Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 57

Link Removal
Hi Editor.

In recent times I have included a link under the external links section for the topic 'Time for Print. This link is to an Australian Time for Print community website.

Upon reviewing the page history it makes the following reference after my edit:

(Reverted to revision 302191458 by ClickRick; fails WP:EL. (TW))

Considering this page has links to other modeling websites that are not dedicated to Time for Print (and my site is) I am wondering why my link is constantly being removed?

The Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_for_print

Thank you for taking the time to review this request.

Regards John Thomas--Mooseh (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument that other stuff exists isn't valid if the other stuff also violates our guidelines. I've removed the other links from the Time for print page as they also fail WP:EL.  Note that external links should specifically adhere to the subject of the article, which in this case is a photography term.  Websites of modelling firms don't belong in this particular article. If an individual modelling site is notable by our standards, an article can be written about it and a link to the site can be placed in that article.  Them  From  Space  02:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The term Time for Print is used to describe an exchange of services for outcomes (ie: photos). The website Time for Print is a comminity website that brings like minded people together who engage in the Time for Print practice. It is not a modeling website, it is a community of like minded people.

Having said that, I am happy to accept that the page within Wikipedia is around the definition of a term.--Mooseh (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

what is and is not appropriate behavior
I need "Help to understand what is and is not appropriate behavior, and how to deal civilly and rationally with [a] editor" How do I rid myself of this situation? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I first encountered a editor after noticing a cut and paste edit... which brought this response User_talk:Exit2DOS2000 ...no problem, thought I dealt with it.
 * I looked back through his recent edits to see if there was similar problems. Came across Malik Ambar Article. I nominated un-Cited, incorrectly licenced and disputed images (2 but really 1 snipped from another) from the Article at files for deletion.
 * the Editor reuploaded the same image and I renominated it. The same Admin Speedy'd it (G4) The editor Says the Admin admits to making a mistake the first time round, but does not state where. I can find no mention of such a mistake except by the Editor themselves.
 * several (4) Articles i have worked on now get templates from this Editor (without any explanations or useful Edit Summeries). I removed 3 of them and asked for a reasoning... The answer I got, was no answer at all.
 * Now I am told things like "you have a personal grudge" & "an act of revenge" & "careless editors like you" & "I am also making a point to keep a track on your articles. Make sure all the sources are quoted"
 * Then, after reaching the bottom of my watchlist, I find things like this and this popping up. I am very suspicious.


 * Have you approached the Administrator who originally G4'd the article? Crafty (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the mention that Drilnoth made/admitted a mistake was made on the 25 July 2009 (UTC)... Drilnoth then Speedied the reupload on the 27 July 2009 (UTC) where clear mention of the previous file deletion discussion was made in the NOM statement. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be wise to ask him or her to take a look at what's going on. Crafty (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, I asked him to look in on this conversation. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It might behove you to tell User:Nefirious about this thread too. In general, I would recommend that you ignore as much of this as you can; it's often better to ignore than to respond in an escalating fashion. Trust that other editors will eventually come along and sort things out. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is certainly good advice. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec; undent; responding here to keep discussion consolidated). Wow; I hadn't known about much of any of this. I certainly never said that I had made a mistake in making the deletion. One thing that I think was missed in the outline above is this diff by the uploader at the original PUF page, long after it was closed. When I deleted File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg per the FFD I also deleted File:Malik Ambar.jpg since it was brought up and the deletion was uncontested at the discussion, even though it wasn't explicitly tagged for deletion (so it was a bit of an IAR deletion). When the reupload was nominated for deletion and I saw it at PUF while nominating other images, it seemed like a clear case of G4 so I went ahead and deleted it again. I believe that all three of these deletions were accurate at the time, and unless the User:Nefirious can provide proper information about the image (e.g., where it came from if it wasn't from the newspaper), WP:DRV seems like the proper next step for them to take. Certainly most everything in this diff seems either A) wrong or B) bad faith. Here's my feelings on those comments: Based on Exit2DOS2000's other evidence, especially this which I think is safe to assume was the same user, there seems to be obvious harassment going on here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "You cannot delete a picture prior to any discussion. I have posted the sources and it seems to me you have a personal grudge against me and my articles." Where were the sources posted? The image was not self made. I also see no personal grudge; all that was done was tagging a single edit or two as a copyvio (correctly, I'm guessing) and then nominating two images for deletion, correctly. It's fully inline with policy.
 * "I had added some relevant tags to your articles and this seems nothing but an obvious attempt to disqualify the images I add as an act of revenege." Weren't the images nominated before the tags were added? If so, then the accusation of "revenge" would seem to have been switched 180&deg; around from what would be more accurate.
 * "I've been doing my bit to bring more authenticity to wikipedia articles and some careless editors like you remove the pictures without arbitration." First, editors shouldn't be called careless. And there was arbitration... the discussions at WP:PUF went more or less uncontested. Simply reuploading an image does not make a new discussion needed for it to be redeleted.
 * "The administrator who removed the picture admitted that it was a mistake." As I said above, this is patently not true.
 * "I am also making a point to keep a track on your articles. Make sure all the sources are quoted. Cheers... " This looks more than a little like a threat of Wikihounding, a form of harassment.
 * I think it would be a good idea for me to keep a distance from this Editor... May I ask one of you to inform them of this Discussion. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. I think it would be an expression of good faith if User:Nefirious were to say something similar about keeping out of your way. I hope we don't see any more from User:ExitDos too (whom I believe to be different from the OP), or we'll need to listen for quacking. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I believe if the file in the Malik Ambar article was deleted through arbitration then why wasn't I invited ? An editor could come with a valid reason and state why the file should stay. Or if some other user has a problem with the file he could explain me the same. If convinced I can give him/her the green signal to delete it. By the time someone invited me the file had already been deleted. I believe this step taken was not justified in anyway. There is already a discussion thread for the article Malik Ambar, so why is there a need to discuss the same in a different forum. However, I take back what I said and apologize for using the world 'careless'. Also, I would like to say, I am a random page patroller, recent change ptraoller and also a new page patroller and so I do keep a track of articles everynow and then. I had even tagged one of the article, which I presume was created by the User:Exit2DOS2000 as unsourced and the tag still remains as the editor failed to reveal his sources. So I believe I wasn't wrong here since I would keep a track to see if there has been any improvement in the article as a resposible wikipedia editor. Hope we can sort this out at the earliest and get back to editing. Have a nice day. Nefirious (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You were notified on 17 June; the file was deleted a month later. The subsequent repost was speedily deleted; there's no discussion required in that circumstance. Arbitration means something else here; there was every opportunity for discussion. If you really believe there are no copyright violations involved, then you should go to deletion review.
 * The statement "I am also making a point to keep a track on your articles." that you posted at User talk:Exit2DOS2000 appears to be WP:Wikihounding and is completely inappropriate. New or random page patrolling is quite different.
 * Did you create the account User:ExitDos?
 * --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No notification was sent to me in this case. You can see my talkpage, the post is nearly two months old. I had then reposted the picture with relevant sources and the picture remained active, since I believed that the image was deleted as it did not cite any sources. After citing the sources I was convinced that the picture won't be deleted and suddenly someone deletes the picture without even discussing the same in the dicussion forum of the article. And the uder Exit2Dos removed the pic Ambar Siar.jpg,the very same day he called me to dicsuss. And LOL at completly inappropriate...its my duty to check articles as a responsible editor. Wikihouding is different, I read it. And what is this with this ExitDos user, it was ExitDos who removed the picture of Malik Ambar and how could I create an acccount and then remove the very picture I uploaded. I dont think that makes sense. Does it ? Nefirious (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image must be free of copyright restrictions. "Sourcing" as required for articles isn't relevant. You simply reposted an inmage that had been discussed and deleted (see the deletion discussion, and that is grounds for speedy (re-)deletion.
 * User:Exit2DOS2000 didn't delete any image files; he doesn't have the necessary privileges.
 * Please don't talk of "your duty" in this context - the comment you made was unacceptable and you should understand that. If you don't understand why, then please read WP:Wikihounding again.
 * There's another account, User:ExitDos, different from Exit2DOS2000, which is peripherally involved. Did you create it? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost you need to talk politely to editors -- Don't talk of "your duty" in this context, wasn't acceptable. Please ensure that you change your tone and i'll be grateful to you for the same. About the image, as I earlier said, it was only user Exit2DOS2000 who was involved in requesting deletion of the image. He did not invite me for further discussions and did it all by himself and as I said that the image is more than a 100 years old and qualifies under the old pdf license, plus the sources make the picture look more authentic. About some other user similar to Exit2DOS2000, have no idea. I never created an ID of that sort, you can check his IP with some administrator. And why would I need to create another ID when I already have one ? Nefirious (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if my tone wasn't polite. I think the problem with the image was that the file didn't contain the image alone, but a newspaper page containing the image. The copyright question would therefore involve the newspaper, not just the image of the person in question. We've been over the timeline already. Anyway, I think it's at DRV now, so this thread seems to be done. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Farcaster has created a several articles off of the Subprime mortgage crisis main article. I've found multiple errors involving neutrality, tone (ambiguity in the leads) and original research and tagged both of these articles, with detailed comments on the talk page. He's removed one tag, claiming mediocre edits as resolving major problems.

As an example, he's using a excerpts of a Bush speech to explain the causes of the subprime crisis. Edits that are POV and ridiculously void of factual content. How do I deal with something this large if the guy is unwilling to cooperate? Scribner (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, see my comments on Angelo talk page... Politicians say all kinds of things, normally it would seem reasonable, " analyses differ. W charactersied causes as follow, ' ...".
 * Rationalized cause and effect seems like a natural in this area but you see it in biotech too which is why they develop drugs to treat irrelevant symptons and then never get FDA approval etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What? Does anyone have any meaningful advice in this case?  Scribner (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look at the talk page and see if there are objections beyond quoting W but I would suggest adding descriptions of additional POV's if you believe he has picked one to promote. I'm probably not going to have much to offer here since the "mainstream" theories are all (IMO) frivolous rationalizations to support desired outcomes ( try toning that down for an encyclopedia LOL). I could probably help find sources but I think the most I can add is to strongly suggest keeping the relevant pages and contributions. As I pointed out before, the reason you have a "crisis" is to correct an unjust credit euphoria of the past- inefficient markets come from ignorance and I would attribute this to the obvious ( no OR) result of statements in primary sources. In short, I will recuse myself on this since there are no secondary sources I consider to be worth citing... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ford FE engine
Scheinwerfermann continues to abusively edit/complain/denigrate the Ford FE engine article without ever being satisfied. He has actively damaged the article by adding short hidden sections whose headers in bright green cut through images.

This is a continuing issue. He has archived past discussion pages complaining about his actions and continues to sully this article with nitpicking complaints. He complains, without specifics. It is far beyond abusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.231 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article improvement tags are the specifics. Specifically, he appears to be saying that the article, in particular the sections with the tags, need additional citations, and without the citations they seem to represent either original research or unverifiable claims.  Please engage in discussion on the article talk page, and explain why you feel that the citations requested are unnecessary.  Thank you. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  19:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WE HAVE DISCUSSED this on the discussion pages. This goes back literally YEARS.  He refuses to be satisfied.  I don't mind citation requests.  But he doesn't say what exactly is needed.  We add citation after citation after citation and yet he is still not satisfied.  Put a CITATION tag in the text and we'll add it.  Just willy-nilly flagging an article 'just because' is abusive.  Did YOU even do anything more than give a cursory look at things?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.231 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we complain about bureaucratic spiteful and lazy editors, not only editor Scheinwerfermann who will not allow himself to be satisfied and continues to beat up on other contributors, but now also apparently editor Athanasius1 who only has one stock answer for all problems..."discuss on the article's discussion page". Examining the article in question's discussion page's archives going back years is seemingly too much effort.

This Scheinwerfermann once upon a time had multitudes of citation requests buried in the body of the article. Those citation requests were provided. Because he apparently has a grudge against the article he now is asking for "citations" in general??? He refuses to be satisfied. More, he has screwed up the formatting of the article. Pretty sweet bureaucratic gig being able to pass sentences without ever saying why.

Just where do we complain about THIS kind of stuff?? Obviously not here; someplace buried deep in the bowels of Wikipedia where only the most bureaucratic of editors can dig to?

I am NOT satisfied with these "results"/"answers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.241.87 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 12.73.241.87, I have no grudge against you, nor any intent to make your life difficult or unpleasant. I also have no interest or intent to get in a quarrel with you. If you feel my behaviour is disruptive or otherwise problematic, you may want to open a Wikiquette alert or a Request For Comment/User.


 * My goal is the improvement of articles on Wikipedia. The templates keep getting restored because the problem they indicate still exists, not because anyone (or everyone) is against you. Please try to assume good faith. As has been explained to you, the templates in question point out areas of the article in need of additional citations. By doing so, they accelerate and focus the improvement of the article. From your comments here and elsewhere, it's clear you accurately perceive that once a citation is provided the tag announcing its absence is no longer required. That's a large part of what I referred to in my talk page comments about the good improvements to the article. There used to be numerous citation-needed tags, but those have mostly been satisfied and now there are only two templated sections. Those sections contain questionable assertions not yet supported with references to reliable sources. When such support is provided, the templates won't be necessary any more. As for formatting preferences, there's nothing and nobody stopping you or anyone else making improvements to the article format and content — as is evident from the steady progress this article has been making since its creation. IIRC the article was semi-protected for a time because of persistent vandalism, but that is not presently the case.


 * You're being asked to discuss the matter on the talk page because that's the appropriate thing to do, and there's already a discussion underway there. Thanks for editing coöperatively and discussing politely. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What a two-faced liar. Here you're all obsequious and officious, in private messages you're all 'what a jerk'. AND, you still won't discuss this article on the article's discussion page. Obsequious, officious and obstructionist, reminds me of a line from 'Animal House', Dean to Bluto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to discuss this with you any further. You ignore discussions that don't go your way.  You bury them in archives hoping other lazy editors won't take the time to disinter them.  You are NOT the editor I want to talk to.  I want one of these so-called "help with problem editors" to actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOU.  You're like an assassin sitting as judge and jury as to whether you should be hung or not.  Get out of this courtroom and let a real disinterested judge rule.


 * ...and don't think I haven't noticed that you STILL haven't made your wants with regards to that article clear. What exactly will it take to make you happy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.148 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

false edits
I have not edited any articles on Wikipedia. Yet I have received warnings about inappropriate comments on articles listing that it had been done by my IP address. How do I go about resolving this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.194.126 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You need do nothing. Any messages not intended for you can be ignored. Creating an account will stop you receiving them at all. Algebraist 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Austria Mikrosystems versus austriamicrosystems
The name Austria Mikrosystems is not used since years. The company name is austriamicrosystems I changed in Text and Links, but I´m not able to change in Headline! I´m asking for your assistance here, because I could not find out how to change the Headline! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.112.250 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have looked at WP:Naming conventions, and Google turns up only mentions in lower-case so I have fixed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NB it shows up OK on the page but is capitalized above in the convenience link, see WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Newbie
Hello,

I added some content that I thought was notable to

It was deleted by another user as "not notable" Since he is more experienced than I, I avoided my instinct to undo the change. I reviewed the guidlines on notable and I think that my additions met that criteria and added to the article.

Can you take a look and let me know if this is just a matter of opinion or did I do something wrong?

Eurbani (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything wrong (except putting a reference in a heading, that's a no-no). The first place to go to discuss your changes is the article's talk/discussion page, so I suggest you open a discussion there if you want to pursue it. – ukexpat (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where would the reference go since it applies to the whole section. I'm assuming at the end? Eurbani (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As BQZip01 said some of this is already covered elsewhere in the article. Also lists are generally not used in good articles. But as ukexpat says try discussing on the artcile talk page - thta is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over (likely intentional) miscalculation
In the palestinian people article, the population is (likely intentionally) being inflated by double counting the territories. I corrected it, only to have it reverted back to its inflated figure. I don't want to get into an edit war, how else can these inflated figures be corrected? 76.69.249.32 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first place to try to resolve this is the article's talk page. Please open a discussion there. If that fails to reach consensus, then come back to WP:EAR. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Document, dont resolve  : ( making this a more general issue for the audience here ) Generally you give weight related to credibility. If you both have non-frivolous sources, I would think you could cite both with text explaining the differences. If you need "A Number" you may be able to fit in a range etc. Complete exclusion AFAIK is only based on perceived unreliability of the source. Even here, a notable source may make a mention as being biased, " The CIA says X, the PLO says Y, and Israel says Z" and the rest of the article would probably make the "metodologies" clear to the reader. If you are doing a trivial calculation and there is no source that publishes the result, a footnote may do but normally you want to find the answer not derive it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Hi, I would like to say that the user Wiki libs is reverting my edits with at least say why.

I would like to ask a administrator to say him to stop with it, please.

Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoaquimMetalhead (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to try asking him/her about it before seeking alternatives - it doesn't appear you've engaged with Wiki libs at all on this. Please try asking at User talk:Wiki libs - I'd be willing to bet you get an explanation. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have also reverted another edit made by Wiki libs without explanation. Discuss on the talk page - that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Help on a Talk Page that is violating WP:TPG
I'm requesting assistance in removing the following discussion on the talk page of the article, wherein someone personally attacked me. The issue was resolved within Editor Assistance (see here), and I don't want to have to cut and paste my response to the Peer39 talk page, as it would be even further off-topic and in violation of talk page guidelines. Before removing the section myself, I figured I would ask here for further assistance.

Thank you. --FeldBum (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * H'mm. I'm not seeing a personal attack, per se, in the linked discussion. I am seeing another editor ( accusing you, in so many words, of COI violations. Specifically, that editor accuses you of editing Peer39 and other articles in a manner intended to promote companies in which you have an interest. I don't see evidence to support that accusation in your contrib history; it appears you spend most of your time improving articles with respect to WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS, nuking spam and vandalism, culling long-tagged unsupported assertions, and otherwise cleaning things up. The Peer39 article is inappropriately promotional in tone and content, but it's flagged as such with the appropriate template and I see no evidence to suggest you've been involved with the introduction or persistent retention of biased material, or other shenanigans. OtreblaiD is a very new editor with all of 26 edits to his name. You (FeldBum), on the other hand, are a much more experienced editor.


 * It seems to me some coaching of OtreblaiD is warranted. S/he doesn't seem to understand the principle or practice of WP:AGF, nor to understand that throwing around accusations is not a productive discussion tactic. I'll volunteer to do the coaching, but would like to have some other voices chime in here, first. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to save many articles by saving one
So far "merge" seems to be winning but the article will still disappear and seem to set a precedent for hundreds more articles of peeresses to be merged as well. I am not too wiki experienced but the template Ireland-peer-stub implies notability just because she is noble. Anyway how can I find wikipedians sympathetic to my cause without being accused of "canvassing" I don't even know if I am allowed to add anything more to the discussion. Daytrivia (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is difficult to answer. Articles should be judged case by case. I think it would be alright to place a neutral message on the talk pages of relevant projects, but that is about all. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Daytrivia, I think you might be overly worried over something that's not likely to happen. If (as presently seems likely) an article merger takes place, then appropriate redirects will be put up so that anyone searching on Florinda Handcock (or any reasonable variant of that name and/or her title) will be shown the article into which the information has been merged. "Saving an article" isn't necessarily a good focus for your time and effort, if the subject matter of the article is determined by consensus not to meet notability and/or verifiability requirements. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia knows no precedents since every case or article is judged by its own (there are of course exceptions - especially at obivous vandalism). There will be scattered instances over the course of time, however no generalisation. Albeit this, you should, as I had mentionted at my talkpage, nevertheless be more cautiously, when creating new articles about peeresses - except perhaps those who held titles in their own right. May I furthermore add that presumably every user at Wikipedia has "lost" some articles in his editing life, including me ( or ) :-). By the way stub-templates are used to categorise articles with very little content. They neither preserve before deletion, redirection or merge, nor indicate any automatical notability. You might wish to read also Stub.  Phoe  talk  19:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is really great having the advice, input, and guidance of experienced and concerned wikipedians to turn to. I was under the impression that "Florinda" was notable simply because she was the daughter of an Earl and the wife of a Viscount and that her social, and other obligations were implied by her title. I enjoy doing the research, and although I will follow the discussion page, I will make an effort to take the advice of several editors and look for something other than Lodge or Burke's nobility records before creating this type of article. Daytrivia (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I use Lodge and Burke as sources, too, when creating articles - together with Kimber, Collins, Whitaker or Debrett. Regarding genealogical details and relations they are indispensable, however as they list members of noble families mostly without mentions and consideration of merits, they're rather unsuitable to decide if someone could be noteworthy enough for an own article. To examine notability I therefore use websites or other books . That is of course more easyly with peers then with peeresses, as the latter held for example no political offices. Instead indications of notabiliy could be positions at the court (Lady of the Bedchamber,Mistress of the Robes) or a famous/infamous love life (Alice Keppel. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me directly ...  Phoe   talk   17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Historcal documents
There is a serious lack of documents on women, but still there are some. Such issues regard Homosexuality - almost nothing is included about female homosexuality and the Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride even proposed for deletion while it is the only well known document on women's life in 19th century - which was pretty much the familty life at that time. I need assistance in expert historians, and voters for the Instructions, also Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism lacks faminist historian to writa about it. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If articles meet the inclusion criteria they stay, if the don't they get deleted. With any subject we have to be careful to maintain a neutral point view and with some subjects that's harder than with others. Your comment: Gender roles in Eastern Europe after Communism lacks faminist [sic] historian to writa [sic] about it is not as easy as it sounds. We are creating an encyclopedia, not publishing research papers. If you can add to this, or any other, article in a way that maintains a neutral point of view, and cites reliable sources please go ahead. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have access to a library you should be able to find scholarly artciles fairly easily via archives such as JSTOR. But as ukexpat says we must mainatain a neutral point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Picasso
I could not find an edit this page button on on the page responding to "Picaaso" search entry I assumed that it is because Wikipedia need to protect themselves from vandalism. In the section Political view Picasso is reported to be suspected by some of cowardly ignored the necessity to take real political position during the world wars. It appear to me and probably to some other that, though this criticism should be reported, it should also be balance by facts that contradict it. In the 1930, 1940, 1950 Picasso has been reported as taking clear "pacifist" stand. More specifically in his work as an artist he clearly addressed the theme " Make love ! Dont' make war" He did so decade in advance on the popularity of this label. It is also politically remarkable that in the 1960 Picasso migrated to a new theme: The artist isolated in a narcissistic contemplation of himself. Taking into account that Picasso was a painter, a sculptor, a draftsman but not a writer, not a politician, not really a philosopher The testimony of these theme show that his concerns about Violence, poverty and freedom are not hypocritical stand hiding cowardice. It is also a fact that Picasso has shown a great deal of interest with Bull fight. which is in its core addressing the subject of physical courage. I believe that reporting on these aspect of Picasso's life deserve to be mention for the sake of a more neutral approach. I also believe that they would also contribute to the interest of many reader and that it would probably insult none. Most probably the best way to create the changes I intended is now for some editor to make them to his best which is probably better then i was able to.

My name is Pierre Cornu. and you have my email herewith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.13.99 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The place to post this is at the article talk page for discussion amongst editors there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is best not to post your name certainly not your email address. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Posting links
I should like to appeal a ruling made by one of your editors concerning links added to an entry. If I'm not doing this right, please explain to me how to do it properly.

"Hu12 (talk)" informed one of several editors of The Internet Review of Books today that several links we have added to entries are spam, according to Wikipedia policy, and deleted those links.

In each case, the links targeted a book review in the IRB that was germane to the entry. For example, a few days ago I posted on the "Doug Stanton" page a link to a review of his book "Horse Soldiers" that I wrote. Certainly I am closely involved with the review, and with the publication. I am not, however, in any way involved with Stanton.

I'd argue that such a link is legitimate. Like Wikipedia, The Internet Review of Books delivers information to people interested in the things it discusses. The IRB makes no profit, though it carries a few ads, and none of the editors are paid. Our costs are borne by contributions. Five of us founded the publication to replace the rapidly disappearing review sections in major newspapers. The LA Times and the Chicago Tribune, for example, have discontinued their review sections; so have other papers, and so will many more, for obvious reasons. They are sorely missed, and we are trying to remedy a genuine lack.

The IRB is not just some blog with a single person sharing notions about a book. It is a professional publication. I and one of our other editors are members of the National Book Critics Circle, which restricts its membership to professionals. Nearly all our reviewers are published authors, some of them well known.

Readers of Wikipedia--not many, but several--have clicked on those links since they were added. They clearly want more information on the author's book. We had intended to put links from all our reviews (about twenty a month) wherever appropriate--on author pages, or on pages devoted to some subject the author covers, and would like to be permitted to continue that project.

We have no axe to grind, except our desire to be read. Of course our reviewers have opinions, but so do reviewers for the NYTimes. Those opinions are offered by knowledgeable people. We think readers of Wikipedia might be aided in their search for knowledge. Few authors would object to this.

Thus I'd like to ask that you make whatever exception to the rules is necessary to let us continue.

Thank you for hearing me.

Carter Jefferson, editor The Internet Review of Books Carterj98 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All of you at the IRB have a conflict of interest (you most of all), and should not be adding these links. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: please explain the contradiction between "none of the editors are paid" and "It is a professional publication"? Do I really need to quote Dr. Sam. Johnson here? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Mr. Jefferson (. I've taken a look at the article and the link you—or another TIRB staffer under the user name of —added. A few things occur to me. Firstly, your site doesn't appear to be a personal blog of the "Heh, lol, I had scrambled eggs for breakfast today, OMG, here's a pic of them I took with my phone" type, but it does appear to be a blog. Please take some time to read through WP:EL to familiarise yourself with external-links policies and community expectations. You'll see that a professional book review is listed as a type of link to be considered (WP:ELMAYBE), but blogs are listed as a type of link normally to be avoided (WP:ELMAYBE). I hope you will take no offence at our working definition of recognised authority—no slight is intended against your experience or expertise—but per WP:SPS, self-published sources are usually not appropriate for inclusion. Of greater concern is that by linking to reviews on your own site, you may be running afoul of WP:COI (Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy) and WP:SOAP (Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own website, forum, blog, product, or service). Do you know who this GolfinBadger user is? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of a blog is, but the IRB is a Website. We also have a blog, for which there is a link on our index page. It seems likely that you looked at the blog but not the Website. The NYTimes has a lot of blogs attached to it, but it's a Website. So is ours.

I am aware of your policy concerning self-promotion, and I think it's a good policy. I think, however, that your policy of linking to professional reviews should override that in this case. All we get from posting those links is an occasional hit. They won't make much difference to us in the long run. We think we're giving Wikipedia gifts, not the other way around.

As for professionalism, you *must* be aware that hundreds, if not thousands,of people have begun newspapers, magazines, and all sorts of publications without paying themselves. If and when we make money, we'll pay all our reviewers, and pay ourselves last. Right now, for example, a crew of laid-off reporters is running a publication called newjerseynewsroom.com, hoping that someday they'll make enough from ads to get paid. Virtually all academics, including me, have written reviews and articles for scholarly journals and got no pay at all for them. They're all professionals. The New York Review of Books was started by writers while the NYTimes was on strike; if they got any pay, it wasn't much. A professional is defined by college degrees and experience. I got paid when I reviewed for the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, but they were making good money at the time. One of my editors has published a memoir (U. of Iowa Press). Others have had essays published in print and Web venues, and been paid for them. The Rutgers University Press published a biography I wrote. Many of our reviewers, who work for free, have published novels, essays, and non-fiction books with reputable publishers.

As it happens, four of our editors are retired and can afford to work free for a while. Two are still employed at other jobs and choose to spend scarce free time working with us.

I have asked my editors if any of them signed their work "GolfinBadger." Three of us definitely did not; when I hear from the others, I'll let you know.

Carter Jefferson

141.157.189.73 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Irony  : LOL, the only people getting paid for commentary it seems are those in real estate/financials and it was never clear how unbiased those sources could be but they wouldn't qualify for the olympics ( amateur status). I thought earlier contrast between "professional" and "unpaid" missed the point. These things are by their nature matters of opinion- free lectures from a soapbox may not be helpful to a wiki reader but citations to paid opinions, no matter how pompous the credentials, are often more insidious sources of uninformative "information" when "reliable secondary sources" often have financial incentives to parrot the "respected primary sources like the NAR's economists. I guess an editor here then needs to consider motive but this is essentially mind reading and ad hominem. Another approach may be to consider the reader's perspective- would a reader consult the questionable review site if he hadn't found it linked from wiki( would he pick it out as reliable from a list of google hits ) or would the wiki link tend to generate traffic as would an ad? Popularity is never a criterion of lasting significance but review on merit with anon editors at wiki would be a huge problem. The encyclopedia is supposed to document "things" that have attracted the attention of some communities that may be new and interesting to other readers but it can't selectively generate notability with much hope of producing a useful result. Here, as with the "big name papers" you mention above, ultimately it comes down to what the site wants to promote and that is why Freedom of the Press is so precious. Often credibility comes down to "does this make sense to me?" or "do I like the implications of this?" etc. Various sites do what they can to deal with these issues, some try to hide them others view them as a valid assets, but true objectivism is difficult even when people view it as a desireable goal. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has "talked" on this issue for several days, but I still would like to make an appeal. Would somebody please explain to me how to do that?

Thank you.

Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterj98 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the same article in more than one place in a wiki
I'd like to cite an article in several different places in my wiki. Instead of appearing once in the references, it appears as many times as there are citations to it.

This is the code I've been using first reference: "<"ref name="four">" enter reference "<"/ref">" Second reference: body text."<"ref name="four"/">"

Next to the second reference, the references section at the bottom says "Cite Error: Invalid "<"ref">" tag; no text was provided for refs named four. "

Can you please point me to instructions on how to reference the same article more than once?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxynix (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, Can you say which article you are talking about? Excuse me for changing your formatting but the way you put refs in was messing up the format of this page. It looks like what you are doing is right, but I would be able to help better if you posted a link to the article in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Use the format "some text " and then "some more text " . Drop all the " that you are using except for the ones around the name of the reference. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of how it's done. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And see WP:NAMEDREFS. – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't contribute to any AfD discussions. Why?
I'm an IP editor. When I try editing any AfD to comment, I can open an edit window, but apparently I can't save my edits. I tried several AfDs and every time I try saving, nothing happens. IPs aren't generally blocked from contributing to AfD discussions, only from nominating articles for AfDs, and this IP is not blocked in any way. I can edit all other openable pages without any problem. Something odd is going on with AfDs. - 91.187.64.57 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more oddly, I waited a couple of hours, tried saving my changes again on two AfDs using the same still-open editing windows that wouldn't save anything previously, and this time the edits were saved. Any ideas why? - 91.187.64.57 (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Need Assistance
I'm requesting assistance in removing the reference tags on the article. I have attempted fix up the page with reliable third party sources and user:Hafrn is claiming that articles as authoritative as NYtimes are not reliable references. I am trying to improve the page but this user seems to a personal vendetta of some sort. As opposed to continuing to volley back and forth with a seemingly irrational user, I am kindly requesting further assistance.

Thank you. Shirarae (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well User:Hrafn has explained this in detail on the article talk page. The NYT cites are from a directory on the NYT that publishes the promotional blurbs of companies.  likewise the other sourses you have been adding.  You have been pointed at the policies and guiidelines, I suggest you read them and understand what they are saying. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to make what seem to be credible changes here. I cannot understand the basis of these tags. I would be grateful if an experienced editor could assist or guide me in finding appropriate references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirarae (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can find no good references to this company using Wikipedia Reference Search. Thus there is not enough material to establish notability (in Wikipedia terms). This is quite common for newish companies, it may be that in ten years time there is enough material for a good article, but at present tehre is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am still confused why references such as brighthub.com, that seem to be accepted throughout wikipedia have been deemed insufficient here. I am grateful for the feedback. I am trying to learn how to do this right. I would be grateful if you could have a look at the links and advise further. I find it confusing that each one of them deserves the tags that User:Hrafn has placed. To me it seems that he is spitefully flagging the whole page. I am trying to learn the process. Could you explain to me where he is right and where he is wrong.

Thanks. Shirarae (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating new page for redirection to/from existing page
I want to create a page using my full name and middle initial, Frank J. Keegan, that can be accessed from an article that comes up in search of my name, Frank Keegan, without middle initial. Seems simple. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. Frank Keegan (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Frank Keegan
 * Hi Frank. What you are trying to do might count as self-promotion or spamming, so you probably ought to consult the Conflict of Interest and SPAM guidelines before going ahead. In the meantime, a "redirect" page is a way to force search results on wikipedia to go to a different page. This can be to correct mis-spelling (e.g. Satre) or missing accents (e.g. Fuhrer, to add initials (e.g. Dorothy Sayers) or expand acronyms (e.g. TRL) or to jump to a synonym (e.g. Salt tolerant plant). The Redirect page explains how to do this. - Pointillist (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be fairly simple. Use a redirect, for which the code looks like #REDIRECT Frank J. Keegan.
 * However, neither page exists at present, and the naming conventions would put the full article at Frank Keegan I think. Before any of that, you'd want to read some of the material linked from the welcome message on your talk page and also our policy on conflict of interest. We generally discourage people from writing about themselves since it's difficult to be neutral. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

why was it deleted?
My article (biography of a living artist) titled 'Marc Bogaerts' was deleted on the 3rd or 4th of May 2009, few hours after publishing it in Wikipedia. I would like to know the reason. Not knowing what was wrong I don't know how to fix my possible mistakes. Yourtinkywinky Yourtinkywinky (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you click on the redlink you will see an extract from the deletion log to the effect that it was deleted as a copyright violation of this site. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
I wrote an article about a colloquialism, and it was deleted under the criterion of "original research." My article included 8 references to reputable Internet sites, which explained the origins and nature of the term. When the article was tagged for deletion on the talk page, I questioned this, and an editor claimed that I needed a source that stated that the colloquialism existed. I do not see how this is a reasonable expectation; surely a site seldom exists that simply states "[Colloquialism] exists as a colloquialism" for every possible slang term. I provided evidence of the term's basis, history and prevalence. Surely the very nature of colloquial terms is that they come into use gradually, rather than from one particular occurrence. Upon searching for the expression on google - in brackets, ensuring that only the words in the correct order are found - 544,000 results came up. I am unsure as to how I am meant to "prove the expression's existence," other than finding a website that makes the statement - "[colloquialism] is a colloquialism." Would citing a site that simply uses the expression be suffice? I undertook considerable research for my article and it was certainly not original. It would be much appreciated if an editor can offer ideas how I can prove that it is genuine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you help by telling us what the colloquialism is? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably dunt dunt dunt. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been an apposite deletion:(Speedy deleted per CSD G3, blatant and obvious misinformation.) Perhaps you should give Wikitionary a try if you have any reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your article had 8 references of which at least 6 were supposed to support your claims about "dunt dunt dunt", but none of them mentioned the term or a single "dunt". See Do not create hoaxes. Even if you actually find sources using the term with the alleged meaning, see Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, but even after consulting your links, I believe that my article has reason to stay. Firstly, it is not a neologism, as I did not create the term myself. I have undertaken research and studied its history. Secondly, I understand that Wikipedia is not for definitions, but my article certainly did not do this. Since the colloquialism "dunt dunt dunt" refers to a specific occurrence, I was describing this occurrence and how it affects us. Surely many other articles could be considered definitons by this same criterion - for example, is an article about the sport of cricket a definition, simply because it explains what it is? I would certainly like to fight this deletion, and I am amenable to changes that editors suggest to my article to make it more worthy of wikipedia's standards. Is there anywhere on wikipedia that I can post my article, for editors to look at, without actually uploading it to the encyclopedia? If any editors would be willing to assist me in the improvement of the article, I would largely appreciate this.

I may seem to be repudiating the rules of wikipedia, but I am not. I simply do not believe that a legitimate reason has been proposed as to why my article is not worthy of the site. All required criteria seem to be met in terms of the article's concept, but perhaps my execution of the writing of the article was awry. Is there anyone who could help me to improve it? Thanks very much. Higginson21 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletion review is --> this way. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but does anyone know the answer to my other question? Is there somewhere on wikipedia that I could post a draft of my article, and request assistance from other editors on meeting wikipedia's standards? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in a user sandbox - I created one for you at User:Higginson21/Sandbox. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Help With Deleted Article
Moved here since it's all part of the same conversation --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Can I please call upon experienced editors to help me with an article that I wrote. It was entitled "Dunt Dunt Dunt" and was deleted by wikipedia's editors. I am happy to accept that changes need to be made to it. I have copied the article into my sandbox: User:Higginson21/Sandbox. Could editors please look at my article and the deletion log and help me to change it so that it will be suitable for Wikipedia's standards? Thanks! Higginson21 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, You need to show by means of references that the term is in common use. I looked at all of your refs and I can't see the term in any of them. I don't think you're going to be able to make this work. Why not take a look at some of the other things that need to be done here? --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would forget it, if I were you. Perhaps on April 1st. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AndrewHowse, I appreciate your feedback. Would referencing a source that simply uses the term be suffice? As I am sure you appreciate, for particular slang terms, there will seldom be a reputable website stating "(term) is an accepted term." What would be considered an appropriate reference? Jezhotwells, my article is completely serious; you should not be so presumptuous when making accusations. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higginson21 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be a good start, but I don't know if that would be enough to establish notability. The notability guideline speaks of "multiple non-trivial" coverage by reliable sources, so you should satisfy that before re-posting, I think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese people genetic studies section
In the "Genetic Studies" section of the sinhalese people article. User: Edwards Scholars who I also think is 76.111.25.195 keeps on adding information that is unreferenced or information which has a reference, but the reference does not support what the text is saying. The user also keeps adding a study on Indian ancestry, which is not relevant to the page. The user thinks this study is relevant just because Sinhalese subjects were used in the test. The user does not listen to criticism and keeps reverting any changes to his entry. Another user; Icemansatriani, also thinks Edwards Scholar is adding "irrelevant and often wrong interpretations of the references". Which is mainly "Opinion". Please see the talk page for a better understanding of the conflict. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinpg (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You could take this to WP:Dispute resolution or you could open a request for comment on the the editor in question. Oh, and don't forget to sign using four tildes (~) :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We need help or advice in the "Ear Training" discussion
A massive discussion was made debating the relevance of several external links. In the end a 3 to 1 consensus was reached to establish criteria for the inclusion of related links. You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ear_training#Promotional_links

Well the opposing editor on a whim wiped out the content agreed upon and also wouldn't accept the criteria previously accepted when another user requested inclusion in the discussion page. I found out he financially benefits from the behavior we've been seeing, namely he wipes out all links in the perfect pitch, ear training and music theory pages and guards them. Still he preserves his own original research on the perfect pitch page without the same criteria he demanded from us. He sells ear training, relative pitch and perfect pitch software for a living and benefits from such actions. I've documented evidence of a conflict of interest on the discussion page and would like a third party to intervene or advise and say what's the next step.

Erin Fogle (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation/moderation is definitely necessary. We're at an irredeemable impasse. Our respective positions are spelled out-- well, more like drawn out-- on the Ear training discussion page, for those (masochists?) who wish to sift through it all, although I could easily summarize my perspective if requested. aruffo (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I edit articles for which I am the authority for the edit?
Dear Wiki:

I have indeed received "scary messages" (your term) that I'll be blocked from editing if I continue to contribute uncited information.

The "scary messages" were about my edit of the Hunter S. Thompson article and the Gonzo Journalism article.

Re the latter, I am supplying information that only I may know. I doubt that others who were alive in Louisville in the 1940s and 1950s, or at the University of Arkansas in 1961, would (a.) have these memories, and/or (b.) ever have thought of applying those memories to these two subjects. I have no personal investment in getting this information on wikipedia. I do think it is of historical importance, however, and that my status as a professor of Linguistics ought to be good enough to allow me to report it.

Re the former, I re-edited the piece to try to make it completely factual. I think I have done so. I point out that the documentary film on Hunter S. Thompson omits certain facts and events. It is a fact that it does: these facts and events are themselves well-documented in all sort of places. I can, if you wish, cite those. It is also a fact that the film's omission of these facts and events, intentional or unintentional, belies and undermines the historicity of its narrative for those who know of those facts and events. Again, I have no personal investment in this -- although I did know Hunter slightly in Louisville long ago when we were kids.

Thanks for reading. God bless Wikipedia. Leo Daugherty, University of Virginia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.196.211 (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please read the page on verifiability, and the page on incorporation of original research, for insight into posting on Wikipedia. Newportm (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leo - It all boils down to this: if it hasn't already been published in what we deem a reliable source, we can't include it. So we can't incorporate something that is personal knowledge. To the extent that the information you want to include has already been published in a reliable source, it can be included by citing that source. If it hasn't been, it can't be included. - Nunh-huh 11:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

reverse discrimination article
Hi there,

I added some information to the reverse discrimination article and also cleaned up some of the grammar. But now somebody keeps deleting the section I added (In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), decided together with Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, "The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.")

This is a legitimate, referenced post.

Thanks for your help,

Kate Fitzgerald Malke 2010 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you have opened a discussion on the article's talk page - that's the first place to attempt to reach consensus. If that ends in stalemate, please come back and ask for further assistance. – ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

trying to write a wiki page on an acquaintance's company
Hello,

I am trying to write a wiki page on an acquaintance's company--it's a start up and I just want to write a description of the company. I'm trying to be encyclopedic, but every time I save the page, I'm told it is marked for speedy deletion. I looked at General Electric's page and keep the same tone, but I keep getting the notice that it's marked for speedy deletion.

Can I get some suggestions?

Thanks!

ArmenianClarinet —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianClarinet (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's a startup it is very unlikely to meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP. You could create the article in a user subpage and ask for it to be reviewed, but it's probably not worth the time and effort. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to avoid 3RR violation
I have been watching the article. Recently an editor has changed the casualty counts for the battle that are listed in the infobox to figures which are supported by a seemingly amateur website, against longstanding figures which are supported by citation in the prose and by the US National Park Service website. I have reverted the change twice clearly pointing to the refs and a talk page explanation, here. The change has been made again, without comment; I believe there is some POV pushing going on here. What can I do to maintain the correct figures as I am unable to change them back now without violating 3RR? This is the first time I have encountered this situation so I would appreciate some help. Sswonk (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about POV-pushing; the other editor is relatively new. I've reverted the change, and will leave a note regarding 3RR and referencing on his/her talk page, encouraging discussion before further changes are made. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

O'Donnell Heights Baltimore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Donnell_Heights,_Baltimore

O'Donnell Heights Housing projects are almost exclusively Caucasian so why is it listed with "United States communities with African American majority populations"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.105.45 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea. Maybe if you ask on the article's talk page someone will explain or agree that the category can be removed. – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Issues for Article Submitted
Hi there,

I am trying to get Coldwell Banker Intercontinental Affiliates on Wiki. I have designed their website and written all the content on www.cb-ia.com.

I have toned down the text so it objective and not an advertisement, however my review is still pending as the text I have submitted on wiki is similar to the text on the cb-ia.com website I have created.

Please advise on what I can do to address the copyright problem.

Thank you Waseem 

Link to pending article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/COLDWELL_BANKER_Intercontinental_Affiliates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseemht (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, might I suggest that you read WP:What Wikipedia is not and also the article on conflict of interest and WP:Notability. It seems likely that such an article is not suitable for Wikipedia and will be quickly deleted.  However I may be wrong.  To address the copyright problem, completely rewrite all text in a neutral point of view, including material that addesses the notability if that is possible and support it with references from WP:Reliable sources.  Please also read and understand WP:CORP which explains the criteria for articles on businesses in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about picture on Female body shape
I am concerned that the image used on the article Female body shape constitutes pornography. My teenage children have browsed this website as an educational tool and I do not wish them to encounter such images. The image in question can be found around halfway down the page, captioned "Real woman demonstrating the hourglass body shape". Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedfather (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia is not censored. Crafty (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I don't see why it must be a naked women. This seems to me as though it is peddling pornography for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedfather (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that a picture of a clothed woman will not demonstrate body shape as clearly as a naked one. That's why every woman pictured in that article (not just the one you are for some reason focusing on) is naked. Algebraist 22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I would suggest that the shape of the female body is most accurately illustrated by showing a woman without her clothes. I would respectfully submit that removing that image because you (concernedfather) or anyone else objects on the moral grounds would be contrary to Wikipedia policy. Discussion should focus on why the image is not suited to that particular article. You (concernedfather) might wish to pursue this matter on the article talk page. Crafty (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you install some kind of content filter. See also WP:Options to not see an image. –xenotalk 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nude photography is a style of art photography which depicts the nude human body as a study. Nude photography should be distinguished from erotic photography, which has a sexually suggestive component.
 * According to the article on pornography, the images on the Female body shape page do not constitute pornography, because they are not a "...depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer." The article on nude photography also distinguishes nudity from erotic nudity:
 * It is only by means of a preconception that "nude is lewd" that the images on the page can be seen as pornographic. The images on the page illustrate the female form in a sensual, not sexual, way.  We somehow manage when we see our naked pets in greater detail around the house and we understand their excretory needs.  These images, showing less than the family dog does, show us more about ourselves.  The images are educational; they are not pornography catering to a prurient interest. Newportm (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want your children to encounter pictures of naked women then keep them locked in dungeon for the rest of their lives! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The explanations here are a little disingenuous; the reason there's an article on female body shape and none on male body shape; the reason there's a photograph of a nude woman but none of a nude man on human body shape, and the reason WIkipedia's editors chose the particular photo under discussion are all the same, and is an open secret: we're on the Internet, and a lot of hormonally activated teenage boys who might not get to see real nude women edit here. They edit what interests them, and that's nude girls. The fact is, that the photo is certainly not pornographic, but it certainly is there at least partially for titillation, even if some care to think otherwise. But the photo won't be removed: the community here likes these pictures. Viewing the photo won't have much of an effect on your children, though I understand wanting to protect them from her sagginess. - Nunh-huh 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : Generally the goal of scholarly or scientific work is to show reality as explicitly, starkly, and clearly as possible in order for everyone to understand and benefit. I've personally never understood the need for various types of concealment but if education is the goal, explicit is the most direct route. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concern about your children viewing images of nude woman seems based on the assumption that this would cause some harm to them, however no scientific studies have shown that viewing images (sexually explicit or otherwise) causes "harm." If you're concerned, as I suspect, that it would cause your children to ask you uncomfortable questions, perhaps you should look inside yourself to see why this is so rather than attempt to publicly resolve a personal issue. Lexlex (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP said something about educational purposes and gave no indication of specific issues beyond the uninformative label "pornography" and Ed Meese isn't returning my e-mails. While historically many taboos have existed around sex, body fluids, or corpse dissection, educational purpose AFAIK is synonymuous with explicit and clear. Presumably this goal is primary before any possible  hazards- corpses and body fluilds are not always safe but I'm not sure what hazards exist with information.  Generally it is best to be explicit about your fears and not assume we are mind readers. In short, what are you worried about and what limits do you wish to place on education and learning ? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Conviction of Michael Shields
I am very unhappy with Jw2035's comments towards me that I am vandalising this page. The current page contained innacuracies and not a lot of information on the case.

I replaced it with information such a dossier containing the facts for Mr Shields and the facts against. I also included a confession from Graham Sankey which was a relevant part of the case. I didn't once use my own views as I didn't want it to be biased. I wanted people to get as much information as possible with verified facts.

All my changes were rollbacked and I received a final warning to stop vandalising the page. I was upset that Jw2035 had referred to me as a vandal and if he was not happy with my changes could have changed or deleted some of it rather than rolling it all back.

I have discussed this with the user but he has reiterated that he thinks I am a vandal and am biased.

I would like a second opinion on this as I think Jw2035 may be biased himself, having looked at his changes under his old username of Jw2034, he clearly does not like Liverpool Football Club. Of which this case has some relation to.

If you would like some ideas of what I think is currently innacurate with the page, I will use a section from the start of the page.

Nine witnesses, both Bulgarian and British, later testified at the trial and many of them — including Georgiev himself — positively identified Shields (in an identity parade and in the court) as a person present at the crime scene and as the perpetrator of the crime.

The witnesses were Bulgarian, there were no British witnesses testifying against Mr Shields. Mr Georgiev didn't positively identify Mr Shields as he had stated that he only saw him from behind. He had said he most closely resembled the attacker. Some other witnesses also weren't postive that it was Mr Shields. Also, the three other people in the identity parade didn't resemble Mr Shields at all, they were all Bulgarian and very different in appearance. This is an important part of the case that hasn’t been mentioned. Also the fact that his picture was posted in the press before the ID parade has not been mentioned. These are all relevant facts to the case.

I think these comments are innacurate and biased which is the reason the information was changed. I think all the facts need to be known on the case for people to be able to form their own opinion.

Some of the information I put in was as follows..

Mr Georgiev had told police that he had not had a good view of his attacker. Mr Shields’ image had been published in the Bulgarian media prior to this identification.

Both of these things are facts of the case, not biasism.

I would be grateful if another editor could review the page and make any relevant changes for people to get the full picture of the case. Thanks.

Please note that my changes were under user 86.14.122.51. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castinglazyshadows (talk • contribs) 19:16, July 24, 2009
 * Right, on your talk page is a welcome message with links to the core Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. I suggest you take some time out from editing and read these articles. You have been introducing POV and and unsourced material into the article, which is not allowed in this encyclopeadia.  Keep the discussions on the article talk page civil, remember that this is a consensus project.  Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal
Could someone please check out this portal I've created and tell me if it's ready to add the template to the right to related articles. Thank you  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly experienced with portal work, but it looks all right to me. Go for it!    Fl ee tf la me   22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Airways Australia
In the Tiger Airways Australia article I have included the date of the axing of their Perth-Adelaide route (which has been disclosed to agents), however this has been removed by Bidgee claiming the booking engine referenced (showing the flights no longer operating) does not meet the verifiability criteria.

Airlines all over the world cut routes everyday without issuing press releases as they do not like to publicise failure and every airline route change is not considered newsworthy by the media. This is reflected on many other airline destination sections across Wikipedia that do not cite media releases, they are accepted based on output from reservations (GDS' such as Amadeus, Sabre etc. or proprietary set-ups) systems which do not lie.

Appreciate a third opinion. Thanks. 60.228.249.121 (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Assertions do have to be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. Have you checked those policies or policies specific (if any) to airline articles? Crafty (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Bidgee's edit summary seems to suggest that an assertion you back up with the reference is not supported by that reference. Crafty (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

improved article
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia as editor. I have just edited a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Thessaloniki) and I am eager to know whether I did everything alright (I also made more changes to it today, before I got an account).Eunapios (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you still have a lot of speculation the article, phrases such as was surely of Germanic, and most probably Gothic, descent.; the increased moral importance of the church's representatives was nevertheless clear, as was the fact that the Emperor could no longer readily ignore their views; are not very encyclopaedic and the referencing is inadequate. You should seek an informal peer review and assessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment  : Speculation is OK as long as it is not your own. Even wrong or unprovable is fine as long as it documents a notable POV. For example, there are articles on spontaneous generation and religions. The former essentially discredited, the latter held to be true by many. As long as your text makes it clear where the speculation comes from, " leading many scholars to conclude that Joe was surely of Germanic descent[1,2,infinity]." 23:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs)

Editor Assistance/Request
I wish to refer to below note from the Editor " Twinzor " Say hi! 14:19, Dec 2008 and point out that nothing has changed, despite assurance received. Ürményháza still can not be accessed directly unlike Jermenovci. So, the problem, the unfairness remain unsolved. Could it be fixed and checked out afterwards? Thank you. --Attilaurm (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference:I've redirected the page Ürményháza to Jermenovci, so the article is now accessible via either name. When conversing on Wikipedia talk pages please always sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (Attilaurm (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)) at the end of your post. This will automatically produce your signature & timestamp. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 14:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes if you enter Ürményháza into the article search box you get re-directed to Jermenovci which is exactly what User:Twinzor said would happen.  The lead starts with Jermenovci (Serbian: Jermenovci or Јермeновци; Hungarian: Űrményháza; German: Ürmenhausen). I see no unfairness.  It is conventional to name articles about places after the name in use in the relevant country. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Decade
I am concerned about the neutrality of this article [ and all articles named. I renamed the article to 'masked rider' and have since provided multiple sources to show that the name is the official english name given by the production company and also commonly used in the west. The problem is that there is two users blocking me. there has been no census thus far as the article is of low importance, but i have provided all the evidence and am following wikipedia guidelines on naming conventions. I would appreciate if anyone can help with the article in question. Drag-5 (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it would see that there was no consensus for the move - I suggest you just walk away. there are lots of other areas of Wikipedia to edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was sure that wikipedia is supposed to be accurate and factual. I do feel like walking away, i think it would save me hassle, but i am concerned that wikipedia is not a reliable information source. especially when people become passionate and do not remain impartial. Drag-5 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just another example of Drag-5 attempting to disrupt the article by moving it, as he had done four times in a 24 hour period. Drag-5 did not have consensus to move the page before, and certainly did not have it afterward. The article is entirely neutral, and the name that he is suggesting is in no way the common name (nor the official name) in the Anglophone world.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Eduardo Bours Castelo biographical page is not updated
Eduardo Bours Castelo (Governor of Mexican State of Sonora) biographical page is not updated. Wikipedia fails to mention that his State is in turnmoil over the fire deaths of 48 infantes in a government-operated nursery and that he (Governor Eduardo Bours Castelo) is being blamed by the the majority of the Sonoran population as the culprit. Weekly protests of up to 20,000 civilians have taken place since June and they end either at his palatian government building or at his official residence, with massive number of people asking for his resignation. In May 2009 he announced his plans to seek the Presidency of Mexico in 2012 but this tragedy that ocurred on June 5th 2009 has all but evaporized any chance he might have had to be Mexico's next President. The popular uproar resulted in his party (PRI) loosing the Governorship of his State of Sonora to an opposition party (PAN) for the first time since the Mexican revolution of 1910. His acceptance numbers plummeted to the lowest acceptance numbers of ANY Governor in Mexican history and now he faces the possibility of criminal charges after his succesor takes office in September 2009. Please update his biographical page. Thank you.

Proof/Sustaing of evidence:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/15/mexico.day.care.anger/index.html http://babyboomeradvisorclub.com/mexico-day-care-fire-update46-children-dead-and-mourners-are-outraged/

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=437176

https://bilingualbrains.com/ABCparents_claim_justice.html

http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/mexicos-daycare-fire-not-even-babies-are-protected/#more-5873

http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/environment/mexico%E2%80%99s-daycare-fire-not-even-babies-are-protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.14.20 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, so why don't you go ahead and edit the page, attributing all statements you add to reliable sources and remembering to maintain a neutral point of view and of course avoidinga any original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Right to exist
An editor has written a new version of this article. He is convinced his new version is better than that arrived at over years, and constantly reverts to his new version, which involves deleting large amounts of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel the editor is edit warring please report at WP:3RR. You could request an WP:RfC to determine the consensus - but the subject of the article is sadly a constant area of edit wars. Keep talking, maintain civility. I am placing a comment on the editor's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. deletion
I wrote a page for Grant & Eisenhofer law firm last week and it was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted soon thereafter. Most assertions made in the page were cited with valid sources. I also read many pages on other law firms before writing Grant & Eisenhofer's to ensure that only appropriate information was included. The neutrality of the article was disputed before it was nominated for speedy deletion, the neutrality may be questionable but how can that be addressed by other users if the page is deleted? I would like feedback on how to edit this page to ensure that it is not speedily deleted again. Thanks. Steph0513 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The second time it was deleted as being promotional. Even if that was not your intention that is apparently (I cannot see the deleted article as I am not an admin) how it read. So take a look at WP:SPAM for guidance and WP:COI if you are connected to the firm. If you wish to recreate the article, please do so in a user subpage where you can work on it over time. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an admin, and have examined the deleted version. It reeks of a promotional tone, and is "sourced" primarily to the subject's own website. It reads, frankly, like a more dignified version of the television ads one is subjected to every day. Steph0513, what is your connection with the firm? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a connection with the firm. I am just a summer intern who decided to write a wikipedia page for the firm, I'm not being monitored, it is my own independent project. Again, I looked at many articles for other law firms and the second version of the Grant & Eisenhofer article (posted and deleted last week) was comparable to those. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom's page proclaims they are "prominent" in the first sentence of the article. Perhaps you could be more specific as to what "reeks" in the Grant & Eisenhofer page. I was very careful to eliminate the diction that seemed too favorable to the firm. Since the page only provided information regarding the history of the firm, the firm's methodology, and the firm's practice areas I'm not sure what else can be changed without compromising the information made available. I agree that the first version of the page (one that included attorney profiles and case descriptions) did not meet wikipedia's standards. However, the second version was a complete re-write and it was tagged for not meeting wikipedia's neutrality standards which I can understand, but speedy deletion seemed unwarranted. Steph0513 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're their intern; you have a strong conflict of interest (the better they look in Wikipedia, the better an internship with them reflects on you). As to promotional language:
 * "represents both public and private institutional investors who have been negatively affected by fraud, greed, and mismanagement" "left...to pursue an opportunity" "The Handbook is a comprehensive guide" "Since the firm’s founding, it has represented more than one hundred institutional investors and has acted as lead counsel in six of the largest securities class actions in United States history" we need a better source than the subject's own website for an assertion like this "The firm initiates litigation to reform companies’ corporate governance policies." reform by whose lights? "Grant & Eisenhofer’s founding purpose was to represent and protect institutional investors. The firm carefully manages its growth to ensure that it maintains its focus on securities litigation, corporate governance, and related services." "The firm has a case philosophy of extreme selectivity" "Whistleblower bounties total more than $2 billion since 1986." tacit implication that G&E is somehow responsible for most or all of that $2 billion


 * THIS SECTION IS BASICALLY AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR PORTFOLIO MONITORING SERVICES
 * === Portfolio Monitoring ===


 * With the goal of protecting institutional investor’s interests, Grant & Eisenhofer monitors new and potential litigation in the areas of shareholder derivative actions and federal securities fraud litigation. The firm monitors pending cases as well as finance and business news that may result in litigation or claims by federal or state regulators.  This service enables institutional investors to be aware of any legal action that may impact their investments.
 * Clearer now? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what your issues are with the page. However, I still do not think the way to solve these problems is to repeatedly delete the page. I know, as I'm sure you do, that looking good is not the purpose of wikipedia - so I'm not concerned with making the firm look good nor does my employment rely on a favorable wikipedia page.

Regarding the promotional language, most of these assertions are facts. If you do not care for the phrasing or think other sources are necessary, those problems are easily remedied without deleting the page from wikipedia immediately. Grant & Eisenhofer does represent institutional investors who have been damaged by those factors listed above; obviously if the investors were positively affected, a law firm's involvement would not be necessary. The firm has represented more than 100 institutional investors, this is a fact. I will look for this fact in other sources, just because gelaw.com states it should be enough. Law firms can't lie about themselves on their own websites, it would be completely unethical and fraudulent. Of course not everything that is disclosed on gelaw.com can be found in secondary sources, this does not disprove or invalidate anything on gelaw.com. The list of the six largest securities class action settlements is also a fact that should not be disputed just because it is from the firm's website. I cited their website because there is not a composite list of the six largest securities class action settlements of this exact kind. I am happy to find six separate articles that provide the settlement amount and lead counsel, but none of these will explicitly state that the settlement is, for example, the third largest to #1 and #2. The case philosophy of extreme selectivity has both positive and negative connotations, I did not take a side. I was absolutely not trying to imply that Grant & Eisenhofer was at all responsible for the $2 billion dollars in whistleblower bounties. I think this is clear since the firm was founded 11 years after whistleblowers began receiving bounties in 1986.

Most law firms in the United States have wikipedia pages. Most of their pages are not neutral; and yet, most of their pages are still on wikipedia. I have no problem with this - everyone should know to take information from wikipedia, or any source for that matter, with a grain of salt. Deleting a page that is completely factual just because of its language undermines the purpose of wikipedia. The page should be left up to be edited by other users. The information is all there and I can find additional sources if necessary, but if the page is continually deleted, I will presumably be the only person working on it and that may never produce a completely neutral article to meet your standards. Steph0513 (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Soapbox: Lookup puffery and ( for fun see this as it is used by MCO's lawyers defending a shareholder suit, ROFLMAO ). And, if you want to do us all a favor, lobby to make the fed courts PACER system free and automation friendly ( one of their pages recommended to filers to flattern pdf submissions, in short remove all information that could be used to speed up investigations, this is opposite of what SEC has done). It is possible to edit articles with substantial conflicts and interests- one of my first was like this but it has survived so far. You need to approach this as if you were doing discovery or something investigative or scientific where you examine the information ( in this case the information known to others not your own secret or novel knowledges) in stark complete terms before composing persuasive point-of-view polemics. There may be other law firms represented and these may be better or may have just slipped by but in any case they may be notable for specific reasons. If the firm's lawyers are often cited in other publications, you may be able to admit these as useful sources. Specialist journals, law reviews etc, may be a good start on secondary sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Harassment, Possible Content War
I'd like to make a report on user The Clawed One for continually harassing other users on this particular article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dissidia:_Final_Fantasy I fear a content/edit war may spark from this, but I am personally more concerned about him riding high on a horse he doesn't own. I request that something be done to keep his attitude in check, please. --JJimbo3 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How cute he reports me for harassment when he's using far more hostile language:
 * "Wow, holy fuck. I so have every right to report your ass for harassment"
 * "If we go by your logic via that empty little head of yours"
 * "before you go and insult my intelligence, do some homework on your part"
 * What names have I called him before that? Uh...fool, that's about it. Seems he also doesn't know the other side of the debate - what he wants to edit the article for, is to add something the Admins themselves have said is not to be added without a source. The Clawed One (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikiquette alerts or WP:3RR are the likely venues for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR is not needed, he hasn't edited the article. The Clawed One (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Re)creating article on "Wokai"
Dear editors, I'm trying to post an article about Wokai, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. It has garnered several mentions and I believe it qualifies as significant under Wikipedia guidelines. I've posted a draft on User:Euwyn since the article is locked. Would dearly appreciate any assistance in (re)creating this article. Euwyn (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was recently create-protected by User:SoWhy. I've left him a note asking him to look over your page to see if its suitable to move to the mainspace.  Them  From  Space  04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Biography
There is a wikipedia biography entry for myself, Barbara Biggs.

Recently some information was added to my entry about a national protest campaign about the Family Court I organized. This was a national campaign held in five cities around Australia.

During and after the campaign several father's rights websites, including Dads on the Air, Dads in Distress and the Shared Parenting Council had included vilifying material about me on their websites.

They have now gone into the wikipedia site and added information to the discussion forum disputing the information provided. The person who made the entry did not provide citations, but I have since edited and added many citations to the entry so that the information is now indisputable.

My policy is not to respond to anything on these anti-women sites about me and I'd prefer not to respond to the comments on the discussion board for this reason. It only fuels further derogatory responses.

They have added some information about a false passport I had in 1977 which is fine - it's in my books anyway. However, many of the other comments they've written on the discussion forum are untrue. For example, they have said that the national rallies were attended only by my friends. Considering the five cities were thousands of miles apart, this is not possible and I have also added citations about the rallies which appeared in various newspapers around the country. (Coverage also appeared on 3-4 TV stations in all cities but I don't have citations for these.)

I'm not sure how to resolve this without involving myself in discussions with these people which I don't want to do.

Is it possible for an independent editor to take a look at the entry and discussion forum and resolve the dispute?

Kind regards

Barbara Biggs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.205.91 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment:  All that can really be stated here is "he said [he source] she said [she source]" with inclusion based on perceived reliability ( quite subjective ). With bio of a living person, there seems to be assymetry in inclusion criteria with information taken as derogatory being held to a higher standard so you may succeed even without merit if your case is as you have presented here. I would ask someone also to comment on wiki policies on citations to advocacy groups for issues beyond the present article - their reliability and what they can prove. Certainly if you have a large number of detractors, the fact of their existence should be notable and worthy of inclusion. Or, for that matter one notable heckler (" don't tase me bro" for example) may make for inclusion too. A wiki entry shouldn't take sides however, just document that a non-frivolous controversy exists but presumably gossip would not be encyclopedic. I'm not sure how characterising your supporters as "friends" relates to the overall article or if the sentiment is documented somehwere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Drafts
How do you make a totally NEW draft without editing another page? Like how do you add a page to a book that is not from Wiki? Can you even do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiG14 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're asking for a WP:sandbox. Just make a link like tne following and click on it - User:WikiG14/Sandbox. Does that work? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User Contribution Deletion
Dear Editor,

Yesterday, I added two rankings on the University of Chicago web page/Wikipedia topic, and was later deleted. The person who deleted my edition cited that it was because those rankings were categorized as "boosterism". After understanding what defines "boosterism", I believed that the ranking published by the Princeton Review does not qualify to be boosterism, since, 1) the founder of the ranking was not a graduate of the University of Chicago, 2) I am not a student at the University. In addition, who is to decide whether a ranking is "significant"? A ranking gathering opinions from 150,000 students from 366 colleges was somehow "insignificant" surprised me. If a person can dictate what should go on an article or a topic on Wikipedia, we won't need enthusiastic contributors like me. 5:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.188.80 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC
 * Well it look as if The Princeton Review does not meet the reliable source criteria and your reference was to a youtube video, which is also not a reliable source.  If you wish to discuss this furher with the reverting editor pleas discuss this on the artcile talk page.  That is what it is there for. And don't forget to sign your posts with four {#} tildes.Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why the Princeton Review does not meet the guidelines, when other rankings do. I agree that Youtube is not an appropriate source, but deleting others' helpful editing is wrong. I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not clear as to how signatures work. Does news articles like this meet the reliable source criteria (http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_chicago-stanford-best-for-undergrads_1048812 )? The Princeton Review's ranking was not based on the founder's opinions. It was based on scientific data. In no way did it infringe boostism. Also, in other universities' discussion forums, users could make various suggestions. That is not the case on UChicago's discussion forum; it is tightly controlled by a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.188.80 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To sign your posts, just write four tildes after them like this: ~ . Olaf Davis (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * RS  : Yes, can you explain why Princeton Review is not worth citing? This would seem to be of more general interest than only this page. Certainly they can be a reliable source when stating things about themselves, " The Princeton Review thinks that Chicago is good[pr source]." It doesn't even need to make a testable scientific claim- if the PR said that Chicago graduates often act "stupidly", that "analysis" may still constitute a notable opinion and as such be relevant to an entry on UC. "Boosterism" ( I use the legal term puffery ) probably means usage of vague positive terms to describe something. In this case, while we can't all meet for a beer, we can document notable opinions that may be right, wrong, or untestable. Not all news and current events are encyclopedic but notable opinions are often cited. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that User:DroEsperanto has already explained the reversion at User talk:24.86.188.80. As to Princeton Review, it is not a newspaper, as the name might imply, it is a crammer, no indication of editorial oversight or policy or reputation as reliable amongst other RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22princeton%20review%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn and therefore their statements would seem to be notable opinions about the topic. Is abortion murder? The topic is covered by wiki. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Notable  : The opinions of the PR appear to be covered by reliable secondary sources, for example,
 * Ah the google news hits counter. Have you actually read any of the articles?  No comments on reliability, mostly small town newspapers rehashing press releases put out by colleges that have made the list.  The few comments on the PR are that it has become known as the "Top Party List"..  As I said it is not a RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * RS  : Is Obama a reliable source on stupidity and wisdom? The fact is that edited reliable sources ( small town newspapers are still that ) cite the PR as a source- even parroting press releases, unless marked as ads, suggests they were worth using as a source, not quite a wire service or UPI but a source nonetheless. It doesn't need to state a provable opinion, just a notable one. Is the NARAL a reliable source on abortion ethics? Do they expound a notable opinion on the topic and could you ignore them in an article? Rankings are not provable, the only thing that can be said about an opinion is that it is notable or maybe frivolous. You don't need the article to say " we have proven UC to be good because PR says so" but merely mention in passing some notable opinion about the school that may or may not mean much. What about AP and UPI football rankings? Can those be cited? Are they realiable indicators of anything of substance? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

After contemplating for some time, I decided to cease contributing on Wikipedia, where everyone should be equal, except some people are more equal than others. Some people are able to dictate what other people should say. I think the way Wikipedia is constructed is problematic. If I Google "Wikipedia sucks", I can find amalgamate of people who share my view. Good luck. 24.86.188.80 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Help Stabilizing Article
Hi I've had an account for a couple of years but this is the first time I've been involved in anything I would consider a dispute. I noticed a broken citation on the article a couple of days ago, so I reverted the IP poster's edit to the last working version. The broken version was re-inserted again without comment on the talk page so I requested semi-protection. The page is now being edited by user User:Monlonet, whose only edits are in the Ararat article (still no response in the talk page). This seems like a good opportunity to get some practical experience in managing a dispute, so I'd appreciate some hand holding though the process if it's appropriate. Jminthorne (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You might drop a note on User talk:Monlonet; that's a fairly new account so the user might not have got the hang of talk pages yet and the orange banner might help. I also see User:Dbachmann in the edit history, who's a very experienced, so s/he might be able to help too. Do come back if you need help. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cam'ron
Hello i was just writeing today concerning your page for the rapper"Cam'ron".On the page it states"Cam'ron was also questioned on 60 Minutes about the "Stop Snitchin'" campaign. When asked if he would tell the police if a serial killer was living next to him, Cam'ron replied "I would probably move," but wouldn't inform the police. Cam'ron has had contact with the police in the past. According to The Smoking Gun, New York Police Department records indicate that Giles filed a police report with police after he was assaulted at a Harlem playground in 1999.[8]"I taking this would move to somehow discredit the validity of what he said on sixty minutes.#8 provides a link to the police report in question whereas on page two of the actual police report pertaining to description of suspects "UNKNOWN".So everybody loves the smoking gun.Loves to quote the smoking gun.If mr Cameron Giles apoun being asked by authoritys to give a description of his attckers and he provided no description where exactky is the smoking gun in this story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.90.191 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you need help with, but if you wish to discuss improvements to the article, the page for that is the talk page Talk:Cam'ron. Thanks. And don't forget to sign your posts with four (~) tildes. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ACTDU
The ACTDU page is being vandalised again. Recommend locking it for a while again after reverting vandals. Have already asked an admin to do so.JJJ999 (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AIV might be the place to go with this. Semi-protection might not be granted unless the level of vandalism increases. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am editing the above-noted article title. How do I place references in a list at the end of the article and index them with numbers that appear above in the text? I need to know the specific steps involved, because I seem to be leaving one of them out.

Thanks for your assistance in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodestar22 (talk • contribs)


 * Take a look at WP:CITE. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at it and did some other reformatting per WP:MOSBIO. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion?
.

I'm not sure how to nominate an article for deletion. the page about jayme langford needs to be deleted. it's just a way for her to advertise, which is disallowed on wp. thanks 174.49.116.149 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at the article and after considering the relevant notability guideline, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'll list the article for discussion at Articles for Deletion. Incidentally WP:AFD explains how to go about nominating an article for deletion. Crafty (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Weisbrot Living Person Dispute
I am in a dispute over content for a living person and I am requesting assistance to resolve the dispute. I have added material to the page and this material is repeatedly removed by two individuals. The dispute is documented in the talk pages, but essentially this: 1. Material that I have added links to blogs -- this was removed and I do not dispute that at this time.

2. References to the authors own work published in socialist magazines was removed when it is relevant to "who the person is" as he is one of a very few that does this.

3. References to a Book Review of his work -- by a well-known book seller (Amazon) a professional review was deleted which correctly characterize the man's work as 'liberal'

4. References to interviews given to self-described socialist magazines and organizations like alternet.

5. References to a speech he gave to the Left Forum, 2007, where the topic was "Forging a Radical Political Future ". where he represented "movements and tendencies on the Left" is verifiable, relevant, representative of his radical views.

I assert these are at least worth mentioning in the article, and clearly describe the man accurately as a liberal/progressive/leftist or radical economist. He as much self-describes when he gives a speech at the Left Forum 2007, representing movements and tendencies of the left. I have not even discussed the man's well-known connections and support of the socialist Hugo Chavez regime, and I dont' think that i need to at this point. The work speaks for itself, as does the weak, constantly changing arguments in the dispute. They wholesale undo every edit that I have made without any proposal for a compromise except "do it their way' We are not going to do it that way.  People come here for information they need the whole truth, not the cherry-picked truth that the other editors desire.

Kindly assist in the editing of this document. Thank you.--Altoids Man (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have already been pointed to the various dispute resolution procedures which are available on the article talk page. There is nothing else I can add, except that they are they and may be used. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add that as for Amazon, I don't think that a bookseller's review should be used, and in fact any other reviews on Amazon need to be cited to their original source as the quotes may well be very selective, rather like those on s billboard advertising a play (now becoming illegal in the UK, see . Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everybody in the book trade knows that Amazon "reviews" are often written by authors, friends of authors, enemies of authors, press agents, etc. Amazon reviews are never reliable sources. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Emilio Delgado - replacing the entire text of an article
In this edit, User:Savoirflare (who has never edited any other article, since joining in October 2008) replaced the entire text of Emilio Delgado. The new text appears valid, if a bit promotional, and includes details not in the original text; the new text, however, is unwikified and omits some information from the original text. It reads as if it was taken from an official biography, but a Google search turns up nothing. Any thoughts? Powers T 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The new version removes some citations, and is totally uncited. It also has a definite bio feel to it. I'd revert to the sourced version, personally. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done that and left a note on User:Savoirflare's talk page. The artcile as it stands could do with more references. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also pointed User:Savoirflare at this discussion. It appears that the rewrite was done by User:Savoirflare and Emilio Delgado so I have explained WP:COI to the editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; the main reason I brought it here is because the edits did look legitimate, but obviously not conforming to policy. I'm glad that Savoirflare is acting in good faith, at least.  Powers T 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whitby Mental Health Centre has changed its name
Hello,

Whitby Mental Health Centre in Whitby, ON Canada has changed its name to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences. I have updated the content on the Wikipedia page, but cannot change the title of the page. Also the link to the page should be both Whitby Mental Health Centre and Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores).

Please advise.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxtonk (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. Article moved. Whitby Mental Health Centre is now a redirect to the new title. I also created Ontario Shores Centre as a redirect. – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I should also add that the article has some issues, particularly a complete lack of sources to indicate notability and a distinctly spammy tone. I have chopped out some of the over the top spam, but it still needs work. – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Got logged out
Hello - I was editing something and my log-in went. I'd like to hide my IP. How do I do that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was a comment on a talk page, just append a note to your post and sign it. If it was an edit to an article, don't worry.  Or if you need to explain,do so on the artcile talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No - you misunderstand - IPs do not preserve anonymity, and I occasionally (like many) come across the borderline insance on wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oversight can be used to hide IP addresses from revision histories - you can request it as described at Requests for oversight. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed! I'll try there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove article
Hello,

I'm new to Wikipedia. I read the Karl Rove article last night and I'd like to put a heading at the beginning of the article that lets the reader know this article is biased.

In doing research on Rove, I find the Wikipedia article is definitely slated to the negative perspective. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral. I question the neutrality of this article. In addition, this article is poorly constructed. It is confusing and does not flow in an informative manner.

How can we make this article better? Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're absolutely right. Wikipedia should be neutral. I applaud your desire to intervene, because wikipedia only remains neutral so far as editors make the effort to change things for the better. There are four things to say about how you can make it better.


 * The first is straightforward. Try edit the sections you think are biased, but always respond to any challenges on the talk page. Karl Rove is a controversial figure, and as such, passions can run high. It's easier to deal with editors getting out of hand on the talk page rather than edit warring.
 * Secondly, be aware that Karl Rove does have a history of unethical political activity, and that there are a lot of things that may be fairly said about him that are negative. A lot of the negative things he's done are well sourced. Balance does not mean portraying every subject of a bio article as half good half bad. (The corollary of that is that there may be parts of the article that have been edited to make him look even worse.) I recently created an article about someone who really does seem a nasty piece of work - it was immediately nominated for deletion (but passed on account of the sourcing I had put in). This argument made in the discussion I think deals with the problem well. I'm not saying what I created was perfect, but the comment illustrates how wikipedia should deal with people with bad reputations.
 * Third - only tag the article as non-neutral if you are very clear about what parts of it are not neutral. Tagging an article without clear reasons is more or less saying I don't like it. It comes across as biased on your part. Clear reasons are things like the article gives undue weight to certain facts or opinions, or there are unverified facts or non-notable opinions which bias the article.


 * If you do want to tag, look at the templates here. All you need to do is insert the text in the left hand column into the article.


 * For the record, I agree that there are problematic parts of that article. Have a go at making them better.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks so much for your help. However, I am slashing and cutting. I'm trying to make the article manageable by giving it a structure to start fresh. The bias it seems is in the choice of the things being put in about him and the things being left out. It is deliberately written to portray him as evil with no redeeming qualities. There is no mention of how Rove got Bush elected twice as governor and twice as president. The the Valerie Plume affair, where the prosecutor found no Rove involvement gets up there. See my point? Neutral means neutral. This article is so slanted I can't start making it coherent if I don't delete this stuff. Also, I do sign my changes. And I'm in the process so I haven't gone back to the talk page every time but I was planning to. I kept track of everything I did. So please help me and next time, please don't reverse edits without questioning me first. This is hard work and I don't take Wikipedia lightly. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article with your rollbacks gives undue weight to only certain things in his life and does not give a true portrait. This is against Wikipedia policy. Also, tagging this article is absolutely justified. This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia that I have encountered.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To explain to other editors - in a series of edits, Malke cut out half the material in the article. I rolled back his edits and asked him to go more slowly, and act in good faith by trying to source controversial material rather than delete it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebiya Kadeer
Just seeking some quick advice before the real trouble starts:

There was a consensus at [] not to include a certain passage in an article, and thus an IP user did not get his/her way.

Said user keeps inserting the passage and now sent me a "vandalism" warning for reverting it (I'm not sure whether I'm the only recipient or maybe he/she decided to play that spiel with everyone).

Should this user persist, what would be the appropriate steps in this matter? (There's a host of people reverting him/her every now and then, so none of us would fall into this trap, but nonetheless, just asking... also for future reference) Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For persistent reverts you should report at WP:3RR. You should step up the warnings on repeat offences. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "Resolved". :) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon page
Hello, I am being accused by user: Radiopathy of being in an "edit war" by reverting edits three times on the John Lennon page -- however, it was he who started the editing and the information in his edit is incorrect. He also asked for a "citation" for something and I provided TWO references, then he slapped me with a warning.

I tried to reason with him, even email him, which he ignored, so I ask for help in this matter. I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" and we're just trying to keep it good and factual. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right - you should be discussing this on the article talk page - that is what it is there for. Discussions scattered over user talk pages and emails are impossible to follow coherently. Discussions on the article talk page enable consensus to emerge. Neither yourself or the other editor are providing edit summaries to clarify what you are doing. If another editor reverts sourced material then you may want to consider action such as going to WP:3RR.
 * The dispute seems to centre on the year that Lennon "retired". Can you source that?  If so, put it in with the source and perhaps come back here if it gets reverted again. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" - can you cite that, too?!? This sounds like a slight case of article ownership; I think the user needs to step back a bit and realise that it's a collaborative effort.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a Beatles fan (though by no means an expert), I see the question to be thus: Did John Lennon that he perform live or release anything new during 1976? Since his last concert was in 1975, according to the article, it is a question of releases. The last album he released before Double Fantasy was Shaved Fish in 1975, and I am unable to find any 1976 singles. Therefore, I think he retired in 1975. Den dodge T\C 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's go back to the article talk page for this.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User Subpage Move
Hi,

I'm a new wikipedia user and have been having some trouble with the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. page. It has been re-written three times and nominated for several speedy deletions. However, today the speedy deletion tag was removed by an admin. This admin said that while the copy could use some editing, it did not need to be deleted. Another admin didn't seem to agree and subsequently moved the page to my user subpage User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.. I would greatly appreciate any editing assistance so this page can be moved back to the main namespace. I have also written another section "Notable Cases" that gives more detailed information on the cases listed in the current History section but was hesitant to post it because of the speedy deletion tag. I will post this new section for editing assistance upon request.

Thanks so much, Steph0513 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL  : I think I either commented or intended to comment on this when it came up. Maybe I mentioned MCO and puffery IIRC. If you are the shareholder litigators, I think I suggested removing any puffery and finding notable cases. Some admins seem to think CNN is the only secondary source of relevance but I think you can make a case for unrelated mention in other sources- law reviews, industry rags depending on details, etc. If you really have ( ??? windoze just popped up some junk, not sure about edit now... ) "made the news" for your case work that should establish notability. Even having particularly annoying ads reviewed by a reliable source for a "slip and fall" group could establish (unfavorable) notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did comment, and I took your comments into consideration when writing the current version. Since the page does have a Recognition section, should this constitute notability? - this is partially why I'm confused, if an organization has been recognized it is probably a notable organization, right? I did find more info on notable cases, the cases listed in the history section, but didn't want to post anything new until the existing page showed it had some staying power. Thanks! Steph0513 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For notability as defined for Wikipedia purposes in this context, please see WP:CORP. Also the draft reads like an advertisement, along the lines of a press release or a marketing brochure, in violation of WP:SPAM. Much of the puffery will have to be excised if it is to survive as an article in mainspace: for example, the list of settlements serves no encyclopedic purpose, neither does the firm methodology stuff. Similarly much of the stuff in the history section reads like a "This his how great we are" and is encyclopedic. In addition, if you are connected with the firm, your COI will mean that the article will be heavily scrutinised for non-neutral material. The inability to maintain a neutral POV is the main reason why editors are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles where they have a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Counterpoints/Mitigating  : I haven't read the article but some considerations that help include secondary source coverage. If you can cite popular press or legal journals or maybe other sources independent of your self that could mean that your "this is how great we are" is actually encyclopedic- historic victories and various sports figures "go down in history" just for having a factual record of accomplishment but it needs independent notice exclosive of wiki and yourself. The fact that you authored the account yourself doesn't change the facts but it is easy to believe that you have added extraneous adjectives and puffery. Business methodologies would have to at least be obviously related to your notability- if your litigations are included in legal text books or journals that may help. Indeed, a novel business method would seem to be non-trivial and encyclopedic as much as mass production or interchangeable parts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I believe that the page in question does cite popular and reputable sources. The article has 60 references, approximately 5 of those 60 are the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. official website. Most of them are news sources (i.e. The New York Times, USA Today, The Seattle Times, The Boston Globe) and legal resources (Chambers and Partners, RiskMetrics, Stanford Law School Securities Class Action ClearingHouse). There isn't a single assertion made within the article that is not cited. This is why I'm unsure of where I went wrong with the page. Is it possible for you to review the page and let me know what you think? Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anybody here is going to plough through 60 refs in search of one that isn't either a press release or a tangential mention. There needs to be a story in a mainstream reliable source about the law firm, not simply mentioning that the firm acted for one of the parties in a case. Can you point to any such source, please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Q can you point to the specific guidance here? This came up in regards to software which may be mentioned in a scientific paper in only a few lines. Many such passing references would indicate that many authors have noted the software. Having clients may not be notable but a major participant in notable events such as litigation seems encyclopedic esp with even minor articles about the firm.

I guess everyone would be happy if you could single out one article about the firm rather than a case. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you posing that question to me? If so, then yes, it's at WP:CORP. "... major participant in notable events ..." is not sufficient here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I guess. Here is a quote from your citation,

"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Keep in mind that the source- news, review, journal, etc, may only mention the lawyers once but fully all of the case details rely on this participant- the strategy, the filings, the testimony- is all elicited from one of the litigating attornies. You can't cover a case without covering the firm presenting a case. And, ok, if they happen to get one or two notable cases, you may be able to argue "notability doesn't diffuse" but a long string of notable cases does suggest something about their business methods etc. I would argue this would be similar to a string of scientific articles that all use the same software for data analysis- the software may only get passing mention in most articles, there may or may not be any articles about the software although there may be some "how to guides" or articles about the algorithm it implements or maybe blog posts from scientific authors on how great it is, but AFAIK it could still make notability based on this. It isn't like they need to have a front page article on the firm to make it notable. I guess you could literally interpret the above quote taking "subject of" to mean that an article must be essentially about the firm, but by detailing their actions in the context of a legal action then articles about the litigation are about the firm as far as notability goes ( no?). It hardly seems necessary for their to be specific articles on the company although you would think that with enough notable cases, there would be relevant reliable coverage of the firm. Part of notability is almost tautological with being able to write a good article- if the firm fails notability criteria, you are left with puffery, gossip, ads, blog posts, stuff you made up, and trivial details. If reliable sources contain sufficient information to make a good article for the intended audience, it seems a reasonable interpretation of the above citation is as I have outlined. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All references used in the Recognition section specifically pertain to Grant & Eisenhofer or one of their attorneys. I have listed them below. However, I agree that passing references should still be considered notable. After all, the publication could have chosen not to make any mention at all. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202424985891&slreturn=1 You can see that Grant & Eisenhofer was listed in the Plaintiffs' Firms Hot List Hall of Fame but you'll need a subscription to see the actual article.

http://www.riskmetrics.com/issgovernance/scas/scas50_2007.html

http://www.riskmetrics.com/white_papers/scas50_2008

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/03/25/the-scas-50-for-2008-top-plaintiffs-firms-for-securities-class-actions/

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Editorial/33451#org_75451

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/75451-33451/173260

http://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/Firms/75451-33451/195681

http://www.delawaretoday.com/Delaware-Today/November-2004/November-2004-Table-of-Contents/ You will need a subscription to view this article as well.

http://www.treasuryandrisk.com/Issues/2005/June%202005/Pages/100-Most-Influential-People-In-Finance.aspx?PrintPreview

http://www.directorship.com/the-2008-list-of-influentials-on-the-directorship-100/

http://www.boardmember.com/Legal-Briefs.aspx This features a few law firms, Grant & Eisenhofer being one of them.


 * No, no, no, no! The key is substantial coverage of the firm itself, as opposed to cases it is working on, etc. Notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" it by representing a famous client or selling to a famous company, any more than software becomes notable by being used (or even mentioned favorably in passing) by a notable scientist. Passing mentions are not substantial coverage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * *  See Above : I used the term "diffusion of notability" but pointed out that covering a case IS covering the firm. That is, everytime the article says "plaintiff" it means "the firm" even if their name is only mentioned once. A study of the case is essentially a study of the firm, unless of course it is an isolated case where the facts are all that matter. In this case, a string of cases where the argumentation makes the case notable implies that the article is about the argumentation of the firm. Surely you can't argue over nouns- if the article repeatedly refers to plaintiff rather than firm, you can't reasonably claim the firm is irrelevant. A string of notable cases would seem to make the firm notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise this is a bit of a tangent, but you can't be serious, surely? A study of the case is a study of the firm? I suppose an entirely mundane case, interesting only for the quality of the arguments, might perhaps make that last true, but otherwise that's far too much of a stretch. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it depends. I guess I would restate my other comment that secondary source coverage has to be non-trivial enough to write a good article (duh). That is, it is essentially moot to argue if an article is about a case or a firm, but if in the act of describing the case, they produce enough information about the firm to write an article, then who cares ( what wiki policy states) that the secondary source has to have the firm's name in the title and launch into a story about the firm in detail? Granted, one case may make the case notable, probably not the firm. But, if the story mentions the firm in passing and then goes on and on, "plaintiffs argued that defendants wre idiots, in a style they have used before" that would suggest the article describes the firm in enough detail to allow one to write an article about firm's "idiot namecalling strategy." I would concede of course that many cases have the paricipants as robots, and in fact you would be right that there would be no requirement for case coverage to make the firms notable. I guess it depends. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Any source ought to be judged on its merits. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * * Clarify: I guess I would also consider the other point above and I guess it is possible that argumentation is directed by actual plaintiff and not the lawyers. But, often you have a person who just feels cheated and then the lawyers make the case notable. So, I don't think you have to distort the wiki policies or guidelines to accept that a source that provides enough information to write an article is "about the firm" to the extent required to make it notable. Obviously, "reliability" would depend on this not being self-aggrandizement from the firm website etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the links I posted above? Grant & Eisenhofer obviously does have substantial coverage and rankings. This law firm does not represent famous clients, it represents pension funds and other institutional investors (as noted on the wikipedia page) - hardly considered famous by anyone's standards. I'm not saying notability is contagious. I'm saying that some factor makes these cases worth noting in major publications. This factor is obviously not the plaintiff. It is typically the settlement size and scope of the case - the factor behind this is the law firm and the work it has performed. If a law firm can settle a case for billions of dollars through litigation, the case is notable as well as the law firm. I'm not proposing cause and effect here, I'm merely saying that when it comes to corporate law firms, they are recognized for their settlements and casework. The references I provided prove that this particular law firm has indeed been noted for these reasons. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability issue is not the only problem. As I said above, it reads like a marketing tool -- I see enough glossies from law firms in my day job to know one when I see one. Even if the notability issue can be addressed, the tone issue still remains. Also, I don't think you have answered my question as to whether you work for the firm or have some other conflict of interest. If you do, that may be clouding your approach to the article, as I described above. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c):I looked at some of them and saw press releases. Did you read WP:CORP?
 * You mentioned Skadden in your original post; articles such as [this] establish notability. Please indicate similar sources for your proposed page.
 * Steph has already said s/he's an intern at the law firms, so we know COI is a risk here.

--AndrewHowse (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I stated that I have an internship which entails spending one week at various law firms. Grant & Eisenhofer was one of those firms. I noticed they did not have a wikipedia page during my time there so I independently started to create one. I no longer work there nor are they aware that I am writing this page. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, and other editors have already agreed on that. Other editors also questioned the reasoning behind the notability warning tag because it was clear to them that this law firm is notable based on rankings and casework.

I did read the wikipedia company notability page and still think this firm is notable. One source is a press release, only because I couldn't find that particular piece of information elsewhere. I'm not saying a press release is the best source of information, but it is certainly reliable enough to take facts from.
 * Au contraire, there's few things less a reliable source than a press release. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Skadden because they state that they are "prominent" in the first sentence of their page. This isn't neutral language. Notability can be established through rankings. Grant & Eisenhofer has been ranked by organizations who do just that - rank law firms (Chambers and Partners, RiskMetrics). Please don't try to persuade me that these rankings are meaningless. This law firm has been featured in various publications - Delaware Today, Directorship Magazine, Pensions & Investments Magazine, and Treasury & Risk magazine. Most law firms with wikipedia pages haven't been featured in Forbes magazine, this does not take away from their notability or accomplishments. Cozen O'Connor does not mention any feature articles in their References section but I don't doubt that they are notable. If the tone in the Grant & Eisenhofer page needs to be addressed, another editor should step up and work on that. An admin moved the article to my user page so others could edit it, so far no one has done that. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, your user subspace is that - yours. It would be impolite for other editors to intervene there.  However, I will look at it after I have got home and had my tea, OK? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Sorry, I did not know other editors weren't supposed to look over things there, since an admin told me that is why s/he moved the article there from the main namespace. Steph0513 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can look but editing a user's sub page might be considered a breach of Wikitette. I have left some notes on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I have read through your edits and will definitely make the changes. Steph0513 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Steph, when you say "Notability can be established through rankings" I think that's mistaken. Did you find that in a policy or guideline, or are you asserting that based on your interpretation of notability? I realise this might seem a little tiresome to you, but unless you address this the article will not last in mainspace. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations and companies, I just don't see how rankings are excluded. I'm not trying to be confrontational and I'm sure you have read through this page extensively but I've copied the first paragraph of the page below and want to specifically discuss each part.

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.


 * Being ranked by such organizations as Chambers and Partners and RiskMetrics constitutes "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," I believe. Since the wikipedia notability guidelines do not mention rankings, I don't see how organizations which rank companies should be excluded from "reliable, independent secondary sources."
 * Chambers and Partners ranks law firms and lawyers worldwide. Their guides are a commonly used resource in the legal community.  To be ranked in Chambers and Partners is notable.  I've copied the overview of their selection process:
 * Since 1999, we have been researching the US legal profession, identifying the leading lawyers and law firms through interviews with thousands of lawyers and their clients. Our reputation is based on the independence and objectivity of our research.

In addition to the ‘state’ listings, certain practice areas, such as antitrust and capital markets, have ‘nationwide’ listings which include those firms and lawyers with national practices.

To see how we assess and rank lawyers, please click on the ‘Explanation of Rankings’ link in the left-hand bar. http://www.chambersandpartners.com/AboutUs.aspx?pt=rankingsexplained


 * RiskMetrics is also a reliable source. It has ranked Grant & Eisenhofer as the number one law firm for average settlements and has credited this firm for its casework.  Surely you can agree that being ranked number one in your field contributes to notability.
 * The various publications I referenced are also categorized as "reliable, independent secondary sources." Delaware Today published a feature on the two founding partners of Grant & Eisenhofer.  Directorship Magazine named one of the founding partners as one of the 100 Most Influential People on Corporate Governance.  Others on that list include Ben Bernanke, Warren Buffet, and Senator Chris Dodd.  Treasury & Risk ranked the same founding partner as one of the 100 most influential people on finance.  These are obviously notable accomplishments for the founding partner and the law firm.
 * None of the references I've just discussed can be considered "trivial or incidental coverage." In each reference, either an attorney with Grant & Eisenhofer or the law firm itself has been ranked or featured.
 * All of the references are "verifiable," as everything I've cited has been published by a reliable source. None of these rankings or features came from Grant & Eisenhofer.  The firm was evaluated by the same standards as every other law firm.
 * It seems clear that I think rankings should be considered, and you do not. However, there is no clear answer to this since wikipedia: notability does not mention rankings.  I would argue that the sources of these rankings are undoubtedly reliable, secondary sources and that Grant & Eisenhofer being ranked or featured in any of the publications I've listed constitutes "significant coverage."  Therefore, Grant & Eisenhofer has the significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources needed to meet the guidelines for notability.  Steph0513 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Celente article reverted
The Gerald Celente article was in poor shape, with unsubstantiated references and claims, with a NPOV flag (the article was practically an advertising piece for Celente). I spent a day thoroughly researching Celente, checking facts & sources, reading articles from reputable sources. I did an extensive edit. My revised version was solid, clear, well written, NPOV. I found differing points of view and included them with a reference after each line.

Yet another user reverted it so it's back to unsubstantiated advertising junk. Not sure what to do. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Hi, It appears you've started using the talk page at the article, so that's good. I think the other editor was concerned about your use of blogs as sources; that's not allowed. You can read WP:RS for more on that topic. And in general, it's best to avoid disparaging the other versions too much; focus on why yours is better, y'know? It wouldn't be bad to make smaller, incremental changes. Have fun editing, and do come back here if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IronKey article
After my initial attempt at a very basic IronKey article was deleted (fully justified, I really didn't do a good job on it before finalising it), I've put together another which is currently sitting in my user page. I'd really appreciate some reviewing by an experienced editor before I move it live. I'm concerned that it may come across as advertising (that's why my first attempt was deleted), and I'm also aware that it contains various primary source references which I think should probably come out before I put it live. FIWI, I'm not in any way personally affiliated with IronKey, just a user of their products. — EndarethTalk–Edits 05:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just skimming it, I guess I would mention that you want to generally remember this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-guide, not a catalog, and certainly not an ad or copy of a company website appearing to be independent. I don't know general attitude but personally these industry awards ( see the Simpons episode where Homer wins the "1st Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Oustanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence") which seem to be the bulk of the citations, are often invented trivial expressions from mutual admiration societies. While they may meet wiki criteria as being more reviewed than blog content, I'm not sure what they establish. If larger groups often cite awards, it really doesn't matter what they are based on ( see comments related to various industry metrics in other recent articles marked for deletion) as they are notable expressions of opinion. If you have other coverage of susbstance that would probably make a better article. In short, why does this software have any attributes of archival value or why would someone using google searching for unrelated terms need a web page on wiki for this software, other than advertising and promotional purposes? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Largely I think that NSB is right here. Nevertheless your re-write asserts notability and there are a couple of suitable references. Additionally you'd do well to lose the forums links and the like. Also pare the text back. There's a fair bit of fluff in there. This article is a stub at best. Crafty (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:Also, what you have under Company should be your lead and stand at the beginning of the article. Awards, if mentioned at all, are best at the bottom/end. A total red flag are the links to Twitter and Linked. I would have a copy-edit look at it, but since it's still on your user page, I won't mess with it. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CORP, the notability guideline for companies. It hasn't been met here, and the article doesn't stand a chance unless it can be met. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the comments, and I can generally understand what's needed. I've updated the article, removing most of the "fluff" and content I haven't been able to find reliable references for. I've also re-read the notability guidelines, and added in more information and references for the link between the US Department of Homeland Security and IronKey (I'll also try to expand this further), which I feel increases the notability of IronKey. Any more help on this would be appreciated, especially as regards how to better improve notability content. Please feel free to make any edits that you feel would help/explain what's needed. — EndarethTalk–Edits 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

StarForce
I need some guidance on how to deal with 207.161.70.152 on StarForce. Should I do anything different? --HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like you're handling appropriately to me. If the IP continues then take them to WP:AIV. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WHY DOES IT TELL ME TALK
DID I DO SOMETHING WRONG? ON MY LAST ENTRY OF ROSIE LOPEZ SCHLERETH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlerethhi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK first please do not type in all CAPS, it is considered the equivalent of shouting. Second, your edits were reverted for several reasons: there were unsourced, in all caps and in an unencyclopedic format. I suspect from your user name that you are, or are connected with, Ms Schlereth, and you therefore have a conflict of interest. Please comment on the article's user page if you think this material should be added and please support it with reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well - for a start turn off the Caps Lock on your keyboard. Your additions to the article  were all in capitals, also in the wrong place.  You have a list of links on your welcome message on your talk page.  read those and they will tell you how to go about editing artcicles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Strange Redirect
I recently came across the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009, which is a redirect to the page Timeline of the Gaza War. I found it very strange that List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 is a redirect to this page since there is a different page namely List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War that contains much more completely what any wikipedia viewer would want had they typed 'list of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel 2009' into the search. I went to change this thinking it was just a mistake when I found the page was protected for some reason. And so I was wondering if any administrator can correct this obvious blunder? I don't think the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 should be deleted, but rather that it should be changed so that the redirect is removed and the contents of the page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War be placed within List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009. The page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War could then be deleted. The reason why I think this should be done this way is because there is already the lengthy page List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008. It makes sense to stick with the same naming convention instead of adding the extraneous addition 'following the Gaza War'. I wasn't sure if this was the right place to post this or if I was supposed to post it on the deletion request page.Chhe (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable change, and it's something you can do yourself . If you want to be extra cautious, I'd suggest you post an note on the talk page of the redirect you plan to change with your plan and see if anyone notices within a day or so - but in this case I don't think anyone will mind (or notice).       7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   00:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that redirect is protected, meaning that only an admin can change it. I suspect there's some edit-warring or an AfD in its history. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, and sorry I missed that in Chhe's request. Then I think there are two approaches:  1) Request page unprotection at WP:RPP (and risk the problems Andrew mentioned above) or 2) Place the suggestion of the move onto the talk page (as mentioned above) and after an appropriate time (a few days?) notify and admin at WP:Requested moves that there are no objections to the move and ask them to move it.   Any other thoughts?     7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:7's suggestions are correct, I think. I found this AfD which seems to explain why there's a redirect; it looks like it then got caught up in some other redirecting problems. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

American (word) content dispute
Hello. Another editor and I have had some content disagreements on American (word), and he started reversing all my edits to advance his own point of view. We had a little undo battle (a few times each), and started having a heated exchange on the talk page. I put a neutrality template on the page because of the bias that seemed to be happening there, and asked for administrator intervention. One admin suggested that I do dispute resolution, and that's why I am here, asking for your help. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the talk:American (word) page, I'd appreciate your comments, whether you agree or disagree. The relevant discussion takes place at the bottom of the talk page. Cheers, --MoebiusFlip (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "America" and "American", by themselves with no qualifiers, conventionally refer to the USA. What's the issue? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in the United States, Bugs. Outside the U.S., and especially south of our border, the use of "American" to mean "U.S." is a hot-button issue, and often considered incorrect and/or impolite. From their POV, "South Americans" and "Central Americans" are just as American as "North Americans". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. You'd be best off going to WP:Dispute resolution. They are the professionals! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Remove Links Flag
Albert Black

Hello. I need help removing a flag on my wiki page. It says that I do not have enough links, but the more links I add, the more my page looks like a link farm. I have gone through the "suggested links" wizard multiple times. How can I meet the article quality standards faster? I do not want to have a link farm. Gcornelius (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikilinks tag does not get removed automatically - I have removed it and made some edits to make the article more compliant with the Manual of Style. For future reference, a linkfarm is a collection of external links, for internal links, please see WP:OVERLINK. – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Steinway Model D
There're multiple issues and problems (talk--> please read my comments at the end of the talk) with an editor who has taken ownership of the article, has removed tags without making improvements and keeps reverting changes. Please help us to make a better article! Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you copuld try asking for a third opinion or open a request for comment on the other editor's behaviour. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry
Hi, recently I began to edit on the article, and upon finding the article Sofia's Hair 4 Health, a charity founded by Valentin, I proposed a merger on the basis the charity is not notable enough, (is also well covered enough in Valentin artilce under Philanthrophy), and is both poorly referenced and contains some POV. However I soon encountered resistance from three users in particular, Rodoval, Susy parker and Nicole reutman on these two talk pages on the merger. (It's my first time proposing a merger and made the mistake of creating two seperate talk pages, here and here - has since been rectified).

All three users have the same argument against the merger, they also seem to write in a similiar manner. However the user accounts Susy parker and Nicole reutman both have very alike user pages and were created within seven minutes of each other, their first actions in particular were to quickly oppose the deletion of the Rodolfo Valentin in support of Rodoval (Articles for deletion/Rodolfo Valentin), who I believe is the controller account. Yet again these same users, along with an anonymous IP user (who also just edits on Rodolfo Valentin's and Sofia's Hair 4 health article and writes in a similiar manner), have joined forces to oppose the merger.

Another thing which may or may not be connected is the user justice all the way, who was previously investigated for sockpuppetry (Suspected sock puppets/Justice all the way). I hold the suspicion that justice all the way is in fact Rodoval, or in some way working with him/her (Both were opposed to Rodolfo Valentin article deletion, and both have edited on same pages). justice also had two other accounts, Pampita and Ralicia for support, aka Susy parker and Nicole reutman (All four have similiar user pages). Of note is the connection made between Rodoval and justice in the investigation too. Both Rodoval and justice were also connected on the Rodolfo Valentin article, even now where justice's attempts to change the page have stopped, Rodoval has picked up.

I had discussed this issue with user Whpq (who is also involved with articles mentioned and has dealt previously with users involved) on his talk page as I was going to instigate an investigation, however on his advice I have come here first for help.

Would appreciated some help and direction on a course of action here.

Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be very difficult to prove sock-puppetry. However the only way to get it checked out is to collect diffs of all edits which seem to indicate sock-puppetry and ask for investigation following the guidance at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I had filed a sockpuppet report in 2008 on users probably connected to these newer accounts, I've submitted a new CheckUser/Sockpuppet report: Sockpuppet investigations/Rodoval. I think the evidence is fairly clear but I'd like CU to confirm the !votestacking on the AfD for Rudolfo Valentin. I'll be surprised if they aren't linked. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

request to create page integrated system of medicine
respected sir, i hereby request you to create page titled 'integrated system of medicine' integrated system of medicine is of india. integration concept covers wisdom from traditional ayurveda & modern medicine. integration is important for humanity as a whole

with regards dr yogiraj vinayak deshmukh bams,pgcems main road pathardi tal-pathardi dist-ahmednagar pin-414102 Maharashtra,India phone(02428)222254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.105.56 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - you could ask at Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine or you could create an account for yourself and start a page in your sandbox and ask others to look over it and help making it into an article that meets Wikipedia criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

zombie building
The commercial real estate business has begun refering to some office buildings as "Zombie Buildings".These are buildings that the owner can not fund new tenant improvements, they have lost all their equity, and they can not obtain financing. Recent article http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/16/story2.html The term was also used by Dan Neidich at the Sam Zell sponsered Marshall Bennett Conference 6/22/09. NickRavino (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And your question is . . . .? Jezhotwells (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Save6 : Some related thoughts. I'm not sure how much of it would be encyclopedic but real estate has created a whole list of neologisms that at least taken together may be notable. This isn't the first time that a boom has gone bust and maybe a larger article of list of historical terms would make sense. "Liar loans" may in fact be fairly new as a term and entity, the "trash out" AFAIK is pretty new and comes up quite often on google news alerts on "foreclosure." Certainly "ghost towns" are known from history and entire empty subdivisions have come to be. I guess you could put them all together into a "RE neologs" page with some non-OR glue text to make it more than a list or dictionary. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Zeno's Paradoxes dispute
The generally accepted "solutions" to Zeno's Paradoxes are in conflict with quantum theory, which requires different solutions. My edits and content pointing this out have been deleted by others who oppose these corrections.

Request for mediation or initial review of the arguments and guidance for contributors.

Links: Zeno's Paradoxes and the associated Talk:Zeno's paradoxes

Looking forward to your input.

Best regards, Steaphen (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might get good guidance by asking at WP:WikiProject Mathematics Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The central argument is simple: It is the inapplicability of using any mathematics that is reliant on continuity to solve Zeno's Paradoxes. If such were the case we could dispense with quantum theory and simply use algebra to predict the movement of quantum stuff (and ipso facto, the movement of hares, runners et al). It is the use of mathematics based on continuity (e.g. infinite series) that is the issue.Steaphen (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of the style of response given above, and that they will likely echo the talk page responses, I'll close this section, and bump to informal mediation.Steaphen (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)