Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 75

Possible WP:Griefing at Peter Bethune article
Other editors have removed or tried to remove photos, references from reliable sources and article material from the Peter James Bethune article. It appears to me that they are not acting in good faith and have a POV to defend, because the subject of this biography is involved in a controversial issue.

Here are diffs of the deletions:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355137943&oldid=355133005
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355140038&oldid=355137943
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355140198&oldid=355140038
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355140596&oldid=355140198

Here is an example of a sourced point that has been deleted: "Mr Bethune is being held in a maximum security prison in Japan." Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/02/2863365.htm

Note that a New York Times news article was deleted as a reference and replaced with another reference, presumably because the NYT article was not considered NPOV enough.

Please also see the edit history and discussion regarding the subject's photo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PeterBethune_with_Earthrace.JPG

The editors in question have made minimal contributions to the article.

BTW, this also seems to be going on here too: Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article's talk page is the place to try to resolve this - you have opened a discussion there already so no need for dispute resolution unless you reach an impasse there. – ukexpat (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid an edit war. I'm not getting any response on the talk page, but I'd like to revert these questionable edits. I've left an invitation on this particular editor's talk page: Terrillja talk     Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Peter Bethune article is a new article, but this has been going on for some time at the Ady Gil article, and experience with these editors leads me to believe that there is nothing I can say or do to stop them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one of them [just] actually made a valuable contribution to the article, but then inserted a questionable quote into the subject's early life section that I've tried to convince them is inappropriate. Another just deleted an entire section on whaling for no specific reason. They are obviously hostile to the subject and I'm hopelessly outnumbered. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We did get the references back in though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have tried to out-argue every other editor and argued your position for so long that no one is willing to work with you anymore. If you tried to actually compromise, you might get somewhere, but instead you have decided to argue endlessly and are only polarizing the debate rather than making an ho nest attempt at forming consensus. Sometimes there is a reason no one else agrees with you. Because it just doesn't make sense.-- Terrillja talk  20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghostofnemo said "(The other editors) are obviously hostile to the subject". Do you really believe this or were you just being dramatic?     Pirate Argh!!1!  00:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go look at the current article and recent edits. Once again relevant, reliable-sourced, NPOV material is being deleted:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355357792&oldid=355356806
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355471787&oldid=355469872 (poster explicitly states on user page that all videos posted are in compliance with copyright laws)
 * And they're adding derogatory, POV information about the subject of the article, who is, by the way, a living person:
 * "I'm a raper and pillager of the seabed and if it's out there to hunt or shoot, I'm into it."
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=355306434&oldid=355290444 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "After touring ports around the globe, the Earthrace was put on sale for $2.6 million and Bethune considered using it to "hassle Japanese whalers"." Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some comments from the article talk page when I protested the removal of the background information on whaling:
 * Repeating weak or bogus reasons for deletion does not strengthen the case for deletion. Why shouldn't this be included? Is it false? Is it POV? Is it misleading? Is it irrelevant? No. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAMETYPE#7.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With a dose of WP:DEADHORSE--Terrillja talk 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why constructive dialog is not possible: Removal of background information on whaling I certainly have tried. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * GoN has bee disruptive over three articles the last few months. Nothing left to say really.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for page on "photorepair" or "photo-repair"
Hello, In mid- to late January I used a wiki page on "photorepair" (or "photo-repair") as a background information, and now the page has disappeared. Any chance of recovering it? I would be very, very grateful. Many thanks.

Sincerely, Julie 70.56.55.93 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it | the Graphic Lab? How about Film preservation?  Diannaa  TALK 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything using a google wikipedia search. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken Identity
I opened a page recently and was surprised to see the ‘You have new messages’ box appear at the top of the page. I opened the message and was somewhat taken aback to see a message from one ‘Piano non troppo’ asking me not to introduce incorrect information into the page for Uri Geller. This surprised me as I, nor anyone using this computer, have ever visited, let alone edited, his page. I would like to know how to clear up this case of mistaken identity and clear the blemish off my IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.192 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've just checked, and someone on that IP address did indeed edit the Uri Geller article, back in September 2009 - see . However, as IP addresses are frequently re-assigned, that would have been a different person using a different computer, and it was that person who was being warned at the time, not you (you can see that the warning dates from September too). The warning casts no aspersions at all on any current or future users of that IP address. However, as the warning is clearly now stale, you're welcome to remove it yourself if you are now using that address. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  12:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One advantage of creating an account (see Why create an account?) is that other people's edits won't be connected to you in any way.-- Beloved Freak  13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Katsumi Yamada page
Hello. I am usure of how to contact Atama, the person who deleted the Katsumi Yamada page so I am writing this request. Is there any way to find out why the page was deleted and to bring it back?

Thank you, Cordawg1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordawg1 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Their talk page is at User talk:Atama. I am sure they will be happy to inform you why the page was deleted. Diannaa  TALK 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The deletion log says: Deleted "Katsumi Yamada" ‎ (PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Not sure about notability, but more problematically, I can't verify this from reliable sourced beyond his existence. Lots of blog stuff but nothing meeting WP:RS) - meaning that there were insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Whoever proposed the article for deletion really should have (but were not obliged to) notified you on your talk page. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
Really just a quick question regarding any standing policies on someone including links to a file-sharing site on a Wikipedia page. The specific page in question is Tales_from_the_Crypt_(TV_series), where someone has twice posted a file-sharing URL to a copy of the TV show's theme song. I'm fairly certain this is a violation of one or more WP policies, but I'm not certain which. Snarky Boy (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYLINK is the guideline that you are looking for.-- Terrillja talk  04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wind mobile
I'm getting into a revert war with Jæs over a criticism section I added to Wind Mobile. In it, I cited a law blog from a leading academic and user forums. Jæs says that they do not meet the WP:RS guidelines and instead of discussing it, just reverts out my changes. I'm willing to concede that the forums do not meet requirements (but surely registered customer opinions must be worth something) but Jæs, in my opinion, is taking too literal an interpretation of WP:RS and not giving the community an opportunity to investigate my argument. How should I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenRhodes (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You could start a discussion at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get input from other editors about whether the source is reliable. Blogs are Not considered a reliable source as per WP:RS so I fear you will not win this debate. Diannaa  TALK 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * thank you. My original contribution was: Wind drew criticism for port blocking which prevented users of their advertised "unlimited" data plans from using services on the Internet[16]. Wind responded by unblocking a number of services but others, particularly P2P, remain blocked. Other customers have complained of unreliable coverage, leading to a disproportionately high number of dropped calls[17][18], telephone number porting delays, and representatives not following up on client issues as promised[19][20].

What I think is relevant is that I mention that there is criticism and that customers are complaining. In other words, the statements are qualified. BordenRhodes (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally think, if you have an argument, you should let it stand on its own two legs. Inaccurately saying I reverted you wholesale without discussion is not going to help further your argument.  I directed you to our policy, and you apparently agreed that at least part of your content was unreliable (since you only decided to revert to restore half of it).  I suspect the other part is just as unreliable and will be removed again, since it doesn't actually meet our requirements for self-published sources and simply is not encyclopedic.  We are not Consumer Reports or Howard Forums.  jæs (talk)  05:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warrior
User:OregonWrestling has been edit warring, but using misleading edit summaries to hide it.

For example, he cut out large sections of an article here, but labeled it as "(Changed wording from "he" to subject surname "Thomas")".

So far I've been discussing it at Talk:Andrew_Thomas_(prosecutor) and Talk:Joe_Arpaio. I've asked him to enumerate his particular concerns with the articles, but he's not yet responded.

I suspect he's just going to continue what he's been doing -- accusing other editors of political motivations, while axing large sections of articles (or reverting edits that conform to WP:BLP, but that he doesn't like.) While I'd like to assume good faith on his part, he's really starting to look like a meatpuppet.

What's the best path forward on this, to get it under control? (Yes, I'm familiar with WP:Dispute  Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... given no response from the admins here (hey, I was just looking for a little guidance), I'll just muddle along as best as I can. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't an admins' noticeboard, although admins do respond here from time to time. If the editor in question is failing to engage in communication and continues to make edits that violate WP:BLP or are otherwise disruptive, you should bring it to the attention of the admins at WP:ANI. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

They say its spam
hello maybe you can help me. I thought I was contributing to Wikipedia by adding my websites to the links on the appropriate subjects as the websites were exactly what the acticle was refering to. example. Directv and dish network and human saftey in security. I know that I am an affiliate but they are upto date sites exactly on the subjects. I was not trying to spam, now I fear my websites are in jepordy because you labled them spam. I thought I was helping. Can you help, please. I don't know what sign your pst with Greatread (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC) means. thank you Greatread

Thank you. [1] [2] [3] [4] MER-C 09:22, 12
 * Please read the notice that has been posted on your talk page, also WP:Five pillars, WP:SPAM and WP:External links. It is important to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil and strongly biased editor
User:Jeannedeba on article Pope_Benedict_XVI and the talk page.

The user has shown an obvious bias to the point I believe it's being disruptive to the process or writing the article. When another user posted comments regarding this Jeannedeba claimed it was a personal attack and deleted the comment. I responded without naming Jeannedeba and it appears they think I'm a sock puppet (an admin can easily check my IP) and is making a pointless threat about a 'last warning'.

I don't believe I can make any response without crossing a line I don't want to cross and I believe that a senior editor or administrator needs to come in and possibly ban that user from contributing to Catholic articles for a few weeks or give them a strong warning to improve their behaviour (the talk history speaks volumes). I'm not sure exactly where to start and I do think that user can contribute to that page but not in their current state of mind. I think putting their name on a noticeboard will only have a negative effect on that user so if it can be resolved by someone without resorting to that I'd be grateful.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

RutgerH (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The user RutgerH has been involved in disruptive POV pushing on the article Pope Benedict XVI, and repeatedly violated the policy on biographies of living persons. (He wants to add some obscure fringe theory about the pope getting "arrested", although he has failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that this is a credible theory). He has been told by several editors including administrators that the material he wants to include is inappropriate and a violation of the BLP policy (see Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI). Yet he continues his disruptive POV pushing. Some IP also posts disruptive personal attacks on the talk page, attacking me for allegedly being Catholic, which I consider totally unacceptable (see No_personal_attacks). If RutgerH continues his disruption and BLP violations, something needs to be done to stop his activities. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is actually plenty of evidence to support the claim that there is a plan to try to get the Pope arrested in the UK. There's an article in the Sunday Times (London) here, though it seems as if it exaggerates Dawkins' role, judging by his response here - and there are other news sources easily found by Google. So while a suggestion that the Pope will actually be arrested is silly, the campaign to have him arrested clearly exists and is documented in notable sources - but I'll leave it to others to decide if it is of encyclopedic importance -- Boing!   said Zebedee  13:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no plans by the British government to get the Pope arrested. Some British newspapers have reported that a private individual, a book author, wanted to "arrest the Pope", although the person in question later denied this. This is an excellent example of a fringe theory that doesn't belong in a concise summary of the most important aspects of this case in the biography of one of the world's most important living individuals. As has been pointed out by several users: If the British government had done anything to arrest the Pope, it would be relevant. The fact that a private individual has a silly idea is not relevant in the Pope's biography - lots of people have silly ideas about leading public figures all the time. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh indeed, no, there are no plans by the British government to arrest the Pope - but I didn't suggest there were. And what Dawkins has denied is not the plan itself, just that he instigated it personally - in fact, he confirms that the private plan exists. My view is yes, that the whole idea is silly, but I'm not taking sides. As I said, I'll leave it to others to decide if it is of encyclopedic value - I'm just offering links to help others to decide, and actually supporting you against this one-sided complaint. (Oh, and nobody has explained anything to me several times - this is the first time I've even looked at this) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread that, that comment was intended for RutgerH. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no prob :-) Regards -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Sorry, I forgot to add - I've had a look over the Talk page, and there is clearly some strong disagreement there, but I wouldn't say Jeannedeba has done anything to warrant a one-sided complaint here. There seem to be two extremes - one that no mention of sexual abuse should be included in articles about the Pope and the Catholic Church, and one that the articles should focus on sexual abuse almost exclusively. I think both are wrong (and most participants don't actually ascribe to either extreme) - the former is censorship and the latter is excessive recentism. Somewhere in between is surely the Wikipedia way. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of anyone who think the abuse cases should not be mentioned in one form or another. Personally, I strive to maintain encyclopedic standards and neutrality in the coverage of these issues. Certainly the Pope's response to these issues should be dealt with in the article. The problem is that some users use the article to promote fringe theories or excessive coverage of issues only tangentially relevant to the Pope's biography, which is very problematic in a biography on a living person. Some users also have accused him of "paedophilia complicity", a very grave BLP violation. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * TBH I thought I was posting a form for a private request, my mistake. Zebedee you really should read it more if you can't find the very obvious bias. The claim of violating WP:BLP and POV pushing above is a farce and is an example of this users attitude. That section was formely named "British nutjob requesting the Pope's arrest" by the above user who claims neutrality on this topic. WP:RECENT is the exact reason I agreed it should not be included at this stage after taking note of the comments of another user though Jeannedeba didn't seem to have noticed or acknowledged that and wanted to claim other incorrect reasons it should not be included. RutgerH (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see anybody saying that nothing shouldn't be said. Rutger has a hard time understanding that fringe theories that haven't amounted to anything do not belong in an encyclopedic article.  He is also having a hard time understanding his own bias, as he believes that any newspaper/magazine/etc which has the word "Catholic" in the title is by default biased and not reliable---and has unilaterally threatened to remove them as sources.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You thought a request on a public page for editor assistance was private? And I didn't say there was no bias - I opined that there was strong bias on both sides, and that a one-sided complaint is, in my opinion, not justified. My suggestion would be to try to achieve consensus on the Talk page - I know it's hard with religion-based topics, but it does seem to slowly get there. And if this new story is indeed considered encyclopedic, then there's no rush to decide - Wikipedia is not a news source -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah when I clicked the link in the blue box on this page it brought up a nice little box (not the whole page) and I didn't notice the 'new section' line up the top. RutgerH (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wizards issues
I'm in a dispute over this article with the editor who has wrote and maintained the article. It's currently protected, and the administrator told us to come to a consensus on changes, which is problematic, because the other editor wrote everything, and hence finds the article perfect. I pointed out a sentence on the talk page that was miscited, and his response was "Sorry. This is POV pushing.". I don't know what to do here, besides completely abandoning the page to someone who thinks the movie and directory are beyond criticism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you have already had a 3rd opinion. Perhaps you should go for a WP:RfC if you feel strongly about it. Though that can have unpredcited results. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the article is protected until April 16 you might think about getting interested in editing elsewhere, at least for a while. Life is too short to not have fun doing your hobby, after all.   Diannaa  TALK 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Dance (Matisse)
Hi all,

I am contributing in good faith on the above article, but I keep being reverted by User:Modernist, who says he doesn't like the new version of the image I uploaded. He could simply change that by reverting the image (and he has done that), but he reverts my contributions to the article itself and Template:Matisse, which doesn't make sense in my opinion. Please help. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a thread for discussion here: ...Modernist (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gay sex\Homosexual sex
✅ The other day I clicked on a link to Gay sex within a different article in Wikipedia. I was redirected to Human sexual behavior. I thought that was a mistake because the article didn't even had the word gay or homosexual in its contents. Needless to say, it doesn't say anything about gay sex. I went back to the redirect page and took a look at the talk page. Looks like some time ago they decided to delete the page in favor of a redirect link to Human sexual behavior. Doing some searching I found out that Homosexual sex was also redirected to Human sexual behavior. I think an article talking about Gay sex practices, as opposed to heterosexual human behavior is needed, therefore I would suggest to reverse the deletion of the page. However, if this is too much to ask, at least the contents of the former Gay sex page can be included in the Human sexual behavior article, or both articles could be merged. I have no idea how to do any of this. I left a note on the talk pages of Gay sex and Homosexual sex so that maybe someone could do something, but I think asking for help from an experienced editor might be a better strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asinthior (talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I redirected them both to Homosexuality. Here is where I found the instructions: WP:Redirecting pages. Voila!  -- Diannaa  TALK 01:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User page and article page mixed up
I dont know if this is the best place to put it so please let me know where I have to go. A user Sachinketkar created an article about himself and then moved it to article space along with his talk page. The problem is I dont think he will get any message if I post it on his talkpage. I moved it back but I am not sure if this was the right thing to do. And the user talk page still remains with the article --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a move request tag at the bottom of the talk page as instructed at Requested moves. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - see User talk:Sachinketkar and Talk:Sachin Ketkar.  Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 15:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision_and_law edit war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law#England_and_Wales

I have made well reaserched contributions to this article however Jakew keeps undoing my work

Bellow I have listed the differences between my work and what jakew keeps posting and have explained my concenrns

1) "In 2005 a Muslim man had his son circumcised against the wishes of the child's mother who was the custodial parent. He was found not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm by a majority verdict of the jury. "

The source given is broken, also the page is about the law in the UK this comment talks about a jury finding. juries make findings on matters of fact not matters of law.

82.24.163.100 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns please discuss them on the article talk (discussion) page - that is what it is there for. You have removed references. Despite a note about edit-warring being placed on your talk page two days ago, you have reverted three more times. I have reported this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Opinion on Malcolm Rifkind
During the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 Malcolm Rifkind was identified as having claimed travel expenses (flying between London and Scotland) for both him and his wife when they chose to live in Scotland and yet he was the MP for Kensington. Mention of this was added to wiki entry as it was highlighted in the press as being unethical. The info added to wiki was pretty basic but documented Malcolm Rifkinds contested expenses.

Since then mainly anonymous users have been systematically removing this info. The main protagonist's IP Address is registered to the UK Houses of Parliament and is probably a "pool" computer there, i.e. anyone can use it.

This all seems to be an attempt to "bury bad news" (some of the ways the anon users removed the info was very sneaky and disguised). This morning I decided to try to put the brake on this removal of info and so requested semi-protection on the page which was granted initially for 3 days. Almost immediately a registered user started doing the same types of edits with misleading comments, etc. when I looked at their Talk page they have a history of disputes and bans.

A user (maybe a mod I'm not sure??) has stepped in and said freeze it and he can't be bothered to make any more changes so told me to shoo. As it stands most of the original info about Rifkinds expenses are still on his page, but the fact he claimed for his wife's are not.

It is small beer I guess whether both his and her expenses are mentioned but my main concern is that once the 3 day semi-protection is lifted whoever the person in the House of Commons is will start to remove any mention of Malcom Rifkinds connection with the 2009 Expense Scandal.

--SteamedTreacle (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do other people think?
 * Should Wiki Biographies only contain the good things people have done?
 * Should MPs be accountable?
 * Should mention be made that he claimed for his wife's travel expenses?
 * 1 Pass
 * 2 No
 * 3 Yes
 * 4 No. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also discussed at Talk:Malcolm Rifkind. I have responded there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How can this contents value be judged when no reported reliable commentry have been presented here? No citations have been presented here at all? Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jezhotwells. One of the reasons I posted here is because it is a very partisan subject, i.e. Conservative voters will, imo, tend to support Malcom Rifkind and tend to want to airbrush out any negativity. Some people think MPs should not claim any travel expenses, others that they should claim just for themselves and others that they shoud claim for both themselves and their wives. In the name of accountability, which Kittybrewster says she supports, it is important that people can see exctaly what he has claimed for. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting your opinions all over the place, where are the citations that it is notable and was reported? Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * at 20:11 Kittybrewster removed both the www.theyworkforyou.com and www.parliament.uk refs which detailed the exact expenses. The www.parliament.uk site is the official UK Houses of Parliament site. At least two national newsaper refs were also removed relating to the Expenses scandal.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kitty is a very experienced editor, I support her. Those citations are nothing more than a list of all his expenses claims and do nothing to assert that the issues of his wifes travel expenses that were totaslly correct are notable or that they have been reported at independent reliable sources, ..I don't believe I am wasting my time typing this rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "totally correct" That is the crux of the issue. You may not believe there is anything wrong with MPs claiming travel expenses but many do. If an issue is contentious, like this, it should be made transparent, but of course, stated in factual way.--SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have placed WP:RS sources for the criticism on the talk page at Talk:Malcolm Rifkind. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jez --SteamedTreacle (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(TV_series)

Someone other than myself has started a page about the television show "Gravity". There was some misinformation that i corrected, one which I am having a problem with which is the original working title of the show "Suicide for Dummies". The person that started this page keeps editing my change, and is now requesting verification. I have no idea how to do this. I have perused the forms, and I am totally lost. I need help. I know that the information that I am supplying regarding the original title is correct because my sister (Jill Franklyn) is the creator of the show! Whatever is needed to supply verification I am certain that I can get. I just do not know what to do. I would contact the person that started the page, but that is not possible, so I am at a dead end. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the problem information:

Gravity (Originally titled Suicide for Dummies[verification needed]) is an American comedy-drama television series[1] created by Jill Franklyn in 2007 during the writers guild strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 April 2010


 * Hi, we usually consider a fact verified when it is cited by a reliable source. Basically, you need to find a mention of this original title in a document that is known to be accurate (not, for example, a blog posting or a post in an online forum) and then you can write this information into the article and cite the document you found it in as a source. See our pages on verifiability, reliable sources, and citing sources for the fine print. When a fact such as this is verified in a reliable source it shouldn't be contested. I hope this helps.  Them  From  Space  05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to echo what is said above, that fact that you know that your information is correct is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which requires verifiable, reliable sourcing for articles. As readers can't very well ring up your sister and ask her about this, the information is not verfiable. If, howver, she is interviewed by a magazine and they publish an article containing the information about the working title, then this is a verifiable, reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not subjective "truth". –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

the only thing that i can obtain right now is a cancelled check that is made out to "client - suicide for dummies, AKA failure to fly". this check is from STARZ, the network that bought the show. does this help? I can delete all of the unnecessary information from the check, i.e, account number, address,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs)
 * I am sorry but that just doesn't meet the criteria of the guidelines to which you have been pointed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that mentioning the working title of the show in the first sentence gives undue importance to that information anyway. This isn't a case where the show title changed after it was already on the air and thus the audience came to know the show under both titles. It's more like All in the Family, which had working titles of Justice for All and Those Were the Days -- which are mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but not until the 42nd paragraph. In any event, though, the source currently cited identifies the working title for Gravity as Failure to Fly, not Suicide for Dummies. If Suicide for Dummies was yet another working title for the show, it needs to have been mentioned in a reliable source before it can be mentioned in the Wikipedia article at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

you're right. but the information that is not of importance is the "Formally known as Failure to Fly". I believe that was not the only working title, and I can't even imagine where this person is getting their information. I felt that it was more important to have the title that it was originally created under, which was done solely by Jill Franklyn. There is an article referencing that in the New York Times when she originally sold the show which we are trying to track down. Until then, I guess it is under the control of the person that started this page. This is like watching Fox news creating their own facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugmig (talk • contribs) 06:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. A source being required is the exact opposite.  Regardless, I don't understand how the working title is relevant to the article if no one has ever heard of or written about it?  Pirate Argh!!1!  08:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, no article is under control of the person that started it, or at least they shouldn't be. If editors have rejected the inclusion of "Suicide for Dummies" as a working title, they should have done so only because a source confirming it has not been located yet -- not because the article creator disagreed with including it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New Link under NMEA 2000
I would like to add a new link to the NMEA 2000 page that goes to an open source project (http://www.openskipper.com) I am running that allows users to process NMEA 2000 messages. This is the first such project, and thus an important source of information on NMEA 2000 message decoding. (Alternative approaches involve paying money to the NMEA association.) Is adding this link appropriate? Openskipper (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Andy
 * You should read wp:coi. If your only purpose on Wikipedia is promotional ( even if well-intentioned ) you're likely to be frustrated.  WP:EL will tell you if your link is appropriate.   Pirate Argh!!1!  18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Article on Shia Islam
The article link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

The beginning of this article has been edited in a way that is extremely hostile to Shia Islam, as well as inaccurate.

This is an example of the inaccurate material:

Similar to other schools of thought in Islam, Shias are not Muslims at all. They work against Quran and Hadith. Basically, Shiaism was formed by Abduallah bin Saba'a, a jew, who just converted to destroy Islam! He created a faction against Usman and his predecessors, that is what Shias do. They curse and abuse four Rightly Guided Caliph.

Perhaps this article should be locked?

64.213.196.4 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's vandalism. It happens. We revert it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact you could have repaired the damage yourself, as I just did! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism gives more information about fighting vandalism. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New Article review
In the help, when creating a new article it says to put it in your personal special pages and ask an editor for help. Here I am. the article in question is at.

I'm no expert in the psychology field and "VIP Passenger Syndrome" probably really is a well know psychological phenomenon with a hard to identify name. The term is all over and the term appears to be relatively new.

But as my first real new article I'd like some direction even if it's headed for a speedy deletion.

Thanks!

--Gbonk (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Requests for feedback is the best place to ask, but as I am a regular there too, I took a quick look at the draft. As with most "new" things, it will need a lot more citations to reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject per the general notability guideline. It may have enough to survive as a stub, but if you want to be sure, you will need more sources and more detail. Is it possible that it has another name and that there is already an article under that other name, or maybe it's a subset of another syndrome with an article and could be merged into that? In any event the lead should be more of a definition if possibe - "VIP syndrome is..." If it is moved to mainspace it should be call VIP passenger syndrome. I also made a few style edits to your draft. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Assistance on All Day Music
This is concerning the spelling on the song "Slippin' Into Darkness". I have changed the spelling from "Slipping Into Darkness" to "Slippin'" backed-up by two sources which are considered reliable: Allmusic, and Amazon. A second user, A Knight Who Says Ni, first reverting my sourced edits, but now he has claimed to cite the sources saying it is "Slipping", but there are no links to these sources, and for all I know, this could still be original information. Can I get some feedback on how this should be concluded, or either an assistant experienced on music articles for a third opinion on the page?-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 02:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from the other party: A detailed explanation can be found in the discussion on F-22 Raptored's talk page. (Yes I know it should really be on the article's talk page, but the discussion started off with some personal stuff that would not be appropriate there; and by the way, as far as I know, the "personal stuff" is history, so please ignore it!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked this all out yesterday and I feel you are both right. If the Knight has the original liner notes that could be construed as the original title.  BUT the title by which the song is now known best is Raptor's version.  Google both versions and you will see what I mean. Or check Amazon etc.  The article at present is awkwardly worded and I think we have plenty of sources for "Slippin' Into Darkness" and only one source for the other version (the original liner notes, which most of us cannot access).  For simplicity's sake, I would suggest using "Slippin' Into Darkness". In fact I am going to make the edit myself.  Diannaa  TALK 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this resolution. It contradicts the standards of album articles, which are supposed to deal primarily with the original edition of an album, and then mention changes which took place in later editions if applicable.  As for the awkwardness of wording, you're right.  I thought the alternate spelling should be mentioned to avoid the situation where someone comes in and says "that's not right" and changes it without realizing the situation.  I didn't expect it to cause a blow-up!  I still think this is important to mention in the article, because now it's likely another editor will come along in future, say "that's not right", and change it back.  Besides, in my view, the article is incorrect as it stands.  Your decision is sort of like saying when a famous quote is popularly misquoted, we should use the misquote, because it's more common.  I will try to word it better.  Let me know what you think of the results. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's much better; when it appeared in the opening sentence of the paragraph it looked like it had been placed there to make a WP:point. Thanks Knight for your words on my talk page; I did not assume you were a new editor, I know for instance that your name appears on the list at the Music wikiproject.  I looked at pretty much everything before I replied  Diannaa  TALK 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

user ghmyrtle has violated policy by removing verifiable data from a page
Wikipedia User Ghmyrtle has repeatedly deleted biographical information for artist/musician Sarabeth Tucek, namely her public record date of birth. Artist's date of birth is January 6, 1967. This is verified here and was cited on the page twice:

U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Original data: Merlin Data Publishing Corporation, comp.  Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings. Merlin Data Publishing Corporation, 215 South Complex Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901. About U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 2 The U.S. Public Records Index is a compilation of various public records spanning all 50 states in the United States from 1950 to 1993. These records are all accessible to the general public by contacting the appropriate agency.

User ghmyrtle cites no reason for her deletion of verifiable data on the page. User may have personal reasons for editing this information. Please investigate this user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjo5650 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read Talk:Sarabeth Tucek? -- Neil N   talk to me  17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More eyes on Dra%C5%BEa Mihailovi%C4%87
There as been a fairly long series of disputes centering on the role of Dra%C5%BEa Mihailovi%C4%87 during world war II, with two small groups of editors basically deadlocked. A request was filed for mediation on 6 april 2010, but as of today, two parties have not accepted and thus I believe it will be rejected shortly, or it's being ignored as incomplete. There have also been a couple of notices posted to WP:ANI. I think is it safe to say there has been a substantial flow of uncivil bits and snarkiness, as well as some serious discussions of the appropriateness and weight of various sources. In any case, I am wondering whether we could get some help or advice in terms of how to improve the quality of the discussion and advance the article.

If this is the wrong place or time to make such a request, please accept my apologies in advance, and any help is welcome. -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All five parties have now agreed to mediation but a mediator has not so far taken up the case. Meanwhile more posts have been made at WP:ANI.  Diannaa  TALK 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

blocked page
I wanted to post an article about a 25 year old not for profit organisation in the City of melbourne, Australia. However the page is blocked.

the page was to read... (moved to User:Alpmcewen/Melbourne Committee)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpmcewen (talk • contribs) 12:17, 16 April 2010


 * Yes, the page was deleted as unambiguous advertising, a decision with which I agree. I have moved your draft to User:Alpmcewen/Melbourne Committee. Please read the pointers which have been placed on your talk page and draft an article adhering to the the neutral point of view in your WP:user space, with refernces supporting its noatbility then come back here for an opinion, when you think it is ready. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Written Like An Advertisement
The above phrase was in a box about the village of Stoupa, Greece. This is a page I initially wrote and which others have edited. Someone put in a plug for their little tour boat which is what, I believe, prompted this box after it had been in for a long time. So yesterday, I removed the commercial plug. But the warning is still there. Please see that it is removed since the offending language is gone. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judytinelli (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article still has many phrases that sound more like a travel brochure than an encyclopedia article. I strongly suggest rewriting sections with these problematic phrases:
 * "Once a sleepy little town..." (doesn't seem to refer to anything factual about it)
 * "Stoupa is in a fascinating area called Mani..." (see WP:PEACOCK which advises against "peacock" words and phrases)
 * "There are approximately four buses a day..." (sounds like tourist guide information)
 * "Although virtually unknown to tourists ... possibly the 'gem of Greece'... laid-back atmosphere ... true Greek feel ... Just a coach ride ... If you rent a car..." (multiple tourism guide phrases and peacock terms in one short paragraph; these don't really tell us anything encyclopedic about the place, most of them are meaningless and could apply to any town anywhere in the world)
 * Finally, the article is completely lacking references and citations. It does have an external link (which should be under an "External links" heading), but what it needs is references from reliable sources that connect directly to sentences in the article, to say where this information comes from.
 * I will leave some links on your talk page, with advice on writing Wikipedia articles. Best of luck! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells beat me to it! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll will have to remove quite a bit more promotional laguage before that banner gets taken off. The style employed there is more suited to WikiTravel than Wikipedia. Glossa, Skopelos ias more like what should be aimed at. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please restore deleted article Nukeateen
The article Nukeateen was deleted for ‎ "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))". As a contributor to this article, I disagree with the summary judgment of the deleter. This article has been on Wikipedia for over 5 years without issue, the band are an early 90s UK Grunge band, who were extremely popular in the UK, unless Wikipedia is only for groups popular in the US only I have to disagree with the reasoning. It had previously been queried by NawlinWiki under (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) however with the new sitations that was added he retracted the deletion.

So I guess I am confussed as to how the article could pass "(A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" but not pass "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))"?

As the group have regular airplay on various radio stations and on the BBC (as cited in the article) and had more regular airplay back in the 90s prior to the existence of the popular web media they are also of hisorical value to the Town of Wellingborough.

Jonnyroyster (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, so I can't see deleted content or comment on the article. If the article had cited information to reliable sources that the band has had regular airplay on notable radio stations, then it wouldn't meet the criteria for A7. The best thing to do would be to contact User:Laser brain directly at User talk:Laser brain to ask them why it was deleted. if you are sure that there was an assertion of improtance or significance, then you could request that the article be restored, or at least moved to your userspace where you could work on it.-- Beloved Freak  15:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article did seem to have a claim of notability for this band. I'm not saying that the band definitely is notable, but it would have been more appropriate for anyone seeking deletion to have taken the article to Articles for deletion where the band's notability could have been discussed over a week rather than speedily deleting it. On the other hand, the article seems to have existed under this name for less than one year (created 22 April 2009). If it had existed for five years on Wikipedia it must have been under a different title that I don't know how to find now; for example, if it were Nuke-a-teen that would be considered a different title from Nukeateen. I would also recommend contacting User:Laser brain and asking them to reconsider. If they don't respond at all, use Requests for undeletion to request the article be restored. If they respond but are not willing to reconsider, use Deletion review to request the article be restored. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sam Schmidt Paralysis Foundation
Permission to include the SSPF logo on the draft Wikipedia page about the Sam Schmidt Paralysis Foundation has been granted, by return email from copyright holder Ida Cahill/CEO to Wikipedia, (Ticket#2010040810058602) on 4/8/10. What is the procedure now? Should I re-insert the logo and assume Wikipedia will not delete it again? Thank you, Kay Kohlman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaykohlman (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you can add it back to your draft article. I am not sure why you went through the whole rigmarole of getting permission - the use of a copyright logo of an organizations in article about the organization is a valid non-free use as far as Wikipedia is concerned (see WP:LOGO and logo fur). – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added it back for you while I was taking a look at your draft. A couple of comments if I may: at the moment the draft is very promotional in tone and would probably be speedily deleted if moved to the mainspace in this form. Second, if the promotion issue is dealt with, you will need to cite non-trivial coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject to demonstrate how or why the subject is notable per the guidelines at WP:ORG. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Prior Article
My name is Chris O'Leary. I am referenced in the article about Mark Prior, specifically in the section about his pitching mechanics. A user named TommyLasagne keeps deleting the section that describes my view of Mark Prior's pitching mechanics without comment (but leaves the Dick Mills section in place). This section was written by someone else (but I have made some minor edits to it to clarify it and to improve the writing). I assume that TommyLasagne is either a Dick Mills fan or someone who doesn't like me and my work. Can some independent person please render a verdict on the section about my view of Mark Prior's pitching mechanics as it currently exists? I already removed a link to a page with some commercial content. The linked-to pages are purely editorial in nature and were originally linked to by someone other than me. Thepainguy (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to agree with TommyLasagne. Unless you can provide independent third party sources that call you a baseball pitching expert or establish your credentials in that area, we can't consider you a reliable source. Please also review our conflict of interest guidelines. -- Neil N    talk to me  01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't create the paragraph in question, so I'm not sure how it's a conflict of interest. I can find out who created the line and when, if you want. Second, my work on pitching mechanics is followed by scouts and coaches from a number of organizations, including the Cardinals, Tigers, Rays, Pirates, and Mets. Just this Wednesday, I got a call from a minor league coach for the Tigers asking a question about the Inverted W (which is the problem that Mark Prior has). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepainguy (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But you keep re-adding it, which is an issue. More importantly, if you provide us with independent third party sources which we can check, some form of the paragraph can probably be kept. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Any template coding experts available to help a WikiProject?
At Template talk:Infobox musical artist, in the section called "Color" (near the top of the page), consensus was achieved for changing the background colour of the infobox to grey when an invalid parameter value is entered for "background", but nobody got around to making the change. The question was raised again in a new section, "Bad background values". This is probably a simple change, but the question has also been raised as to whether it's possible to create a tracking category for instances that have an invalid value. The same changes would probably be welcome in Template:Infobox album and Template:Infobox song (pending approval of course, but perhaps it can be done at "musical artist" first, and if we get it working, we can ask watchers of the other templates if they want it too). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may get better luck at Help desk. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How to remove the advertise note?
The Article about Cranfield School of Management is tagged with a note about advertisement for a while now, even it has been rewritten and edited by many users. How can the tag be removed? It does not indicate which parts were disturbing.

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

Anyway2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyway2009 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some specific things that I found:

I hope this helps. -- Diannaa TALK 18:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "a leading business school" is unsourced WP:peacock terminology
 * "The course is distinguished from many of its competitors by three factors." Un-encyclopedic advert-like bit
 * " the faculty combines both business and academic experience" contains more peacock terms. How is their education any different/better than other business schools?  If it is not different or better, then it should be left out.
 * The notable alunmi section has a lot of red links. If they are so notable, why no wiki article?  Only the truly notable should be included.
 * The Advisory Board section should probably be cut altogether, as other similar articles do not include such material.
 * External links need to be weeded: Remove links to Twitter and student blogs.


 * 1) I don't know if you have looked at other schools entries in wikipedia, many sound much more advertising: "Warwick Business School, also known as WBS, is one of the world's top business schools." So thats not advertising? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Business_School - As the rankings indicate on the site Cranfield SOM is indeed one of the leading institutes.
 * 2&3) I accept that the MBA part sounds a weak.
 * 4) How can you measure notability by the fact if a person has a wikipedia entry?
 * 5) Wikipedia does not support articles to be different from each other?? - one that includes additional information is subject to be advertised?!
 * 6) If you look closer, the twitter account is from Cranfield itself, so the source is reliable. The "blog" link is an official presentation of the MBA programme.


 * So except for the MBA part it seems rather this entry is disadvantaged by wikipedia for unfair reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyway2009 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did look at several business school articles and discovered that many of them are advertorial in nature. Even Harvard Business School features a "Written like an advertisement" template!! I hoped to use them as a shining example of all your article could be.  No such luck!!


 * Next question: OK if it is truly a leading school and you have a secondary source that says so, then what you have to do is add the citation, and it is no longer puffery, but a properly cited fact.


 * Next question: I feel that the notable persons were added as a way to build up the school in the eye of the reader and not to impart information.  To have so many that are red makes them look not notable. It looks like a miscellaneous collection of stuff which is something Wikipedia is WP:NOT.


 * Next question: This does not actually have anything to do with the advert-tag; I just felt it would be an improvement to omit the list of the advisory board as per WP:NOT. The material is not that notable, and will quickly go out of date.


 * Next question: links: We do not link to Twitter or to blogs.  See WP:External links.  #11 Twitter; #12 blogs.


 * When you say this article is being "disadvantaged" you give me the impression you think this article is in competition with other articles on the wiki. That is not actually not the case. Perhaps the school is in competition for students, but the article merely needs improvement, as do by far the majority of our articles about schools of all types.
 * I have placed a template loaded with useful links on your talk page. Regards,   Diannaa  TALK 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

expanding content and creating new articles
Hello - it has become seemingly impossible for anyone to successfully contribute to the articles that exist about the community of New Rochelle, NY, or for any new articles relating to the community to be created with any chance of remaining as part of the wikipedia encyclopedia. This problem has only been escalating over appx. two years, and thus there are quite a large number of individuals who all have first hand knowledge and experience trying to contribute and having their additions removed, articles deleted outright etc. I have personally discussed this with at least 25 other individuals who I am familiar with including several who are involved with local historical and civic organizations, in addition to some of their younger interns and local students. What can be done to help address this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxyjinx (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello sorry you are having problems ! Perhaps best if you bring your concerns up here-->WikiProject New York they might be-able to help more. When posting to there talk page i would suggest that you point out a specific article and/or articles that are of concern. Hope this was helpful and you resolve your problem ASAP, as we do desire all to contribute....Moxy (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Height
This page is constantly attacked by vandals, most of them IP users. Since its creation, this page has been vandalized a hundred times. I suggest blocking indefinitely this page from edits by IP users. You can check the vandalism history on the page's edit history. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italodal (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make a request at Requests for page protection. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to edit references...
I'm trying to edit out a spam site that's listed as a reference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Traditional_Wicca&action=edit&section=5 ).

This is what the edit box reads:

==References==

Wicca britanica tradicional

Wicca britànica tradicional

Wica Traddodiadol Prydeinig

Wicca británica tradicional

Wicca británica tradicional

Wicca britannica tradizionale

Why doesn't it show the links as given in the Wiki page? When I edit out the first one, I don't see any references in the preview. What's up?

Blessings,

e
 * You have to edit the reference where you find it mentioned in the text of the article. The tag pulls all the information to the bottom of the page for reading convenience.  Edit the section with the offending reference and you should be able to find the link in question.--~TPW 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme lack of neutrality issue
Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme. Disagreement on pushing a POV by deleting sourced material, lack of NPOV, WP:SYN, undue weight, article structure. Mrfebruary (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That section contains one post by you, and another post in reply, both on April 11. The reply seems to give a reasonable explanation for your biggest concern about neutrality, including reasons for removing citations from one section while agreeing they would be appropriate in another, and he also agrees with the need for further improvement regarding structure.  I don't see a problem that requires intervention. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Help editing
I would like to request help with editing. I want to submit an article for "Vail Place." It is my first article and it is on my project page. I would like it reviewed/edited before submitting it please. Thanks. --RecoveryMN —Preceding unsigned comment added by RecoveryMN (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would let you know the article is now at User:RecoveryMN/Vail Place. To have it as your main user page is not the correct place to develop the article. Some people have begun to help with editing. Diannaa  TALK 02:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with editor who doesn't understand broken links
I'm having a problem at Sun Microsystems with who simply does not get the concept of broken links in references. I want to avoid 3RR so can someone here step in and assist? The issue is simple, at least one reference has a link that is no longer available. This user and another have repeatedly deleted the reference and all the data that was referenced by it. I however did the correct thing an placed the Dead link tag in the reference and left a note on Kkm010's user page. In response to this Kkm010 left me a quite aggressive response on my talk page and reverted my changes. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Placed another note on Kkm010's talk page. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd appreciate you keeping an eye on things as I suspect from this editor's obvious incivility (see this edit summary for example) means he/she is very likely to revert again. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see on the user's talk page he/she continues to act with a lack of civility and courtesy. If it continues then perhaps someone (other than me as I'm involved) would like to issue a formal level 2/3 warning on top of the advice that Jezhotwells has already given. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've asked the editor what is wrong with the sources. I suspect we'll have to reinforce the point that not all sources have to be currently accessible. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

why deleted?
Beulah_Beach_Camp_and_Retreat_Center

I am archivist for Beulah Beach. I recall writing this article, then shortly it was gone, and upon inquiry was told that the researcher could not find it.

What was reason for deletion?

What might I be able to do to verify informaiton?

Thank you,

Walter Baughman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbaughman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This request for help is the only edit ever made by your account. You have never edited Beulah Beach, Ohio or any other article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope neither of you mind my playing the Helpful Hannah and butting in here to show the article in question.

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Beulah_Beach_Camp_and_Retreat_Center_%28deleted_06_Mar_2008_at_23:22%29 Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that answers the question, the article was not considered to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, no one contested the deletion, so it was deleted two years and a month ago. Obviously it was also high on your priority list. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

American-Philippines War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War (Philippines-American War)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

My classmates and I are currently working on a class project regarding the U.S. - Philippines war, in which we deconstruct and improve the current wiki article to better represent the voices & memories of both Americans and Filipino during the conflict. We are undergraduate students currently enrolled in the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh - the class being entitled Topics in Comparative Politics: American Wars in Asia. We are interested in furthering the academic analysis of U.S. foreign policy abroad, especially the role in which U.S. foreign policy assumed in Asia. We respectfully request that you post are updates on the U.S. - Philippines war, in your main page section - in the hopes that our article can be viewed and debated by the millions of viewers your website. We understand that your website promotes the distribution of knowledge and information amongst the masses, and we hope to assist you in this goal through our academic analysis of U.S. involvement within the Philippines. Thank you for consideration of our proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikylecurtiz (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, the articles featured on the main page are selected from Featured articles, so you need to aim at getting the artcile to featured article status. FAQ/Main Page tells you more about the main page, Featured article criteria tells you the criteria for featured articles. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

editing suggestions
I have an article in this location (User:RecoveryMN/Vail Place) that I have completed with editing. I made all the adjustments that the editor had suggested (cleaned up the links, shortened the highlights, and supported all facts with 3rd party references). Can you offer me any other editing suggestions before I make the article active? I don't want a speedy deletion for advertising therefore, should I remove any data/add any data? Thank you for your continued help. RecoveryMN (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)RecoveryMN
 * I converted your embeded external links to references, and changed your lists to bullet points so you don't have to use line breaks. I also put some comments in the references, where I thought they could be improved.  This doesn't fix the article; it still reads like an advertisement (you wouldn't see an entry like this in a printed encyclopedia, right?), and does not establish the clinic's notability.  Also, your user name suggests you are directly connected to the clinic, and this is against user name rules.  Your account should belong to just one person, who has just the one account, and your user name should reflect this and be about you, not your company. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Watson
moved from WT:EAR –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Watson was born in Philadephia PA January 23,1984, He Grew up in the Philadelphia area, He attened school at James Madison University School of Business. he then graduated and began forming his own busines Ivan Watson and Assocaiates of Greather Phildelphia were he consulted small to mid size corporations on business managment and developement. his company was recongnized in The Rang Dong Magazine September 16,2005 owned an operated bye the chairman of the Pan Asian Assocation of Greater Phildelphia Quang Mac. Later on Ivan moved to forming a partnership business with Watson & Robinson Inc were he served as the president for several years, carring several awards one of them being best of the northwest of Germantown Philadelphia 2007. years later Ivan created yet another successful business which he currently runs today, Westhall finanacial Inc doing business as World Elite Paint Company, which has two offices and growing in Pennsylvania at One Liberty Place   in Philadelphia and 445 Park Ave New York City, His Company has earned a excellant repuration with the Art Instutute of Phildephia that is managed bye Education Management Corporation of Pittsburgh Pa that in which is owned bye Goldman Sachs Coprotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanlife12 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. This is Editor's Assistance/Requests. What is your request? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Culinista removal
I added an entry this morning for the term Culinista and it was deleted while I was reediting it..I did not know about the sandbox as this was my first entry attempt, and was unaware of his immediate removal of the article when I uploaded the revision. My Ip was blocked from further editing. The entry was for the word Culinista. It is a word that, in the United states press, is cited as early as 2001 in the New York Times and common usage can be found in almost every major food publication published in the United States. It seems to me that this word meets the requirements to be included. The editor who removed the content lives in England and may not be aware of the American English usage. I think my Etymology is correct for the term and I would be glad to furnish dozens of citations of usage in major publications and show its use in Culinary circles for over 10 years.

76.102.235.166 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You were recreating an article that was previously deleted in November 2006 following this discussion at Articles for deletion/Moaya Scheiman, which included the article Culinista. If you wish to write an article on a word then Wiktionary may be a better option. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary like Wiktionary. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification.

Onaillime (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hal Plotkin
I am sorry, I hope this is the right place to ask this question. I am new to wikipedia. I just created this page, Hal Plotkin, to replace a page with the same name that was recently removed as an "attack page." I tried to be neutral and I cited several third party sources for my brief bio. But a disclaimer appears at the top of the page saying the page may violate a neutrality policy -- which I believe it does not -- I simply link to accurate information to replace the attack information previously on the page. But I an "interested party" certainly -- does that mean the "neutrality violation" notice will always appear at the top of my wikipedia bio? Can you tell me how it might be removed?


 * note that both the tag and the message on your page are routinely applied until other people review the page. also note that it simply says "may/might" and not "definitely does" -- it is not nominated for deletion, simply for review, and at least two other editors, including myself, have already taken a look at it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesterfield, Idaho
I'm at a loss on what to do. Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chesterfield,_Idaho#Lead_Section and at the recent history changes in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the entire Chesterfield discussion page would probably be best so you can get background info. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So I have looked, what is the problem? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added my response to him at the bottom of the article's talk page.
 * It's been the constant edit wars and the refusal of the other editor to change anything except when forced. He first accused me of plagiarizing and refused to tell me where I plagiarized until I asked another editor to intervene... He relented and said he couldn't find where I was plagiarizing.  He refused to allow a source in until I asked for a 3rd party dispute.  A independent editor has stepped in and the first editor either ignores his questions or ignores what the independent editor asks.  Anything right now that he disagrees with he refuses to be allowed in or gets removed.  How do I procede? Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very difficult when another editors refuses to discuss things. All one can do is continually ask for 3rd opinions or raise RfCs. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you critique my actions? I'd like to know what I've done wrong and how to improve in handling this mess. Bgwhite (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be stressin' about your actions; you did nothing wrong. Things that have worked for me where there is conflict: There is a great essay at WP:COOL with more tips. Good luck! See you around the wiki. Diannaa TALK 19:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduce changes slowly, one or two things per day. Wait for a reaction before proceeding to another edit.
 * Discuss edits that may be challenged on the talk page first, or provide a rationale for edits that you introduce.
 * Provide citations for all facts you introduce.
 * Instead of reverting, slowly introduce improvements to the present article.
 * There is no rush; the article is in nice shape at present.

Assistance on South Beach deletion by Avarette
I added information that challenged a "gays are leaving South Beach" opinion. Miami reviewer Avarette removed it hours after I added it. I posted on his wall a query on why he removed it and asked for assistance, as this is my first use of Wikipedia. Perhaps, I added both incorrectly? I need assistance, please. I challenge the addition of this piece as it is clearly Ms. O'Neill's opinion; she has no FACTS to back up her proposition. I need help adding remarks by Michaelangelo Signorile of Sirius Xm Radio, who interviewed Ms. O'Neill the week of Jan 24, 2010. He concludes, "Her conclusions were mostly impressionistic and experiential, not to be discounted but certainly not authoritative and they were more so an opinion.", on a summary of his interview on "Joe My God" blog the same week. MiamiBeachFrank (talk) Frank Benoit —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Well, you added un-cited information. This encyclopaedia needs verifiable reliable sources. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Please take some time to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You could also start a discussion on the article talk page - that is what it is there for. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to deal with Regent Communications
This is a company that operates dozens of radio stations, each of which has an individual article (possibly non notable ones) on WP. The parent company, Regent Communications, is quoted via the Pink Sheets, but each of the radio station articles also show up in the category as a company quoted via Pink Sheets. I couldn't figure out how to remove these individual radio station articles from the Pink Sheets category. Assitance from more experienced editors is requested. OccamzRazor (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Each radio station has a navbox called Template:Regent Communications at the bottom. And at the bottom of the navbox, there is a Template:Pink Sheets (which should actually be Template:Pinksheets), and that's where the category is coming from.  Since the template (which has no documentation) is apparently intended to mark articles with several categories, it shouldn't be put on a navbox.  Or if someone insists on keeping it in the navbox, then it shouldn't have that category.  (Someone has to choose!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't understand how to deal with the issue. I tried removing the Pink Sheets category from the navbox template, but it didn't remove the individual radio station articles from the Pink Sheets category.  By the way, I am a fan of Monty Python and love your ID -- would you like me to bring you a shrubbery? OccamzRazor (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This documentation  explains that sometimes these changes that are made via template do not update immediately, but sometimes take a while. One of the mysteries of science. I suggest trying again later.  Diannaa  TALK 17:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa, however it's been several hours since I removed the category from the navbox template and the radio station articles are still individually displayed as Pink Sheet companies. It seems I am missing something. OccamzRazor (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is the server cache. See WP:purge.  I tried several of the purge techniques on the category page [Category:Companies listed on the Pink Sheets] and on the template for Regent, but none of them worked. Note the individual radio stations on the Regent template are no longer showing the category on their individual pages.  As an experiment I removed and re-added the Regent template from the WJYE page and it is no longer listed on the [Category:Companies listed on the Pink Sheets] page. I guess this method could be used as a last resort if nothing else works.   Diannaa  TALK 21:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

please help with deletion
I have had my work deleted as advertising Paddo777 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC))


 * The reasons for removal have been explained on your talk page, and the editor who removed it offered advice on how to write the article in a way that is not an advertisement. That's not the kind of thing someone prejudiced against you would do.  The factualness of the article is not the issue, as explained.  I advise you to read the advice in the links. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How to improve communication with another user on womb veil
Another user appears to have taken some of my editorial suggestions amiss.

I initiated a discussion of the article's topic, but I have made no attemts to change the subject of the article. The other editor has been ascribing opinions to me and objecting to what they claim are my motives in multiple places on the article talk page and my talk page. (They have also repeatedly used comments in the article or nonstandard headers and comments to assert particular their view about what the topic of the article should be.)  (Possible wp:ownership issues?)

I would prefer to work on content, rather than having them commenting on my alleged sex, my knowledge, or my motives. Would appreciate suggestions how to handle this. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree that comments within the article are unnecessary, I suspect they were added in response to your concerns, and a fear that you or others were going to make edits that would change the subject of the article. Regarding your being personally offended (alleged gender), I don't think there was any intention to offend.  It was only mentioned once.  The discussions you have had so far, were very civil on both sides.  Regarding questioning your motives, the other editor has made suggestions as to how to present the information you want, in other articles.  That seems friendly and co-operative to me, and the explanation from the other editor as to their objection to your suggestions sounds reasonable, and therefore it is not an article ownership issue.  Going by the article's talk page, I don't see resistance to accepting other advice for changes.  You may want to consider the advice you were given, to start a new article on the broader scope of the topic you wish to cover, or if such an article already exists, contribute to that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing dispute in United States Colored Troops
Over the past four days editor Mgpthoc (talk | contribs) has made several highly POV edits to this reasonably well documented article, United States Colored Troops, which relies on the two standard historical studies of the subject, and has resisted taking the discussion to the Talk page. His edits seem to me to be pushing a neo-Confederate view that denies any atrocities against the African American troops that fought for the Union Army. Before this gets to a full blown edit war, perhaps an administrator's mediation would help. Dwalls (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you repost this at Mediation? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stub article assistance
I recently learned about "stubs" and have decided that my article "Vail Place" is more suitable as a stub. Can an editor assist with format and edit techniques in order to meet the guidelines of a stub article. Once this is complete can I request that an editor make my Vail Place stub be live? Thank you again as always.RecoveryMN (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)RecoveryMN
 * Hello, I wouldn't worry too much about whether it's a stub or not. Stubs don't really have separate requirements from other articles, it's more of a descriptive rating. Have a look over Stub and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for more information. As for your article, before it goes "live", the main problem you need to address is notability. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that says why this organisation meets our notability guidelines for inclusion. The best way for it to meet the general notability guidelines is to show that the organisation has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Coverage in newspapers would be good. There is also another guideline that is relevant: Notability (organizations and companies). At the moment it doesn't look like the organisation meets those guidelines. It seems like it's a very important organisation in real life, but not in terms of an encyclopedia article here. Hope this helps, -- Beloved Freak  14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help and support. I understand the notability factor that you mentioned. I have looked over so many other articles prior to writing the one of Vail Place, one such aticle is "Camp Courage." I am not understanding why an article of Camp Courage has been made active and yet an organization such as Vail Place both similar in size, scope, and notability does not meet the encyclopedic criterea. Thank you for your continued help.RecoveryMN (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)RecoveryMN
 * Unfortunately that article may not meet our guidelines either. Looking at existing articles can be misleading because articles do get created that don't meet the guidelines. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there are many, many articles that don't meet our various guidelines, but it takes time to sort them out. I would keep looking for coverage in reliable sources and maybe get used to editing other articles in the meantime to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. If you're interested in local topics, you might like to look at WikiProject Minnesota and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota, where you might find other articles to help out with and like minded editors.-- Beloved Freak  16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleep article/preservation
The only solution to the preservation section of the article on sleep is to eliminate it. It is a replacement of an earlier discussion. The flaw begins with the single citation. The original citation referenced Allison and Chetti(1976) and Webb (1974)appropriately since we were the primary proponents of the position. The current citation references a Yahoo item "New Theory Questions sleep.. without a journal reference. I can only guess that the author has read extensive discussion of this position or did not understand what he read. In my article Webb Sleep as an adaptive response. Percept and Motor Skills 1974 1023-1027. I wrote: It is proposed that sleep is adaptive non responding and that the sleep characteristics of particular species reflect the adaptive requirement for non responding in the ecological niche of each species. The ecological conditions which would modify sleep length, intermitency and diurnal placement are discussed.

Sleep is viewed as a form of instinctive behavior rather than a nutritional process". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilse b webb (talk • contribs)  18:18, 23 April 2010
 * Might I suggest that you discuss this on the article talk page, I presume that you mean ? I am leaving some useful links on your talk page. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~) or use the Signature icon.png icon on the edit toolbar. --–– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing Disputes in Articles Regarding Ahmadiyyah community
There is an editing dispute in the following two articles:

In the first article it is must, in my opinion, to give views of mainstream Muslims about Ahmadiyya community. I added this information, but is deleted by Peaceworld111.

In second article, in my opinion, Peaceworld111 is giving information which is not neutral and is representative of belief system of a perticular community. Peaceworld111 has reverted the neutraly presented article.

It is requested that both the artices be made neutral with the help of those Wikipedia participants which represent all the relevant and necessary views, and then the articles be made protected or semiprotected. Untill then, vendalism must be stopped.

Suhayli (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See your talk page for discussion. Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How to guard low-traffic articles against extremely stubborn POV pushers.
I have been looking after the Fethullah Gulen article for about 2 years now. The article has been semiprotected for most of that time, because a single editor user:Philscirel has been reverting the article to his own, highly POV version of the article every time he can.

Philscirel has long since been blocked as vandal and puppetmaster. I have had a dozen or more of such accounts blocked over the last 2 years, an got the article semiprotected untill early 2011.

He is, however, willing to create a number of accounts and wait until being confirmed user for the sole purpose of pushing his POV onto this specific article.

Since this is an article that receives only a few edits, most of the edit history over the last two years consists of Philscirel sockpuppets implementing his version, and me getting him blocked and reverting to the more neutral version. Personally I do not really care about the topic, but am deeply troubled that a single fanatic fan can push his POV onto Wikipedia. This is the only reason I follow this article, but I am getting seriously fed up with having going trough the procedure of getting a sockpuppet blocked from same puppeteer, for the same article for the 20th time (with no reason to belief this is somewhere near the last time).

How can we/I guard Wikipedia, especially articles which receive attention of few editors, against such extremely stubborn vandals? Right now, after two year patrolling this article I start to feel ready to give in, which is basically handing over the article to a stubborn, singleminded, vandal. Arnoutf (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Toolserver's watcher script says that 77 editors are watching that page, so perhaps you could take it off your watchlist for a month or two, then check to see whether other editors have taken up your burden? I don't know what else to suggest: unfortunately the freedom to vandalize goes with the "anyone can edit" mantra! - Pointillist (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's been semiprotected till March 2011, which seems just about right given the amount of abuse. If the attacks by registered socks are only once or twice a month, we can probably tolerate them. Otherwise full protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)