at WP:BOTREQ. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already posted requests on the talk page of bot owners, and been ignored completely. I've also seen the WP:BOTREQ, but it sounds like they discourage requests for newsletter delivery and to talk to bot owners directly.  D   rew   S    mith 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try USer:Stepshep; I've always found him pretty responsive. Otherwise, go ahead and post at WP:BOTREQ, and somebody will come along and point you to an active bot that can help. Some of the bots have become inactive I think, and it's not always clear which ones they are. Don't worry, only a few of us WP:BITE! --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to remove POV words from Coming of Age in Samoa
Hi,

I'm having trouble removing some emotionally loaded words from the Coming of Age in Samoa article, but am meeting with resistance from one of the editors. Can some please take a look at the talk page and weigh in on the dispute?

Thank you!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would someone else like to have a look at Talk:Coming of Age in Samoa? It seems that both the editor who responded to my request and the editor with whom I am having the dispute are in full agreement that "purported" is an NPOV word, despite WP:Words to avoid.  Thanks in advance! Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed purpoted, though in my "neck of the woods" purported doesn't mean the same thing as wikipedias definition. But, after reading the "true" definition I changed the word to something (hopefully) more acceptable.  D   rew   S    mith 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you will find "claimed" on the list of words to avoid as well. "Purports to document" or "Claims to document" would only be appropriate if the film in question was a Mockumentary or if the interviews were faked somehow, which is not the case.  Webbbbbbber (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can another editor please check this out? Myself and a few others have generally agreed that the article is ok, but Webbbbbbber keeps saying its not ok. I went in neutral, but now I am very much entrenched in this discussion, and a fresh set of neutral eyes would be good. D  rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  21:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While we're debating definitions of words, are we all onboard with consensus being different to unanimity? Just wanted to check. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As in, consensus means generally agreed upon, and unanimous means everyone agrees? Yeah, I guess if thats what your asking...(scratches head.) D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, was just wondering if one editor was trying to claim that a single holdout was preventing a consensus emerging. I guess it's more evenly balanced than that. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I dropped a view at the article talk. Hope it helps out, though it isn't very specific... just gives some thoughts to consider. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Digger Trends Help
I am a first time Wikipedia user and I am trying to submit an article for my writing class. I chose a local band that I am familiar with, and enjoy greatly. I think they deserve a Wikipedia page because they are influencing the local music scene in Boulder, Co, and they are advancing the style of rock and roll to something truly original. I have submitted the article twice and it was deleted for reason A7 of speedy deletion. Any advice on how to make the article stay, or any advice in general would be much appreciated. The article is The Digger Trends. Hopefully you will be able to view the article from this link.

Keithpgleason (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)keithpgleason


 * The problem with the aritcle was that there was no evidence or assertion of notability (see the notability guideline and the inclusion guideline for bands). Most bands that have only ever played locally will not meet these inclusion guidelines, and their articles will as such be uniformly deleted from Wikipedia. As this is an enyclopedia, articles are supposed to be on noteworthy subjects; this is not the place to publicise an up and coming band. When it receives coverage from reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.), then it can have an article. Sorry to ruin your school project. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, if your school project was to write a Wikipedia article, and there are a number of students who have been specifically assigned to do so, please please refer your teacher or instructor to our page on school and university projects, which includes some very important information they should read before going forward with such an assignment. I've posted this notice to Keithpgleason's user talk page as well, as it's quite important. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

errors and omissions
Is there a way to point out errors and omissions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.50.15 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many readers become editors that way - this is the encyclopaedia you can edit! Or, you can click the "discussion" tab at the top of the article and mention your concerns there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you aren't comfortable doing that, even posting your concern here is appropriate. It's not the best way to do it, as response times here can be slower, but if it's a bad error, it's better than leaving it unnoticed. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)~
 * See also Contact us/Article problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

resolve speedy deletion attacks by another user
Please help. I created an article about Michel Vulpe and his achievements in the technology industry over the last 20 years, especially his patented i4i invention. Within hours, another user contested it and had it deleted. I also noticed that I can no longer find any references to Michel's company (i4i) on your site. Previously i4i was listed on your articles about drug labels and eCTD, which creates pharmaceutical labels using i4i's invention. Those references are now gone. I wrote a company description and a description of the invention which I intended to use to create pages but obviously this targeting for deletion issue needs to be resolved first or they may also be deleted as soon as post them.

The i4i invention is significant and noteworthy because it is unique, life-changing and patented (issued in 1998, filed in 1994) by the USPTO (who gave it a prestigious quality award after using it). Michel invented a revolutionary technology solution which creates functionality to make regular word processors function as XML editors. It is widely used, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Countless leading pharmaceutical companies have used i4i’s invention to create the pharmaceutical labels which monitor dosage, side effects, drug interactions, etc. The FDA awarded i4i a special commissioner’s citation for the invention's contribution to improving drug safety in the United States. Besides this singificant role, the i4i invention has also been used by govenrments, big and small companies, and such major institutions as US Social Security, the State of Ohio, NASA, US Marine Corps, Airbus, financial institutions, museums, libraries, and universities, to name a few.

Please help. This speedy deletion effort is unjustified. I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your assistance. Winter2009 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Winter2009


 * There doesn't seem to be any record of an article under that exact name, nor under i4i. Is there perhaps another spelling, or a character that might be accented? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, the i4i references keep getting deleted. It also seems I put a typo in the Michel vulpe post yesterday (small v by accident) but it has been deleted.  You can verify his achievements on google or his site, i4i.com or I can send you what I wrote.  Please advise.  Thank you for your help.
 * Winter2009 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Winter2009


 * Michel vulpe was deleted for being advertising or promotional. If there are sufficient sources to establish his notability, then you could try rewriting it with a neutral tone. It might be best to do that in your userspace, say at User:Winter2009/Michel Vulpe and then you can post here again and ask an assistant to look at it with you. Before any of that, though, you might like to read our advice on writing your first article.
 * As for i4i, there has never been a page here called i4i. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will take your advice, rewrite it and submit to an editor to get input. I had intended to create the i4i page to go with the links that were previously in the wiki pharma pages.  I will work on that page after  I rework the vulpe article.  Many thanks again for your help. --Winter2009


 * I have created a new draft article and I hope that an editor will help me make it appropriate for consideration for wikipedia. Please review at User:Winter2009/Michel Vulpe.  Thank you in advance for your help.  I look forward to your feedback.
 * Winter2009 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll want to add the references, I think. Adjectives such as "mission-critical" are usually seen as violations of our requirement for a neutral tone of voice. Some of the resume-like material ought to come out too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did an edit, added references and sources, and removed unecessary adjectives and resume-like material. Is it ok now? Thanks, --Winter2009  —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC).


 * I think it's very short of support for his notability. Gaining a patent is not usually sufficient. Please do read our standard for notability, and for people in particular. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the biased language in your current draft is simply unacceptable. Frankly, the draft as it is in your userspace is probably eligible for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement (though the community is generally less stringent when it comes to stuff in userspace). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

External links to FindAnyFilm.com
I have added a few external links from films listed on Wikipedia to the UK film availability website FindAnyFilm.com. These have all been removed by web editor Crotchety Old Man. I have attempted to ask for clarification from him on why links to FindAnyFilm.com are in breach of Wikipedia's policy, whereas links to Rotten Tomatoes or similar are not, but he has simply given curt and abrupt responses - the last implying that FindAnyFilm.com is breaking copyright which I can assure him it is not.

I would be grateful if another editor would provide me with a courteous and clear explanation as to what the difference is between links to Rotten Tomatoes; which provides an independent aggregation of review information and FindAnyFilm which provides an independent aggregation of availability information. User: DavidFilmFan DavidFilmFan (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was among the editors who removed the links to said site. The reasoning for this isn't related to copyright. It is to see whether the link actually provides significant information about the article's subject. FindAnyFilm.com is intended as a tool to watch, rent or purchase films and does not really provide any information about the film that isn't covered in the article or the commonly used external links such as IMDB. Leave  Sleaves  16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your courteous reply. The key information provided by FindAnyFilm which is not available from IMDB is the legal availability of the films in the UK on any format and on any platform - public service or commercial. This information is not aggregated anywhere else in the UK and FindAnyFilm is a key site in combatting film piracy - which is in the interests of all authors, actors, craftspeople and musicians involved in making films. I would be most grateful if you would reconsider allowing links to findanyfilm.com to be added to films described in Wikipedia - it would be in the interests of all those producers who would like their films viewed by a wide range of the UK audience - legally. User: DavidFilmFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.202.253 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in the earlier reply, it's not so much about legality of the website or its content but its relevance to the article. More specifically, how the link helps in broadening the knowledge of the reader as do IMDB or AMG (credits) and Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic (reviews). Leave  Sleaves  19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt reply. Providing accurate, up to date, legal availability information about films is of enormous relevance to those interested in films and gives them information that is not available in imdb, amg or Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I would draw parallels with the links, for example, in your entry for Greenwich. There you will find a link to streetmap.co.uk which gives accurate and up to date access information to Greenwich not contained in the article. Findanyfilm.com provides accurate, up to date and legal availability information for films in the UK. User: DavidFilmFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidFilmFan (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that it appears that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia which is an online encyclopedia. Film articles use reviews to show what the critical reception to a work was.  They do not link to aggregator sites where you can view or rent the film. Please see External links and WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines for futher information. Also, might I point out that if you wish to post on artcile or Wikipeadi talk pages, it is best to sign your post using four tildes or the sign button on the editing box. Signatures explains further

Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User was replied about my link being removed
I was trying to add a link in an article for Middle Earth the Wizards, and my link was told it was removed due to policies. Yet other links (for Stores and Trading) are still posted, and was wondering why i was removed and not them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridot65 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like your edit was appropriately reverted, and that there could be more cleaning out of links too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for coming here with your question. Please see the FAQ for the answer to your question (that link goes right to the section).  If that is not enough please ask your question again here.  Also, when you signed your post you didn't hit the "shift" button so instead of putting " ~ " you put "````"  Further questions?  Let me know!    Fl ee tf la me   00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

First Time Editor
I just created my first wikipedia article and at the top it says [This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout.]

I have added as many internal links as I think are relevant or appropriate, and I'm not sure how I can improve the layout. Could you give me some suggestions?

Thank you, 6jew (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered on the articles discussion page.  D   rew   S    mith 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure
Editor Popartpete has written a book about the 1984 fire at Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure and asked on my talk page here that I review his recent additions to the article. He and I have a history of conflict regarding the article and I'm not sure I could take a neutral view. Could someone please take a quick look at the changes? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I noticed a lot of problems with this one. First off, its not a real book. Its a short blurb about his conclusions posted on the internet posing as a book. This kind of thing should not be used as a reference. Second, he isnt even trying to use it as a reference, he is batantly puting an ad for his book in the article. Seeing as him writing a book about the fire as nothing to do with the actual haunted castle, it has no business being there anyway. Third, the part about his film should be removed as well. We do not publish original research, we do not advertise. Thats not the wikipedian way. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drew; without third party references that speak of his work, none of the stuff on Peter James Smith belongs. The stuff on the book is just gratuitous promotion though. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's been reverted by an IP, and this morning I received three rather unsettling e-mails from, over which I'm strongly considering reporting him to WP:ANI; in one he stated in no uncertain terms that he intends to edit war over this forever. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. We might consider semi-prot'n too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From his most recent e-mail, I'm a "DOUCHEBAG". I've written an ANI post on this. See WP:ANI &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And he's been indeffed as a result of those e-mails. Though considering he used an IP to revert before, we may expect a return. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

External links in navigation boxes
Template:Marcin Rozynek

Hi. Can someone have a look at Nibyja - a navigation box has been placed at the end which has a link to an external site - presumably a fan site. Is this allowed under WP guidelines ? Cheers. CultureDrone (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NAVBOX says the navbox should support navigation between articles; putting the guy's website in there seems rather promotional. I took it out. The whole family of articles is a bit borderline too; there are no refs at the page for the singer. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability/refs issue aside, it isn't unheard of to put an external link in a navigation template. If it's promotional, it should be removed for sure, however. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Back Of The Y Masterpiece Television
This page is filled with nonsense and some borderline personal attacks. At first I assumed this was complete nonsense and was going to prod it, but further review shows me that it is (or was) a real TV show. The problem is I can't tell which edits are real, and which aren't, and the vandalism is so frequent, old, and intermixed with real edits that it's hard to figure out what older version of the page to revert to. If someone else who has some time could go through this and try to revert all the vandalism, that would be a good idea. --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've performed a summary revert to a version that precedes much of the recent IP vandalism. I might have wiped off a few good edits and left a few bad ones, but it seems better now. I'll try to get back to this and review sources when I have more time. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked over the two possibly-good edits that you reverted; it looks like they just corrected things introduced by the bad edits. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution requested for Côte d'Or (brand)
Maybe not the most noteworthy article, but still...

The article in question is C%C3%B4te_d%27Or_(brand). On April 21 2009 I reverted an edit by User:Cocoaverification, who had added a paragraph about criticism considering unethical behavior by Côte d'Or (a chocolate brand) and it's mother company Kraft.

In my opinion, this paragraph violated NPOV, as it was not clear to me why Côte d'Or in particular was to blame for those unethical practices, as opposed to the chocolate industry in general. Also, the informationwas unsourced, and finally, seemed out of proportion, given that the rest of the Côte d'Or article is a stub.

User:Cocoaverification then put the paragraph back, slightly rewritten, providing some sources, which however were not useful (they were links to other WP articles that did not even mention Côte d'Or or Kraft). I then contacted Cocoaverification on his talk page and reverted his edit again, now for a 3rd time. I guess it's time for a second opinion.

- Minvogt (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * only has 8 edits to date and seems to be a single purpose account. Furthermore, that editor used Wikipedia as a source which is a definite no-no. ←  Spidern  →  18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have messaged both the editor's main account and his/her presumed IP. ←  Spidern  →  18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat
I've been working on the article Tablighi Jamaat and I want to know that is there a way that i can request a proper review of that article. Because I believe that there are section(s) that may need to be eliminated. Also i will write my concerns on the talk page. I just need some experienced chap to give it a proper read and re-rate that article and give some help/feedback so that i may continue without getting my edits reverted in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try a request for comment, at WP:RFC? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking at WikiProject Pakistan and the noticeboard for Bangladesh-related topics would probably be a good idea prior to doing an RfC. A peer review might be another route as well, though it won't get you direct assistance. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

hic sunt leones
There was an article titled hic sunt leones, latin for here are lions which used to be written on roman maps and there was a more contemporary meaning in the article as well. Anyway hic sunt leones has been deleted and referred to here be dragons page. please bring hic sunt leones back, It was a very interesting article, all be it short, and I haven't been successful in finding any of the information else where.

thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.57.21.14 (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The title is still there and you can see its history: just click on "history" in the links above. That said, there doesn't seem to be anything worth preserving there, so I don't see a good reason to "bring it back". --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New Contribution
hi there

Just want an opinion on a new and first contribution. if you view my user page user:Vyntr you will see the basic article. the thing is i don't have citation because this is my writing from an interview with the man in question himself. will this be a problem? as the inaugural member of a newly created seat in the western australian parliament i feel he should have a place in Wikipedia.

No, i am not him :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyntr (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be referenced from reliable sources. Please read that page to understand Wikipedias definition of reliable sources, e.g. books, newspaper articles, journals, etc. I am afraid that your interview does not count as a reliable source. What you have written so far is copied directly from {http://www.albertjacob.net/} and such copying is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia. Please see Copyright violations and remove it. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That userspace draft should probably be marked for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. It's a complete copyvio with no salvageable content. However, I can understand the desire to not BITE Vyntr. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a speedy deletion tag as per above. As yet no response to previous messages from User:Vyntr. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Vyntr has now been speedy deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hakan Yalincak
I am concerned that a long standing page, Hakan Yalincak, has recently been completely vandalized and redirected to Yalincak Hedge Fund Scam and two years worth of links, discussions, and content was deleted. Until the recent slate of edits, the page consisted of a useful biography, background on the fraud, the gifts, his education and current status. However, now, the content of the article has been manipulated and the only source cited for Hakan Yalincak or Yalincak Hedge Fund Scam is an article by new york magazine entitled Mommy's Little Conman that was sued and forced to issue a retraction on March 10, 2008. I have tried, in vain, to have the foregoiing issues discussed, however, the BLP and other discussions have resulted in several individuals, either using multiple screen names or user accounts or affiliated with various individuals mentioned in the article to edit and manipulate an article that has been standing for two years....it has been transformed into a libelous piece with no encyclopedic value. I recommend that the page be restored to the version it had as of April 18, 2009...prior to all of the edits.--Marymccully (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully

This matter has been discussed in detail at the BLP board and view of long-term editors was that the old version was unacceptable for BLP reasons and we stubbed it on this basis. Any editor expanding that article should ensure that they make use of quality reliable sources to support all content - unsourced or poorly sourced material added to that article will be removed on sight. Oh and people should be aware that, in my view, it is likely that the above editor is using multiple accounts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the discussion on the BLP board is that it has been hijacked by one man using multiple screen names and a review of the edits show that Cameron Scott's edits are identical to Yulin23 and various other "editors". There can be no consensus on expanding the article when the previous version, as of May 2007 to April 19, 2009, contained all of the links (articles) and other information on Hakan Yalincak, whereas the present article contains only one source: a magazine article by New York magazine which was sued and issued a retraction. So, the poorly sourced materials of which Cameron speaks is directly in the current version of the new redirected page. For purposes of this negotiation or dispute resolution, the fact that the presently cited article is defamatory can be verified by going to www.ctd.uscourts.gov and clicking on PACER. Once you log in you can download the docket sheet for Hakan Yalincak v. Steven Fishman, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00132 and checking out document numbers 95-97 (most notably the Notice of Settlement document). Again, the present version only cites a retracted article...and, in my view, replacing a long standing page (standing for 2 years) with a redirected page containing only one sentence and a retracted article as its source is unethical and against wiki policy because the page has been manipulated so much now that it has no encyclopedic value.--Marymccully (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully
 * I have now protected the redirect. The accusation that Cameron Scott is using multiple accounts is ridiculous. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah, slow down. One, when dealing with a living person, the rules and policies of wikipedia are very much tightened. Two, I read he article, discussion, BLP discussions, and edits by parties involved, and I see no evidence of sock puppetry. I may be wrong, and if I am take it up with the authorities. That being said, no more sock puppet accusations here. Three, it appears that all editors where in consensus to move the article. Marymccully appears to have come late to the discussion but brought valid points. The editors involved in the move apparently ignored everything she said. As of now, I am siding with no one. Yes, a consensus was reached, but ignoring someone's concerns is unacceptable. It appears that the original point of moving the article was to avoid problems with the BLP guidlines. I think, while slightly underhanded, it shouldn't offend any of the parties involved. As for cutting the article down, I'm not sure exactly why that was done. Just leave it the way it is, and discuss any possible changes on the talk page. Remember to use reliable sources, and remain neutral when editing. Just because someone wants to change a few words in a paragraph you created it isn't the end of the world. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLP discussion is still active, at WP:BLPN and that would be the appropriate place to bring any fresh info. The page was redirected because this person was only notable for one event. Under our policies and guidleines, especially WP:BLP1E, such cases are generally merged and redirected to the event for which they might be known. Otherwise, there's not sufficient notability to merit an article on the person. Nobody's done anything wrong here, just followed our process which might not be transparently clear to a relative newcomer. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Filmography section
user Shshshsh believe that a filmography section does not belong is an article about a film composer. He also removed template from dozens of films scored by that composer. He also is reverted work on my template: Sachin Dev Burman. He is absolutely mistaken about how this website works. Please help me make him understand he needs to stop vandalizing.Cosprings (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice English. OK this guy created a template with a selected filmography of one composer. His template included something like 50 films (maybe his favourite ones), while the composer composed over 270 films (!). Well this is definitely POV of the user, who is relatively new... Ohhh well.
 * I do appreciate his efforts. I really do, but he's just not established enough to understand what's permitted and what's not.
 * While adding the template, the user also removed other important templates such as stub sort tags.
 * And after all I vandalise... Well... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now let's all take it easy for a moment. First of all, Cosprings, vandalism, as defined on Wikipedia, refers only to deliberate efforts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. I do not believe that Shahid's efforts were in such a vein. Please assume good faith.
 * And, Shahid, a user's level of establishment has absolutely nothing to do with his or her ability to comprehend or properly understand Wikipedia polices and guidelines. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's got nothing to do with his establishment, it's just that he does not understand basic facts, and I tried to help him and trying to explain him how it works and why it's not acceptable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please take it easy. I'm not sure if you're intending to come off aggressively, but you are. (I misread what you wrote above... not seeing a period made a big difference) Cosprings has brought an issue here, appropriately using the dispute resolution process, and for that he/she should be thanked instead of insulted. We don't need to know that you think Cosprings' request is invalid- if you thought it were valid, Cosprings would not have felt it necessary to bring it here.
 * Anyway, it also seems that this issue has been brought up at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 by Cosprings, which isn't what we like to see at this board. And as this seems largely related to and, both of which are currently up for TfD, I don't know if this request thread is really necessary. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't start it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

hic sunt leones
can someone please bring back the hic sunt leones page?

thank you!

-aconstantwikiuser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed several posts above ↑ . – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Landon1980 Incivility/Personal Attacks
User:Landon1980 has been attacking me recently. The issue began with an editor who wanted to change a lead sentence for Thousand Foot Crutch to say they are Christian rock instead of just rock. Landon responded claiming that "When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there." Seen toward bottom of this thread. I responded that "I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence." I went on to say that I did agree with the other editor, but I would side with policy. Here's where Landon gets offensive.

Landon stated: "I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer."
 * 1) Describes my point of view in discussions as being consistent with a brick-wall.
 * 2) Insults my knowledge of Wikipedia policy/practices when I simply/politely asked for the policy he was claiming.
 * 3) Said I don't use common sense.
 * 4) Compares our discussion as beating a dead horse and pointless.
 * 5) Ends by implying he'd rather bang his foot with a hammer than have a valid conversation about article content with me.

I responded and told him that the comment was disrespectful and told him not to insult me again. I also left a comment on his talk page stating: "I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by categorizing my input and consensus in discussion about an article (which was entirely appropriate and polite). I honestly have NO PROBLEM at all adhering to any policy (whether it by spirit or letter of policy) that specifies to word the lead sentence a particular way. I do, however, object to you just blurting out that this is how we do it without any justification or grounds. Have a great day."

He then removed the comment from his user page, which I understand is allowed although not preferred. However, in the edit summary he insulted me again by writing "I would appreciate if you would learn how to read, and how to use a talk page."
 * 1) He implied that I do not know how to read (although I'm not sure what it is he was expecting me to have read).
 * 2) He also implied that I was incorrectly using the talk page, by warning him of his incivility. However, he has in the past used my talk page to warn me and falsely accuse me of incivility. (This was quite some time ago, and this complaint is not related to or in response to that event).

Also, he went on to respond to my comment on the Thousand Foot Crutch talk page by stating: "Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you."

There have been other, recent personal attack incidents involving Landon's hostility. They were filed in the wrong place and may or may not have been correct, but it might be beneficial to look at. This can be seen here.

None of this is helpful in fostering a hospitable environment for editors. It should be noted that Landon did go on to revert my edit without gaining consensus (the only two opinions other than his were mine and the editor who originally suggested changing the lead-in sentence). Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say, but I think you've posted this request in the wrong place. You may consider WP:WQA, as this appears to simply be a civility issue. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are requesting some sort of admin action such as a block, etc WP:ANI would be the appropriate place rather than here. I told you to learn how to use a talk page because you were (and still are) putting new threads at the top of the page above existing threads. Landon1980 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will post at one of those locations, but the civility page directed me here... Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

multiple issues-issue
Dear editor assistance/request,

This is in response to "The Political Simpleton". We have received multiple "issues" and feel it is un-warrented. This submission is completely legitamate and coplies with Wiki guidlines and surpasses many other entries listed within Wikipidia. We have made appropriate changes to comply and hope that this is not a campaign to oust a competitor (competing news aggregators). We are a "news aggregator" and fit the criteria as listed for Wikipidia.

As always, we would like to continue our relationship, and if you would, contact us if we need to further apease any future requirements of Wikipidia.

Thank you in advance,

Ray Wilkinson www.politicalsimpleton.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newportbreakers (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I would suggest updating "your" site. I checked it out, and on first glance it looked good. But it seems that all the articles are outdated. There was nothing on the swine flu. Second, get "your" site noted in a reliable source, or better yet alot of reliable sources. Reliable sources are defined here. Third, when you post here you need to say exactly what your problem is. Don't make us dig for it, because next time your liable to get someone who will simply post back; "?". That wouldn't solve much, would it? D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  11:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Political Simpleton has been speedy deleted by (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion).  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:AROBAZE.png|20px]] Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet.  The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email [mailto:oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org this address]. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to prevent an edit war.
I edit and keep track of all the WNBA related pages here on wikipedia. I do a good job and I spend lots of time doing it. If you would, please look at pages like Connecticut Sun, Detroit Shock, Los Angeles Sparks, Phoenix Mercury, etc. Look on the "season-by-season records" section. They all have a cluttered and unprofessional-looking table. I recently changed all the WNBA team pages to have tables similar to NBA tables. I know consistency is important on wiki. Recently, I changed the Utah Starzz season records table over to this new version. A certain member changed it back saying he "liked it better the other way." Another veteran wiki member came in and explained that consistency is important and that the tables should all be the same on similar pages. This prevents confusion. The difficult member changed it back saying something to the effect of "I can do what I want, and I like it my way." I wrote on this user's talk page saying that consistency is important and that on wiki, it really does not matter what an individual member prefers. He wrote back on mine saying not to tell him what to do.

This may seem like a trivial problem, but as I said, consistency in an encyclopedia like wiki is very important and I was hoping I could have your help in this issue. If you cannot help me, can you direct me to someone who can? Thank you. The difficult user's name is

Look at my contribs. PAGES AND PAGES of WNBA edits. I care about this league. I care about wiki. Together, I make the WNBA archive on wiki amazingly better than it was before.

Thanks, Nickv1025 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are doing the right thing in seeking a third party, but you may be looking in the wrong direction as all we can do is what has already been done. Explain things to the difficult user. It seems that this user is past the point of "talking down" from is position and administrative action may be needed. Perhaps ask for a topic ban for the person? No need to get a full ban if it's isolated to a single topic. Just check AN1 and see what they say. If they can't help come back here and I'll try to reason with him. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's WP:ANI - Administrators' incident noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  05:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships
Will anyone be interested in giving an Editor assistance in Ice Hockey World Championships article. Thank you Andreyx109 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume this is with regards to Talk:Ice Hockey World Championships, which appears to be quite complicated. Would you be able to provide a neutral summary of the dispute for those of us with the time and inclination to step in on such a case? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy disputes stunting article on Vorarephilia
The article on vorarephilia is a stub, and has remained that way for some time. The topic is difficult due to the paucity of reliable sources. However, facts appearing to have broad consensus are consistently removed by a small group of editors, as are all attempts to provide links to useful resources outside the article that match WP:EL criteria.

The group do not dispute the facts asserted by article contributors. Instead, having failed to remove the article itself, they delete all uncited information, regardless of evident truth, ease of non-expert verification, or consensus among those attempting to provide it. I could understand an insistence on references if the facts were in doubt, especially if the editors were subject experts, but this does not appear to be the case.

At least one user has attempted to "pull rank", threatening other users with the charge of "disruption". They claim a more thorough understanding of policy, while mixing up the concepts of "references" and "external links" by claiming that all external links must be to reliable sources. There is a sense among contributing editors that nothing will please this group. Prior comments suggest they feel the topic is "cruft", and oppose any expansion on those grounds.

I would like to find a way to moves the article beyond a dictionary definition which fails to cover significant portions of the topic. Ideally, substantive information could be be provided on the article itself. Failing that, we could at least give readers an idea of where to get it. I'm no expert, but I've heard of most of the sites floated on the talk page; they seem legitimate, if fan-oriented, and have been around for a while now. GreenReaper (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a tough situation. I will say that links to external wikis are usually not permitted per WP:ELNO #12, and links to fansites or collections thereof seem to fail WP:ELNO #11. If you want to make the case for an exception, I'd suggest taking it up at WT:EL.
 * I will say however that I consider it questionable that the other party involved in this dispute is an administrator and appears to have semi-protected the article while a dispute was ongoing. While I'm willing to assume good faith that said administrator's actions are for good reason, it's usually a better idea to seek an uninvolved admin to do such things.
 * At any rate, it would seem that few if any reliable sources exist regarding vore, and it's unlikely that any will emerge for the time being. All I can suggest is that if you're involved in some sort of vore community, the best thing you can do if your primary goal is to get a substantial Wikipedia article, is to encourage the community to come together and publish some sort of zine, which may eventually be considered reliable. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The underlying issue seems to be that Wikipedia's goal is verifiability, not truth or usefulness. I'm gonna recommend that they just take their ball and go make their own wiki and see how that goes. Worked for us! But it's a shame. GreenReaper (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've hit on a touchy issue, of course. Part of it is that some sources are reliable for some things, and not others. So, a website that publishes original vore artwork would be reliable for discussing the artist's thoughts while creating the artwork, but it would not be reliable for discussing the prevalence of vore in culture or for discussing the critical acclaim of that artwork. Similarly, blogs may be reliable for discussing the author's actions, date of birth and other non-controversial facts, but they are almost never acceptable for referencing opinions or anything beyond the blog author's personal life. If you look at the bigger picture, lowering Wikipedia's verifiability standards would in fact make it practically useless as an encyclopedia. While the side effect of this is a poor level of coverage for certain niche topics, which is unfortunate as it is these niche topics which so badly need expansion, without compromising coverage of everything else, we can't do anything.
 * That's not to say there's no room for small-scale exceptions; after all, we are broadly permitted to ignore all rules should they impinge our ability to write good encyclopedic content. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to post on a living person page
I am unable to add new entry on: Dr Connie Mariano I would like to add that her name was submitted for nomination by Sen Espero of Hawaii for the position of Surgeon General to President Obama. I have an online Press release from Hawaii Senate as a source. I tried twice to post & it does n't get posted. I have limited internet skills thxs for help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandangsora (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Tandangsora apparently added links to a website that's blacklisted by, though it might just be that the links got reverted because it's a Tripod.com-hosted website. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The text added about Mariano's nomination shouldn't be such a problem, provided that a source is cited too. I'm sure the news was reported in a reliable source somewhere. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I seem to have missed that; just saw that XLinkBot clobbered the edits. This is a sourcing matter indeed. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a RS and added the information and a reference section.Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkns
When you type the name of these two law firms into google, old archived Wikipedia pages on the firms comes up. When you click on the google page, it takes you to an old version of these pages. The most recent, properly edited version only comes up for them when you search once in Wikipedia. Can someone who knows how please correct this?

Here is the improper Kirkland Wikipedia page that google takes you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkland_&_Ellis It should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkland_%26_Ellis

Here is the improper Latham Wikipedia page that google takes you to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latham_&_Watkins It should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latham_%26_Watkins

Thanks,

207.237.23.183 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Jason
 * I'm not sure this is the right place for this request. I know, I for one don't know how to fix it. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for posting here. I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear on your question. Is it perhaps that Google's cached version of the page is not the current version? That's usually the case, for any page one finds through Google, because Google takes a "snapshot" of the page when they check on it, and then they don't replace that until their next pass, which might be a week or two later. I just Googled Kirkland, and the cached page says "Snapshot as of May 7" right on top.
 * The easiest solution is to click on the blue header in the Google results; that takes you to the current version.
 * If I've misread your question then please do come back and post again; I or one of the other assistants will be glad to try again! --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Don't worry about the "&" vs the "%26"; that's just two different ways of encoding / representing the same character. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article expansion help
Hi, an article I had created on Mimi Lesseos has got nominated for deletion. I used this source to expand the article as much as I can, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me with the expansion process and hopefully remove the deletion tag too !. Thanks. --Roaring Siren (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the article rescue squadron got there already; you need sources, independent reliable 3rd party sources! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Page deleted as a copyvio. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Entry with proper references still showing to lack them!
Please see entry on Abbas Abad, which is a neighborhood in Tehran, Iran. The entry is one of the most researched and documented in its category and has a list of 10 linked references, many from published books, articles, and professional journals, using the same format (i.e. ) throughout the entry. But there is still a note on top of the page stating that this entry does NOT cite any sources! ("This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed").

Could you please look into this, especially given the possibility of an unintended/automatic deletion? If the sources cited are up to Wikipedia's standards (and most probably they are!), how could the note above be removed? Thank you for your time. Cavenotes (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to manualy remove the tag. I'll take a look, and if it is well sourced, I will remove the tag. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the no sources tag, as it is sourced. However I have added inline tags where sources seem to be lacking. Try to find more sources on the subject, or use exisiting sources that cover the part in question. Particularly you need sources that verify every street name. If you have a source that covers most of the streets, just add the ref at the last street covered by the source. Good luck. D  rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am already working on adding more references! Cavenotes (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I add content to Theisitic Satanism or Satanism without constant letters from people claiming to ban me
My name is Grand Magister Blackwood as a pioneer in Theistic Satanism, I would like to add my site and information on myself to WIKI, I am as famous as Anton Long and Anton La Vey I would like to know how I can add informative information about me. I have been involved in the cause of Satanism since 1988 and am a accomplished Occultist with a book pending and a popular web site along with a LEGAL 501 3 C Church. Please Help! Thanks Blackwood666 WIKI NIC Grand Magister Blackwood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwood666 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here. Our conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages you from writing about yourself, because it's difficult to maintain a neutral point of view in that situation. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed- you need to provide some form of reliable source in any case to support claims that you insert into articles. You very well may be as famous as person x or person y, but that's entirely meaningless for Wikipedia's purposes as the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Assistance
I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply. I am happy to discuss any of my edits with other editors and to pursue dispute resolution if required.

This relates to : [Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur)]

This has been the subject of an ongoing debate for several months. Consensus was reached and the article was independently rewritten by another editor.

Immediately after I raised concerns about proposed new edits on the discussion page an editor has, in direct response to my concerns, reposted content that was originally removed by the above consensus.

The text needs to be removed on the same grounds as it was removed last time.

I could legitimately remove the text under the Biography of Living Persons policy; but as I believe the other editor would simply reinstate it I am not, as this could be construed as edit warring. An oversight request will be submitted but not until Monday due to holidays. Action needs to be taken in the interim.

I am also being barracked and threatened by editor quoting policy.

My legitimate concerns are being ignored.

Assistance appreciated.

Thank you Amicaveritas (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed on the article talk page, where such discussion should be. Further, there seems to be an active conversation between you and User:Gwen Gale on your talk page. None of that prevents other interested editors from joining the discussion, but I'm confident that a good solution will eventually develop. It might take a little longer than you would like, but that's OK; there's no deadline! --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is being discussed - agreed and also agree that this where the discussions should be. It has however taken over 8 hours to get a revert on a non-consensual edit of a BLP.  This should not occur.  My concerns (despite having been upheld in the past) have been ignored for most of the day until (thankfully) an independent third party pointed out I was being treated harshly and my concerns were being ignored.  Once again this has not been a pleasant experience as new editor to wikipedia.  I would suggest that the BLP policy is to remove contentious material pending discussion and consensus and this should be applied as primary action by editors and admins.Amicaveritas (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try WP:BLPN I suppose, but that might be construed as forum-shopping. Patience might be your best ally here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks have tried that before. Happy to be patient now the offending edit has been removed pending discussion.  When it's taken a month of discussion and it 's clearly stated on the discussion page that there should be no further edits before discussion and consensus over an edit that has already been the subject of dispute resolution and mediation - I confess to being somewhat less than patient when it's blatantly reverted without any recourse or discourse - not unreasonable surely?

Is sufficient to post this here or do I need to something else? Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That sort of thing could be raised at WP:WQA. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. This is now under level headed discussion and while concensus is still some way form being established, I retract my earlier complaint. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons Pages
For some reason, there is one "editor" (not naming any names just go to any page related to the American television show The Simpsons and you will know who I mean) who continually deletes any submissions by anyone but, himself. I'm new to contributing but, I've been on Wiki since its inception and I always thought this was a place to share ideas to make the pages better. How are new people (who are encouraged to contribute) supposed to feel when certain others out there feel as though they are the "Lord of the page"? ChevonH (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ChevonH


 * Have you tried to discuss your concerns on the articles' or the editor's talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be a lot better if you just told us who the editor was. While I'm sure you didn't say who it was in order to avoid looking like you were complaining about a particular editor, it makes things a whole lot easier for us if you just say who it is. Looking at your contribution history, I'm going to presume you mean . Looking at his user talk page, you tried to talk a particular revert over but never got a response. If you'd confirm this is the editor about whom you have concerns, I'd be glad to drop a message at his user talk requesting that he address your concerns. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)