![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This article's title may be inappropriate as per WP:LABEL, however I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable alternative title. One reference mentions the term "Freedom fighter". I initially tagged it with {{ POV-title}} but it was removed by another editor. Any thoughts on what to do here? Is it okay to leave this as is? -- œ ™ 08:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This talk entry seems to be html version of a book. Is it appropriate to take up more then 250kB of the talk page? should it be moved somewhere or deleted? -- Kslotte ( talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
User:JonSKP has only done one edit by adding a book text to his user page with description "Cos I'm Bored". Delete content or user? -- Kslotte ( talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I find Category talk:Military history of the United Kingdom (375 kB) being improper use of a category talk page. Should it be removed? -- Kslotte ( talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has the time to handle that, I would be forever indebted. Regards, Daniel ( talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Various new editors/IPs periodically show up to delete the claim that this university is owned by Fethullah Gulen -- most recently today , here. It appears that people at IUS and another university in Sarajevo, International Burch University, are claiming that the source used to establish that Gulen is the owner of IUS is simply incorrect on this score. Normally we would invoke WP:V, verifiability not truth, and the Turkish newspaper reporting the claim seems reliable enough (article here). But perhaps it is actually incorrect? I typically restore this claim whenever it is deleted. I would be grateful for thoughts on whether I (and others) should keep doing so. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of street addessess in the table in this article appropriate content (the content in the "Location" column), or how much of the table is falling astray of WP:NOTDIR / WP:NOTADVERT? Active Banana ( talk) 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Hate crimes against white people has been at AFD for over eight days now and still hasn't been closed (or relisted). Isn't 7 days the usual length of time AFD's are supposed to last (unless they are relisted, of course)? See the AFD. Stonemason89 ( talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on the edit disputes on these articles? I put up an RFC for both but no one has come, or stayed at least. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Kampung Boy was willfully created as a hoax; while the show exists, its contents are not what the article describes. It is pure vandalism, intended to hurt the project's goal as a useful resource to all. The article was requested to be created on 28 March 2008 by IP 81.101.21.176 and named only IMDb as a source. Disregarding the reliability issue (IMDb can be edited by practically anyone), the user review there (since 2006) contradicts what was submitted here; however, User:Torchwoodwho fulfilled the IP's request, creating the article word for word to the IP's story. I am also quite surprised that editors added other sources and edits without noticing the hoax, even though those added sources showed the hoax for what it is (no ridiculous story of a sushi-making Johnny Kampung and his nameless black dog). The hoax went on for two years before another IP (119.73.182.210) reverted it. The hoaxing IP is now back as 81.101.27.113 to reassert the false information (the user has also added previously false information to Big Babies and Waybuloo). Because of all the intermediate edits, it is no longer possible to treat the article as a hoax article and delete it, allowing a clean recreation with reliably-sourced and accurate information ( Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes only seems to cover articles that are entirely a hoax).
So instead, I ask if it is possible to delete all revisions that has the hoax contents (story and episode list of the animation), leaving only those that are true (books and animation producers)? Or delete the article, recreate it with current information that are not hoaxes and insert a note of history that credits their contributors except for the hoaxing IP? The current article and its history make a mockery out of the project, allowing users to go back in the history list to restore false information. The issue also raises questions on the standards of AFC (why are hoaxes allowed to be created). Jappalang ( talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There were some facts about the article that were difficult to reconcile when I found it at AFC, but I assumed good faith and created it, adding what little information I could locate to it. If the content is hoax content, it was a good one, and being unfamiliar with the source material it's hard to weed out the wrong information. The subject of the article clearly exists and is notable, so if you object to information presented in the article or know of information that contradicts is, you should edit the article to be more accurate. I am a little confused about why this issue was brought here. Does the ip address have a history of this with other articles? When was the last time the ip was active, if it was a long time ago there's no guarantee that a block wouldn't stop a more constructive user from making good edits. What action are you looking for? -- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 08:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Done
Is it good, bad or indifferent, if an IP address adds external links to a site for music lyrics?
I've been unable to determine relevant guidance from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Lyrics.
You'll see that the following IP address has been used almost exclusively for contributions where they have just added a single external link, to the lyrics for the musician(s) concerned, and in each of these cases the link has been to, e.g.
123.24.78.24 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I wonder if one should offer any guidance to the IP address in question?
If a wp:admin, say, knows the answer, maybe they'd like to leave the IP address a message on their Talk page (link above), & add to any discussion by others here. Thanks, Trafford09 ( talk) 23:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also
This is starting to look like WP:Spam. I agree this site probably falls afoul of WP:ELNEVER. Reverted. MER-C 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please weigh in here, it is getting little attention and needs closing either way. MickMacNee ( talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Could some one tell me the proper wiki standard on poll numbers? Obviously if the poll only gives whole numbers there is no problem. But what if the raw numbers are fractional do you round up, or give the largest whole number and drop the fractional present?-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
At McKownville, New York there is a dispute over the use of WP:IMOS in regards to that article. It is a place-name (ie- hamlet) in upstate NY, a suburb of Albany. Its founder and namesake came there from Scotland by way of Northern Ireland, and this is where it gets tricky... The source itself says "Londonderry", and the IMOS of Wikipedia has decided that the city of that name is to be referred to as Derry, and the county as Londonderry. When I put Londonderry in and linked to it I was not aware that it was a redirect to Derry, others have come to change the wording to Derry, as in the city. At the Village pump it was proposed that since the source said Londonderry then linking to the county and keeping the name Londonderry would be a good compromise since we cant be sure the source means Derry the city, and not Londonderry the county since it does say Londonderry. I dont believe a guideline should be used as a fundamentalist POV-pushing bludgeon to remove all references to Londonderry because some editors have COI regarding English names and want all mentions to be of an Irish background. Can we have some non-COI impartial opinions. Camelbinky ( talk) 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone peruse the above? Talk about creeping POV, I think it has savable content but there is a slight "this is a diatribe on 'democractic failure'"-ness about it. I've taken out a little of it, but a lot of it is unverified opinion. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
See here. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
...but it seems that http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1999050/bio is a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adrianna_Costa&oldid=361977055 or a later revision. At first I thought it was a case of WP:COPYVIO, but after looking at the edit history, I guess the text was copied from Wikipedia. -- 78.43.71.155 ( talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam." There are numerous reliable sources describing allegations that Israelis posed as art students were involved in spying on the United States between 1999-2001 so this does not deal with wingnut conspiracy theories. I encourage you to thoroughly look through the sources in order to make an informed decision.
Note: the Forward article describes a dismissal of 2004 spying in Canada and not 2001 spying in the U.S. This article also treats allegations of spying on the U.S. as inconclusive.
Note 2: the Washington post article, which was written before a number of the articles is the only source to outright dismiss spying allegations as an urban myth, In the Salon.com article, a high level intelligence agent referred to journalist Christopher Ketchum by veteran d.c. correspondent with contacts in the fbi and cia refers to the Washington Post article as a plant by the fbi.
It is necessary that you thoroughly go through at least some of the sources as some of them directly contradict the Washington Post Article. If you have time, it might also help to watch the 20 minute Fox special on Israel Spying on U.S that describes the art students (links to fox possibly subject to copyright notice so I can't provide them). Given these sources, there are no grounds for deletion due to lack of coverage nor the pushing of "urban myths" as all sources, most of which came after the post article point to spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive.
Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_student_scam
I posted this instead on the NPOV board because we are looking for neutral third parties.
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If you like discussing notability and content forking, this is the Afd for you. I warn you it's got very long, but I was becoming so baffled at the responses, I've had to restate the deletion rationale to be absolutely sure I am on the same pages as other voters, and also, the actual topic is not as simple as it looks either. But there has been little outside input so far from people who are not the nominator or creator of the disputed article, even though there's been a lot of discussion, so if you have two hours to waste and think you know policy, dive in. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(moved from WP:AN) Could I please have some eyes on Chuck Norris facts? Some editors keep re-adding very poorly sourced facts, completely oblivious to the fact that you can't use eBay listings or Google search results as a citation, especially not to a totally random examplefarm. There's also a high degree of linkspamming going on; my last reversion cut the article size in half. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A longstanding, but brief section in Shakespeare's plays that mentions the Shakespeare Authorship question is being repeatedly deleted [ [3]][ [4]] from this article, under the WP:ONEWAY rule. Since the issue of who wrote the plays is directly and prominently connected to the plays themselves (which seems somewhat obvious), it seems to me that WP:ONEWAY does not apply, but is merely being used as an excuse to delete a well-documented minority opinion from this (and other) articles. Opinions from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated, as those involved have pretty much adopted a "line-in-the-sand" attitude and do not seem interested in any form of compromise. Smatprt ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Before I do something I regret and tarnish my record that I've managed to keep clean for a few years can someone plase look at the situation at Miss Universe 2010 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I put in a good few hours last night trying to drag this article] up to Wikipedia's standards in relation to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTE, essentially because the article was bogged down in unreliable sourcing and trivial minutiae and the sources that remained needed tidying. I left an explanation in both the edit summary and a lengthier one on the talk page. It has since been reverted twice, pretty much without any comment on the content/editing issues but with one attack by Fat&Happy who accused me of an edit war (interesting, considering he at that point had provided no reply to the talk page etc). See my edits on his talk page here. Before I do actually get pinged for 3RR can someone please give some advice on a way forward? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Some expert opinion would be appreciated on Ballistic tip bullet, where a new editor--whose name is the name of the company that owns the trademark on "Ballistic Tip"--is making edits that in my opinion are not OK. I am also posting a notice on the talk page for WP:Firearms, asking editors to weigh in on this board. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I note that the Dundas, Minnesota article, hardly a topic of widespread international interest, has six interwiki links to translated versions of the article. Upon review, it appears that all these are machine translations, and the interwiki links have been added by a bot. I do not believe that the translations or the interwiki links are of any value to readers, since a) the topic is not especially relevant to non-English speakers, and b) the machine translations are of poor quality and are out of date, failing to reflect changes to the English text of the article.
Reviewing articles on other small towns, the Volapük wiki appears to be the most egregious offender. While it is up to each language wiki to determine their inclusion policy, there is no mandate for us to provide interwiki links to junk. The Volapük wiki consists almost entirely of machine translations, and as a nearly dead conlang, there is no reason why we should be providing these links. They are, in effect, advertising without any useful content.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where this should go, so I'm posting it here, I have seen Pial316 ( talk · contribs) add this to Shanto Mariam University of Creative Technology. He says that it came from the university's leaflet. I wonder if this is a possible copyright violation. Can another editor comment on this if I should report it to Copyright problems or should I just leave it. Techman224 Talk 00:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
A guy seems to be intent on rewriting the page from the Library of Congress Country Studies based on such questionable sources as http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml and http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm. The theory of a wide-scale Mongol invasion of Rus has been under siege from several generations of historians, but now we have the page peppered with broad generalisations ("every second Russian died as a result") and non-neutral terms ("slaughter", "exterminate the entire population", etc). -- Ghirla -трёп- 11:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing dispute between myself and two other editors at Talk:War crimes committed by the United States#Separation into judicial vs. non-judicial involving the layout of sections. I feel like there is a lot of soapboxing and original research going on, and I'd like to have a neutral editor or two to come in and help us find the relevant Wikipedia policies, and ensure that that people are sticking to policy discussions, instead of arguing their personal views about the material. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 16:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I reverted one edit because of obvious copyright violation, apparently not the first one and the user did touch at least one BLP page where one of the 2 ciations is a dead link ( Steven T. DeKosky) - would be good if more eyes had a look at his. Richiez ( talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Francoise Pascal's date of birth, it must be wrong or an error has been made? It states she was born October 1949. I was born in 1948 and remember her on television as a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.52.79 ( talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone cares to comment on the (current) opening sentence of Tube Bar prank calls--"The Tube Bar prank calls are arguably the most famous series of prank calls ever recorded." There is one article cited, which calls them "legendary," but that's hardly the same thing. The owner of the article, and I say this with a measure of confidence given what they edit and how they respond, User:Tube Bar Red, stated on my talk page that Google will verify it--a clear case of original research at best, but in my opinion an empty statement. I have twice removed the unwarranted claim because there is no evidence to support it; moreover, I think a lead should not have that kind of an opening sentence. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this user's contribs it's seems extraordinarily self promotional, however I can't be sure what intent there is as I believe there is a language barrier involved. I'm at a loss of what to do besides CSD/remove all their contributions including talk page and user page.- Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone assist me on this article? I have attempted to explain to the article creator that it needs more reliable sources, but I don't seem to be making any progress. I found some reliable sources through Google that establish the notability of the company, but right now I am disinclined to add them unless someone else intervenes. Whose Your Guy ( talk) 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel this article is improperly named. It looks as if it's related to Total drama island but I can't be sure. Thought toward a rename?-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has been filed concerning "Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?". Your input is solicited. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a content dispute about antifeminism.
Currently the lead reads "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." This remains unsourced. But a second and more prominent definition is "the activity indicative or the belief in the superiority of men over women" [5] [6] [7] [8]. Another definition is "opposition to women and sexual equality, or more specifically opposition to feminism and the advocacy of women's rights" [9] [10]
A user argued that other and more prominent definitions of antifeminism should be ignored because the opposition to feminism in some of its forms [11] is the least controversial and because dictionary defitnitions are bad in the lead [12].
Could you please help to settle this dispute? Randygeorge ( talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I know that this subject has been discussed on at least 28 different archived pages of the above article, but there is another discussion regarding whether to add additional material regarding the sex abuse scandal to the article in question. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The Alvin C. York article has become a bit of a mess with POV issues and poor editing. I have no dog in this fight, but I hate to see an article decline in quality. Could someone fresh to it have a look? Thanks. Wilson44691 ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
As part of the article rescue fallout of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions, I and other editors are working on fixing all of the boilerplate articles given to us by Toverton28 ( talk · contribs). Witness Alabama Baptist Convention before and after, and Alaska Baptist Convention before and after. There's a to-do list at User talk:Uncle G#Southern Baptist navboxes, where you are welcome to join in the effort. Uncle G ( talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I have been asked whether the content on List of Doug episodes is a copyvio of this. To me it looks like it's the other way around and they have copied WP, but if that's the case presumably they are not allowed to copyright it (there's a copyright notice at the bottom of their page). Any thoughts? Chris ( talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Not sure if there is a more appropriate place for this!
Not sure if this is where to post this, but am having a dispute over content on this article. The User:Jmmyjam keeps adding overly adjective POV laden and long descriptions [20] to the Notable native sections of the article. I went thru and pruned some, then we reverted each other a few times. I brought it to the talk page earlier [21], and then to the users talk page, but no responses. I don't usually get to 3rr, but have here, and with the other party not answering, not sure how to handle this. He iro 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Response from Disputee: Not sure if this is where I post a response but will do so. I have no problem with the notion of insuring the descriptions of notable persons is succinct and does not include unnecessary verbiage. However, when noting an author who has written a seminal work it is appropriate to incorporate such notation as part of the description (ie. John Milton, author, Paradise Lost. Additionally, it is perfectly fine to note a profession and include a fact if a the person's background contains a significant accomplishment such as "Neil Armstrong, astronaut, first man to walk on the moon". I can appreciate your attention to the detail of the Pine Bluff, AR material. However, your policing of this page is going to create a problem if I feel basic Wikipedia protocols are being ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) o
A dreadful article - perhaps promotional, half of it is questions, ends with "(Article under construction and some terms could be altered. More to come. All are invited to participate in this article and subarticles.)". The phrase itself is used in several of our articles, eg Islamic fundamentalism. ["islamic awakening" site:en.wikipedia.org] - I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller ( talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont know exactly where to post this but another user directed me here. I had an issue with another user over some cited content.
This problem is regarding the page khetran. I found a reference to be false but it turned out that it wasnt. I had first removed the reference but it had been replaced a user (intothefire). Searching more on the topic i found a couple of references which all contradicted each other. So to deal with the problem i created another header and placed them all under there. Intothefire is constantly reverting back my changes. He is also putting tags on history page that I'm deleting the cited again and again. I talked to him directly that the cited content (along with a minor change where only relevant material was posted) has been moved to the appropriate section. In reply to that he said that he has no problem what so ever may be the location of cited content on the page. But again he reverted back the changes, although cited content was present under the new header. In my opinion the cited content should be under its header where other cited content is present regarding the same topic.
Regards, OmerKhetran ( talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a public notice posting of a proposed merger between Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, as recommended by this policy page. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 128.255.251.167 ( talk) 18:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I have recently been having a problem regarding an image I uploaded being removed by another editor who seems to have a strong association with MSNBC. The is from 1917 - there is plenty of evidence of this - and therefore should be in the public domain. I added the image to two articles Huguette M. Clark (who has been in the news recently) and William A. Clark (her father). The image is continuously removed by User:BlackberryHacks. I suggested he should have to bring this to WP:FFD if he thinks it is a copyright violation (which it is not) but he cannot just unilatterally keep removing the image. As we were getting to 3RR I wanted to get some outside perspective to help resolve the issue. It would be unfortunate to have to take measures against the article given its recent newsworthiness. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The user Urbanrenewal says the photo "should be in the public domain." But he has no idea whether it is in the public domain. He objects that I keep removing it; of course, it'e entirely appropriate to remove an image which belongs to somone else, unless he can establish that it is in the public domain. One should err on the side of caution. Urbanrenewal means well, let's assume, but in fact he has no idea when the image was published. The image belongs to the Montana Historical Society. We know roughly when the image was made -- about 1917, we can't be sure exactly. But Urbanrenewal has no idea when the image was published, and that's the key. He's guessing that it's in the public domain, he says it's probably in the public domain, but guessing doesn't cut it in copyright matters. He describes this as "having a problem." Yes, publishing photos to which one doesn't have the rights is a problem. BlackberryHacks ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
Where is the 1917 publication date on the photograph? Indeed, where is any evidence anywhere that this photograph was published in 1917? The place that you took it from published it in June 2010. Uncle G ( talk) 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I went and checked out a list of copyright terms. Without a solid publication date, I don't think there's any way to argue for sure that this is in the public domain. Could you contact the Montana Historical Society? -- 128.255.251.167 ( talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is even acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Associated+Press+of+Pakistan&diff=383199142&oldid=383198700
Involved editor: 72.148.185.86 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
みんな空の下 ( トーク) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been advised on the RSN board to bring this here on the Watts Up With That? article there is a dispute about this source [ [22]] and this source[ [23]]. The problom is that some have said that using one or using both of these are a BLP vioation. My slef I think its Undue and that there is no value to including a recomendation by a media pundit for a science site (but if we do include it we should also include her caveat), especialy as it is highly contentious and a possible BLP violation whatever we do. No one has questioned these weer her comments and her caveat is repeated on Mr Watts own blog [ [24]], and he does not question she wrote this. The talk o9n this is here [ [25]]. Also an issue has been raised as to whther or not soource two breached verifiabiltiy rules. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above-mentioned article is presently undergoing AFD, however at present it has grown to an unmanagable size, is nearly entirely unreferenced and is and written largely in an unencyclopedic tone. It would benefit from editors familiar with content policies making sweeping edits. I made an attempt to reboot the article here, but it's been reverted back to an unacceptable state. – xeno talk 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Your help in the above cleanup effort would be appreciated. This is not a task that four people can take on alone. It's an order of magnitude larger than the largest of the other currently open CCI listings. Uncle G ( talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
We're now at the stage where the 'bot is ready to roll, and no-one has voiced an objection. (Indeed, to the contrary: Several people want to go further, and mass delete the articles.)
If the 'bot goes ahead, this will probably light up some people's watchlists like Diwali. Be warned. Uncle G ( talk) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, The page force10 seems to be advertising. How do you flag the content as advertising? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force10
Trevgoodchild ( talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering about all the other Force10's in the world, isn't there more to it than just a networking company? A Movie, Beaufort Scale :) Seems like it's spurious somehow.
Trevgoodchild ( talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User:JCAla is making the " History section" on the Afghanistan page very long by creating unnessary sub-sections in which he added many useless information that attempts to degrade one group and praises another ( Northern Alliance with its leader Ahmad Shah Massoud) [27]. His entire edits are mess-- Jrkso ( talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)y and confusing, filled with countless unsourced personal POVs, and is written very unencyclopedic. I removed it and gave my reason but he reverts and insists that it should stay. He did edits to other pages and added very bizzare stuff in them. For example, in Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001), besides countless unsourced POVs, he added in the infobox all the top Pakistani politicians (Pakistani Presidents Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, and others) being at war with Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance group in Afghanistan. In this edit he demonstrated his unpleasant biased view toward Pakistanis and a group of Afghanis but in the meantime he praised Amer Saheb, leader of the Northern Alliance. I don't know if this is the right place to fix this problem I discovered about User:JCAla's edits. Please help, thank you.-- Jrkso ( talk) 04:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"Official denials notwithstanding, Pakistan ... has openly encouraged the recruitment of Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations." - Human Rights Watch
"Pervez Musharraf [then Pakistani military chief of staff] was responsible for sending scores of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden. Musharraf wanted his troops ..." - National Geographic
Questions for Jrkso:
-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
+++
First, Torchwood Who?, thanks for getting involved. I do not have a problem with your suggestions. My information were sourced inside the scope of WP:RS. Most information Jrkso perceives as POV are direct citations. I hardly gave any controversial information unsourced. Second, Jrkso should be warned for his false and offending allegations against me, especially the one where he blatantly lies, see "He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred.". I will not tolerate such allegations. Third, I don't even know if I should answer such ... allegations.
"fiercely anti-Pakistan and pro- Ahmad Shah Massoud tone." (by Jrkso)
"edits discredit all Afghan Mujahideen" (by Jrkso)
"and even foreign presidents and politicians of other nations who were not involved in the Afghan civil war" (by Jrkso)
"He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred." (by Jrkso)
"a group that's described in every media report as one of the worst warlords and terrorists" (by Jrkso)
-- JCAla ( talk 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the youtube link was linking to a documentary by the National Geographic. I do not see the National Geographic as
being a "dubious source". The
George Washington University National Security Archive provides similar information:
1996
"Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat."
1998
"According to a variety of Pakistani officials and journalists, including Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan has "regressed to a point where it is as hard-line as ever in favor of the Taliban." Pakistani government officials have given up "the pretense of supporting the U.N. effort," and have become unabashedly pro-Taliban. ... The cable speculates the spike in pro-Taliban Pakistani feeling can be attributed to the political fallout of recent nuclear testing and increased regional tension. These developments have increased Pakistan's need for a pro-Pakistan, anti-India regime in Kabul."
"Taliban ranks furthermore continue to be filled with Pakistani nationals (an estimated 20-40 percent of Taliban soldiers are Pakistani according to the document), which further solidifies Pakistan-Taliban relations, even though this does not indicate not outward or official Pakistani government support."
"The parents of ... know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban "until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."
1999
"Pakistan's alliance with the Taliban is stronger than Iran or Russia with Massoud ..."
2000
"... in September 2000 an alarmed U.S. Department of State observes that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented."
"[The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased."
or (concerning Massoud)
"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders [that included Massoud] ordered the abuses [during the period in Kabul 1992-1996]." - Afghanistan Justice Project (source for Human Rights Watch)
I think I have given enough evidence by now, that the information given by me is not just pov but officially recognized history. Jrkso not once has provided credible sources that Pakistan was never involved in Taliban military operations or that Massoud directly ordered abuses. Jrkso has been trying to disrupt the article's content. But, unless he comes up with new things, I (for my part) regard this time-stealing issue as solved right now.-- JCAla ( talk 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Is there a discussion at
WP:ANI or other applicable location? I would be glad to comment on the situation from my perspective having been involved in attempted mediation. This thread can be referenced in any of those discussions.--
Torchwood Who? (
talk)
13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have now taken it to WP:ANI. Thanks for you time and efforts to solve this issue by mediation, Torchwood Who?. —JCAla ( talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm having some problems with editors who wish to add original research and editorialization to Livejournal concerning their recent changes to allow users to link their LJ accounts to Facebook. I believe that much of what is being written at our article is true, but non- neutral and unsourced. I've run out of reversions according to WP:3RR and in any case a third opinion would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on about this article, concerning my extensive rewrite. [32] Please see this thread [33] and the article talk page. BillMasen ( talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like some assistance in a dispute over a photo. I upload a non-free image to use in the article Hal Block of Block meeting General Patton. The photo was removed when I put it up for FAC. I am not concerned over the FAC, but only that I feel the photo is important to the article. The photo is located: [34]. The FAC is at [35]. There is also only 5 days, Sept 18, until the now-orphaned photo is deleted from Wikipedia. I fully admit I cannot be certain that I am right in my argument on the use of this photo. However, I am also unconvinced by the editor's arguments for removal. In my research Hal Block, I found no other mention that Block met Patton, so the photo acts as a source of fact and not just decorative. Any assistance would be appreciated. BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Kleparo [1] verification needed.
I am very concerned about behavior of administrator User:Stemonitis.
I made two non-controversial edits per guidelines:
Both edits are properly reasoned also in its edit summary. User:Stemonitis immediately reverted my edits and he/she immediately threaten me on my talk page. Somebody should solve this rather immediately. Thank you. -- Snek01 ( talk) 06:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
We've had some... interesting issues with this fellow on the War of 1812 page. He's flat out just removed content he didn't like followed by inserting interesting and highly charged terms into the article. When I warned him he was treading on thin ice he roundly informed me that he only edits highly slanted articles and if I wished him to stop then my proper recourse would be to less slanted/pov way. A 10 minute tour through his contributions should point the way on this one. Tirronan ( talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Without being able to evaluate the sources, I can say that that particular edit, repeated a half a dozen times or more, is disruptive and clearly goes against consensus--not to mention that it's not well-written and not well referenced (it reads like a brief summary of 20 pages for a student essay--and one cannot simply summarize 20 pages and leave it at that, without introducing quotations and using indirect speech, stating historical writing as fact).
Then again, it seems as if consensus on the talk page is not with the user and simply reverting them, while cumbersome and frustrating, is enough. An administrator may come along and apply a stern warning to their talk page, or you may, if this goes on, request a Wikipedia:Topic ban-- ANI, which is more heavily visited than this page, is the better place for that. Drmies ( talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I am bringing this up here due to the high amount of confusion over this issue.
Concern was expressed over whether the page Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome met inclusion guidelines. It was prodded. I deprodded it, feeling further discussion was required. But someone kept reprodding it. Altogether, it has been prodded 3 times in the past 5 days. (According to existing policy, an article is rarely supposed to be prodded more than once, never more than twice, and there should never be a prod edit war)
I tried merging it to Chronic fatigue syndrome, thinking that would be the solution. An IP undid the merge.
Someone claimed that there was already a discussion held, and that discussion should determine the outcome. Still, I did not feel this was a proper Afd-like discussion, and it should not be used.
I tried starting a discussion on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, but even though a lot of people are in favor of deletion, I still feel this is insufficient. Tatterfly ( talk) 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the cycle that is described at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. Some editors don't like content in an article. Rather that dealing with it in place, they spin it out into an "in popular culture" or "cultural impact of" article. The spin-off article is nominated for deletion, and people say to merge back into the original article. The real problem here is the original editors not dealing with unwanted and poor content in place, but doing the encyclopaedist's equivalent of sweeping it under the rug by spinning it off into another article.
I've handed StevieNic a final warning for edit warring. Consider this a general warning. You all know where AFD is. You're discussing it on the talk page, after all. If there is any more edit warring to repeatedly reinstate a challenged Proposed Deletion notice, when the proposed deletion procedure is amply clear that this must not happen, editing privileges will be being revoked all around. Uncle G ( talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I want to represent this conflict fairly. So here goes.
There was a recent AFD on List of Star Control races. It was started under the premise that the list did not meet the notability requirement. I added two paragraphs of information explaining why the races are notable, cited to reliable third-party sources. Someone else added third-party sources to verify individual list members. The AFD closed as no consensus. Half the editors thought the notability requirement was satisfied. Almost everyone thought the list was filled with uncited information, but only half of those opinions felt this was an issue so terrible that it required deleting the entire list.
After the AFD, I reached out and added a "clean-up" template, and started a talk page discussion. One of the delete !votes returned and began deleting entire sections, rather than wait for the discussion to unfold. I reverted him and asked him kindly to come to the talk page, and he fortunately obliged. This brings us up to speed on the issue.
I offered to improve the list to a degree, enough that people who had issue with the list to move on. They insisted that the entire list has to be verified, and not merely be verifiable. I believe this would essentially make the list into a featured list. Verifying the whole list would be a painstaking task for something that is really meant to just minimally improve the list, and allow people to move onto more pressing tasks. (Like lists that have no sources at all.) The main question is if the editor really is entitled to delete anything that is unverified, or if it's enough to remove the worst amounts of original research, and leave some level of obvious stuff unverified so long as it's verifiable. A side question: what would be the difference between a list where every statement is verified versus a featured list, besides the style of prose?
I would appreciate an uninvolved third-opinion at Talk:List_of_Star_Control_races#clean-up. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what to make of this article, nor the various wholly different versions in the history. If anyone else can distinguish what is encyclopaedic, what is vandalism and if anything at all is worth keeping then be my guest. CIreland ( talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
' Acting white' currently has a paragraph reading:
Commentator Steve Sailer has argued that the theory of acting white is a red herring. He has also argued that innate genetic differences in intelligence between races are the primary cause of racial differences in school success. He has, however, stated as well that acting white pressures do play some role, particularly with Hispanic-Americans. ( Sailer's iSteve Blog: Aversion to "Acting White" Worse Problem for Hispanics than Blacks - isteve.blogspot.com June 7, 2005)
Given the controversial history of this guy, is it really worth quoting him? It's a bit like quoting David Duke. Any opinions? Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Teresa Lewis is an article about a woman who was executed last week by the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was the first woman to be executed in Virginia since 1912 and had an IQ of only70. As her execution approached, her case made the headlines and drew a lot of media attention. It also drew some strange editing by Wikipedians. For example, this edit took sources that said that 7,300 people had contacted the Governor to commute her execution to support a claim that "Lewis and her defense attorneys failed in more than 7300 appeals [13] [14] including three US Supreme Court appeals [15] [16] to stay the execution." User:WWGB is engaging in original research or worse. Racepacket ( talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit history documents what I am complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=385999654&oldid=385996585
Five reputable sources identify that "Great Leap Backward" is a phrase used to describe China's "Great Leap Forward", including the Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar (acknowledged as a major Chinese history expert and author of a well-regarded book on this period in China's history), historian Huaiyin Li of the University of Texas, two popular media sources (Time and the New York Times) and a guide to the AP World History exam, edited by historian Deborah Vess at Georgia College and State University, explaining the "Great Leap Forward" to would-be takers of the AP test. All five of the sources specifically use this phrase to contradict the assumption built into the term that China experienced some sort of leap forward during this period in history.
The main reason given for the deletion of this segment of the lead is that referring to the period as a "Great Leap Backward" constitutes taking a side and establishing a point of view ( WP:POV). The phrase "Great Leap Forward" itself, however, involves a point of view. That is why these historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use this phrase to directly contradict this built-in premise.
Because WP:COMMONNAME specifically allows non-neutral terminology to be used in titles of articles, my previous efforts to find a more neutral title for the article have been rejected. This being the case, I have made an effort instead to ensure that the lead reflects that there do exist persons who reject this term's accuracy. My concern is that people will be confused by the title and end up searching somewhere on the page for clarity about whether the "Great Leap Forward" actually involved some kind of a great leap forward for China. The AP World History exam prep book I cited as a source specifically contradicts this because of the pretty clear concern that those first learning about this period in Chinese history would get the wrong idea because this term "Great Leap Forward" is used to describe the period. Wikipedia never contradicts this assumption that would otherwise likely be made.
It has also been suggested that my additions violate WP:CHERRY. If this were true, then there would be some collection of sources that establish that the "Great Leap Forward" really involved a great leap forward, which I am ignoring, and instead substituting a small number of sources more conducive to my viewpoint. To my knowledge, there are a tiny number of sources, mostly from committed Maoists, that argue that the "Great Leap Forward" was not uniformly horrible, but I am unaware of any large number of reputable sources making the claim that the "Great Leap Forward" involved a great leap forward. There are, on the other hand, numerous sources suggesting the contrary. So that argument doesn't seem plausible.
Comments also suggest my additions violate WP:EDITORIAL. This seems to be based on the idea that it is in-bounds to say that the Great Leap Forward movement "ended in catastrophe" (the actual language currently on the page) but observing that numerous historians and journalists therefore call it a "Great Leap Backward" is out-of-bounds. These are both objective statements. It did end in catastrophe, and notable historians and journalists have termed it the "Great Leap Backward" as a result.
It seems to me that any edit which expunges from the record five sources derived from the analysis of China/world history experts and world affairs journalists demonstrates a pretty clear lack of respect for WP:RS sourcing. Wikipedia is in a scary situation when people delete a statement with five proper and reputable sources because they contradict the assumption built into the article's misleading title. Wikipedia is supposed to reveal facts, not conceal them.
Can editors please look in on the debate at Talk:Great Leap Forward? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking back on those grim days, Chinese economists are harsh in their condemnation. Hsueh Mu-ch'iao, now the doyen of his profession, has talked about the "colossal waste and disproportion". Sun Yeh-fang described the leap as a "disruption of socialism". Lo Keng-mo, once a Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, has said "the great leap forward became a great leap backward". The figures confirm that judgment.
I think rename would work about as well as if the title were Great Society. That is, not. Do academics have any neutral alternate name for it? I see nothing wrong with "Backward" (nonneutral) being part of a balanced breakfast (lead). JJB 05:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted two recent additions of information about the same new television show, Sister Wives from Polygamy since I do not believe the show is notable enough to be included in such a general topic article. In fact the show hasn't even premiered yet. One of the editors who added the material seems agnostic about the issue now, but the other is arguing with me rather aggressively to put the information back in. Is this really encyclopedic information? It appears to be promotional in my mind, and certainly not notable enough yet. Am I wrong? Please see Talk:Polygamy#TLC_series_.27Sister_Wives.27. Any input from outside parties would be appreciated here. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This is what is known as a "self-limiting problem". Wait a few hours.... FiveRings ( talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Now the the show has aired and editors are working on an entry for the show itself I have not reverted the addition of the information, however one editor added a hatnote at the top of the entry to direct people to the TV series entry and Duke53 claims that the information should not go in the section for "popular culture" but the section on "Mormonism". In my view the addition of a hatnote is completely undue, and the other move makes little sense. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Example: [40].
If it is useful, add such information in both guidelines. If it is not useful, add such informations in both guidelines. It is really annoying to be under threats when I edit compatibly with guidelines and other editor interpret guidelines in different way. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
With space | Without space |
---|---|
Example 1 [1] | Example 4 [1] |
Example 2 [1] | Example 5 [1] |
Example 3 [1] | Example 6 [1] |
Everybody has follow Manual of Style: "Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." -- Snek01 ( talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Need an outside opinion at Talk:Turpan#Naming. There's been an ongoing dispute about whether to name the article Turpan or Turfan; there was an RfC in which all but one editor spoke up in favor of Turfan, but the one other editor there is insisting that there is no consensus and move-warring. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Requesting all interested and concerned editors to please comment at an active discussion undergoing in Talk:Chuck Taylor All-Stars regarding two proposals about the current content. Thank you, Phearson ( talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate some additional input at this AFD about a television reporter's biography. She submitted some translations of articles about her via emails to OTRS. I've added information about them, but only two participants have since commented in the discussion (mostly to argue with each other). I am uncertain whether anyone else has the discussion watchlisted. Additional input, considering these new sources, would be appreciated. (Since I am corresponding with the subject via OTRS, I am recusing myself from the discussion.) Thank you.-- Chaser ( talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A user has repeatedly added text that I believe has nothing to do with etymology and toponomy to the Etymology and toponomy section of the Golan heights:
The text is: "During Roman and Byzantine periods the area was administered as part of Phoenicia Prima, Syria Palaestina and finally Golan/Gaulanitis was included together with Peraea in Palaestina Secunda after A.D. 218. Ancient kingdom Bashan was incorporated into province of Batanea."
I have tried to talk with him at the talkpage, he claims it is mentioned by sources in toponomy context, but I don't see that it is, the text is already in the history section and he keeps on adding the text repeatedly to the etymology or etymology section: [44]
What do others feel about this text, is it about etymology and toponomy?
The same user has also removed terminology used by the United Nations from the same Etymology and toponomy section. All the text in question can be seen removed/added here: [45] Other opinions are appreciated. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 09:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You can find the original discussion in the page Talk:Cloud Strife. The basic gist of the issue is, one day while just going through pages for Final Fantasy 7 characters, I noticed the characters that had their own pages had mentions of a article where there was a fantasy casting done for them and listed an actor for who should play them in a feature film. I removed them and listed several reasons in the talk page above so that someone could remove the one from Cloud's page as well since it is locked. The original user has since reverted them, and demanding a consensus before they were removed. It has since gone on, with several other users chiming in one the side of removing the casting mention. Some of the reasons for removal are;
Those are some of the basic arguments that have been presented, and not refuted by the other user, and again, there has not been a consensus for keeping these suggestions in the articles, but one for removing them instead. I'm asking for someone to help this out and maybe to make a final call on this. If I'm within my rights, I'll go ahead and remove them again myself, or wait for whoever makes the final call to do it themselves should it go that way. Thank you for your time. 68.55.153.254 ( talk) 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This article's title may be inappropriate as per WP:LABEL, however I'm having trouble coming up with a reasonable alternative title. One reference mentions the term "Freedom fighter". I initially tagged it with {{ POV-title}} but it was removed by another editor. Any thoughts on what to do here? Is it okay to leave this as is? -- œ ™ 08:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This talk entry seems to be html version of a book. Is it appropriate to take up more then 250kB of the talk page? should it be moved somewhere or deleted? -- Kslotte ( talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
User:JonSKP has only done one edit by adding a book text to his user page with description "Cos I'm Bored". Delete content or user? -- Kslotte ( talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I find Category talk:Military history of the United Kingdom (375 kB) being improper use of a category talk page. Should it be removed? -- Kslotte ( talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone has the time to handle that, I would be forever indebted. Regards, Daniel ( talk) 05:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Various new editors/IPs periodically show up to delete the claim that this university is owned by Fethullah Gulen -- most recently today , here. It appears that people at IUS and another university in Sarajevo, International Burch University, are claiming that the source used to establish that Gulen is the owner of IUS is simply incorrect on this score. Normally we would invoke WP:V, verifiability not truth, and the Turkish newspaper reporting the claim seems reliable enough (article here). But perhaps it is actually incorrect? I typically restore this claim whenever it is deleted. I would be grateful for thoughts on whether I (and others) should keep doing so. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of street addessess in the table in this article appropriate content (the content in the "Location" column), or how much of the table is falling astray of WP:NOTDIR / WP:NOTADVERT? Active Banana ( talk) 14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Hate crimes against white people has been at AFD for over eight days now and still hasn't been closed (or relisted). Isn't 7 days the usual length of time AFD's are supposed to last (unless they are relisted, of course)? See the AFD. Stonemason89 ( talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on the edit disputes on these articles? I put up an RFC for both but no one has come, or stayed at least. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Kampung Boy was willfully created as a hoax; while the show exists, its contents are not what the article describes. It is pure vandalism, intended to hurt the project's goal as a useful resource to all. The article was requested to be created on 28 March 2008 by IP 81.101.21.176 and named only IMDb as a source. Disregarding the reliability issue (IMDb can be edited by practically anyone), the user review there (since 2006) contradicts what was submitted here; however, User:Torchwoodwho fulfilled the IP's request, creating the article word for word to the IP's story. I am also quite surprised that editors added other sources and edits without noticing the hoax, even though those added sources showed the hoax for what it is (no ridiculous story of a sushi-making Johnny Kampung and his nameless black dog). The hoax went on for two years before another IP (119.73.182.210) reverted it. The hoaxing IP is now back as 81.101.27.113 to reassert the false information (the user has also added previously false information to Big Babies and Waybuloo). Because of all the intermediate edits, it is no longer possible to treat the article as a hoax article and delete it, allowing a clean recreation with reliably-sourced and accurate information ( Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes only seems to cover articles that are entirely a hoax).
So instead, I ask if it is possible to delete all revisions that has the hoax contents (story and episode list of the animation), leaving only those that are true (books and animation producers)? Or delete the article, recreate it with current information that are not hoaxes and insert a note of history that credits their contributors except for the hoaxing IP? The current article and its history make a mockery out of the project, allowing users to go back in the history list to restore false information. The issue also raises questions on the standards of AFC (why are hoaxes allowed to be created). Jappalang ( talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There were some facts about the article that were difficult to reconcile when I found it at AFC, but I assumed good faith and created it, adding what little information I could locate to it. If the content is hoax content, it was a good one, and being unfamiliar with the source material it's hard to weed out the wrong information. The subject of the article clearly exists and is notable, so if you object to information presented in the article or know of information that contradicts is, you should edit the article to be more accurate. I am a little confused about why this issue was brought here. Does the ip address have a history of this with other articles? When was the last time the ip was active, if it was a long time ago there's no guarantee that a block wouldn't stop a more constructive user from making good edits. What action are you looking for? -- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 08:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Done
Is it good, bad or indifferent, if an IP address adds external links to a site for music lyrics?
I've been unable to determine relevant guidance from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Lyrics.
You'll see that the following IP address has been used almost exclusively for contributions where they have just added a single external link, to the lyrics for the musician(s) concerned, and in each of these cases the link has been to, e.g.
123.24.78.24 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I wonder if one should offer any guidance to the IP address in question?
If a wp:admin, say, knows the answer, maybe they'd like to leave the IP address a message on their Talk page (link above), & add to any discussion by others here. Thanks, Trafford09 ( talk) 23:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also
This is starting to look like WP:Spam. I agree this site probably falls afoul of WP:ELNEVER. Reverted. MER-C 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please weigh in here, it is getting little attention and needs closing either way. MickMacNee ( talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Could some one tell me the proper wiki standard on poll numbers? Obviously if the poll only gives whole numbers there is no problem. But what if the raw numbers are fractional do you round up, or give the largest whole number and drop the fractional present?-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
At McKownville, New York there is a dispute over the use of WP:IMOS in regards to that article. It is a place-name (ie- hamlet) in upstate NY, a suburb of Albany. Its founder and namesake came there from Scotland by way of Northern Ireland, and this is where it gets tricky... The source itself says "Londonderry", and the IMOS of Wikipedia has decided that the city of that name is to be referred to as Derry, and the county as Londonderry. When I put Londonderry in and linked to it I was not aware that it was a redirect to Derry, others have come to change the wording to Derry, as in the city. At the Village pump it was proposed that since the source said Londonderry then linking to the county and keeping the name Londonderry would be a good compromise since we cant be sure the source means Derry the city, and not Londonderry the county since it does say Londonderry. I dont believe a guideline should be used as a fundamentalist POV-pushing bludgeon to remove all references to Londonderry because some editors have COI regarding English names and want all mentions to be of an Irish background. Can we have some non-COI impartial opinions. Camelbinky ( talk) 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone peruse the above? Talk about creeping POV, I think it has savable content but there is a slight "this is a diatribe on 'democractic failure'"-ness about it. I've taken out a little of it, but a lot of it is unverified opinion. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
See here. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
...but it seems that http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1999050/bio is a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adrianna_Costa&oldid=361977055 or a later revision. At first I thought it was a case of WP:COPYVIO, but after looking at the edit history, I guess the text was copied from Wikipedia. -- 78.43.71.155 ( talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam." There are numerous reliable sources describing allegations that Israelis posed as art students were involved in spying on the United States between 1999-2001 so this does not deal with wingnut conspiracy theories. I encourage you to thoroughly look through the sources in order to make an informed decision.
Note: the Forward article describes a dismissal of 2004 spying in Canada and not 2001 spying in the U.S. This article also treats allegations of spying on the U.S. as inconclusive.
Note 2: the Washington post article, which was written before a number of the articles is the only source to outright dismiss spying allegations as an urban myth, In the Salon.com article, a high level intelligence agent referred to journalist Christopher Ketchum by veteran d.c. correspondent with contacts in the fbi and cia refers to the Washington Post article as a plant by the fbi.
It is necessary that you thoroughly go through at least some of the sources as some of them directly contradict the Washington Post Article. If you have time, it might also help to watch the 20 minute Fox special on Israel Spying on U.S that describes the art students (links to fox possibly subject to copyright notice so I can't provide them). Given these sources, there are no grounds for deletion due to lack of coverage nor the pushing of "urban myths" as all sources, most of which came after the post article point to spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive.
Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_student_scam
I posted this instead on the NPOV board because we are looking for neutral third parties.
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If you like discussing notability and content forking, this is the Afd for you. I warn you it's got very long, but I was becoming so baffled at the responses, I've had to restate the deletion rationale to be absolutely sure I am on the same pages as other voters, and also, the actual topic is not as simple as it looks either. But there has been little outside input so far from people who are not the nominator or creator of the disputed article, even though there's been a lot of discussion, so if you have two hours to waste and think you know policy, dive in. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(moved from WP:AN) Could I please have some eyes on Chuck Norris facts? Some editors keep re-adding very poorly sourced facts, completely oblivious to the fact that you can't use eBay listings or Google search results as a citation, especially not to a totally random examplefarm. There's also a high degree of linkspamming going on; my last reversion cut the article size in half. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A longstanding, but brief section in Shakespeare's plays that mentions the Shakespeare Authorship question is being repeatedly deleted [ [3]][ [4]] from this article, under the WP:ONEWAY rule. Since the issue of who wrote the plays is directly and prominently connected to the plays themselves (which seems somewhat obvious), it seems to me that WP:ONEWAY does not apply, but is merely being used as an excuse to delete a well-documented minority opinion from this (and other) articles. Opinions from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated, as those involved have pretty much adopted a "line-in-the-sand" attitude and do not seem interested in any form of compromise. Smatprt ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Before I do something I regret and tarnish my record that I've managed to keep clean for a few years can someone plase look at the situation at Miss Universe 2010 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I put in a good few hours last night trying to drag this article] up to Wikipedia's standards in relation to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTE, essentially because the article was bogged down in unreliable sourcing and trivial minutiae and the sources that remained needed tidying. I left an explanation in both the edit summary and a lengthier one on the talk page. It has since been reverted twice, pretty much without any comment on the content/editing issues but with one attack by Fat&Happy who accused me of an edit war (interesting, considering he at that point had provided no reply to the talk page etc). See my edits on his talk page here. Before I do actually get pinged for 3RR can someone please give some advice on a way forward? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Some expert opinion would be appreciated on Ballistic tip bullet, where a new editor--whose name is the name of the company that owns the trademark on "Ballistic Tip"--is making edits that in my opinion are not OK. I am also posting a notice on the talk page for WP:Firearms, asking editors to weigh in on this board. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I note that the Dundas, Minnesota article, hardly a topic of widespread international interest, has six interwiki links to translated versions of the article. Upon review, it appears that all these are machine translations, and the interwiki links have been added by a bot. I do not believe that the translations or the interwiki links are of any value to readers, since a) the topic is not especially relevant to non-English speakers, and b) the machine translations are of poor quality and are out of date, failing to reflect changes to the English text of the article.
Reviewing articles on other small towns, the Volapük wiki appears to be the most egregious offender. While it is up to each language wiki to determine their inclusion policy, there is no mandate for us to provide interwiki links to junk. The Volapük wiki consists almost entirely of machine translations, and as a nearly dead conlang, there is no reason why we should be providing these links. They are, in effect, advertising without any useful content.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where this should go, so I'm posting it here, I have seen Pial316 ( talk · contribs) add this to Shanto Mariam University of Creative Technology. He says that it came from the university's leaflet. I wonder if this is a possible copyright violation. Can another editor comment on this if I should report it to Copyright problems or should I just leave it. Techman224 Talk 00:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
A guy seems to be intent on rewriting the page from the Library of Congress Country Studies based on such questionable sources as http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml and http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm. The theory of a wide-scale Mongol invasion of Rus has been under siege from several generations of historians, but now we have the page peppered with broad generalisations ("every second Russian died as a result") and non-neutral terms ("slaughter", "exterminate the entire population", etc). -- Ghirla -трёп- 11:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing dispute between myself and two other editors at Talk:War crimes committed by the United States#Separation into judicial vs. non-judicial involving the layout of sections. I feel like there is a lot of soapboxing and original research going on, and I'd like to have a neutral editor or two to come in and help us find the relevant Wikipedia policies, and ensure that that people are sticking to policy discussions, instead of arguing their personal views about the material. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 16:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I reverted one edit because of obvious copyright violation, apparently not the first one and the user did touch at least one BLP page where one of the 2 ciations is a dead link ( Steven T. DeKosky) - would be good if more eyes had a look at his. Richiez ( talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Francoise Pascal's date of birth, it must be wrong or an error has been made? It states she was born October 1949. I was born in 1948 and remember her on television as a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.52.79 ( talk) 13:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone cares to comment on the (current) opening sentence of Tube Bar prank calls--"The Tube Bar prank calls are arguably the most famous series of prank calls ever recorded." There is one article cited, which calls them "legendary," but that's hardly the same thing. The owner of the article, and I say this with a measure of confidence given what they edit and how they respond, User:Tube Bar Red, stated on my talk page that Google will verify it--a clear case of original research at best, but in my opinion an empty statement. I have twice removed the unwarranted claim because there is no evidence to support it; moreover, I think a lead should not have that kind of an opening sentence. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this user's contribs it's seems extraordinarily self promotional, however I can't be sure what intent there is as I believe there is a language barrier involved. I'm at a loss of what to do besides CSD/remove all their contributions including talk page and user page.- Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone assist me on this article? I have attempted to explain to the article creator that it needs more reliable sources, but I don't seem to be making any progress. I found some reliable sources through Google that establish the notability of the company, but right now I am disinclined to add them unless someone else intervenes. Whose Your Guy ( talk) 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel this article is improperly named. It looks as if it's related to Total drama island but I can't be sure. Thought toward a rename?-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010) has been filed concerning "Is publishing the Rorschach test images and responses in keeping with Wikipedia's long-term mission and purpose? Does doing so make the article more useful or less useful? What do sources tell us?". Your input is solicited. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a content dispute about antifeminism.
Currently the lead reads "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." This remains unsourced. But a second and more prominent definition is "the activity indicative or the belief in the superiority of men over women" [5] [6] [7] [8]. Another definition is "opposition to women and sexual equality, or more specifically opposition to feminism and the advocacy of women's rights" [9] [10]
A user argued that other and more prominent definitions of antifeminism should be ignored because the opposition to feminism in some of its forms [11] is the least controversial and because dictionary defitnitions are bad in the lead [12].
Could you please help to settle this dispute? Randygeorge ( talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I know that this subject has been discussed on at least 28 different archived pages of the above article, but there is another discussion regarding whether to add additional material regarding the sex abuse scandal to the article in question. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The Alvin C. York article has become a bit of a mess with POV issues and poor editing. I have no dog in this fight, but I hate to see an article decline in quality. Could someone fresh to it have a look? Thanks. Wilson44691 ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
As part of the article rescue fallout of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions, I and other editors are working on fixing all of the boilerplate articles given to us by Toverton28 ( talk · contribs). Witness Alabama Baptist Convention before and after, and Alaska Baptist Convention before and after. There's a to-do list at User talk:Uncle G#Southern Baptist navboxes, where you are welcome to join in the effort. Uncle G ( talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I have been asked whether the content on List of Doug episodes is a copyvio of this. To me it looks like it's the other way around and they have copied WP, but if that's the case presumably they are not allowed to copyright it (there's a copyright notice at the bottom of their page). Any thoughts? Chris ( talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Not sure if there is a more appropriate place for this!
Not sure if this is where to post this, but am having a dispute over content on this article. The User:Jmmyjam keeps adding overly adjective POV laden and long descriptions [20] to the Notable native sections of the article. I went thru and pruned some, then we reverted each other a few times. I brought it to the talk page earlier [21], and then to the users talk page, but no responses. I don't usually get to 3rr, but have here, and with the other party not answering, not sure how to handle this. He iro 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Response from Disputee: Not sure if this is where I post a response but will do so. I have no problem with the notion of insuring the descriptions of notable persons is succinct and does not include unnecessary verbiage. However, when noting an author who has written a seminal work it is appropriate to incorporate such notation as part of the description (ie. John Milton, author, Paradise Lost. Additionally, it is perfectly fine to note a profession and include a fact if a the person's background contains a significant accomplishment such as "Neil Armstrong, astronaut, first man to walk on the moon". I can appreciate your attention to the detail of the Pine Bluff, AR material. However, your policing of this page is going to create a problem if I feel basic Wikipedia protocols are being ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmyjam ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) o
A dreadful article - perhaps promotional, half of it is questions, ends with "(Article under construction and some terms could be altered. More to come. All are invited to participate in this article and subarticles.)". The phrase itself is used in several of our articles, eg Islamic fundamentalism. ["islamic awakening" site:en.wikipedia.org] - I'm not sure what to do about it. Dougweller ( talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont know exactly where to post this but another user directed me here. I had an issue with another user over some cited content.
This problem is regarding the page khetran. I found a reference to be false but it turned out that it wasnt. I had first removed the reference but it had been replaced a user (intothefire). Searching more on the topic i found a couple of references which all contradicted each other. So to deal with the problem i created another header and placed them all under there. Intothefire is constantly reverting back my changes. He is also putting tags on history page that I'm deleting the cited again and again. I talked to him directly that the cited content (along with a minor change where only relevant material was posted) has been moved to the appropriate section. In reply to that he said that he has no problem what so ever may be the location of cited content on the page. But again he reverted back the changes, although cited content was present under the new header. In my opinion the cited content should be under its header where other cited content is present regarding the same topic.
Regards, OmerKhetran ( talk) 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a public notice posting of a proposed merger between Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory, as recommended by this policy page. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 128.255.251.167 ( talk) 18:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I have recently been having a problem regarding an image I uploaded being removed by another editor who seems to have a strong association with MSNBC. The is from 1917 - there is plenty of evidence of this - and therefore should be in the public domain. I added the image to two articles Huguette M. Clark (who has been in the news recently) and William A. Clark (her father). The image is continuously removed by User:BlackberryHacks. I suggested he should have to bring this to WP:FFD if he thinks it is a copyright violation (which it is not) but he cannot just unilatterally keep removing the image. As we were getting to 3RR I wanted to get some outside perspective to help resolve the issue. It would be unfortunate to have to take measures against the article given its recent newsworthiness. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The user Urbanrenewal says the photo "should be in the public domain." But he has no idea whether it is in the public domain. He objects that I keep removing it; of course, it'e entirely appropriate to remove an image which belongs to somone else, unless he can establish that it is in the public domain. One should err on the side of caution. Urbanrenewal means well, let's assume, but in fact he has no idea when the image was published. The image belongs to the Montana Historical Society. We know roughly when the image was made -- about 1917, we can't be sure exactly. But Urbanrenewal has no idea when the image was published, and that's the key. He's guessing that it's in the public domain, he says it's probably in the public domain, but guessing doesn't cut it in copyright matters. He describes this as "having a problem." Yes, publishing photos to which one doesn't have the rights is a problem. BlackberryHacks ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
Where is the 1917 publication date on the photograph? Indeed, where is any evidence anywhere that this photograph was published in 1917? The place that you took it from published it in June 2010. Uncle G ( talk) 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I went and checked out a list of copyright terms. Without a solid publication date, I don't think there's any way to argue for sure that this is in the public domain. Could you contact the Montana Historical Society? -- 128.255.251.167 ( talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is even acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Associated+Press+of+Pakistan&diff=383199142&oldid=383198700
Involved editor: 72.148.185.86 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
みんな空の下 ( トーク) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been advised on the RSN board to bring this here on the Watts Up With That? article there is a dispute about this source [ [22]] and this source[ [23]]. The problom is that some have said that using one or using both of these are a BLP vioation. My slef I think its Undue and that there is no value to including a recomendation by a media pundit for a science site (but if we do include it we should also include her caveat), especialy as it is highly contentious and a possible BLP violation whatever we do. No one has questioned these weer her comments and her caveat is repeated on Mr Watts own blog [ [24]], and he does not question she wrote this. The talk o9n this is here [ [25]]. Also an issue has been raised as to whther or not soource two breached verifiabiltiy rules. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The above-mentioned article is presently undergoing AFD, however at present it has grown to an unmanagable size, is nearly entirely unreferenced and is and written largely in an unencyclopedic tone. It would benefit from editors familiar with content policies making sweeping edits. I made an attempt to reboot the article here, but it's been reverted back to an unacceptable state. – xeno talk 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Your help in the above cleanup effort would be appreciated. This is not a task that four people can take on alone. It's an order of magnitude larger than the largest of the other currently open CCI listings. Uncle G ( talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G ( talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
We're now at the stage where the 'bot is ready to roll, and no-one has voiced an objection. (Indeed, to the contrary: Several people want to go further, and mass delete the articles.)
If the 'bot goes ahead, this will probably light up some people's watchlists like Diwali. Be warned. Uncle G ( talk) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, The page force10 seems to be advertising. How do you flag the content as advertising? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force10
Trevgoodchild ( talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering about all the other Force10's in the world, isn't there more to it than just a networking company? A Movie, Beaufort Scale :) Seems like it's spurious somehow.
Trevgoodchild ( talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User:JCAla is making the " History section" on the Afghanistan page very long by creating unnessary sub-sections in which he added many useless information that attempts to degrade one group and praises another ( Northern Alliance with its leader Ahmad Shah Massoud) [27]. His entire edits are mess-- Jrkso ( talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)y and confusing, filled with countless unsourced personal POVs, and is written very unencyclopedic. I removed it and gave my reason but he reverts and insists that it should stay. He did edits to other pages and added very bizzare stuff in them. For example, in Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001), besides countless unsourced POVs, he added in the infobox all the top Pakistani politicians (Pakistani Presidents Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, and others) being at war with Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance group in Afghanistan. In this edit he demonstrated his unpleasant biased view toward Pakistanis and a group of Afghanis but in the meantime he praised Amer Saheb, leader of the Northern Alliance. I don't know if this is the right place to fix this problem I discovered about User:JCAla's edits. Please help, thank you.-- Jrkso ( talk) 04:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"Official denials notwithstanding, Pakistan ... has openly encouraged the recruitment of Pakistanis to fight for the Taliban. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations." - Human Rights Watch
"Pervez Musharraf [then Pakistani military chief of staff] was responsible for sending scores of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden. Musharraf wanted his troops ..." - National Geographic
Questions for Jrkso:
-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
+++
First, Torchwood Who?, thanks for getting involved. I do not have a problem with your suggestions. My information were sourced inside the scope of WP:RS. Most information Jrkso perceives as POV are direct citations. I hardly gave any controversial information unsourced. Second, Jrkso should be warned for his false and offending allegations against me, especially the one where he blatantly lies, see "He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred.". I will not tolerate such allegations. Third, I don't even know if I should answer such ... allegations.
"fiercely anti-Pakistan and pro- Ahmad Shah Massoud tone." (by Jrkso)
"edits discredit all Afghan Mujahideen" (by Jrkso)
"and even foreign presidents and politicians of other nations who were not involved in the Afghan civil war" (by Jrkso)
"He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred." (by Jrkso)
"a group that's described in every media report as one of the worst warlords and terrorists" (by Jrkso)
-- JCAla ( talk 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the youtube link was linking to a documentary by the National Geographic. I do not see the National Geographic as
being a "dubious source". The
George Washington University National Security Archive provides similar information:
1996
"Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat."
1998
"According to a variety of Pakistani officials and journalists, including Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan has "regressed to a point where it is as hard-line as ever in favor of the Taliban." Pakistani government officials have given up "the pretense of supporting the U.N. effort," and have become unabashedly pro-Taliban. ... The cable speculates the spike in pro-Taliban Pakistani feeling can be attributed to the political fallout of recent nuclear testing and increased regional tension. These developments have increased Pakistan's need for a pro-Pakistan, anti-India regime in Kabul."
"Taliban ranks furthermore continue to be filled with Pakistani nationals (an estimated 20-40 percent of Taliban soldiers are Pakistani according to the document), which further solidifies Pakistan-Taliban relations, even though this does not indicate not outward or official Pakistani government support."
"The parents of ... know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban "until their bodies are brought back to Pakistan."
1999
"Pakistan's alliance with the Taliban is stronger than Iran or Russia with Massoud ..."
2000
"... in September 2000 an alarmed U.S. Department of State observes that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented."
"[The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased."
or (concerning Massoud)
"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders [that included Massoud] ordered the abuses [during the period in Kabul 1992-1996]." - Afghanistan Justice Project (source for Human Rights Watch)
I think I have given enough evidence by now, that the information given by me is not just pov but officially recognized history. Jrkso not once has provided credible sources that Pakistan was never involved in Taliban military operations or that Massoud directly ordered abuses. Jrkso has been trying to disrupt the article's content. But, unless he comes up with new things, I (for my part) regard this time-stealing issue as solved right now.-- JCAla ( talk 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Is there a discussion at
WP:ANI or other applicable location? I would be glad to comment on the situation from my perspective having been involved in attempted mediation. This thread can be referenced in any of those discussions.--
Torchwood Who? (
talk)
13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have now taken it to WP:ANI. Thanks for you time and efforts to solve this issue by mediation, Torchwood Who?. —JCAla ( talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm having some problems with editors who wish to add original research and editorialization to Livejournal concerning their recent changes to allow users to link their LJ accounts to Facebook. I believe that much of what is being written at our article is true, but non- neutral and unsourced. I've run out of reversions according to WP:3RR and in any case a third opinion would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute going on about this article, concerning my extensive rewrite. [32] Please see this thread [33] and the article talk page. BillMasen ( talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like some assistance in a dispute over a photo. I upload a non-free image to use in the article Hal Block of Block meeting General Patton. The photo was removed when I put it up for FAC. I am not concerned over the FAC, but only that I feel the photo is important to the article. The photo is located: [34]. The FAC is at [35]. There is also only 5 days, Sept 18, until the now-orphaned photo is deleted from Wikipedia. I fully admit I cannot be certain that I am right in my argument on the use of this photo. However, I am also unconvinced by the editor's arguments for removal. In my research Hal Block, I found no other mention that Block met Patton, so the photo acts as a source of fact and not just decorative. Any assistance would be appreciated. BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Kleparo [1] verification needed.
I am very concerned about behavior of administrator User:Stemonitis.
I made two non-controversial edits per guidelines:
Both edits are properly reasoned also in its edit summary. User:Stemonitis immediately reverted my edits and he/she immediately threaten me on my talk page. Somebody should solve this rather immediately. Thank you. -- Snek01 ( talk) 06:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
We've had some... interesting issues with this fellow on the War of 1812 page. He's flat out just removed content he didn't like followed by inserting interesting and highly charged terms into the article. When I warned him he was treading on thin ice he roundly informed me that he only edits highly slanted articles and if I wished him to stop then my proper recourse would be to less slanted/pov way. A 10 minute tour through his contributions should point the way on this one. Tirronan ( talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Without being able to evaluate the sources, I can say that that particular edit, repeated a half a dozen times or more, is disruptive and clearly goes against consensus--not to mention that it's not well-written and not well referenced (it reads like a brief summary of 20 pages for a student essay--and one cannot simply summarize 20 pages and leave it at that, without introducing quotations and using indirect speech, stating historical writing as fact).
Then again, it seems as if consensus on the talk page is not with the user and simply reverting them, while cumbersome and frustrating, is enough. An administrator may come along and apply a stern warning to their talk page, or you may, if this goes on, request a Wikipedia:Topic ban-- ANI, which is more heavily visited than this page, is the better place for that. Drmies ( talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I am bringing this up here due to the high amount of confusion over this issue.
Concern was expressed over whether the page Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome met inclusion guidelines. It was prodded. I deprodded it, feeling further discussion was required. But someone kept reprodding it. Altogether, it has been prodded 3 times in the past 5 days. (According to existing policy, an article is rarely supposed to be prodded more than once, never more than twice, and there should never be a prod edit war)
I tried merging it to Chronic fatigue syndrome, thinking that would be the solution. An IP undid the merge.
Someone claimed that there was already a discussion held, and that discussion should determine the outcome. Still, I did not feel this was a proper Afd-like discussion, and it should not be used.
I tried starting a discussion on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, but even though a lot of people are in favor of deletion, I still feel this is insufficient. Tatterfly ( talk) 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the cycle that is described at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. Some editors don't like content in an article. Rather that dealing with it in place, they spin it out into an "in popular culture" or "cultural impact of" article. The spin-off article is nominated for deletion, and people say to merge back into the original article. The real problem here is the original editors not dealing with unwanted and poor content in place, but doing the encyclopaedist's equivalent of sweeping it under the rug by spinning it off into another article.
I've handed StevieNic a final warning for edit warring. Consider this a general warning. You all know where AFD is. You're discussing it on the talk page, after all. If there is any more edit warring to repeatedly reinstate a challenged Proposed Deletion notice, when the proposed deletion procedure is amply clear that this must not happen, editing privileges will be being revoked all around. Uncle G ( talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I want to represent this conflict fairly. So here goes.
There was a recent AFD on List of Star Control races. It was started under the premise that the list did not meet the notability requirement. I added two paragraphs of information explaining why the races are notable, cited to reliable third-party sources. Someone else added third-party sources to verify individual list members. The AFD closed as no consensus. Half the editors thought the notability requirement was satisfied. Almost everyone thought the list was filled with uncited information, but only half of those opinions felt this was an issue so terrible that it required deleting the entire list.
After the AFD, I reached out and added a "clean-up" template, and started a talk page discussion. One of the delete !votes returned and began deleting entire sections, rather than wait for the discussion to unfold. I reverted him and asked him kindly to come to the talk page, and he fortunately obliged. This brings us up to speed on the issue.
I offered to improve the list to a degree, enough that people who had issue with the list to move on. They insisted that the entire list has to be verified, and not merely be verifiable. I believe this would essentially make the list into a featured list. Verifying the whole list would be a painstaking task for something that is really meant to just minimally improve the list, and allow people to move onto more pressing tasks. (Like lists that have no sources at all.) The main question is if the editor really is entitled to delete anything that is unverified, or if it's enough to remove the worst amounts of original research, and leave some level of obvious stuff unverified so long as it's verifiable. A side question: what would be the difference between a list where every statement is verified versus a featured list, besides the style of prose?
I would appreciate an uninvolved third-opinion at Talk:List_of_Star_Control_races#clean-up. Shooterwalker ( talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what to make of this article, nor the various wholly different versions in the history. If anyone else can distinguish what is encyclopaedic, what is vandalism and if anything at all is worth keeping then be my guest. CIreland ( talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
' Acting white' currently has a paragraph reading:
Commentator Steve Sailer has argued that the theory of acting white is a red herring. He has also argued that innate genetic differences in intelligence between races are the primary cause of racial differences in school success. He has, however, stated as well that acting white pressures do play some role, particularly with Hispanic-Americans. ( Sailer's iSteve Blog: Aversion to "Acting White" Worse Problem for Hispanics than Blacks - isteve.blogspot.com June 7, 2005)
Given the controversial history of this guy, is it really worth quoting him? It's a bit like quoting David Duke. Any opinions? Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Teresa Lewis is an article about a woman who was executed last week by the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was the first woman to be executed in Virginia since 1912 and had an IQ of only70. As her execution approached, her case made the headlines and drew a lot of media attention. It also drew some strange editing by Wikipedians. For example, this edit took sources that said that 7,300 people had contacted the Governor to commute her execution to support a claim that "Lewis and her defense attorneys failed in more than 7300 appeals [13] [14] including three US Supreme Court appeals [15] [16] to stay the execution." User:WWGB is engaging in original research or worse. Racepacket ( talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit history documents what I am complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=385999654&oldid=385996585
Five reputable sources identify that "Great Leap Backward" is a phrase used to describe China's "Great Leap Forward", including the Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar (acknowledged as a major Chinese history expert and author of a well-regarded book on this period in China's history), historian Huaiyin Li of the University of Texas, two popular media sources (Time and the New York Times) and a guide to the AP World History exam, edited by historian Deborah Vess at Georgia College and State University, explaining the "Great Leap Forward" to would-be takers of the AP test. All five of the sources specifically use this phrase to contradict the assumption built into the term that China experienced some sort of leap forward during this period in history.
The main reason given for the deletion of this segment of the lead is that referring to the period as a "Great Leap Backward" constitutes taking a side and establishing a point of view ( WP:POV). The phrase "Great Leap Forward" itself, however, involves a point of view. That is why these historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use this phrase to directly contradict this built-in premise.
Because WP:COMMONNAME specifically allows non-neutral terminology to be used in titles of articles, my previous efforts to find a more neutral title for the article have been rejected. This being the case, I have made an effort instead to ensure that the lead reflects that there do exist persons who reject this term's accuracy. My concern is that people will be confused by the title and end up searching somewhere on the page for clarity about whether the "Great Leap Forward" actually involved some kind of a great leap forward for China. The AP World History exam prep book I cited as a source specifically contradicts this because of the pretty clear concern that those first learning about this period in Chinese history would get the wrong idea because this term "Great Leap Forward" is used to describe the period. Wikipedia never contradicts this assumption that would otherwise likely be made.
It has also been suggested that my additions violate WP:CHERRY. If this were true, then there would be some collection of sources that establish that the "Great Leap Forward" really involved a great leap forward, which I am ignoring, and instead substituting a small number of sources more conducive to my viewpoint. To my knowledge, there are a tiny number of sources, mostly from committed Maoists, that argue that the "Great Leap Forward" was not uniformly horrible, but I am unaware of any large number of reputable sources making the claim that the "Great Leap Forward" involved a great leap forward. There are, on the other hand, numerous sources suggesting the contrary. So that argument doesn't seem plausible.
Comments also suggest my additions violate WP:EDITORIAL. This seems to be based on the idea that it is in-bounds to say that the Great Leap Forward movement "ended in catastrophe" (the actual language currently on the page) but observing that numerous historians and journalists therefore call it a "Great Leap Backward" is out-of-bounds. These are both objective statements. It did end in catastrophe, and notable historians and journalists have termed it the "Great Leap Backward" as a result.
It seems to me that any edit which expunges from the record five sources derived from the analysis of China/world history experts and world affairs journalists demonstrates a pretty clear lack of respect for WP:RS sourcing. Wikipedia is in a scary situation when people delete a statement with five proper and reputable sources because they contradict the assumption built into the article's misleading title. Wikipedia is supposed to reveal facts, not conceal them.
Can editors please look in on the debate at Talk:Great Leap Forward? Zachary Klaas ( talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking back on those grim days, Chinese economists are harsh in their condemnation. Hsueh Mu-ch'iao, now the doyen of his profession, has talked about the "colossal waste and disproportion". Sun Yeh-fang described the leap as a "disruption of socialism". Lo Keng-mo, once a Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, has said "the great leap forward became a great leap backward". The figures confirm that judgment.
I think rename would work about as well as if the title were Great Society. That is, not. Do academics have any neutral alternate name for it? I see nothing wrong with "Backward" (nonneutral) being part of a balanced breakfast (lead). JJB 05:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted two recent additions of information about the same new television show, Sister Wives from Polygamy since I do not believe the show is notable enough to be included in such a general topic article. In fact the show hasn't even premiered yet. One of the editors who added the material seems agnostic about the issue now, but the other is arguing with me rather aggressively to put the information back in. Is this really encyclopedic information? It appears to be promotional in my mind, and certainly not notable enough yet. Am I wrong? Please see Talk:Polygamy#TLC_series_.27Sister_Wives.27. Any input from outside parties would be appreciated here. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This is what is known as a "self-limiting problem". Wait a few hours.... FiveRings ( talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Now the the show has aired and editors are working on an entry for the show itself I have not reverted the addition of the information, however one editor added a hatnote at the top of the entry to direct people to the TV series entry and Duke53 claims that the information should not go in the section for "popular culture" but the section on "Mormonism". In my view the addition of a hatnote is completely undue, and the other move makes little sense. Griswaldo ( talk) 11:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Example: [40].
If it is useful, add such information in both guidelines. If it is not useful, add such informations in both guidelines. It is really annoying to be under threats when I edit compatibly with guidelines and other editor interpret guidelines in different way. -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
With space | Without space |
---|---|
Example 1 [1] | Example 4 [1] |
Example 2 [1] | Example 5 [1] |
Example 3 [1] | Example 6 [1] |
Everybody has follow Manual of Style: "Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." -- Snek01 ( talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Need an outside opinion at Talk:Turpan#Naming. There's been an ongoing dispute about whether to name the article Turpan or Turfan; there was an RfC in which all but one editor spoke up in favor of Turfan, but the one other editor there is insisting that there is no consensus and move-warring. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Requesting all interested and concerned editors to please comment at an active discussion undergoing in Talk:Chuck Taylor All-Stars regarding two proposals about the current content. Thank you, Phearson ( talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate some additional input at this AFD about a television reporter's biography. She submitted some translations of articles about her via emails to OTRS. I've added information about them, but only two participants have since commented in the discussion (mostly to argue with each other). I am uncertain whether anyone else has the discussion watchlisted. Additional input, considering these new sources, would be appreciated. (Since I am corresponding with the subject via OTRS, I am recusing myself from the discussion.) Thank you.-- Chaser ( talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A user has repeatedly added text that I believe has nothing to do with etymology and toponomy to the Etymology and toponomy section of the Golan heights:
The text is: "During Roman and Byzantine periods the area was administered as part of Phoenicia Prima, Syria Palaestina and finally Golan/Gaulanitis was included together with Peraea in Palaestina Secunda after A.D. 218. Ancient kingdom Bashan was incorporated into province of Batanea."
I have tried to talk with him at the talkpage, he claims it is mentioned by sources in toponomy context, but I don't see that it is, the text is already in the history section and he keeps on adding the text repeatedly to the etymology or etymology section: [44]
What do others feel about this text, is it about etymology and toponomy?
The same user has also removed terminology used by the United Nations from the same Etymology and toponomy section. All the text in question can be seen removed/added here: [45] Other opinions are appreciated. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 09:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You can find the original discussion in the page Talk:Cloud Strife. The basic gist of the issue is, one day while just going through pages for Final Fantasy 7 characters, I noticed the characters that had their own pages had mentions of a article where there was a fantasy casting done for them and listed an actor for who should play them in a feature film. I removed them and listed several reasons in the talk page above so that someone could remove the one from Cloud's page as well since it is locked. The original user has since reverted them, and demanding a consensus before they were removed. It has since gone on, with several other users chiming in one the side of removing the casting mention. Some of the reasons for removal are;
Those are some of the basic arguments that have been presented, and not refuted by the other user, and again, there has not been a consensus for keeping these suggestions in the articles, but one for removing them instead. I'm asking for someone to help this out and maybe to make a final call on this. If I'm within my rights, I'll go ahead and remove them again myself, or wait for whoever makes the final call to do it themselves should it go that way. Thank you for your time. 68.55.153.254 ( talk) 00:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)