Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 53

Third-Party Ruling Requested
Farid al-Atrash, Asmahan, Dabke, Qatayef, Baba Ghanoush, Kanafeh, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

I am requesting Editor Assistance to resolve what I see as un-neutral, hostile, and childish behavior on the part of the following users: Supreme Deliciousness and 81.233.32.209, who may very well be one and the same or very closely related. These user(s) have engaged in "undoing" and "reverting" practices on articles related to the Middle East. They think they have a monopoly on certain cultural aspects that are part of the daily lives of many Middle Eastern peoples. Their edits and reverts are offensive, biased, and unsubstantiated by evidence. I am asking for third party ruling on the following articles:

Farid al-Atrash, Asmahan, Dabke, Qatayef, Baba Ghanoush, Kanafeh, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

... etc.

Regards, (98.194.124.102 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Dear moderators and admins, please take a close look at the edits user anonymous "98.194.124.102" have brought to wikipedia and you will clearly see that he falsifys history. He goes into all Levantine articles and puts in "Egyptian" without any kind of scource or reliable evidence. He started this with Syrian celebrities as Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash and he is now continuing this with Levantine dishes such as Baba Ghanoush, Qatayef, Knafeh etc. This resembles much how the israelis have taken over all Levantine Arab food articles. These dangerous acts of falsification should not be delt with lightly and actions must be taken against anonymous "98.194.124.102"

Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.194.124.102

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have only looked at one article in detail (Qatayef) but I think that is enough to give me the picture for the moment. The first thing I would advise both of you is to forget about the editor and concentrate on the content.  Once you start to make it personal it becomes impossible to work together, but working together is what you must do on a project like Wikipedia.  You must also put to one side national pride, and please, SD, for goodness sake don't start raising the Arab-Israeli conflict - that is sure to poison all hope of collaboration.  The way to resolve any disagreement is always to refer back to the sources and base what you write on what is in the sources.  Doing anything else is really not consistent with Wikipedia policy.  Moving on to the particular article I reviewed, Qatayef: before the dispute, the origin of the dish was unreferenced.  102's edit at least had the benefit of including a reference.  Now certainly, newspaper articles are not very scholarly so they do not rate very highly as far as verifying history goes.  However, if you believe this is incorrect, it is the wrong approach to start an edit war over it.  The right approach is to let it stand for the moment and go and find a better reference.  I see the article currently says "Fatimid" origin rather than Egyptian, which is what the reference actually says and I suggest you accept that as a fair compromise until more scholarly references are found.  Please stop bandying around terms such as "offensive" and "falsification".  At least from this one article, everyone seems to be acting in good faith. If an editor is mistaken, try and work it out with them, and above all, spend some time researching references, that's what will decide it in the end, not some judgement from this helpdesk.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not stoop down to the tactics of Miss Deliciousness (since she implies that she's not anonymous, then that's probably her real name). Miss Deliciousness does not seem to realize that interjecting her blurbs between already posted contributions detroys the chronology of the thread and just lacks courtesy!


 * In any case, please see the official STATE INFORMATION SERVICE website of the GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT. The Egyptian Government lists Farid Al-Atrash as one of the country's prominent EGYPTIAN FIGURES (see: http://www.sis.gov.eg/VR/figures/english/html/Farid.htm).  The website states that Farid left Syria with his mother (and as it is well known, also with his siblings Fouad and Asmahan) "at a small age".  The Wikipedia Article itself states that Farid and Asmahan immigrated to Egypt at ages 8 and 5, respectively, and were naturalized as Egyptian citizens.  They lived for the rest of thier lives in Egypt (except for Asmahan who was briefly married in Syria before returning home to Egypt) and all are buried in Egypt.  Virtually ALL of their musical work was created in Egypt and in the Egyptian dialect.


 * Since the Governemnt of Egypt declares Farid (as it did also his mother and siblings) as an Egyptian Figure, on par with Egyptian Giants Mohamed Abdel-Wahab and Umm Kolthoum, then my statement in the article that Farid and Asmahan were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin is absolutely and entirely accurate.


 * Please see also the abstract of an academic research paper from Cleveland State University and University of California, Berkeley


 * "Building a Man on Stage - Masculinity, Romance, and Performance according to Farid al-Atrash
 * by Sherifa Zuhur (see: http://jmm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/275)


 * "This article explores the life and career of male singing star, instrumental talent, and Composer Farid al-Atrash, who created a prototype of the romantic male musical star from the 1930s until his death in 1974. An immigrant to Egypt and a member of a distinctive religious sect, the Druze, he arose from poverty and the invisibility of the previous generation of musicians thanks to his talent, ambition, and investment in his own film productions. A lifelong bachelor, he constructed a popular image with references to the authentic Arab Islamic poetic/historical past and an idealized version of modernity. Tales of his love affairs enhanced his popularity during his lifetime and were seemingly merged with the lyrics of his love songs. From Arabic sources, the author attempts to uncover the psychological rationale of a man whose life goals were shaped by his mother, who was overshadowed by his sister, and who consciously elevated music making to a professionalized art form.


 * "Key Words: masculinity • Arabic music • Druze • popular performance • Islamic culture • Farid al-Atrash"


 * Even Syrian website "Damascus Online" (see: http://www.damascus-online.com/Music/farid_alatrash.htm) states that Farid and Asmahan moved to Egypt in their childhood and makes no mention that Farid ever returned to, let alone lived in, Syria afterward.


 * Finally, Graeme Bartlett, please allow me to quote you personally. You stated: "I must agree that it makes more sense to call Farid al-Atrash Egyptian!" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.194.124.102).


 * Therefore, my statement in the article that Farid and Asmahan were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin is absolutely and entirely accurate. I ask that you please restore the Farid al-Atrash article to my latest revision.  Thank you.  (98.194.124.102 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

User Sciencewatcher monopolized two articles and keeps vandalizing contributions
Sir/madam:

I am bringing to your attention vandalism exhibited by the user Sciencewatcher, who on June 4th 2009 several times deleted my contributions to two articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutamic_acid_(flavor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

The versions that Sciencewatcher keeps restoring provide only one view on the substance described in the articles, pertaining to the health concerns regarding its use in food. I made changes enlisting works by several independent researches around the world, whose findings are different. In my view those edits provided balance to the article and made it more informative for the readers.

I am respectfully requesting that a temporary lock would be put on the following versions until the dispute with Sciencewatcher is constructively resolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monosodium_glutamate&diff=294470706&oldid=294426465

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glutamic_acid_(flavor)&diff=294470896&oldid=294427212

Sincerely Aaron Wechsler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.206.250 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the IP keeps inserting references to non-reliable fringe sources like Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I never know what to make of "fringe" or alarmist sources either in Wiki or elsewhere. As a reader, I almost always go to primary sources if I need to make an important decision based on a topic and in this case primary sources would range from refereed journal articles to anecdotes to folk lore. The range of ways in which secondary sources can interpret these results is quite large. After following drug stocks for a while, I'm quite sure the public statements of experts are not always right and there is rarely enough evidence to justify many specific conclusions but many interpretations can be rationalized. Remember the Nobel Prize winner who was running around claiming that massive vitamin C would cure AIDS or cancer or something? AFAIK there was little evidence of this and plenty of "secondary sources" covered his claims and his credential were credibly. Would this be a fringe idea or something you want to mention in related articles? It is INTERESTING, if not helpful in determining what to eat or how to cure disease.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike, can you please quote any publications where the two sources that I provided were qualified as 'fringe' or anything to that effect. I think that if it your personal opinion, than the other readers should be allowed to form their own. By the way, the contribution was not limited to those two works that you denounced as 'fringe'. There was more. Can you please elaborate what is your motivation to suppress the contribution?

Sincerely, Aaron Wechsler 12.10.219.167 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no impulse to "suppress" anything; but Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills is not exactly a peer-reviewed journal. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, Sciencewatcher is not the only Wikipedian having an eye on these two fringe magnet articles. Cacycle (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr Wechsler, I would respectfully suggest you thoroughly read WP:MEDRS. Thank you for your time. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Popular perceptions surely differ from scientific understanding on many different topics. What is wrong with just characterizing the source in the text? How about just explicitly limit the view to the source or group. " One source claims that donuts cure cellulite[]. This source emphsizes [ primary source foo] while attributing less credibility to [ observation bar] than is normally seen in scientific review articles[something on pubmed]" etc etc. You aren't aiming for a scientific work on the subject, just capturing the state  of knowledge or belief of notable things associated with it. Again, pages on religion probably encounter this all the time- you are documenting things that make something notable, not doing original research or settling any arguments. Through out history, magical or various properties have been associated with things, today we have magic chemicals- antioxidants, amino acids, etc. I would treat these issues in about the same way- beliefs that were popular even if known to be wrong today may still be included AFAIK. This doesn't mean dumbing down or diluting or detracting from the detail in scientific stuff, just mentioning that others have different descriptions. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanitizing MSG article for alarming information
Orangemike, I have taken a note that your tone changed dramatically in your response to me compared to your initial characterization of the work at hand as 'fringe'. Although you are denying it, you did suppress a contribution, just as Sciencewatcher and Cacycle did. There is just no other way to describe repeated deletion of material by reverting an article to its previous version. It sounds like you have reasons to believe that the source quoted may be inaccurate. Can you elaborate what those reasons are? For example, your own research turned out different results, or you read contradicting article etc. I have also taken a note that Sciencewatcher resorted to outright lies in the edit summaries (that I used research from 1969). It does not reflect all too good on the 'Wikipaedians'.

Sciencewatcher invited me to brush up on MEDRS. Appreciate that, however there would only be a reason for that, if the research quoted was annulled by others. Such annulment is nowhere in sight. The way the MSG article is worded at present is heavily biased towards the opinions expressed mainly by the US federal government and food industry that MSG is ultimately safe. This is as far from neutral as it could be. This whole situation begs me to reiterate the question I asked in the summary: how much is Ajinomoto paying you, Sciencewatcher, for monitoring MSG page and erasing every bit of information that may indicate to the reader that MSG is not as innocent as they want it to appear? 12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Aaron Wechsler

Neutral doesn't mean bland, superficial, positive towards all who might complain, or non-committal. If the data supports one side, the article can reflect that. If it helps any, see how was thimerosol was handled. Before someone deleted it, I made a reference to it as an area where the actual data on the immune system was confusing and the area was controversial and left it at that ( I tried to cite this on Dendreon but the whole critical section defending the FDA got deleted and I haven't had time to fix it yet ). AFAIK, people are not dropping dead from MSG and it is GRAS ( again AFAIK). Excitotoxins get their name from being a natural result of brain activity or excitation-glutamate is a CNS neurotransmitter. Personally I would think "alarmists" should see these are "all natural things your body makes anyway" as alarmist works tend to use a lot of rationalization but I would just mention the areas where reasoning has been shown ( by other sources ) to be superficial or in contradiction to other data.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is largely irrelevant. Firstly, your claim that MSG is natural is void of reason. Glutamic acid is naturally occurring in some proteins, but that's where it ends. MSG is produced via hydrolysis by genetically modified bacteria and there is no process in place to control its purity. The vast majority of MSG producing plants are in mainland China where FDA etc. have no control whatsoever. This substance is far from natural, yet it is not regulated. As an unregulated artificial substance in food with questionable effects, it deserves every bit of information, positive or negative, published and extensively DEBATED, not silenced. Your continued suppression of information and the extent to which you go out of your way to delete any negative references (not you personally but Orangemikle, Sciencewatcher et al) leaves no rock on stone as to credibility of Wikipedia, and it is obvious to every scientist. I appreciate you taking part in this conversation, however I would like to hear the arguments from the other two 'Wikipedians' who deleted the material in question... Crickets!

12.10.219.160 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Aaron Wechsler

Is there an entry for tryptophan? That would probably be a good analogy then as I recall that during debates about this it sounded like properties of the substance and manufacturing were being mixed up. And of course it is an amino acid thought to be involved in neurotransmitter balanc. I didn't go to any effort to weasel word the natural stuff nor intend to debate merit, sure there are a lot of possible problems with synthesis, just pointing out some issues that may be common and relevant. Re-reading my words however I think I managed to remain accurate as glutamate release, often in an autocatalytic cascade from already weak neurons, is what makes it toxic but the pure substance is in fact naturally produced either in the body or other organisms.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, that is absolutely irrelevant for the purposes of balancing a Wiki article on MSG. MSG does not equal glutamic acid which you keep writing about. You are very talented in distracting and avoiding result-oriented conversation, but not enough. Can we get back to the point: since when a consensus of anonymous self-appointed Internet users is grounds for silencing others?

12.10.219.160 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Aaron Wechsler

I'm actually generally supporting inclusion, but often these things do come down to a battle of words and catagories, the false multi-chotmy ( dichotomy? ) problem. At issue is the wording and more general principles. Regarding the specific issue, I guess you could make some argument that the glutamate remembers its former sodium partner but it would clearly be original quantum physics research. Alternatively, you could argue something about a complex chain of signals from finding solid sodium glutamate in the GI tract. Or, maybe something related to electrolyte imbalance etc. The excitotoxicity of glutamate however is unrelated to the sodium.

Personally, something referencing the source with a few citations to primary sources it cite would probably be ok. Often, anecdotes or "case studies" are documented in medical reports as that is all that exists. Perspective and wording may be an issue of course but I don't think anyone really wants to suppress widely help beliefs. ( please correct if wrong here).

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If only there was a battle of words! This is a mischaracterization of the situation, which I describe as suppression. Battle of words is actually quite welcome in true scientific circles, it is called healthy dissent. When three self-appointed vandals above will stop deleting material from the article and will instead rebuff the contribution with data of their own finding (not scientific finding of course, rather search engine finding), your characterization would fit (that not 'anyone really wants to suppress...')

You correctly noticed that toxicity of MSG is irrelevant to the metal. But once again, it is irrelevant. MSG is a generic name for free processed glutamic acid as food additive, as it is known to FDA and consumer. If the intent of the article was to inform the reader of the mere fact of existence of sodium salt of glutamic acid, it would have been sufficient to provide a chemical formula and basic physical properties. However it is plainly obvious that the article deals with food additive, taste enhancer, and not just an abstract formula. From the perspective of arrival of the readers at the articles, one on MSG is primary and the other on glutamic acid is secondary, not the other way around as it would be normal when dealing with pure chemistry. Thinking otherwise is simply cruel and misleading, considering that people seeking information on MSG are usually suffering from one or many crippling conditions. This is a question of ethics, whether to publish information about what they labelled 'fringe' group research or not. Ethics calls for full disclosure once the substance is already controversial for so many years and in so many ways. Without that Wikipedia is not credible.

12.10.219.160 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Aaron Wechsler

At issue is the evidence linking MSG to human death and suffering. The book title in question suggests that MSG is a clear and present danger and presumably the content reflects that conclusion too. The issue with glutamate was to clarify the term "excitotoxicity" but maybe there are other reasons MSG is associated with hazards, I have no idea. I'm supporting the idea of mentioning the viewpoint, citing this source or others that may describe it, along with primary sources they cite that support their opinion. I'm not as yet suggesting any particular wording but would you object to something like, " while the US FDA considers MSG to be GRAS, some groups consider it to be a cause of various health problems[]. They tend to rely on evidence from []"? Maybe peanut allergies would be another thing to look into for comparison- not sure how much controversy there ever was about that but I kind of laugh when I see those warning labels but I guess people really do get sick.

I guess you can find examples of situations where it took a while for anecdotes to get to the level of credibility needed for scientific acceptance and I'm not personally opposed to contrary opinions with any non-frivolous sources. However, of course, many popular press claims are simply refuted by well established repeatable experiments. If the belief is notable, I don't see it being the encyclopedia editor's job to settle an argument but it may just be an issue of wiki preferences as to what to include.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I contributed and what was suppressed by the still absent from this discussion three vandals.

12.10.219.160 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Aaron Wechsler


 * Too long, didn't read. But here's a basic question - have you tried resolving this with the other editor on the article's talk page or on your respective user talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to discuss it here and keep the conversation more general to controversial science items- note tryptophan, peanuts, thimerosol, etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the first places to discuss content disputes are the talk pages of the relevant articles, or in this case as there are several, on user talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

how to remove page banners
Trying to see how long it will take to remove the banners at the top of the page warning "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." and "This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use db-spam to mark for speedy deletion." The page was heavily edited removing any biased information and citing multiple resources. The page is now written as a neutral encylcopedic topic.

Lfcarlton (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Lfcarlton


 * If you feel that the concerns expressed in the banners have been met, then you can remove the banners. They are there to attract editors' attention and encourage improvement of the articles. I would say that the article still has a long way to go and needs to be re-written in a more neutral manner. It seems to focus on Azria's designs, with no mention of critical response or reception. The list of brands is un-encyclopaedic, I think. Needs more about the person, which is the subject, rather than his clothes range. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sun `n Fun Fly In
I would like to add additional information in Word format to help expand and better describe the site listed above. I created a user name and password and then copied and pasted the information from one of our documents. apparently it is too lengthy to do that. how can I accomplish this?

thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1940stearman (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do, especially if you have a conflict if interest, is to discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you are seeking to make. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not a directory and an article is not a "site". Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopaedia so any material added in collobration with other editors needs to be encyclopaediac. If you cut and paste from Word, you will lose the formatting as you have discovered. There is a range of formatting tools above the edit pane.  More help is available at How to edit a page. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

editor userface
Hi,

Where would I go to request changes to the editor userface? Specifically, it would be nice if the IPA option actually covered the IPA, as it does at Wiktionary, so that I wouldn't need to constantly clip and paste from the IPA article.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can use other editors, seeWP:Tip of the day/January 6 Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try starting a discussion at WP:VPR, and linking that to that discussion from MediaWiki talk:Edittools; the talk page of the interface page which contains those inserts. If I get you correctly, that the organization of that list of IPA symbols is just awful, then I hope something does change. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked at Edittools, as that seemed more appropriate. kwami (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Was I wrong to delete a comment of another user?
The other day I noticed on my watchlist a new discussion of interest at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. When I got there, I saw an interesting proposal, and a single comment. This is a policy talk page in which I've participated in the past, but hadn't participated in much since February (except for a one word comment on May 9 and a couple of minor edits in the first few days of June). So imagine my surprise(shock, really) when I noticed, in this new section in which I had not participated, a criticsm of me. Totally out of the blue, and unprovoked. This edit shows the comment in question, and here is a link to how that section looked when I first discovered it. The comment in question, when taken out of context, apparently does not appear to others to be nearly as obviously problematic as it did to me:

Please remember, this was a criticism about me made in a discussion in which I was not (yet) participating, made by a user with whom I've engaged in several disputes. Also, consider that I found this to be a complete distortion about my behavior during events that go back to one or two years ago. If it was not a personal attack what was the purpose of identifying me by name? I considered my options, not necessarily in this order, on how to proceed.


 * 1) Ignore it and participate in the discussion as if the comment was never made.  Rejected because I was concerned that that would totally incorrectly imply tacit agreement with what the statement said (since then I've read Avoid personal remarks and now realize the potential folly in that thinking).
 * 2) Respond to it there. I was concerned that would create a totally irrelevant tangent to the discussion about the proposal.
 * 3) Respond to it on the user's talk page.  See #1.
 * 4) Request that the user delete it.  Frankly, I found that to be so unlikely I did not give it serious consideration.  Indeed, the editor defended the comment soon after as not even being derogatory.  My question as to whether he intended it as a complement was never answered.
 * 5) Edit or delete the comment myself.  Because it did not occur to me to ask a neutral party to edit or delete the comment (my bad), I considered this to be the only reasonable option.  I was much more comfortable with deleting rather than editing the comment for two reasons.  First, I can't speak for someone else.  Second, WP:NPA allows for deleting of comments, not for editing comments.

So, I deleted the comment, citing WP:NPA in my summary comment: Remove derogatory comment per WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."

Shortly thereafter someone else restored the comment, saying "restore, - these do not appear to be personal attack". After a brief discussion on my talk page that user agreed to redact my name out of the comment, plus adding a comment saying he redacted the name "per request". And then the discussion about the proposal proceeded with no more discussion about any of this.

Except, I got some comments of concern from yet another user on my user talk page, and that's what this request for assistance is all about. I'm requesting that someone, or several of you hopefully, read that thread on my talk page and help me out with these questions. Thanks in advance.


 * 1) Do you think you would consider yourself personally attacked if someone with whom you'd had disagreement in the past, out of the blue, suddenly shared his biased and critical opinion of you on a policy talk page in a discussion in which you were not even involved?
 * 2) Do you think it's reasonable to characterize an unprovoked criticism of a contributor on a policy talk page in which that contributor is not even participating to be a personal attack?
 * 3) Do you think it's reasonable to characterize the comment in question as a "true personal attack" especially in the context of what is meant on WP:NPA where it states: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."?
 * 4) Is it just me, or does it also seem to you like the user with whom I'm engaged in discussion on my talk page has some kind of bone to pick with me?
 * 5) What do you recommend I should have done?  As I did, or something different?
 * 6) Do you think I did anything "wrong"?
 * 7) What do you recommend for me now?

Thank you very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In short: Arthur was wrong to name you, but the comment reflected poorly on him not you, but by acting like you are, you are justifying his impression of you as a troublesome editor, and anyone following any of this will tend to agree with him.


 * Longer answer: In Wikipedia, people get their passions roused, things are said that are later regretted, etc. Administrators are not the civility police.  They can't go around making people be nice, no matter how hard some of them try (and yes, some will bring down the hammer on you just for something like 'you know how argumentative so-and-so is' while others will be fine with comments like 'you mother fucker' and just respond 'oh tone it down a bit').  Given the wide variety of personalities and interactions, it's impossible to maintain a consistent standard.  However, the NPA guideline is at least uniformly understood to disallow extreme attacks and incivility.  Now on to your specific questions...


 * Yes.
 * Yes, but on the scale of personal attacks, not a particularly noteworthy one. You can make a mountain out of a molehill, but nobody will respect you for that.  If you ever want a PA removed, it's better to ask an admin to look at it and do it for you.  If it's particularly egregious, the admin will probably even go warn the other party for you.  Saves you a lot of time and energy.
 * No.
 * Yes, of course.
 * Just ignoring it would have been the best policy. If someone goes around making barbed comments about someone else, as I said above, that doesn't reflect well on him.  It doesn't take a genius to understand he's got a problem with you.  I suppose even a reasonably short paragraph explaining he has, in your view, mischaracterized your actions would have been ok.  But you have a tendency, I've noticed, to go on at length way after the issue is dead.  I think, for example, you've turned your RFC into something of a pyrrhic victory.  But there was no reason to go on at length about this.
 * See previous.
 * You seem to let things get to you where you can't let go. Short of a personality transfer, I'd recommend you just ignore things that distract you from contributing material to Wikipedia.  In the long run, that's what you're supposed to be here for.
 * Write articles. Don't bother following people around to see if they are making snarky comments about you and then stirring up ghosts of old disputes.
 * --C S (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * C S hits it right on the head. Deleting the talk page comments of others is surprisingly difficult to justify, and more often than not backfires (compare to the Streisand effect). The best approach is to ignore it if you're the target of what you consider a personal attack. DefendEachOther goes more deeply into why this is a valid approach. Especially on policy and guideline pages, which are watched by many highly experienced editors, a personal attack isn't likely to remain unchallenged.
 * I understand, of course, that there's a concern of being wrongly characterized in the eyes of editors who don't know you... and this is a genuine concern. My advice in that regards is that, if you do believe there's a pattern of thinly-veiled personal attacks, or attempts to prejudice other editors against you by a particular editor, and you have evidence of it, it may be time to go for WP:WQA or something more extreme. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm still befuddled by something.
 * 1) (Q1) C S would consider it to be personally attacked if someone out of the blue, suddenly shared a biased and critical opinion of C S on a policy talk page in a discussion in which C S was not even involved, though not a "particularly noteworthy" one per Q2.
 * 2) Despite that, such an attack would not be a "true personal attack". (Q3)

So what, a "true personal attack" has to be "particularly noteworthy"?

In general I'm puzzled by the apparent between-the-lines effective approval of personal attacks at Wikipedia, despite the very strong words against such behavior at WP:NPA, and strongly worded explanations about why attacks are harmful to WP. It's almost like people don't really agree with what it says.

For example, why is it so strongly discouraged to delete a comment that is a personal attack? Why is it not encouraged? If every time someone's personal attack was deleted, they'd probably figure out much faster how to make their points without attacking anyone. Where's the harm in that? It's not like it's very difficult to edit out the personal attack in a re-edit.

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to keep a sense of proportion here. If someone posts "Spinningspark is a gay pervert who is out in the park looking for rent boys every night", that is an unquestionable personal attack that should quite rightly be immediately deleted (even if it were true) because it is clearly intended to be disruptive.  The post you deleted reads (in part) ...the editor now known as  started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity.  The editor is clearly guilty of the mistake of concentrating on the editor instead of the actual content, but a personal attack? Come on, don't be so sensitive, Wikipedia can be a bit of a bear pit at times, and this was part of a serious discussion, not vandalism or trolling of some kind.  I would also comment that it is established etiquette to let you know of a thread you are being discussed in by name.


 * I would agree with the advice you got above that the best approach is to ignore the personal comments, lead by example and just discuss the issues. Failing that, ask the offending editor to strike the comment himself, although that often just leads to more uneccessary heated exchanges in my experience.  Deleting the posts of other editors is considered very bad for good reasons.  Firstly, if others have responded, it can make a nonsense, or even completely change the meaning, of those replies.  It can also change the meaning of the original post as the remaining text may in some way have been dependant on the deleted passage.  In short, the talk pages are meant to be an archive of the discussions that took place and altering them after the fact is always frowned on, the accepted practice is to post a correction later on and/or use strikethrough on the original post.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor is clearly guilty of the mistake of concentrating on the editor instead of the actual content, but a personal attack? That's like saying, "the  man is clearly guilty of unjustifiably killing a human being, but murder?", or "he is clearly guilty of holding up that bank, but robbery?" Concentrating on the editor, in a derogatory or insulting way, is the definition of a personal attack. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (WP:NPA) For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people are so willing to tolerate this totally unnecessary and harmful-to-WP behavior, as clearly explained in WP:NPA.   What is wrong with have zero tolerance for personal attacks?  Why does a personal attack being relatively mild make it okay?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The harm, B2C, is that removing someone's comments risks escalating the situation rather than the intended effect of promoting civility. Powers T 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There would be little risk of escalation if there was zero-tolerance for any kind of personal attack, and true acceptance of the right of anyone to remove any comment that feels like a personal attack to any contributor. Recently I was accused of making a personal attack for making a statement that did not refer to anyone by name, nor did it imply anything about anyone in particular.  Even then, if someone would have removed it I would have accepted their (incorrect) interpretation, and reworded it.


 * But apparently zero-tolerance for even perceived personal attacks is not what the community wants, for reasons I cannot comprehend. I can only surmise that it is because everybody wants to retain the right to let someone have it once in a while, because they believe sometimes people deserve it.  I don't subscribe to that thinking, but apparently that puts me in the minority.  I have never hit anyone in real-life either.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're being a bit ridiculous here, especially when you end your comment by implying that Wikipedia community standards on verbal tolerance are related to whether or not we think physical assaults are ok. Why should there be zero-tolerance for a perceived attack?  Plenty of people like to create drama and imagine damaging slights upon themselves.  NPA policy is not here to cater to them, anymore than FIFA rules are designed to reward footballers who fall to the ground, rolling in anguish, when an opponent brushes his jersey.  The NPA policy is here to make sure things don't get out of hand and keep things civil so people can engage in the activity of building Wikipedia, not to be used as a tool to create needless drama.  --C S (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, C S has hit it right on the head. Perception is meaningless- I could perceive the orphaned image warnings on my user talk page as attacks by the bot operators (considering WP:DTTR). As to this particular comment, while it may have been a crummy thing to say, I don't see it as a personal attack. And even if it were one, I'd still object to a unilateral removal by the target of that attack, as I would prefer that editor be held accountable for such a comment rather than simply silencing it.
 * To extend things another degree, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive in nature; that is, they describe accepted practices in such a way that users unfamiliar with general practices may become familiar with them. One can gauge what constitutes simple incivility, a personal attack or otherwise witty (yet biting) speech by watching some of the other noticeboards for a little bit.
 * A personal attack is not commenting on the contributor rather than the content. Rather, a good method of avoiding making personal attacks is to comment on content instead of a particular contributor. Commenting on the contributor is, unfortunately, necessary in many cases (WP:RFC/U, for instance). That's my understanding at least, considering the existence of boards like WP:WQA and WP:AIV. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CObra group marketing
HI. There is a user (user: gobananasman) and an ip address (79.121.174.249) both responsible for adding promotional material to an article and also removing links and references they don't lik ethe look of. I think they may be company employees who are protectinmg and promoting the company.

Can anyone help? PLease check out the Cobra Group marketing page and the page history, you'll see what I mean.

Cheers --79.97.105.2 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User 79.97.105.2 keeps putting incorrect information on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_Group_(Marketing) How can I block him from doing it?


 * Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobananasman (talk • contribs) 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some edit warring taking place from both users on this article. I went through the article and excised the least unencyclopedic content and will monitor it going forward.


 * It appears both editors (IP 79.97.105.2 and Gobananasman) have undeclared conflicts of interest with this company. Make sure to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, and know that reporting it here (and/or being right) does not make you immune from WP:3RR. tedder (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jeez... I was about to respond to this but I didn't notice that had overwritten the request. As a procedural note, this was highly inappropriate. Thanks to Tedder for catching this and keeping me from making an ass of myself.
 * In this particular case, I think we're reaching a moot point; Tedder massively cleaned up the article and removed what appears to have been the points of contention as they simply weren't encyclopedic to begin with. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears Gobananasman has a habit of rewriting comments from this IP before. I placed uw-tpv1 and a personal note on his talk page. tedder (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hitting both users with ; each one appears to be at 3, maybe 4 reverts in the last 24h. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR is appropriate, thanks. I'm hoping we can nip it in the bud by getting into a discussion with the editors and monitoring the article, rather than going down the 3RR route. tedder (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have been undoing/reverting changes made by Gobananasman, but only in response to their removal of my contributions. I know this is not necessarily the best way to go about it, which is why I put this request for help on here, I'm not a wikipedia genius by any means. Tedder has done well in stepping in, but the article is now quite unsatisfying in that some of the information leads nowhere, and also the link/ref to the daily mirror article has been removed. You will notice by loking at the history of user Gobananasman that he has been deleting/editing.reverting.removing any posts made by myself which can be percieveed in any way negative. I have tried to open discussion on the talk page (removed/edited by Gabananasman) and also in the explanations of changes i have made, but Gobananasman continues to replace anything that can be perceived as negative with blatantly promotional material, which leads me to believe that they are a current employee of The Cobra Group, or at the very least someone else with an association with the company or one of the subsidiaries. I am an ex-employee of the company with first-hand knowledge of the positive and the negative that go with association with the company and I am in favour of a balanced article, so long as that balance leaves room for refereces to what is quite widespread public criticism of the company. I understand and acceot the 3RR warning thing, I was expecting this when I posted this plea for help initially, but my question now is what am I able to contribute to the article in the future, and is there any way of protecting the article from user such as gobananasman who seem to have no interest other than promoting the company? Thanks again.

--79.97.105.2 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I would rather the page was just blocked all together or even better removed from wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobananasman (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, I moved this article to Cobra Group (company) which is more compliant with naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the page is about a notable subject and belongs on Wikipedia. It appears both of you have conflicts of interest with this company. However, the COI and 3RR warning shouldn't prevent you from making productive contributions to this article or other articles. Remember, focus on the content. tedder (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

IP/User refusing to talk?
I'm not exactly a new user, but I'm really not sure where else to go with this. Basically, I'm trying to apply the guidelines from Template:Current sport, inviting those users who disagree with them to discuss them on the template's talk page. That's worked quite nicely so far, with the exception of a user and/or various IP addresses on the Spanish football articles. What pretty much happens is the following:
 * I remove the template per its guidelines from an article about a current Spanish football season.
 * I get reverted by an IP, when I'm lucky with a comment in the edit summary.
 * I go to the IP's talk page and try to explain the situation, and invite it to the discussion if he/she disagrees with the guidelines.
 * If I do nothing from then on, nothing whatsoever happens. The template stays on the article, I get no reply at all.
 * If I remove the template again, I get reverted again, usually by a new IP. Once again, I contact the IP on the talk page, and once again I get no reply whatsoever until I revert once more.

I'm not so much frustrated about the reverts, everyone is free to disagree with me, after all. What's getting seriously annoying is that the IP is pretty much refusing to talk to me while actively reverting me at the same time. The only thing that gets the IP to actually say something is to revert again, which means the only way for me to get some comments is to revert war, and I really don't feel like doing that. The results of that you can see here. And, instead of reverting once again, or at all, I'd rather figure out what the hell to do instead to get that IP to talk to me. --Conti|✉ 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tough problem. Here's the thing- are those guidelines actually binding? Looking at the ongoing discussion at the template's talk page regarding the application of those guidelines, I would say it's contentious at the least. Maybe there's consensus to treat them as binding... and as such you should feel OK to go for WP:BRD on those IPs.
 * However, you've gotta be damn careful not to edit war or be seen as edit warring... and in any case be real damn careful to evaluate the consensus as to how binding those guidelines are. WP:ARBDATE can be seen as a situation where an even more trivial-seeming editing change, which didn't have obvious consensus, got blown way out of proportion. My own fight over last month is a similar situation where there was no clearly documented consensus to cite, despite what I viewed as an obvious matter that shouldn't have even required consensus beyond already-existing policies, guidelines and practices. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are never binding. :) Again, the point wasn't whether the guidelines should be applied or not (I think they should), the point was that the person disagreeing with me didn't talk to me about it. But, just after I've made this post, the IP started to talk to me after all, and now actually agrees with me on the issue. So this seems to be moot now, unless there'll be a new IP starting to revert me soon or something. --Conti|✉ 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I know guidelines aren't intended to be binding, but they're certainly used in such a way. What I mean by this is that once there's a measurement of consensus, and the guideline is written, then until there's some measurable change in consensus, it is in effect binding. Now, whether multiple IPs using the template in a different manner constitutes a measurable change in consensus is pretty questionable... but it's questionable enough that you may find yourself under scrutiny in the future if it comes to WP:ANEW or elsewhere.
 * But as to getting the IP to talk... there's not much you can do. My response above was mostly geared towards the very likely situation you'll encounter, where you're the only one removing, while there are several IPs adding it... you can come off looking a bureaucrat or, even worse, edit warrior. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war - user removed 19 legitimate references and then claimed article was unreferenced
Nothing to see here, just an AFD result that someone doesn't like. S/he's apparently aware of deletion review, so there's nothing more to say. --C S (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war
 * Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war

Hi. Recently I created a new topic to cover reports about research funded by the US government into computer mediated telepathic applications. The research was reported in Wired and as I read more about it, in the course of creating the page, I found 19 references to related research. All references were published by reputable news providers and science magazines, including the National Geographic and BBC. Related research was also published on the websites of the universities where research into robotic arms controlled remotely through the power of the mind was carried out on monkeys - at Duke University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Two separate articles reported the research was funded through Darpa, a division of the Pentagon. An article also said that Darpa had funded related University of California research. I named the article Telepathy and war. Within days of creating the article, the article was nominated for deletion. What appeared to be a small group of users said the page contained unreferenced material - but the page had 19 references from 19 separate articles published by reputable publications and news organisations. I entered into discussion with these users, willing to make edits. I have always been impressed by Wikipedia's neutrality policy and thought that these users, while critical, might help to improve the article. Instead, the users bombarded the page, deleting entire sections and references. One user later boasted on a page nominating the article for deletion that he had 'chopped out' and removed 'un-referenced' material. Earlier I had noticed one of his edits, which curiously had removed an entire quote from block quote tags and replaced it without quotation marks. I thanked him for his imput but said that we should consider replacing the block quote tags to attribute the content. Minutes later I revisited the article and found he had removed all but two footnotes of the original 19 - incongruous with his boast that he had removed 'un-referenced' material. I visited the user talk page of one of the users and found that the user had been involved in prior discussions over other articles of their own nominated for deletion. I am not sure if that particular user feels that deleting content is the way to resolve content disputes because that is the way that user has been treated or if the user is regularly involved in edit wars for less than neutral reasons. The user warned me that I might be blocked from editing if I edited content myself - while they themselves appeared to be one of a party who systematically removed almost the entire article. The article, while covering research that might seem extraordinary, was full of genuine content about an interesting (if perhaps alarming) field of military research. I am leaving the article rest for now, but would like advice from other experienced editors. How would other editors who prefer to resolve conflict and retain genuine content handle this? I feel the article is important and that Wikipedia should contain information about new advances in science in technology. I cannot understand why a topic as interesting as this, and well referenced, has been refuted in a community that prides itself on being neutral - and in a community that has become known for documenting genuine encyclopedic content and in being technologically savvy. Frei Hans (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To summarize the above, the article Frei Hans created has been nominated for deletion, and has received near-unanimous support of deletion, though another editor has seriously edited the article and is suggesting merger with deletion of redirects. I don't exactly know how to respond to this request. Parts of it appear to call for the sort of help WP:ARS provides, but I'm honestly not sure the content merits it considering the arguments at AfD re: original research. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research? I can assure you that I have not been funded by the US military to conduct research into telepathy in monkeys. In creating the page I used only material I found already reported in reputable publications. I did create an original 'artistic' impression for the page because I am conscious of copyright and wanted to create an image to illustrate the page without infringing copyright. Wired Magazine itself used an 'artistic' impression to illustrate its article on the topic. Interestingly, the same team that has been calling for deletion of the page has also called for deletion of this image. The image does contain modified content from another image-maker, who I attributed in uploading the image and am now waiting reply from to resolve any possible license issues. I am beginning to suspect sock puppetry from the team of people calling for deletion of the page. Frei Hans (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at what our original research (and WP:SYN in particualr) policy actually says. Verbal   chat  14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the policy. It states "citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". That is exactly what I did. Papa November removed 17 references included block quotes that were referenced. I am proud to approach controversial material with neutrality - hoping to represent all facets of this topic on Wikpedia in as much as they are documented. I am surprised by this reaction to a topic that was well referenced. Frei Hans (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is not a battle ground, and should not be treated as "them vs us". Verbal   chat  14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My view is that this is already being dealt with at AfD and there is therefore nothing for us to do here. The Article Rescue Squadron tend to hang around AfD and likely will pick up on it if they think there is anything salvageable, but drop them a note anyway if you like.  As far as I can tell, the references deleted by Papa November were contained in sections he deleted as being irrelevant to the article (not related to warfare) so the references went incidentally.  This is an issue that can be dealt with between the editors or at AfD, again, no reason for us to get involved - keep it all on one forum.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The removed sections were entirely unrelated to warfare/telepathy or were covered elsewhere. I have given a more detailed explanation at the AFD. Perhaps, the author would care to note that I've been trying to salvage some of the content of his article. The unanimous view of other editors has been to delete his work entirely. Papa November (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sections were entirely related and all that anyone needs to do is compare the content before you edited out all of the references and block quotes, and after. I have been flexible in considering a name change, in rewriting content and in considering your first few edits - but your subsequent edits now appear to be nothing more than vandalism. I decided to have a break from other discussions with you and sought advice here - where you have followed me. Frei Hans (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think the sections were removed unfairly, please address the specific points I made at AFD. Also, content disputes do not count as vandalism.  Please read the policy (it's very specific) before accusing people. Papa November (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Frei Hans, I've looked through the history of the article and in particular compared the last of your sequence of additions with subsequent edits. I see that you added a good deal of referenced material, but I also see that you included some statements that were not directly drawn from the references. Some of those statements appear to have been a synthesis of referenced material; while that might appear to be logical, even inevitable, to one editor, another editor might find them to be questionable. In order to avoid such debates, any synthesis of that type is not permitted here.
 * For example, the lede of this version states "According to information released by the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon intends to use telepathy on the battlefield and also to intercept and influence 'enemy' commands" whereas the sources only say that some research in that area is beng conducted. You might say that the one inevitably leads to the other, but we must limit ourselves to that which is directly supported by the sources.
 * I hoep this helps to illuminate some of the distinctions we must draw. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'lede' was referenced and came from an article that had been referenced and block quoted (later removed by Papa November). The Wired article wrote:


 * "Last year, the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report suggesting that neuroscience might also be useful to 'make the enemy obey our commands.'"


 * The same wired article also wrote:


 * "Before being vocalized, speech exists as word-specific neural signals in the mind. Darpa wants to develop technology that would detect these signals of 'pre-speech,' analyze them, and then transmit the statement to an intended interlocutor. Darpa plans to use EEG to read the brain waves. It’s a technique they’re also testing in a project to devise mind-reading binoculars that alert soldiers to threats faster the conscious mind can process them.


 * The project has three major goals, according to Darpa. First, try to map a person’s EEG patterns to his or her individual words. Then, see if those patterns are generalizable — if everyone has similar patterns. Last, 'construct a fieldable pre-prototype that would decode the signal and transmit over a limited range.'"


 * The page I created had 18 other references to other articles covering related research, including research at UCLA funded by Darpa.Frei Hans (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a break from this for now, but would like to add that the article was nominated for deletion by someone who was recently banned for edit-warring (named Verbal) and then content was swiftly removed by another user named Papa November. Frei Hans (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo Spinningspark's comment above; handle this problem at the AfD or at the article talk page. Don't bring accusations of editorial malfeasance here without pretty good evidence thereof. Being blocked temporarily for edit warring or violations of 3RR does not mean a thing. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Update
Frei Hans (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some issues resolved, some users are working to improve the article.
 * User Verbal, who nominated the page for deletion, has begun reverting content to versions with almost no referencing and citation and taken to dropping "edit war" messages on my user page.
 * A user with no account and the IP 160.103.2.223 deleted a lot of text - this was reverted within a minute by a bot noting possible vandalism. The user IP 160.103.2.223 edit happened shortly after Verbal attempted to revert content to nearly nothing. Clarification of Article history: Verbal reverts content to near nil, other users add content, the article was blank tagged and then a bot removed the blank tag.
 * By the same logic you and CW are the same person. I don't think that for a moment. Verbal   chat  08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't think for a minute that a genuine new user with no editing login would know how to create a blanking tag. Frei Hans (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The blanking tag is created by the abuse filter and not placed by the user, and since I know about the abuse filter (WP:AF)and would realise that such an IP edit would be reverted it would make such an edit a bit silly. Please see WP:AGF and take heed of the advice given to you by editors, and stop making accusations and insinuations. Verbal   chat  13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not silly, Verbal. The bot reverted vandalism. The vandalism was a blanking tag placed by a user. Frei Hans (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If by blanking tag, you mean this edit, that "blanking tag" is auto-generated, and is used to note that the edit in question removed a large section of text, which is why clue-bot reverted it. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean if a user deletes a big block of text that a "blank tag" is automatically generated? Ie: a user deleted a lot of text and one bot tagged the delete so that another bot could revert the delete. That makes two bots reverting vandalism. Thanks for making this clear. When I saw the notation in the edit history I thought a user had created the tag as well. Frei Hans (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Second update
The article has been deleted, see reply re question asking if this is still an issue (at the top under the main heading here). Other users supported the article. I would like the article reinstated.

I read on the deletions review page that I should contact the administrator who deleted the article. How do I find out who that is and how do I approach them? The article was nominated at articles for deletion and I have no idea why the article was deleted. The "articles for deletion" discussion was archived at a point when some users had commented that they would like to keep the article, backed up by valid reasoning. It seemed that discussion was heading toward a "strong keep" at the time the conversation was abruptly archived and the article deleted.

There was one comment at the very bottom of the archived "articles for deletion" discussion that made me wonder if the article had been vandalised again before it was deleted - but I am unable to see the page history as the whole thing has been removed. I contributed content in good faith and feel that the users pushing for deletion were aggressive and deliberately obstructive. They seemed focused on provocation instead of creating reasonable content. Frei Hans (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't expect to always get what you want in life, and certainly not on Wikipedia. Your article was deleted because a lot of people thought it should be.  You can put it up for deletion review in the hopes of somehow getting the deletion decision reviewed, but in this case, I doubt it will go anywhere, since the closing decision is hardly controversial.  Deletion review is not a second AFD where you can hope somehow the dice roll in your favor.  It is only for when the admin's closure is in question.


 * I suggest giving this up. I'm closing this thread as "resolved".  As people have pointed out several times, this is an AFD issue and arguing here is pointless and irrelevant.  --C S (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus the AfD wasn't 'abruptly archived', it was closed as delete after seven days, which (the seven days) is standard. So far as good faith goes, you are clearly not willing to assume good faith to anyone who thought the article should be deleted and indeed I read the above as personal attacks on them. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still an ongoing concern - the article has been deleted and I would like it reinstated
Yes, this is still an ongoing concern. The article was slandered, vandalised and misrepresented in discussion at "articles for deletion" by a small handful of users determined to have the article deleted. I would like the article reinstated. It was being edited and contributed to by other users who supported the article. The article was well written and referenced and no original research was involved, contrary to another user's claim that the article contained synthesis. The article was relevant and interesting, particularly in light of recent reports from reputable sources about military funding and advances in the area. The article also referenced material from the websites of universities involved in research in the field, including a book written by a defense intelligence agent about Remote Viewing and "psychic spying". Why, when Wikipedia contains an article on Remote Viewing, should an article named Telepathy and war be dismissed on the grounds it is "fringe" material. The decision to delete the article seems inconsistent with other Wikipedia content and at odds with Wikipedia's philosophy. The two users behind the campaign to remove the article were Papa November and Verbal, who engaged in deliberate provocation and breached almost everything that I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about: encyclopedic facts, good writing, neutrality, collaboration and creating a co-operative environment.

Other users expressed support for the article. Before it was deleted the article was tagged for rescue, and other users saw value in the content. Some even expressed interest in related topics - for example one user mentioned "Telepathy and war in popular culture". Frei Hans (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your opinions, please don't top-post in threads like you did with this; it impedes users who are unfamiliar with the situation from figuring it out. I've moved it down to its appropriate chronological position. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An Insultive Behavior - seeking and advice
Hello. is not an easy customer: here is the example of our latest clash.

He was recently filed on an incidents board here but to my best knowledge it went unresolved.

It should be noted that just a week ago we were engaged in edit warring that ended in a 72 h block for him. It was the last but not the only time, we had similar fightings before.

His remark produces little impression on me and that's not the point. The point is that by tolerating such behavior, a legitimacy (to him or to other users) is given to act in a similar way. I am pretty new in Wiki, but I think this must be dealt with.

So, the question is - do I have a case here (based on one last instance)? If yes, where to address it?

It could also be noted that me myself is no angel, and it is concievable that some of my remarks and responses were inappropriate - for this I am ready to take responsibility. Moreover, I realize that I am unobjective, since he is my prime and uncompromised adversary.

Rules are rules and they ought to be enforced - this is what I think.

Thanks in advance, --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think WP:Wikiquette alerts is probably the place to start. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User has been warned not to make personal attacks. No need to do anything further for the moment.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment Cryptonio made at his user talk, while it was quickly followed by blanking, is pretty unsettling. I'm hoping I just see it as such because there's some greater context I don't realize. I definitely don't see this as resolved, but possibly moved to WQA for the time being... but considering the overall problem and some of Cryptonio's other comments, this may rapidly become a ECCN situation. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, my user page, and later removed because I'm not planning in being involved any further in these areas. That these issues has anything to do with ethnicity, is a speculation, and so, it could be investigated and whatnot, but I doubt anything meaningful would come out of it.  I really don't care, and I am not going to cry wolf at sceptic's actions since they mean almost nothing to me, in a personal way, but I've made it clear to him that his actions are pretty much unacceptable in this professional setting.  Other than that, since sceptic keeps being open about his own questionable actions, and leaves no doubts on these forums about his bias intentions, I cannot take these forums seriously at all, and again, I prefer to contribute in other areas of Wiki where my actions won't be as 'attention-gathering'.  Thanks for, whatever this is. Cryptonio (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your own actions, seen in the comment at Talk:Gaza War and at your user talk page, no matter what Sceptic's actions are, are unacceptable for any collaborative setting, professional or otherwise. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I had seen the comment on your talk page and the only reason you did not get blocked was because you seemed to think better of it and immediately reverted. User pages do not have an exemption from the requirement not to make personal attacks.  You speak of a professional setting, but the way you speak to other editors is anything but professional.  A professional keeps their responses civil, calm and to the point, even when they think the other party is badly wrong.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt I'll have the time for more of this really, guys. If we were to keep these discussions to actual article-related subject, we would be able to not only ignore these comments but actually avoid them.  My actions are only a product of those of others, no matter how much we play judge after the fact.  Talk pages are not the articles, and what goes on in there is not a macrocosm of Wiki, but simple heated debate(in most cases).  If all parties were to keep their bias away from the articles, talk pages wouldn't even be necessary.  There are many ways in how to carry a conversation.  Anyways, I am not defending myself or anything like that, I don't feel threatened, I am simply saying that 'this', whatever it is, is only a result of someone crying wolf first.  I am not in the business of 'throwing the stone and then hiding the hand'.  Rest assured, that I don't think of scpetic as an adversary or anything like that, and that I will no longer engage him in any way.  And about my actions in the Gaza War talk page, I am much better than that, and I really doubt it's needed away from the Israeli-Pales subject matter.  I sit where ever I sit because I was invited.  Peace, let's drop this.  Cryptonio (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe your actions are just products of others, be warned admins around here don't agree with you; and if you continue acting as you have, you are on the fast track to incurring disciplinary action. We have no reason to believe you are any better than you appear by your talk page comments, and your contribution history doesn't back up your claim - neither does your block log.  Maybe it's best you step away, as you've said, and don't come back until you're ready to approach things with a level head and a good attitude.    Fl ee tf la me   01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This was dropped long time ago, it's almost ancient history. Thanks anyways.  Cryptonio (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference Formating
I am working on an article about, based on the advice from several editors I added additional supporting references to the article that shows the media’s coverage for the name SocialSense. Yesterday I discovered that they were removed because apparently, I added them as external links (which I should not have in retrospect). Can you please show me how to incorporate one of these references correctly and I will do the rest myself. Also can you provide some information about best practices for references (i.e. how many do I need to add, do I use commas between them, etc.).--PiRSqr (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read Citing sources you should be able to see how it is done. Plus check out Featured articles and WP:Good articles for examples. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to communicate with editor on his talk page to see if I can help.   Fl ee tf la me   22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully nipping self-promotion in the bud
I occasionally keep up with the article on Talkeetna, Alaska where I live. I recently removed what I consider self-promotion by a local newspaper but wanted to make sure I didn't go to far and/or more experienced editors agree. If not, please revert before a potential edit war starts. If you agree, perhaps watching and reverting if the promotion continues would be helpful. Thanks. jimkloss (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you've done a good job. You might want to look at WP:CITE as the citations need fixing, eg the raw urls. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird rendering.
Is there any reason why First Law of Thermodynamics page looks like this?

&eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason, it looks like your browser is not obeying the float:right instruction in the "laws of thermodynamics" template - in my browser, the second box appears neatly on the right of the screen, rather than obscuring the table of contents. What browser are you using? If you visit Template:Laws of thermodynamics separately, does that appear on the right or the left of the screen? ~ mazca  t 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears on the left. It's weird cause I don't have any issues with other templates that show right, such as NJhistory. Using firefox 2.0.0.20 (not updating until 3.5 comes out). &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * edit fixed it, the parameters for margin were wrong. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
The above article, which I created, was nominated for a speedy deletion. I looked over the reasons for the deletion as well as the guidelines for pages on Wikipedia and was struggling to figure out what needed to be changed. I therefore wrote on the talk page for the user who had nominated the article (which in his comments on my talk page he said I could do if I had questions) but he has yet to respond and as I am a fairly new wikipedia user I am unsure what to do next. Looking over the history of the page I did notice one other user had said that page does not qualify for speedy deletion and had declined the request, but I wasn't sure if this meant that the article was no longer up for deletion or not. Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Franchesca786 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As the notice on your talk page indicates it was nominated for speedy deletion as original research. However that is not a valid criterion so speedy was declined. – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked briefly over the article it is sourced, it might not be strictly neutral (in Wikipedia terms) but you have some reliable sources there. I would think that the deletion tag was a type of vandalism, perhaps best to ignore it. Carry on developing it, consult the WP:Good article criteria for guidelines, carry on with the good work. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sad to say that sometimes this will happen. The article that was nominated for a speedy deletion is not significantly different from the current one, and is indeed, perfectly fine.  Of course, one may need to work more on weeding out any WP:NPOV issues, perhaps with discussion amongst editors.  But on the whole it seems a suitable topic for inclusion and well-sourced so far.  The reason I say I'm sad is because the speedy tagger accused the article of being: 1) an original topic 2) no Google hits  3) designed to disparage India.  Regarding #3, while the article itself does not show any disparagement of India, one might wonder why someone would immediately accuse another of such.  I expect there is a nationalistic pride issue here.  Furthermore regarding #1 and #2, the sources clearly refute #1 and I was able to find plenty of Google hits including this one.  So if the user you wrote to doesn't respond, I would just let it go.  Just be aware people will sometimes act out if you work on this type of topic.  --C S (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)