Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 62

Help with Rushdoony
I would like rditor assistance with the Rushdoony article. I was previously involved in the article as I disagreed with some of the sources used to make what I saw very extreme claims about the individual. The claims were verified using multiple sources other than the one I was contesting, and the content has remained in. In addition to the content that makes the claims, I included quotes from a primary source that substantiated the secondary sources provided, which were provided to me by another interested editor on the suggestion that I use them in the section in question. Another editor who became involved in the article has taken it upon themselves to remove the primary source material.

I feel the editor is acting in bad faith, as the primary material clarifies and substantiates what the secondary sources leave a bit vague. I feel that, because they disagree with me, they are attempting to keep material I would like to see in the article out. Im attempting to assume good faith, but it's very difficult given their editing behavior in the past and the things they've said. With that in mind, I'd like some assistance as to what I should do, or if I can really do anything? Feeling a bit powerless because I don't have as firm a grasp as the one reverting me edits. Thanks! Shazbot85 Talk 07:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Still looking for some help or for another editor to weigh in on the discussion on the Rushdoony talk page. The current contention is whether primary sources quoting Rushdoony should or can be submitted to corroborate secondary sources regarding his views. Shazbot85 Talk 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pork
I have gone to Germany many times, my husband everyone else, eat a lot of raw pork, I mean loads of it! Even children eat it, I saw it all the time. They eat it, ground raw pork with onions and spices on top of bread, like a spread. I'm very curious with all the disease raw pork has. What are the statistics in Germany with trichinosis? I did a research on their toilets; they are specifically designed to check for worms. Can you provide information on this subject? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.234.22 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you ask your question at Reference desk/Science instead. Someone at that page may be better able to answer your question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Entry for "Better" TV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_(TV_series)

My name is Dan Berman.

I am the Promotions Producer for "Better" TV. Last month I began to update the page for our program. But the revisions I made were almost immediately deleted.

The current version has factual errors.. namely that the program is a product extension of "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine. As my revision stated, the show more closely resembles "More" magazine in its content.

In addition, the current list of broadcast companies that have signed contracts with the show is incomplete. And the implication that host Audra Lowe used to work out of Portland, Oregon is incorrect.

My entry also included additional details.. like the fact that the program recently aired its 500th show. I also posted names of our contributors with the goal of creating hyperlinks to their bios.

I see no reason why this information should have been changed and deleted. What can I do to restore the information and make sure it is not tampered with again?

Dan Berman —Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterPromotions (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs to be sourced and encyclpedic. Some editors do however crusade against COI editors- those who have an overt conflict, often expressed as an affiliation with the topic- beyond the guidelines form wikipedia ( I have found personally that all experts in most areas have conflicts so I may be more tolerant than most). So, I haven't looked at this but if you have control over an official website, that may be sourceable so you would first want to make this information available on a reliable source such as this. Note however that such a site, related to the topic, would only be a reliable source regarding the topic's opinions and maybe little else ( " foo.com says blah blah" would be about all that could be said based on this ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over links
Internet Studies Section #3, Scholarly Organizations I have attempted to add links to Web Science Trust and The Society of Computers in Psychology In both cases these organization serve the subject area of this article. "Internet Studies is an interdisciplinary field studying the social, psychological, pedagogical, political, technical, cultural, artistic, and other dimensions of the internet" Editor Alex Halavais deletes these links with what I consider to be WP:COI or WP:NPOV explanations which I believe are based in his role as a VP of AOIR and personal biases to this editor. In the case of Web Science Trust, they are building guidlines/curriculum for the field of Internet Studies The article itself was recently edited by Alex Halavais and it reads like an advertising piece for his organization. Please note, I am not a member of either Web Science or SCiP, but recognize them for their contribution to the field. Wreid (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I think we would all be better off if we assumed wp:good faith, why might Prof. Halavais have removed the links? what is the best explanation available?   is that a better explanation than your assumptions above?  likely so.  I suspect the links were deleted because there is a difference between web science as imagined by tbl and internet studies.   To me at least there seems to be a clean distinction.    --Buridan (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Buridan's comment resolves to differences of opinion that should be considered to maintain neutrality WP:NPOV. Please note that --Buridan is Jeremy Hunsinger and is also a member of AOIR. Wreid (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the editors, that have weighed in on the edits to this page, Alex Halavais, Buridan, and ElKevbo are AOIR members, I suggest the following study be considered. Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices." Wreid (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy?
How come no one ever did a wikipedia article on the tourettes guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.162.230 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are lots of people with tourettes. You'll have to be more specific. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm intrigued. Who are you referring to?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by K10wnsta (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have a request or are you just randomly dropping comments on talk pages?


 * Georges Gilles de la Tourette has an article already, as does the syndrome he described.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He's referring to the said-to-be-deceased internet celebrity. A quick Google of "Tourette's Guy" will bring him up. -Karonaway 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case the standard answer is anyone can edit Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk)

Larner Johnson Valves
I have up dated the information a couple of times without any problems. I have recently tried to add a link to our company web site, as we still manufacture the Larner Johnson Valves in The United Kingdom, and there is additional information on the site about the valves, which may be of interest to people interested in Larner Johnson Valves. The link uploaded ok and I saved the changes, I then tried the link via the page and it worked ok. But not long after the link was removed. Did I do something wrong linking to our company web site. We also have a massive back catalogue of old pictures of Larner Johnsons when they were manufactured by Blakeborough Valves in the UK. How do I set up a link to these.

Thank You,

David Richmond Blackhall Engineering Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.97.170 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You should ask the reverting editor and perhaps start a discussion on the articlle talk page. With regards to the pictures you would need to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and if you are the copyright holder, give them an appropriate license. Of course you won't be able to do this until five days after you have created an account for yourself. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * C above 2: This topic just came up a few days ago. Generally there is probably a bias against overt commercial citations unless they are very specific to the topic or there are no academic sources. I pointed out that since getting free integrated circuit data books in high school, that often commercial sources do provide free access to the best information on a more general topic than their immediate product ( application notes on RF or high speed digital products often give tutorials in more fudnamental electornics ) and academic sources still have sponsors and advocates and non-free access. So, if you can make the case maybe that you provide unique quality free information you may be ok AFAIK. But note this is not a directory and if many vendors have more or less the same thing I'm not sure anyone will put 50 links to each vendor in the article. Even if your product has some unique features, you would still need an independent source to notice it before that product would get special attention in the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The company has the worldwide rights to the valve. I've added a link to the specific page about the valve on Blackhall Engineering's website, which gives tech specs. I think it's a useful link. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by an editor and dealing with it
Hi,

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and posted some things and they were removed. When I asked why, most editors were polite except one. He was uncivil, rude and heavy handed.

Here are some examples of the exchange with rsrikanth05

1) "I hear one more squeak, better be warned" 2) "Your book sucks then"   3) I only wrote to your email because it was on your talk page and you replied with all capitals 4) Saying "GET LOST" to me. Is this how Wikipedia editors are supposed to behave? Is this being civil? Your behavior is heavy handed, and is not really being civil in my mind. I believe I am allowed to ask questions and required a civil response, and consistent answer. Not angry threats without proper explanations.

I expect this editor to be removed or reprimanded immediately.

Rbala99 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)rbala99


 * I agree he could have been more civil; but looking at the whole exchange I think you are much better to let it go, and take it as a learning experience. Forget it and move on. The editor was evidently a bit frustrated at you continuing to demand reasons from him. You were too quick to accuse him of harassing you with his edits, and going to email was a bad idea. If you try to throw weight around with heavy handed reprimands and so on, it will only backfire and make things worse. Trust me on this one. The best response for the time being is to walk away. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

-K10wnsta (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While the #2 statement was likely out of line, it's difficult to judge without context. Regardless, it's important to remember that there's really no one person who has the means to reprimand or remove another editor.  Everything is done by consensus.  In theory, everyone at wikipedia (even the admins) is on equal footing with regard to handling disciplinary actions (the admins just have the power to carry out communal edict).  I would take Duae Quartunciae's advice and simply refrain from further interaction with that editor.


 * Maybe it is easier in a volunteer project like this but wikipedia seems more concerned with the product than the interpersonal/political issues. If you want a wall of shame naming and picturing bad editors I'm not sure that will produce better articles or encourage more people to contribute useful stuff. Generally actions are things like page protections or temporary blocks on users or IP addresses and it doesn't get much beyond that. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube as Source
Hello Wikipedia from Bookgirrl in Toronto. My question: Do you accept Youtube as a legitimate source? My first thought is NO, since clips can be manipulated. On the other hand, you can find a lot of good stuff on Youtube based on live footage, interviews, etc. Thank you, Madeleine/Bookgirrl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookgirrl (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See our guideline at WP:YOUTUBE. It can sometimes be linked to, but generally it wouldn't be a reliable source. There's also issues of copyright violation with a lot of YouTube videos. If the YouTube channel is run by a recognised authority, it might be OK to use as a source, in the same way that blogs can occasionally be used as a source. See the policy on self-published sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

General notable guidline in P. Misra article.
In the article in question, it has been noted that "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." However, many secondary references have been added. There are other pages with less information that do not have any sort of sources that do not have this notice. I am rather new at this so I am not sure, what information would needs to be added in order for this notice to be removed?

Thanks for your time, Rgarcia3826 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The citations should be about Dr Misra, and in independent reliable sources, not articles by him or web pages. The specific guideline to follow for whether he is notable by the standards of Wikipedia is Notability (academics). If you can provide evidence that he meets any of the criteria listed there, the article is fine. Problems with the article are the use of peacock terms, i.e. words that puff up the important of the subject without imparting real information, and the article structure needs improving, see Manual of Style. At the moment it bears more resemblance to a resume than an encyclopedia article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1986 NLCS
hello. my username is Whatever Jones and i have been editing the page for the 1986 NLCS over the past few months. the page had been tagged due to its previously informal nature and i feel that my revisions have alleviated that problem. please take a look at my work and remove the tag if you feel that it's appropriate at this time. also, this is the first time i have ever sent an inquiry like this and if i have sent it to the wrong place i ask that you please tell me the right place to send this message.

thank you for your time and courtesy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhateverJones (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work on the article. I think it still suffers from sounding like it's written from the viewpoint of a fan. Words like 'thrilling', 'outstanding', 'nail biting', 'whopping', 'cruised to first place' don't really fit the tone of an encyclopedia. They're what's called peacock terms. Needs a little more polishing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

State Guard Association of the United States
There is an edit war going on at State Guard Association of the United States. The SGAUS is an organization that seeks to represent the various military SDF units. However, it has had a past of representing unofficial militias that wanted to become military. Two users have tried editing this out of the article. I have tried negotiating that the present can be depicted in the article, but the past stance of the SGAUS needs to be included. Much of the SGAUS website has been taken down, but is still accessible via archive.org. They also are not happy with using references from archive.org to show what the SGAUS has stood for. In addition, one has deleted my posts from the discussion page. Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Try WP:Dispute resolution or Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Restore your post on the talk page, noting Talk page guidelines.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the citations you are using to support the new section are not to reliable sources, and the section may be an example of original research and improper synthesis. A search that might yield some better sources is here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SpySheriff Article
Hi, I saw this article a few weeks ago, and have been trying to correct/update it as it contains a lot of uncited information which does not appear elsewhere on the internet and is quite poorly written.

Unfortunately, another user Vrabu keeps reverting my edits/citation needed markings so I can't improve the article. Please can you have a look at the article and see if my changes are alright? I was going to remove the uncited information as there is no evidence for it at all. SmackEater (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to discuss this at the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked the dude to join the discussion on the talk page here, last week: article talk, and asked him on his page as well. He responded, but then just reverted my edits when I left the article for a few days SmackEater (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the material is unverifiable? Raise the problems on the talk page of the article, and explain what you want to remove and why so other editors can contribute. I'd suggest seeking opinions from WikiProject Computer Security too. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent quite a while on google and found reputable sources disputing a fair amount of information. I also think that Symantec,CA,etc would mention severe side-effects of a program if they were real, however, none of them do, and the only places that make the same claims appear to be copies of this article, and forum posts. I've removed the unverifiable/disputed information for now and written about it on the Talk page. SmackEater (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarine cables


A user has repeatedly re-inserted external links to a presentation by a consultancy company which were removed by myself and others. They have put up a spirited defence for inclusion of these links on their talk page, so before deleting them again, I would like to request some more eyes on this. Thanks,  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
 * It sounds like the debate is over neutrality and integration into the article. That is, the links may not be neutral on this controversial (LOL) issue but they may be candidates for inline citations to source specific POV points that would need to be integrated with due weight. It seems "neutral" came up sporadically in the one discussion link as did mention of inline citations. Do these links source specific points that would be integrated even if representing one of a few prominent view points? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, my reasoning for removal is that I believe the link is only there, as is so often the case, to provide a gateway to some business or other, not because it adds anything to the article. The claim that some of the article was sourced to this site seems to me to be groping at straws and is not borne out by the editor's history and in any case is an entirely separate issue from external links.  This editor has shown no inclination to work on improving the article with inline citations (which if that claim is true, is the thing that should be done) and is only interested in maintaining the link to Terabit Consulting.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The links look educational to me; not all links to company sites are unacceptable. Keep discussing it and don't edit war. If you need more opinions, try the External links/Noticeboard. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Educational" is not one of the criteria for inclusion in the external links guideline. I'm not particularly inclined to go forum shopping elsewhere, but if someone here wants to move the entire thread WP:ELN that would be fine with me.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Motive": while we all have to consider motive or SPA or conflicts, if possible it seems you want to address where the link may fit into the article or consider better alternatives that make a similar point. If the link doesn't just present a uniquely useful insight into a prominent view on the subject, but rather substantiates an important but controversial point, maybe it could be considered as an inline citation, especially if it is a source which has been cited by others. Is this source well known among the cable folks as evidenced by other citations or have they compiled a power point presentation that amounts to another encyclopedia entry? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's entirely the wrong way round, editor's should provide inline cites to where they actually got the information, not go looking for a fact to which you might dubiously attach a link that some consultancy is really keen to have in the article. In any case, there have been no such facts identified, it is entirely a red herring.  Whether or not it can be used as a source, is of no relevance whatsoever to its suitability for inclusion as an external link.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - what is under discussion is the suitability of ELs which one editor wishes to add. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting contorting the article to accomodate or exclude the source under discussion, just pointing out it could be a candidate for substantiating a particular point- while largely ignoring motives due to my mind reading skills being lacking, I'll assume there is one ed who wants to include it for whatever reason. You don't just need a yes/no on the specific question but may in fact resolve a false dichotomy by getting back to what makes the best article. A research report or white paper could be hard to distinguish from a self-published work I guess but if it has some internal review process and is cited by others it may be a candidate for some inclusion. If it is merely a PR blurb or adds nothing then sure it probably has no place here.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than continuing our reasoned debate, which I believe was making real progress, I'm disappointed that Spinningspark has chosen to reset the discussion in another forum which has yet to appreciate the primary points of our discussion. He or she has done this, it seems, in order to focus on wholly inaccurate ancillary theories about commercial interests, self-promotion, my past contributions or lack thereof (the first two issues are new theories on his or her part, while I addressed the third issue in our discussion), together with inaccurate assertions about my willingness to improve the article. For the record, of course, Spinningspark's efforts to personalize the discussion are inappropriate, inaccurate, and, particularly with respect to his or her final point, irrelevant.

Spinningspark has conveniently chosen to ignore the real issue at hand: should the links be included under our external link guidelines?

As stated in the last post of our debate, which Spinningspark has chosen to ignore, I would propose that the links be included because (as stated in the external links guidelines), they "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic," which is "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail." There are a total of about 60 or 70 slides' worth of information between the two presentations. Spinningspark is right that in some readers' opinion, some of the slides may qualify as, in his or her words, "management ppt" slides that can be "saved for the marketing department pep talk." But only a few. The majority of slides, the numbers of which I have listed in our discussion, provide a lot of detailed, on-topic information that would be too detailed to integrate into the article. For example, how would Spinningspark propose integrating into the article the total annual investment in submarine cables over the last 20 years? This, together with an explanation of the market's investment cycles, is valuable, on-topic information which is of use to readers but would be too unwieldy to integrate into the article without violating copyright.

Because the two links conform with the external links guidelines, and because they provide valuable, on-topic information, I cannot see how deleting them, as Spinningspark has done repeatedly because "ppt presentations are generally useless" and because the external links section is, in his or her opinion, "bloated," would be in any way productive.

It has been disappointing to watch Spinningspark's concerns shift from an aversion to Powerpoint presentations, to a concern that the External Links section was "bloated" with its (gasp!) nine links (some of which are CLEAR examples of advertising), to his or her theory that more people are interested in retired coaxial and telegraph cables than fiber optic cables (by the way, Spinningspark, in fact there were 15,000 hits to the submarine communications cable page, not 2,000), to today's theory that the links are advertising. Spinningspark has made a number of invaluable contributions concerning technologies suited to coaxial cables, and evidently would like to ensure that the page remain focused on such cables, even though in the world's oceans, they have long been replaced by fiber optic cables. I, on the other hand, would like to see the page improved to reflect the role of submarine fiber optic cables. However, published information on this topic is very limited and these two external links seem to provide reliable data on the subject. Given that the information in the presentations is indeed "educational" as Fences and windows has accurately asserted (this goes to the "accurate and on-topic" clause of the External Link Guidelines) the information contained therein certainly belongs on the page; however I don't believe that the presentations' data can be integrated into the article without violating copyright.

NathanielDawson (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * *How about, "according to an industry source[], the total annual investment in submarine cables over the last 20 years is blah?" What exactly is wrong with this? If there is some specific point they make that is the basis for an inline citation. If they are not worthy of being cited for something like this ( known to be widely inaccurate ) I'm not sure how they would be useful as an EL. If they just have a bunch of slides, that essentially make a visual encyclopedia entry, this would be like "see also encylopedia britanica" etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The most important thing about that particular slide is the year-by-year investment in fiber optic systems, showing how small and seemingly predictable it was for ten years when they were built by consortia of operators, and then how a couple of waves of privately-financed cables came along to inflate the market and then contribute to its downfall. At least, that's how I would explain it, but the chart in the presentation does a much better job of explaining/showing that, and the following pages do a much better job of explaining/showing the regional distribution of investment (which is equally important) than I could ever do through prose.  Actually it is confusing enough trying to read my above explanation of what happened; anyone who'd like to explain it with an inline citation (myself included of course) is welcome to give it a try, but it seems as though it would be a lot more effective for the reader if we just left the links to the presentation, since they aren't advertising, and since they conform to external link guidelines. NathanielDawson (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From the above discussion, I do not see consensus that the links belong in the external links section, and I agree with their removal for the reasons given above. I do see some degree of support to potentially use them as refs in an appropriate context - assuming a less commercial news source couldn't be found as an alternative for appropriate citing of text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a more appropriate forum for this discussion would be WT:ELN (or even WP:EL, although ELN is better suited). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From the above discussion I don't see consensus on anything, actually. There is one user who wants them taken down, for reasons that have demonstrated little consistency other a seeming desire to ensure that the page remains dedicated to coaxial technologies.  The issue is whether the links conform to external link guidelines.  Has anyone shown that they do not?  I believe that we have shown that they do. In the meantime, it is peculiar how this topic generated so much interest among previously disinterested users this morning, and how the only user who really cared about their removal (Spinninspark) has fallen silent.  NathanielDawson (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to what you are implying? I am also curious as to whom you mean by "we have shown".
 * For the record, I found the pages and discussions due to your posting to talk pages of users to whom I have on my watch list. I reviewed the discussion, and the links, and agreed that they are not appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, then you must have an informed opinion as to how we should include the data in that chart about submarine cable investment? That's definitely data that belongs on the page, as anyone who is interested in submarine cables would tell you.  Can you explain how we should include it without violating copyright or including an unncessarily detailed amount of information?  Or how about the distribution of cable investment by region (Just today, someone on the List of International Cables page said he or she was seeking this information).


 * My point is that there has been a rush to judgement on this issue by a number of newcomers crying "spam" when that is clearly not the issue. NathanielDawson (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if we were to accept that the links meet with the external links guideline (note that I am not accepting that premise), in the absence of any consensus for inclusion they shouldn't be on the page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not going to bother defending the multitude of accusations being levelled against me by NathanielDawson, all of which are ludicrous, and in my opinion designed as a distraction from the real issue. The links are not suitable ELs, and do not meet the guidelines, the argument that they cannot be incorporated for copyright reasons is complete nonsense.  We incorporate facts from books and papers all the time without breaching copyright.  Facts, charts, maps and lists can all be included in Wikipedia articles and there are plenty of editors here with the necessary skills to create those things.  This is a complete non-argument.  I am not against powerpoint presentations per se, but this has clearly been written as media to assist delivering a lecture.  There is no prose as such, it is all presentation sound bites, so it is completely unclear what the presentation is actually claiming most of the time.  Doubtless if one was present at the lecture it would all be abundantly clear, but in isolation it is of little use to Wikipedia.  There are maps, certainly, but the link to the interactive map by Tata Communication is much more extensive.  Take for instance the "Carribean" section, slide 19 is a map of the ARCOS-1 cable for which a map already exists on commons; slide 20 is a map of "Global Carribean Network" but it is completely unclear from the slide whether this is an existing network, a network under construction, or a proposal by the presenter; slide 21, which completes this section has the following text;
 * Arcos-1 and GCN = two largest footprints
 * Important planned projects:
 * - Antilles Crossing expansion
 * - Calypso
 * - Cuba-Venezuela
 * - Seahorse-1
 * C&W, Digicel, France Telecom, America Movil, US operators = largest capacity customers
 * which shows fairly well that these slides could not possibly be used as sources for the article. Are those the largest customers of Arcos-1 and GCN? the expected customers? or the customers of the consultancy giving the presentation?  The slide does not say, and nothing could be used in the article.  This is aside from any question of the reliability of the source, which clearly has not been submitted to any kind of editorial review process, or its obvious conflict of interest.  If NathanielDawson had spent half the time improving the article that he has spent trying to defend the links to his consultancy site the article would probably be twice as large by now.  The truth is that he is only interested in maintaining those links, not in actually contributing to the article.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Spinningspark. It is not a distraction from the issue to say that there is only one person who has raised any reasoned objection to these links (i.e. Spinningspark), and that the reasons for his or her objections have undergone a number of transformations.  Anyway, even though more and more users have contributed to this discussion and I'm thankful for their comments, there seems to be a limited number of people willing to engage in an informed discussion of this topic, so it is good to finally hear back from Spinningspark.


 * The presentation is not "claiming" anything, it is presenting detailed facts and figures, most of which are self-explanatory. That is why the "sound bytes" that went along with it are not necessary.  But you have cherry-picked some slides for analysis so let's take a look at the points you've made.  (BTW I wish you would address the points I've made!  It would be most generous of you!)


 * First of all, it is a REALLY BAD EXAMPLE to use the map from Tata Communications. It shouldn't even be listed in the external links section, because it shows only their network, and it is clearly advertising.  That's why the maps provided by the presentations in the external links section are valuable.


 * With respect to slide 21: the Global Caribbean Network is listed as having a ready-for-service date of 2006-2007 on the bottom of the slide.


 * As you seem to be so quick to do, you conveniently neglected to mention the title of slide 22, which is "Caribbean Capacity Markets." I think a third-grader would then conclude that the "largest capacity customers" must be customers buying capacity in the Caribbean capacity markets.  Next, "Important planned projects" in the Caribbean is indeed information that can easily be included in the article; why not?  Could this be any more clear?  These are projects that are planned to be constructed in the Caribbean.  Spinningspark, you are clearly a very bright fellow so this feigned inability to understand simple English doesn't become you.


 * Would you please propose how we can integrate the chart of year-by-year investment, which is clearly self-explanatory? Also how can we include the data on region-by-region investment, which was an issue brought up by another user in the talk page earlier today?  (I'm sure that the user asking the question would have found the external links useful if you hadn't deleted them.)  I've asked these questions several times now, to no avail.


 * Also, we have already discussed the issue of whether or not I have contributed to the article; I say that I have, and you don't believe it to be true, but in any case this is irrelevant so could you please stick to the issue at hand? I do congratulate you for your many contributions on the technology of coaxial cables, even though this technology is obsolete.  It is valuable but clearly there needs to be more information about fiber optic cables as well.


 * Regardless, Spinningspark, it's clear that you have an agenda to pursue at all costs; I wish that you would engage in a more coherent and logical debate of the issues but at this point it seems as though you are only concerned about removing the links rather than actually improving the page to include market data or information on fiber optic cables. I have responded to your concerns in a point-by-point fashion; if you are truly interested in reaching consensus, I would be most grateful if you could do the same for the points I’ve made above.  NathanielDawson (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In an effort to create some consistency, I tried to delete the links in Submarine communications cable that were blatant advertising per external link guidelines and Spinningspark reverted my change. Spinningspark is clearly not concerned about adhering to guidelines but is only concerned about preventing the two links in question.  Following external link guidelines is not "proving a point," Spinningspark.  Anyway I now consider Spinningspark to be completely unreasonable. NathanielDawson (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of appearances, you should have brought up the other links in discussion and allowed someone else to remove them. As it stands, after having your links removed and failing to get consensus to have them restored, you then blank out all other links that you consider comparable - that gives the impression of retaliation, or simply being disruptive to make a point.
 * Had you brought them up for discussion, I would have reviewed each one more closely and quite possibly agreed and removed several of them myself - although I do agree with C.Fred that the news link is appropriate. You claimed it's advertising due to a small note in the lower left - I can't read any text in the lower left, even under magnification - so I consider that to be a non-issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was intending to reply to some of the points above, but since I have just blocked NathanielDawson for edit warring and disruption that would be unfair as he can no longer reply. If anyone here feels I am out of line taking admin action in a dispute I am involved with I am more than happy for you to ask another admin at WP:ANI to review and I will stand by any adjustment to the block that they care to make.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or review it yourself if you want, I have just realised there are other admins involved here.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not stick to the topic at hand? This is purely juvenile behavior on the part of Spinningspark. 83.170.113.97 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems extraordinary to me that an admin should ever use admin powers on an editorial dispute in which they are involved. They should ask another univolved admin to impose bllocks or whatver.  I suggest that User:Spinningspark immediately reverts any blocks they have imposed on others in this editorial dispute. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not have been ideal for Spinningspark to hit the block button, but the edits the block was a response to are a clear cut case of 3RR violation. - MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is unjustified. The user has gone way over 3RR and has been reverting multiple editors for days, to say nothing of the use of socks.  I'm not going to revert, but as I say, I appreciate I am involved and will accept whatever another admin decides.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the block was appropriate - but still requested a block review from ANI so that uninvolved admins can also review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good move. Note 83.170.113.97 is also blocked for block evasion.  By the way, I don't know if you noticed that this IP undid your restoral of the map links.  I do not know if you just have not noticed or decided to let it stand.  I am not going to revert it, it would be wrong of me to take the opportunity to undo the user's edits while blocked.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored one of the links the anon removed, as it was to a news site. The others I haven't reviewed closely as yet, and wouldn't object to a broader discussion about each of those.  To me, the EL section could stand some pruning ... just need to reach consensus on which ones are good, and which ones are not appropriate or needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior all around: Efforts by NathanielDawson to integrate the contents of the External Links in question into the article have been subverted by MrOllie, who has substituted new sources for all of NathanielDawson's contributions. The personal vendetta has gone much too far. 83.170.113.99 (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the new links do not accurately provide citations for the text of the article? If not, what is the shortcoming of the new links?  If they do adequately provide a reference, then the use of news and journal sources are considered more reliable that commercial links, so should be the preferred links.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No vendetta here. Just trying to make sure the additions to the article (which I think are good, thanks!) remain in by improving the sourcing. I would have assumed that anyone that was interested in the improving the article rather than in promotional linking would be happy about it. - MrOllie (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Use as a source. I came here from WP:ELN.  I think this pdf of a PowerPoint presentation is far better used as a reliable source to support even a small fact contained in it.  I'm also perfectly satisfied by other sources containing similar information. As a side note, inline citations to sources normally include the link, with the advantage (compared to an external link) that readers will also have some clue about the contents.  If the goal were simply to promote the link, then using it as a reliable source would be an excellent way to do that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On Thursday, in an effort to achieve consensus with a solution that would seemingly placate all involved, I created two new sections that integrated the most important points from the two external links into the article, thereby using them as sources rather than as external links.


 * Unfortunately, in a couple of pointy (WP:POINT) edits demonstrating little understanding of the subject matter or any real effort to improve the page, MrOllie hastily replaced the legitimate references (from which the sections were drawn) with ones of dubious quality that did not prove the new sections' assertions. The edits still stand.  To wit:


 * An assertion that I made in the new section, which was that "in recent years there has been an increased effort to expand the submarine cable network to serve the developing world," was drawn from a white paper entitled "Undersea cables and the developing world," a peer-reviewed paper from an industry conference, Suboptic.  MrOllie replaced it with a  source that was clearly drawn from a press release promoting a single submarine cable in Africa.


 * The assertion that "a typical multi-terabit, transoceanic submarine cable system costs several hundred million dollars to construct," which was drawn directly from the external links, was replaced with a link to an article touting the advantages of a single, transpacific cable being constructed by Google.


 * Another assertion drawn directly from the external links, the assertion that "almost all fiber optic cables from TAT-8 in 1988 until approximately 1997 were constructed by consortia of operators; for example, TAT-8 counted 35 participants including most major international carriers at the time such as AT&T," was replaced with a link to a 22-year old article in something called "Rotarian" magazine that has no online presence whatsoever.


 * MrOllie also tried to find a new source for the sentence that explained annual investment in submarine cables, as per one of the most important slides in the external links, but being unable to find one, he or she simply deleted the reference completely, without replacing it.


 * Meanwhile, an involved admin, Spinningspark, withdrew from the debate about the validity of the external links (he or she still hasn't responded to my points), and instead opted to block my account for perceived 3R abuse. He or she then refused to reverse the block, even when other admins and editors called for him or her to do so because of a clear conflict of interest.  When he refused, I created new usernames in an effort to remain involved in the discussion.  I admit that this sock-puppetry was inappropriate on my part, but Spinningspark's actions were clearly illegitimate.


 * Next, without discussion, Barek ignored the ongoing debate and instead stealthily snuck off to the Spam page to have the domain of the external links blacklisted. His or her request was quickly and unilaterally approved by Hu12, even though there had never been any serious characterization of the links as spam: the links did not promote any product, service, or company; instead they provided access to credible, peer-reviewed sources.  Also, they opened as standalone PDF windows that contained no frames or links to the the website on which they were hosted, let alone links to any products or services.  Furthermore, consensus among nearly all the editors involved in the discussion seemed to indicate that the links should be integrated into the article, as I attempted to do.


 * It would be nice if there was as much concern paid to the unfairness of the above issues as there was to my good-faith efforts to maintain legitimate external links that had been on the page for over two years, as well as my good-faith efforts to improve the page with new sections that integrated the valuable information contained in the links. However it seems as though the interest in this article is limited to a couple of involved admins who show a strong aversion to the links in question but have absolutely no qualms about including external links to product order pages (I'm speaking of one of the cable maps) or other links which are explicitly spam; in fact they reversed my efforts to delete such links.  Fairness and consistency, it seems, are anathema to these editors.  And most importantly, the overall improvment of the page (outside of those sections dealing with telegraph and copper cables, to which one of the admins seems to be deeply attached), seems to be of little concern.


 * The solution to this issue would be to remove the domain in question from the spam blacklist and replace the illegitimate sources with the original references from which the new sections were drawn.

NathanielDawson (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, block evasion, spamming and disruption. Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy, and despite multiple reasoned opinions and comments provided by multiple experienced independent editors and administrators, then continuing that stance in pursuit of a certain point is no longer reasonable or policy-compliant, and may interperated as a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point if let to continue.

Repeatedly you resist moderation and continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point and reject community input from impartial editors and/or administrators that your edits are disruptive and unproductive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here, nor is Wikipedia obligated to host them. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote terabitconsulting.com. Closing discussion.--Hu12 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of exact terms in Sources, Original Research?
At the article Castle, a small dispute involving whether or not Chapultepec Castle is a "revival castle" has taken place. User:Nev1 deleted the mention of it entirely because the sources don't make a specific connection to it being "influenced by medeival castle architecture" or to it being called in exact terms, "a revival castle". He states that my inclusion of it is "Original Research", although it has been there for years. Sources that have been found mention its Neo-Gothic style and historical significance, but fall short of using the exact terms, "revival castle". Is it a technicality?

The very sight of the castle and its features - as well as the time period in which it was built and re-modeled, it's reason for existence, and for whom it was built (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico also built another revival castle in Italy called Miramare Castle.) - all of it leads to the conclusion that it is indeed a revival castle (What else could it be?), but without a written source, as of yet.

Can someone inform or help with this matter? Thank you so very much. C.Kent87 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can't agree with the reasoning given, I do agree with the removal. I fixed the inline links to be refs (though the images are probably not useful as references).  In general, a good "next step" is to start or join a discussion on the help:talk page (talk:Castle in this case) when one is finding difficulty accomplishing what one wants in an article.  I have started a discussion for the addition of this castle, but looking at the whole situation, at this time I would oppose adding the content.  Hope that helps, and sorry I can't support your addition at this time. -  Sinneed  04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen
I already stated my view on the titles "Scholar" and "Philosopher" for on the article on his name. Please refer to it in the Biography section of the discussion tab for my reasons. Those titles should be removed. It makes the article as a propaganda tool, not a source for information. I am not going to continue arguing about this. But it does not mean that I concede to the opposing view. Memetist (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So - you have a disagreement with another editor. You can ask for a WP:Third opinion or you could enlist the help of the WP:Mediation Cabal. Disagreements amongst editors are not uncommon on Wikipedia.  It is often through such a process that artciles are improved when WP:concensus is achieved.  Remember to keep discussions civil and try to understand other points of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the discussion, there is a lot of appeal to defintions. This is a good sign as my first thought was that this would be too ill defined of a question to argue logically. I also gave the prior question about "conspiracy theorist" label more thought as this is the same argument but with opposite connotation. Before more questions come up on "patriot", "good person", or even "philanthropist" etc, it may help to find more general concerns when trying to use subjective labels or adjectives. In the prior discussion, it came down to finding reliable sources- do relaiable sources call the subject a scholar or philosopher? In some cases, you may be able to source a catagory and its opposite, "consrvatives regard his as patriot[] but liberals consider him to be a traitor[]." It may be easier, where there is only marginal value attached to these terms to try to avoid them. A few sentences of a bio may make clear that he is philosopher or scholar etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dayton Ohio history: Deletion
I am the 4th great-grandnephew of Samuel Thompson (1753-1815), leader of the first settlers at what is now Dayton, Ohio. The Thompson Party arrived on 1 April 1796. I know Dayton history far better than anyone, also being very familiar with the contents of all written histories of Dayton. I wrote a very detailed introduction to that topic on Wikipedia so as to preserve the actual names of the first twelve settlers, etc. All of this was erased by some unknown person doing great damage to the record of Dayton's founding. See such Wikipedia deletion.

Also, I am The Founder & 1st President of Presidential Families of America. I share ancestry with and am blood-cousin to 26 Presidents, including President Obama. See its website.

I have championed genetics for five decades, unlike most intellectuals in the past, and was thus led to genealogy, in which I have great expertise. Years ago I proposed the marrying of genetics and genealogy to American leaders in genetics and I was ignored. Iceland's genetics researcher are now doing precisely what I proposed long ago. Americans have yet to catch up. Someday I will be plagiarized by some to whom I proposed this in the past. I had planned to write an article on Wikipedia on this subject as well but now know that someone ignorant of the subject can delete it so why bother.

I had planned to write the history of Presidential Families of America, including the facts which led to the founding of a copy-cat society some years later, so such history is accurate, as written by The Founder. (See relevant website.) I am 74 now and not well. My death could occur today, or 30 years from now. Given my bad experience with the deletion of key elements relative to the founding of Dayton (for what jusifiable reason?), why should I waste my time writing the history of Presidential Families of Ameriaca on the Wikipedia site?

What are your comments as to the above? Please email me at:

[email removed]

From: Lawrence Kent, A.A., B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Kettering OH 45429  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.255.88 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't reply by mail and the top of the page says "please do not include an e-mail address or other private details". There are many possibilities why you can no longer see your contribution. Which page name are you referring to or which user name or IP address did you use to edit it? This question is the only edit by that IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The revision history of the article contains details of each edit to the article. As you have not chosen to open a Wikipedia account I cannot see what edits to that article you are referring to.  Can you say on which day you added such material or on which day it disappeared? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be referring to this edit . User:Texas141 removed the information and left a note at the article talk page here Talk:Dayton, Ohio. The information you added to the article was not cited to WP:reliable sources and so was properly removed. I suggest that you create a user account which you may do at Special:UserLogin/signup and discuss matters at Talk:Dayton, Ohio. You can only start new artciles if you have a user account and I would recommend that you do so and read up on how to edit Wikipedia at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia: An encyclopedia is not generaly a journal for publishing new results as there is no peer review from experts in a given area nor even anyway to verify the plausibility of your claims. If you have valuable information, it should be published elsewhere first, preferably in a place where it can be checked or researched. Generally in this setting credentials don't matter as arguments have to come by appeal to known information sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lawrence. We'd very much welcome your help in expanding the historical coverage of Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors can be quick to remove information when it is unsourced, and indeed the burden is on whoever adds information to make sure it is verified using outside sources. Ideally, the editor who removed the information you added would have seen that the information was plausible and looked for a source to use to reference it. I found a history from the end of the 19th century that agrees with your account. "The pirogue landed at the head of St. Clair Street April i, 1796. The Thompson party was the first to arrive. The other two parties arrived a few days later." The best way to avoid editors reverting your well-researched contributions is to ensure that you always provide a reference to reliable sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added back in a short section. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone step in


Can someone step in as regards the repeated attempt by an editor posting and re-posting the same poorly written POV "rant", (asserting that Jesus "approved betting them [slaves] severely", etc.) under the names "Rences wiki," "Luca Marco" and "Comprehensible view" on the  and  pages? Evidently the editor is ignorant of the extensive debate as regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, and the efforts at balance, as seen in their previous talk pages. Reversions by myself and others have resulted in him/her re-posting under a new name. Thanks.Daniel1212 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult. If you can show that the editors are sock puppets then report them at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. If they engage in edit wars then WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the appropriate venue. You should accompany reverts with warning notices on their talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I reverted them again and posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names used by this editor.Daniel1212 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Marco. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Pam Grier
Pam Grier,  last significant relationship with [struck for privacy reasons]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.159.132 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can cite that with WP:RS then you could post that at the article talk page for consideration there. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Currently in a long-standing relationship with a businessman she prefers to leave unnamed." Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing disambiguation page
This page is actually a disambiguation page, but in my view its title doesn't reflect this. Reading WP:Naming the disambiguation page, the issue is whether there is a primary topic for the term. 'Botanic garden' and 'botanical garden' are synonyms in English (see e.g. the Wiktionary entry for botanic garden). But at present one of these terms (botanic garden) is being used as the title of the disambiguation page and the other (botanical garden) as the title of the topic page. This means that if you search for 'botanic garden' you get the disambiguation page, whereas if you search for 'botanical garden' you get the topic page. I'd like to see both searches end up at the topic page which will then have a standard hatnote to the disambiguation page whose title would be 'botanical garden (disambiguation)'. (The ambiguities aren't major in my view so the topic should be the first landing place.)

I'm relatively new to editing, and am not sure (a) whether this would be a sensible change (b) if so, how to achieve it. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should discuss this with some of the other recent editors on the talk page as there have according to the history been several different views on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is reasonable, it would make sense for both terms to go to Botanical garden, with a hatnote to a disambig page that deals with articles with similar titles. WikiProject Disambiguation may be able to offer advice. Raise it at Talk:Botanical garden. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this has now all been sorted out; see Talk:Botanical_garden. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

neutrality issue
I am not affiliated to The Real Deal (Magazine) article I am editing, yet it still says that it sounds like advertisement.

I tried deleting everything off the page, and even if only the first sentence remains, it still says it sounds like advertising and has a conflict of interest. Help!

Grannysmith5w (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It still looks very promotional. I see no concrete evidence of notability as per WP:Notability (media). Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand that, but even if I have a blank page, it says the same message. As for notability, I have the Los Angeles Times as a cited source, and have followed other publications' wiki pages as a model for how to describe The Real Deal. Still stumped..

Grannysmith5w (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maintenance tags are not removed automatically. I see that User:Master of Puppets has removed them and indicated that they will help clean it up further. – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you so so much, I will wait for editors to clean up then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grannysmith5w (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Section should not have been closed
WP:Editor_assistance/Requests was an ongoing discussion and it should not have been closed. I admit to engaging in sock-puppetry, but that was a one-time incident for which I was blocked. I am now attempting to resolve the issue in a reasonable fashion. Why was this discussion unilaterally closed by an involved admin (User:Hu12) when no clear consensus had been found? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would highlight my most recent point regarding the replacement of legitimate links with irrelevant and illegitimate ones. Will there be any effort to resolve this issue? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that Hu12 took the only course of action available. You're not amenable to resolving the issues at hand and there is reason to believe your actual agenda is the promotion of a corporate entity. Crafty (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, WP:EAR is not an appropriate forum for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the sock-puppetry incident, I have been unblocked for three days and haven't made any edits. I have only sought to discuss the situation.  Has anyone read my most recent points about the replacement of legitimate, peer-reviewed sources? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we get this closed plz? Crafty (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and close it, but how will the issues about the sources be addressed? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These are my most pressing concerns. Will they be addressed?

On Thursday, in an effort to achieve consensus with a solution that would seemingly placate all involved, I created two new sections that integrated the most important points from the two external links into the article, thereby using them as sources rather than as external links. Unfortunately, in a couple of pointy (WP:POINT) edits demonstrating little understanding of the subject matter or any real effort to improve the page, MrOllie hastily replaced the legitimate references (from which the sections were drawn) with ones of dubious quality that did not prove the new sections' assertions. The edits still stand. To wit:
 * An assertion that I made in the new section, which was that "in recent years there has been an increased effort to expand the submarine cable network to serve the developing world," was drawn from a white paper entitled "Undersea cables and the developing world," a peer-reviewed [13] paper from an industry conference, Suboptic. MrOllie replaced it with a source that was clearly drawn from a press release promoting a single submarine cable in Africa.


 * The assertion that "a typical multi-terabit, transoceanic submarine cable system costs several hundred million dollars to construct," which was drawn directly from the external links, was replaced with a link to an article touting the advantages of a single, transpacific cable being constructed by Google.


 * Another assertion drawn directly from the external links, the assertion that "almost all fiber optic cables from TAT-8 in 1988 until approximately 1997 were constructed by consortia of operators; for example, TAT-8 counted 35 participants including most major international carriers at the time such as AT&T," was replaced with a link to a 22-year old article in something called "Rotarian" magazine that has no online presence whatsoever.

NathanielDawson (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * MrOllie also tried to find a new source for the sentence that explained annual investment in submarine cables, as per one of the most important slides in the external links, but being unable to find one, he or she simply deleted the reference completely, without replacing it.
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate actions by User:Hu12
An involved admin, User:Hu12 is repeatedly closing legitimate discussions. Could an univolved admin take a look at this please? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop - this is disruptive. From what I can see, you appear to be insisting on pursuing your goal despite numerous warnings, explanations, and even a block. --Ckatz chat spy  21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to resolve an issue in which I created two new sections, integrating external links as per consensus, and they were replaced with irrelevant and illegitimate references. I am trying to seek a resolution of this issue.  Is there a proper forum in which to resolve it? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I would urge anyone commenting to first read the entire post. Is that asking too much? NathanielDawson (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that the issue has in fact been resolved, albeit in a way that you, NathanielDawson, find unsatisfactory. That does not mean the issue is unresolved, only that you don't care for the outcome. While we will respect your disappointment, we will expect you to abide by the consensus reached. Please note that consensus does not require unanimity here. If you would like to persuade others of your points, may I suggest that you make some constructive contributions in other areas first? That will build your credibility in a way that this persistence will not. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue of inserting external links was resolved in a way that I find unsatisfactory. That's fine.  My concern is that they were replaced with irrelevant and illegitimate sources.  That is another topic entirely, and it hasn't been debated because User:Hu12 keeps closing legitimate discussions.  I am the only one who has made any assertions about the relevance and legitmacy of these sources, and nobody else has been allowed to respond. NathanielDawson (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the issue of the external links was resolved, but the consensus seemed to indicate that it was acceptable to add new text and insert them as references. That is what I did. NathanielDawson (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, somebody will be along to look at that in a while. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop focusing on other editors and instead focus on the content dispute.
 * Find the appropriate forum for your dispute. At minimum, there should be discussion at Talk:Submarine communications cable.  WP:DR gives other options. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included. Despite clear evidence of abuse, sockpupettry, blocks and multiple statements of policy, and despite multiple reasoned opinions and comments provided by multiple experienced independent editors and administrators, then continuing this in pursuit of a certain point is no longer necessary. Arguments of "Merit" is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption of massive, repeated breaches of official Wikipedia policy. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval. Rationale for placing any link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage. Whats apparent is is only here to promote terabitconsulting.com.--Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate continued long after I was blocked. A reasoned discussion was taking place on this page, as of today, but User:Hu12 is still fixated on the issue of spam (which has long since been resolved), and inappropriately closed two discussions that involved him or her.  These discussions need to be reopened.  NathanielDawson (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI would seem to be the appropriate venue if you wish to pursue this. WP:EAR isn't. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it the appropriate forum to continue the debate that was taking place in the closed section? That had been moved here by User:Spinningspark from the Submarine communications cable talk page.  There are a number of outstanding issues in that debate that need to be resolved, all genuine and unrelated to the spam issue, but now it is impossible because User:Hu12 has closed it.  I admire his or her commitment to fighting spam, but in so doing, unfortunately he is unable to make any effort to understand the genuine issues at hand.  NathanielDawson (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been on here 10 days and already managed to get yourself blocked once. Pretty good for a "newbie". What other user ID's have you edited under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Take it to WP:ANI Nathaniel. Closed. Crafty (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Change title of page
I am trying to change the page name for Entriq. Inc. It should now be listed as Irdeto Content Management (formerly Entriq, Inc.) The change is requested to reflect Irdeto's acquisition of Entriq, Inc.

WikiEditIrd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
 * It looks as if the page has been moved to the new name by User:Dynaflow.   Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [E.C.] Done, after confirming the new name through the company's website. Might I suggest merging this article with Irdeto Access and beefing up the combined article enough to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY?   --Dynaflow   babble  22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's accomplished by means of the move tab at the top of the screen. I think you need a few more edits in order for your account to be autoconfirmed, after which it will appear for you. You might take a look at WP:NC to review our naming conventions; I think 'Irdeto' might be the best title, with redirects from Irdeto Content Management and Entriq. We don't usually use the Inc., etc. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly the page I saw seems questionable unless there is some inherent notability for being traded on LSE. It tends to read like a directory listing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have redirected Cloakware to Irdeto Inc., as Cloakware did not have any reliable sources and made no claims of notability outside its parent company. I'd also like to point out the likely conflict of interest on the part of User:WikiEditIrd, and request clarification about the differece between Irdeto Inc. and Irdeto Content Management; these two seem exceedingly similar, and a merge may be in order. Glass  Cobra  16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramtha and criticism


During the past few days, there have been constant edit undos between myself (Jujimufu (talk)) and user Mindgladiator.

The reason for the disputes and reverts is that I have been trying to provide information (from relevant published sources, including news articles, journals, books and interviews with/by scientists, writers or skeptics) that sheds some skepticism on the validity of the reality of the entity 'Ramtha', while user Mindgladiator has been reverting the edits by accusing me of trying to promote my own opinions, and ignoring the fact that all my edits were sources, reference and cited appropriately (by calling it "irrelevant to the topic" or "extremely anti-topic", or other accusations along these words).

We have been trying to reach a consensus in the article's talk page, but it looks like we've reached a dead-end instead: for every argument for the inclusion of skepticism and controversial information to the issue of Ramtha that I have provided, user Mindgladiator has replied accusing me further of promoting and supporting an (assumed) agenda, while it is clear from his replies (e.g. here, second reply by the user) that he is biased towards supporting and believing the reality of Ramtha's entity, and therefore against any evidence to the contrary.

I propose a whole new section in the article J. Z. Knight to be added, titled "Criticism and controversy", under which the court cases can be mentioned, as well as opposition from previous students of Ramtha's, and an inclusion of other, relevant, skeptic and scientific information, which although was well sourced ended up being removed by the user.

Of course, this is what I believe about his/her actions, and I may as well be wrong - which is why I require a third-party opinion on the topic, to settle the matter for good (for now, at least).

Thanks a lot. -Jujimufu (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, just from skimming the talk page I would have to conclude that commentary from Sagan would meet inclusion criteria as would more citations from her supporters. Right now, it seems notability is a bit thin and I'm not sure an appearance on Merv Griffin alone gets it, although I earlier assumed notability would be met with a little digging due to another person appearing on Oprah. If you have noted gestures on You Tube video I'd have to think that is original research, even if you could claim that the video is "Realiable" for the claim made ( but you'd have to expect this exists from better sources, and the topic's own website would be presumed reliable in this regard, for statements about itself). So, offhand, your approach seems reasonable as there is likely enough for a controversies section if Sagan singled her out and her teaching/health related divorce has made the new etc. I'm not sure how the first paragraph states as fact that she is a channel for Ramtha as opposed to just claiming it, perahsp something like "she claims foo[] but others dispute that[]". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a 3rd opinion at the talk page, removed some dubious ELs and warned Mindgladiator for edit-warring. This is now a subject of note at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing interpersonal spat
I'm not precisely certain what this dispute is about exactly, especially since all parties involved essentially agree when it comes to actual editorial decisions. I do personally feel a bit er... persecuted, I guess, but I'm perfectly willing to let that go. I explained my side of things at least, so I'm satisfied in that respect. For my own part I'd like this just to go away at this point, but I think that we need some third party assistance so that myself and User:Drmargi can continue to work together constructively. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 19:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've explained repeatedly, and fruitlessly, that this editor is taking something personally that's not, and assuming bad faith where there's none both in the discussion cited and on his talk page. I'm not picking a fight, I don't see this as any sort of spat, and no one is persecuting him.  I don't understand why, if he's in agreement, this ever had to be discussed, much less escalated to the degree that it has, other than that he's simply not hearing what's being said to him.  Regardless, this is his issue, not mine.  Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd take a step back and edit some other articles. Stay cool. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In these situations my preferred approach is a nice cup of tea and maybe some chocolate HobNobs. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring
It would be extremely long and boring to explain the entire conflict, so I'll try to keep to what is current. Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest was created to describe the selection methods used by the country identifying itself in the Eurovision Song Contest as "Yugoslavia" (which in fact was two different countries, the second participating in 1992 after the former was broken up in 1991). The page was originally named Jugovizija, but was renamed after it was discovered that there were different names throughout the years and that Jugovizija was only used from about 1986 through 1992. Now User:Imbris does not believe that the 1992 entry should be mentioned at all on the page because even though the new country it called itself "Yugoslavia", it was a new country. In terms of the contest however, the same Yugoslavia participated from 1961 to 1992 and they do not consider the 1992 entry to be any different besides from the fact that "Yugoslavia" was a smaller country. They consider the 1992 entry to be Yugoslavia's last. Over the past year there has been edit warring over the inclusion of this 1992 entry on the page (and every other related page) with sources supporting its inclusion, but Imbris's personal opinions urging against it. In his summaries he says things like he must revert because the only opposition was from "three greeks" or that the inclusion would be in error since it is "one source" information (even though imbris down not have a relevant source for his changes. his claimed source is proving that the countries are different, though this is not relevant to the song contest). Basically editors (random ones, not just a few, some unrelated to the topic) continually revert Imbris's changes claiming he has no consensus, no sources etc, but he just reverts back. This has been going back and forth for months and the admin noticeboard never takes action even though there are over a dozen threads where people complain about his actions. . To be honest I think it is because it is way too complicated and time consuming for them to accurately investigate and see what is going on. Here is the history of the recent dispute. So the purpose of this post is to ask what do I do now? I will not accomplish anything by reverting his edits because he will just come back and revert me. Having a discussion with him is also useless as my previous attempts just turned out to be a waste of time. What should my approach be here? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't it be dealt with in the same way as Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, to make clear what political entity was participating? And why do we need separate articles? Yugoslavian selection for the Eurovision Song Contest could easily be merged in. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically the selection article is about selecting the candidate and the other is about the next step which is actually participation, but I agree, there is no reason for two articles. Most ESC pages only have one. The selection page was created by Imbris as a way to get around a compromise of the participation page since he felt that the selection process was shielded from the influence and point of view of the contest since countries are allowed to conduct their selections as they please. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it's a WP:POVFORK, and should be merged back in. Imbris seems to have form in this area judging from various AN/I reports. You might want to take this to AN/I if it can't be resolved on the talk pages. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright if this doesn't work I will try AN/I...again. In the meantime it would be nice for people to weigh in on the merger discussion that I set up for the page in question. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight (software)
Multiple instances of sneaky vandalism (Vandalism) on article Spotlight (software) by IP users. This is resulting in repeated edits by other editors to remove bogus/uncited information. Would kindly suggest we lock the article to registered users, and/or warn the IP users, as appropriate based on Wikipedia protocols.

Current issue started with IP-edits on 8 June 2009.

I have added warnings to User talk:219.148.197.154, User talk:210.107.84.7, and User talk:124.155.211.116.

Thank you for your help! PolarYukon (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP edits are few and infrequent. If this turns into ongoing vandalism by multiple IPs you should file a request at Requests for page protection, but at the moment I think a request for semi-protection would be declined. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many external links at Dynamic imaging
Could someone please take a look at ? On November 4, an editor removed most of the external links from the article. Later, I removed some more material that I felt only helped to promote a company and did not actually add to the article. Later that day, an editor re-added all the links to the article. I then removed them again, noting that the external links were not necessary and that if people really wanted to learn about the companies providing this service, then they could use a search engine as that was not really the article's purpose. The editor reverted me, and assumed that I was making these edits because I had a professional connection to Adobe's Scene7 division, because I brought that article to featured article status (I have absolutely no relation with the company). I responded to his assumptions about this on his talk page, and also explained why the external links did not belong in the article. I also explained to the editor that at the very least, if he wants to add all these companies in the article, they need to be cited, as I had done in Scene7 when mentioning the company's competitors (the editor had added other competitors to the article earlier, which I had removed because they were not mentioned in the sources I used). Anyway, the editor just recently re-added all the external links to Dynamic imaging again, claiming himself and his own personal experiences as a reliable source but also noting that he will add references soon. Could someone please take a look at the whole thing? Please note that the editor seems to have some professional affiliation with these companies, according to his user page and the link provided there. Gary King ( talk ) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted User:Mikebrands most recent edit and posted appropriate warnings on thir talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I am looking to pay and hire someone to properly clean up my page on Wikipedia. Can you direct me to someone that would be willing to help me. Privately? Thank you Tim Bello —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBello (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 November 2009


 * Hi, paid editing is generally considered unacceptable on Wikipedia. I have removed your phone number as printing it here might lead to problems for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and generally articles on notable people are sourced from reliable third party sources, not created by paid employees of the article subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reward board? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is reward board cited on COI page? Apparently COI editing is not prohibited but the article still have to end up being unbiased. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Reward Board is only mentioned as a See also link. Wikipedia is inconsistent on this issue, we still don't have a coherent policy on paid editing. See WT:PAID. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the consistent policy is "its about the article." The COI page IIRC seemed reasonable but some people do go overboard on COI issues, and indeed they need to be examined very very carefully. On the plus side, there is no appeal to credentials so a COI editor with a good resume can't dismiss an arugment based solely on an appeal to authority and there is some hope of looking at the data. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done some major cleanup on Sean Hamilton, which is likely the article that TimBello is referring to, but if anyone else would like to do some work on the article as well, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Glass  Cobra  18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Undoing multiple edits
On the page for USC Trojans Football,, a vandal has uploaded multiple edits that would be considered vandalism. I am unable to hit the undo button for edits that are not immediately past. What is the best way to fix this problem?

--Paperbakwriter09 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you could manually remove the edits by editing the page at the appropriate point. It looks like some recent reversions have removed vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another way is to copy an earlier version of the article and paste it over the new version. (If only one or two sections are affected you could just copy and paste those sections.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think all edits between two versions do not improve the article, then you can go to a previous revision, click "Edit this page" at the top, and hit "Save". Gary King  ( talk ) 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

new account making form entries, LOL,
horoscopes and latin names for people, only 2 so far but that is all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skydancer25 Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes well the pages have been tagged for CSD and warnings issued, which is the appropriate course of action. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Marriage (Historyguy1965)
1. Recent comments by User:Historyguy1965 are WP:RPA. "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."


 * A. User:Daedalus969, 6:52 pm, 12 November 2009, wrote "A single user and all his sockpuppets don't count." Not explicitly identified as to who is the single user, though later he said he thought it was I.


 * B. User:Historyguy1965, 12:20 am, 13 November 2009, writes in great sarcasm:
 * Right you're not a sockpuppet, all these new users just magically appeared and just so happened to come here to just to happen to agree with this new proposition you've made. Obviously not suspicious, right?


 * C. User:Historyguy1965's statement above is a slanderous personal attack. It is a false accusation without merit.


 * D. User:Historyguy1965 Victimizing yourself Afaprof01 does nothing, if a police officer arrests a suspected murderer or murder, that isn't a "personal attack", it's an arrest based on legitimate suspicion. Approximately 5 (newer) users signed up, all entered the discussion and all happened to concur with this proposition you've made. Luckily, WP:PNSD protects against such attempts. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 7:34 am, 13 November 2009


 * E. Our suspicions were dead on, sockpuppets have been banned! Kudos to Daedalus for his contribution in this, well done. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 9:35 pm, 13 November 2009, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC−6)


 * F. Your suspicions about User:Afaprof01 were not dead on, however. WP:Civility and common courtesy would seem to warrant an acknowledgment of that fact, and some sort of apology. Afaprof01 (talk)


 * G User:Historyguy1965, please remove all references in which you name me in false accusation WP:PA. I think an apology is also in order. You jumped to a conclusion which has now been proven false, totally without merit. Afaprof01 (talk) 9:10 pm, 14 November 2009, last Saturday


 * No, it wasn't "proven false" nor was it "without merit", of all the users I suspected of sock-puppetry almost all were banned. Not only were my accusations legitimate, I still think you were part of it and that those sockpuppets were yours, what are you going to do? Sue me for having an opinion? What you call a "personal attack" is what I call Wikipedia guidelines, my accusations were based off WP:IDART, WP:CHRONO, WP:SIM and WP:SPASOCK. I hate it when people vandalize articles, and as a result of (not only my) suspicions a cowardly sockpuppet had several of his accounts banned. If you feel these suspicians were "personal attacks", then report it to an administrator and let them arbitrate. -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 10:28 pm, 14 November 2009, last Saturday (2 days ago (UTC−6)

-- Falsely accusing a well established user of stacking the deck with Sockpuppets is a serious affront. Many readers won't have a clue whether I'm guilty or not, and I'm most certainly not. Please scan Talk:Marriage to see the bullying nature of User:Historyguy1965's postings. I find that offensive and disruptive, especially when he usually ignores facts and rants almost at the level of babel.

I am requesting a censure of User:Historyguy1965 for false accusations of Sockpuppetry and an apology from him. He should be counseled about the obnoxious tone of his retorts and discourtesies to other users.Afaprof01 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a censure on Wikipedia. It looks like you've had plenty of direct communication with historyguy (which I applaud you for).  You also have already tried multiple times to resolve your issues while third parties discussed.  So, you're probably looking for dispute resolution.  Likely mediation is your best bet.  I can help if you would like.  Some suggestions in the mean time ... while you look for the best course of action in mediation, heed the words of third parties, like FisherQueen as an example on his talk page, which, sadly, he outright dismissed.  Demanding an apology never works.  Also, if you indeed were using sockpuppets in a prohibited way, you might consider letting it drop.  In fact you might consider letting the sock-puppet issue drop regardless.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt and empathetic reply. I'm not trying to exact the proverbial "pound of flesh." He has run off other editors of this article with his bodacious threatening bullying manner. That's what I want to stop. He has shown not a whit of anything close to humility, so I have no hope it may come now. This article is largely at a stand-still and a standoff. That's sad. You'll note that I tried WP:Rfc and nothing significant has happened there.
 * Yes, I will very much appreciate your help, ~a. If you think mediation is the better one to try, I'm up for it. FYI, I was not using sockpuppets in a prohibited way or any other way. I volunteered for a wp:checkuser but was told they saw no need to run it.
 * What's next, Coach? And THANKS! Afaprof01 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Hall of Shame?LOL: The focus here is on the article. While public executions may be a traditional form of entertainment, I'm not really sure they help the intellectual level of the articles. Sometimes identifiable contrib sources, IP or alias, are banned or restricted or specific articles are protected. Although sometimes anonymity leads to vandalism and frivolity, it may be liberating to let data rather than credentials speak. Allowing the benefits of anonymity to become a trap would probably be counterproductive. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. And you're right, I am not nearly so concerned about damages to my pride as I am the hostile, bullying environment he continually creates on the Talk page. What do you recommend? Afaprof01 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the ambience of the talk page doesn't immediately translate to any content on the main articles. So, the concern here is about attitude and not the ultimate end product, the article. I'm going to stop commenting here largely due to ignorance ( I don't know the wiki policies here ) and disinterest. This forum seems to permit you to ignore personal or irrelevant comments, unless they get to the point of cluttering a discussion. Exchanges can get "dry" without a few personal comments but arguing interminably about words, intent, and other forms of mind reading seems to be a bit of a waste. Until someone just starts editing the main article in apparent disregard for the article and consensus or factual information, it seems to me to be largely irrelevant in this setting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the ambience of the talk page doesn't immediately translate to any content on the main articles. So, the concern here is about attitude and not the ultimate end product, the article. I'm going to stop commenting here largely due to ignorance ( I don't know the wiki policies here ) and disinterest. This forum seems to permit you to ignore personal or irrelevant comments, unless they get to the point of cluttering a discussion. Exchanges can get "dry" without a few personal comments but arguing interminably about words, intent, and other forms of mind reading seems to be a bit of a waste. Until someone just starts editing the main article in apparent disregard for the article and consensus or factual information, it seems to me to be largely irrelevant in this setting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have watched, and briefly participated in, the talk page discussions. There was indeed some suspicious activity on that page, which by its nature also cast suspicion on you Afaprof01. Noting the suspicion is not a personal attack. In fact the suspicions were partly borne out, though nothing definitively ties Afaprof01 into the socking, and this is clearly noted in the discussion. Afaprof01, I really think you should just consider yourself vindicated and move on. Further accusations of socking from this point forward would be inappropriate IMO. If you're inoccent (and it appears to me you are) then this will never come up again. (And of course, if you're guilty, sooner or later you'll make a mistake in future.) As to the hostile environment, I've dropped Historyguy a note to that regard, and you too need to respect consensus. Franamax (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Franamax, for taking your valuable time to help us up out of this sinkhole (maybe stinkhole). Your note to Historyguy seemed well received, and that is amazing in and of itself. Afaprof01 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina
Requesting advice on how to avoid further edit warring with a user who has reverted changes without offering edit summaries and without responding to talk page comments. If seeking a third opinion is protocol I am willing, although the second opinion hasn't been detailed yet. BaldPete (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you placed warnings/comments on the offenders' talk page? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually looking at, I see that you didin't. You have to take action by making every attempt to communicate with offending editors.  I have placed a welcome template and warning on the talk page of the IP. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict with editor 'Clockback' on The Broken Compass article
Hi, can you please help me resolve a conflict with 'Clockback' on the Broken Compass article? I reverted his edit as I thought it looked like cherry picking and would be better made by another editor and asked someone to help, which they did and I added other refs too the same day (18th Nov). The info he wanted included was included but he was annoyed at my actions. I have said I was in error and apologised on his talk page and the article talk page. He is putting large chunks of text repeating his complaint against me (but not my answers) on the article talk page and inluding other complaints he has from other pages (which he hasn't mentioned before). He called for support against me, doesn't address me directly and seems unwilling to resolve this conflict, even though I've apologised. I don't know what more I can do. Please help. Mimi (yack) 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently this topic is about a book of political commentary or advice or "analysis." If it is notable, there are likely to be many,many sources of analysis of this analysis. So, cherry picking will be difficult to assess and this probably occurs in many areas so perhaps some discussion here would be productive. The intent of the article author is to reflect the state of thinking about the topic- in this case the book. This may be difficult to separate from the issues it addresses- while these can't be ignored they can't be the focus to the exclusion of the book ( "book says foo about bah but we know foo is not right " etc). Avoiding COI is important but even conflicted people can still appeal to logical arguments. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nerdseeksblonde, but Clockback refuses to address me directly and is copying his complaint not only on the article talk page but on another editors talk page. I think this is wrong. I don't see how I can argue with someone who won't address me directly. I've apologised but there are great chunks of his complaint copied around. I don't know what more I can do? Mimi (yack) 13:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mimi, I suggest you discuss the edits in question rather than just editing them back out. I know from experience that this isn't very productive and it's a very good way to ensure that your concerns aren't voiced. If the issue is resolved so far as the edits, then I don't think anything more needs to occur. He may be sour grapes over the whole issue, but his complaints are just that, complaints. I would cease from engaging him about the matter and simply move on. Doing otherwise would only serve to throw gas on what looks to be a small fire. You need not address every allegation ever hurled at you. Best regards, Shazbot85 Talk 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that advice, Shazbot85, I will as you say move on. Best regards, 82.37.219.143 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools#No_contact_rule_controversy
One editor continues to dispute and tag the section. I have provided links and proof but editor continues to tag the section as unreliable. The section was there for ages before this became an issue. Editor has also tagged other section of the same topic, FCPS. Please investigate these actions.

Thank you,

Signed, My Ip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked the references given, and there is no ambiguity at all: the section is well-sourced. Whether it is important enough to include in the article is another question, but there is no basis for disputing the accuracy. Unfortunately I don't have time to deal with this now, but if nobody else does so soon I shall try to help. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would just like to suggest that the fact that it was covered worldwide speaks for the issue. We had a school that would not allow ANY touching. Girls could not hug girls, and boy could not shake hands. That's pretty harsh by any standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL: What kind of athletic programs or CPR training do they have? In any case, maybe you can move it to a list of "notable school policies" or something if not important enough to include in this topic. If you look "around the world" social customs vary and any school with coed classes and no veils may be notable to others so perhaps it can be moved somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now edited the article in an attempt to answer the objections. the editor who made the objections has conceded that it is now better, but is not 100% satisfied. We will see where it goes from here. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I find time, I'll reword the text to lessen the bias Tedickey (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Turkish railways
Hello. Can someone give advice as to the suitability of http://www.trainsofturkey.com/w/pmwiki.php/Site/About as a reference and information source for articles related to the railways of Turkey. Although the main contributors seem to be very respectable the site is a wiki and does not contain inline references for the information in it. (as the site itself mentions there are not many resources for this subject at present).

ThanksShortfatlad (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikis are not reliable sources. You could ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I would expect that you will get the same answer. References you find in the wiki could themselves be used of course, if they are RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Message understood.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwanted email
Hello. I have received nine emails from a user that I don't want. I used to have a link to send email on my user page, and had to remove it. A user continues to send email I don't want and I don't read. I was going put a note on their user page and link it back here but the account is blocked. I have no dealings with this person even on Wikipedia--had never heard of them until they started to write to me. Any other ideas? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only information I can find on Wikipedia is WP:Email, which you may have read. You could add the user to your junk email filter and/or consider reporting them to their ISP if the nuisance continues.  Other volunteers here may have other ideas. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the only thing I can think of is to add them to your e-mail blacklist. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to uncheck the box in your preferences too; the "email this user" link in the toolbox still appears to be active. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. Thank you AndrewHowse, I unchecked the box. Also thanks to Jezhotwells and Ukexpat, I added them to my blacklist. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that E-mailing users says: "The feature can be disabled for any user by an administrator as part of blocking, although this is not usually done unless the facility is abused." The user has been blocked since 2005 but emailing has not been blocked. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

HOWARD MOSS (singer)
HOWARD MOSS (born Luton, England 1975) , singer, songwriter & guitarist who had the hits Delilah, Dawn & Crazy World (from the Sally Forth EP). Howard formed his first band, 'Near Dark' in 1989 with Derek Bradley on Drums and Paul Jones on Bass. The band performed many local gigs and wrote many songs but unfortunately fell apart in 1991. Howard released an original solo album called Tempus Fugit in the summer of 1995, from which two singles were released. One of these songs Delilah reached number 11 in the Irish charts and stayed in the top thirty for five weeks. The song has nothing to do with the Tom Jones number!! He has a very wide and varied mix of influences ranging from the likes of classic rock artists such as Bruce Springsteen to many heavy rock artists. He has performed in numerous acts in Ireland including Hotel California (Eagles Tribute), Born to Run (Bruce Springsteen Tribute) and his original band Stoneloader. These acts have all toured extensively around Ireland and have played well-established venues such as the Olympia Theatre Dublin and The National Event Centre Killarney. Howard Moss has always preferred live performances and is always "gigging". Moss is currently playing predominantly in Cyprus and the mediterranean region.

Frankintin (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC) http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement


 * Are you looking for help in creating this article?  7  08:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say, after admittedly brief reserach, that he fails the Notability guidelines for music. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already an article titled Howard Moss, about the former poetry editor of The New Yorker. If you want to create an article about another Howard Moss, I would suggest titling it Howard Moss (musician).  But first, make sure that he meets the notability threshold for musicians.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem - see Articles for deletion/Howard Moss (musician). User:Frankintin and User:Frank observer are perhaps related? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * has been created by User:Frankintin, appears to be a recreation of, so I have tagged for CSD: G4. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bog Turtle
I'm NYMFan69-89 and have been working on the Bog turtle page for a few months and am looking for some advice from my peers. Me and a group of my high school classmates have been working on theis article (for a grade) and are loking ot obtain GA status. WE NEED FEEDBACK.--76.0.143.27 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article looks pretty good - some inconsistencies in the case of Bog / bog, some minor copy editing needed for grammar. You could nominate this at WP:GAN, but there is quite a backlog, maybe two months or you could go for WP:Peer review, which coould also take some time. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

parveen chopra
In the third para the material goes horizontally on a single line. How can I convert it into a paragraph.

How can I get rid of two flags on the top regarding the material needs improvement. Is it technical error in the third para or something else? The second flag talks about neutrality issue. Which aspect needs more proof or references to show that this article is neutral and balanced based on facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.18.245 (talk • contribs)
 * Parveen Chopra is currently tagged with these templates because it reads like a copy and paste from someone's website, or possibly was done by a publicist or close family member. Please see Neutral point of view and Conflict of interest, as well as Your first article for additional tips on how to improve the content. Glass  Cobra  20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the reason the third paragraph was formatted unusually was that someone had began the paragraph with a space. A leading space will cause text to be formatted that way. The paragraph has since been fixed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I "coin" a new word or term?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.252.115 (talk • contribs)
 * In the context of Wikipedia, we rarely have articles on new words or terms, as we are not a dictionary, nor are we for things you made up one day. For more info, see Avoid neologisms. Glass  Cobra  20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Raw Sienna vs. Burnt Sienna
RE: the artical on Siennat at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sienna and it's sub articles for both Raw and Burth Sienna.

Whoever has authored this page has Raw Sienna and Burnt Sienna backwards. The burnt version is the darker. The image are labeled incorrectly, and going to either the 'burnt' or 'raw' sub-pages follows the same backwards labeling.

iv'e tried three times to fix things, even citing other resources on pigment naming, such as http://www.goldenpaints.com/international/danish/products/color/conservation/msa1.php and http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Burnt_Sienna_37ml.html and http://www.schoolofcolor.com/acatalog/Raw_Sienna_37ml.html

But multiple users have been rolling it back, citing no reasons or unfounded reasons like 'The pictures are labeled correctly'.

I really donlt feel like making all the changes again, so I'll just let it be incorrect, but it would be nice to get it fixed with some authoritative reasoning to dissuade folks from just rolling it back again.

Thanks User: Treedonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.22.5 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Treedonkey seems to be correct. I've added some supporting color chart links to Talk:Sienna and barring reasonable objections I'll correct the captions.  --CliffC (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates?
What's the current consensus on Wikilinking dates? New user Team1525 is doing some large-scale date linking in multiple related articles, like this. I know what the MOS says but I want to be clear whether I should raise the issue, maybe there's no problem. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is rarely any good reason to link dates. If in a particular case there is a special reason to do so fine, if not then they should not be linked. If someone is routinely linking large numbers of dates for no evident reason then there is a problem. From the few examples of this editor's work that I have looked at, he/she gives no edit summary or other explanation, and I can see no good reason for the links; in fact I would go further, and say the links are clearly pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that some, certainly, of these edits have been reverted and a note has been placed on the talk page. If they carry on then use warning templates in increasing order. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with Universal Accounting
I work with Universal Accounting, an accounting training center and attempted to create a Wikipedia article with information about the company: it's history, courses, etc. We tried to not promote the company and maintain a neutral point of view. Much of our content was removed. After multiple edits, the article remains, but there are 2 flags: This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications & This article is written like an advertisement.

Can anyone offer advice as to how we can edit the article to satisfy these complaints and remove the flags?

Thank youRutledge consulting (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck, it looks like a candidate for deletion. All the current sources are PR/incidental ( listing as a hiring employer is not significant indepenedent coverage as are most directory listings or pr's). You need to find some notice that others have made of the company. Absent that it may not persist. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Three Revert in Big Crunch
Here is the page

user:Khan197khan keep posting about harun yahya inside scientifial entries. please keep him from editing the page since the article was fully in science "mode". he keep reverting it and state it as vandalism, while he vandalize the page by his added entry.

Here is disputed text: Religious Context Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) has also claimed that it is inline with the Qur'an.

please resolve it. thx 202.70.51.240 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have warned Khan197khan that he is close to violating the 3RR rule and that his sources are insufficient for the information he is trying to insert. If he adds the material again, please feel free to report him to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Glass  Cobra  17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor added material again, so I reverted and reported at WP:AIV Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor blocked for 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tryed to edit this artical and i screwed it up....
I tryed to edit this artical and i screwed it up....i dont know how to use these tags and i dont want to learn...i just wanted to correct a date that Patty Donahue died...some one put december 6 1996 i tryed to correct it to december 9 and it got a double artical...please just check it out and fix it for me please...all this editing stuff it so confusing for me..

takes to long to understand and learn...

here is the URL for the artical...

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

and here is the link for the referance i used

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7227052

please fix it for me...and please contact me at

let me know yu fixed it please...and if you have any questions please contact me there as well.. Hydrogenship1967 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC) regards brian...


 * I've reverted your edit, so as to restore the formatting. If you have a reliable source for the change in dates, then mention it on the article's talk page? Thanks --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's OK now - I came across this by chance, and have changed and ref'd it to 9 Dec. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)