Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:50, 25 July 2008

Archives

Previous requests & responses

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by .

Eleanore Mikus updates

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the souces that state the work was unlike other work at that time. And added a categoy that defines the subject the article is based on: Modern Art. Also, thank you for your help. How long will it take to nominate the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikusart (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for what? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gulen

Please help this article achieve some sort of NPOV and stability; just go through the recent edits to get an understand of the kind of sanitization going on. I am having difficulties with philscirel (talk · contribs) and 76.181.224.82 (talk) Could someone check for sockpuppets? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Beloved Freak 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the problem is very much ongoing. NPOV issues are widespread. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism, trolling, or just abusive behavior?

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement

This certainly would seem to fit into at least one of those categories. I do not know how to view the page history of a talk page, so I can't be certain that my comments were deleted. However, the general conduct does seem to be abusive.

category heading: a proposal to the editors for greater objectivity

You deleted my reply. This a usage violation.

'Mainstream opinion' is not the same thing as fact. 'Mainstream opinion' once held that blacks and women were inferior, that blood did not circulate, and that the Earth was flat.

The news media tell the same story as the U.S. government, because they are telling the U.S. government's story. The story was provided to them by the U.S. government. This, as Wittgenstein said, is like reading a second copy of the same newspaper, to verify that the story you read in the first copy was correct.

In any event, your objections have no bearing on my argument.

Please do not delete my remarks again.

Lycodont (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't report "facts" we report what reliable sources say. If you're not happy with that then maybe this isn't the place for you. RxS (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I don't see any evidence that one of "your" replies was ever deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Nor do I RxS (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Do either of you purport to be editors, or to represent Wikipedia? Interesting that you should say that Wikipedia has no interest in facts.

Lycodont (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said we weren't interested in facts? Check out WP:RS for details. RxS (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lycodont (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a deeply hard area to work in (I mediated (unsuccessfully) a request to move 9/11 conspiracy theories to 9/11 conspiracy something else a while back). Despite some incivility on all parties, is true: we don't - can't, infact - report facts; we only report what reliable sources say, as RxS said (minus the part about "this isn't the place for you" ;-). Many of the reliable sources will not present "The Truth", as we know so well in any event.

So please bear in mind that only cited information from reliable sources are included in Wikipedia, especially in a heated article (although, ideally, everywhere). I hope this helps somewhat... please don't regard this as bowing to their pressure - they could have easily described the situation with verifiability and reliable sources in a more constructive manner (i.e., not so abusive, which is the closest term).

But always remember to assume good faith! I can't stress this enough. It may look abusive, but with all the stress running about those articles, and what with vested interests, it's easy for things to A) get heated, or B) get misinterpreted as heated. My advice: add a smiley to the end of everything you say; if it doesn't look like the preceding sentence could possibly work with a smiley, you gotta revise the sentence :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Never underestimate the power of the smiley. Anyway: yes, WP doesn't report the truth, it reports... what's been reported. It can cause sticky situations in articles such as these. Hope this all helps :-)[reply]

By the way, you can view the history of any page just by clicking on the tab at the very top which says "history". If you are already on the talkpage, this shows the editing history of the talkpage, not the article. Or, you can see that particular page history here.--Beloved Freak 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points here. No comments were deleted or archived, not sure why he thinks someone deleted something. And take a look for yourself on that talk page (the only one besides this page he's ever edited) and consider what his goals might possibly be here. RxS (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the comments came very close together, I wonder if one of Lycodent's edits might have been the victim of an edit conflict? Lycodent, if someone saves an edit while you're writing another edit, the Wiki software tends to reject your edit in order to preserve the one just saved. It does flag that onscreen, but it's not desperately obvious and it's confused me fairly regularly. Anyway, nobody deleted anything that you had posted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh Lycodont- editing other people's comments is not okay! Please don't do that any more. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already warned the user about that. They seem to have not contributed since. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Resolved

– taken to deletion review. --Beloved Freak 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stepshep has listed multiple images of mine for deletion. He's only going after mine. It is just a grudge he appears to have because I listed some articles he likes for an AfD. You can find the images in question on SS's contib page. How are my images any different than the one found on the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship for example? They are clearly under used under fair use like that one. If someone can respond to this that would be great. Articles have since been deleted by User:David. Can someone get the images back until discussion resolves itself. Thanks! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for coming here. Can you link to some of the images and/or articles that are in question here, please? Otherwise I'd have to guess at what you're asking about, and I might guess wrongly! Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deleted image in the infobox would be an example. Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg through Image:2006OpenLogo.jpg with the exception of 2000 all had logos courtesy of my uploads. Then, PGA Championships such as Image:1989PGALogo.jpg through Image:2004PGALogo.jpg with the exception of 1990 and 1992 all had logos uploaded by me. I was very busy this week and filling out the necessary free-use rationale boxes take a lot of time. But clearly other golf tournaments have their logos, so mine were not wrong to upload. Thanks for your help! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted for not having a fair use rationale, which they really need to have in order to be used under fair use. Why don't you upload them again and add a rationale. I imagine that the one at Image:2008OpenLogo.gif would work, adapted for each of the ones you upload. You could just copy and past the rationale onto the upload form, making sure you change it in the right places. Just make sure you have the rationale ready straight away so they don't risk getting deleted again.--Beloved Freak 21:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to reinstate them? I deleted them of my computer after uploading. If they can be reinstated at least for 24 hours I can save them to my computer, re-size them and upload them individually with proper rationale. Just leave a note on my talk page if this is possible. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try posting a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, explaining what you have here.--Beloved Freak 11:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advise please?

Stale

– --Beloved Freak 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello;

I'm trying to get a bio for a noteworthy artist published, and so far I believe I've got the info formatted correctly. I've been through your help and question guides, and I'm wondering if there's something I missed or if I must simply be patient. Thank you for your help.

~C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyybird (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, You mean Jacki Randall, that you've put on your user page? There's nobody to publish that for you. You need to put in article-space. In this case, if you think it's notable and well-referenced, then edit Jacki Randall and add your page code.

The message below the edit window, that says

Please note:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images.

See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing.

is for real. Don't publish if you don't want other people to edit! Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a proper toponym

Resolved

– Editors seem happy to discuss with each other. --Beloved Freak 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered someone who is repeatedly deleting the proper toponym "Berkeley Hills" from at least two articles and gives no authority for the deletion. On the other hand, the name is supported by the USGS GNIS, and appears on virtually all maps, which I've posted in support of the usage. I'm at my wits end with this editor. I'm not sure how to proceed. Some assistance would be welcome. Tmangray (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the editing history of East Bay Regional Park District and Robert Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve ([1]), you and User:Fizbin are engaged in an edit war, and you need to stop reverting each other's edits until the matter is resolved. You have both broken the three revert rule which you can be blocked for. Not only that, but it you carry on, the pages may well be protected to prevent anyone from editing them. I'm glad you have tried to discuss it on the talkpage, but it doesn't look like you have reached a consensus. I would recommend making a request for comment which will bring the issue to a wider audience, hopefully including people that are familiar with the topic. Other than that, give it some time. It looks like this disagreement began within the last 24 hours, so give it time for others to get involved. There is no deadline. But please, stop reverting User:Fizbin's edits now or you may be blocked. --Beloved Freak 12:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have just warned User:Fizbin for potentially breaking the three revert rule, so I thought it only fair that I left a formal warning for you too. You have done the right thing, both of you, in trying to talk about it, but edit warring is taken seriously.--Beloved Freak 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I wasn't aware of this rule, so I apologize for that. I'm exasperated and intend to step back for the time being to cool down. But I would like some guidance on how to resolve this. Tmangray (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The request for comment that User:Belovedfreak recommended is likely to bring the best results. More editors' attention will help to show the best path forward. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the cease and desist - I'll work with the request for comment as it takes its course. I did add a little dig in there about pedants that someone might want to edit out.--Fizbin (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me write the Fast Web Media page in a non advertisment style

Resolved

– Article has been deleted. --Beloved Freak 10:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me write our company page so it does not have the advertsiment warning on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpwinfield (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you work for the company then you can't write the page. It's a conflict of interest. Don't worry, somebody else will eventually write it if the company is sufficiently notable. If you know of some reliable sources that have covered the company in away that would help to demonstrate its notability, then it would be appropriate to note them on the talk page so that neutral editors can consider including them. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are allowed as WP:COI doesn't forbid it. They should avoid doing so though as it is very complicated to write something like that from a NPOV. As for rewriting it I'll do some searches and stuff to verify whether you are notable according to our policies and guidelines and if you are then I'll gladly have ago at reworking the article.I make no promises that you, the company, or other wikipedia editors will approve of my input though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima & Nagasaki Nuclear Bombing article has been vandalized

Resolved

– Vandalism apparently fixed. --Beloved Freak 10:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki I do not know how to edit the page and remove the vandalism because it is semi protected. Hope someone reads this and can fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.104.14 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article to which you refer. There is currently no vandalism on that page. I'm assuming it was a template that was vandalized because the page appears to have mostly not changed. Can you be more specific about the vandalism you saw? Thanks for helping. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Eyes please

Please could some other people have a look at Pushkin House. I'm in the middle of a content dispute which comes down to me placing a notability tag (more than once) and another user repeatedly removing it. I may very well be in the wrong and just not be reading the article properly but, I don't want to edit war or end up with WP:OWN accusations. I'm not planning on going back to the article again until a 3rd opinion can be obtained. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the Southern Hemisphere

Does anyone else think this article is somewhat pointless and probably unmaintainable ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that unless it is a list of notable shopping malls and that information is referenced properly that you are probably correct. Although bringing up more specific concerns on the talkpage of the article might be better (why you feel it is "somewhat pointless and probably unmaintainable" for example. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The page has been proposed for deletion. Fleetflame 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of article titled Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

I had submitted an article titled Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, on 13th July 08. I found that the same was deleted due to certain technical reasons.

At the outset, kindly note that I am not yet fully familiar with the existing system of submitting articles for Wikipedia, giving references, etc. I may be excused for that. But the fact that a self-sustaining voluntary consumer organisation, serving the community free of charges and still taking up some important issues and resolving them needs to be recorded in a prestigious on-line encyclopedia, is my humble opinion.

Hence when the article was deleted, I had given the perspective in which the whole thing needs consideration.

Then, as I understood, that the article will not be considered without proper references, I gave a list of references.

Still, I find that the undeletion is not taking place and I was advised to refer to WP:DR. From that page I found that requesting Editor's Assitance may be a way of resolving the present issue.

Please try to help me. Shall be obliged.(Firstindyan (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I think you should have been directed to WP:DRV, which is where deletions can be reviewed. Another option would be to draft a new article in your userspace, perhaps at User:Firstindyan/sandbox and make sure you include some good references to establish that the council is notable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me improve the Mu Dynamics wiki page

We are seeing a notice on the Mu Dynamics wiki page that requests improvements -- and I think I have made them. Here is the note:

The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.
Please help improve the article with a good introductory style.

Now that I think I have addressed these concerns, how can we get the notice removed? Are further changes needed?? I'm just trying to get along here.

Thanks! Tmaufer (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)tom[reply]

Hi, thanks for posting here. I've read the article twice, and I don't know what the company makes. I think it needs to be much more simple and more straightforward. Something like "Mu Dynamics was founded in 19xx by Mr. Y and Mr. Z. The company makes widgets and sprockets, and is developing a line of services to advise buyers on how best to use them. The company had revenues of $N million in 2007." I was going to edit the page but I realised I couldn't figure out what to write. Perhaps you could try to simplify it, and I'll keep an eye on it and offer some suggestions? Make sure to cite reliable sources. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category change re: Scott Mutter

Scott mutter was found dead on Mar 8 08 at his park ridge home. as a personal friend of his I have some info to add to his page once I learn how. In the meantime however changing categories is beyond me, if you would oblige, his obit appeared in the Chicago Tribune Mar 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcochronos (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. To start with, have a read of Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:How to edit a page and Wikipedia:Your first article which should help you with the basics. Bear in mind that as a friend of Scott Mutter, you have a conflict of interest. You can still edit the article but just make sure that everything is from a neutral point of view and has references to reliable sources. I can't find the article you mentioned online, so if you have access to it, please do amend the details accordingly. Make sure you include the details of the source you are using and don't worry if it's not perfect, we can help you afterwards. For the categories, at the bottom of the page you would delete [[Category:Living people]] and put [[Category:2008 deaths]]. If the date of birth is unknown, you would put [[Category:Year of birth missing]]. Come back here if you have problems. --Beloved Freak 12:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Edward Wilkerson Jr

I have today tried to post a photo taken by family, i.e., no copywrite issues, only to find the site is protected. I don't understand this as I am the originator of his entry. What are the guidelines for protecting a site? Judith Marren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarren (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you give more details on what happened? The article doesn't appear to be protected. Did you try to upload a picture? Occasionally the database is locked as the database catches up with itself. (Or something.... not sure on the technical details...) This stops anyone from editing but doesn't usually last very long. Why don't you try again? --Beloved Freak 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) In trying to figure out what exactly it is you encountered that you refer to as "protected" (which has a very specific meaning here): the article Edward Wilkerson is not and has never been protected; your account is not and has never been blocked; you are autoconfirmed; and your previous image upload of File:Edward Wilkerson Jr.jpg was deleted in November 2007 under CSD I7, but has not been protected against re-creation. Given this, I hope you will return here and describe exactly what it is you encountered, what page or what action triggered the event you refer to to protected, and what it said. If you are referring to the image deletion, well, you can re-create the image but it will only be deleted again if you do not supply a valid license; release under a free license such as the GFDL or a valid fair use rationale. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some help understanding the policy regarding reverts and talk pages

I'm working on references for the Controversy section of the page for Greg Land, and a user keeps deleting the section. I don't want to break the 3 reverts rule, but he is not using the talk page so I can't even have a basic conversation with him (he wrote an argument against the section existing on the page itself rather than the talk page).

I've shortened the section and I want to add more references to be sure the point is well-established, but I've already had a lot of edits in the last 2 days so I'm trying to avoid breaking rules about reverts and/or ending up in an edit war with 'scottfavor', what is the appropriate process? Jack Fool (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for coming here. Sometimes, it helps to allow a little time to pass. Once the heat of the moment has gone, things are a little clearer. I think you're familiar with WP:3RR, and reliable sources are always important. You might try posting a message at the other editor's talk page, too. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a disruptive editor

Apparently

Resolved

– Per posting user. Fleetflame 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting assistance with User:Sbuxlover4 on repeated disruptive edits to SouthPark Mall (Charlotte, North Carolina), but more importantly for inappropriate behavior towards other editors (namely me). I already know about Request comment on users but I'm the only other editor involved so far so at very least I'd appreciate somebody else chiming in on the subject so it can go further if needed.

The basic overview can be found on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page. For the shorter version...
1) Removing properly cited facts and replacing with alternate unsourced claim.
2) Then trying to cite a source than made no mention of the claim.
3) Then trying to cite a source that used the same wikipedia article as its source.
4) I politely explained the situation to Sbuxlover4 in private on their talk page.
5) My private explanation was ignored so I addressed the issue politely on the article's talk page too.
6) Sbuxlover4 has three times deleted half of the entire article. I admit this seems to be by accident due to bad editing. I explained how to preveiw (or at least checking what you did before leaving) and provided links to how to use ref tags, but again and again I was ignored.
7) Now it's getting to be personal attacks with him falsely accusing me of vandalism - twice - and on the article's public talk page rather than making such accusations in private on either my talk page or replying to my existing comments on his own talk page.
8) And after all this, today he edited the article AGAIN without citing a source. The changed facts may or may not be correct but we'll never know without sources.

He ignores all warnings, and now he's just flaming others (me) in public. Please help. I'm tired of dealing with this ____. Fife Club (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for posting here. I took a look at the edit history, and also at your talk pages, and it seems like you and Sbuxlover4 have straightened this out between you, which is of course the best possible outcome. For what it's worth, it seems likely that Sbuxlover4 just made a couple of mistakes. The account only has 50-odd edits, and the edits that "deleted half the article" seemed to have some messed-up ref tags. Annoying? Sure. Could have been avoided? Absolutely. Worth a big fuss? Depends on your point of view, I suppose. Thanks for showing sbuxlover4 some tips on refs and such. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw, you can create numbered bullets by starting each line with #. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be settling down now. Thanks. Fife Club (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about University of San Francisco article

I have been editing the University of San Francisco article a bit. Another user: Usfcastudent and I have a disagreement about how the article opening paragraph should read. I have outlined my position on the article's discussion page, written him on his discussion page. Requested comment from others, and finally tagged the article with the disputed label. Each time he reverts the article to his point of view without offering explanation on the page. This time he reverted away my dispute tag. What should I do? I don't want to escalate this into too much of a fight, but I am unclear about the correct step for proceeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitamarine (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've stopped editing now. There looks to be a conflict of interest with that other user based on their name. Dispute resolution is definitely the way to go; if they continue to refuse discussing, you might need to ask for help at WP:AN/I. Opening a case at the Mediation Cabal would be a good next step, though it won't be productive if they keep refusing to talk. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding website to Rickmansworth

Resolved

– Andrew reposted the link. Fleetflame 00:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My husband tried to add a website to the Rickmansworth information page, but it was deleted by the administrator as it was cited as an act of vandalism. The website www.rickmansworthweb.co.uk is a news and information website which gives local community news and provides news from the police force, the local council and local businesses. The site has been a handy resource for us, as it has restaurant reviews, information on local sports clubs and schools, plus for young mothers the ability to find out about local classes in the area.

We are surprised why it has been cited as vandalism, as it is a very important resource for those of us who have found it.

If it could be reinstated we think a lot of other people would find it's information helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.101.7 (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It does seem a little harsh to label that vandalism. I'll try re-adding it and we'll see if anyone challenges it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing that because of the site address someone may have mistaken it for "spam" and labelled it wrong. I've had a look and it looks okay to me (just in case you wanted a second opinion). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Editor Assistance (as 2nd step in dispute resolution)

A number of editors and I have been trying to post information to the Virginia Military Institute page. The information we are trying to post is from a neutral source, the US News and World Report college rankings for 2008. This information was first posted on 7 February 2008 by user:Pikepk1 with appropriate and full citations. In the intervening 166 days, it has been reverted 41 times. 38 of these times has been by user:Rillian who claims it is POV and who has bounced it against the WP:PRESTIGE guideline. On two separate occasions, user:Rillian has also violated WP:3RR in this edit war, first at 14:41, 19 February 2008 and then again at 16:46, 22 April 2008.

Obviously, we disagree. The current state of argument/discussion/dispute is posted on an administator's talk page at: User_talk:El_C#Virginia_Military_Institute and on the Talk page Talk:Virginia Military Institute. The former link has some history on the dispute, including a reversion history. Talk:Virginia Military Institute/Archive 4#Rankings has some archived historical discussion on this topic between two of the parties. The administrator user:El_C has fully protected the Virginia Military Institute page and asked the parties to go back to the Talk:Virginia Military Institute for further discussion. Since this has not worked in the past, I would like to move up the dispute resolution ladder of WP:DR and ask for Editor Assistance in this dispute.

Thank you.

98.204.199.179 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for posting here. Looks like you did the right thing by stating your position at the talk page. I'd suggest you allow a couple of days at least for any other interested parties to express an opinion. Who knows, some discussion might lead to a mutually agreed outcome. I realise you'd like to make this happen quickly, but there is no deadline! I'll add the page to my watchlist. Let's revisit it in a few days' time. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in Egor Lavrov article?

I am looking for help in dispute resolution for edits pertaining to an individual's article (Egor Lavrov). Although the edits I made were to approach NPOV, it appears as though every edit has been reverted by the creator of the page. Any recommendations for negotiation to convince the individual that these are not attempts to vandalize the article would be appreciated. special4k4 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for posting here. It looks like User:Registrator1 has been showing some WP:OWN-ish behaviour. It also looks like the page could do with some better support for its notability. I'll drop a note on Registrator1's talk page and we'll see if that helps. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you don't remove the references, though. In this edit, you did some fact tagging and removed some external links, but I think the information needing sourced was in some of those. I changed the tag to {{nofootnotes}}. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't correct error on a protected page

The entry for 'High Lane' ssays the village is on the Peak Forest canal. It isn't. It isits on the Macclesfield Canal (the Peak Forest canal is a few miles away). I've tried to edit the page but it is protected and I just go round in circles trying to work out how to correct the entry. Help ! Henry Keswick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Keswick (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm guessing that you're referring to High Lane? It's not protected, in the sense used here which means that only admins can edit it. I don't see any edits to it under your user name, although you might have edited it without logging in. Perhaps you could come back here with a bit more information about what you tried to do and what happened? --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitstable

Resolved

– Fleetflame 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quried the Wikipedia article about the Kent town of Whitstable.

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

I found the page to have been rendered unintelligible by some sort of vandlism or graffiti. I do not know how to repair it. Please assist.

(email removed per policy)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.204.230 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took a look and it seems OK now. Vandalism is usually fixed quickly. If you're still seeing a problem then please post again. Thanks, --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with another editor

ScienceApologist is deleting the content, references, and images from the process equation article because they were placed there by me [2]. He dislikes my edits on Talk:WP:Fringe and is trying to retaliate. Need some assistance with the article.

Another example of his non-constructive edit is here[3] where he put back the invalid link, only because valid one was placed by me.

Lakinekaki (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for posting here. I can see what ScienceApologist is doing, but beyond edit summaries I don't know why. Please add more info to your post if you can show that you know why, otherwise it looks like you might not be assuming good faith. On the first diff you cited, you hadd added some text about creating 'bios' or 'infinitation', neither of which make sense there. The rest of your edit might or might not have been useful, but you don't help your case there. On the second diff the url did look like it might not work, and ScienceApologist used an edit summary describing your edit as good faith. You then reverted, with a somewhat confrontational edit summary, and that version stands. Please try to assume good faith, and realise that we can all make mistakes. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?! What are you referring to here with 'infinitation'? I was quoting cited articles. Whether it makes sense or not to readers is another issue. Scienceapologist used false statements in edit summaries to justify deletion of the content on process equation article[4], and when he realized that didn't work, he switched to ad hominem arguments. In second case, SA didn't test URL, but had actually assumed a bad faith and that I would place 'messed up' URL and had reverted my edit without bothering to click on the link and see where it links to. He also started editing few other articles that he saw in my contributions list -- therefore he finds some interest in my edits, and somehow his edits tend to be deletions, often with no explanation or with false excuses. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit appears to be ScienceApologist's first reversion of you in that article, and you added the words 'bios' and 'infinitation'. Whether or not it makes sense to readers is a huge, core, issue; if your editing doesn't make sense to readers then what value does it have? As for the url, it looks like a good faith error to me. Such things happen. As for the rest of your accusations, I'm not going to go searching for examples to support you. You'll need to cite specifics. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really expect to understand a mathematical article from edit difference, without looking at images[5], and references that were deleted[6] along with words 'bios' and 'infinitation'? Lakinekaki (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor did I do that. All I'm suggesting is that if your edits use made-up words then they'll probably be reverted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits don't use made-up words. If you read the cited papers, you would find those words there. I am confused why you offered to 'help' when you are not really trying to? SA first deleted the reference where those words were used, and than he deleted those words. You are attributing 'making this up' to me without even bothering to read the article and its references. Thanks but no thanks for your help. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I don't think it would be useful to other readers. Happy editing, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that, for example, today's featured article is useful to me, nor other readers, but I don't go there to delete stuff I don't like. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A different user is now reinstating ScienceApologist's edits, with the summary "general fixes". Could be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I don't remotely understand the subject of this article, so I can't really give an outside opinion of the diagrams. I'd recommend the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Caller ID

it exists, the information is on my talk page.

I am fully disclaiming that i represent the entity that owns the patent.

I have posted the relevant information on my talk page.

Please add the relevant information at your discretion to the CallerId wiki page.

Thank you

MCCSteve (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for posting here. Is there anything that establishes the notability of the invention? Y'know, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? Thanks. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat

Resolved

– Per here; user has been blocked for six months. Fleetflame 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor:

I seek assistance with a messgage left on my talk page. I have been watching and editing the article on the band Blessid Union of Souls for a little while. I was made aware by another user in April that two founders of the band each had a group using the same name, both with an online presence. In April 2008 we reached a comprimise edit that mentioned both group's claim. I have since been keeping both claims in tact on the artcile as various parties tried to assert one groups claim over the other. In light of no real vailidation to either side's claim I thought it best to mention both groups, which claim in separate websites to be touring as Blessid Union of Souls.

On July 23rd, 2008 I recieved an unsigned comment stating the following:

"NeuGye,

First off, would you be so kind as to please provide your full name.

Secondly, I/We appreciate your patronage and your attempts to document a profile of the band's (Blessid Union of Souls) history as you perceive it. However, you, as well as Mr. Jeff Pence, now find yourselves in violation of Federal Service Marks, as well as Federal Trademark, agreements. You asked for 1 reason, however, I can give you many reasons ($15,000) why you should not involve yourself in this present lawsuit. If you feel obligated to continue, then we will have no choice but to also file suit against you.

As far as we are concerned, there is nothing further to discuss. We changed our Wikipedia site to tell the truth and to not slander anyone. If you would like to go further with this, then be assured that this will be handled swiftly and strongly.

buosmgnt"

I now wish to seek assistance in how to procede. I am simply editing a wikipedia article to keep a neutral tone in light of no evidence to settle the dispute. I have posted comments at various points to this effect and have added comments on the talk page. Assuming my talk page was not vandalized by some fifteen year old in Ohio, I wish to ask someone else to get involved or at least be made aware of the situation. Thank you NeuGye (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator." Make sure you include a link to his diff and your diff that instigated the threat in your report assuming those are the right links. There is no need to copy the text of the threat into the noticeboard as the diff links should be sufficient. If you don't get a reasonable response, please come back here for help. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Now that you've made your report, continue to discuss any contentious changes with the other editors on the talk page to come to a consensus with all involved parties. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to include company information in an article

Dear Sir/Madam,

I created the article title “IAPsolutions (former DCI)” including company information and this was deleted. However, I have seen very similar articles (e.g. “Buongiorno”) in the Wikipedia, and I don’t really understand the difference between these two articles and why mine was deleted.

Could you please clarify this ?

Best regards --Qswi3021 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for posting here. It looks like IAPsolutions (former DCI) was deleted twice, once for being advertising and once for making no assertion of notability. I can't see the deleted content, so I'm going to guess that it didn't make clear why the company is notable, and perhaps didn't have sufficient reliable sources. Please read the guidelines linked, if you haven't already, and then decide if the topic really is sufficiently notable to be included. If you think it is, then try to modify the content so that it meets the guidelines and then post it again. Feel free to leave another message here if you need help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying to Wiktionary

I've noticed that there are a number of articles in Wikipedia tagged as needing copying to Wiktionary (i.e. those in Category:Copy to Wiktionary. There seems to be a backlog, which is where I'm confused. I know there is a manual process to move articles (Help:Transwiki), but I thought the tag initiated some sort of automatic move, and didn't require further intervention (other than cleaning up/deleting the transwikied articles). Have I misunderstood the process, or is there a problem with the Wikipedia -> Wiktionary transwiki ? CultureDrone (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought as well. After all, the template says "automated". Template talk:Copy to Wiktionary seems to suggest that User:CopyToWiktionaryBot does this. It sure does look broken- no contributions from it since 6 May 2008. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Dovid Tendler

I have a long running feud with someone who is likely a Tendler student or family member. Dr Tendler is an evil, lying, arrogant, self serving man, but that is not for now. My opponent seeks to canonize him and continually deletes my request for sources (Which, had his claim regarding Tendler receiving ordination [smichah] from some of the great sages of the past generation been true, it would have been stated in an abundance of places.) Instead of posting a source, he deletes my request for a citation. He continually post the content of particular Tendler responsa was is not germane to the profile, and is in fact a commercial for hods.org which has no place in the biography. Rabbi Tendler went against the wishes of his sainted father in law, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and translated the responsa Igros Moshe into English somethong Reb Moshe explicitily forbid. This person wishes to paint Dr. Tendler as the sucessor to his father in law and continually deletes this fact as well as my 2 references to Igros Moshe, where Reb Moshe forbids the translation of his responsa. I posted a link to a website that has Tendler on tape in his own words caught lying dozens of times, that link gets deleted as well. If you look in the history, you'll see that I have commented on the modus operandi of this editor who has a serious aversion to the truth. He cannot be banned because he signs on a single time, edits Tendler, than deletes his profile. I have documented all of my statements, all I want is the truth to be told. Wikipedia is not supposed to be science fiction.pikipiki (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is it supposed to provide you, or anyone else, with a soap box. If you want to call the subject of an article a liar, you're probably better off not editing the article at all. Also refrain from characterizing your opponent as seeking to canonize the article subject, and stop making tendentious speeches (such as this) on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sargasso

i am giving up on Wikipedia. I have tried to add articles that would be of interest to other users, but they are being deleted before I can even contest them on the talk pages. these are also being deleted.

No wonder Wikipedia is so innacurate - your 'administrators' are rubbish!!!

Sfcpres (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry you feel that way. One way of addressing your concern would be to ask an admin to move the deleted content to your sandbox, at User:Sfcpres/sandbox and work on the page there. If you decide to do that, then please come back here and let us know; we can advise you on how to meet the standards at Wikipedia. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV thing

I don't really know how to do it, but this article reads like a love letter to the person the article is about. Sounds like the POV of one of his staffers or something. Just wanted to bring it to attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.212.234 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention; I'll look into it, and I'm sure the others will too. In the future, you can place the {{POV_check}} template on any article (don't forget to discuss on the talk page!) and someone will check its neutrality. Fleetflame 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Leland Yee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fleetflame 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Branded Concept Development

I am trying to post an article about my company Branded Concept Development, but the past three times I've tried its been deleted. I changed a bunch of the content to make it more Wikipedia friendly; however, now its been deleted again and I can't even make the page again. What should I do?

Smr47 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Spencer[reply]

NOTE: See Deletion Log. Fleetflame 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like the article was deleted several times because various editors believed it was being used to advertise your company. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an advertising service. Articles need references to independent third party reliable sources. The article also needs to show how its subject is notable. I would recommend you have a good read around Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. HOWEVER, because you are trying to write an article about your company, you have a clear conflict of interest. Editors are strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves, their companies or things they are personally involved in. You should wait for someone else to decide that the company is notable enough to need an article. Why don't you look around Wikipedia and edit some other articles about things that interest you? --Beloved Freak 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Articles "Miss Pakistan World" and Sonia Ahmed

Dear Editor,

In the past two months there has been a deletion of two articles: "Miss Pakistan World" and Sonia Ahmed Both articles were written well and with nuetraliuty but some USERS kept on refering to controversies which were not a major part of the event.

Can you please do something about these two articles.

Thanks --Sonisona (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that deletion was improper, you can appeal it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 350: / Line 350: @@
 :{{article|Moshe David Tendler}}
 I have a long running feud with someone who is likely a Tendler student or family member. Dr Tendler is an evil, lying, arrogant, self serving man, but that is not for now. My opponent seeks to canonize him and continually deletes my request for sources (Which, had his claim regarding Tendler receiving ordination [smichah] from some of the great sages of the past generation been true, it would have been stated in an abundance of places.) Instead of posting a source, he deletes my request for a citation. He continually post the content of particular Tendler responsa was is not germane to the profile, and is in fact a commercial for hods.org which has no place in the biography. Rabbi Tendler went against the wishes of his sainted father in law, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and translated the responsa Igros Moshe into English somethong Reb Moshe explicitily forbid. This person wishes to paint Dr. Tendler as the sucessor to his father in law and continually deletes this fact as well as my 2 references to Igros Moshe, where Reb Moshe forbids the translation of his responsa. I posted a link to a website that has Tendler on tape in his own words caught lying dozens of times, that link gets deleted as well. If you look in the history, you'll see that I have commented on the modus operandi of this editor who has a serious aversion to the truth. He cannot be banned because he signs on a single time, edits Tendler, than deletes his profile. I have documented all of my statements, all I want is the truth to be told. Wikipedia is not supposed to be science fiction.[[User:Pikipiki|pikipiki]] ([[User talk:Pikipiki|talk]]) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
+:And neither is it supposed to provide you, or anyone else, with a soap box. If you want to call the subject of an article a liar, you're probably better off not editing the article at all. Also refrain from characterizing your opponent as seeking to canonize the article subject, and stop making tendentious speeches  (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moshe_David_Tendler&diff=prev&oldid=219079252 this]) on the article's talk page. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 == Sargasso ==